House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)
I start by saying how deeply upsetting it was to hear of the recent tragic incident at HMP Bronzefield. It was a terrible incident, and my thoughts are with all those who have been affected. As would be expected, there are a number of ongoing investigations, including an investigation by the police.
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the important role of women’s centres in providing holistic support to vulnerable women. This approach forms part of our female offender strategy, which announced a £5 million investment in community provision for women from 2018 to 2020. As we take forward the strategy, we are committed to ensuring sufficient funding for female offenders.
Stephen Morgan
Almost half of all women sent to prison are homeless, up significantly in the past few years. Does the Minister really believe that this Government’s approach of failing to properly fund women’s centres is working?
Lucy Frazer
Of course it is important that we look after all our offenders, and we have a particular strategy in relation to female offenders. We not only want to ensure they get adequate care in prison, but we are also intervening early to try to prevent women from entering the justice system at all.
Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Our local women’s centre, which supports many women in my constituency, helped 850 individual women in 2017-18. Currently, though, there is no core Government funding to help these women. Does the Minister agree that funding early intervention to support vulnerable women would prevent future crises and future pressure on the justice system?
Lucy Frazer
I pay tribute to the centre’s work, which I am sure is important to the hon. Lady’s local community. There is funding from a variety of sources for women’s centres and, as I mentioned, it is something we will be looking at very carefully as we develop the female strategy. We have funded a number of very valuable women’s centres over the past year, including the Sunflower Centre in Plymouth and a new women’s centre in York.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Two thirds of women sent to prison get sentences of less than six months. Such sentences are proven to lead to more reoffending, and so create more victims of crime than tried and tested alternatives such as women’s centres. The Justice Secretary and his team know this, but they have chosen to ignore the evidence. Will the Minister tell the House today how many crimes her Department’s own research shows will be prevented by investing in such alternatives to ineffective short prison sentences?
Lucy Frazer
We are very interested in looking at alternatives to prison sentences. Although we want the most serious offenders who commit serious violence and sexual crimes to spend the appropriate time in prison, we want to ensure there are sentences on offer in which the judiciary have confidence and that will turn people’s lives around. We are already working to improve the quality of information that sentencers receive about community sentencing options, including, for example, whether an offender is a primary caregiver and is pregnant or has given birth in the previous six months, so they can take that into account and give the appropriate sentence.
Richard Burgon
To help with that answer: the Government’s own research says that investment in alternatives would see more than 30,000 fewer crimes every year, an answer the Minister omitted, yet the Tories are deliberately choosing to ignore the evidence and are failing to invest properly in women’s centres and other proven alternatives. Instead, they are chasing “hang ’em and flog ’em” headlines, thinking that will help them win the coming general election. Luckily, the British people are not the mugs they are trying to take them for.
Does the Minister agree with her own Department’s report from July, which notes a
“statistically significant increase in proven reoffending”
for those on short sentences rather than effective community alternatives? If so, will she act on it?
Lucy Frazer
I think the hon. Gentleman failed to listen to my previous answer on the importance the Government place on appropriate sentences and on our particular strategy for female offenders. I was at HMP Send a few weeks ago, and I saw how we are turning people’s lives around in prison. I met a woman who was due for a parole hearing—she is a lifer who has served 10 years—and she told me that she is not actually ready to be released because of the amazing support she is getting through the therapeutic community in her prison. For the first time, she is realising the consequences of her actions. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that women get the right sentences and the right provision in the community and in the prisons.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
I work closely with the Attorney General and Home Office Ministers to ensure that the criminal justice system commands public confidence and tackles crime effectively. To address this and other serious crimes, we are recruiting an additional 20,000 police officers, investing £85 million in the Crown Prosecution Service and building an additional 10,000 prison places, and this is together with the work of police and crime commissioners in setting up violence reduction units.
Glyn Davies
The best way to prevent knife crime is to take knives out of circulation and off the streets. What steps is my right hon. and learned Friend taking in conjunction with the Attorney General to ensure that people who carry knives are prosecuted?
Robert Buckland
Of course, the prosecuting authorities take knife crime incredibly seriously. In 2015, minimum custodial sentences of six months for repeat knife crime possession were introduced, and in the year ending March of this year 83% of offenders received a custodial sentence for that type of repeat offence.
Stephen Metcalfe
Does the Justice Secretary agree that the sentence should reflect the serious nature of knife crime and the serious damage it does to our communities? Does he support the work of organisations such as Only Cowards Carry, which help to highlight the devastating damage knife crime does to the individuals involved, on both sides?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the hard work of that local organisation and many others, such as the Ben Kinsella Trust, which do so much to educate young people about the folly of carrying knives. The new knife crime prevention orders, introduced by this Government as part of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, will be a key tool in preventing knife crime, and we are working with the Home Office to develop operational guidance, because we want to get on with introducing that programme.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
Yesterday, it was reported that knife crime in my relatively safe constituency has risen by 50%, which is extremely worrying, particularly for parents with teenage children in Darlington. Will the Justice Secretary look at the fact that since 2010 funding for youth offending teams has been halved?
Robert Buckland
The hon. Lady, like all of us in this House, whether we are parents or not, shares the worry about young people either carrying knives or coming into contact with people who do. The truth about the trends in knife crime offending are these: there was an alarming rise 10 years ago and there was then a decline, but we are seeing a rise again. We are taking a twin-pronged approach, which is about not just sentencing, but intervention. That is why announcements about youth funding at last week’s Conservative party conference are welcome and indeed this is part of the work our youth offending teams are doing all across the country.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State may be aware of the recent murder of high-flying teenager Yousef Makki from Manchester. His killers were found not guilty of either manslaughter or murder, coming as they were from affluent Hale. The case stands in stark contrast with many I have raised here recently involving groups of young black men from Moss Side, who are all serving mandatory life sentences under joint enterprise. Given that the Secretary of State’s Government’s own race audit and Lammy review found that there were burning injustices in our criminal justice system when it comes to race, background, class and wealth, what are the Government doing to address these very different outcomes in the same cases?
Robert Buckland
The hon. Lady raises an interesting point. I think she would agree that it is difficult to extrapolate trends from an individual case, however concerning and deeply distressing that case was. I think the lesson is that knife crime respects and knows no class or race boundaries. We should not stigmatise this, particularly outside London, as a crime that is exclusively based upon any racial profile—that is wrong. However, I take the point that she makes and clearly we need to look carefully across the piece as to whether we are sometimes being a bit shy—institutionally shy—about addressing knife crime in some of the less typical places.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)
The latest CPS figures from the “Violence Against Women and Girls Report 2018-19” show that the conviction rate for those cases taken to court has increased from 58% in the previous year to 63% in the year ending March 2019. However, the number of cases reaching court, which peaked in 2015, has declined significantly, which is a substantial cause for concern. A number of steps are being taken to address that, including recruiting 20,000 extra police officers and giving the CPS £85 million a year in additional funding.
Preet Kaur Gill
Many women, including many survivors of rape and sexual violence, have lost confidence in our justice system, due partly to the appallingly low rate of prosecution for rape. Women’s organisations are calling on the Government to launch a fully independent review of how the justice system handles rape cases. Will the Minister take this opportunity to join Labour in committing to deliver on that?
Chris Philp
A review by a sub-committee of the Criminal Justice Board is already under way and is due to report in spring next year—in just a few months’ time. That will be accompanied by an action plan, which is clearly needed, as the hon. Lady’s question pointed out. Just a few weeks ago, the Government announced additional funding for the victims of sexual violence; that extra £5 million a year is a 50% increase, bringing annual spending to £13 million a year to support victims of these crimes in exactly the way that the hon. Lady rightly describes.
Mr Speaker
It was remiss of me not to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his becoming a Minister. I hope he enjoys it; I feel sure that he is uncontrollably excited about the prospects that lie ahead.
Anne Milton (Guildford) (Ind)
The Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Centre in Guildford, of which I am a patron, is overwhelmed by women and men requesting help. The abuse often happened years ago, and a fear of coming forward means that the perpetrators do not face prosecution. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children’s Close the Loophole campaign aims to ensure that young men and women are better protected. I do not know what progress has been made in reviewing the Sexual Offences Act 2003; perhaps the Minister can update us.
Chris Philp
My right hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the importance of giving victims the confidence to come forward and not only report these offences but take them through the system—there is quite a high drop-out rate between the reporting of an offence and the case being prosecuted in court. She mentions a particular centre in her constituency that is doing excellent work; I hope that some of the additional money announced last week may find its way into that centre’s hands to help with its work. The 2003 Act is among the matters being considered as part of the review that will report back in spring next year.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Chris Philp
Via the Domestic Abuse Bill, which was debated last week, a number of steps are being taken in the direction that the hon. Lady points towards. I repeat the point I made a moment ago about the additional funding for the victims of rape: there has been a 50% increase, which I hope will increase provision of the kind that the hon. Lady rightly calls for.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)
As my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Education knows, education is often the route out of a challenging background. I pay tribute to all the work that he did in his previous role. We know that we can sustain employment and manage our own budget only if we have financial capability, so we have ensured through the new prison education contracts that personal budgeting skills can be taught. Under the new prison framework, 103 out of 104 prisons currently commission functional mathematics qualifications.
Damian Hinds
Building up savings can be truly transformational. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 allowed for prisoners’ earnings to be paid into an account. I encourage my hon. and learned Friend to look at that provision again and enact the regulations, as part of her wider work on meaningful paid work.
Lucy Frazer
My right hon. Friend is right to identify the fact that leaving prison with savings can be hugely beneficial to an offender’s rehabilitation. Although he is right to point out that the relevant clauses of LASPO have not been commenced, we do enable prisoners to save money under the terms of the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996. In addition, all prisoners have access to a prison savings account during their time in custody. We hope that our recent changes in respect of release on temporary licence will enable an even greater number of prisoners to benefit from saving. Since I have been in post, I have been looking actively at how we can ensure that all prisoners have a bank account.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Leaving prison with just £48 is not a great start for someone to manage their own finances. Can the Minister say, first of all, whether the Government plan to review that amount and, secondly, what steps are being taken to streamline the application process for universal credit so that it can start from inside the prison ahead of release?
Lucy Frazer
As I mentioned, we are increasing the opportunity for people to do work on release on temporary licence, which will increase their ability to earn money while they are in prison, so we are looking at the point that the hon. Lady raises. In relation to universal credit, my predecessor, now the Lord Chancellor, had a number of meetings with his counterpart in the Department for Work and Pensions and offenders are now able to access a DWP work coach prior to release, so they can make an appointment early and then, even on the day of release, complete their claim, because universal credit is critical.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Whatever advice and guidance prisoners get while in prison, it is of little use if they are released at the weekend when support they need is often not available. How many prisoners as a proportion are released at the weekend and what are we doing to reduce that?
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend makes an important point about releases on Fridays. It is something that I have been looking at, but whether a prisoner is released on Friday, Thursday, Wednesday, Tuesday or Monday, it is important that they have accommodation and support.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Today’s report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of probation is one of the most shocking independent inspection reports that I have ever read. Nearly two thirds of children are going on to reoffend. Accommodation, health services and support on leaving custody are all highlighted as failing. How much longer are Ministers going to throw good money after bad in providing more prison places, rather than the targeted investment on education and support that we know helps turn children’s lives around?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Lady makes an important point about rehabilitating people in prison. We have reduced the youth estate over the years, so only the most serious offenders are in prison and we do want to ensure that appropriate sentences are handed down. None the less, education in prison, accommodation on release and universal credit are priorities for this Government.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I hope the Minister will be interested in learning more about the Street & Arrow initiative run by Scotland’s violence reduction unit, which helps ex-offenders make a livelihood through its street food vans, which in turn are supported by public projects such as the Glasgow Hospital and Dental School and the University of Glasgow’s construction project. This helps them learn new skills and take initiatives to reduce offending and improve their livelihoods. I hope the Minister will be willing to look at projects such as that.
Lucy Frazer
I would be willing to meet the hon. Gentleman and discuss this matter. I must say that, as I have visited a number of prisons since I have been appointed, I have seen some fabulous schemes around the country, and I am very happy to hear about this one.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)
In my first orals in this role, I am very pleased to pay tribute to the hard work of all our prison staff. I have had the opportunity, since I was appointed, to visit a number of prisons and I have seen at first hand the dedication of their staff. It is critical that we recruit and retain staff to keep our prisons secure. We have invested significantly in increasing staff numbers, recruiting a net total of an additional 4,366 prison officers between October 2016 and June 2019, surpassing our original target of 2,500, and we will continue to recruit officers to ensure that our prisons are decent and safe.
Mr Bailey
Since 2010, the number of prison officers has dropped by 80,000. Violence and insecurity in our jails have soared. What estimate has the Minister made of the impact in jails of her party conference’s proposals to increase jail sentences on violent and sexual offenders and the cost of delivering it?
Lucy Frazer
We have recruited more than 4,000 staff since 2016. The hon. Gentleman is right to identify that if the police catch more criminals and we prosecute them, there will be more people going into our prisons. That is why we have committed to investing £2.5 billion in prison places. He is also right to identify that we will need not only prison places but more prison officers. We are actually ahead of our recruitment targets in this regard. The Prison Service has been lauded as a good employer: for example, it is in the top 100 graduate employers.
Gordon Henderson
I congratulate the Government on their efforts to recruit more prison officers. However, does my hon. and learned Friend accept that cuts earlier this decade contributed to a vicious cycle of prison violence because fewer officers on landings led to more assaults, which caused more staff to leave, leading to more violence and so on? With morale and retention of prison officers at rock bottom, does she accept that more must be done to reward these brave public servants—for instance, by improving and reducing their retirement age to 60 because 68 is far too late?
Lucy Frazer
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the profile of the work of prison officers in his Westminster Hall debate last year, as well as this morning in questions, and for participating and promoting the excellent Prison Service parliamentary scheme. He is right to refer to prison officers as “brave public servants”, and the Secretary of State referred to them in his conference speech as “unsung heroes”. We made offers to staff to reduce the pension age in 2013 and 2017, but both offers were rejected by the Prison Officers Association.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister back to the Ministry of Justice in her new role. Like her predecessors, she comes to this House triumphant about the Government’s recruitment campaign. However, the reality is that we just have to look at the breakdown in the number of prison officers to see that it is far from the truth. Some 80,000 years of cumulative prison officer experience have been lost, a third of officers have less than two years’ experience and the number of officers is now falling again—still lagging 2,500 behind 2010 levels. Will the Minister in her new role simply commit to bringing prison officer numbers back to 2010 levels?
Lucy Frazer
We have made a significant breakthrough in the number of prison officers. We have introduced the key worker scheme, which allows prison officers to build relationships with the prisoners, and during my visits to prisons I have heard that the scheme is extremely popular among prisoners and prison officers. We are professionalising our workforce in the youth estate, providing all frontline officers with a foundation degree—
Mr Speaker
Order. Resume your seat, Minister. I am sorry, but these exchanges are very protracted. I know lawyers like to expatiate, but the answers are just too long, with people reading out great screeds. That is not what the House wants.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
But in looking at the way in which the Prison Service operates, will my hon. and learned Friend also review the kind of prisoners who are sent to open prisons? Bearing in mind the announcements made last week, there is concern that open prisons will contain more people who have been convicted of very serious offences and are therefore not suitable for open prisons. Will she review this?
Lucy Frazer
I can, very briefly, assure my right hon. Friend that we are looking at the recategorisation of offenders to ensure that they are in the right prisons for them.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
An independent judiciary is the cornerstone of our constitution and our democracy, and we are rightly proud of our world-class judiciary. As Lord Chancellor, I have sworn an oath to defend its independence. I take that extremely seriously and will continue to defend its independence vigorously.
Jamie Stone
I am encouraged to hear that answer. That is why—thank God—we are not a totalitarian state. I have a rather scary bit of advice for the Lord Chancellor: could he share his thoughts with No. 10 and perhaps Mr Dominic Cummings?
Robert Buckland
I think that everybody—whichever part of Government or our country they might come from—will probably be aware of my public pronouncements about this matter. I will keep saying it again and again and again, as long as it is necessary to do so.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Consistent with the Lord Chancellor’s speech at the opening of legal year, will he confirm that there is no place for political involvement in the appointment of judges and no question but that the rulings of the courts must be observed by all?
Robert Buckland
I am more than happy to confirm all those points, made so ably by the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State today put it on record not only that he believes in the independence of a robust judiciary, but that his Government will obey the law, and not crash us out of the European Union against the law?
Robert Buckland
I can confirm that this Government, like their predecessors and, I hope, successors, will continue to respect and obey the law, and respect the rule of law.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Might my right hon. and learned Friend honour his oath by restoring the proper role of his office in the other place?
Robert Buckland
My right hon. Friend tempts me along the path of debate about the constitution, and in particular the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. While I am always keen to engage in academic constitutional debate, we have many other fish to fry at the moment.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I thank the Lord Chancellor for speaking out in favour of the independence of the judiciary.
Lord Hope of Craighead, a former Deputy President of the Supreme Court and Lord President of the Court of Session, has pointed out that
“The Supreme Court justices were careful to explain in their judgment”
on the Prorogation case
“that they were not pronouncing on political questions. The issues with which they were dealing…were issues of law.”
Will the Lord Chancellor explain that to those in his party demanding a politicised appointment process for the judiciary?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady. I treat the remarks of the noble Lord Hope with extreme gravity, bearing in mind his experience and knowledge. It always bears repeating that the judiciary do not have political motivations, and that case was no exception. Frankly, I think the matter needs no further debate. If we ended up with an American-style approval system, we would all be the poorer for it.
Joanna Cherry
Yesterday a Scottish court recorded the Prime Minister’s unequivocal promise to comply with his statutory duties under the Benn Act. The judge, Lord Pentland, said:
“it would be destructive of one of the core principles of constitutional propriety and of the mutual trust that is the bedrock of the relationship between the court and the crown for the prime minister or the government to renege on what they have assured the court that the prime minister intends to do”.
Can the Lord Chancellor assure us that he will be impressing on the Prime Minister the grave consequences of ignoring that warning from a senior member of the Scottish judiciary?
Robert Buckland
I read the transcript of what Lord Pentland said with great interest. Of course, that matter is subject to appeal, and it would be wrong of me to speak about it in detail, but those comments are noted.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
We have seen the Justice Secretary forced to take to Twitter to defend the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law after recent briefings from No. 10 Downing Street. He may well have to do that again later today, after this morning’s headlines. The Attorney General has briefed the press that he will resign if the Government refuse to adhere to the law demanding an extension to rule out no deal. Will the Justice Secretary do the same?
Robert Buckland
I hope that Members in this House and elsewhere feel that I have discharged my duties under my oath, and I will continue to do that. I will take whatever step I deem necessary to make sure that I am true to that oath, and to the rule of law.
Faisal Rashid (Warrington South) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)
We have already announced that we will strengthen probation by bringing back into the National Probation Service the supervision of offenders. In July, we published a draft operating blueprint.
Faisal Rashid
The former Justice Secretary’s decision in 2013 to privatise probation was set up to fail from the start. Now that a partial U-turn has been announced, can the Minister set out for the House the full cost, from start to finish, of the failed privatisation of probation services?
Lucy Frazer
We recognise that there is more we can do in relation to probation, which is why we are changing the system, but “Transforming Rehabilitation” brought 40,000 people back into supervision, and we are ensuring that the new procedure will work well.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
Good probation can be the means to transform young people’s lives and help to rehabilitate them in communities. We do not have a prison in Cornwall, but we have many people who are involved in this process. What can the Minister do to help those organisations to get the funds they need to support those young lives, so that they can play a full part in life?
Lucy Frazer
The new system will ensure that, while offender management is brought in-house, private sector innovation will be involved in providing unpaid work, and there will be a dynamic framework to enable new schemes and charities to bid to provide bespoke local services. I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend about what might be provided in Cornwall.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I rise as the co-chair of the justice unions cross-party group. Following disastrous mismanagement by the former probation provider, Working Links, it is to be welcomed that probation in Wales is due to come back under public control by 2 December. The terms on which staff are employed by HMPPS in Wales will set a benchmark for England. How confident is the Minister that terms will be agreed with the unions over the next seven weeks, and what will be the consequences if that does not happen?
Lucy Frazer
We are working hard to ensure that we succeed in Wales. As the right hon. Lady mentioned, it is the first of our operations. I met representatives of Napo, GMB and Unison at the end of last month to discuss that very issue, and we are working hard to ensure that matters are in place by the end of the year.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that finding accommodation for prisoners at the end of their sentence is vital. That is why we have already started pilots to help offenders released from three prisons—Bristol, Pentonville and Leeds—to secure and maintain accommodation, with £6.4 million from the Government’s rough sleeping strategy.
Kerry McCarthy
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) mentioned today’s report which says that young offenders are being set up to fail when they are released. One concern raised in the report is about the quality of unregulated supported living, which is a real concern in Bristol. May I urge the Minister to talk to her counterparts in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to see how we can regulate supported housing?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. I would like to assure her that we do liaise with MHCLG. In fact, on Thursday I am going with my counterpart from MHCLG to visit one of the pilots in Leeds, and I will raise that point with him.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con)
I welcome what my hon. and learned Friend has said about the pilot projects now under way and wish them success. Since up to 30%, by some estimates, of people sleeping rough on the streets have a prison record, does she agree that one of the best ways to secure a reduction in reoffending is to step up these schemes and ensure that when someone has served their time, they have a roof over their heads on release?
Lucy Frazer
I agree very much with my experienced right hon. Friend, from whom I learned so much as his Parliamentary Private Secretary. He is absolutely right about accommodation. We are looking at the pilots. We are also trying to expand the approved premises estate by an extra 200 beds. Accommodation is a critical matter, and we are looking hard into it.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)
Digitisation is designed to improve access to justice and, of course, efficiency in the court system. Last year, 150,000 people accessed court services online. To date, no fewer than 63,491 people have entered uncontested divorce proceedings online. The take-up rate is now 62% and growing. Some 94,975 people have issued or responded to civil money claims to date, and they report an 88% satisfaction rating. No fewer than 317,206 minor pleas have been entered since 2014, and if the House is wondering, 85% of those pleas were guilty and 15% were not guilty.
Andy Slaughter
From next April, the vast majority of personal injury claims will have to be dealt with online, without the benefit of legal advice. Even the Association of British Insurers—the major advocate and beneficiary of that policy—does not think the Government will be ready. It is urging the Government to drop the proposed increase in the small claims limit for employers and public liability and concentrate on road traffic claims. As the Government often follow the ABI’s advice, will they on this occasion?
Chris Philp
The House has been in the process of legislating in this area for some time. The Prisons and Courts Bill fell at the 2017 election. We finally legislated in the Civil Liability Act 2018, which is due to be implemented along with the £5,000 limit for the small claims track in April next year, and that remains the Government’s intention.
Peter Aldous
In Suffolk, nearly half of all victims of domestic abuse or sexual offences are unwilling to proceed with prosecutions. Clause 75 of the Domestic Abuse Bill will help to improve the situation, but will the Minister confirm that the Government are committed to root-and-branch reform to remove the culture of confrontation, fear and intimidation in the courts and tribunals system?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend raises a very important point, which was touched on by Members under Question 3. It is vital that we help victims of these terrible crimes to pursue the case right through the court system, rather than dropping it after reporting the crime, and there is a lot more to do there. The provisions in the Domestic Abuse Bill, introduced for its Second Reading last week, will help that, as will the increased funding to support victims of these terrible crimes, to which I referred earlier.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The Government have undertaken an unprecedented sale of courts, which has made giving evidence in court far more difficult for the many victims of crime who now have to travel much further to have their day in court. As the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) said, the fact is that victims of sexual and other physical abuse are already reluctant to come to court, and this plays into that even more. Will the Minister agree to an independent assessment of the impact of these court closures and commit to no further closures unless it can be proved that they are not having a detrimental impact on access to justice?
Chris Philp
Of course, access-to-justice considerations are extremely important. Before any court is earmarked for closure, there is an extremely thorough consultation process, and if any courts are due to close in the future, a similarly thorough consultation process will be gone through. I would point out that in the cohort of courts consulted on in 2015 that were subsequently closed, on average their utilisation rates were about one third. We need to balance a reasonable approach to the court estate with the access-to-justice considerations that the hon. Lady quite rightly raises.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
The Government have not conducted a public consultation on the law in relation to assisted suicide. We remain of the view that any change to the law in this sensitive area is a matter of conscience and a matter for Parliament, rather than one of Government policy.
Sir Vince Cable
The Secretary of State will be aware that, under the current law, people can be sentenced to up to 14 years in prison for assisting the suicide of a terminally ill loved one in great pain, and that the Crown Prosecution Service is pursuing prosecutions, with traumatic effects in some cases, so why have the Government decided to abandon even the call for evidence that his predecessor initiated only a few weeks ago?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. There was no initiation of a call for evidence. However, I hear his point about prosecutions. The Crown Prosecution Service guidelines, which were actually pioneered by the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), in my view strike a very sensitive and sensible balance between the need to protect the vulnerable and the need to understand the sensitive and emotive circumstances of many of these tragic cases.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Last week, the police and crime commissioner for Durham, Ron Hogg, said there needed to be changes in the law on assisted dying, and this reflects the view of many in the police. I know that the Secretary of State for Justice is a very compassionate man, so will he meet police officers to discuss their concerns?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken a very close interest and been actively involved in this issue. Of course I would be happy to meet police officers—indeed, I have committed to meet others on this issue—but I do harbour the gravest of doubts about the ability of legislation to be watertight when it comes to the potential, sadly, for abuse.
Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Ind)
It is a great pleasure to ask a question of my old friend the Lord Chancellor. I fear that he may not have received complete information from his officials, because his immediate predecessor did ask for a call for evidence and for No. 10 approval of a call for evidence. It is true that the previous Prime Minister resigned before that request could be approved, but the previous Lord Chancellor did make it clear that he thought a call for evidence was justified. To be clear about the reasons why: it is not that Government are going to take a position on a possible change of law, but only the Government can gather the information about the effect of the current law so that Parliament can decide whether that law needs to be changed.
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to my old friend for the way in which he asked that question. I accept the comments that he made. It was not agreed that there should be a call for evidence, and it is not my plan to initiate one. However, discussions and conversations will continue, and the wealth of information out there on both sides of the argument is something that will prompt right hon. and hon. Members to continue this debate, either on the Floor of the House or by other means.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
Parliament is out of step with the people on this issue—90% of the UK population believe that assisted dying should be legalised. Shropshire man Noel Conway recently had his case turned down in the Supreme Court, which believed that it was a matter for Parliament to decide. Does the Minister agree that Parliament must look at this issue once again, because it is not right for us to decide that terminally ill people, who are enduring great suffering, have no right over how they choose to die?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend raises the Noel Conway case, in which the Court found that Parliament’s decision not to change the law did indeed strike a fair balance between the interests of the wider community and the interests of people who were in that tragic position. That was upheld by the Court of Appeal. It is a matter for right hon. and hon. Members to raise that issue, either in a private Member’s Bill or in a general debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Well, as usual, we are running late, but my judgment is that the House would be impoverished without the sound of Shipley, and it must not be. Mr Philip Davies.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
I do not have any immediate plans to extend the proposals that I made last week. I reassure my hon. Friend that public protection weighs very much in my mind when it comes to automatic early release—something about which I have long held strong views, from my days in the criminal justice system.
Philip Davies
The automatic early release of prisoners halfway through their sentences, introduced by the last Labour Government, is dishonest. It undermines public confidence in the justice system, and it lets people out halfway through their sentence even if they still pose a risk to the public and there is a risk of their reoffending. A Conservative Government should scrap that for all offenders.
Robert Buckland
I hear my hon. Friend’s strictures. He will be greatly encouraged by the announcement that I made last week to move that threshold to two thirds for serious, violent and sexual offenders. As I have said, this is about public protection and confidence in the system, and I am sure that he will fully support the Government’s measures.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is aware of my constituent Jackie Wileman, who was hit and killed by four men driving a stolen heavy goods vehicle. They had nearly 100 convictions between them. One man was in the probation system; another two had just completed probation. As part of the Government’s renationalisation of the probation service, will the Minister commit to review the way in which offenders are classed and monitored? Those men were not classed as high risk and were not monitored as such. That was a clear failure, which, as he knows, had devastating consequences.
Robert Buckland
The hon. Lady and I have spoken about this case in the past. She is an assiduous campaigner on this and other issues, and I am grateful to her. The reforms to probation give us an opportunity to get that sort of risk assessment absolutely right. Ending the division between the National Probation Service and community rehabilitation companies will allow us to focus on the offender, rather than worrying about which part of the system they should be in. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Ind)
My constituent Valerie Matcham’s grandson was killed by a single punch to the side of his head. Bradley’s killer was sentenced to just two years in prison, and the family are distraught at the thought that he could be out on licence after just one year. I am encouraged by my right hon. and learned Friend’s words and urge him to keep the views of families at the forefront of his mind when considering these difficult decisions.
Robert Buckland
My right hon. Friend raises a distressing case. It is perhaps not appropriate for me to comment on it individually, but I extend my deepest sympathy to the family and friends of that victim. It is precisely why we have decided to take action to try to create a higher degree of confidence for victims and their families when it comes to the administration of sentences.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I was out with Gwent police on Friday. A large amount of their casework relates to serious high-risk offenders being released halfway through their sentences, which is a massive drain on resources both locally and nationally. Will the Lord Chancellor commit to review automatic release?
Robert Buckland
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will join me in actively supporting my proposals to change the automatic release to two thirds for serious violence and sexual offenders. That will indeed help local police forces, such as Gwent, with their management of offenders in the community. I pay tribute to the work the police do in that respect.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
When violent criminals are released, it is a time of fear and sometimes terror for their erstwhile victims. Release under licence allows the restriction of both movement and access, but not beyond licence. When the Lord Chancellor reconsiders the issue of licence, will he consider whether restrictions can be put on such criminals after their licence periods are over, to protect the victims?
Robert Buckland
My right hon. Friend asks a very important question. I have to accept the limitations on the period of sentencing. Supervision is an important part of the licence period, but what happens beyond that is difficult in terms of court order. However, work can and should be done by the probation service to ensure we are protected as fully as possible.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Almost two years ago to the day, the Government made a pledge to increase the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving from 14 years to life. In the light of the Secretary of State’s recent announcement, will he be revising that pledge? To date, no action has been taken.
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who I know has written to me. I repeat my pledge to get on with legislating on that issue as soon as possible. We have, we hope, a new Session coming. I am not going to pre-judge what might be said then, but I think there will be an opportunity for us to right this wrong.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Wendy Morton)
The Government are prioritising support for victims through the criminal justice system and beyond, and we are committed to tackling poor criminal justice outcomes for them. Just last month, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I took part in a roundtable at Downing Street to discuss support for victims of rape. Victims and stakeholders highlighted the importance of support in their engagement with the criminal justice system.
Andrew Griffiths
The Minister will be aware that the recent consultation on the code of practice for victims of crime has recently closed, and she will be considering representations. Will she look closely at the greater use of criminal compensation orders for the victims of child sexual abuse? They are used in a woefully small number of cases, so vulnerable people have to re-live the trauma either through a private prosecution or through the criminal injuries compensation scheme.
Wendy Morton
Compensation orders are an important power. The purpose of the order is to pay the victim compensation for any personal injury, loss or damage caused by an offence, and they allow courts to ensure that offenders make financial reparations to victims where possible. As part of our review of the victims code, we will be considering the recommendation on raising awareness of criminal compensation orders made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) is leaving the House voluntarily at the next election to the very considerable detriment to Ashfield and to the House, so it would be discourteous of me not to hear her.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
Support for victims is not good enough, so can I appeal to the Government to change the law to remove the automatic entitlement of joint assets from those who have attempted to murder their partners? The case I am working on sees the perpetrator demand £90,000 from the woman he attempted to kill, or, as she puts it, a £3,000 reward for every stab wound.
Wendy Morton
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. I suggest that we perhaps meet after this session, when she can outline a little more about her case.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
I know what my hon. Friend means. I laid a written ministerial statement before the House last week, and at the Conservative party conference, I announced reforms that will end automatic halfway release for the most serious violent and sexual offenders. These criminals will be required to serve two thirds of their sentence behind bars. I also announced that we will allow courts across England and Wales to sentence offenders guilty of alcohol-related offences for up to 120 days of electronically monitored abstinence. That follows two successful pilots, including one in London launched by the then London Mayor, now the Prime Minister.
Bill Wiggin
During the last Prorogation of Parliament, I was looking forward to serving on a jury. When the Supreme Court decided that we should be here, I had to be released from that jury service by a distinguished judge in Hereford. It cannot be right that judges decide when we sit and who attends, but the Secretary of State’s Department has been pathetic in its written responses to me about how it proposes to make sure that we can fulfil both sorts of public service.
Robert Buckland
I am distressed to hear that from my hon. Friend—I have sat as a judge in Hereford and it is a most pleasant court. Matters of jury service and jury duty are, of course, for the court system, and it would be inappropriate for my Department or Ministers to—[Interruption.] No, I am sorry; it is not appropriate for us to intervene in these matters. This Parliament changed the rules about jury service some years ago not to exempt Members of Parliament, or indeed judges or barristers. That was the right thing to do. While the system is there to accommodate my hon. Friend and his needs, like all other members of the public, we just have to work with respect to the system.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The coming Labour Government are committed to restoring all legal aid-funded early legal help. That will restore legal aid help in nearly half a million cases, but the Government refuse to do it, so which of these groups of people does the Secretary of State think would be undeserving of such legal help: the 50,000 or so people who get help fighting dodgy landlords and other housing issues; the 90,000 or so people who get help fighting cruel decisions denying them the social security that they are entitled to; or the thousands of people who get help taking on bullying bosses? Which is it, or will the Government change their mind and agree to back this policy?
Robert Buckland
I am afraid that I will take no lectures from a Labour party that took a knife to civil legal aid back in the 1990s. I have a very long memory about legal aid, and I challenge anybody else to better it. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about early intervention. That is why we are working with a £5 million pilot—[Interruption.] I will not be heckled by the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry)—[Interruption.] I will not. I think it is extremely discourteous, Mr Speaker, and I am trying to—[Interruption.] And now she wants to insult me even further. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The Secretary of State for Justice is entitled to be heard. There is quite a lot of noisy chuntering from a sedentary position, but I wish to hear the mellifluous tones of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is now looking discontented, to put it mildly. Blurt it out, man, with your usual elegance.
Robert Buckland
What I will say is that we are working on a housing repossession pilot. We are investing £5 million in early intervention services. I take a great interest in the work of law centres, and I want to do more to help them.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
What plans does my right hon. and learned Friend’s Department have to help to facilitate careers for people who want to join the Ministry of Justice who have served in the military or the armed forces, so that it can help to communicate and facilitate their transition back into civilian life?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the role of the armed forces. They have a huge offer to make, and I will talk to him further about those points.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Wendy Morton)
I fully understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. It is fundamental to our legal and justice system that everyone has the right to a fair trial. None the less, it is important that we give our utmost support for bereaved families. I am determined to do all that I can to ensure that bereaved families are at the heart of the coronial process, and we are working across the Government to achieve this.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
To reduce reoffending we need to improve ex-offenders’ employment prospects. What incentives can the Minister offer employers to take on people who have recently left prison?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)
My hon. Friend has done some work in this area as a former trustee of a charity that seeks to rehabilitate ex-offenders. He raises a very important point. The new futures network, which we recently set up, and to which 500 employers have now signed up, seeks to ensure that ex-offenders are rehabilitated into jobs in the community.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Wendy Morton
As the hon. Lady will know, criminal defence lawyers play a crucial role in upholding the rule of law, and the Government greatly value their work. We have the legal aid support action plan, which we are working through, and I am keen to do all I can as legal aid Minister in this regard.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Might I reasonably hope that the Chair of the Justice Select Committee can ask a single-sentence question?
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Will the Lord Chancellor confirm that the Government have no plans to change the right to trial by jury in serious criminal cases?
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. The level of appeals and the number of successful appeals remain stubbornly high, which has been of concern to all of us who have taken an interest in this for many years. I want to see the mandatory reassessment process be as meaningful as possible so that the courts are not having in effect to overturn these decisions. I take her point onboard and am looking at it anxiously.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I am aware of two cases in the last year where the most senior Appeal Court judges have come to a unanimous agreement only for that to be followed by unanimous disagreement in the Supreme Court. The Justice Secretary might know of more. Would it be a good idea to have an independent body to write an explanation so that those of us who are not lawyers can understand what is actually going on?
Robert Buckland
A novel point, Mr Speaker. I think the judgments of their lordships and the lords justices in the Court of Appeal speak for themselves and are increasingly written in clearer language, and the recent Supreme Court judgment was an eloquent example, whatever one’s view of it might have been.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Lucy Frazer
We are very concerned about the level of violence in prisons and very pleased that the 10 prisons project showed that we can reduce violence in prisons by reducing drugs in prison. I am very pleased that the Government recently announced the £100 million investment in prison security to make our prisons safer for those who work in them.
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I thank the Minister for recently discussing the important Camp Hill site on the Island with me. Will the Ministry of Justice now develop, with me and Isle of Wight Council, a considered position in a timely way so that we can get a public interest outcome?
Lucy Frazer
I was very pleased to speak to my hon. Friend about this matter. As he knows, I have offered to meet him and others, and I will be very pleased to do that.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
Wendy Morton
Access to legal aid is an important part of our justice system. In the past year, £1.6 billion was paid in legal advice. The Government remain committed to giving people access to legal aid when they need it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Very briefly, Mr Speaker. The Lord Chancellor will remember that there used to be a convention involving judges not speaking publicly other than in their written declarations. Does he agree that speaking publicly can sometimes make people confused about what is the judgment of the court and what is personal opinion?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The judgments speak for themselves, and the judges cannot really answer back when it comes to criticism. That is why I am here to defend them.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)
The £1,000 limit has not been changed for many years, and it is of course a great deal lower than the general small claims limit of £10,000. In my view, a small claims track limit of £5,000 balances access-to-justice considerations with reasonably administering the courts system.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Robert Buckland
The hon. Lady raises a hugely important point. I assure her that the mental health of offenders and prisoners is my priority. I think that we can do far more, and far more sensibly, working with other Departments such as the Department of Health and Social Care, to get the commissioned services right and to stop those delays. I will talk with the hon. Lady further about this important issue.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Robert Buckland
The hon. Lady will welcome the £170 million that we are investing in new scanners, up to now and in the next year. We are prioritising category B local prisons, which are particularly problematic in terms of security, but I will take away the point about New Hall and consider it carefully.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) has been jumping up and down like Zebedee, so I think he will be inconsolable if he is not heard. Let us hear the fella.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Local families and police in the south lakes have been badly affected by the closure of Kendal court. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me to ensure that we restore access to justice in the south lakes?
Chris Philp
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for the enthusiasm with which he called for your attention, Mr Speaker. I should of course be delighted to meet him to discuss any concerns that he may have about access to justice in his constituency.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Given the tragic case of the baby who died in prison and the mother who laboured on her own in a prison cell, will the Minister please, in her review, look at two issues? First, were enough prison officers on duty that night, and secondly, will every single pregnant prisoner be given a healthcare plan suitable to her needs for every day of her pregnancy on which she is in prison?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Lady has made a very important point. I assure her that a number of investigations are under way. Ten separate investigations of the incident are currently taking place, and I am pleased to announce that the Secretary of State and I have formally asked the prisons and probation ombudsman to conduct an overarching investigation. I spoke to the governor of the prison yesterday. She has introduced hourly checks throughout the night for all pregnant women, and fortnightly pregnancy review boards are being held for them, involving a multidisciplinary team. That is happening throughout the female prisoner estate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It will definitely be one sentence. Will the Minister further outline what recent work has been done in co-operation with the Department for Education to target young people and knife crime?
Robert Buckland
The hon. Gentleman will know that there is cross-governmental work on this. We have a strategy on that issue, and the teachable moment and the importance of education are things that we absolutely understand.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
What assessment has the prisons Minister made of the discrepancy between the starting salaries and pay scales for prison officers employed by Parc Prison in Bridgend, which is run by G4S, and those for officers employed by the Government-run HMPs in Swansea and Cardiff?
Lucy Frazer
We have increased prison officers’ salaries in the public sector by over 2% across the board. The public and private systems are separate, and both produce excellent outcomes in some circumstances for prisoners.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
In June, a 15-year-old and an older accomplice broke into my house to steal my car. Thankfully, Humberside police force was excellent. It found those two and made sure they were imprisoned and put on remand. However, that 15-year-old was released on tag but apparently has removed the tag and stolen two further vehicles, which have been crashed into community buildings and people’s homes. Can the Minister please explain to my community how the current system is working to protect them?
Robert Buckland
I listened to hon. Lady’s case with care and concern. I think it merits a further conversation, and I will have that with her.
US Troop Withdrawal from Northern Syria
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa if he will make a statement on the US troop withdrawal from northern Syria.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (Dr Andrew Murrison)
We are consulting the US on its response to the proposed Turkish military action in north-east Syria. The Foreign and Defence Secretaries both spoke to their US counterparts yesterday. The US position, including any movement of US troops, is of course a matter for the US Government. However, the US Department of Defence said in a statement yesterday that the US does not endorse a Turkish operation in north-east Syria. We have been consistently clear with Turkey that unilateral military action must be avoided, as it would destabilise the region and threaten efforts to secure the lasting defeat of Daesh. As members of the global coalition, our focus remains on securing the enduring defeat of Daesh. We will continue to work with the US and other international partners to that end.
Mr Ellwood
I first declare an interest: I am a dual-US national.
The US is our most trusted and valued ally. We share the same vision in wanting to shape the world around us to defend international standards and values. It is why we stepped forward in the first place to form the international coalition to defeat Daesh, to which the Minister referred. That bond—that friendship, that trust—means that we have a privileged relationship with the US that enables us to be honest and speak out if there are differences of opinion. Today is one such case.
The President’s decision to remove US troops from northern Syria goes against official and congressional advice and will leave the Syrian Democratic Forces exposed to the expected Turkish offensive to establish a 30-km safe zone in northern Syria. These are the same Kurdish forces who worked with us to defeat Daesh. Essentially, they were our boots on the ground. Now it seems we are turning our backs on them. If this goes ahead, it will be no orderly handover. The Kurds will fight to defend their land. If the zone is secured, Turkey intends then to move over 3 million refugees who are currently in Turkey into the zone, fundamentally altering the ethnic makeup of the region.
If anything must be learned from previous interventions, it is that we do not abandon the very people who stepped forward to help before the job is done. General Petraeus has said that it is no longer good enough to defeat the enemy; we have to enable the local. We need to learn from Iraq in 2003, Afghanistan—Charlie Wilson’s war and after 9/11—and Libya. If we create a vacuum, it is quickly filled by stakeholders who pursue a very different agenda.
Further to the Minister’s or the Secretary of State’s conversations, will the Prime Minister be speaking to the President on this matter? Has the Minister or the Foreign Secretary spoken to our coalition allies about this fundamental change in US foreign policy? The Minister says that the placement of US troops is a matter for that country, but the US is part of an international coalition. We will only defeat the challenges around the world if we work and stick together. What impact will this decision have, therefore, on our efforts—Department for International Development efforts—to help provide aid to this war-torn country?
The Minister talks about discouraging Turkey from crossing the border in some form of invasion and creating that safe zone. What actions will the international community, or indeed Britain, take if such an action does, in fact, take place?
More generally, does the Minister acknowledge that the character of conflict has changed? These are not soldiers in uniform, but radicalised extremists committed to pursuing their jihadist agenda. Many of these fighters come from across Europe, including from the UK. Simply denying dual nationals the ability to return to the UK is not enough to keep our nation safe. Does the Minister therefore agree that the international community must design a better long-term legal solution to this challenge, which will not go away?
Neither the SDF nor Turkey has the desire to properly process the number of detainees and foreign fighters. If Turkey invades, the SDF will fight back, and these camps, such as that at al-Hawl, will get caught in the middle, with thousands deliberately released or able to escape. We will then see the emergence of Daesh 2.0.
We must have the strength and resolve to ask our closest ally to reconsider. Let us also exhibit our own international leadership by energising the same international community that so swiftly came together to defeat Daesh militarily and that now needs to stay the course to stabilise the region we helped to liberate. Otherwise, why did we step forward in the first place? Our world is getting more dangerous, and the threats more complex. The international community must stick together.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman speaks with very considerable authority on these matters, and that was part of the rationale for granting him his urgent question. He rather gently pointed out to me that it was his first urgent question, so I granted him some latitude, because I think the House wanted to hear from him, but other colleagues cannot expect comparable latitude. Two minutes does not mean four minutes.
Dr Murrison
Nevertheless, Mr Speaker, I think the eloquence of my right hon. Friend probably justified the time he took.
I will try to address some of the points my right hon. Friend made. I absolutely agree with him about this being primarily an issue about Daesh. To answer his question about foreign fighters and others, my worry would be that this will divert the SDF from its activities against Daesh in the Euphrates valley—absolutely, 100%.
My right hon. Friend will understand that we are talking to all our interlocutors at the moment. This situation is very kinetic and very fast-changing, and we of course need to ensure that, so far as we can, we influence our partners in the way that he has just described.
As I understand it, the US withdrawal, if it happens, will be fairly small-scale. It will involve a small number of troops in the immediate vicinity of the border. That is our understanding. We do not support any incursion by Turkey into north-west Syria.
My right hon. Friend will know from previous outings at the Dispatch Box of the extent, breadth and depth of support for the crisis in Syria. We are among the top few in terms of our financial contributions to that awful humanitarian disaster. I hope that that begins to address some of the points he raised.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I thank the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), along with all those other Members who sought to pursue this issue today, including my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle).
The number of UQ applications you had on this issue today reflects the range of concern and, indeed, anger across the House about the Trump Administration’s decision to open the door to a Turkish invasion of northern Syria and to the subjugation of the Kurdish people in Rojava— the very people who led the fight against Daesh and who lost 11,000 brave fighters in the process. Donald Trump is not just abandoning those Kurdish allies; he is betraying their sacrifice. Of all the great and unmatched ways in which he has shamed his office over the last three years, this is one of the very worst.
However, simple expressions of anger will not help the Kurdish people now, so I have four specific questions for the Minister. First, in answer to critics of the decision, Donald Trump said yesterday:
“The UK was very thrilled at this decision … many people agree with it very strongly.”
Will the Minister make it clear today that that is a lie? Can he explain what, if anything, the Foreign Secretary said yesterday to Mike Pompeo that might have given Donald Trump that impression?
Secondly, will the Minister agree to table emergency resolutions at this afternoon’s UN Security Council meeting and tomorrow’s North Atlantic Council meeting prohibiting Turkey from taking any action on the ground or by air to increase its military incursions into northern Syria? Will he redouble our efforts through those bodies to reach a genuine peace settlement, a political solution and the negotiated withdrawal of all foreign forces?
Thirdly, will the Minister also work through the UN Security Council and the High Commissioner for Refugees to make it clear to Turkey that it must not use the American withdrawal as a green light to forcibly resettle non-Kurdish Syrian refugees in the Rojava region in an effort to change its ethnic composition?
Finally, will the Minister insist, as a matter of urgency, that Kurdish representatives are finally invited to join the Syrian committee on constitutional reform so that they are able to stand up for their own rights?
An old rule of middle east conflict is that, one way or another, the Kurds will always get sold out. Donald Trump may be following that rule in the most brutal of fashions, but we must unite today, both here and at the United Nations, and say that this time we will not let it happen.
Dr Murrison
I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions. As for the tweet, I have no idea where that came from. It certainly is not based on the conversation that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had with Secretary Pompeo last night. Let me be quite clear that we would be opposed to any incursion by Turkey into Syria. The right hon. Lady refers to what is technically called refoulement, which is proscribed under international law, and we would most certainly be against any attempt by any state to engage in social engineering, ethnic cleansing or demographic change.
The right hon. Lady referred to the constitutional committee, and she will be aware that Geir Pedersen led on that at the UN General Assembly and that it will be stood up on 30 October in Geneva. It will be three pillared, with the pillars being the opposition, the regime and independence. Our position would be that all citizens in Syria should be fully represented. There is only one way of making progress in Syria, and that is through an inclusive political process.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I rise to support the urgent question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). This is surely an issue on which we should be, in many senses, bolder and more public about our disagreement. In America, as the Minister will know, General Petraeus has made it absolutely clear that this is the wrong move and the Republicans themselves in Congress are absolutely opposed to it, so this is not an issue about Trump versus just the usual political sources. It is a real problem that we could abandon a key ally in the destruction of the caliphate and then release them to the mercies of Turkey. Can we make it clear, publicly, that we disapprove of this—not just to the Americans but, more importantly, to the Turks? Will we also make it clear that if the Turks do carry out their threat, we would consider it to be an aggressive act against ourselves as much as we would one against the Kurds?
Dr Murrison
I have said in plain terms that we would resist any incursion into Syria, and the reason for that—well, there are many reasons for it—is that it will divert attention away from the principal threat to this country in relation to this conflict, which is Daesh. It would potentially divert efforts by the SDF from its operations along the Euphrates valley to the north-west of the country. That would not be helpful and would destabilise the situation, and I think that that is probably behind a lot of concern that has been expressed in Washington. We will continue to work with our allies to push that agenda, because it is right, and if we are going to restore any sort of equanimity in Syria, we need to be united in this particular fight.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
I thank the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) for securing this question and for his comments, and I thank other colleagues for theirs. The SDF has been critical in the defeat of the murderous death cult Daesh. One of my concerns relates to what this move says about our future commitment to allies and about UK foreign policy when we are seeking those boots on the ground. President Trump’s policy is ill-thought-out, with one Pentagon official describing it as a blatant betrayal. What does this mean for UK forces still on the ground? Will the Minister comment on reports that the SDF was compelled to demolish defensive fortifications? Finally, what discussions is he having with his Turkish counterparts, particularly on the humanitarian impact? We know from Save the Children that thousands of children and other refugees need access to food and medicine, so what is he doing to secure that? Is now the time to repatriate the innocent British children who have been stuck in Syria?
Dr Murrison
The US has to answer for itself. I cannot answer for the US or for President Trump—
Dr Murrison
The right hon. Lady tempts me, but I am going to resist.
The US, I believe, is talking about seeking to redeploy 50 servicemen at the moment. I have no information on forts, so I cannot answer that question. As for boots on the ground, we need to be careful. The UK does not have regular boots on the ground in Syria; we do not do that. The hon. Gentleman was right to raise international development and Turkey, and he will be aware that we have been a major donor to this particular crisis through the EU Facility for Refugees in Turkey. We are also considering at the moment what our response to FRiT 2 will mean, particularly in the context of our imminent departure from the European Union.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friends and the right hon. Lady spoke for the entire House on the important issue raised in this urgent question. Does the Minister understand that Britain must take responsibility for its own nationals and not use some device to evade that responsibility, nor must we leave them swilling around in ungoverned space where they can do ill in countries less well governed than this, but where they are also a danger to the people in this country? Does he understand that we may well be talking about approximately 40 people, of whom maybe as many as 30 are children? Will he raise this matter immediately with the Foreign Secretary and with his colleagues in Government to see whether we can get a change of policy and an urgent resolution of that particular issue?
Dr Murrison
My right hon. Friend is obviously an expert in such matters. There are two categories of individual: those in detention camps and those in al-Hawl, who are, in the main, the families of detainees. It is important that justice is served as close as possible to any alleged crime, and we are taking that forward with those in the region. As for the minors, it is the Government’s intent that innocents should be protected at all times. He will appreciate the difficulties that that poses in the context of Syria, but we are quite clear that minors need to be handled properly and humanely, and that will be our intent.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I am afraid that the Kurds are being stabbed in the back once again, as they have been so many times in the past. We have a responsibility, and we should stand up. We need to know what is going on day by day. We cannot wait for the Queen’s Speech and all that; we need to know what is happening today and what the Minister will be doing today. Otherwise, the Kurds are going to be left to die, as they have been so often in the past.
Dr Murrison
I understand the right hon. Lady’s frustration. We must be clear that we cannot act alone and that we have to act with our partners. That is the reality. The Kurds are not being stabbed in the back by the United Kingdom, but US actions are obviously a matter for the US. I hope that my remarks have provided my understanding of the extent and scope of what is in the President’s head, so far as I can, and it seems that some of the more exaggerated claims have probably been overdone. However, the right hon. Lady is right that the situation is highly kinetic and that things change from moment to moment. If things do change further, I rather suspect that I will be back in his place before too long.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that one principle of military action is the need for surprise, but we normally try to surprise the enemy, not our friends. Here we find ourselves surprised by the actions of our most important ally, and our allies on the ground have been surprised by the possibility that they may find their homes under serious threat from another of our important military allies—Turkey. Will the Minister please assure me that our other allies in the region are being assured that the UK will not make a pattern of being a fair-weather friend but will commit to our allies seriously and properly?
Dr Murrison
The only point I would make about surprise is that President Erdoğan has, of course, threatened this on a number of occasions, and he has previous in relation to Afrin. This has not come out of the blue, but I agree that we need to ensure that we do everything we can to understand our colleagues’ thinking on these matters so that we can act in a relatively joined up way, if possible.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
As ever, it is innocent civilians who will suffer the consequences of the humanitarian disaster that will follow this decision. May I press the Minister to respond to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry)? It really is time for us to table this at the United Nations Security Council.
Dr Murrison
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that commitment at the Dispatch Box, but the point has been well made and will be considered. I am sure what he suggests has merit, but we will have to examine it fully.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
There have been ongoing concerns about the safety and welfare of Syrian refugees on or near the Turkish border. There is the prospect of a safe zone being set up, but how can the Minister guarantee that these people will be safe? There are fears about forcible repatriation or relocation from Turkey into Syria, which will be challenged. What representations are being made on their behalf?
Dr Murrison
My hon. Friend refers to the forcible repatriation of refugees, and clearly we would strongly oppose such a thing. I made it very clear to the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) that we would oppose anything that looks like ethnic cleansing or demographic change. All those things are absolutely not appropriate, and we will resist them.
My hon. Friend will be aware of our effort in support of Turkey through the FRiT process, which will endure on our departure from the European Union. Turkey has done a good job in supporting refugees on its territory, and we will continue to support it in doing that. Turkey has a strong tradition of humanitarian assistance and, so far, it has acted well for refugees, and we want to encourage it in that process.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I am chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on north-eastern Syria, and we were in al-Hawl a month ago. I do not want to disagree with the Minister, but this is not primarily an issue of defeating ISIS; it is also about defending an area that has promoted democracy and gender equality, and that has been an ally, too. Will we now suspend the sharing of security and intelligence information with Turkey so that it cannot use that information against one of our allies? Will we bolster support for the SDF to ensure it has the resources it needs? And will we go to NATO to ensure that Turkey cannot invoke article 5 if there is a backlash?
Dr Murrison
I do not think we are into article 5 territory. We continue to support the SDF and the coalition. The principal intent here is the fight against Daesh, which is a clear and present danger that threatens us all. We will do everything in our power to ensure that fight continues and is unaffected by this latest news. It is important that we keep our eye on the ball in that respect. As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, there is a lot of ongoing work against Daesh along the Euphrates valley, and it is important that that work continues. This latest news risks destabilising that work.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Ind)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) for raising this question.
Security depends on stability and consistency, and the decision taken by President Trump does not help that. It is a reminder, if any is needed, of the dangers of the United Kingdom pivoting too close to United States foreign policy at a time of inconsistency, rather than staying close to our European allies.
May I ask for further reassurance on the global coalition against Daesh? The communications cell, which does the vital work of dealing with the ideology, is based in the United Kingdom. Anything that might give Daesh supporters a sense that the United States is weakening in its commitment against Daesh could be used against the coalition and will materially affect those who are carrying on the vital communications work here. Can the Minister assure me that the United States realises that that coalition work is essential and that it will remain committed to it, no matter what its decision in this case may be?
Dr Murrison
My right hon. Friend’s point is well made. I cannot give him that assurance because I am not the US, but I am sure his point will have been heard by our interlocutors. He refers to our allies in the coalition and elsewhere, and he will be aware that we are working very closely with our E3 partners—probably more closely than we have for some considerable time. Some might think that is something of a paradox, given our imminent departure from the European Union, but it remains true nevertheless. Particularly in the region for which I have geographic responsibility, I have been struck by our close working relationship with France and Germany.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Syrian civilians have suffered again and again in this conflict. Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), may I ask the Minister what we will do? Will we review all the Government’s policies at this crucial point to see whether we can do a little more to accept more refugees from the region?
Dr Murrison
I have alluded to our support for the humanitarian situation. I suspect I will be quizzed on this further when I appear before the Select Committee on International Development in a few minutes’ time. I am proud of the contribution made by the British people. We are in the top few countries in our support for the humanitarian situation in Syria.
I am also proud that, by 2020, we will have resettled 20,000 Syrians, including in my constituency. That is a sign of the generosity and big heart of the British people. It is a fair contribution, and it is an indication of the UK punching above its weight on international development.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I was in north-east Syria just three weeks ago with the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) and, at least then, it would have come as news to the leaders in the region that there was any engagement on the justice measures apparently being taken forward on the ground.
I am sure the Minister understands the scale of Kurdish resentment following the operation against Afrin, and therefore the scale of Kurdish resistance that there would be if there were a Turkish incursion. He has just said that we would resist any incursion into Syria and that we support the SDF and the coalition. What will we actually do to deter Turkey from making the profound mistake of this planned intervention in north-east Syria?
Dr Murrison
Turkey is a major NATO ally, and it is a good friend of this country. We have some leverage with Turkey, as a friend and as a partner, and my hon. Friend will understand that this is currently in the diplomatic space. He is tempting me to make all sorts of contingency preparations, which I certainly will not do at the Dispatch Box. This is clearly a dynamic situation, and we will have to respond to whatever happens, but our message to Turkey is, “Please don’t do this. It will deflect attention from what really matters here: first, defeating Daesh, and secondly, restoring this poor, benighted country to some sort of equanimity.”
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Kurdish diaspora has a sizeable presence in Scotland, with a community centre at Dumbryden in my constituency. I know they would wish me to remind the UK Government of the debt we all owe the Kurds in relation to defeating Daesh, so can the Minister confirm that the United Kingdom Government recognise that they have a moral obligation to help the Kurds, rather than just leaving them to their fate?
Dr Murrison
Of course, the SDF is part of the coalition against Daesh. I admire our Kurdish friends and partners enormously, and our posture has not changed at all. We are talking here about the possibility of Turkey moving into north-west Syria—we do not know how far that incursion is going to be—and the fact that the US has said that in those circumstances it would withdraw 50 of its people from the immediate area. So we need a sense of proportion on this, but of course we have to react to circumstances.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am sorry to disagree with my friend the Minister, but saying, “Oh well, it is only a withdrawal of 50 people” is like saying, “Oh, well, it is only the withdrawal of HMS Endurance before the invasion of the Falkland Islands.” Is it not a fact that if the green light is given to Turkey, under its Islamist regime, to attack our allies, it will be an act of treachery and betrayal not dissimilar to what happened in 1944 when Stalin basically gave the green light to Hitler to crush the Warsaw uprising?
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that. I disagree with his analogies, although we will be able to discuss that in some depth, perhaps when we have more time. The Government have been clear where we are on this: we would oppose any incursion by our good friend and NATO ally Turkey into Syria. He is tempting me to speculate on what we might do in the event that this happens. A lot of his remarks are probably better addressed to the US, and no doubt the US, which I am sure listens carefully to him, will have heard his remarks.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) and others have rightly spoken about getting international co-operation on persuading President Trump of the error of his ways. We have friends in the US; we know that General Petraeus and elements of the Republican party disapprove of Trump’s activities. Could we not use a back-door approach, via our friends and parking our tanks in his back yard, to get the President to change his mind? With an eye on the next election, that might work.
Dr Murrison
I am not sure which election the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but it certainly would not be the UK Government’s job to interfere in US elections, presidential or otherwise. He has rightly referred to opposition to this particular thing in Washington, and I am sure that, as his voice is no doubt influential on the Hill, he will be listened to carefully.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
When the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and I were on the ground in Syria three weeks ago, the SDF was clear in its appreciation for the help of coalition countries, including the UK and US. Given the resurgence of ISIS, particularly around Deir ez-Zor, and the fact that after nightfall great swathes of north-east Syria are no-go areas for the SDF, will the Minister confirm that we will redouble our efforts in supporting the Syrian Kurds?
Dr Murrison
We do support the SDF, which is an important part of the coalition—it is clearly central to it. As I said in my earlier remarks, the worry is that this recent news, if it is carried forward, will detract attention from Daesh along the Euphrates river. That would be extremely bad for the stability of Syria and for the rest of us.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
The Minister rightly says he is proud of DFID’s support in the region and he rightly speaks of the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, but that is 20,000 people from Syria over the course of five years, and we have only one year’s commitment from the Government so far about what is going to happen after the end of that scheme next year. With 12 million displaced people from the Syrian war so far, and the possibility of refoulement and new refugees from this action ahead of us, will he not now consider asking his Government to redouble efforts and increase the number of people coming to this country for resettlement? Why should we not want to be the best country in the world for welcoming refugees, and allow them to come through safe and legal routes?
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that. She talks about being the best, but I think we probably are that. If we look at the sum total of our contribution to this, we see that it is extraordinary, and I am really proud of it. I am proud of it on behalf of my constituents and hers, because they are the ones who ultimately provide this contribution—she and I do not. If she looks at the humanitarian package in Syria objectively—I am more than happy to sit down to discuss it with her—she will share my view that we are doing extremely well, and we will continue to do so.
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I wish to declare an interest: I have worked alongside the peshmerga—men and women—in northern Iraq, and I consider them to be impressive soldiers and incredibly generous hosts. My question to the Minister is: if this is just about a redeployment of 50 servicemen, is he saying that this crisis is overblown? It seems to me—I am not trying to trap him into a trick question—that if the Turkish army and the Syrian Kurds are at each other’s throats at any point along their extensive border, it is a potentially extraordinary state of affairs both in respect of ISIS soldiers, and the stability and humanitarian aspects of this problem.
Dr Murrison
Yes, we are obviously responding to events and what we are being told, but the information available to us is that this is envisaged as being relatively modest. I have to say to my hon. Friend, whose experience in these matters is broad and deep, that he will know that the matter is extremely kinetic and may very well change. However, we have to be consistent; we oppose any move into Syrian territory by Turkey—that is the wrong thing to do. I would probably leave it at that, but obviously this matter is evolving and we are going to have to respond as we find the situation at the time.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (IGC)
The Turkish President has recently improved his relations with Putin, and the Russians and the Iranians who are fighting on the side of Assad will also have views and interests in respect of what is happening. Is not the danger of what President Trump has done that it reduces the influence of other forces in the region and means that the autocrats and demagogues are dominant in this conflict?
Dr Murrison
We want to make sure that autocrats and demagogues are not dominant in this conflict. The hon. Gentleman talks as though action has been taken, but my understanding is that that is not the case yet, so we are talking about what might happen. What we have done is say that we do not believe that what has been discussed is the right way forward. We believe we have to ensure that Turkey does not go ahead with this, as it would be unhelpful. If it does not go ahead with it, presumably the US will not carry out the action that has been talked about and which the President has been tweeting about.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
The only way to stand firm against this recent scourge that is Daesh, ISIS, call it what you will is by doing just that—standing firm. As a former soldier, I must say that to withdraw now seems like an act of betrayal to the Kurds, who are brave allies and who I do not want to see on our TV screens fighting for their lives in the days to come. Will the Minister assure me that if there are any British soldiers on the ground, they will not get caught up in the fighting—if there is some—between the Kurds and the Turks?
Dr Murrison
I think I can give that reassurance. As I said in response to an earlier question, we do not have boots on the ground. Let me be clear: that means we do not have combat soldiers on the ground. I am grateful for the opportunity that my hon. Friend has given me to clarify that point. We have others, as part of the coalition, who engage, for example, in training, and across the middle east we have UK servicemen engaged in the fight against Daesh. That will continue. Our No.1 imperative is the defeat of Daesh, and we have to celebrate the fact that the coalition has been very successful against Daesh in achieving a substantial degradation in that malign organisation. That will continue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
For the benefit of those observing our proceedings, let me explain that I now call the president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, otherwise known as President Moon.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, which has been very clear. He said that the issue has now moved into diplomatic discussions; this weekend, and over the next few days, it will also be moving into parliamentary discussions, as the NATO Parliament will be meeting here in London. I assure the House that parliamentarians from across NATO—the alliance is not involved in Syria but allies within it are—will be discussing this issue and talking to the Turkish representatives and the American representatives who will be at the conference. Across Parliaments throughout the alliance, discussions such as this one are taking place, and they are so important to the sending of clear, concise messages to the Governments who will be making decisions that will impact on all our countries and on the Turkish and Kurdish communities within them.
Dr Murrison
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. She serves with great distinction as chairman of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. No doubt conversations will be had over the next few days and will particularly note Turkey’s status in NATO.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I, too, have had the privilege of seeing the work of the peshmerga combating Daesh on the frontline—for me, it was in northern Iraq—and also the work of the Kurds supporting internally displaced persons in the region. Will the Minister assure me that, in addition to speaking to officials at the top of the US Administration, our interlocutors will engage with officials in Ankara to say that any Turkish incursion into northern Syria is unacceptable?
Dr Murrison
Yes, of course. My hon. Friend will be aware, because he knows how these things work, that those conversations happen all the time. There can be no room for confusion in the minds of our Turkish interlocutors as to where we stand on this matter. We clearly have something of a privileged position with our good friends the Turks, given their status as a firm ally of this country and as a member of NATO.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of the 50,000 Kurds who live in this country live in my constituency, and they are in a state of absolute anguish about what is about to happen to their families in Rojava. Will the Minister of State agree to meet Kurdish representatives from my constituency in the next 24 hours, so that he can hear what they are going through?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Lady needs to help us to reassure Kurds in this country about the extent of what, as we understand it, is being proposed. This has been threatened before, so I suspect that Kurds will live their lives in a state of constant anxiety, given the very difficult part of the world in which they and their loved ones live. So far as I know, nothing has happened yet, so I do not think we should do anything that would heighten their anxieties. The information we have is that if it happens, Turkey’s incursion into Syria is going to be modest in scope and that the US response to that is going to be similarly modest. Obviously, we have to watch and await events, but I do not think we should do anything that is going to cause Kurds resident in the UK too much anxiety. That would be the wrong thing to do, and I hope the hon. Lady will assist us in making sure that people are given an accurate view of what is going on.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
How many British-born Daesh supporters does the Minister believe remain in Syria?
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
There are thousands of Kurds in Plymouth who are equally as concerned as those we have heard about from other Members. They are also concerned about the UK’s role. As well as making it clear that a Turkish invasion is unacceptable, will the Minister specifically look into the military hardware that Turkey will be using, to ensure that no British-built weapons are potentially used in any invasion?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this particular matter is the subject of a great deal of work in the Departments of State that have responsibility for this policy area. A great deal of heart searching—if I can put it like that—is going on right now to make sure that what we have done in the past is correct and that what we do is correct going forward. He will also be aware that the basis for what we do in this space is governed very strictly by the EU consolidated criteria. That has to be the fundamental way in which we deal with these matters. Notwithstanding the recent past in this respect—the hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade has established a committee of inquiry—we are confident that, fundamentally, our processes are correct and that they comply with the eight or so articles of the EU consolidated criteria.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The clear impression is that our closest ally, the United States, is abandoning an ally, the Kurdish forces, to be attacked by another ally, the Turkish forces. Not only is this a strategic and humanitarian error, but it will send a signal around the world that if people trust the United States or the UK, they might be abandoned. Will the Minister undertake to speak to his opposite number in the United States and impress upon them that this is not only a bad move now but a bad strategic move?
Dr Murrison
It really is not for me to be an apologist for the US, but my hon. Friend needs to be a little bit careful about conflating the US and the UK in the way he has. That would be unfair. Let us be clear: the focus of what we understand to be happening at the moment is the 110 km stretch of border covered by the previous US-Turkey security mechanism agreement. It is a fairly narrow strip of land. That is not to justify anything that has been said in recent times, but nevertheless I hope that puts it into some sort of perspective. It would be wrong if we gave any message about the UK—I can speak only for the UK—abandoning our partners in the coalition. That is clearly not the case—it is definitely not the case—and we stand shoulder to shoulder with them in the battle against Daesh, which is undiminished.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Minister is assiduous and sincere, but does he understand that hearts sink in all parts of the House when he uses phrases such as any incursion might only be “modest in scope”? Essentially, we will be complicit in the US President’s decision to stab our Kurdish allies in the back. It is not just a moral betrayal but a strategic error to do what the United States is proposing. Do we not need to speak out more strongly at this stage? Otherwise, it will look as if we are complicit.
Dr Murrison
No. The hon. Gentleman, whom I respect very much, needs to be careful. We are not complicit in any action that the US may or may not take. This is a matter for the US. We have made our position absolutely clear—I do not think I could have been clearer from the Dispatch Box than I have been: we are shoulder to shoulder with the SDF and our coalition partners in the battle against Daesh, which is undiminished.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
It seems to me that the British Government have two points of leverage against Turkey: first, the licensing of arms exports to Turkey, and secondly, a review of Turkey’s NATO membership. If there is a ground offensive against the Kurds in northern Syria, will the British Government explore both avenues?
Dr Murrison
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think I would put it in the terms in which he put it. That is not where we are at the moment. He invites me to speculate; he would expect me to resist speculation. Clearly, we keep matters under review, but what he has suggested is a very severe penalty, either to threaten or to carry out in respect of Turkey. Let us be clear: Turkey is a long-standing and very close ally of this country. With that comes diplomatic leverage that we can exert, and we will continue to do that with our friends and allies the Turks. We have made clear that we think that any incursion into Syria would be wrong. It would be wrong in principle, and in practice I think it would be disastrous in relation to the fight against Daesh.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Even a small incursion into the region by Turkey could have a detrimental effect on the Kurdish fighters there and for the communities there. What specific recommendations or representations can the Minister make in relation to women? Kurdish women in that area have suffered terribly through the war, including because of sexual violence.
Dr Murrison
There is some sunshine in this terrible situation, and that is the establishment of the constitutional committee and the work of the special envoy, Geir Pedersen. It is important that when that committee is set up at the end of this month in Geneva, it includes comprehensive representation. That is clearly an issue in relation to what is currently happening in the Idlib governorate and the north-west of the country. Nevertheless, I agree with the hon. Lady on the importance of the involvement of women; my experience is that when that happens, better outcomes are procured. I hope very much that the committee will include proper representation.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
It is now just under four years since this House agreed to UK airstrikes in Syria, and it is worth reminding ourselves that, first of all, we were assured that that was part of a strategy that was expected to restore civilian transitional Government to Syria in about six months. The Foreign Secretary who gave that assurance is now Prime Minister, so he is in a position to do something about it, but the success of the airstrikes against an organisation that was accepted to be a grave threat to our lives and to our security could only be achieved because of the involvement of Kurdish soldiers on the ground. Those Kurds have paid a terrible price: around 11,000 of them lost their lives and several times that number were seriously injured. They died not only to protect their territory, but so that British troops did not have to die protecting our way of life. Will the Minister accept that the very least we can do in recognition of the debt we owe to the Kurdish soldiers is to give an assurance that we will not stand back and let things happen to them if we could prevent it?
Dr Murrison
I think I can give an assurance that the Government will do everything they can to resolve the situation. The hon. Gentleman would expect me to say that, as a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I put my faith principally in diplomacy, which is what we are trying to roll out in relation to this situation. It is not pretty—it is messy, it is dirty, it is complicated, and it is sometimes very difficult to plot a sensible way forward, particularly as we are buffeted by events, but we will be quite clear that this is principally a fight against Daesh; it is a fight that we share with our Kurdish friends and allies, and we are shoulder to shoulder with them. We do not let people down, but we are also, I have to say, the victim of perhaps being rather less powerful than once we were in traditional terms, and we must be realistic about what we individually can achieve. What is undiminished is our ability, very often, to exert diplomacy for maximum effect. I like to think that we are extremely good at that, and we will deploy it, so far as we possibly can, in relation to this situation.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
On Saturday, I met representatives of the Welsh Kurdish community in Newport, who, like other hon. Members’ constituents, are obviously extremely worried and concerned about this news. I simply ask the Minister again to give reassurances directly to my constituents that we will do absolutely all that we can to influence partners and to protect the Kurdish people against any action by Turkish forces.
Dr Murrison
Yes, I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. We are doing everything we realistically can to try to bring some equanimity to this situation. That has been our position from the start, but we also have to be realistic about what we can individually achieve. We are influential, but we are one of several, and we will continue to work with our friends and partners within the coalition to try to ensure that this goes in an appropriate direction. As I have said on repeated occasions during my remarks, that does not involve an incursion by Turkey into Syria.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I refer the Minister to early-day motion 2772, which reflects the strong feelings that have been expressed in this House today and by the Kurdish community, many of whom are in Glasgow South West. May I say to the Minister that, obviously, pleas have been made to Turkey, but pleas in the past have been ignored—I am thinking particularly of the situation in Afrin last year—and ask him to reflect on that? Is it not time that the Government now immediately suggest to the Trump Administration that they must reverse this policy to protect one of the stable regions in Syria?
Dr Murrison
I think it is important to say—this is what we understand to be the case—that the US is not agreeing with Turkey by potentially withdrawing from this piece of territory, so it is not endorsing Turkey’s action at all. I hope that it will be joining the UK and the rest of the coalition to impress upon Turkey that this is not the best way forward in our principal aim for Turkey and others, which is to defeat Daesh, which poses a threat to Turkey, a big threat to Syria and a threat to the UK and the US, too. As Turkey’s reputation is on the line in this matter, I hope very much that it listens to its friends and allies and desists from this particular course of action. That is the line that we have taken, and I am hopeful that we will have some success in getting it to revise its position in this particular matter.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Along with others, I also express great concern over the decision of the President of the United States of America to remove US troops. No one should ever betray our allies—the Kurds—who helped to cleanse Syria of Isis fighters. Turkey’s response towards the Kurds in the past has been all-out war, so what discussions has the Minister had with Turkey to prevent its aggression and the threat to democracy and freedom in that area, which will mean potential casualties among women, children and the innocents?
Dr Murrison
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He tempts me to talk about wider issues relating to the Kurds, and he will know that we have in the past discussed these matters, and will continue to do so, with our Turkish interlocutors at every level in support of our Kurdish friends and allies. It is important that the rights of Kurds, of all groups, of all minorities and of all ethnicities are respected. That is contained within international humanitarian law, and all the conventions to which Turkey is a code signatory. We will use every opportunity to stand up for the rights of Kurds where we see them being abused.
HMRC Impact Analysis: Customs
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement on HMRC’s published impact analysis of introducing new customs legislation and amendments.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I am delighted to respond to the right hon. Gentleman’s question. The Government are devoting huge energies, as the House will know, to Brexit preparations. The Prime Minister has stated that the Government’s preference is to leave with a deal, but, if necessary, they will leave without a deal as it is so vital that we get Brexit done and move the country forward. The last thing that businesses need is more uncertainty and delay. A key part of those preparations is to ensure that there is a functioning customs, VAT and excise regime on exit to put the legal underpinnings in place. HMRC has laid 56 regulations to date following last year’s Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 .
To support the latest bunch of statutory instruments, which were debated by this House yesterday, the Government published a third edition of the overarching impact assessment of the movement of goods if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. This updates and builds on previous versions of the impact assessment, which were published in December 2018 and February 2018. The new version provides updates to cover the September 2019 regulations, including transitional and other arrangements for safety and security declaration requirements for the period after exit; further temporary customs and excise easements to extend the transitional arrangements after exit; further VAT data-gathering powers to specify the type of information that was collected from postal operators; and, finally, various technical amendments and transitional provisions.
As I have said, our preference is very much for a deal, but the Government continue to ensure that this country is ready for no deal and that the impact on business is minimised as far as possible, which is why we have introduced a series of easements for traders moving goods in the UK to take effect in a no-deal scenario. Those easements, for example, are planned to simplify radically import processes for EU goods, which means that the costs identified in this impact assessment will be mitigated for UK importers. Crucially, the Government are also working to boost the long-term potential of the economy so that the United Kingdom can seize the opportunities that exist for us outside the EU.
John McDonnell
Perhaps I can help the Minister fill in some of the gaps in the statement. The Government’s own assessment shows that their no-deal Brexit policy will introduce
“significant ongoing administrative costs impacting on UK and EU businesses of all sectors.”
It is an avalanche of paperwork descending on British businesses in the form of import, export, safety and security declarations. The burden will cost our business sector an annual £15 billion in administrative costs, and that does not even include the costs of complying with the new VAT procedures, which will hit our vital service companies—all this to pursue the hardest possible Tory no-deal Brexit.
We have heard the Prime Minister’s previous crude dismissal of British business. Now we are seeing his words become Government policy. Does the Minister not understand that this only compounds the uncertainty brought about by this Government’s failure to secure a deal that protects the UK economy? A senior No. 10 source, who I most believe to be the Prime Minister’s adviser—well, I say “adviser”—Dominic Cummings, said:
“We’ll either leave with no deal on 31 October or there will be an election and then we will leave with no deal”,
and that everything to do with the duty of sincere co-operation that we have with the EU partners
“will be in the toilet”.
Does the Minister agree with the priorities set out by No. 10 as a result of that statement? Does he also challenge the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which said today that this would push UK debt to its highest level since the 1960s, soaring to 90% of national income?
The reckless incompetence of this Government just knows no bounds, does it? At a moment of national crisis, this Government pose a threat to their own people and the economy they rely upon. Has the Minister any idea of the scale of the destruction of confidence in the British economy that this Government’s stated policy is bringing about?
Jesse Norman
This is a long document at some 45 pages or so, but I would have hoped that the right hon. Gentleman could have made it to page 9. He claims that the cost to British business will be £15 billion, but it says perfectly clearly at the bottom of page 9:
“The latest…estimate for the annual administrative burden…is £7.5 billion (updated to reflect 2017 data)”.
I am in no sense happy about that—[Interruption.] I am just correcting the record. The right hon. Gentleman said £15 billion, when in fact the figure is £7.5 billion. That figure is, of course, prior to any mitigations that might be put in place by the Government.
Let me turn to the right hon. Gentleman’s other concerns. He criticised the Government for, as he puts it, failing to secure a deal. All his party had to do was support the perfectly sensible series of deals that have been put before this Parliament, and it would have a deal.
I am not going to comment on unsourced speculation of the kind mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. Let me just remind the House that when this Government’s predecessor came into office in 2010, debt was at a peacetime high thanks to the previous Labour Government. The deficit was at almost 10% and, interestingly, inequality under the Labour Government was significantly higher than it is today.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
The number of customs declarations is likely to increase from 50 million now to 250 million when we have to start to export to the EU. This will be governed by a customs declaration service system. Will the system cope, and will there be enough agents to handle that volume of transactions?
Jesse Norman
We believe the system will cope. Of course, there are a lot of easements in place, and there is already a functioning CHIEF—customs handling of import and export freight—system to handle the current level of declarations.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I think the Minister is in denial. The cost is £15 billion—£7.5 billion from UK to EU trade, and a comparable amount from EU to UK trade, which will no doubt be paid by consumers and businesses here. This denial runs to the heart of this whole problem. The Prime Minister said that leaving the EU would save £1 billion a month. That clearly only adds up if we ignore and deny any costs such as the £15 billion that we are talking about today. But it is worse than that. This figure is an annual recurring cost, so how will it be mitigated?
The figures exclude additional one-off costs. How will they be mitigated and have they even been assessed? They ignore the new VAT rules on parcels that are damaging to small businesses. How will that be mitigated and has it actually been assessed? The £15 billion also excludes the serious damage done to exports of low-margin items where this cost burden may be significant. Has that been assessed? Finally, the figures ignore the multiple damages done to businesses that ship part-finished goods back and forward across borders many times, which multiplies the administrative burden. Has that been assessed? How many business will be damaged and what mitigation is being put in place?
Jesse Norman
As the House will know, a lot of mitigations have already been passed through statutory instruments, including instruments in relation to stream- lining customs import processes and procedures, special procedures for other areas, and deferment of import duty and VAT. Only yesterday, we passed a statutory instrument on safety and security declarations on our imports.
Mitigation very much depends on the shape of any deal. As the House will appreciate, the figures we are discussing today pertain to a worst-case scenario of a no-deal impact. There are many other areas in which the EU has already indicated that it is happy to give mitigations—for example, in relation to some of our haulage processes and people travelling by air into the European Union.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
In the debate around the UK-Ireland border, my hon. Friend will be aware of the confusion among commentators between customs checks and customs declarations. Of course, most customs transactions are not done at borders by a uniformed officer sitting in a customs office, but are essentially financial transactions akin to tax or VAT that are done at the point of production, shipment, transit or arrival. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a role for HMRC in educating commentators about how modern customs practices work?
Jesse Norman
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the work that he and the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport have done on alternative arrangements. He raises a very important issue. As he says, Customs operates a risk-based assessment system of checks that is quite different from declarations. As for educating commentators, I absolutely agree with him and wish those commentators also included some Members of this House.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Given that HMRC has now shown that Brexit means red tape, and that this would harm trade, destroy jobs and cut growth, what estimate has the Treasury made of the impact of lower growth on Britain’s public finances? Does the Minister accept that the Office for Budget Responsibility has said—and now the IFS analysis has shown—that borrowing will rocket under a no deal? Is it not now clear that under the blues, we will be going into the red?
Jesse Norman
I cannot match the right hon. Gentleman on verbal wit. What I can say is that the Government have published estimates of the impact of a no-deal Brexit in different forms, and we continue to believe that it is vastly in the interests of this country, this House and all our constituents to leave with a deal. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will support that.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is critical for the UK to have an attractive regulatory regime as part of delivering the overall international competitiveness of the economy, and that he will do all he can to minimise the administrative burdens on business?
Jesse Norman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think that in due course it will come to be seen that Brexit was a moment of change in which we moved ourselves to a global position in which we were able to change many of the rules and regulations governing our international and domestic trade for the better—to make them more streamlined, to lighten the burden and to increase our economic efficiency and productivity.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Given that these are HMRC’s own assessments—the Government’s own assessments—of a multi-billion pound cost, the Minister could have given HMRC any credible assessment of mitigation if he had any. Can he instead confirm that these costs do not even include tariffs, and that they are in fact the costs not simply of no deal but of refusing to have a customs union at all? Given that a proposal for a deal including a customs union only lost by three votes back in April and that such a deal would, according to his own figures, have saved British businesses billions, why have the Government continually refused even to explore a deal that includes a customs union?
Jesse Norman
I could wish that the right hon. Lady, who is widely respected across the House, had used her influence to bring Labour Members into the Lobby to support the deal that was offered—[Interruption]—and, still more, the deal that we are currently exploring, when that is placed before the Chamber. [Interruption.] The impact analysis is a careful piece of work that reflects dozens of statutory instruments that have been placed before the House. It is a composite of all the impact assessments in place, and should be seen as such. Before Members become too enervated, they should reflect that although the number has gone up somewhat, the unit cost of a declaration has not gone up. The increased number reflects the increase in trade in the last couple of years, and in the period to 2017, which is interesting, because it does not look as though trade has been headed off by the threat of Brexit.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s extensive work to get businesses and us ready to leave at the end of October, and particularly the facilitations and easements, which can substantially reduce the amount of money lost in these sorts of transactions; that has to be the way forward. The cost is much lower than those in the Treasury’s forecasts thus far.
Jesse Norman
My hon. Friend is right to point out that although there is a cost, we do some £275 billion-worth of trade with the EU; we should see this in that context. As I say, the figures are before we take into account any behavioural change, either by UK exporters and hauliers or importers, or by the EU, and should be seen in the wider context of the liberalisation that we expect to occur after Brexit.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland has already spoken directly to the Prime Minister, and has made it abundantly clear to him that his police officers will not carry out customs functions at or near the border after the UK leaves the EU. That being the case, the Minister has a duty to explain to HMRC officials what plans the Government have to keep those officials safe when they are carrying out their functions at or near the border after the UK leaves the EU.
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question. That is a very serious issue. I have discussed it with senior officials at HMRC, and I can tell her that they are taking the issue extremely seriously.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Is not the problem with reports of this sort the assumptions on which they are made—not least the assumption that though circumstances change dramatically, behaviour will not change at all?
Jesse Norman
My right hon. Friend, having of course taught economics in his previous life, is acutely aware of the dynamic effects of change when people are confronted with different circumstances. As he correctly points out, this is a static assessment; it does not reflect the dynamics once a change is made.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
In effect, the Minister is telling the House that a £7.5 billion tax on trade is being introduced by the Government. How many jobs will be lost as a result of the reduction in trade? Given that we control the administration of imports, why are the Government allowing this £3.8 billion figure?
Jesse Norman
I think the hon. Lady misunderstands. Only in the event of a no-deal Brexit would we incur any of the additional declaration costs described here. This is not a tax; these are the administrative costs associated with a change in the country’s trading position.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there will be extremely serious impacts on exports? We have been trying to promote exports for many years, given that we have such a large trade deficit, but the fact that 60% of our exports to the EU will now incur tariffs will be a real problem for our exporters—particularly of ceramics in my area, but also for exporters in many other areas. What does he say to that?
Jesse Norman
My hon. Friend is right to raise that concern on behalf of his constituents. Of course, we run a very substantial services surplus with the rest of the world, and that will be unaffected by these customs declarations. What he says of his concerns is true; that is why I hope very much that the House will come together to support the Government in procuring a deal before we leave the EU.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Speaker. The Tories’ claim to be the party of business and law and order has been blown apart by its Brexit policies. What is the point of the Conservative party today?
Jesse Norman
I do not need to tell the hon. Gentleman that conservatism, as a body of thought, has many virtues, and business has traditionally benefited from the Conservative party’s commitment to low taxation and a supportive business economy. If he casts an eye over the spending round, he will see an enormous array of investments designed to complement growth in business with growth in public services. It is that balance that makes for good government.
Mr Speaker
If the appetite of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) remains unsatisfied by that ministerial reply, my counsel is that he should read the biography of Edmund Burke that the Minister penned, which is, at any rate, a stimulating read.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
How many businesses would be affected if we left the EU without a deal—a deal that some Opposition Members seem to be opposing?
Jesse Norman
As my hon. Friend will know, there are over 150,000 VAT-registered businesses that trade with the EU, and another 100,000, we believe, that are not VAT-registered. If they wish to continue to trade with the EU—that trade may be just part of their business—they will experience some effect. It would be impossible for me to improve on the Speaker’s last comment, but if I might direct my hon. Friend to my book on Adam Smith, he will see that economies are dynamic, as has been recognised since the 18th century. We would expect the dynamic effects of the change in our status to offset many of the concerns raised in the impact assessment.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (LD)
Anyone outside this place watching the response to this urgent question will be appalled by what they have heard so far, because the party that is supposed to be against red tape is piling it on for so many businesses. I can give the Minister the figures needed to respond to the question from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson): 245,000 businesses will be affected, according to the impact assessment laid out yesterday. It will cost each company £28 at a minimum, and take an employee on average 1 hour and 45 minutes, to fill out each form for each load. How on earth will that ensure growth and jobs in our country?
Jesse Norman
The hon. Lady has managed to pull off the trick of saying almost exactly what I said, but in slightly fewer words. As I pointed out, 150,000 businesses registered for VAT, and a further 100,000 that are not registered for VAT, may be affected. That makes 250,000, which is not a million miles away from the 245,000 that she described. If she looks at the impact assessment, she will see that the declaration cost will vary from between £15 for an export declaration for fast parcel operators, to £56 for traders operating below the VAT threshold and outsourcing their declarations, so there is a range of impacts. This was scouted, as she will know, in previous discussions with HMRC officials and in past impact assessments.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
What has become of the Tory party? If the Minister really believes that a £15 billion additional burden on business is acceptable, can he tell us how large a burden would be unacceptable?
Jesse Norman
I would have expected the right hon. Gentleman, as a man of great assiduity who is widely respected across the House, to differentiate between the £7.5 billion that we are talking about and the overall impact on the EU as well as the UK of £15 billion, which is one of the things that will bring both sides together into what we hope would be, in these extreme circumstances, a deal. Of course, no impact on business is something that we want. That is why we are pressing the House for a deal, and I hope he will support us in doing that.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I think we are all confused about the nature of conservatism this afternoon. When the Minister and I joined the House in 2010, Prime Minister David Cameron was embarking on a red tape challenge. I did not understand that the ambition was to increase red tape in the manner that we see today. When did the Minister last speak to the car industry? We know that every 60-second delay takes away from that industry £50,000 of gross value added—every 60 seconds. If, as it seems, there is no deal to be had and we are heading towards that catastrophe, has he asked the car industry how many jobs we are going to lose?
Jesse Norman
The way to respond to that is to remind the hon. Lady that when I was at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, I had extensive engagement with different industrial sectors, including the car industry. The same was true when I was at the Department for Transport. There is no doubt, as she will know, that the importers and exporters that are repeatedly crossing the borders will be affected by this. Of course, there are mitigations in place, and I hope she will help us to avoid those by supporting the deal.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (IGC)
To put this £15 billion figure in context, it is the equivalent of a 7% increase in corporation tax for those businesses and firms—or, to put it another way, the exact plan of the Labour leadership, were they to get into power and increase corporation tax. If the Minister shifts to the ideological fringes, he should not be surprised if he sacrifices any claim to be in the party of business.
Jesse Norman
I think most people would be surprised to hear me considered a member of the ideological fringes of any side of the political debate. We do not wish this country to have to incur this £7.5 billion cost, and we do not think it would be a good idea for the country to have a Labour Government who imposed twice that amount in corporation tax.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Minister keeps claiming that his preference is for a deal, but is it not clear from the fictional briefing given by Dominic Cummings of the conversation between Chancellor Merkel and the Prime Minister today that the Prime Minister and Mr Cummings have absolutely no interest in a deal whatsoever? The tariffs proposed by the Government have been described by the normally mild-mannered and loyal hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) as extremely disappointing. He says that no tariffs on imports but tariffs on exports will ruin the United Kingdom’s farming industry. In the past hour, the head of the National Farmers Union has called it a “betrayal of British farmers”. How does he respond?
Jesse Norman
I am not going to comment on the detail of tariffs, which were discussed in detail during an urgent question yesterday. I do not think there is any proper suggestion that the Government are in any sense comfortable about incurring these costs or any other costs. We would like to leave the EU with a deal, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I have been working with colleagues around the clock for the past three months and longer to deliver it.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
With regard to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) just said, it is absolutely right that the Government—particularly the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who was the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—listen to what the NFU is saying about no deal. With that in mind, is it not about time the Government updated their own website, which does not seem to have been changed since earlier this year, so that farmers at least know what will happen in the event of no deal?
Jesse Norman
In general, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the gov.uk website is updated daily, but I take the point. As a man with many farmers in his constituency, I will ensure that the website is checked to see that the data is up to date.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I also recommend the Minister’s book on Burke as great bedtime reading; it is very good. Does he ever discuss the nature of modern conservatism with Dominic Cummings? Is it right that a Minister could have been on the radio at primetime this morning with Paul Johnson from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, but Cummings refused to let a Minister appear?
Jesse Norman
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s kind words about my book, but I cannot comment on remarks that may or may not have been made or rebutted on a media programme of which I know nothing.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Ford finally came up with its frustration in relation to a lack of customs union and single market and decided to close the engine factory in Bridgend, with 1,700 jobs lost directly at the plant and 12,000 across the south Wales economy. When I look at today’s report, I look with horror at what will happen to the small and medium-sized enterprises across my constituency. What assessment has the Treasury made of the impact of today’s report on SMEs in individual constituencies? Ordinary lives will be devastated, even more so in my constituency than they already have been.
Jesse Norman
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that any job losses are deeply regrettable, and I am sure she will be delighted that, in aggregate, this country has proven to be astonishingly adept at creating good new jobs over the past 10 years. With this impact assessment, I think I am right in saying that the detail is not available that allows for a constituency-by-constituency or even regional assessment, which is why it has been done in aggregate, based on the number of declarations that are expected and the cost per declaration. Of course, it may be possible for other entities to take the number of businesses that were expected to fill out declarations and produce impact assessments for the specific areas that they are concerned about.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is quite clear from the Minister’s answers that the Government are willing to place enormous additional burdens on business. Given everything that he has written and said in the past, how can he possibly justify that approach?
Jesse Norman
I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that the burdens that he claims will be placed by this can not only be mitigated by voting for a deal but will be as nothing compared with the burdens that will be imposed on the UK economy by a Labour Government dedicated to nationalising, without full compensation, a swathe of industries and expropriating a large number of people by transferring property into the hands of employees. I think those things will impose much greater costs on the economy than anything that has been contemplated today.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Minister is on a sticky wicket, and deep down, he knows it. After the Prime Minister’s announcement today, it will get even stickier. I am still not clear whether he expects businesses to absorb the £7.5 billion of costs or pass it on to consumers.
Jesse Norman
In the event that we had no deal and this £7.5 billion of estimated costs were incurred, that it was not mitigated and that there were no behavioural reactions by businesses, there would be some costs—we do not know what they would be—and it would be up to businesses to decide how those costs should be allocated between consumers, employees and other stakeholders.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
People watching this will be amazed. The Minister appears not to be aware of what is being said out there. He is still speaking as though there is a deal to be done, when the Prime Minister and his advisers are making it absolutely clear that the deal is dead. The impacts that we are discussing will fall on businesses, and they are looking at a Government who appear utterly clueless about what to do. All we are getting now is a blame game. Will the Minister come to the Dispatch Box and say something that might help manufacturing businesses in my constituency?
Jesse Norman
I would be delighted to do that. With the good grace of the people of Great Britain, they will have a Conservative Government for many good years to come, supporting their interests, their welfare and the growth and productivity of the British economy. No finer outcome could be hoped for by British business.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (IGC)
Does the Minister have no shame at all in being a member of a Government who are meant to be on the side of business, having done a job in which, when I used to do it, we were so proud that for every one new piece of regulation we got rid of two? We see now a Government embarking quite clearly on no deal—this sham of trying to get a deal is exactly that—and imposing on our already struggling businesses an additional £15 billion. Has he no shame to be associated with this appalling Government?
Jesse Norman
I am unable to match the right hon. Lady’s capacity for bombastic intervention, but let me just tell her that if she looks at the statutory instruments that have been placed in front of this House, she will see that their purpose is not to regulate, but to create mitigations to protect people in the event of a no-deal Brexit. If we have a no-deal Brexit, these will be useful mitigations and supports for businesses and people. If she doubts that, she can avoid the issue altogether by supporting the Government on the deal that I have no doubt is being promoted vigorously.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
The extra administrative costs for filling in customs forms alone for businesses will be £15 billion per year. This contrasts markedly with the Prime Minister’s claim that if we left the EU with no deal, we would save £1 billion per month. Does the Minister agree with me that there is a growing chasm between the rhetoric of a Prime Minister and the reality of a no-deal Brexit?
Jesse Norman
No, I do not accept that at all. I think that it is perfectly clear that the Government remain very fixed on securing a deal. That is what these negotiations and discussions are about. At the same time, it is important to prepare for the possibility of no deal—no responsible negotiator would fail to have a walk-away position—and this quantifies those. As I have indicated, there are mitigations and dynamic effects that may well reduce their actual effect. In that context, this is wise planning and provisioning—plans that I hope we will never have to invoke.
Preparations for Leaving the EU
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Michael Gove)
Mr Speaker, with your permission I would like to make a statement on our preparations to leave the European Union on 31 October and the steps we are taking to get ready.
It is the strong desire of this Government to leave the EU with a deal, and our proposals to replace the backstop were published last week. I commend the Prime Minister and the Exit Secretary for their continued efforts to ensure that we can leave the EU with a withdrawal agreement in place. We have put forward a fair and reasonable compromise for all sides that respects the historic referendum result, and we hope that the EU will engage with us seriously. In setting out these proposals, we have moved. It is now time for the EU to move, too. If it does, there is still every chance that we can leave with a new deal. However, if the EU does not move, this Government are prepared to leave without a deal on the 31st. We must get Brexit done, so that the country can move on and focus on improving the NHS, cutting crime, helping families with the cost of living and further improving school standards.
In preparing for every eventuality, we are today publishing our “No-Deal Readiness Report”. This document is a comprehensive summary of the UK’s preparedness for leaving the EU without a deal. It sets out the preparations that the Government have made and how these have been intensified under the determined leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and it also outlines the steps that third-party organisations need to take to get ready.
The actions in this report reflect our top priority: ensuring that we maintain the smooth and efficient flow of goods and people from the UK into the EU, and vice versa. The actions are also aimed at ensuring that we continue to support citizens, upholding their rights and helping them to prepare for the changes ahead. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, to prepare for Brexit, has doubled funding from £4 billion to £8 billion. We have published a significant volume of material relating to no-deal planning, including 750 pieces of guidance setting out the steps that businesses, traders and citizens should take to prepare. We have also published 31 country guides for all EU and European Free Trade Association states, setting out what UK nationals living there need to do to get ready for Brexit.
This morning, my right hon. Friend the Trade Secretary has published the temporary tariff regime, which will apply from 1 November. In all, it liberalises tariffs on 88% of goods entering the UK by value. It maintains a mixture of tariffs and quotas on 12% of goods, such as beef, lamb, pork, poultry and some dairy products, to support farms and producers that have historically been protected through high EU tariffs in the past. I should say that, as a result of cutting these tariffs, we should see a 15% reduction in the cost of honey from New Zealand, a 9% cut in the cost of grapes from South America and of course a 7% reduction in the cost of wine from Argentina.[Official Report, 16 October 2019, Vol. 666, c. 3MC.]
Businesses raised a number of points in response to the publication of the tariff schedule in March. The Government listened carefully to these representations and have made three specific changes as a result: we are reducing tariffs on heavy goods vehicles entering the UK; we are adjusting tariffs on bioethanol to retain support for UK producers; and we are also applying tariffs to additional clothing products to ensure that developing countries continue to have preferential access.
But it is not enough just for Government to get ready; we need businesses and citizens to get ready too. Even with every Government project complete and necessary IT systems in place, flow at the border would still be affected if hauliers do not have the right paper- work. If companies do not prepare, they will face challenges in trading their goods and services with the EU. While the Government can of course lobby EU member states to improve their offer to UK nationals who are living in their countries, we need individuals to act as well—to register for residency and to make arrangements for continued access to healthcare. For that reason, the Government have invested £100 million in one of the largest public information campaigns in peacetime. [Interruption.] I am glad hon. Members have noticed.
Through both mass market and targeted advertising, we are alerting business and citizens to the actions they need to take to get ready. We are also providing a further £108 million to support businesses in accessing the information and advice they need. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is overseeing a series of events with businesses around the country, designed to provide information on all the steps they need to take to get ready, including actions that will support the flow of trade through the short strait. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has also today established a trader readiness support unit for suppliers of medical products. This week, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is writing to 180,000 businesses, setting out the full range of steps that they need to take in order to import and export with the EU after we leave.
Of course, in advance of 31 October, we will continue to use every means at our disposal to communicate to business the need to get ready. I want to pay particular tribute to the automotive, retail and transport sectors, including authorities at the port of Dover and at Calais, as well as Eurotunnel, for the extent of their Brexit preparations. On a recent visit to the west midlands, the heartland of our automotive industry, I was impressed by the steps that manufacturers are taking to prepare. Retail businesses have also made significant strides: Morrisons, for example, now reports it is “prepared for all eventualities” in the UK, while the Co-op says it is
“prepared for the worst case”.
Of course, risks remain and challenges for some businesses cannot be entirely mitigated, even with every possible preparation in place, but the UK economy is in a much better position to meet those risks and challenges, thanks to the efforts of these sectors and companies, and to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
It is also the case that the impact of no deal on both the UK and the EU will depend on decisions taken by the EU and its member states. On citizens’ rights, internal security, data protection and of course the vital position of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom, we have taken decisions that will benefit UK nationals as well as EU citizens. I hope the EU will match the generosity and flexibility that we have shown.
Through the EU settlement scheme, we have ensured that every EU citizen resident here by 31 October can acquire a formal UK immigration status, protecting their right to live and work in the UK. To date, 1.7 million citizens have applied and 1.5 million have been granted a status. Those who have not yet applied have until the end of December 2020 to do so. So far, very few EU member states have made as generous an offer to UK nationals as the UK has made to EU citizens. We do not believe that citizens’ rights should be used as a bargaining chip in any scenario. EU citizens in the UK are our friends and family, and we want them to stay. We now hope that the EU extends the same hand of friendship towards UK nationals as we have to EU nationals.
At the same time, keeping our fellow citizens safe should be a priority. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has written to Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans to ensure effective arrangements are in place on the exchange of passenger name record data, disconnection from Schengen information system II and working arrangements with Europol, as well as the transfer of law enforcement data. We hope the EU will respond positively, in the interests of the shared security of us all. We have also unilaterally ensured that personal data can continue to flow freely and legally from the UK to the EU and the European economic area. A swift adequacy decision from the EU would reciprocate this arrangement, providing legal certainty to EU entities and companies.
With respect to Northern Ireland, to avoid a hard border we have committed not to introduce any checks at the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. The limited number of checks that do need to take place, due to international obligations, will all be carried out well away from the border and will only affect a very small number of businesses. The Irish Government and the EU have not yet set out how they will manage the Irish border if we leave without a deal. We urge them now to match our commitment.
Let me, finally, turn to the opportunities from Brexit as laid out in this report. For the first time in 50 years, the UK will have an independent trade policy and we will be able to take our own seat at the World Trade Organisation. We will be able to introduce a points-based immigration system that prioritises the skills that we need as a country. We will have autonomy over the rules governing our world-leading services sector, and we will continue our leading role in setting global standards for financial services. We can be a beacon for the world in setting progressive policies on farming, fishing and the wider environment. Outside the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, we will set our own rules, putting in place smarter, more responsive regulation.
Of course, no deal will bring challenges. I have been open about that today, as I have been in the past. It is not my preferred outcome, nor the Government’s. We want a good deal. Whatever challenges no deal may create in the short term—and they are significant—they can and will be overcome. Far worse than the disruption of no deal would be the damage to democracy caused by dishonouring the referendum result—17.4 million people voted to leave, many turning up to vote for the first time in their lives. They voted to ensure that the laws by which we are governed are set by the politicians in this place whom they elect. They voted for a fairer migration system that attracts the brightest and the best. They voted to end vast financial contributions to the EU budget, and instead invest in the people’s priorities such as the NHS and our brave police service. That is what the British people voted for, and that is what this Government will deliver. I commend this statement to the House.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
The Prime Minister should be here. Talks with the EU are collapsing as we speak. The proposals that the Government introduced last week were never going to work, and instead of reacting to challenge by adapting them they are intent on collapsing the talks and engaging in a reckless blame game. It will be working people who pay the price. The Prime Minister should be here to account for his actions.
It is no good pretending that the proposals would work. That is simply not going to wash. You cannot take the UK and Northern Ireland out of the customs union and avoid customs checks. You cannot have customs checks without infrastructure in Northern Ireland. The Government know that, which is why they refuse to answer the very simple question—where will the checks take place? You cannot give a serious response to the EU’s concerns about protecting the integrity of the single market simply by saying, “We’ll put that question off until later.” You cannot be serious about upholding the Good Friday agreement while proposing what amounts to a veto for one party in Northern Ireland over the all-Ireland regulatory zone. Consent of all communities in Northern Ireland is at the heart of the Good Friday agreement, and the Government have ridden roughshod over that principle.
That is why the proposals were never going to work, but instead of responding to legitimate questions from the EU27 or in this House by actually answering them, the Government appear to be pulling the plug, descending into a reckless blame game, instead of putting the country first. Sources close to No. 10 say that a “deal is overwhelmingly unlikely”. Sources close to No. 10 say that it is “essentially impossible”. Sources close to No. 10 have begun blaming people—it is Parliament’s fault, it is the Opposition’s fault, it is the Benn Act, it is Germany, it is Ireland—absolutely defining the character of the Prime Minister, a man who never takes responsibility for his own actions.
The stark reality is that the Government introduced proposals that were designed to fail, and they still will not take responsibility for their own actions. Last night, there were even reports that the Government were threatening to withdraw security co-operation with the EU. That is an astonishing statement. If true, it is beneath contempt. Will the Minister take this opportunity to denounce those comments and confirm that that is not the Government’s position? Will he echo comments this morning by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who said that
“withdrawing security co-operation with Ireland is unacceptable”
and was
“not in the interests of Northern Ireland or the union”?
I know from last week’s statement that instead of answering serious questions the Minister prefers to revert to pre-prepared attacks and gags, but today is not the day for those tricks. Can he be straight with the House? Is it the Government's official position to end negotiations with the EU, and to seek to leave on 31October without a deal? If not, will the Government either propose a different basis for negotiations with the EU, or make it clear that they will seek an immediate extension, as required under the Benn Act, on 19 October? The House and the country deserve a straight answer.
I appreciate that the Minister speaks as if he is giving a statement or a reassuring bedtime story about preparations for no deal, but I remind the House that he used the same tone last week at the Dispatch box when he said:
“The automotive sector…confirmed that it was ready. The retail sector has confirmed that it is ready”.—[Official Report, 25 September 2019; Vol. 664, c. 722.]
As he knows, while we were in the Chamber debating that, it drew a furious response. Within hours, the British Retail Consortium issued a rebuttal, stating:
“It is impossible to completely mitigate the significant disruption which would be caused by no deal.”
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders did likewise within hours in response to what the Minister said:
“A no deal Brexit would have an immediate and devastating impact on the industry, undermining competitiveness and causing irreversible and severe damage.”
That was only hours after the Minister said that those sectors were ready. What the Minister tells the House in his reassuring tones and what businesses say are two different things, and he knows it. This is no longer a time for games.
The reality is that no deal would be a disaster for the economy and for businesses. That is underlined by today’s figures from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which estimates additional costs of £15 billion a year for businesses to comply with customs arrangements. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said today that no deal would result in borrowing rising to £100 billion, debt rising to 90% of national income, and growth flatlining. That is why it was essential that the House passed the Benn Act, which was intended as an insurance policy. We did so because we feared that the Government were more focused on delivering no deal than on doing the hard work needed to find a deal. It is clearer now than ever that the Act will be needed.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the shadow Brexit Secretary for his questions. First, he asked where the Prime Minister was. The Prime Minister is talking to our EU partners, attempting to secure a good deal, and he is doing so with the full-hearted support of everyone on the Government Benches. The question that many people will be asking outside the House is why, if the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) says that he is anxious for a deal, he declined to support one on the three opportunities he had to do so. If he wants to be taken seriously as an advocate of compromise and a deal why, in cross-party talks in which we both took part, did he attempt to erect an obstacle at every turn to consensus across the House? That is the conclusion that people will draw.
There is another conclusion that people will draw. The no-deal report was made public three hours before the right hon. and learned Gentleman began asking questions. Having had time to absorb 156 pages, he did not have a single question about no-deal preparation; not a single point to make about how any sector could be better prepared; not a single suggestion, query or contribution about how we can ensure that British business is in a robust position. There was just a series of questions that we have come to expect from him about politics, rather than policy; about positioning, rather than practicalities.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about customs checks in Northern Ireland. He knows—it has been made clear—that those customs checks can take place away from the border, at the manufacturer or other distribution sites. He also asked whether our proposals were serious about maintaining the integrity of the single market. They allow the EU to maintain the integrity of the single market, but is he serious about maintaining the integrity of the United Kingdom, because he and his party are more than willing to see a customs border erected in the Irish sea? We would be the only sovereign nation in the world with such a customs border, but he is more than prepared to dance to the EU’s tune, rather than standing up for the UK.
That is the spirit in which the Benn Act was passed. That Act signals to the EU that there are people in Parliament who do not want to conclude a deal, who do not want to leave by 31 October and who want to delay. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is one of them. He has had every opportunity to engage meaningfully with Government, not just on the deal but on no-deal preparations.
When I last spoke to the House, on 25 September—the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to my statement then—I invited any MP in this House to come to the Cabinet Office and the Department for Exiting the European Union to discuss a deal and our no-deal preparations. Only one Opposition MP, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), accepted that invitation. Oh sorry—and the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). Two Opposition MPs. That is the measure of the seriousness with which the Labour party, the SNP and all the Opposition parties take our Brexit negotiations: an open offer, an invitation, to come and talk rejected hands down.
Is there any surprise? The right hon. and learned Gentleman in 2017 said of the referendum:
“We’ve had a decision and we respect that decision.”
He also said that the Labour party cannot spend all its time trying to “rub out yesterday” and not accept a result it is honour-bound to respect. As I mentioned earlier, after voting against the deal three times, he rejected the opportunity to come to a consensus between the Front Benches to get a deal through.
We in this Government have compromised. We in this Government are showing flexibility. We in this Government seek to leave without a deal, but faced with the delaying, disruptive and denying tactics of the Opposition we say, on behalf of the 17.4 million: enough, enough, enough—we need to leave.[Official Report, 16 October 2019, Vol. 666, c. 3MC.]
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
When Mrs Merkel says that either the UK or Northern Ireland have to stay in the customs union, is she speaking for the EU following consultation with the other 25, or is she just making it up and assuming they will go along with her totally unrealistic and inflexible view?
Michael Gove
I do not know what the contents of the telephone call between the Prime Minister and the Bundeskanzlerin were earlier today, but we remain committed to working with the German Government and other EU Governments to find a deal. I am sure we can find a way through.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
It saddens me that in the middle of this political crisis what we have is a pathetic masquerade from this Government pretending that they are competently arranging our departure from the European Union, when in fact everyone knows that there is no agreement as to how that departure will take place and that without an agreement it is simply not possible to plan in a proper way how it would take place. The responsibility for that is entirely of the Government’s own making: a mixture of their bellicose intransigence in their negotiations with our European partners and their arrogant contempt in trying to establish a political majority in this Chamber, and using the Brexit vote for their own narrow political ends.
Now the Government are in a situation where the only thing they can possibly do is contemplate crashing out of the EU without a deal. I have to remind the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that that approach would be illegal, because we have passed a law to say that we will not leave the European Union with no deal. I therefore want to ask him: why is he preparing this document, which is called the “No-Deal Readiness Report”? Perhaps it should be called “Preparedness for Breaking the Law” since that is essentially the course on which he is now engaged. Why is he preparing this, rather than trying to come back to this House properly with proposals we can debate on the negotiations they are having with the European Union? To my eyes, and to those of many colleagues, it looks as if the Government are not in the least bit serious about getting a deal at all, but are in fact engaging in gesture politics, deliberately setting conditions they know cannot be met in order to come back here and try to blame everybody but themselves for the consequences.
I have two specific questions relating to the statement. The Opposition spokesman referred to the IFS report, a damning report that came out this morning. It tears away all credibility for there being an economic case for Brexit. The IFS is saying that the difference between asking for an extension and considering this issue further, or crashing out with a no deal in three weeks’ time, is 4% of GDP over the next three years. I invite the Minister to tell us whether this now means that, as we complete the first decade of Tory austerity, he and his Government are preparing for a second decade, because that is surely the consequence of the course they are on.
Finally, may I ask about the status of EU nationals? The Minister makes much of this, saying that everything is rosy in the garden. The truth is that most of the 1.5 million people he refers to as having some status have got what is called pre-settled status. It is not at all sure that they are going to get settled status. If he genuinely believes, and if it is the Government’s policy, that European nationals living in this country should not suffer any disbenefit to their rights as a result of Brexit, will he commit now to let each and every one of them have a permanent right to remain in this country?
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. On the first question about the IFS report, we respectfully disagree with some, not all, of its conclusions. An extension would only generate further uncertainty. Not only would that extension involve us continuing to pay money into the European Union, but the uncertainty would mean that the investment decisions that business wants to make would still be put on pause. Business leaders, including many of those who backed remain such as the founder of Carphone Warehouse, now argue that we need to leave, deal or no deal, in order to have the certainty on which to plan for the future. That is what business wants overwhelmingly: to leave with a deal, but at least to ensure that we have certainty.
The hon. Gentleman asked about EU nationals, and he makes a very fair point. The majority of those who have been granted status have been granted settled status. Pre-settled status is for those people who have not been in the country, or cannot demonstrate that they have been in the country, for five years. Once they have been here for five years, however, they move automatically and smoothly to settled status. The number of people who have applied for status is increasing every day. It is also the case that our offer is significantly more generous than that for all save a tiny number of EU member states.
Those were the serious questions that the hon. Gentleman asked. I know that he used to be the proprietor of a comedy club in Scotland. I felt he was trying his hand at some Dadaist and surrealist comedy when he accused my party of trying to establish a majority for political purposes in the House of Commons. That is Scottish National party policy: trying to establish a bogus, broken-backed majority with Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister for blatantly political purposes. As for using Brexit for our own ends, it is the Scottish National party that has been attempting to weaponise this argument to push its separatist and sectarian agenda. As for gesture politics, that is the hallmark and stock-in-trade of the SNP. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman was guilty of a psychological phenomenon known as projection, which is accusing your opponents of the sins of which you yourself are guilty.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I am sure that the 3 million EU citizens who live in our country will very much welcome that their rights to health, education and welfare are being fully protected in the event of no deal. Does he have any hope of being able to secure similar rights for British nationals who are living, working and studying in EU countries, particularly those who may need to secure healthcare benefits?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes a very, very good point. The picture across member states varies. Some member states, Spain in particular, have done an enormous amount. Of course, Spain is the country that has the highest number of UK nationals living abroad. I also have to commend the Government of Denmark for the approach they have taken. We are working with EU member states to ensure that there is access to reciprocal healthcare. We are also ensuring that UK citizens abroad continue to have access to pension uprating and the welfare benefits to which they are entitled. I hope that more EU member states will improve the offer to UK nationals.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Notwithstanding the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s beguiling manner at the Dispatch Box, his statement today bears only a passing relationship to reality. No. 10 is briefing that the talks are going nowhere. He knows that if that remains the case, the Prime Minister will be under a legal obligation to write to apply for an extension which, if granted by the European Union, will mean that we will not be leaving the European Union without a deal on 31 October. The right hon. Gentleman wrote in March this year:
“We didn’t vote to leave without a deal.”
Why is he now advocating on behalf of a Government policy that he himself has admitted there is no mandate for?
Michael Gove
I am grateful, as ever, for the thoughtful tone in which the right hon. Gentleman asks his questions. I am also grateful for the opportunity, which I hope I will have, to appear in front of his Committee to discuss in detail some of the provisions within the document. We take a different view on the Act that bears his name. I think it weakens the UK Government’s position. He in all conscience believes that it strengthens the UK’s position, but we disagree on that. It is of course possible, for a host of reasons, that we might leave on 31 October without a deal, and it is prudent that this Government—and indeed the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly Government, led by Labour—are preparing for that, because that eventuality is a realisable and potential outcome. In the meantime, I am anxious to secure a deal. I argued that we should leave the European Union without a deal, but if it is impossible to leave the European Union without a deal, then, much though I regret it, we have to leave.[Official Report, 16 October 2019, Vol. 666, c. 4MC.]
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Looking at me imploringly, and now to be heard, is the longest-serving member of the Speaker’s Panel of Chairs: Sir Roger Gale.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
You will recall, Mr Speaker, that some weeks ago you afforded me the opportunity to ask the Prime Minister what provision would be made for pension uprating, healthcare and benefits for expat UK citizens. My letter seeking a clarification of the broad-brush answer awaits a response, but I have had the opportunity to read the no-deal readiness report, and not one word in it offers long-term comfort to the thousands of now increasingly frightened and elderly UK citizens living within the rest of the EU. This is not a matter of reciprocal arrangements; it is within the clear gift of the United Kingdom Government to look after our own people. Will my right hon. Friend give a clear undertaking that that will be done?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that issue. He will be aware that on page 43 of the document, we point out:
“With regard to UK state pensions paid to eligible UK state pension recipients living in Member States, in the event of leaving without a deal the UK has now committed to uprate state pensions paid in the EU for a further three years”—
beyond the original guarantee—
until the end of March 2023”.
We have a commitment, of course, to keep this policy under review.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
It is reported that a Downing Street adviser has threatened that the UK will withdraw security co-operation if Europe does not do what the Prime Minister wants. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that given the common threats that we face—extremism, terrorism, trafficking and organised crime—this is extremely irresponsible and dangerous, and that there is no planet on which this is in our national interest? Whatever the Brexit plans, we need countries to work together, so will he condemn those threats from this Downing Street adviser? Will he agree that any adviser who makes such threats in public or private is not fit to hold any post in No. 10 Downing Street? Will he and the Prime Minister take some responsibility for removing anyone who pursues that course and argument from No. 10 Downing Street, because, frankly, when national security is at stake, we desperately need some advisers, some Ministers and a Prime Minister who are capable of behaving like grown-ups?
Michael Gove
The right hon. Lady is right that it is vitally important that we maintain security co-operation with our European allies. It is the case that we co-operate with not just the other EU27 nations but nations outside the EU on the exchange of information by security and intelligence agencies to keep us safe. That will continue outside the EU. We will continue to co-operate with the Garda Siochana and other police forces to ensure that our citizens are kept safe and the citizenry in our neighbouring countries is kept safe. One thing that I respectfully say to the right hon. Lady—I know that she take these issues incredibly seriously—is that the Home Secretary has written to Frans Timmermans, who is the member of the EU Commission responsible for these issues, saying that we wish to continue co-operating in a number of areas, and the EU has said that it does not wish to continue co-operation. I absolutely respect the right hon. Lady’s commitment to our co-operation with the EU. It is the case that we want to co-operate with the EU more than it currently wants to co-operate with us.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for reaffirming the Government’s preference for leaving with a deal—that, today, is an important commitment to many of us on the Government side of the House—but I draw his attention to page 17 of his report, where he says:
“On both the M20 and at Manston, the Government will deploy resources to establish whether drivers have the necessary border documentation prior to proceeding to their point of departure at the Port of Dover or Eurotunnel.”
May I plead—even at this possibly late stage—that some of the checking, which is essential, can be done before the lorries enter the last few miles of their journeys to the port of Dover or Eurotunnel? If we spread these checks around the country, they need not cause any pain to the local traffic system.
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Secretary of State for Transport has ensured that across the United Kingdom, at service stations and other points on our motorway system where hauliers are likely to pause or pass, we are in a position to provide them not just with the information that they need to know whether they are compliant with EU rules, but with the opportunity—if they need to—to correct the paperwork that they have, or if they are not compliant, to turn back, because we want to do everything possible to ensure that non-compliant vehicles get nowhere near Kent for reasons of maintaining the flow at the border and safeguarding the interests of my right hon. Friend’s citizens and other Kent residents.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The business and local authority organisation representing Devon and Cornwall—the Heart of the South West local enterprise partnership—wrote to the right hon. Gentleman last week telling him that with the wholly inadequate mitigation measures that are already in place, a no-deal Brexit would be as bad for our region as foot and mouth, except that it will go on for a lot longer, will it not? Is the organisation wrong?
Michael Gove
Yes, I think it is, but it is also important that if we put to one side the rhetoric that organisations often use to try to secure attention and look in a granular way—[Interruption.]
Michael Gove
Thank you, Mr Speaker. If we put aside the rhetoric for one moment, there are granular issues that local resilience forums and local enterprise partnerships address. I would be very grateful to address those and, indeed, to meet the right hon. Gentleman if there are specific questions that he wants to put and specific easements that he wants to see put in place.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his courteous and helpful statement, but I ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and, indeed, former Government Chief Whip: is he proud of the tone and character of quasi-official briefings and language coming out of No. 10? Does he think it is helpful?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend was kind enough to say that I was courteous; I also thank him for the courtesy and thoughtfulness with which he addresses every issue in this House. He is right: it is important for all of us in public life, whether we are appearing here at the Dispatch Box or working for Government Ministers or Opposition figures, to use language that shows our respect for differing points of view, even as we hold robustly to our own.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (IGC)
This is Brexit reality: £8 billion of taxpayers’ money—the equivalent of 400 brand spanking new state-of-the-art schools—being spent on something that people did not vote for and were not promised. We have just heard about the cost to business—£15 billion—and that is before we have sorted out the tariffs. The leave campaign, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a proud leader, promised that we would not leave the European Union until we had secured a good deal. We were told that it was going to be so easy that it would take somewhere in the matter of a few days. Three and a half years on, the reason why we have not left the EU is that the simple truth is that whichever way we do it, it will harm our economy and cut jobs and the future prosperity of our constituents. He talks about the 17 million people who swallowed many of the falsehoods and fake promises that were made by him and others, forgetting the 29 million who did not vote for us to leave the EU. Is not the only way out of this crisis now to put this matter back to the British people by way of a confirmatory referendum—at last, a people’s vote?
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
I welcome the publication of the 31 country guides for UK nationals in other EU and EEA countries. I will ask my right hon. Friend a question that I asked our hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) when he was working on no-deal preparations: is it possible to publish the preparations done by those countries all in the same place so that we can compare countries such as Spain and Denmark, which are doing the right thing for our nationals, with those that perhaps are not?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes a characteristically original, helpful and constructive idea. As well as the individual country guides, we should also publish a guide that allows for the comparisons of the kind he mentions.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Page 104 of the document says that the agricultural support will be continued at the current level until the end of this Parliament. Given that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster wants an election before Christmas, this is possibly the emptiest promise in the whole document. It is no wonder that the National Farmers Union described the Government’s plans as “catastrophic”. He knows that hill farmers will face 48% tariffs on lamb exports. He has a salary of £140,000 a year. They earn £14,000. How can he stand there and behave as if this is not a serious, critical, existential problem?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making those points about hill farmers, whom she represents with such energy and passion. She is right—I have never shied away from this fact—that if we leave without a deal some sectors of our economy will face bigger challenges than others. Sheep farmers, along with the Northern Ireland dairy sector, are perhaps two of the sectors most likely to be most adversely affected. We take very seriously our responsibilities towards those who rear and grow the food on which we depend, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has the necessary comprehensive support package to help anyone who may be adversely affected.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
In order to accommodate as many hon. and right hon. Members as possible, I am now looking for short questions without preamble and comparably pithy replies.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
We have been extremely generous to 3 million EU citizens residing in this country at the point of no deal. Surely our EU partners could be equally generous in providing assurances for 1 million-odd of our citizens living in Europe. They have been threatened with having to reapply for residence next year, and they do not know where they stand.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is right. As I mentioned earlier, some member states have been more generous than others. We respect the political constraints under which some Governments operate, but we want to work with them to guarantee the position of UK nationals.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Ministers recognise that the key to the level of chaos at Dover after a no-deal Brexit is the number of non-compliant trucks arriving without customs documents. In June, HMRC estimated that number to be at least 20%, or 2,000 a day. What is HMRC’s current estimate?
Michael Gove
We are currently revising those estimates, and we hope to publish that revision. One of the key things is that the HMRC calculation of which companies will be ready depends on translating data it has on the amount of goods exported by value into data on the amount exported by volume, and as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, that is not an easy calculation to robustly underpin.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this work. There is no incompatibility between being well prepared for no deal and working hard for a deal. Does he share my surprise and disappointment that the Irish Government appear to be preparing to carry out customs checks away from the border in a no-deal scenario but appear less willing to talk about customs checks away from the border in a deal scenario?
Michael Gove
I thank my right hon. Friend for the enormous amount of work he did when he was Secretary of State for Transport to prepare us for leaving without a deal and the opportunities of life after Brexit. He worked incredibly hard with tremendous focus, passion and energy, and we in this country are all better off for his service in government. I want to put that on the record and underline my thanks to him. He is absolutely right as well that, while of course we respect the sovereignty of the EU and the Irish Government’s position, it is in the Irish Government’s interests to avoid there being infrastructure near the border by collaborating and co-operating with us to secure a deal.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
This so-called no-deal readiness report is no such thing. It does not reflect the readiness of businesses in Newcastle for the devastating impact of a no-deal Brexit, it does not talk about currency fluctuations or how many businesses have got their documentation for imports and exports, and most importantly it does not talk about how many jobs will be lost. How many jobs will be lost in Newcastle?
Michael Gove
Businesses in Newcastle and the north-east, and more broadly, are at various different states of readiness. Some companies that are fully ready see opportunities to grow from the moment we leave. I hope we can work together on making sure that all businesses recognise what they need to do. That is why HMRC and others are, for example, automatically authorising EORI—economic operator registration and identification—numbers and making it easier for people to take advantage of transitional simplified procedures.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there will be dismay today among the UK oil refining sector at the Government’s announcement of their no-deal tariff plans, which remove the level playing field for its trade with the EU? How do the Government plan to support these important strategic assets for the country?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. It was important in looking at our tariffs that we did everything possible to ensure that prices remained low for consumers and industry, but there are bespoke arrangements we can put in place to support our refineries, which do such an important job.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
The Prime Minister and his Government will never be forgotten or forgiven for undermining the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which has guaranteed peace and stability for all of us in the 21 years since it was signed. That agreement was endorsed in two referendums—one in Northern Ireland, one in the Republic of Ireland. Thousands upon thousands of people voted for the agreement in those two referendums. When will the Prime Minister feel honour-bound to respect those referendums?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend knows that I have enormous respect for her, not just as a parliamentarian but because of her distinguished career in public service in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that it is the Prime Minister’s intention for a moment to undermine the Belfast agreement. The hon. Lady and I have talked in and outside the Chamber about the importance of supporting all those who believe in maintaining the gains of peace over the last 21 years. I do not believe it is the Prime Minister’s intention to undermine it at all. Far from it: we believe that our proposal is consistent with the Belfast agreement, but I understand that there will be people of good conscience who disagree.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I draw the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster back to the opening part of his statement, where he talked about the prospects of a deal. If the reports this morning are accurate about the call between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of Germany, they are very worrying. It cannot be the case that we can only leave the EU by leaving part of our country behind. That will not just mean that we will not get a deal by 31 October; it will mean we will not be able to get a deal at all. If that is the position, can I urge him and his Cabinet colleagues to hold fast to our position and urge our European partners to look at the Prime Minister’s constructive proposals and negotiate them over the next couple of weeks so that we can get a deal? I am sure that all those on the Opposition Benches worried about a no deal would be in the Division Lobby supporting it.
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. In our proposal we have said that the people of Northern Ireland will be subject to the European acquis as it applies to manufacturing goods and agri-foods. That causes some discomfort for some in Northern Ireland, but we cannot accept the idea of a customs border inside our own country. No country on earth would allow a customs border to be erected between its own people. If it is the case—I have not heard that it is —that any politician says that Northern Ireland must stay in the customs union come what may, they are saying either that we should generate dynamic forces that separate our country or that the UK can only leave the EU on terms that the EU dictates. That cannot be acceptable.
Several hon. Members rose—
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (LD)
The document makes it clear that environmental standards will be not only maintained but enhanced. Yesterday, a leaked DEFRA paper, written by civil servants, said that the Department for International Trade would push DEFRA to lower UK standards governing animal welfare and pesticide residues. Does that not indicate that the document is not worth the paper it is written on?
Michael Gove
We are taking steps to improve animal welfare standards when we leave the EU, not least by taking steps to end the live export of animals to Europe. We are also introducing legislation on everything from puppy farming to banning the use of primates as pets, which means that the UK, as a nation of animal lovers, will lead the world in animal welfare.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Benn Act, which was rushed through the House last month, actually makes getting a deal harder for the Government, and that if we are forced to delay, not only will it extend the uncertainty for our businesses, which want this matter resolved, but it will simply mean we are having this same discussion three weeks before the new deadline?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know that there were good people who voted for the right hon. Gentleman’s Act thinking that it would help the country, and I do not cast any aspersions on their motivation, but let us look at the consequences. The consequences are that it is more difficult to secure a deal, and as a result I hope that all those who voted for the Act—and I respect their motivation—reflect on the position in which we now find ourselves.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
As 31 October approaches, may I ask when the Government will deliver on their promise to put in place a UK version of the current EU steel safeguards?
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Ind)
Page 49 of the document states:
“The Government has permitted EU airlines to continue to fly to and from the UK until 24 October 2020”.
How does the Minister envisage the situation after that, given the point that he has rightly made about business certainty, and what is the position regarding new routes that may be opened up during that time?
Michael Gove
I am confident that we will make progress on aviation, but I understand its importance to my hon. Friend and his constituents.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that after 10 years of austerity we are back to square one, with no discernible global financial crisis to explain the Government’s incompetent handling of the finances. Would any other Government whose finances were in that state consider a no-deal Brexit?
Michael Gove
Business takes a variety of views on Brexit, and indeed on a no-deal Brexit, but I have yet to meet a single business man, woman or organisation that thinks that a no-deal Brexit would be worse than a Jeremy Corbyn Government.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
According to the feedback from local businesses at a business event that I held in my constituency, the delay created by Opposition Members who are refusing to back the deal that the Government are negotiating is more damaging than the current state of affairs. Does my right hon. Friend agree with that?
Michael Gove
Absolutely. We could have been out of the European Union with a deal if Opposition Members had backed the Prime Minister, Theresa May, in her efforts.
Mr Speaker
Order. All these references to named individuals are quite improper. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt luxuriated in the lather of the Oxford Union, in which he excelled, and he excels in this House other than in that respect. He should wash his mouth out, and should refer to Ministers not by name but by title, which he is well able to do.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Minister is not being straight with us. He has the gall to claim that UK environmental standards post Brexit will be a beacon to the world, but in reality he is planning to cut those standards. The document claims that the carbon price will apply “at a similar level” to that under the EU emissions trading system, but page 64 makes it clear that the new carbon emissions price will be about half the EU price. If the Government are going to cut incentives to tackle the climate crisis, will they at least be honest about it?
Michael Gove
This Government were one of the first to commit themselves to net zero by 2050, and we are taking all the appropriate steps to ensure that we shift towards renewables and reduce emissions.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Ind)
Would it not be better for my farming constituents today if the Government would listen to the concerns of Minette Batters of the National Farmers Union about the tariff regime resulting from no deal, rather than allowing their advisers to blame the EU, blame everyone else, and create new barriers to prevent a deal that the tone of last week was so determined to secure?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: Minette Batters is a powerful and effective advocate for farmers in the UK, and she too is right. I know from my previous job, and from my role as a constituency MP, that the sector of our economy that faces some of the biggest challenges in the event of no deal is agriculture, and within that there are particular sectors that face particularly stringent challenges. I think it important that the tariff regime that we published today provides protection for some particularly vulnerable sectors, but more needs to be done. As for my right hon. Friend’s broader point about tone, I believe that positivity and optimism are critical to ensuring that, whatever noises off there may be, we keep our eyes on the prize, which is a deal with the European Union.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (IGC)
May I urge the Minister just to pause and reflect on the deliberate dog-whistle briefing issued this morning by No. 10 against Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, in respect of the phone call reported to have taken place between her and the Prime Minister? It has sparked a series of frankly racist attacks against the Germans, from Leave.EU and others. This is an extremely dangerous course for the Government to embark on, and I want to hear—right now—the Minister condemn and distance himself from it.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter. First, let me say that I was not in on that telephone call. Secondly, let me affirm that the Bundeskanzlerin and the Government of the Federal Republic are good friends of this country. I had the opportunity to speak at the German day of national unity event at the German embassy last week, when I affirmed our commitment to friendship and the respect that we have for the German people for their achievements since 1945 as a democracy that we can all admire. Let me take this opportunity, at the Dispatch Box, to dissociate myself entirely from any sort of racist or demeaning language towards Germany. The Germans are our friends and our allies, and Germany is a great country.
Mr Speaker
I must say to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that my sense is that that statement will be very warmly welcomed across the House, but also by a great many people outside this place, whatever their view about Brexit. It is important that decorous language is used, and the right hon. Gentleman has just been an exponent of it.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Ind)
I agree with my right hon. Friend. As someone who voted for a deal three times, I am pleased to hear that that is still the Government’s policy.
Many people will already have plans for travel beyond 31 October. Notwithstanding point 4 on page 41 of the document, and the answers that he gave my right hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), will the Minister say how many reciprocal healthcare deals have been signed, and how many memorandums of understanding are likely to be signed, before 31 October?
Michael Gove
We have reciprocal healthcare agreements with a number of member states. Spain is the most prominent, but we are working through each of the member states. I will be sure to write to my hon. Friend informing him of not just the details of the arrangements that we have reached with every country, but the steps that we continue to take in order to ensure that our citizens’ rights are protected there.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Government’s business readiness fund, which sets aside just £15 million to help businesses, will be more than washed away by the cost to business of—according to the Financial Times—an extra £15 billion, 1,000 times more. Is this not just another example of the Prime Minister’s attitude towards business?
Michael Gove
The business readiness fund has been well subscribed by organisations such as the Institute of Directors and the Federation of Small Businesses, to make sure that businesses are prepared for life outside the EU.
The leave campaign made the position clear, and people voted for us to leave both the single market and the customs union. Yes, leaving the customs union means new customs procedures with the EU, but it also means that we have opportunities to strike new trade deals with other countries, and to be a champion for freer trade across the world. Freer trade reduces prices for consumers in this country, and also helps the developing world. I should have thought that supporting the poorest in this country, and supporting the poorest globally, would recommend itself to the Liberal Democrats.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
What is the cash value of the support that my right hon. Friend plans to make available for agricultural and manufacturing businesses in the event of no deal, specifically in terms of the impact on them of new export tariffs in that scenario?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend has made a very good point. Not just tariffs—which will particularly affect some in the agricultural sector—but other events and other frictions could have an adverse effect on specific businesses and specific sectors. That is why my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Business Secretary have Operation Kingfisher, which is a means of making sure that we can support any company that is fundamentally viable but experiences turbulence for a short period.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Over the years, I have become something of a Gove-watcher. Is it not a fact that, in his heart of hearts, the right hon. Gentleman really now knows that this country is being led to disaster by a man whom he neither likes nor trusts?
Michael Gove
No, I do not take that view. The hon. Gentleman is an old friend, and I therefore take his comments in good part, but no: I admire the Prime Minister, and I know that what he is trying to do is what the Government are trying to do, which is to honour the votes of his constituents so that we can leave the EU.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Three million tonnes of the Republic of Ireland’s goods travel to and from the EU via the UK land bridge, and without a deal they will be liable for customs checks, tariffs and quotas. Does the Minister agree that, more than those of any other country, the best interests of the Republic will be served if the UK leaves the EU with a deal?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend and I both want to make sure that the Republic of Ireland is in the strongest possible position after we leave the European Union, and the best thing for the UK, for the Republic of Ireland and for the many interests that we share across these islands is to secure a deal.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
The Prime Minister is trying to shift the UK away from EU rules on the environment, safety standards and workers’ rights in order to secure a trade deal with Donald Trump. Has the Prime Minister had any discussions with the Trades Union Congress or with any trade union, and have you had any yourself, Minister?
Michael Gove
Both the hon. Gentleman and I have been trade union members. We have both been involved in industrial action and we both know how important it is to uphold workers’ rights. I have had the opportunity to meet not just the TUC but other trade unions. My own view is that workers’ protection matters and that we have higher standards of workers’ protection than the EU mandates, and that will continue.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Although this document shows the considerable work being done on the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s watch, it none the less reinforces his stated view that there is no good day for a no-deal Brexit. If the Labour party agrees with him and me on that, is it not time, given that Opposition Members were all elected on a manifesto to respect the referendum, for them to say that they will avoid no deal by supporting the deal, and would that not in turn help the negotiations?
Michael Gove
I think it would, and, to be fair, the attitude of EU member states and others towards the proposition that we have put forward would, I hope, be warmer and more flexible if they knew that it had support across the House. The hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) issued a cautious welcome to the deal, as did the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). If that were the view of those on the Opposition Front Bench, it would be better for the whole country.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
May I pick up the point about this being a comprehensive summary? There are two sentences referencing border inspection posts, which will seriously impact our food and fish exports. There will be only nine, as I think the Secretary of State understands. That will lead not to hundreds of certain certificates being issued, but to tens or hundreds of thousands. Does he agree that we do not have the capacity in our local authorities or the vets to service that?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The key thing is that we will be taking a continuity approach towards the flow of goods into this country. We will not be administering checks for the EU when EU businesses export to us. The EU will, of course, impose checks under its acquis, although the French authorities, for example, have ensured that the border inspection posts for shellfish will be in Boulogne-sur-Mer. That means that fish caught in Scotland on Tuesday can be on sale in France on Wednesday without any impairment.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
On page 71 we see a reference to transitional arrangements for financial services that need to be in place by 31 October. How many of them are in place?
Michael Gove
Almost all. There are still one or two statutory instruments that need to be passed.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister assured me on Thursday that he would seek to engage with the Deputy Irish Prime Minister, Simon Coveney, over the Irish Government’s concerns about a minority in Northern Ireland potentially having a veto over the border arrangements. I was unable to get an update yesterday from the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster provide us with an update on whether the Prime Minister has sought to have those discussion or not?
Michael Gove
I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union will write to the hon. Gentleman. More broadly, one of the key things that the Prime Minister and others have said is that we need to secure consent in Northern Ireland for the arrangements in our proposals, but how we secure that consent is a matter for discussion.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will recall that two weeks ago I and other hon. Members raised our concerns about the no-deal preparations being done by the Scottish Government. Has he had a chance to speak to the Scottish Government about our concerns yet? If he has, can he say how much money that has been sent north has made its way to local authorities in Scotland that need to take relevant action?
Michael Gove
The Scottish Government have this afternoon published their own no-deal preparations. I have scanned them in detail and I cannot see that money has gone to the local authorities most in need. A miserly £50,000 has gone to each local authority in Scotland. That is not enough to ensure that local authorities such as Aberdeenshire have the capacity to issue the export health certificates that the fishing industry needs. I am deeply worried that the Scottish Government, despite containing many good Ministers, are not passing on the money that we are giving to them for Scotland’s citizens.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Page 153 is about preventing terrorism, child abuse and criminal gangs. The document says that there will be a mutual loss of capability between the EU and the UK in the event of no deal. The right hon. Gentleman is not going to let that happen, is he?
Michael Gove
That is why we have written to Frans Timmermans to ask him to extend access to the databases that we are currently allowed to access. So far, he has said no.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s report and the detail that he has provided. I have a simple question for him. He knows that I have been campaigning for citizens’ rights. In the event of no deal on exit day, British citizens in the middle of treatment will receive treatment only for a further 12 months. Why can we not just provide healthcare costs for people suffering from terminal cancer or motor neurone disease, who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in this position?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I will take it up with the Health Secretary to ensure that the support that we already give can be extended in precisely the cases that he mentions.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The intransigence of the Irish Government and the EU has resulted in the comprehensive proposals put forward by the Prime Minister and the compromises that were required being rejected. In the light of that, will the Minister think again about his policy of not imposing duties on goods coming from the Irish Republic, in order to protect producers in Northern Ireland and put some pressure on the Irish Government to be realistic?
Michael Gove
I entirely appreciate the force of the case that the right hon. Gentleman makes, but it is our judgment that we should not impose additional checks or tariffs on goods coming from Ireland into Northern Ireland.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his documents and on his crisp and effective chairmanship of the daily XO—EU exit operations—committees. I notice that he talks about the environmental safeguards in great detail. Does he think, therefore, that the current desecration of Cubbington Wood by HS2, despite the moratorium, might be better controlled after Brexit?
Michael Gove
As one former Member of this House said to a foreign potentate, I admire my hon. Friend’s courage, his strength and his indefatigability in being able to insert HS2 into every question, and he knows my views on that matter.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
We spoke in questions recently about pallets. I raise the issue again today because on page 113 of the recently published report the Government say that there must be compliance with ISPM 15—international standards for phytosanitary measure No. 15—to export into Europe, but on page 115 they suggest that compliance only “may” be needed. To help those trying to export on pallets that will be accepted, which is it?
Michael Gove
It would be prudent to ensure that pallets are compliant, but we also point out that individual firms should contact the supplier or the Timber Packaging and Pallet Confederation—TIMCON—if they need more advice.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
Without access to tens of thousands of seasonal workers, our soft fruit industry in Angus and across the UK will suffer. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he recognises the importance of having a mechanism in place to ensure a smooth route for businesses to continue to function by having access to labour in a no-deal situation?
Michael Gove
Absolutely, and it is important that we look at the operation of the seasonal agricultural workers scheme and, if necessary, expand the numbers available to people in the soft fruit industry, for which my hon. Friend is such a powerful advocate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind the House that only last week the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) made a speech that brought hope and will have changed, and will change, lives. Colleagues, if you did not hear it, you missed something.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. In the light of recent fake news from the Prime Minister about a shiny new hospital in Canterbury, which currently has no A&E or urgent treatment centres, can the Minister please guarantee that, with the possible chaos resulting from Operation Brock, my constituents will still be able to get to the William Harvey Hospital in Ashford for the urgent care that they desperately need?
Michael Gove
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and underline your comments, Mr Speaker, about her amazing speech last week. We have been looking to ensure that we can accelerate the roadworks on junction 10A in order to ensure that access to the William Harvey for the hon. Lady’s constituents and others can be uninterrupted. I hope to be able to brief her and other Kent MPs on some of the other steps that we are taking in the next week.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
By what date this month does the Secretary of State think it will be necessary to reach an agreement with the EU or notify the country, and in particular business, that there will be a no deal?
Michael Gove
I hope we can make sufficient progress this week in order to be able to say at the EU Council that we have secured a deal. If we have not secured a deal, we will have to negotiate the legal framework that the House of Commons has put in place.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Does the fuel supply contingency programme mentioned on page 61 make special allowance for the predicted closure of two refineries, which was outlined in the Yellowhammer document? If not, why not? When will the Government tell us which two refineries they think are at risk?
Michael Gove
There are six major refineries across the United Kingdom. There have been representations from the energy sector about our tariff regime. We stand ready—in particular, the Business Secretary stands ready—to support all our refineries and the vital work they do.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
As the good people of Walsall North voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU, what role does my right hon. Friend think Walsall Council can play in ensuring that they are as prepared as they can be for Brexit on 31 October?
Michael Gove
They should pay attention and do everything they are asked to by the outstanding Member of Parliament for Walsall North.
Mr Speaker
There will come a time when the right hon. Gentleman will want the hon. Gentleman’s vote. I do not know when that will be, but the time will come.
Mr Speaker
Ah, the right hon. Gentleman has a new ambition. It is percolating in my head.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
First, may I indicate that, with your permission, Mr Speaker, I intend to raise a point of order at the end of this item of business about comments made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster earlier that were deeply offensive to me and many others? However, given the damage that has been done to relationships between the United Kingdom and Germany by the deliberate, malicious and almost certainly inaccurate leaking of a private phone call between the two Heads of Government, will he, the next time he speaks to his very good friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, ask how quickly we can be given a statement by the Cabinet Office that confirms that the culprit—there are only two possible suspects—has been identified and removed from No. 10 before they can do any more damage?
Points of Order
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has come to light that the Department for Work and Pensions is issuing ill and disabled people with positive health guidance statements, asking them to describe their disability or health condition. In these statements, disabled people are being asked
“to avoid words that sound worse than they are”
to describe their disability. This includes avoiding words such as “chronic”, “degenerative” or even “depression”. In essence, the DWP is encouraging disabled people to downplay their disability or health condition. Can you advise me on how the Secretary of State can come to the House and make a statement on this issue at the earliest convenience? It cannot be right that the Department expects disabled people to downplay their disability or health condition.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of the point of order. As she well knows, it is not the responsibility of the Chair, but what we can guarantee is that Government Members have absolutely heard what you have to say. The hon. Lady will be coming back next Monday, and I am sure that she will ensure this House is aware of the issue and that she will pursue it in the rightful way.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wondered whether you had had any indication before we are prorogued again imminently of whether the Home Secretary intends to come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement on the revelations that came out overnight via a freedom of information request that the review her Department ordered into buffer zones around abortion clinics to stop the harassment of women contained disturbing flaws. The review was ordered in 2017, and it reported last year, but ITV, LBC and The Independent newspaper are reporting that evidence was suppressed and that civil servants were instructed that the main aim of the game was to be seen to be doing something. In the light of the letter that the Home Secretary has received today from 30 different groups, from Mumsnet to the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Nursing, and in the light of the moving statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on the same subject last week, as well as the daily distress women are still suffering up and down the country, can we please get the Home Secretary to right this wrong and have a fresh inquiry to clear up the mess made by her two predecessors?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her question. The matter she raises is not a matter for me in the Chair today, but I know that the responsible Ministers in the Home Office have absolutely heard what you have to say. I am sure the Home Office will be taking that on board. Once again, I know that you, through your good offices, and colleagues of your good self will ensure that, when we return on Monday, this matter will be raised again.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise that I could not give advance notice of my point of order, because I had to remain in my seat hoping to catch Mr Speaker’s eye. In his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), who was on the SNP Front Bench earlier, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster clearly accused the Scottish National party of being a sectarian organisation. That is the second time he has done that from the Dispatch Box. I appreciate that it is not a question of order whether remarks are offensive, although I hope that, on reflection, the Minister will understand that those comments are not only deeply offensive, but a highly irresponsible accusation to throw at any organisation that works so tirelessly to rid Scotland of the cancer that is sectarian bigotry—a cancer that was very prominent in the community in which I and a number of my colleagues grew up. Can you advise me whether it is still the case that a Minister who says something untrue from the Dispatch Box must be given a reasonable chance to correct the record and that, if they refuse to do so, it is not possible for them to remain as a Minister in the Government?
Mr Deputy Speaker
In fairness, it is up to the Minister whether they wish to. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would want to speak or not—that is his choice. If he does, of course I will give way. What I would say is that you would not expect me to comment on that. I was not chairing the debate, and, in fairness to Mr Speaker, if it was disorderly, he will have said so. That is the one thing I want to be clear on. In fairness to Mr Speaker, he will have done the right thing at that moment.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (IGC)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Parliament is expected to prorogue today, but, unusually, the Privy Council website still does not list an Order in Council as having been approved for Prorogation. The matter is listed on the Order Paper and in the House of Lords on the Order Paper, yet, for some reason, an Order in Council does not appear to have been passed so far according to the Privy Council website. Normally, Orders in Council for Prorogation are passed several days before it actually occurs. It is 3.26 pm. I wonder what is going on.
Mr Deputy Speaker
That is not a matter for the Chair. It is not for me to speculate on the Privy Council. I am sure that you will not take your eye off your mobile phone, to ensure that that first-line knowledge will be through to your good self once you see it there. But it is not a matter for the Chair, as much as it is frustrating. As a member of the Privy Council, I have to say that I have no further information to add.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Lots of people will be watching Parliament on television today, but, of course, that was not possible 30 years ago. Twenty-seven years ago, Baroness Betty Boothroyd became the first female Speaker of the House of Commons. Today is her 90th birthday. I wondered what pieces of advice you could give on how we could all go about wishing her a happy birthday.
Mr Deputy Speaker
One of them is not to sing in the Chamber. I would say that I have the greatest respect for Baroness Boothroyd. She is one of my idols. She is somebody who I look up to and who set an agenda in this House that we can all respect—the first woman Speaker. It is a privilege to have known her; it is a privilege to have been in this House when she was in this Chair. Everybody who ever worked with her held her in the highest esteem and respect. The one other thing I would say is happy 90th and many more to come, because she is a great lady who I will always respect. I always remember her fighting the by-elections of Nelson and Colne, which my father took over as the MP afterwards. So, yes, we do have a great affinity.
Nurse Staffing Levels
Tuesday 8th October 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Nurse Staffing Levels Bill 2017-19 View all Nurse Staffing Levels Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about National Health Service bodies establishing nurse staffing levels.
I start by declaring an interest as a nurse and a member of the Royal College of Nursing, which is leading the campaign for safe and effective nurse staffing. Nursing is one of the most underestimated professions in the country, if not the world, because while everyone loves a nurse, with colloquial terms such as “angel”, “having a vocation”, “hero” and “caring or compassionate” being used to describe us, the true impact of nurses and nursing on the nation’s health has never been recognised. We are more than just a doctor’s assistant. Whether an experienced nurse who holds a patient’s hand as they die while assessing their level of pain or symptom management, or an advanced nurse practitioner in places such as the Royal Marsden Hospital’s clinical assessment unit who can treat patients with acute ascites and manage them by inserting a drain to deal with the symptoms or can look for the first sign of sepsis, nurses are truly saving lives.
There is increasing evidence that the right number of qualified nurses can improve patient outcomes in terms of mortality, morbidity and quality of care, and that, conversely, insufficient nurses can have a potentially life-threatening effect on patients. A study by Aiken et al reported in The BMJ looked at discharge data from hospitals for over 275,000 surgical patients in 188 hospitals across Europe, finding that a greater number of professional nurses was associated with lower odds of mortality. Likewise, Bridges et al also found in The BMJ only last year that the addition of qualified nurses makes a difference to patient outcomes—not simply the addition of healthcare workers, but qualified and experienced nurses. There is something in the skill and experience of qualified nurses that improves mortality rates, morbidity rates and quality of care.
Record numbers of nurses have joined the Nursing and Midwifery Council register, with 8,000 more nurses and midwives now registered to work in the UK, but over 43,000 nursing vacancies remain in England alone. The RCN staff survey in 2017 reported that that is having an impact on the ground, and nurses are reporting that care is going undone as a result. That is why, as a nurse and a member of the RCN, I am bringing this Bill forward to establish legally enforceable nursing staffing levels in the NHS in England, as was done in Wales in 2016 and in Scotland in June this year, when the Health and Care (Staffing) (Scotland) Act was passed.
The Bill has four main aims. First, we need to make the Government accountable for nursing levels in England. No one is accountable for nursing numbers, which is why we have such a high vacancy rate and a lack of strategic action to address the situation. How are we going to increase student nurse numbers via degree apprenticeships, which are working so well in places at the University of Brighton in my constituency, where student nurses earn while they learn in clinical placements? How are we to increase the numbers returning to practice when return-to-practice courses are difficult to access and expensive, with nurses often having to pay for them themselves? Nearly a third of our nurses in practice today are likely to retire in the next 10 years, so how are we to address early retirement? Without someone taking responsibility, none of those issues will be addressed. While individual trusts do their best to mitigate recruitment and retention challenges, no one is taking responsibility for the sheer scale of the issue across England.
That fits neatly into the second and third parts of the Bill, which relate to a fully costed workforce strategy and nursing numbers. There are currently no legally enforceable nursing numbers for any healthcare sector in England. In 2014, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines for adult wards stated that when nurse patient ratios reach eight patients to one nurse, that should act as a red flag that care is becoming unsafe. However, in the 2017 RCN staff survey, 71% of nurses report that they had cared for more than eight patients on their previous shift, with 26% reporting that they cared for more than 14 patients. We need legally enforceable numbers, so that nurses and patients can be protected from unsafe care and so that someone is held to account if that does not happen.
In England, each trust manages its own staffing numbers, and if money is tight, retention and recruitment just does not happen. To be fair to the trusts, they have no pool of nurses on which to draw, so what are they supposed to do? We need a nursing workforce strategy not only to meet short-term need, but to plan for the long-term healthcare needs of the nation. However, the Bill is about more than just ring fencing nursing numbers. It is about the skill mix, too. Having experienced qualified nurses is the key to improving patient outcomes.
As already mentioned, there is a growing body of evidence to show the difference that experienced and qualified nurses can make to patient outcomes. In my 25 years’ nursing experience, nothing can beat the continuity of someone looking after the same patient over a period that only adequate staffing numbers allows for. An experienced nurse often gets to know their patient and can spot mild changes, such as mild confusion, that could indicate the start of sepsis. They can spot that someone is not taking their medication, is slightly dehydrated or has raised sugar levels. Something as simple as constipation can lead to abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting, dehydration and, ultimately, hospital admission.
Service managers who are driven to replace nurses with healthcare assistants take a penny wise and pound foolish approach, as a qualified nurse can prevent hospital admissions, reduce the length of stays and reduce readmissions simply by using their skill and experience. Any extra paid in higher wages would be offset by savings in the length of stays and acute adverse events.
Finally, the Bill would legislate to provide training and education for all nurses throughout their career. If we want nurses to take on more advanced roles, from nurse prescribing to chest drain insertion, the Government need to ensure the training happens both by paying for it and by allowing study leave. We cannot continue with nurses using their annual leave and their days off to undertake training vital to their role.
Other countries have realised the need for change and have made legislative changes to ensure safe staffing levels. That is why I support the RCN and Dame Donna Kinnair in promoting this Bill to create a legal framework that clarifies the roles and responsibilities and the accountability for the supply, recruitment and retention of nurses in England.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Maria Caulfield, Alberto Costa, Kate Hoey, Stephen Lloyd, Andrea Jenkyns, Andrew Lewer, Andrew Griffiths, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, Charlie Elphicke and Eddie Hughes and present the Bill.
Maria Caulfield accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 439).
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I do not think there will be many here, but good luck.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
With the leave of the House, I will put motions 2 and 3 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Financial Services and Markets)
That the Prospectus (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 1234), dated 5 September 2019, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5 September, be approved.
That the Risk Transformation and Solvency 2 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 1233), dated 5 September 2019, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5 September, be approved.—(Maggie Throup.)
Question agreed to.
Exiting the European Union (Plant Health)
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I beg to move,
That the draft Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 22 July, be approved.
These regulations amend the Plant Health (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to ensure that recent EU-derived protective measures against the introduction and spread of harmful plant pests continue to remain effective and operable on leaving the EU. The 2019 regulations, which were debated in this House on 19 March, are an important element of the EU exit legislation that we have put in place to maintain plant biosecurity, and they set out a list of harmful pests and plant material that will continue to be regulated.
It is our responsibility to protect biosecurity across plant and animal health, as well as to protect the wider ecosystem. It is also important that we have a robust process of ongoing review to strengthen biosecurity protections, where this is possible and necessary, as we leave the EU. These draft regulations are specifically about protecting plant biosecurity, and the amendments address technical deficiencies and inoperability issues—that is quite a mouthful—relating to retained EU law on plant health that could arise when we leave the EU. I should make it clear that all the amendments introduced by this instrument are simply technical operability amendments and do not introduce any policy changes. They ensure that existing measures set out in EU legislation and national measures introduced under the EU’s plant health directive will continue to apply to the UK as we leave the EU.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, let me say what a joy it is to see the Minister in her role, and I wish her well in that position. In recent times, and in many of the papers I have had the chance to read, alien species, be they plant or animal life, have become a growing issue. Does the Minister feel that the legislation coming forward—I am mindful that the Minister has said that this is not a change—will be able to ensure that those alien species, wherever they come from, be they from the sea or land, become a thing of the past, rather than something we have to endure and live with?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As he will know, I have an interest in this area, and I wish to give assurances that this Government are taking alien species extremely seriously. We do not want invasive species coming into this country, and we will give assurances that we will have the highest level of protections and standards as we go forward, as this example today on plant biosecurity will demonstrate. This is a belt and braces step we are taking today.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
I have a quick question for the Minister. Many of us are very concerned about regulated plant material coming in from third countries via the EU. What will happen with the checking? Many of us are very concerned about what this could mean in terms of pests and diseases.
Rebecca Pow
Again, the hon. Lady raises a good point. We are setting up the most stringent system and checks. I will perhaps make some references to that in my summing up at the end, because people are concerned about it. However, we are revered for our standards on these things already, and we will be strengthening our checks and balances, because it is so important to us as an island that we address these things.
The majority of the changes update the list of regulated plant pests and plant material and associated import and movement requirements relating to host material in the 2019 regulations to reflect the recent amendments to the list in the plant health directive made by Commission implementing directive 2019/523, as a result of technical changes in the assessment of risks presented by particular pests and diseases. Important changes are included, regulating against new threats, such as the lemon tree borer, which affects a great deal more species than just lemon trees, including species in this country, and strengthening protections against the tobacco whitefly and the pine processionary moth, for which the UK currently has protected zone status. In addition, the list is being updated to ensure that specific national measures that have been introduced under EU provisions to protect against the rose rosette virus and the oak processionary moth remain operable after we exit the EU. I thought I would just say a bit about those two things because they are the new things we are ensuring protection against.
The rose rosette virus is an extremely damaging disease that will affect our wonderful roses. It is already widespread in the USA and parts of Canada, where it has had devastating impacts, and it was found for the first time in 2017 in India. The virus affects all roses—
Rebecca Pow
I shall just finish describing the horrific effects of this virus, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. The virus affects all roses and its mite vector may be present in both plants and plant parts. Current EU regulations restrict the import of plants for planting from non-European countries to plants which are dormant and free from leaves, flowers and fruit, but this is not sufficient to prevent the entry of this devastating virus, which is why we introduced national protections, which we want to retain into the future. Can you imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker, if the virus got a hold in our gardens, where we love and revere roses so much? It would have a terrible impact, as it would have on our high-quality rose breeders and the whole of that industry. It is extremely serious. Interestingly, the EU is now following our lead and is going to copy what we do. That sets us up as leaders.
Mr Jim Cunningham
I welcome the Minister to her new position. Can she give me an example of what I would call an early warning system? Do we have one so that we can get on top of diseases as soon as possible?
Rebecca Pow
That intervention leads me neatly to the other thing that we are protecting, so I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s question shortly. The oak processionary moth is native to southern Europe. Its caterpillars eat the leaves of oak trees, thereby affecting the health of the trees. They also shed poisonous hairs that can cause adverse reactions in humans. The majority of the UK is designated as a protection zone against this damaging pest. It is established in many parts of Europe and its distribution has recently expanded, including in the UK, where some cases were found earlier this year. Fortunately, the Government took rapid action—this answers the hon. Gentleman’s question. We have in place a good system: first, we strengthened the existing national protections against the pest by tightening import requirements. The Forestry Commission and the Animal and Plant Health Agency then took swift action to eradicate any signs of the moth, its larvae or its caterpillars. An excellent surveillance system swung into action and lots of work was done to trace the creatures and destroy the caterpillars and, indeed, infested and related trees. All the infested trees were intercepted in the protection zone and any signs of the moths and the trees they attacked have been destroyed. It is important that we ensure the continued operability of the strengthened import requirements, to ensure ongoing protection. That is why we are proceeding with this legislation.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Minister has given a full and interesting answer. Global warming is upon us, and of course as global warming proceeds, various species of animals and flowers are migrating ever northwards to the British Isles and across Europe. I plead with the Minister to consult our scientists and experts at Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh and St Andrews on what dangerous species might be tempted north, even into my constituency, by what is happening in the world.
Rebecca Pow
That is very much on the Government’s radar. Indeed, DEFRA is really strong in this policy area and works constantly to see what new threats might be coming into and out of the country. As an island nation, it is important that we are really on the ball. We are going to remain part of the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation, which involves many more European countries, as well as many others, all working towards the same goal.
Rebecca Pow
I am going to press on, because time is tight.
The instrument will amend primary legislation to remove references to EU obligations. The changes have no operational impact, but simply remove redundant and inoperable references to EU obligations. The devolved Administrations have provided their consent for the changes to be made for the whole UK—I think that answers the question that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was going to ask.
Rebecca Pow
Regulation 2 of the instrument applies to Great Britain, regulation 3 applies to Northern Ireland, and regulations 4 and 5 apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The instrument’s purpose is to ensure that an operable legal framework is in place on EU exit day and to facilitate the flow of goods while preserving the current plant health regime’s overall aim of preventing and managing pest and disease threats. For those reasons, I commend the regulations to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), to his position.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
May I welcome the new Minister to her place? As a south-west MP, it is good to see a south-west combo on both sides of the Dispatch Box. It is also good to see that she is in a position of responsibility where she will be able to use her considerable knowledge on the area of soil health, which is kind of related tangentially to plant health. She knows that, like her, I feel strongly about that issue.
Let me start by saying that the Opposition will not be opposing this statutory instrument today. We are grateful that the Government have chosen to correct mistakes and omissions in previous SIs on this matter. Once again with the plant health regulations, we are here to make amendments to amendments because the previous amendments fell short of what was required at the time. Regular watchers of these SI debates on parliamentlive.tv—I am sure that there are many of them—will know of the concerns shared by my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Dr Drew), for Workington (Sue Hayman) and for Ipswich (Sandy Martin), the shadow DEFRA team. We are concerned that these SIs are sometimes being rushed through, and that mistakes—or gremlins, as I call them—can be baked into them not only in the work of the officials, but as a result of the lack of time for proper scrutiny by Members and by stakeholders. This SI confirms just that; legislation that is rushed through will need further amendment in the future because of omissions. That creates the potential for a polluted statute book, which is something that we all want to avoid, especially in an area as important and technically detailed as plant health. Indeed, on 19 March, when this regulation was last considered, my hon. Friend for Ipswich said:
“I confidently predict that there will be mistakes—perhaps not in these particular SIs, but in some of them—and that they will have serious consequences for our residents and businesses over and above the massive overarching mistake, which is the way in which this Government are failing to handle Brexit.”—[Official Report, Twenty-third Delegated Legislation Committee, 19 March 2019; c. 6.]
Ignoring the bigger Brexit position that my hon. Friend was talking about, I think it is important to say that when the Government do find errors and omissions in SIs, as we have here, we support them in bringing amendments to the Chamber, which is why we are not opposing this one today.
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out in a tongue twister of a speech that there were technical deficiencies and inoperabilities with this regulation in the past, but this was not in her bailiwick at the time. I think that this SI was in the flood of statutory instruments that were proposed by her Department in the lead-up to one of the early exit dates in a bid to push through as many as possible. At the time, the Opposition raised concerns about how comprehensive those SIs would be.
Let me turn briefly to the explanatory memorandum, because, sometimes, it is just as important as the regulations themselves. It suggests, implicitly, that this is a mere updating of the previous SI with new regulation. However, if we take one example, the EU Commission Implementing Decision of 2018/1959, which concerns preventing agrilus planipennis being introduced into the EU, was passed on 10 December 2018. The agrilus planipennis is incredibly damaging to the European ash trees, and so the Government are correct to legislate against its introduction to the UK to protect our own trees. Why was this not implemented when we last considered this area? Can the Minister explain to the House what process her Department is undertaking to look at the statutory instruments that have been passed by Parliament to check that there were no omissions, especially in that real surge of statutory instruments in February and March of this year before one of the early exit dates.
The previous SI, which this one amends, was needed to correct errors and omissions in the Plant Health (EU Exit) Regulations. Does the Minister concur with our assessment that the process that was followed in some of those SIs was unsatisfactory and that improvements to the process could be made? If she does agree with that, can she set out how her Department is addressing that? I think there is cross-party agreement that getting this right is important, but sometimes getting right things that are very technical can take a few attempts, but we want to make sure that the system the Minister is using is as robust as possible.
The Minister may know that one of my penchants with statutory instruments is to look at the impact assessments, and I will not disappoint anyone who is concerned about the impact assessment on this particular SI. I am not a fan of the phrase that there is “no, or no significant impact” in impact assessments in explanatory memorandums. It is important to state that “no impact” and “no significant impact” are two very different things. The phrase “no impact” suggests that there is no change, and “no significant impact” suggests that there is change but that it has not been measured. In this case, there is no impact assessment to enable us to understand whether or not there is an impact. I encourage the Minister—I have done so with every one of her predecessors in this role—to work with the House authorities and the Leader of the House to correct that language. There is a difference between “no impact” and “no significant impact” and, as we know, this SI is a correction of the previous SI that corrected regulations. We need to be getting this right.
Let me turn briefly to biosecurity and Northern Ireland in relation to customs. The Minister has set out the territorial application of this instrument, which affects different parts of the UK differently. Given the volume of UK-EU trade—especially across the Ireland-Northern Ireland border, which we hope will not be diminished as a result of any of the Brexit arrangements her Government are pursuing—the current system for sharing biosecurity intelligence with EU countries risks being lost if there is not an agreement to ensure that information sharing takes place. In the past few days, we have seen a potential threat to information sharing between the UK and our EU friends as part of the posturing around the Brexit deal negotiations. Will the Minister set out clearly for the House that information sharing on biosecurity and plant health security, especially regarding invasive species, will not be affected by any posturing from Downing Street, and that these regulations include the ability to share properly the information that we need between ourselves and our EU friends?
In the previous Statutory Instrument Committee on plant health, the Minister’s predecessor referred to contingency plans to develop a database to capture interceptions and incursions, and to share information with the European Union when such incursions have been recorded. Is that database ready? If not, how long after the proposed exit day—for the sake of argument, let us assume that it will be 31 October, although I suspect many of us think that it will not—will it be ready? How many interceptions and incursions does the Minister anticipate the system recording, and what action will be taken to contain them as they are identified?
The report of the House of Lords EU Committee states:
“The need to facilitate trade post-Brexit must not be allowed to compromise the UK’s biosecurity.”
That is probably something with which everyone on both sides of the House would agree, so will the Minister tell us how her Department will guarantee that we face no increased biosecurity risks and that we maintain alignment with the EU—especially in data sharing—in any Brexit arrangements?
These regulations set up lists for England, Wales and Northern Ireland that seek to replicate the current set of EU lists on plant health. They ensure that protected zones can continue to be protected from pests, and that emergency measures can continue to be applied where necessary. However, it is proposed that a large raft of the EU legislation that accompanied the lists be revoked. As mistakes were identified in the previous SI, may I just check with the Minister that it is still her intention to revoke those parts of the EU regulation? I just want to ensure that there are no errors or omissions in that respect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) mentioned that the EU plant health directive requires checks on material imported from third countries at the first point of entry into the EU. However, once we have left the EU—if that happens—the intention is to allow plant material from third countries to enter and pass through the EU without checking at the border, and to rely on checks at the destination premises of the importers. How does the Minister intend to ensure that all plant material brought into this country in that manner from third countries—without checks—will actually be checked? It is important to ensure that there are no invasive species, pests or diseases on containments of plants that can escape into our natural environment. As the Minister set out in her speech, there are a number of different pests and diseases that can affect UK species and which we would want to avoid, especially as we see the effects of climate change. The number of diseases and pests that can thrive in the UK environment has changed since regulations on pests were first introduced.
I know that this is the Minister’s first outing, so I apologise for the large number of questions that I have fired at her, but there is cross-party support for robust biosecurity in relation to plant health.
In case hon. Members were unaware, Extinction Rebellion is in New Palace Yard today, providing a free tree for every Member. I have collected mine; I got an English oak with my name on it. In fact, I walked past the Minister’s tree, which is sitting outside and which I am sure she will collect in a bit.
Ensuring that we have robust plant health and biosecurity for our natural habitat—especially the native species that Extinction Rebellion is giving out—is going to be very important whether we remain in the European Union or not, and we need to ensure that we have robust systems in place. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed a few of my questions when she responds.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I welcome the Minister to her new position. She is my neighbour and was a great member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I look forward to great work from her.
I echo what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said: there are trees out there, waiting for us to collect them. I too have collected an oak tree. Let us see if the soil in Tiverton is better than the soil in Plymouth. We will see how fast the trees grow and how much carbon they capture.
As the Minister will know, ash dieback—I am not as good at Latin as the shadow Minister—was introduced to this country after seed was taken to the Netherlands and grown into trees, which were brought back here. We can make Britain a bastion of trees that are not diseased. We should do everything we can to make sure that trees we import are healthy, and to grow many more of our own. There could be a real benefit from this statutory instrument, but let us make sure that we get it right. Again, I welcome the Minister to her new role.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
I, too, welcome the Minister to her Front-Bench position. I absolutely acknowledge her in-depth knowledge of the subject. She will know that the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government have made plant health a priority. I would be grateful if the UK Government stated fully and frankly which standards, if any, they intend to alter, and whether plant health is to be targeted.
Plant health is at the heart of Scotland’s thriving natural environment, our rural economy and our wellbeing. However, there are increasing pest and disease threats to our plant health, particularly through increased globalisation of trade and other factors such as climate change. The aim of the Scottish plant health strategy is to safeguard agriculture, horticulture, forestry and the wider environment from plant pests from 2016 to 2021 and beyond.
The strategy requires an integrated approach to ensure effective collaboration between all interested parties. That approach builds on work already undertaken by the Scottish plant health service, but recognises that Government alone cannot tackle current and future plant health challenges, and so has a focus on working in partnership with others to build and strengthen relationships. It sets out how together we can protect crops, trees and other plants from new and existing pests and diseases. That underpins the development of the economic potential of the Scottish agriculture, horticulture, forestry, rural land use and food and drink sectors, which in turn enhances production efficiency, protects the natural environment, including amenity sites and gardens, and maintains wholesome environments for rest and relaxation.
It is my job, and that of my fellow SNP Members, to make sure that powers devolved to Scotland are protected, and not taken back by Westminster, as that would prevent us from meeting the ambitions that we share. Scotland’s rich and diverse natural environment is a valuable national asset. Its continued health and enhancement is vital for the health and wellbeing of all, and for sustainable economic growth.
In Scotland, we have the largest green space project in Europe—the central Scotland green network. It receives and welcomes some 25 million tourist visits per year, which generate around £63 million for the Scottish economy. In my constituency of Falkirk, I witness local people enjoying the results of the Scottish Government’s ambition to enable and deliver a happier, more active lifestyle, particularly through the active travel hub plan; through encouraging walking and cycling, which everybody seems to enjoy in the area; and through connecting the magnificent Kelpies to the Falkirk stadium. There are also the canal paths to the world-famous Falkirk wheel, and of course there is the Antonine wall, a world heritage site. Local people, and people from all over Scotland and the rest of the UK, walk, cycle and use the canal boats, alongside visitors from all over the world, including Europe, all enjoying each other’s company. Long may this continue.
For your information, Mr Deputy Speaker, Scotland was the first country in Europe to implement a land use strategy. That allows our strategic approach to land use to account for the full range of benefits that our land resources provide. For example, Scotland created 73% of all new woodland in the UK in 2016-17. Furthermore, Scotland’s new target of 15,000 hectares per year from 2024-25 is both ambitious and achievable. The Scottish Government’s 2017-18 programme for government was described by no less a person than Richard Dixon of Friends of the Earth Scotland as “the greenest” in the history of the Scottish Parliament.
The EU has provided significant funding for Scotland’s biodiversity. The EU’s nature policy and legislation are effective, ambitious, far-reaching, robust, consistent and well enforced. EU-wide implementation allows it to function on a supranational scale, thereby acknowledging that nature does not observe national boundaries and recognising the importance of promoting habitat connectivity, which allows biodiversity to thrive and adapt in response to anthropogenic pressures such as habitat fragmentation and climate change.
Regulations on animal and plant health and food safety remain essential for Scotland’s reputation to access EU and other international markets. These regulations are vital to ensure certainty of policy for Scotland’s future and must be respected and remain in the Scottish Government’s powers.
Rebecca Pow
I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. There were a great many more interventions than one might have expected, and I am heartened to hear that so many people are interested in plants and our biosecurity, which is extremely important to all of us in so many ways. I particularly want to thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for kindly welcoming me to my place—we are going to be a south-west stronghold. I am delighted that he is supporting the regulations. I also thank the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), for his kind words, and the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally), with whom I had many enjoyable times on the Environmental Audit Committee. Working together on these things is important.
In order to prepare for the UK leaving the EU, it is essential that we have the right legislation in place to continue to protect plant biosecurity, while facilitating the trade and movement of plants and plant material around the world. We have a great many plants coming into the UK, but equally we export a great many plants. That must continue, but it must be safe, and we must be sure that any diseases or pests are under a tight microscope.
I take slight issue with the shadow Minister, because I do not believe that this statutory instrument has been rushed. Importantly, as I mentioned—I am sure he was listening—these regulations update legislation to include the particular biodiversity threats posed by the rosette virus and the oak processionary moth. Those threats have come to light since 31 March, and it was essential that we included them in the regulations. That demonstrates that we are on the ball and will not let things pass under the radar. I hope that the shadow Minister agrees.
A number of points were raised, and I will whizz through a few of them. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked what we are doing about alien species. As I said, we work with evidence to develop a risk-based and proportionate approach to plant health measures. We have in the past introduced precautionary national measures to protect the UK against threats that we see arising elsewhere in the EU and beyond. A good example is the stronger national legislation we put in place against Xylella fastidiosa in response to the situation elsewhere in the EU. We are now introducing national legislation to protect against the oak processionary moth and a potato pest called Epitrix.
The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) raised a question about material in transit from third countries. Regulated material will transit in sealed conditions through the EU with a phytosanitary certificate. Material entering England via the roll-on roll-off ports will need to transit to a point of first arrival in England, where plant health inspectors will carry out plant health checks. A very definite system is set in place, and people exporting and importing plant material have all had notification of this, so it is quite clear what is going to happen. Such material must be pre-notified to the APHA, which will inspect it before releasing it, and direct third-country imports, sea and air freight will be checked at the border, as currently.
Luke Pollard
Briefly on that point, in an SI Committee in which we talked about checking air freight, a Minister mentioned containerisation, but did not mention any containers coming via a rail link. Given what the Minister has said today, can she say whether that includes any freight that comes via rail?
Rebecca Pow
Well spotted. I am glad that the shadow Minister is on his toes. Yes, that will also include rail freight. I am glad we have cleared that one up.
Early warning systems for new threats were raised in the debate. As I think I suggested, pest, plant and disease experts in DEFRA, the APHA, the Forestry Commission and the devolved Administrations all work together already, providing an exceptional capability to protect plant biodiversity in the UK. All those bodies will continue to function and collaborate as we leave the EU.
Global warning threats were mentioned. Again, specialists will continue to work with pest and disease specialists in UK universities to inform our understanding of the risks. That is really important, and it is absolutely on the radar—for example, there is modelling of trade pathways for pests to arrive in the UK and the potential spread of outbreaks. Specialists will continue to collaborate with industry and stakeholder groups, and to develop citizen science capabilities and systems so that the public can help identify and report pest risks. Such citizen engagement is actually very useful in these areas.
I will move on to some of the points raised by the shadow Minister. He raised the issue of potential errors, given the number of changes being made and the errors being corrected. Our intention to retain relevant EU legislation has inevitably meant that it was not possible to include everything in earlier SIs, as EU legislation is updated frequently, especially in this kind of area. The purpose of this instrument is to introduce certain provisions that could not be included in earlier EU exit SIs, principally because they concern recent changes in plant health legislation. These changes are necessary to ensure that all deficiencies have been fully addressed. I hope he is happy with that answer.
The shadow Minister also asked whether we can be confident about the accuracy of other EU exit SIs. As I am sure he knows, such instruments go through the normal checking processes for draft SIs, including second and third pairs of eyes, and checks with DEFRA and other Government lawyers. They are also scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The principal focus of this instrument concerns operability, and the need to make technical changes and introduce certain provisions developed and agreed subsequent to earlier SIs.
The shadow Minister asked what consultation or impact assessment has been carried out, with whom and when. No separate formal consultation with stakeholders or impact assessment was undertaken because this instrument, as I have mentioned, makes many technical amendments, the purpose of which is to preserve biosecurity protections and assurances when the UK leaves the EU. It is not intended to change substantive policy.
The database for sharing information on biosecurity threats was mentioned. There is some precedent for third-country access to EU notification systems, and we will seek to negotiate such access with the EU. However, DEFRA has developed fallback positions for the eventuality of our losing access to EU notification systems. We are developing our own database to capture details of interceptions and incursions from day one to inform our decision making. All EU systems have publicly available elements that the UK will continue to access after exit. Our dedicated UK-wide risk and horizon-scanning team will continue to gather intelligence on plant health risks, including from other organisations, agencies and networks, and by increasing bilateral relationships with key trading partners and our nearest neighbours. Functionality has been added to the UK-owned plant portal to replace some EU notification systems. It is something that we take incredibly seriously, so under no circumstances would the Government let any of that slip, because it is crucial for all of us.
I shall touch quickly on a couple of points made by the Scottish National party spokesman. On the right for Scotland to make its own arrangements, plant health unfortunately is devolved, and Scottish Ministers have made the decision that they will deal with technical deficiencies relating to plant health legislation in Scotland, which will arise when the UK leaves the EU, by introducing their own EU exit SIs in Scotland. We are working closely with the Scottish Government, as ever, and the other devolved Administrations on a UK framework for plant health, including governance to minimise the risk of divergence, while respecting the devolved settlement, as the hon. Member for Falkirk will know. We will always work together closely.
The hon. Gentleman asked about protecting against future threats in the plant health regime. Policies in our EU plant health EU exit instruments are risk-based and proportionate, and will apply temporarily from day one until we develop our future plant regime. That will include consideration of the new plant health and official control regulation that will apply in EU member states from December 2019. In future, the Department will seek to take advantage of available technologies to facilitate as frictionless trade as possible while continuing our risk-based and proportionate approach to maintaining high standards of biosecurity. Again, DEFRA and the Food Standards Agency are working together closely to develop proposals on that.
I hope that hon. Members fully understand the need for the regulations, which has been made quite clear today. As I have outlined, they correct technical deficiencies and ensure that existing regimes for safeguarding UK biosecurity will continue to operate effectively from day one after exit. They ensure that newly regulated pests, plants and other material continue to be regulated after exit and provide for an internal market in plant material. I thank everyone for their input, and I very much look forward to collecting my tree. It is protecting such trees that the SI is all about.
Question put and agreed to.
Exiting the European Union (Environmental Protection)
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Zac Goldsmith)
I beg to move,
That the draft Environment and Wildlife (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 24 July, be approved.
The convention on international trade in endangered species—CITES—provides protection for more than 35,000 species of endangered animals and plants, from pangolins to parrots, through to guitars made from rosewood. By regulating international trade in live animals and plants and in parts such as fur, feathers and seeds, the convention aims to reduce the threat to those species in the wild. The UK is completely committed to supporting the work of CITES. At the recent CITES conference of parties in August, the UK used its world-leading scientific and technical expertise to play a pivotal role in proceedings. As a result of those interventions, 93 new species, including giraffes, mako sharks, sea cucumbers and several species of otter, lizard, spider and box turtle have enhanced protection under the convention.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. This is the first time I have taken part in a debate when he has been at the Dispatch Box. There have been reports about some of this country’s traditional species either disappearing or dropping in number. What are we doing to encourage the growth of those species, given climate change? They are naturally species for the climate of this country.
Zac Goldsmith
The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the collapse in biodiversity in this country, which is mirrored across the world. The purpose of the regulations is to deal with CITES specifically in relation to the import and export of endangered species from abroad, but he is absolutely right to raise the issue. We are completely committed to bringing in an environment Bill—we hope in a matter of weeks—which will set us on a course to reversing the biodiversity loss we are experiencing in this country. We could debate for hours what that involves. I do not think that this is the time for that, but it has my commitment—I am sure my colleague on the Front Bench, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), would make the same commitment—to do everything we can, for as long as we are in the Government, to play our role in turning around the extinction crisis we are experiencing in this country.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
While the Minister is on this subject and while you are allowing us to go into these areas, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is critically important that we plant more native species for exactly the reasons offered. Ash dieback is a good example, there is the disease affecting oak trees, and we know that horse chestnuts have suffered too in recent years, yet Network Rail and local authorities continue to decimate our tree population. To compensate for just that, the Government need a planting scheme of unprecedented proportions. I want millions more trees planted and there is no better Minister than this one, who has been such a champion of the environment throughout his political career, to be the spearhead to take that forward.
Zac Goldsmith
I thank my right hon. Friend very much for his kind words and his intervention. He is absolutely right. We need a hugely ambitious tree planting programme for this country. We do have an ambitious tree planting programme, but my view is that we need to step it up even further. We are certainly planning to do so and there will be, I can tell him tantalisingly, some announcements soon to that effect. It is not just about planting trees; it is also about ecosystems and encouraging wildlife in all its forms. As he knows, one of the advantages of leaving the European Union is that we can change the common agricultural policy to a system that, instead of paying people simply for owning land—effectively, simply for being wealthy—we will be paying them subsidies in return for providing public goods like improving biodiversity, flood prevention and so on. This is one of the great Brexit bonuses that I am looking forward to.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position. Further to his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), we now have an opportunity, with a new agricultural policy, to plant the right kind of trees. We need the right advice to plant trees in the right place so they do not get diseases and are not destroyed later. We have a real opportunity to make practical changes, moving on from the common agricultural policy, that work in different parts of the country. Different trees may need to be planted in different climatic conditions.
Zac Goldsmith
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and all the work he has done on these and associated issues. I could not agree with him more. I look forward to the publication of our tree strategy in a couple of months. From what I have seen so far, it will address those concerns head-on.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that my constituency will be included in the northern forest, which we are very excited about. I know he is very busy, but I invite him to come to North Lincolnshire where, in a couple of weeks’ time, North Lincolnshire Council will be launching its own new environmental strategy to ensure that the resources it has, be they grass verges or open green spaces, are better utilised to increase the amount of habitat available. We will be launching that very shortly and he is welcome to visit at any time.
Zac Goldsmith
I thank my hon. Friend very much. I have heard a bit about what his council is doing and it does sound inspired. I would love to take him up on his very kind invitation. We will talk later. Now I am going to make some progress.
The Government’s support for CITES is just one part of a much bigger and wider commitment to tackling the catastrophic loss of biodiversity we are now facing. At the UN General Assembly a couple of weeks ago, the Prime Minister announced a new £220 million international biodiversity fund to protect and restore biodiversity. The new fund will provide support for, among other things, a new biodiverse landscapes initiative, substantial uplifts to the world-renowned Darwin fund, and work to combat the illegal wildlife trade, including for the IWT Challenge Fund. He also announced a doubling of international climate finance to £11.6 billion. That will provide for a massive scaling up of nature-based solutions to climate change, which are vital if we are serious about averting the threat not only of mass extinctions, but of climate change. The proposed legislation makes sure that after we leave the European Union, the regulations implementing CITES will work in the UK.
CITES is currently implemented in the EU through a number of regulations known as the EU wildlife trade regulations. Those EU regulations will become retained EU law on exit day. We have already made various EU exit regulations to make the legislation work in the UK. This statutory instrument corrects the drafting in one of the previous EU exit instruments.
The EU regulations put in place a system of permits and certificates for cross-border movement of specimens of endangered species. The main EU regulation, No. 338/97, contains a number of derogations—exceptions—from the permitting regime. Further detailed provisions on derogations are then set out in a subsidiary, implementing regulation, No. 865/2006. The main regulation gives the European Commission powers to legislate and set out these rules in subsidiary legislation.
We are talking here about specific provisions. The main regulation contains derogations in articles 7(1) to 7(3). These relate to specimens of species born and bred in captivity or artificially propagated, specimens in transit, and specimens that are personal and household effects. Article 7 currently gives the European Commission legislative powers to make further detailed provisions on these derogations, and that has been done in subsidiary legislation—EU regulation No. 865/2006.
These derogations cover, for example, the process by which someone may be able to import certain artificially propagated orchid hybrids without the normally required CITES paperwork and checks, recognising the low conservation risk that that trade has. They also govern how someone might be able to move a piece of rosewood furniture when a family moves from one country to another.
This SI ensures that the Secretary of State has the necessary legislative powers to amend detailed provisions on key derogations in retained EU law. It corrects the drafting in a previous SI, the Environment and Wildlife (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019—henceforth referred to as SI 2019/473—which will in turn amend CITES-related retained EU law on exit day. SI 2019/473 provides for the Secretary of State to carry out functions currently performed by the European Commission and for her to set out the detailed provisions on the relevant article 7 derogations “in writing”.
This proposed SI makes two amendments. The first corrects a drafting error, so that the Secretary of State can set out the regulatory detail of the derogations “in regulations”, as opposed to “in writing”. That will ensure that the Secretary of State has the legislative power to amend the retained EU law provisions after exit. This ensures that we can, for example, amend the detailed derogation provisions to strengthen the controls that we have in line with our oft-stated policy aims. The second amendment provides that regulations made by the Secretary of State in respect of these derogations will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the negative resolution procedure.
The Government have made it clear that the intention is to raise the bar for environmental standards when we leave the European Union. This includes our efforts to protect endangered species and our commitment to CITES.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
When Ministers are outlining what is going to happen in the House, it is also important that the regional devolved Administrations, whether they are in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, are under the same rules and regulations. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case—that what he is bringing before the House tonight on environmental protection will also apply to Northern Ireland, which I represent?
Zac Goldsmith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. This instrument deals with entirely reserved matters. A draft of it has been shared with the devolved Administrations, but for information, the answer is that it will apply across the board.
These changes have been made because they are necessary to make it clear that the Secretary of State has the power not simply to take administrative action, but to legislate and amend retained EU law in respect of these key derogations. This will ensure that retained EU law is operable on exit.
In conclusion, I reiterate that this instrument will ensure that the Secretary of State can amend detailed provisions on key derogations in the regime implementing CITES. It provides for regulations made by the Secretary of State in respect of those derogations to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the negative resolution procedure. This instrument is thus necessary to ensure the full operability of retained EU law after we leave the EU. For those reasons, I commend this legislation to the House.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I am afraid we are here again, for the second SI in a row, correcting mistakes in previous statutory instruments that the Government rushed through. Just as before, the Opposition will not oppose this SI, because there was a mistake in a previous SI that the Government pushed through, but we did at the time highlight that there could be errors, given the speed.
I welcome the new Minister to his place in the main Chamber, having already done so in a debate in Westminster Hall. I am grateful to him for setting out that this SI corrects the drafting in a previous SI. The rest of his speech was very nice, but it concerned an SI we have already passed. The only thing this SI does is allow the Minister to make regulations. In error, the previous SI said he could only make them in writing, which meant administrative actions which do not carry the same weight as regulatory actions in relation to CITES and other wildlife protection legislation.
There is cross-party agreement that that legislation is very important, and some of the interventions the Minister took were on topics that were also very important, if nothing to do with the SI. The only thing this SI does is correct the mistake of the Minister’s predecessor. I do feel for him a wee bit in that respect because he had to say a lot of nice words before he got to the meat of it, which was: “Here’s another mistake we’ve made, and we’re going to correct it.”
I am grateful to the Whips for putting this in the main Chamber, rather than a Committee. Had it been in Committee, no one would have known that the Government had yet again made a mistake in their statutory instruments. Instead, they have given us a platform for all the countless people who like watching SIs on parliamentlive.tv to watch one in the Chamber.
I have high hopes for the Minister. I hope that his insurgent and provocative manner on the Back Benches to drive change from the Government on animal welfare in particular will pay dividends. In the past, we have had lots of soundbites, promises and consultations, but very little action—[Interruption.] And many Ministers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) says. I have high hopes that he will not accept the rum deal that his predecessors were putting out.
As with the Minister in the previous debate, I know that this Minister will be robust in this regard, and I hope this will be the last time that either has to come to the House to correct an SI that has been pushed through too fast without proper scrutiny or work. I suspect other errors will be found, however, particularly in the surge of SIs around February and March. This is not the first, the second or the third time the House has had to correct a drafting error in an SI.
I politely say to the Minister that a piece of work could usefully be done by DEFRA officials, who, to be fair, have had the most SIs to get through. Though no blame is being attached to them, the speed at which the SIs were reviewed will inevitably have let through some gremlins, such as this one. This was an important one to catch because the powers in article 7 that he set out are important. We need to make sure the Secretary of State has the ability to correct and make regulations, rather than just make administrative pronouncements.
I encourage the Minister not to accept any such errors and to make sure there is a robust process in place, because I suspect that this will not be the last time he has to stand at the Dispatch Box to correct an SI that has gone wrong. That said, I also encourage him to carry on fighting the good fight, because there is lots to be done on animal welfare and climate change in his Department. The Opposition wish him well in that. There is cross-party support for more robust animal welfare action, and, as we have seen from the protesters outside, more robust action on climate change.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
I, too, welcome the Minister to his position and acknowledge his understanding of the subject. It has just occurred to me that the Environmental Audit Committee has been a magnificent educator of MPs. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), who is not in her place, is to be congratulated on her drive. Maybe I will assume a similar role some time in an independent Scotland.
We in the SNP, regardless of our opposition in principle and in its entirety to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, fully understand that continuity is important and that SIs are necessary to preserve the framework around the status quo. The UK Government have now stated their intention to diverge from current EU regulation in a range of areas, including environmental standards. That is a backward step towards the UK’s once again becoming known as the dirty man of Europe.
How ridiculous it is that Chamber time is again being taken up by discussion of what are largely technical amendments. It is simply a demonstration of how chaotic the Government have become and of the crippling ongoing uncertainty that the Tory party has caused across the UK to individuals, families, small and medium-sized enterprises and larger businesses alike. This is a shameful state of affairs.
Let me say, as a member of the very effective Environmental Audit Committee, that our eyes were opened to the variety and the range of invasive species from which we are at risk. One of the greatest threats to biodiversity worldwide is posed by invasive non-native species, and that threat is particularly pronounced in relation to fragile island ecosystems.
Scotland has led the way in the UK and is often praised at our Committee meetings. Indeed, no less a person than the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said:
“I have to be honest, there are things that both the Scottish and Welsh Administrations have done that have been admirable and in advance of what has been done in England, so they have set the standard for the UK.”
Is it any wonder therefore that Scotland takes the environment very seriously and that we as a country remain concerned about any power grab back to Westminster and the threat of any deterioration in standards?
The EU created a statutory framework to prevent the introduction and spread of non-native species. The European Union’s 2015 regulation to address the problem on an EU scale will help to protect the British Isles from the introduction of invasive species, including those from mainland Europe, and will thus contribute to our efforts to adhere to the internationally adopted approach to non-native species, which prioritises the prevention of introduction over intervention post-introduction. It is very much a case of an ounce of prevention being better than a pound of cure.
Imposing a UK-wide framework for the environment risks undermining the significant progress that Scotland has made. We have grave concerns about the UK Government’s Brexit power grab, particularly in relation to environmental protections. We are not opposed to UK-wide frameworks when they are in Scotland’s interests, but they must be agreed and not imposed. That must also happen in a manner that respects and recognises devolution. The First Minister has made it clear that any threat to Scotland’s distinctive and ambitious approach to environmental standards and climate change is completely unacceptable.
Imposing UK frameworks could do substantial damage to work done by the Scottish Government. For instance, we used EU rules to ban genetically modified crops in Scotland to protect our environment and to support Scottish agriculture. There is no such ban in England. A UK-wide framework could see the ban lifted, threatening Scotland’s clean, green brand and placing the future of its £14 billion food and drink sector under a needless and avoidable threat.
Scotland has gained international recognition for our work on climate change and the circular economy, and make no mistake: that worldwide recognition will be protected by Scottish National party MPs. Scotland has already halved emissions. Net zero emissions will require different and more difficult choices than have been made to date, but we will make those difficult decisions and have those difficult conversations. Furthermore, in direct response to the Paris agreement, the Scottish Government’s climate change Bill will maintain our legislation as the most stringent in the world.
It seems appropriate for me to end by quoting what was said by a Minister in the Scottish Government about frameworks. We should be mindful of her words. She said:
“Imposing a UK-wide framework for the environment risks undermining the significant progress Scotland has made, which has seen us win international recognition for our work on climate change and the circular economy.
We are not opposed in principle to UK-wide frameworks in certain areas but this must be through agreement—not imposition.
Protecting devolution will allow us to drive forward our ambitious work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, enhance environmental standards and create a cleaner, greener Scotland for everyone.”
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I had not intended to contribute to this brief debate until I heard the contribution from the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally). I simply wish to point out, partly for his benefit and partly for the House’s edification, the two fundamental contradictions in his argument. The first was that he felt that this matter should not be debated on the Floor of the House. Yet, time and again, we hear Opposition speakers argue—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), was happy enough to acknowledge this—that we should be debating things on the Floor of the House, that they should not be debated upstairs in a Committee Room and that they should be debated in a way that allows as many Members as possible to participate.
The second irony at the heart of the hon. Gentleman’s argument was that he made a case for devolution of power to Scotland on the grounds of particularity, yet he does not seem to want devolution from the European Union to here, which is what these regulations are about. The regulations are clear that they transfer powers currently held by the European Commission to this House, allowing us to make more sensitive decisions in tune with the needs of this kingdom—this country. I thought it extraordinarily ironic that the hon. Gentleman should make a case for the very particularity that these regulations afford this House and this Government.
My brief contribution was designed to help the hon. Gentleman to refine his future contributions. I know that he will welcome that help.
Zac Goldsmith
I will be quick, because there is an important debate coming up.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this afternoon’s debate. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for the tone of his contribution. I have no doubt—indeed, I know—that he is very serious about taking on the challenges that we have been discussing today. I appreciate the manner in which he engages on this issue. I note his comments and absolutely accept his challenge. The insurgency will continue.
I also thank the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally). I believe that his concerns about standards dropping after Brexit are unfounded. With every week that passes and every piece of legislation that the Government introduce, we will demonstrate that he is wrong. No doubt, he will be happy to be proven wrong on that point.
The UK remains committed to effectively regulating trade in endangered species to ensure that that trade does not threaten the survival of those species in the wild. These regulations will ensure the operability of retained EU law implementing CITES after we leave the EU, specifically by ensuring that detailed provisions on key derogations can be amended by the Secretary of State.
Question put and agreed to.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PROROGATION)
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have just agreed to a Prorogation, which will take place later this evening. I wonder whether you could give us some assurance that, this time when we prorogue, Government Members will not be subjected to the sort of abuse that we were subjected to at the last Prorogation ceremony. I sat here, but in the end walked out, so disgusted was I to see Opposition Members on their feet screaming, “Shame!” at hon. Members, pointing, jabbing their fingers and making some awful hand gestures in the direction of Black Rod as she approached, and to hear foul language besides. Perhaps people will not have had quite so much to drink this time—it will not be at 1 o’clock in the morning —but we were offered no protection on that day from the Chair. Can you assure us, however, that if we see the same sort of bullying and hectoring behaviour this evening, we will be protected by the Chair this time?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The previous Prorogation was unlawful. This Prorogation is not unlawful.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for that point of order. I hope that, in this House, we will all respect each other and that we can conduct proceedings in a polite and respectful manner. The hon. Gentleman has put his feelings on the record, as has the hon. Lady. I suggest that we now move on.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Martin Vickers
Following the ruling of the Supreme Court, Parliament returned early from Prorogation, and we have spent a fortnight now in effect going through action replays of what has already taken place. Has any assessment been made of the cost to the taxpayer of Parliament being here and serving no useful purpose?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. Perhaps I should point out, however, that I am sure we would all agree that the debates that take place in our Parliament are always worth while, that the debates over the past few weeks were conducted in the proper fashion on excellent subjects and that all Members who spoke made marvellous contributions. We should now move on to the general debate on baby loss awareness.
Baby Loss Awareness Week
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Caroline Dinenage)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered baby loss awareness week.
This is the fourth Baby Loss Awareness Week debate, and it is incredibly heartening to see how this has become an annual event in the House. It helps to send a clear signal outside this place about the importance of this subject in the Chamber, in the Department of Health and Social Care and in the national health service.
Over the years, many Members of Parliament have been brave enough to share their personal and painful accounts of baby loss, which, while heartbreaking to hear, have done so much to raise the profile of this important issue and to start vital conversations about it. It is absolutely right and fundamentally important that we continue to raise awareness of both the devastating impact of baby loss and the support that bereaved parents need through the grieving process to help them adjust to their loss. I do not think people ever fully heal or get over the loss of a much loved and much wanted child, but with the right care and support they might be able slowly to move forward with their lives.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I identify with everything the Minister has said so far. One point about these debates for members of the public who have not experienced baby loss, and for some Members here, is what we learn about the heartbreak and, in some instances, the lack of support. In general terms, it has been very good to have these debates—even if we do have them annually—because they educate the public about an issue that has too often been shoved under the carpet, for want of a better term. It is better that people now understand what other people go through in life, so I do appreciate the Minister’s opening remarks.
Caroline Dinenage
I thank the hon. Gentleman so much for that intervention. He is absolutely right. In this place, we have a unique opportunity to raise subjects that people find it difficult to talk about out there. In doing so, we shine a light on those subjects, and we are able to really begin to move the dial and to change practice.
With that in mind, I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), who is desperate to speak, although, being a Minister, he is prevented from doing so, so we will have to restrain him. However, in a late-night Adjournment debate back in 2015, they began to raise awareness of the variation in care for families bereaved by baby loss. It was an incredibly moving debate—I remember listening to it at the time—and it really made such a magnificent difference. It was followed by the Baby Loss Awareness Week 2016 debate, which was about bringing the subject to light and challenging the idea that baby loss is an uncomfortable topic that we do not like to talk about. I am grateful to the Members from across this House who shared their personal experiences on that day back in 2016 and have done since.
International Baby Loss Awareness Week begins tomorrow and finishes next Tuesday. This year, the focus is on the need for specialist psychological support for bereaved parents who need it. The Baby Loss Awareness Alliance group of charities will be publishing a report highlighting that some parents need that kind of support as part of their bereavement care.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I wholeheartedly support the thrust of this debate and what the Minister is saying. I am not going to make a speech today—I did that last year—but when a child is lost, which as Members know has affected my family, counselling and gynaecological advice are hugely important. However, my constituents are over 100 miles from the nearest hospital where someone can give birth. I just want to put it on the record that a 200-mile round trip from Caithness to Inverness makes getting the counselling and gynaecological advice so difficult. My constituents are losing out on that front, and I wish that Caithness general hospital in Wick could be used for such purposes.
Caroline Dinenage
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that. The situation is particularly difficult in rural communities where people live a very long way from services. As we set out in the NHS long-term plan, maternity outreach clinics are going to start to integrate maternity, reproductive health and psychological therapy for women experiencing mental health difficulties arising from or related to maternity experience, and we must keep in mind those living in very remote communities when we talk about those outreach facilities.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
This is such an important topic. While the Minister is on the subject of outreach clinics, may I also emphasise to her the need for maternity bereavement suites within maternity suites? I am proud to have helped secure £22,500 for the new facility at Scunthorpe hospital that opened over the summer, and I pay tribute to the Health Tree Foundation for securing that £175,000 project. It took years but we now have a bereavement suite where parents who have had a stillbirth can spend time with their other children and with their baby on the ward in that maternity suite, just as other young mums and dads do. It is a really important part of the healing process. Frankly, that should be the norm throughout all our maternity suites. As we mark Baby Loss Awareness Week, perhaps the Government could consider such a system for the country as a whole.
Caroline Dinenage
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. He is absolutely right that we need to give that area a lot more attention. Having that ability to spend time together will be an incredibly valuable and important part of the process of grieving and coming to terms with the unbelievably tragic death of a baby.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
On the question of raising awareness, a job that was so ably started by my hon. Friends, the Minister will be aware of my Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Act 2019, which became law in May, two parts of which relate to stillbirth. One gives the Secretary of State the power to have coroners investigate stillbirths and the other sets up a review by the Secretary of State to look into the registration of pre-24-week stillbirths. That review body has not met for over a year, so can the Minister update us on when the legislation will be laid so that, for the first time, coroners will have the power and ability to investigate stillbirths where they see fit to do so?
Caroline Dinenage
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter, because he brought forward a really important private Member’s Bill. The consultation concluded on 18 June after receiving over 350 responses. Officials are currently analysing all those responses and will report as soon as possible.
Much has been achieved since 2015 to improve the quality of bereavement care for parents, and I put on record the efforts of the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss, ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury with support from Members on both sides of the House. I will speak more about developments in bereavement care in a moment, but first I would like to talk about some of the progress made by the NHS on improving safety and reducing baby loss in maternity and neonatal services.
I cannot continue any further without putting on record my enormous thanks and gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), who has done more than anybody to further the cause of patient safety and to investigate the untimely deaths of babies, and across the NHS. I thank him from all of us for his incredible work in that space.
Members will be aware of the Government’s ambition to halve the rates of stillbirths and neonatal deaths by 2025, with an interim ambition to achieve a 20% reduction in those rates by 2020. The ambition includes similar reductions in maternal mortality and serious brain injuries in babies during or soon after birth, and a 25% reduction in the pre-term birth rate from the current 8% to 6% by 2025.
This ambition was set in November 2015, when the Lancet stillbirth series ranked the UK 33rd out of 35 high-income countries for stillbirths. Case reviews of stillbirths and neonatal deaths suggest that many such deaths might have been prevented by better clinical care, and the Morecambe Bay investigation report made 44 recommendations for improving the safety of maternity services.
In 2016-17, the Department of Health launched a range of initiatives that are being delivered by the NHS under the auspices of the maternity transformation programme, and I would like to mention a few of those achievements. Every NHS trust with maternity services now has a board that includes obstetric and midwifery safety champions to lead the development of an organisational safety culture. Every trust has received a share of the £8.1 million maternity safety training fund, and 30,945 training places for multidisciplinary teams were delivered in 2018-19, with courses focusing on training for childbirth emergencies in labour wards and in the community, as well as on leadership, communication and resilience.
Evaluation of the “Saving Babies’ Lives” care bundle found that clinical improvements such as better monitoring of a baby’s growth and movement in pregnancy, as well as better monitoring in labour, mean that maternity staff have helped to save more than 160 babies’ lives across 19 maternity units. An estimated 600 stillbirths could be prevented annually if all maternity units adopted national best practice. A revised version of the care bundle is currently being rolled out across England, and it includes elements to reduce the number of pre-term births and to optimise care where pre-term delivery cannot be prevented.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I associate myself with the Minister’s positive words about my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt) and all he did to improve patient safety in the NHS. It was a fantastic piece of work.
Mr and Mrs Pickup of Knaresborough have suffered significant personal loss but are seeking to drive change to ensure that no other family have to face the same tragedy. The issue is with the automatic sharing of medical records between trusts. The process used within the NHS to ensure that that happens has not always worked very smoothly, so will my hon. Friend please consider this matter as she works to improve patient safety across the NHS?
Caroline Dinenage
My hon. Friend is right to raise that matter. When a tragedy could have been avoided by something as simple as sharing patient records, there is no option but to embrace the technology we need to make that a reality. Both the previous and the current Secretary of State for Health and Social Care are in favour of that.
Every trust is now using the perinatal mortality review tool to review stillbirths and neonatal deaths to make sure lessons are learned so that other families do not have to suffer in the same way. The first annual PMRT report is due for publication later this week, and it will provide an analysis of the first 1,500 cases. Overall, a review has been completed on 96% of stillbirths and 86% of neonatal deaths since the tool was launched.
Jamie Stone
The Minister talks about safety advice and safety good practice, so may I ask her and the UK Government to share that advice with NHS Highland and indeed the Scottish Government, who have never in my two years or so here given me a straight answer on the safety of pregnant women? Some of those women, who might be in labour, are being transported more than 100 miles from Caithness to Raigmore Hospital in Inverness, in the middle of winter, when the A9 can be blocked. I think lives are in danger.
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman has put his thoughts clearly on the record, and if there is anything we can ever do to share best practice with colleagues across the devolved nations and around the rest of the world, we are always happy to do that.
The Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch is another remarkable innovation. It commenced investigations in April 2018 and has been operational in the 130 trusts providing maternity services since the end of March 2019. By the end of August, the HSIB had completed 88 investigations, with 169 draft reports looking into maternity and neonatal deaths currently with trusts and families.
NHS Resolution recently published a report on the first year of its early notification scheme for potential birth brain injuries. The scheme requires all births at NHS trusts in England from 1 April 2017 meeting qualifying criteria to be reported to NHS Resolution within 30 days for investigation, so families with a baby affected by a severe brain injury attributable to substandard care can receive significantly earlier answers to their questions. This approach means that they do not have to resort to full court proceedings and can receive financial support with their care and other needs at a much earlier stage. In the first year, 746 incidents were eligible for the scheme. There have been early admissions of liability for 24 families, who have been provided with detailed explanations, admissions of liability and, very importantly, an apology. Families have been provided with financial support for early access to additional care, respite and, where needed, psychological support and counselling.
I am happy to report that this summer the Office for National Statistics reported that the stillbirth rate in England had decreased from 5.1 stillbirths per 1,000 births in 2010 to four stillbirths per 1,000 births in 2018. That represents a 21% reduction in stillbirths two years ahead of our ambitious plan.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I thank the Minister for Baby Loss Awareness Week and for her statement. Let me reiterate that many mothers want to have a natural childbirth, and it is essential that they can do so if possible, but we also need to make sure that the facilities are there in all of our maternity units to be able to act if a natural birth does not take place, so that we can deliver the baby without any brain injury.
Caroline Dinenage
My hon. Friend is right, and so much of what the Government have been working on in recent years is about making sure we have the right facilities, skills and knowledge right across our NHS estate.
Let me reiterate what I mentioned a moment ago, which is that we have seen a 21% reduction in stillbirths two years ahead of our ambitious plans. Of course every stillbirth is a tragedy, but I am sure the House will want to join me in paying tribute to midwives, obstetricians and other members of multi-disciplinary maternity and neonatal teams across the NHS for embracing the maternity safety ambition that we set, and for their incredible hard work in achieving this milestone two years ahead of target—that is remarkable. However, there is no room for any complacency, because there is so much more to do.
Many Members will be aware that the neonatal mortality rate in 2017 was only 4.6% lower than it was in 2010, and that headline figure hides the fact that the ONS data show that the number of live births at very low gestational ages, most of whom die soon after birth, increased significantly between 2014 and 2017. In fact, the neonatal mortality rate in babies born at term—that is, after at least 37 weeks’ gestation—decreased by 19% and the stillbirth rate in term babies decreased by 31.6% between 2010 and 2018. The pre-term birth rate remains 8%. Clearly, the achievement of our ambition depends significantly on reducing those pre-term births.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I apologise to the Minister and to the House for missing the early part of her remarks. On the statistics she has just commented on, is it not the case that we are going backwards in our progress on neonatal deaths? Is it not also true that there is a marked difference in more socially deprived areas since 2014? Does that not suggest that significantly more investment in this policy area is needed urgently, particularly in those areas where social deprivation is most stark?
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman is right. We are still going forwards, although nowhere near as quickly as we would want to be going, but there have been some backward steps along the way. A lot of the changes that we have introduced have not yet had the opportunity to take full effect, and I am hopeful that as we move forward we will begin to see neonatal death rates reduce. As I just mentioned, when babies are born at or close to full term, the rate has dropped significantly. It is pre-term births that are causing a lot of concern for us, which is why we are putting continued effort into this issue.
In the long-term plan that was published in January, the NHS committed to accelerate action to achieve the national maternity safety ambition. Maternity services will be supported to implement fully an expanded “Saving Babies’ Lives” care bundle across every maternity unit in England by 2020. The development of specialist pre-term birth clinics will be encouraged in England, which should help very much.
NHS England and NHS Improvement will continue to work with midwives, mothers and families to implement the continuity of carer model, so that by March 2021 most women will have a named individual caring for them during pregnancy and birth and postnatally. That will help to reduce pre-term births, hospital admissions and the need for intervention during labour. It will also improve women’s experience of care.
Let me return to bereavement care. Members will be aware that for three years the Department of Health and Social Care has provided funding to the charity Sands for it to work collaboratively with other baby loss charities and the NHS to develop and pilot the roll-out of a standardised national bereavement care pathway for parents who have experienced baby loss, whether through miscarriage, termination after receiving a diagnosis of foetal abnormality, stillbirth, neonatal death or, indeed, sudden infant death. The pathway sets out nine standards for good bereavement care and has so far been adopted by 40 trusts. I hope that many more will follow.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I was contacted by one of my constituents, whose baby died in July at 26 days. She still, now, has been unable to get counselling support. Will the Minister look into giving clear guidance to clinical commissioning groups to make sure that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on bereavement is there for everyone?
Caroline Dinenage
Yes. That guidance is there. My heart goes out to the hon. Lady’s constituent. If she wants to get in touch with us about any lack of access to care and support, we will almost certainly be able to help and look into it for her.
Bereaved parents need time to grieve. I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake)—I do not think he is present—who last year had a fantastic private Member’s Bill. As a result, from 2020 the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018 will give all employed parents a day-one right to two weeks’ leave if they lose a child who is under the age of 18 or suffer a stillbirth from 24 weeks of pregnancy.
Finally, the NHS commits in the long-term plan to improve access to and the quality of perinatal mental healthcare for mothers, their partners and children, by increasing access to evidence-based care for women with moderate to severe perinatal mental health difficulties and personality disorder diagnosis. We also want to increase access to evidence-based psychological support and therapy, including digital options in a maternity setting; the development of maternity outreach clinics, as I have already mentioned, that will integrate maternity and reproductive health; and psychological therapy for women experiencing mental health difficulties directly arising from or related to their maternity experience.
In conclusion, the Government and NHS are fully committed to reducing the number of babies who die during pregnancy or in the neonatal period, and to providing that absolutely fundamental and much-needed support for bereaved families.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
It is a privilege to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, which marks the 18th UK Baby Loss Awareness Week and the fourth debate in this place on the subject. I join the Minister in hoping that this will continue to be an annual event, as this is a really important subject on which we need to focus. I also welcome her comments on efforts to focus on prevention, to share examples of good practice and to learn from mistakes. I also want to put on record my thanks to midwives and obstetricians across the country, who do so much to deliver safe babies.
As a mum and a grandma, I can say that anyone who has ever known the joy of conceiving and giving birth to a child and the joy of watching that child grow and thrive knows how precious it is, and the very thought of losing that is something too painful even to contemplate. The fact is that, every single day, there are 650 miscarriages in the UK, which means that every single day, 650 women and their partners and families experience the most devastating loss. Every day in the UK, nine babies are stillborn, which means that 3,168 mums-to-be a year never get to keep the child that they have carried and loved for nine months. For every 1,000 babies born, between two and three will die before they are 28 days old. That is the equivalent of 2,131 babies every year. Somehow those parents have to find a way to go on. Baby Loss Awareness Week is about raising awareness of their suffering, and it is so important. It is also about finding ways to provide support and about highlighting the need for good care following a bereavement or miscarriage.
This week, bereaved parents and their families and friends will unite with each other and others across the world to commemorate the lives of babies who died during pregnancy, at or soon after birth and in infancy. I want to pay tribute to members of the Baby Loss Awareness Alliance. There are too many to mention individually, but those incredible charities and organisations are working together for change and tangible improvements in policy, research, bereavement care and support for anyone affected by the death of a baby at any stage. I want to thank them for the work that they do, and for reminding us that, first and foremost, this week is about remembrance.
The campaign to break the silence is crucial because miscarriage, stillbirth and infant death must not somehow become a guilty secret never to be told. The memories are painful, but precious, and the sharing of experiences with others is important. Many parents affected describe feelings of isolation, extreme sadness, anger and sometimes guilt. They need their experience to be listened to and acknowledged, because a loss of life matters and will always matter.
This week is also about raising awareness about pregnancy and baby loss in the UK and, crucially, it is a call for action. I want to commend the excellent “Out of Sight, Out of Mind” report published today. It is a call for mental health care for bereaved parents. Too often, they fall through the gaps in provision. The report illustrates a system that is at best insensitive and at worst totally inadequate. It is really hard to believe that anyone could ever think that it was appropriate for psychological support to be offered to a parent who has lost a baby on a neonatal ward with other people’s babies present. I was staggered to read also in the report of a bereaved parent turned away from bereavement counselling because they had not lost a loved one. We must do better.
A survey carried out this year found that 60% of bereaved parents felt they needed specialist psychological support for their mental health, but were not able to access it on the NHS. It has long been recognised that women who experience a stillbirth or neonatal death are four times more likely to have depression and seven times more likely to have post-traumatic stress disorder, yet currently, while there are pockets of good practice, provision is too often inadequate and reliant on a postcode lottery, and parents in need are falling through the gaps. This report is a call for the UK Government to act to ensure that all parents who experience pregnancy and baby loss and who need specialist psychological support can access it at a time and place that is right for them—free of charge, wherever they live.
I thank Members on both sides of the House who have on other occasions shared their very personal and painful experiences of loss. I also recognise the sterling work of the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss. Finally, but by no means least, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for her powerful campaign that led to the establishment of the children’s funeral fund.
I hope that Members on both sides of the House can together acknowledge today that we have heard the call for action and that, most importantly, we guarantee that we will act. In 2020, I want to be standing here and thanking the Government for their achievements in this field.
Mr Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
It is a great privilege to speak from the Back Benches for the first time in over a decade following two extremely powerful speeches from both Front Benches. I thank the Minister of State and the shadow Minister for two extremely compassionate and understanding speeches in which they spoke about the sheer pain felt by so many families up and down the country.
I also thank the many hon. Members on all sides—my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), for Colchester (Will Quince) and for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and many others—who have spoken so powerfully on this matter. I cannot possibly compete with the power of their words because there is nothing that anyone can suffer more than the loss of a child. I just want to make one observation from my many years—some would say too many—as Health Secretary with respect to this issue, and that observation is about the impact on professionals.
When you go around hospitals up and down the country, and ask the doctors, nurses and midwives, “What is the most traumatic thing that has ever happened to you in your professional career?”, almost invariably they will say that it is when they lose a baby. We often talk about the trauma for the families, who of course are the primary victims in this situation, but we must never forget the people who are sometimes called the second victims: the doctors, nurses, midwives and other professionals who have to go home, worrying that if they had done something differently that baby might still be alive, and who have to come back to work the next day and struggle on, dealing with that incredible trauma.
In that situation, those professionals want nothing more than to be completely open, transparent and honest with the families and with their colleagues about what happened to ensure that lessons are learned and that that tragedy is never repeated again. But in the NHS today, we make that practically impossible. People are terrified of the Nursing and Midwifery Council, the General Medical Council, the Care Quality Commission and their trust. They are worried about being fired and they are worried about all sorts of consequences, so the one thing that should happen—the one thing that everyone in that situation wants to happen more than anything else, which is that lessons are learned from that tragedy—is often the one thing that never happens at all.
Let us remember that there are 1,400 neonatal deaths every year, as the shadow Minister said. That is about four every single day across the NHS. The great tragedy—not just in the NHS but in hospitals all over the world—is the fact that a tragedy can happen in Blackpool one day, and a month later exactly the same tragedy can happen in Cornwall. There has not been enough effort to try to share the learnings from such tragedies. I commend the efforts of the Government and my successor Ministers for doing everything they possibly can to put this right and to ensure that we really do become a learning organisation. In truth, though, this is a big job that will take a long time, because it is about changing culture.
The NHS needs to look at other industries that have successfully changed from having a blame culture to having a learning culture. The airline industry is the most famous example, but there are also the nuclear and oil industries. That job of changing culture will be our central responsibility if we are to reduce the agony for parents and the professionals involved in the care of babies. The most powerful way to change culture is to shout out loud and clear those human stories of the terrible loss involved, because that is what promotes change.
I finish by commending everyone involved in Baby Loss Awareness Week—the brave Members of this House who have spoken out, and given many others hope that they are not alone; the many brave members of the public who have relived their own tragedies over and over again to try to promote change in this area; and the Ministers concerned, who have a heavy responsibility when it comes to this agenda, and who I know take that responsibility with the utmost seriousness.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) for bringing forward this debate. She and I and other Members of the House share a particular interest in this issue. I can hardly believe that another year has passed and we are once again reflecting on Baby Loss Awareness Week, which culminates in Baby Loss Awareness Day on 15 October. Once again, I wish to say that that day is particularly special to me, not just because it is international Baby Loss Awareness Day, but because it was on that day that my son was born stillborn at full term in 2009. He would now have been 10—a baby no more. I think of him every day; in that respect, I am no different from any other parent who has gone through this terrible trauma.
Every single bereaved parent who has lost a baby feels exactly the same about their baby whose life was ended before it could properly begin. That is why I have used my position as an MP, as far as I can, to raise awareness of this issue and help break the taboo around this awful experience. Many Members across this House have done the same. Baby Loss Awareness Day and this week are important. Sadly, every year more people are drawn into the appalling statistics of those who have lost their baby in whatever circumstances.
The theme of this year’s reflection is access to mental health support for those who need it in the wake of baby loss. Who could argue with that? Indeed, only last week some of us were in this very Chamber discussing women’s mental health. Access to mental health support in the wake of baby loss is important not just for mums, but for dads, too, and indeed extended family members struggling with the loss of a baby whom they had expected to be welcoming to the family. Today, more families will have suffered a stillbirth and will somehow have to try to cope with this appalling trauma.
Mental health support is very important for bereaved parents who need it, not just from a compassionate or moral point of view, although those are important, but from a practical, social and economic point of view. In past debates on the issue, I and others have spoken about the fog of grief that comes from having to bury your baby—the bewildering sense of the world being turned completely on its head. While 50% of marriages end in divorce, parents who suffer the loss of a child are eight times more likely again to separate and divorce, heaping heartbreak on top of heartache. Easier and more prompt access to the correct mental health support could help mitigate that awful statistic, and perhaps help parents who are struggling with grief to stay married, return to the world of work, and remain economically active, which can in time prevent the isolation that grief brings with it too often.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Before this job, I ran a children’s hospice. We were able to provide wraparound care to the whole family. We worked with hundreds of families in my time there, and I am really proud to say that because of that care, not one family separated.
Patricia Gibson
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. That is the kind of support we need to put in place, and I am about to talk about wraparound care.
We know that bereaved parents are more likely to develop depression and other mental health issues, perhaps turning to drink or other forms of self-medication, because we know that those who experience stillbirth or baby loss are at a higher risk of mental health challenges. Given what we know, there is really no excuse not to have measures in place in this awful eventuality for those affected by baby loss. The aftermath of baby loss is no more or less traumatic for those affected than living through the immediate experience and the years following it.
Gareth Thomas
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She is making a powerful speech, and I strongly support her call for better access to mental health support. I think of the difference that the four-hour target made to quality of care and access to accident and emergency doctors and nurses where needed, and I wonder whether we need a similar target in place, to ensure that trusts and the NHS in general can be accountable for whether access to mental health support is given quickly enough to people who are bereaved in these circumstances.
Patricia Gibson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The point I am trying to make is that because we know that these mental health challenges very often arise following baby loss, there is no reason why the infrastructure should not be in place for when these issues arise. Sometimes the demand is immediate, and sometimes it is months or years after. Sometimes people will choose not to call on these services, but the infrastructure needs to be there to ensure that people have access to it in a timely fashion.
Someone pointed out to me today a comment on social media from a chap who spoke about “awareness day fatigue”, but he also acknowledged the importance of those with lived experience feeling able and willing to speak about their experience of baby loss, because this can encourage others to talk of their own loss and perhaps seek the support and help they need. We with lived experience who choose to talk about it can also prevent others from going through the awful experience we had by raising that awareness, to stop other people joining the terrible club of which no one would ever wish to be a member.
Raising awareness is very important. It is not and must not ever become some trite stock phrase, although it may sometimes sound so. It is important because every day I wish to God that I had had some more awareness of pre-eclampsia and HELLP syndrome. I may then have been in a better position—I am sure many mothers would say the same—to articulate what was happening to me, instead of being told by the Southern General Hospital that I was wasting their time when I turned up on the day I was due to deliver my baby and that the terrible pain I was in was normal. What did I expect? It wasn’t labour—go home and lie down. Could I not see they were busy? Had I known more about pre-eclampsia, I would have been able to ask to be checked specifically for that condition, because I was not tested for it. I would have been more assertive, instead of being made to feel like an hysterical older expectant mother.
Raising awareness really does matter. Information matters because it can make a difference between life and death. We know that, too often, mothers are not listened to. Raising awareness cannot be seen as a trite phrase or a box-ticking exercise, and I know that many who have lived with the loss of their baby would say exactly the same.
The chap commenting on these matters on social media is right to say that the lack of mental health support must be addressed. We cannot be discharging mums to send them home to their partners and families and leave them to get on with it. They must have the mental health support they need to help them navigate as best they can the biggest loss and the most appalling experience it is possible for them to have.
We have, over the years, come a distance in the realms of baby loss. We have, with some success, shone a light on it and worked to remove the taboo, but we still need to do more to ensure that the isolation of grief does not swallow up those affected by this loss, which goes against everything that nature would suggest. We need to continue to work to break down the isolation, and we can do that with the proper mental health support to help those affected to find their way back to some semblance of normality and find a path through their fog of grief, so that they can rebuild their lives, albeit around the loss that they have suffered.
It is shocking to learn that the majority of bereaved parents who need help cannot access it in an appropriate place and at an appropriate time. This is because perinatal mental health services are focused on women who are pregnant or have a live baby. Last week in the debate on women’s mental health, many of us spoke about new mums needing mental health support—and that is true: they do—but this need not mean and must not mean that those mums whose babies have died are forgotten. They must not be forgotten; they must be given the support they need because we know that they are at risk of developing mental health challenges. We need to do more to ensure that the mental health infrastructure they need is in place to support them. Women who have experienced stillbirth, miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy are at a higher risk of post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression than those who have not. They also display clinically significant levels of post-traumatic stress symptoms from five to 18 years after stillbirth.
As I was reading some of the testimony from the Lullaby Trust in preparation for this debate, from women who had suffered stillbirth and described walking out of the hospital with no further contact about the support they might need, I recognised that because that, too, was my experience. I did not feel able to discuss my experience or participate in counselling, but that was just as well because it was never offered. In my case, the hospital was trying to dodge questions and withhold information about how my baby died.
In response to the point made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who is no longer in his place, the demand for coroners’ inquests—or, in Scotland, fatal accident inquiries—into stillbirths, where they are deemed to be in the public interest, has risen only because of hospital trusts and health boards pulling down the shutters when things go wrong. That is where that demand comes from, and that has to stop: it has to change. Parents do not want to consult a lawyer when their baby dies; they just want to know what went wrong and how it can be avoided. That is something health boards and health trusts really need to do more to get their head around.
I am pleased that in Scotland there has been new investment in perinatal mental health to ensure that there is support for bereaved parents prior to discharge and that there is appropriate signposting to third sector services that can provide bereavement and other mental health support. We can no longer turn a blind eye to or overlook those who fall through the gaps in our health system. There must be psychological support for those affected by the death of a baby if they need it.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I commend her bravery in speaking up on this again; I know how hard that is for her. Does she agree with me that there needs to be support for women entering a subsequent pregnancy after that as well? That could be quite retraumatising for some women and quite challenging to deal with, and they need special support for that as well.
Patricia Gibson
I thank my hon. Friend, and I think she has made an excellent point. The shadow of a stillbirth will hang over any subsequent pregnancy, should it take place, and we need to be mindful of that.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Will the hon. Lady join me in this poignant debate in saying how dreadfully sorry we all are that, on 27 September in Bronzefield women’s prison, a baby was born and died? We know no more than that at the moment, but it seems appropriate in this debate that we pay our respects to that baby and their mam.
Patricia Gibson
Absolutely. I absolutely share the hon. Lady’s sentiments. I think the important thing for all the people affected by that terrible loss is that they get the answers they need. We cannot turn back time, but what parents want are answers and explanations. To know that their baby mattered and that their loss is not going to be swept under the carpet is extremely important at those times.
I know there might be awareness day fatigue, but this particular awareness day does matter to those affected by baby loss. It is a week of remembrance, culminating in International Baby Loss Remembrance Day on 15 October. It is a space—a day—where we can collectively remember our babies, comforted by the knowledge that others have also experienced this indescribable loss and can understand the pain we feel. When you have experienced this, it really is easy to feel that no one could ever comprehend the scale of such a loss, but of course others who have gone through it do.
This day is not just about remembrance of our lost babies, although that is extremely important; it is a reminder that those who live with this are not on their own. Sadly, thousands of people in the UK and millions worldwide have suffered this loss. There are many who do understand, and more and more of us are willing to speak out. If we can take some of the isolation out of the grief for our lost babies and if we can give better aftercare to the parents who have suffered this loss, perhaps we could all have better mental health, despite suffering a loss of such huge magnitude in our lives.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Ind)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who has been a real support on the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss and who always speaks incredibly powerfully not only about her own experiences but about what needs to change. I am grateful, too, to the Leader of the House, who provided time for this debate, and to the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who helped with a pincer movement to encourage him to table the debate.
I thank the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), who used to co-chair the APPG with me, and I give thanks particularly to the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), whose support for this issue when he was Health Secretary provided the political will to drive through the change that we have seen in the past few years, which has been incredibly important. It is an important testament and legacy that he has left, particularly given the reduction in numbers. There is a need for cultural change, and there is a need, too, for cultural change around mental health support, as seeking such support often had a stigma attached to it.
The right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), the former Chancellor, allocated £1.4 million of LIBOR funding to Alder Hey Children’s Hospital so that it could build a brand-new bereavement counselling centre. I recently went to see that centre, and it will be an exceptional resource in the north-west. Any parent who has lost a child, no matter how long ago, can go to Alder Hey and receive free support and counselling. I would like to make sure that people are aware of that. Alder Hey also operates a hotline that can signpost parents towards help. The Government can be really proud of the steps that they have taken to tackle some of the deep-rooted issues in maternity provision, stillbirth rates and neonatal deaths.
Progress achieved on the national bereavement care pathway should be celebrated. An alliance between the third sector and the national health service has achieved real change. Evaluation of the pathway showed that 92% of parents who had been on the pathway felt that they had been treated with respect; 89% felt that they had been communicated with sensitively; and 87% were offered access to ongoing emotional support after they left hospital. Trusts that have taken up the pathway have seen a real improvement in the care that has been offered to parents.
Further to the point made by the right hon. Member for South West Surrey, clinicians using the national bereavement care pathway felt that they were better prepared to communicate with bereaved parents, and the proportion had increased to 92%. The proportion of professionals who felt capable of discussing bad news with bereaved parents increased from 66% to 72%. There are other excellent results from the evaluation, but I will not go into them here.
Sarah Champion
Does the hon. Lady share my concern that that is not the case across all health trusts and that we need to make statutory provision?
Antoinette Sandbach
I absolutely do, and I shall come on to that. Having been through the system in Wales, where absolutely no bereavement care at all was offered to me—a charity set up by a former Member of Parliament paid for me to have counselling from Alder Hey—I am as aware as anyone of the issues around access to support. Some 130 NHS trusts have expressed an interest in using the bereavement care pathway, and they should be encouraged to take up best practice.
It is not all good news, however. The reality is that while many hospital trusts are now putting that support in place, the gap in provision comes when parents go back into the community. It is there that the issues need to be tackled. The information gathered by the Baby Loss Awareness Alliance showed that there was a clear need for specialist psychological support for parents. A freedom of information request sent out by Sands in July 2019 painted a picture of very patchy support, with commissioners in over 86% of areas across the UK telling us that they do not commission specialist therapies to support bereaved parents. That is quite scandalous when we look at the good progress that has been made in the acute sector. That is where the gap is present.
Less than 40% of commissioners said that that support was available for both parents, so when it was available, it was only available for one parent. That is completely wrong, for all the reasons my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester has outlined. It should not matter whether someone is a mum or dad; they should be able to access specialist psychological support if it is needed. Why is that important? Some 60% of bereaved parents said that, in the end, they did feel that they needed psychological support. Certainly, I did not want to talk to a load of volunteers; I wanted to talk to a professional who could give me the tools and the understanding to cope with the loss of my daughter and to be able to go back to work and start functioning in a normal way.
It is right to acknowledge that women who experience stillbirth, miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy are at high risk of post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression. I remember giving a speech to a City law firm, where I was told that it was extremely common that mothers never went back to work having lost a child, because of the impact of that loss on them. By investing in that support, we encourage the family to stay together and to get to a place where it is possible to live with loss and still contribute to society.
Where there has been a sudden or unexpected death, 39% of women three months after suffering an early pregnancy loss met the criteria for probable to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder. Some 68% of mothers and 44% of partners reported four or more negative psychological symptoms at 10 days. The important Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), which allowed some paid bereavement leave for parents, allows some time for parents to come to terms with the issues they face and, very importantly, to find the services that will help them to deal with the loss they have suffered.
I encourage Ministers to read the “Life after Loss” report, which was published last week by the Centre for Mental Health. I support the Minister in the ambition to roll out national centres that will permit parents to access support locally, working with commissioners and the third sector, which can very often have expertise in this area. Support can be commissioned locally without the need for infrastructure, because there is already a third sector organisation. I am thinking of the Petals Charity, for example, which provides counselling. However, its services are not provided all over the UK.
There is another really good example in Wales: 2 Wish Upon A Star. This charity is proactive and not reactive in its approach. It contacts parents within hours of them leaving hospital to discuss their loss and to see what support they need. It can then put a counsellor in a car and on the way to the bereaved parents within hours, rather than them having to wait weeks or months for a referral. If we could roll out that kind of service, delivered by the third sector but supported by the national health service, in areas where there are gaps in provision, that would make a huge difference to parents’ lives.
As chair of the all-party group on baby loss, I said that I would not only celebrate success but hold feet to the fire, so I ask the Government to undertake a review of the current provision, including the evaluation of the models of best practice involving parents and professionals, and to develop quality standards and national guidance to support those planning, funding and delivering specialist psychological support—that must be delivered at CCG level. Acute hospitals are really beginning to deal with this, but the provision at a local level needs to be addressed. I also ask the Government to provide guidance to support local services to effectively assess the psychological support needs of bereaved parents and develop pathways to meet those needs.
It is a real pleasure that we can speak in this debate—an advantage of not proroguing—at the beginning of Baby Loss Awareness Week. It shows the valuable work that is done in this House and that is achieved through cross-party working with a Government who have been really committed to pushing forward this agenda. However, there is more work to do, and with the previous commitment to try to put mental health services on a par with physical health services, this is an area that needs addressing so that that support is put in place.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), who speaks from personal experience on this matter. Every year, she identifies the main issues that we still need to improve on. She is absolutely right to talk about the evaluation that shows where things are getting better, but it is also fair to say that the good practice is not consistently felt across the board, and that is what we need to aim for. She also spoke about the need to change the culture, which is really important. The right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt) also referred to that, and I welcome him to the Back Benches—I know that we had our disagreements as Front Benchers, but on this issue, there was a great deal of unanimity, and that is the spirit that we should carry forward. Both spoke about the need to change the culture and the length of time that that will take, but that is absolutely the right approach, because with all tragedies in the health service, most of the time people just want to know why something happened and how it can be stopped from happening again. The more that we can move away from the blame culture and get into a proper analysis of why things have happened and how we can prevent them from happening in future, the better the experience will be for everyone.
When I first spoke in a baby loss awareness debate back in 2016, I expressed the hope that this would become an annual fixture, and I am pleased to see that we have managed to do that despite the unpredictable timing of Parliament at the moment. This gives us a real opportunity to take stock of where we are and hopefully to set some benchmarks for future progress, because, as we know, every year there are thousands of tragedies. Tommy’s estimates that a quarter of pregnancies end in miscarriage. The Ectopic Pregnancy Trust tells us that one in 80 pregnancies is ectopic and Sands tells us, as we have heard, that 15 babies are stillborn or die shortly after birth every day. Those charities are just some of the 60-plus charities that collaborate to support this extremely important week. I echo the comments of hon. Members who have praised their work in this vital area, not just how they support people who have experienced their own personal tragedies, but how they work across the board to secure better outcomes for everyone. They not only raise awareness of baby loss, but work with health professionals to improve services and bereavement care and, critically, to reduce the number of preventable deaths.
Like others, I want to focus on bereaved parents and mental health support. As we all know from meeting bereaved parents, the feelings of loss and isolation are understandably overwhelming, and nothing can take away from that, but that does not mean that we cannot do more to ensure that the right care and support are in place at the right time so that those people can come to terms with their loss as best they can. We know from the evidence that good bereavement care can make a difference to parents and families and their experiences at this tragic time.
The sooner we can support more healthcare professionals in delivering good-quality care, the better. I welcome the roll-out of the pathway, but I urge the Government to redouble their efforts to ensure that all trusts and health boards adopt the pathway and ensure that all our healthcare professionals feel properly equipped to deal with bereaved parents, so that everyone across the board gets the correct and best level of support, which is what they truly deserve.
Not all bereaved parents will develop a mental health problem, but we must ensure that those who do can access specialist psychological support, that they can access it as soon as possible and at a time and place that is right for them, and of course that it is freely available to them. Sadly, as we know, not all parents can do that at the moment. Parents have told me that they are often not aware of the services available. Many leave hospital with no information about where they can seek support. Some are given information but then find that the support is not available for them at the time they need it—because of course there is a waiting list.
A survey by Sands earlier this year found that nearly two thirds of bereaved parents felt that, although they needed specialist psychological services, they could not access them on the NHS. This is equally a challenge for those who seek bereavement counselling for adult deaths, urgent referrals for which can take up to six months to process, which is far too long, I think we would all agree. In the words of one mother who contacted me:
“we weren’t offered any specialist help in terms of bereavement support. I visited my GP on a number of occasions and was advised I could see a counsellor but there was a waiting list. I was prescribed antidepressants which I refused to take as I was grieving, I wasn’t depressed”.
Many listening to this debate will recognise that experience. I hope we can learn that it is vital that the right support and treatments are available at the right time.
A new report from the Baby Loss Awareness Alliance reveals that nearly nine out of 10 clinical commissioning groups do not commission talking therapies specifically for parents, and where the services do exist, they are mostly for mothers only, meaning that the needs of fathers are often overlooked, as the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince) has spoken about in the past.
There is of course much good practice out there, but it is sometimes reliant on charitable grants and third parties, meaning that the provision is patchy and at risk from wider funding decisions. I therefore support a call for a review of the current provision, including an evaluation of the models of best practice, involving parents and professionals in those conversations. We know that the need for psychological support following pregnancy loss and stillbirth is recognised in the NICE guidance and that the “Better Births” report, the maternity transformation programme and the NHS long-term plan all highlight the need to improve perinatal mental health care. These plans must translate into action to ensure that the needs of bereaved parents are explicitly addressed in quality standards and national guidance, in the training for the relevant healthcare professionals and in guidance and support for local services.
Beyond the major transformational strategies we have been talking about, we can also make simple, small changes that will make a difference to parents’ experiences. In the words of another constituent after her own bereavement:
“That moment, I know myself, stays with you as much as the birth and most of us end up bumping into other new parents carrying their bundles home on the way out. I feel a support worker or midwife could do with walking the parents out, helping the transition into the hands of family or friends go more smoothly would be extremely beneficial. Most of us are left with not even so much as a leaflet of where to turn to in crisis. Most of us haven’t had a follow up with a midwife or healthcare professional even though we have given birth and these unfortunate administrative errors occur far too often. I suppose support is the key issue.”
Those comments show that some simple, straightforward things can be done that need not cost the earth or require massive national strategies, but actually just need a bit more thought and organisation. I think we can all recognise the difficulty that that mother must have experienced.
Having participated in debates on this subject over the last three years, I know that Members have shown a great deal of personal courage by speaking about their own experiences. Three years on, we have shown that the message is going out to people that they are not alone. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), and to the hon. Members for Eddisbury, for Colchester and for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), for their work and for the way in which they have spoken about their own experiences. That contributes greatly to increasing awareness of Baby Loss Awareness Week, which has itself led to some local groups getting together. Next Tuesday my constituents will take part in the Wave of Light outside Ellesmere Port civic hall, which I think is a very good way of encouraging more people to come and talk about what they have been through. The more people who engage in that dialogue, the better.
I should like to be with those constituents next week, but I suspect that I shall be here, although my thoughts will be with them. I think that what we can show them today is that when the House puts its mind to it, we can work across parties and make things better for our constituents. Anyone who has heard the debate today will understand why it is so important that we do that.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I obviously associate myself with many of the comments that have been made today, particularly those of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who talked very movingly about their personal experiences.
I suppose that not many of us necessarily think about this issue if we have not experienced it, or think about the support that is available. I must confess that I had not considered the issue in any great depth, because I had had no personal family experience of it, and of course one assumes that all the services will be there to support people at this most vulnerable of times. It was not until someone came to talk to me about the project that I described in an intervention on the Minister’s speech—at that early stage, I was not sure whether I would have an opportunity to speak myself—that I gave any thought to the experience of bereaved parents in a maternity suite.
That brilliant project was initiated by the Health Tree Foundation in north Lincolnshire, which is the hospital charity for the North Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust. I pay particular tribute to the member of my staff who raised the subject with me, Julie Reed, who is my community support manager. She tasks herself with going out and supporting local good causes, and as a result has managed to write funding bids and bring in more than £1 million. This was a cause that she took up on my behalf, and, through her brilliant ability to write funding bids, she helped to secure £22,500 towards the £175,000 project. A lot of people did a lot of work, particularly, as I have said, the Health Tree Foundation, and the maternity suite itself.
Let me say a little about what the suite does and what it means. It opened in July, and is known as the Cherished suite. When the experience was described to me of being in a maternity suite and being bereaved, it struck me that there were two things that a bereaved parent might not want to do. First, they might not want to go home very quickly, and secondly, they might want to be in the suite, but not necessarily surrounded by people whose children are being delivered and who are experiencing that most joyous of moments. The brilliant job that the midwives and all the professional staff do to support those parents was not in doubt. Rather, it was about the ability of bereaved parents to have a safe and quiet private space on the maternity suite, like every other parent, where they can enjoy that important time with their baby and bring their family in; a space where they will not be rushed out, but where they can stay for as long as they require. That is exactly what the Cherished suite, which is now open at Scunthorpe central maternity suite, is providing. It is on the maternity suite, but in a private, quiet area.
I want to quote the experience of one set of parents, who sadly lost their daughter Alicia in 2017, before the suite was opened, who have talked about what it would have meant for them:
“When we lost our daughter, we were in the middle of the delivery suite, surrounded by people doing their jobs and delivering newborn babies. Other couples were walking out with babies and it felt like we had been stabbed in the heart.”
Other parents who have experienced the same have described to me how they felt that they had in some way failed, which is a terrible thing to hear. Those parents continued:
“We didn’t have the opportunity to use a place like this to heal and recover from the heartbreak. It would have helped tremendously—it’s quiet and you couldn’t hear anyone outside the room”—
a safe space for them to spend that time with their baby.
I am so proud that the Health Tree Foundation has been able to deliver that service for our area, because the suite is a place where parents can spend time with baby, but also where memories are made. The Health Tree Foundation provides memory makers, who do prints of baby’s hands, and even casts of legs and arms, and make teddy bears from the clothes that the babies would have worn. I hope that we can look at that idea, whether in the design of new maternity suites or in providing support for existing maternity suites, to ensure a place where bereaved parents can spend time with baby in privacy on the maternity suite, with the support of every other parent there, but in a way that is sensitive to their particular needs.
I should add that the suite of course provides all the necessary support and information that is so often required for ongoing mental health needs. I particularly associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) about the vital role that can be played by talking therapies, which is something that I have more personal experience of. Talking therapies are so undervalued. They can be used in so many ways, but this is one area where parents need to have absolutely guaranteed access to them.
I do not want to say anything more, other than to thank the health foundation in northern Lincolnshire and Goole for providing that service. I also thank the maternity staff, who were doing a brilliant job anyway in supporting bereaved parents, but who have got behind the project so enthusiastically and now have a special private place, as people walk into the suite, where they can do even more to support bereaved parents. We are of course not the only place where something like that happens, but I found it striking that it does not happen automatically and that there is not such a space everywhere. I agree with so much that has been said today and pay tribute to all those who have done so much in this area, both here and outside this place.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (IGC)
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). My contribution to the debate will touch on a lot of what he said about the situation, which is undoubtedly true. It struck me again because of two constituents in particular who came to see me. I had my children at the Queen’s Medical Centre in Nottingham. My constituents went in there expecting, as most of us do when we go into hospital to give birth, that they would be taking their baby home after a safe delivery. Emily was their second child, and she died—she was a stillborn baby. That was at the end of 2013.
Until I met Richard and Michelle Daniels, I had not appreciated some of the issues we are talking about. When I gave birth to my babies, I had two wonderful deliveries, although they were very painful. However, I do not talk too much about the great pleasure, joy and magic I experienced in becoming a mother on those two occasions. I felt real shock when Richard and Michelle came to tell me that, although they got the most terrific care, love and support from the remarkable staff at the QMC when Emily was born dead, there was no facility at all, as the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole described.
It is true that there is nothing worse that could happen to any of us than to lose a child, but it must be even more heartbreaking to lose a child and then to be surrounded by people experiencing all the wonderful joy and celebration of a new birth and of having a new member of their family, but not to have somewhere to be able to say goodbye properly or to have quiet time. People also need the opportunity to bring in other members of the family so that they, too, can say goodbye. I was just blown away in my shock and horror when I heard that, in Nottingham, we had no such suite at all in the QMC or the City Hospital. That had been going on for many years, and one can only imagine how many people have suffered in that way, given all the touching speeches that hon. Members have made.
In early 2014, Richard and Michelle Daniels set up a charity called Forever Stars. They poured all their remarkable energy and dedication into making a great success of it, and they have raised over £400,000. Their first project was to install a serenity suite at the QMC—a place where a couple can go in the event of an unsuccessful delivery and the loss of a child. They can say goodbye properly, in the way that has been described, and siblings and other members of the family can come along. In due course, there was another serenity suite, at the City Hospital in Nottingham—again thanks to the Forever Stars charity that Richard and Michelle set up. That is now in operation.
By a remarkable coincidence, the hon. Members for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and for Colchester (Will Quince) set up their all-party group in this place in 2015, and we had that first debate. I remember it distinctly. There were so many appalling stories that there was not a dry eye in this place, and that included your good self, Madam Deputy Speaker. All us were filled with a mixture of grief, horror and disbelief that so many people suffered baby loss with none of the proper facilities that they should have.
It is full credit to the Government of the time and to the former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), that they did not mess about. They took up the campaign, and huge progress has undoubtedly been made. It is thanks to a lot of cross-party working and the considerable efforts of the former Secretary of State and his team, as well as those two hon. Members and others, that we have seen such marked progress.
The work of Forever Stars continues. As you can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am wearing pink and blue. That was not necessarily my first choice to put on this morning. It was a bit of a bet with Mr Richard Daniels that I would do it. However, I wanted to do it because Forever Stars is painting Nottingham, and indeed Broxtowe, pink and blue. Like so many other charities that have come out of so much tragedy and that are doing great work, Forever Stars is raising awareness, on top of the other work that it does. We have heard why that is so important.
I, too, join the calls in the report that the Baby Loss Awareness Alliance put out today—“Out of Sight, Out of Mind”—for specific work to be done to make sure we cater for grieving parents, siblings and other members of the family. I may one day be a grandparent, and it must be terrible for grandparents to see their own child and son-in-law or daughter-in-law suffer in the way that we know people do. We also know the effect these things have on siblings; we often forget them and how one explains things to them, and they often need support.
Forever Stars tells me that, in just the last 24 hours, it has had four calls from parents who have suffered a baby loss and who would very much like to be referred to the counselling or the psychological, and sometimes psychiatric, services that they desperately need. It is really important to ensure that those services are in place. I am told not only that 60% of parents surveyed want those services, but that nine out of 10 CCGs do not commission the talking therapies that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) rightly spoke about.
Forever Stars continues in its great work and is now raising funds to create a serenity garden for parents in Nottingham. There will be a service every quarter when parents and, of course, other family members can go along to say goodbye again to a child or baby they have lost.
It is really important to recognise that this place does some terrific work when it comes together in this way. The APPG has done that terrific work on a cross-party basis. It is all too easy in the current political climate for people to criticise Parliament and set it up against the people, but that would be wrong in many ways. This is an example of why that is just not true, because this place can do genuinely great work that touches the lives of real people.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The right hon. Lady is absolutely correct. When this House comes together and works properly, we do achieve what those who send us here expect us to achieve and hope that we will achieve. It is just such a pity that more people do not watch the proceedings on days like this instead of on days when the Chamber is crowded.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
As ever, I am grateful to be called to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I was not anticipating it because I was not here at the beginning of the debate. I can only apologise for that, but I was elsewhere on unavoidable duties.
This is a debate in which we love to hate participating. It is not a pleasurable experience for anyone who has lost a child, and I know that some Members across the House feel exactly as I do when speaking in this debate. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the opportunity to lay my annual asks on the table.
First, I must give an enormous amount of thanks to the previous Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), whose speech I am really looking forward to watching on catch-up tonight. I am immensely grateful, as are all of us who have been involved in this area for many years, for all that he did. It must be counted as one of his major achievements as Secretary of State that there has been a 19% reduction in stillbirths and an 8% reduction in maternal mortality since 2010. Those are really good figures, and I hope that he will look back on his career in many years when he retires—
Victoria Prentis
I hope that my right hon. Friend will count that among his most important achievements. I expect that he said, as did the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), that blame is probably not the way to go, and that we need a cultural shift in the NHS, so my ask this year is that we should make maternal death a never event. Luckily, maternal deaths are rare—I was almost one of them myself—but making them a never event, with the definition and the muscle that that provides, would be very helpful.
With my prison service background, I should add that a child or, indeed, a mother dying in custody should also probably be a never event, with all the chain of investigations that should flow from that. I know that the recent death in custody is being very well investigated, and there is no need to comment further on that case now. The never event definition is helpful, because it sets in train a course of investigations that need not be blamed-filled but which are helpful for learning.
Sadly, the situation elsewhere is not as helpful as in this country. A baby dies every 11 seconds worldwide, and many maternal deaths are completely preventable. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for International Development has chosen to make maternity a priority for the Department for International Trade. He wrote an excellent article about it in The Times last week, and I encourage hon. Members to read that article.
The Secretary of State for International Development is helping members of the Royal College of Midwives to provide training in rural Bangladesh, and he is resourcing organisations that work with women who have had female genital mutilation performed on them and who have dreadful maternal complications as a result. He is working to provide vaccinations, which are so helpful in preventing the death of newborn babies. Across the board, the fact that maternity is now a priority for DFID is really helpful.
I close by thanking you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your support in this area and for allowing me to say a few brief words this afternoon, and by advertising the baby loss service at St Mary’s, Banbury at 6 o’clock this Sunday. It is an extraordinary event, and we have been doing it for only a few years. People came to that church in the first year who had never talked about their loss, and it is overwhelming.
Such services are taking place all over the country, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said. Unfortunately we have not organised one in Parliament this year, as we normally do, because we are not sitting, but I am sure we will organise one in future years. I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate, which I think is now annual. I am thrilled that we have Government time, and I hope we have it again in future.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I have a couple of points for the Minister. First, there is a lack of trained paediatric nurses, particularly in palliative care, and anything she can do to encourage people to train in that vital specialism would be hugely appreciated.
The other point is that children’s hospices are wonderful, remarkable places, but virtually all their money comes from the public through fundraising. Again, if there is anything the Minister can do to give them just a base coverage of funding on a statutory basis, year in, year out, that would make such a difference to their being able to commit to those services.
Finally, drawing on my privileged experience of running a children’s hospice and meeting hundreds of families, the one thing that strikes me most is that all those families say that what they liked best about and what they got most from the hospice was being able to talk about their child who had passed. I had not realised that most people out there do not do that. They said that friends would cross the street to avoid talking to them, not because they were being mean but because they did not want to burden them. They did not want them to cry or to crumble. Actually, the one thing those families want more than anything is to talk about their child, because that is what keeps them alive in their heart.
This debate is so important to everybody involved, and I make this plea to everyone watching: please, just talk to that person and celebrate their child. However brief their life was, it was an important life that we need to recognise.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), in her absence, for moving the motion. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion).
We have heard some marvellous speeches today about personal experiences, and every one of them has been very poignant and has encapsulated what this is all about. I have spoken to previous motions on baby loss, and I am happy to continue doing so in remembrance of those little lives lost.
The fact of the matter is that, since last year, more hearts have been broken, more arms have been left empty and more grief has entered homes throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That deserves recognition in the House this year and every year, as the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) said.
This does not take away from anyone else who has contributed to the debate, but I would particularly like to mention the hon. Members for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and for Colchester (Will Quince). In our debates in this House they have told us their personal stories and have helped us to understand exactly what it means to lose a child. One thing that came out of those Adjournment debates and those contributions in this House was the need to have a separate room in hospital where people can grieve and have privacy, and the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) talked about the one in his constituency. [Interruption.] I hope Members excuse me; I have a bit of a chest infection and am trying to keep it off if I can.
I mentioned the next thing to the hon. Member for Colchester and he can probably remember it: the importance of having faith involved, as people can use that to help get to the other side of the grieving process. Where there are rooms where people can have privacy, it is important that they can call upon someone of faith to come to give support. The hon. Member for Rotherham spoke about how important it is to have someone to speak to, relate to and understand.
Most miscarriages happen in the first 12 weeks, which is known as “early pregnancy”, and an estimated one in four pregnancies ends in miscarriage—it is one in five if we only count women who realise and report the miscarriage. About 11 in 1,000 pregnancies are ectopic. About one in 100 women in the UK experience recurrent miscarriages—three or more in a row—and more than six in 10 women who have a recurrent miscarriage go on to have a successful pregnancy. The risk of miscarriage greatly reduces in the second trimester—miscarriages then are called “late miscarriage”. My mother miscarried on three occasions, and seven in our family have had this happen; my sister also miscarried on three occasions. The girl who is, in effect, my Parliamentary Private Secretary and writes my speeches in this House—she is a very busy girl, as people would understand, given the contributions that are made—has also had two miscarriages.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
On the number of people who have had difficulties, the problem we have perhaps relates to the level of focus on care, aftercare and counselling. I am not saying this is inevitable and will always be the case, but we do not have the necessary focus on counselling for the individuals and families who have gone through this traumatic experience. Unfortunately the fear of what they have been through sometimes means that they do not want to have another child and go through this again, so they are denied the opportunity to have a family because of what they have experienced; a lack of counselling means that that can sometimes be a fear.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I can relate it to my constituency and the people I have spoken to. The thing that sustained my sister, my mother and my PPS was their faith, which is why I come back to the importance of having faith, as I said to the hon. Member for Colchester. In the past year, I have known of two women in my constituency who knew that their baby would not live for more than a couple of hours after the birth yet they carried their baby to its full nine months and enjoyed those few hours together. I am a member of many organisations, one of which is the Royal Black Preceptory. We helped the father of a young child who was lost with a charity event at the bowling club in Ballywater to raise money for this issue, and we raised some £1,000.
I wanted to say all that because it is important, as everyone deals with things in their own way. About one to two in 100 women have a miscarriage in the second trimester. According to one study, once a pregnancy gets past six to seven weeks and there is a heartbeat, the risk of having a miscarriage drops to about 10%. Those are the facts and they are worthy of noting, but they cannot begin to deal with the process of grief that is suffered. It may sound comforting for people to understand that one in four pregnancies ends in a loss and so they are not alone, but, as one lady said, “I don’t want to be the one in four, I want to be the three who live their life as normal and don’t have this emptiness inside.”
It is important to note the facts, but it is more important to acknowledge the grief and the right to grieve. Long gone are the days of, “Just don’t talk about your loss.” We have learned that for those who wish to express themselves it is healing to do so. Some people need to talk about it, but some decide that they may not. Of course many women will never talk of their loss, and that too is part of their process and is to be respected. For others, the symbolism of a balloon release or the lighting of a candle is a way of acknowledging a life that did not blossom but was most definitely there.
We do not understand why many miscarriages take place, but with an NHS under such pressure—I say that really gently, because we have a wonderful NHS that does great work—we do not investigate until the third miscarriage. That in itself is incredibly difficult. I know of one lady whose parents, after encouragement by the midwife after her second miscarriage, paid for private care and for private tests and all the rest, to learn that taking baby aspirin would increase her chance of keeping the next little one. A baby aspirin once a day saw her have a beautiful baby girl. There could well have been another miscarriage had she not been able to seek private advice. When it comes to that example of how that lady dealt with a miscarriage and then had a child, I wonder whether the necessary advice is there in the system and throughout the process. I have said it before and I shall say it again: three miscarriages but no investigation is too much. I sincerely urge change in the NHS procedure. Perhaps the Minister will be able to respond to that point or give me some idea of where we are.
This debate cannot solve the issue of baby loss and grief, but it can validate the fact that a miscarriage was a loss. It happened and should be remembered, and we as a nation should mourn. The fact that a death certificate cannot be issued until 24 weeks must be reviewed. I find that quite incredible. It does not mean that it is not widely understood that someone has suffered through a death. And it is not simply the mother who suffers, but the father and the would-be grandparents, too. The hon. Member for Eddisbury referred to it, and although the hon. Member for Colchester has not spoken today, I remember his previous contributions. The wider family suffer as well. It is like throwing a stone into a pond: the ripples go right to the edge—they touch everyone in the family circle and all the friends. Everyone should remember that.
We must do more to recognise and support those who suffer from a miscarriage. A pamphlet in a cold, sterile procedure room is not enough. I read a little quote that touched my heart. This lady said:
“I carried you for every second of your life—and I will love you for every second of mine…Let sweet Jesus hold you until mummy and daddy can hold you”—[Interruption.]
Anna Soubry
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is very important and powerful when people are able to stand up in this place and talk with the experience and the big heart with which he is talking?
Jim Shannon
I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention.
Let me read those words again:
“I carried you for every second of your life—and I will love you for every second of mine…Let sweet Jesus hold you until mummy and daddy can hold you—you have just reached heaven before I do.”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his excellent speech. The whole Chamber agrees with every word that he has just said and appreciates the way in which he said them.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Today’s debate has been incredibly moving and I am humbled to respond on behalf of the Opposition. It of course coincides with Baby Loss Awareness Week, which is an important opportunity for us all to unite with bereaved parents, and their families and friends, to commemorate the lives of babies who died during, before or shortly after birth.
I congratulate every Member who has had the courage to speak today about something as personal and devastating as baby loss. Drawing from our own personal experiences will undoubtedly help and bring comfort to the thousands of others who have been affected by this important subject. As you said earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker, today’s debate has once again shown Parliament at its best. I wish to reflect on some of the moving contributions we have heard.
Let me start by thanking the hon. Members for Colchester (Will Quince) and for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach). The hon. Member for Colchester could not speak in this debate as he is now a Minister, but his bravery in bringing this issue to the House was remarkable. Collectively, we thank both Members for their incredibly hard work and great courage. On behalf of the official Opposition, I thank you both from the bottom of my heart.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) spoke very knowledgably about the work being done by the Department for International Development in developing countries, which was very heartening. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) spoke very powerfully about how important it is that we support bereaved parents—I will go on to talk a bit more about that in a moment.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) talked about bereavement suites in hospitals. That is an incredibly important issue and, indeed, it is something that I will take back and discuss with my own trust. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) discussed both counselling and family support. The right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt) spoke very knowledgably about the impact on health professionals and how it must simply be one of the worst things that they ever have to deal with.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) spoke so powerfully about her own experience and, once again, showed great bravery. She also discussed how important it is that we are all aware of, and that we empower others to learn about, pre-eclampsia. We also heard from the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) who gave us a very, very moving speech. I thank him very much once again for his incredible bravery.
All the charities that come together to collaborate on this commemorative event do amazing work supporting bereaved families. There are now more than 60 charities involved, and they have a huge impact on raising awareness nationally, and each organisation should be incredibly proud of everything they do and everything they have achieved in driving this agenda forward.
As well as using today’s debate to raise awareness, this is an opportunity to reassess the progress that is being made and to highlight the fact that, although excellent care is available in the country, it is not available to everyone everywhere. Every year, thousands of people experience the loss of a baby in pregnancy, at or soon after birth, and in infancy.
Unfortunately, it is not a rare event, and, as too many of us here know, it can happen to anyone. The Miscarriage Association has invited women to share their experiences, and the bravery of these women in sharing their stories is commendable. Angela has spoken about how her mental health deteriorated after her second and third miscarriages. She said:
“My mental health deteriorated after those two losses. I needed medication to get through my periods when they returned. I couldn’t go to the GP or the hospital without having a panic attack. I had horrible flashbacks of the miscarriages themselves. And although these subsided over time, I can still have a panic attack at the GPs without warning. It also started to affect me at work and in my personal life, because my self-esteem and self-confidence plummeted and I lost the ability to believe that I could do anything right. It was almost like when I lost the babies, I also lost some of myself.”
She has also spoken of the difficulty in talking about miscarriage and mental health, but the importance of doing so. She went on:
“I have also confided in a few close friends and that helps too. I still struggle asking for help, it is not something that comes easily to me, but I when I do, I am always grateful that I tried. It’s hard to break the silence around miscarriage and even harder to break it around mental health and miscarriage combined but I think we should try. Even if it just helps one person feel a little less alone.”
Unfortunately, there remains a tremendous taboo around baby loss, and many women report that their family and friends do not want to talk about their loss, and that can lead to an isolation and a disconnection from others, which means that parents can end up trapped by their own grief.
There is work to be done to break down the unacceptable stigma and, too often, feelings of shame that can surround baby loss. Whatever the circumstances around the loss of a baby, every single woman deserves respectful and dignified care that acknowledges her loss, supports her mental health and empowers her to make future decisions about having a child.
The care that bereaved families receive from health and other professionals following pregnancy loss or the death of their baby can have long-lasting effects. Good care cannot remove parents’ pain and grief, but it can help them through such a devastating time. In contrast, poor care can significantly add to their distress. Unfortunately, the standard of care in the UK varies between regions and even within settings, depending on the stage at which a loss occurs—from early pregnancy through to infancy. Although there is excellent care available in this country, it is not available to everyone. In England alone, there is still a 25% variation in the stillbirths rate and, as a result, many parents do not receive the good-quality bereavement support that they so desperately need after pregnancy or baby loss, and we have heard this afternoon what a difference that that can make.
We need to ensure that there is learning from every single miscarriage and stillbirth. Although we can rightly say that we are beginning to improve the approach to those dealing with the consequences of baby loss, it seems like we still have a way to go in understanding and really tackling its causes. According to The Lancet, the annual rate of stillbirth reduction in the UK has been slower than in the vast majority of comparable high-income countries.
It is also important that all parents who experience pregnancy and baby loss and need specialist psychological support can access it and can do so in a timely fashion. Too often, people who experience a psychiatric illness after their loss do not receive the support they need. I am proud that Labour supported this year’s Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018. However, I know that many parents and caregivers entitled to bereavement support do not have access to appropriate mental health support. Right now, most mental health support is only available to mothers, and is focused on women who are pregnant or who already have a baby. This support often takes place in neonatal units, which understandably—as we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole—can add to trauma.
Mental health support for those who have lost a baby must take place in appropriate places and must be available for the entire family unit including fathers, siblings, grandparents and so on. Coping with grief over the loss of a baby is something that all family members will need time and space for. Men and women may grieve differently, and it needs to be acknowledged that fathers can be forgotten in this experience, particularly as they may express less emotion, which can be misunderstood as indifference to the loss of their baby. Dad Keith has talked to the charity Tommy’s about the stillbirth of his second born, a son named Owen. He said:
“I had to go back to work straight away. It was a good distraction. I ran a lot and I kept doing that. I signed up for marathons. Running got me away for a few hours at a time and gave me a way to switch off. I wasn’t right for at least six months after. I was functioning but I was on autopilot. I wasn’t myself. People might not have noticed too much.”
I urge the Government to develop a national standard with guidance to support the planning, funding and delivery of specialist services with psychological support for those going through the loss of a baby. It is also important that bereavement-trained midwives or gynaecological counsellors are available in every hospital —not part-time, but full-time—whenever parents need them. Let us not forget that many stillbirths and neonatal deaths are sudden and unexpected. It is a hugely traumatic experience and people need support immediately, so trained individuals are so important.
I would like to end by saying a few words about the national bereavement care pathway. The final independent evaluation of the national bereavement care pathway wave of two pilot sites was published in May 2019 and provides evidence that the NBCP has improved bereavement care received by parents after the loss of a baby. It is commendable that both the former Prime Minister and the former Health Minister, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), both endorsed the roll-out of the programme. The NBCP is increasingly attracting interest from NHS trusts across the country, and I hope that many more adopt this approach.
In conclusion, the debates that we have had over the past few years and again this evening underline the importance of the work undertaken by hon. Members and the many charities in this sector. It means that the silence that Members have spoken about today is now beginning to end. I cannot overstate how courageous those who have spoken out about their personal experiences are, or how influential those interventions are proving to be. I hope that those who have spoken out continue to have the courage to talk about what we need to do to improve care and support for bereaved families.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ms Nadine Dorries)
What an important debate this has been, and that is of course thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), who has been sitting next to me throughout the debate. In fact, I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury still chairs the APPG on baby loss. This is the fourth year that the House has had this debate, and I hope that my hon. Friends continue to push for it to be held every year, forever. It is such an important time not only to focus on the areas that people feel we should be concentrating on, but also to focus on the achievements and to hear stories from so many people.
In the 10 minutes that I have, I would like to respond to some of the points made. I begin with my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), the former Secretary of State, who, in his usual modest way, omitted to mention the incredible contribution he has made in this area. He spoke passionately about changing from a culture of blame to one of learning; he brought that about in the NHS through his own efforts when, while in the Department of Health and Social Care, he introduced the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch. He instructed it to undertake, I believe, 1,000 maternity investigations a year, including into stillbirths and other mortality issues.
My right hon. Friend asked how we will share lessons learned between trusts and improve patient safety. HSIB has established a process for doing that. The perinatal mortality review annual report will be published on Thursday, as I think he may know. The HSIB annual report will be published in due course. Both reports will begin to share some of the learning from more than 1,500 cases. We are doing more to share information when things go wrong, and as a result of the former Secretary of State’s initiative, when something goes wrong in one trust, we will ensure that it does not go wrong in another. We all hope that will be the outcome of HSIB. We cannot thank him enough, and I am sure we will be mentioning his efforts for many years to come.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) spoke powerfully about her loss. One of the themes of the debate has been mental health and the support that those who have lost a baby, including fathers and others in the family, need at a time of loss. She moved me to tears. She spoke about testing for pre-eclampsia. In April, NHS England announced that it will make the placental growth factor blood test available across the country, in the light of evidence that the test speeds up the diagnosis of pre-eclampsia. I urge her to push for parity in Scotland, so that the same test given to mothers in England is made available to mothers in Scotland. I am sure that other Members will call for that in this place. I know that other Members in this House have suffered loss through pre-eclampsia. It is a dreadful condition. Our objective should be to do all we can to ensure that no mother has to go through that.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
The Minister makes a very good point. I pay enormous tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who has done phenomenal work in bringing her experiences to the Chamber. I thank the Minister for her remarks. We may not always see eye to eye, but on this issue, it would be great if her Department and the Scottish Government worked closely together.
Ms Dorries
I have already sent a message to my team asking why the test is not being done in Scotland and what we can do to ensure that it is rolled out across the UK. If I can have those conversations with the devolved Administration, I certainly will, and I will certainly push that from my end and in my Department.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
I share the sentiments of the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins): collaboration is critical. One of my constituents raised with me concerns about the fact that there was no peer-to-peer support provided by the medical profession. She was dealing with her GP, but she relied for support on the charity SiMBA—Simpson’s Memory Box Appeal—a friend having referred her. Maximum co-operation and support are critical. Hopefully, we can share as much information as possible, so that we avoid people feeling that they are alone, or not being given the support that they need. I was shocked to hear what happened to my constituent. I would be keen to ensure co-operation and to promote it as much as I can.
Ms Dorries
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but I only have a few minutes left, so I have to move on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury asked what we are doing to eliminate the stigma around mental health. As the Minister for Mental Health, I can say that we are doing a huge amount. I do not know whether anybody in the Chamber has managed to see it yet, but a campaign video was released this week called “Every Mind Matters”, which the royals kindly voiced over. It was written by Richard Curtis and features many celebrities, including Davina McCall. It is all about people who everybody knows and recognises talking about their own mental health issues, to break down the stigma. That is just one of the many campaigns that are taking place.
As I said in the debate on women’s mental health last week, when somebody breaks their leg, we put a plaster cast on the leg, and that is fine. When someone has a mental health issue, they do not want to talk about it. I hope that the stigma is reducing and that there is parity and equality between mental health and physical health. Campaigns like “Every Mind Matters” are getting us there.
Antoinette Sandbach
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The really good evidence that was disclosed in the debate about the way in which maternal loss of babies can cause PTSD shows that there needs to be concrete mental health support for parents who have gone through this experience.
Ms Dorries
What I will say to my hon. Friend in response is that, in the long-term plan, the NHS commits to
“improve access to and the quality of perinatal mental health care for mothers, their partners and children”.
We have committed in the long-term plan that an additional 24,000 women will have access to specialist perinatal mental health support, including more support for fathers and partners. That is part of the £2.3 billion investment in mental health that this Government recently announced. I will say it again: £2.3 billion. That is over half the annual prisons budget. Of course, some of that money has to be directed towards mothers in this situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) made an important point about infant mortality in other countries around the world. The Secretary of State for International Development announced a £600 million reproductive health supplies programme to help end preventable deaths of mothers, newborn babies and children in the developing world by 2030. It will give 20 million women and girls access to family planning, prevent 5 million unintended pregnancies each year up to 2025 and focus on the most vulnerable women, including FGM survivors. We are committed to working with Gavi, the Vaccines Alliance, to vaccinate a further 300 million children in the world’s poorest countries by 2025.
My hon. Friend also talked about making maternal mortality a never event. I am not sure that that will be an achievable objective, but NHS England is supporting the establishment of maternal medicine networks, which ensure that women with acute and chronic medical problems have timely access to special advice and care at all stages of their pregnancy.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) spoke about grief. Grief, for me, is the last taboo; it is the one thing that people still do not talk about. People still do not talk about how grief affects them, and I hope that some of the investment we are putting into mental health services and community services will help people to address grief.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) spoke about somebody who works in his office who has raised funds for the Cherished suite, and the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) spoke about the serenity suite. Over 50% of hospitals now have such suites, which are so important. I do not want to reiterate what anybody has said, but the fact that babies are born in a part of a hospital that is traditionally filled with joy is incredibly difficult. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester has told me that it makes such a difference if people have somewhere to go and even to stay overnight with their baby, and where the family can go. Over 50% of hospitals in the UK have these suites, and I am going to ask that these suites are made available in the maternity areas at all the 40 new hospitals that are being built. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I will ask; I will certainly push.
I want to continue with the points raised, and please pull me up if I miss anybody out. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke so passionately—thank you. I know he has spoken in every baby loss debate we have had, and he has also spoken in the past about the important role that chaplains play in such situations. I would like to thank him for his incredible contribution. He asked about the pregnancy loss review. It is currently working with key partners to make recommendations to the Government about improving the care and support that women and families receive when experiencing a pre-24 week gestation baby loss. We are hoping the report will be published in due course and not too long from now.
I would like to speak about an area that I have particularly focused on, which is group B strep support. I have spoken about this many times, and I had my own Adjournment debate on it before I was a Minister. When I arrived in the Department, I set five key priorities, and this is No. 1 in the key priority areas because this in itself will prevent infant mortality. Group B strep is a leading cause of bacterial infection in newborn babies—just to put that on the record. I fully support the review that is taking place, and I hope that it has some further information so that we can make progress on this in, I hope, the not-too-distant future.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) spoke about hospices. I have Keech Hospice in my own constituency. I think hospices and their role is slightly outside the debate, bearing in mind the level of investment that we are putting into mental health services and counselling services. Somebody mentioned improving access to psychological therapies and the importance of talking therapies. I hope that any mother or family who needs mental health counselling as a result of baby loss will in future be able to access those services. I will write to her about the role of hospices in this particular area.
I appreciate the support from Members on both sides of the House in relation to the maternity safety ambition. I echo your words, Madam Deputy Speaker, about the tone of this House in such important debates. One of the most important things to come out of the debate today is the importance of learning for improvement and what we are beginning to learn through the perinatal mortality review tool and the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, which I have mentioned, that was introduced by the former Secretary of State.
I would like to remind Members that the NHS is still—and the NHS in the UK is still—the safest place in the world to have a baby: 0.7% of all births result in a stillbirth or a neonatal death. Having said that, on a day like today, 12 babies in England and 15 across the UK will be stillborn or die soon after birth, and many more families will lose a baby through miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy and other causes. We are, however, making progress: in 2015, the figure was 17 babies a day. Maternity and neonatal safety initiatives are beginning to improve outcomes, with most of the anticipated impacts still to be realised, as safety improvements are embedded in maternity and neonatal services and as we learn more from research and investigations about which babies die and why.
Finally, as we have discussed, the theme of Baby Loss Awareness Week 2019 is psychological support for those bereaved parents who need it. I understand that a working group is being convened to support the development of maternity outreach clinics that will integrate maternity reproductive health and psychological therapy for women experiencing mental health difficulties arising from and directly related to the maternity experience. I will undertake to ask this working group if it could consider extending the maternity experience to those who have lost a child in pregnancy, during labour and childbirth in the neonatal period.
I would like to finish by thanking all the midwives, doctors and healthcare support workers who do such a fantastic job in delivering more than 600,000 babies successfully every year and in helping the parents who, sadly, do not experience the happiness of a healthy baby.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Thank you. What an excellent, calm and constructive debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered baby loss awareness week.
Business without Debate
Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The sitting is now suspended until approximately 7.30 pm. The annunciator will carry further information about the likely timing at which the sitting will resume. Shortly before it does so, Mr Speaker shall cause the Division bells to be sounded.
Message to Attend the Lords Commissioners
Royal Assent
Mr Speaker
I have to acquaint the House that the House has been to the House of Peers, where a Commission under the Great Seal was read, authorising the Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019
Census (Return Particulars and Removal of Penalties) Act 2019
Her Majesty’s Most Gracious Speech
Mr Speaker
I have further to acquaint the House that the Leader of the House of Lords, one of the Lords Commissioners, delivered Her Majesty’s most gracious speech to both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of Her Majesty’s Command. For greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy and also directed that the terms of the speech be printed in the Journal of this House. Copies are being made available in the Vote Office.
The Speech was as follows:
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
My Government’s legislative programme has laid the foundations for the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union while pursuing wide-ranging domestic reform.
Landmark legislation was passed, and has now been commenced, to repeal the European Communities Act. Other laws are in place to enable the United Kingdom’s smooth exit from the European Union, establishing new arrangements on international sanctions, nuclear safeguards, customs, and reciprocal healthcare arrangements. Over 600 Statutory Instruments have been made to ensure a functioning statute book following the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union.
The stability and strength of the union that joins England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has been at the forefront of my Government’s agenda. Preserving and promoting the social, economic and cultural bonds that unite this nation remains of the utmost importance to my Government. My Government continues to work to ensure that locally-accountable politicians can take decisions in Northern Ireland at the earliest opportunity.
It has been an enduring focus of my Government to strengthen the economy to support the creation of jobs and to generate the tax revenues needed to invest in the National Health Service, schools and other public services. Improving public finances, while keeping taxes low, has been a priority for my Government. Legislation passed this session has provided one hundred per cent relief from business rates for agricultural nurseries and, for a period of five years from April 2017, properties used for the purpose of new fibre infrastructure.
My Government has set out a programme of work to improve productivity and help businesses create high quality, well paid jobs across the United Kingdom. In 2019, more than a million workers benefited from the largest increase to the National Living Wage since it was first introduced. My ministers have worked to attract investment in infrastructure to support economic growth. Legislation has been passed to ensure that the United Kingdom remains a world leader in new industries, including electric cars and commercial satellites.
My Government has continued to support international action against climate change, including implementation of the Paris agreement. Recognising the need for bold steps to protect the planet, a commitment to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 was enshrined in law, making the United Kingdom the first major economy to do so.
Draft legislation was published which will establish a new body to ensure the United Kingdom’s high environmental standards are maintained and to protect and improve the environment for future generations. My Government has legislated to protect animals, including bans on the sale of ivory, puppies and kittens by commercial third parties and the use of wild animals in travelling circuses in England.
Voyeurism offences have been recognised as the crimes that they are and legislation has been passed to ensure the courts have powers to take swift action to protect children who are identified as at risk of female genital mutilation.
In presenting the long-term plan for the National Health Service in England, my Government strengthened its commitment to ensuring there is a world-class health system that supports everyone from birth, through the challenges that life brings, and into old age. My Government is committed to ensuring mental health support is available to all who need it and to protecting the fundamental human rights of the most vulnerable in society. Legislation enacted this session will increase access to protections and put in place robust safeguards for those who are deprived of their liberty.
In recognition of the need to make renting fairer and more affordable, and to promote fairness and transparency in the housing market, legislation has been enacted to reduce costs at the outset of, and throughout a tenancy, by banning most letting fees paid by tenants in England.
My Government has taken steps to ensure fairer markets and to protect consumers from unfair practices and financial losses. Legislation has been passed to ensure people have access to free and impartial financial guidance and debt advice and to introduce a ban on nuisance calls in relation to pensions. Measures have been enacted to reduce insurance costs for motorists by tackling the high number and cost of whiplash claims.
The security of the nation and its citizens remains of the highest importance to my Government. In this session, legislation has been passed to ensure the police and security services have the powers they need to keep the population safe in the face of evolving threats of terrorism.
Legislation passed this session marks a significant step towards my Government’s commitment to tackle serious violence on the streets of the United Kingdom. Laws are now in place to prevent young people from purchasing dangerous weapons and to prosecute those who possess such items, or sell them without imposing rigorous age verification.
The defence of the Realm remains an utmost priority for my Government, which it has supported through investment in our gallant Armed Forces.
As a leading member of the international coalition against Daesh, the United Kingdom played a critical role in the military defeat of Daesh’s so-called caliphate in March of this year. While the Middle East continues to suffer from serious conflict, my Government has played a leading role in de-escalating regional tensions. My Government has also played a key role in international efforts to protect the United Kingdom and its allies from hostile threats, including in response to the chemical weapon attack in Salisbury.
As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, my Government has provided political and diplomatic support to peace efforts in Yemen, Libya and Syria, as well as mitigating the human cost of these tragedies through the provision of substantial humanitarian assistance.
Prince Philip and I were pleased to welcome Their Majesties King Felipe and Queen Letizia of Spain and we also welcomed King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the President and First Lady of the United States of America, on State Visits.
Prince Charles and I were delighted to attend a national commemorative event to honour and remember the heroism, courage and sacrifice of the many servicemen and women who participated in the D-Day Landings.
Members Of The House Of Commons
I thank you for the provisions which you have made for the work and dignity of the Crown and for the public services.
My Lords And Members Of The House Of Commons
I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels.
Prorogation
Mr Speaker
The Commission was also read for proroguing this present Parliament, and the Leader of the House of Lords said:
“My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:
By virtue of Her Majesty’s Commission which has now been read, we do, in Her Majesty’s name, and in obedience to Her Majesty’s Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Monday the fourteenth day of this October to be then here holden, and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Monday the fourteenth day of October.”
End of the First Session (opened on 13 June 2017) of the Fifty-Seventh Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the Sixty-Eighth Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.
Prospectus (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Prospectus (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 1234).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. The Government had previously made all necessary legislation under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to ensure that, in the event of a no-deal exit on 29 March 2019, there was a functioning legal and regulatory regime for financial services from exit day. Following the extension of the article 50 process, new EU legislation has become applicable, and under the EU withdrawal Act that new legislation will form part of UK law at exit. Further deficiency fixes are therefore necessary to ensure that the UK’s regulatory regime remains prepared for exit.
This statutory instrument amends the EU prospectus regulation and related legislation, including a previous EU exit instrument—the Official Listing of Securities, Prospectus and Transparency (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, or “the official listing instrument”. The official listing instrument fixed deficiencies in the prospectus regime as it applied before 21 July 2019. This instrument will ensure that the UK continues to have an effective prospectus regime after exit, taking into account the new EU prospectus regulation, which applied across the EU from July of this year.
The EU prospectus regulation contains the standardised rules that govern the format, content, approval and distribution of the prospectus that issuers must produce when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading on a regulated market in a European economic area state. Deficiency fixes to the new EU prospectus regulation are necessary to reflect the fact that, after exit, the UK will be outside the EU single market and the EU’s regulatory and supervisory framework for financial services. The amendments in this instrument follow the same approach as the amendments made in the official listing instrument to the UK prospectus regime as it applied before 21 July 2019.
First, in line with the approach that the Government are taking to all onshored financial services legislation, this instrument transfers functions currently within the remit of EU authorities—in particular, the European Securities and Markets Authority—to the appropriate UK bodies. Such functions—for example, the development of technical rules on certain provisions of the EU prospectus regulation—will now be carried out by the Financial Conduct Authority. That is appropriate, given the FCA’s expertise in applying the UK prospectus regime and the major role that it has already played in the EU to develop technical standards. Where the EU prospectus regulation confers a delegated legislation-making power on the Commission, the powers are converted into regulation-making powers conferred on the Treasury. Use of those powers by the Treasury will need the approval of Parliament.
Secondly, this instrument removes the obligation for UK authorities to share information with the relevant EU and member state authorities. The obligations will no longer work appropriately once the UK is outside the EU’s joint supervisory framework. For the purposes of supervisory co-operation, that means that the EU will be treated like other third countries. The FCA will still be able to co-operate with EU regulators, using the existing framework in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, as it currently does with other third countries on a discretionary basis. The UK is committed to maintaining a high level of supervisory co-operation with the EU and its member states after exit.
Thirdly, post exit, EEA issuers wishing to access the UK market will be required to have their prospectus, or their registration document—the part of a prospectus that contains information on the issuer—approved directly by the FCA, as any other third country issuer would. Currently, an EEA issuer’s prospectus or registration document approved by another EEA regulator can be passported for use in the UK.
This instrument introduces transitional arrangements that will allow any prospectus approved by an EEA regulator and passported into the UK before exit to continue to be used, and supplemented with additional information, up to the end of its normal period of validity. The instrument also permits registration documents passported into the UK before exit to continue to be used as a constituent part of a prospectus in the UK, pending approval of the full prospectus by the FCA after exit. For both a full prospectus and a registration document, the period of validity is usually up to 12 months after it was originally approved.
An exemption for certain public bodies from the obligation to produce a prospectus under the EU prospectus regulation is maintained, but is extended to the same set of public sector bodies of all third countries post exit. That is in line with the approach taken in the official listing instrument previously. Members of the Committee will remember that this issue was discussed during the debate on that instrument in March; I think that the hon. Member for Oxford East raised these points then. Like then, I believe it makes sense to extend this exemption more broadly to ensure that UK capital markets continue to be attractive to public body issuers.
The EU prospectus regulation allows issuers to incorporate information from certain documents that are available electronically elsewhere, by making reference to them in a prospectus. This includes information approved by the regulator of another EEA state. To provide a smooth transition, this instrument sets out that information contained in relevant documents approved by an EEA regulator before exit day can continue to be incorporated by reference in a UK prospectus going forward. Any prospectus that incorporates information in this way will still require FCA approval before it can be used in the UK.
Lastly, the instrument ensures that matters in relation to the UK prospectus regime and transparency framework will continue to apply to Gibraltar as they did prior to the UK’s departure from the EU. This is in line with the approach taken in other EU exit instruments. Throughout the drafting process, the Treasury has worked closely with the FCA and engaged with the financial services industry—TheCityUK in particular, as a convenient body to develop this instrument.
Before I conclude, I want to address the procedure under which this instrument has been made. Along with three other financial services exit instruments, it was made and laid before Parliament on 5 September, under the made-affirmative procedure provided for in the EU withdrawal Act. This is an urgent procedure that brings an affirmative instrument into law immediately, before Parliament has considered the legislation. But the procedure also rightly requires that Parliament must consider and approve a made-affirmative instrument if it is to remain in law.
The Government have not used this procedure lightly, and it must be remembered that across Departments we have already laid over 600 exit SIs under the usual secondary legislation procedures. However, as we draw near to exit day, it is vital that we have all critical exit legislation in place, including legislation necessary to ensure that our financial services regulatory regime continues to function effectively from exit. It would have been reckless to leave that until the last minute. Industry and our financial regulators need legal certainty on the regime that will apply from exit. Without addressing the deficiencies that will arise from the EU’s prospectus regulation, there would be significant legal uncertainty and disruption for issuers and regulators. Confidence in the UK’s role as an international hub for the issuing of securities would be undermined.
To conclude, this Government believe that the legislation is necessary to ensure that, if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, the UK’s prospectus regime can continue to function appropriately post exit. I hope colleagues across the Committee will join me in supporting these regulations. I commend them to the Committee.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you, Mr Paisley, in the Chair. As ever, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanatory remarks. As he indicated, the instrument tries to deal with some of the issues relating to passporting to the extent that these have changed with what are essentially updates to the prospectus regulation on the EU side. As he set out, it creates a transition period of 12 months for prospectuses passported into the UK. It makes provisions that mean EEA issuers wishing to issue securities in the UK will be required to secure approval of their prospectus from the FCA. Most of the changes appear to be technical, but I would like to probe a couple of issues a little further with the Minister. He has already mentioned some of them and can probably anticipate the ones that I want to ask about.
My first question is about the issue that the Minister mentioned a moment ago—the provisions in regulation 32 that extend exemptions of certain public bodies in EEA states to the same set of public bodies in both the UK and all countries outside the UK. Obviously, in various other instruments the Government have chosen to apply exemptions to countries only with equivalent regulations to those adopted by the UK. The explanatory notes suggest that restricting the exemption to UK public bodies only was the only other possibility considered. I am curious to know why that is the case. Even under World Trade Organisation rules it would have been possible to adopt the same approach overall, which would have been to say that there would be an assessment of equivalence. It is not necessary to have a free-for-all.
Will the Minister outline what analysis has been done of the different options for this exemption and the potential impact of opening this up to all countries? It seems to constitute a material change and it is questionable whether it is coherent with the withdrawal Act. I accept that I lost that argument before, but it would be helpful to understand whether the Government have done more work on that, because it seems to me to be a major issue.
Secondly, I am confused about the process for ensuring the equivalence of accounting standards, which seems to be going round in circles. I am sure the Minister will remember that back in February, I raised the point that it appeared that the Government were not going to carry over the presumption that international financial reporting standards would be sufficient. That would potentially have placed a big burden on Ministers, who would have had to work through whether those standards would be sufficient and assess different accounting standards and so on.
The Government seemed to acknowledge that situation in April, which was great. As the explanatory note lays out, the Government
“laid a Direction in Parliament stating that IFRS as adopted by the EU would be considered equivalent...for the purpose of preparing a prospectus”
and so forth. However, the explanatory note also notes that
“this Direction will be amended to refer to the EU Prospectus Regulation”
and that
“this amendment is not contained within this instrument.”
More work still needs to be done to clarify that it will be possible to continue to assume that IFRS standards as adopted by the EU will be equivalent. Will the Minister enlighten us on when the amendment referred to in the explanatory note will be laid? As I am sure the Minister is aware, his Government have imposed a particular timetable.
Finally, as the Minister mentioned, the regulations create a 12-month transition period for approved prospectuses and registration documents approved by an EEA regulator. That clearly gives a 12-month breathing space, but we still do not appear to have a clear indication from the Government about their long-term view of passporting and seeking equivalence. The Minister referred to legal uncertainty for issuers. I would argue that that uncertainty is already there in the concern about what will happen after a year.
I am sure the Minister is aware of recent research that indicates the fastest and deepest fall in financial services over the last few months since the time of the global financial crisis. That is linked to some of the issues about regulatory equivalence tied to market access. I would be grateful to hear about that from the Minister; we did talk a little about it last night. Will he provide an indication of the Government’s thinking on equivalence on financial services into the future? That is the context; the regulations are clearly trying to set up an interim situation for one year, but I am sure that any issuers and others involved in financial services will be saying, “Well, we really need to know what the situation is going to be after a year.” We have not had an indication on that from the Government as part of their description of the current negotiations that they are having with the EU. As I have already said, financial services did not seem to be really mentioned at all last week.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
The SNP’s position is quite clear. The statutory instrument is part of an attempt to patch up the damage to our financial services caused by a Brexit that Scotland did not vote for. I note that, as ever, the hon. Member for Oxford East makes good and cogent points; she is well able to pick holes and to identify what could be problems for the Government. She brought back memories of my youth, when I studied financial regulations—they are not, it has to be said, always happy memories.
The Government should realise the damage that exit from the EU will do and has already done to the Scottish economy. As the hon. Member for Oxford East said, there is a real lack of confidence in the financial sector as a result of this round of EU exit negotiations, and the lack of clarity for businesses in the sector is having an effect. Since 2016, $1 trillion-worth of assets have been moved from the UK to the EU, and that money could have been used to help bring a better future to the UK, and especially to Scotland. It is another piece of Brexit red tape, the pace of which continuously demonstrates how poorly the Government is prepared for Brexit.
The Government are changing a vast number of regulations, and this change increases the regulatory burden on businesses that are already suffering from Brexit uncertainty. Can the Minister respond to the technical points raised by the hon. Member for Oxford East? We are all very interested in the answers. Does the Minister really think that this is the best way forward for the UK and Scotland?
John Glen
I appreciate the three points raised by the hon. Member for Oxford East. In typical fashion, she has got to the heart of some of the core matters of the SI. I will address regulation 32, the accounting standards and the wider point she makes about the 12-month transition. I will then deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw on the broader effect of this process on the financial services industry.
On the first point—the consideration we have given to the risk of extending public bodies exemption to all third countries—we have worked closely with the FCA in the drafting of the instrument to ensure that investors remain suitably protected, and we believe this approach offers the most appropriate balance between investor protection and maintaining the attractiveness of the UK’s capital markets. It is in line with the approach taken in the previous official listing SI that we discussed.
As with all investments, there is a risk that public bodies offering securities could fail, and a prospectus might help an investor to understand that risk. However, there is generally more information available to potential investors on public bodies, such as sovereign issuers and state bodies that currently make use of the exemptions, than on corporate entities. For that reason, we feel that it is justified. We will, of course, keep the arrangements under review and consider them if they appear to expose investors to disproportionate risk—there is no complacency on that point.
The hon. Member for Oxford East made a second point on accounting standards. She raised the issue of the appropriateness of the Government to specify the accounting standards deemed equivalent to UK international accounting standards, and she asked whether we are making new decisions. Unlike the delegated Act under the EU prospectus directive, the delegated Act under the EU prospectus regulation does not explicitly state which third countries’ accounting standards have already been deemed equivalent for the purpose of preparing a prospectus. The ambiguous drafting of the EU prospectus regulation leaves the position unclear, which might create uncertainty for market participants on which accounting standards are permitted post-exit.
To ensure consistency and clarity for market participants, the instrument explicitly provides for a new article on the accounting standards that are permitted to be used when preparing a prospectus for use in the UK, and its introduction is supported by the FCA. The article does not go beyond what is currently permitted under the EU regime; it does not designate any new third countries’ accounting standards that were not previously explicitly stated in the prospectus directive, as equivalent for the purpose of preparing a prospectus. All the current equivalent regimes for accounting standards will continue to be equivalent after exit.
The hon. Member for Oxford East asked about the 12-month transition and suggested that there is a gap and an inadequacy in the long-term view, and that this impacts on the resilience of the City. I recognise that uncertainty is unwelcome, and the Government are working to secure a deal. In a situation where that is not secured, there will need to be a considerable amount of additional work in the light of the new reality. At the suggestion of many groups in the City, we have started a review that looks at an air traffic control mechanism to deal with all the regulations that exist coming in from the City. That call for evidence will conclude on 18 October, and there will be a series of further regulatory reviews, but their nature and scope will be determined by the outcome of the process that we are in during this month.
A lot of work is going on to look at the financial services industry and its competitiveness. What we need to do is get that balance between systemic stability, which all parties have been committed to ensuring since the crash, and the future.
The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw referred to her party’s position on Brexit. In the interest of time and of trying to get the heart of the concerns about the financial services, I will focus on the area that I am familiar with. I have grave sympathy with her for having had to study these matters, but I guess that was her choice.
The hon. Lady refers to the $1 trillion of assets that has been moved offshore. The City has made modest and consistent contingency arrangements. There is no denying that it would be undesirable for extra costs to accrue, but in the context of this significant decision of the UK as a whole—although I acknowledge that her view on that is different—those decisions have been made.
This process actually avoids red tape, because it keeps us completely aligned with where we are as members of the EU. The fact that a de minimis assessment was made illustrates that it will not cost the industry additional sums. I take seriously the footprint of financial services across the United Kingdom—including in Edinburgh and Glasgow, where it is significant, as the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw knows better than I. We will do everything we can to take appropriate measures in all circumstances to safeguard the health of the financial services industry.
In conclusion, the instrument is needed to ensure that the UK has an effective prospectus regime and that the legislation functions appropriately after the UK has left the EU. I hope that I have answered the points thoroughly, that the Committee has found the sitting informative, and that it will join me in supporting the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft European Parliamentary Elections Etc. (Repeal, Revocation, Amendment and Saving Provisions) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Kevin Foster)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft European Parliamentary Elections Etc. (Repeal, Revocation, Amendment and Saving Provisions) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. The draft regulations make sensible provision to ensure that, following our participation in the European parliamentary elections earlier this year, the administrative processes necessary after the poll can be carried out and completed. One example is the requirement for relevant electoral officers to store ballot papers and other election documents for 12 months after the poll.
The proposed change will provide for legislation governing European parliamentary elections to remain in place until 31 December 2020, rather than being repealed on exit day, as an earlier statutory instrument—the European Parliamentary Elections Etc. (Repeal, Revocation, Amendment and Saving Provisions) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018—provides. For clarity, the draft regulations will apply both to the United Kingdom and to Gibraltar.
Under the 2018 regulations, the legislation relating to European elections will be repealed on exit day, set at 31 October 2019. However, it is necessary for that legislation to stay in place to ensure that we can complete all the poll processes. I have already mentioned ballot papers, but the legislation also covers matters that the Electoral Commission may wish to investigate and the ability of political parties to inspect and obtain the marked register for the next 12 months. Importantly, there are also provisions concerning payment to returning officers for the costs of running the poll. If those provisions were no longer in force, the Government would no longer have the legal authority to reimburse returning officers, so the costs incurred in running the election would end up falling on the local authority concerned, which I am sure the Committee agrees would not be appropriate.
The 2018 regulations include provisions that are not linked solely to the holding of European parliamentary elections, but our approach has been to leave all those provisions on the statute book for a limited period because we believe that keeping the whole of the legislation in force has the benefit of being clear and making it simple for electoral administrators to understand and implement. It also minimises the risk of any adverse unintended consequences. However, I confirm that once we have left the EU, the UK will no longer have any Members of the European Parliament or take part in European parliamentary elections, whether scheduled or by-elections, as the EU law obligation to do so will have fallen away. The draft regulations will not change that position.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Having looked carefully at the explanatory notes, I cannot see anything that needs to remain in force for more than 12 months from the date of the poll. Will the Minister explain why the regulations are remaining in force until the end of next year, rather than just a year after the poll?
Secondly, the Minister said that certain things in the regulations are not specifically connected to the European elections. Could he set out their scope, not in detail but briefly, just so that people can work out that there is no funny business going on and that nothing is being smuggled in under cover?
Kevin Foster
There is no funny business being smuggled in. A report by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments covers some of the areas that my right hon. Friend may wish to look at, but there is certainly no funny business being smuggled in. However, it was felt easier to retain the whole piece of legislation, rather than leaving electoral administrators to satisfy themselves which parts of it are still in place.
Why are we retaining the legislation until the end of next year, rather than for just a year? As my right hon. Friend will be aware, if the law were quite tight about finishing off within the year, it would effectively bring to an end any investigation that had started just before the year deadline. There are also issues relating to payments to returning officers that might take slightly longer than a year to resolve if there were a dispute. We believe that, by 31 December next year, all processes should have been concluded, allowing some time for challenge or even, perhaps, for a brief extension, which could be granted by a court. At the moment, we are not aware of any processes that are there. However, there would be a final deadline of a year for those. It therefore makes sense to retain these provisions slightly beyond the end of the strict year of legal limitation.
It is possible, for example, that a police investigation started shortly before the year’s deadline could apply to a magistrates court to extend that deadline. Setting the deadline at a year would effectively bring a statutory bar into concluding that process. If we were still, for example, debating a payment amount with a local authority—or returning officer, effectively—we would not be able lawfully to make the payment if the legislation had been repealed. We believe that 31 December next year gives not only the year but more time to resolve any outstanding issues, and it is a clear and understandable date for repeal; the legislation will be enforced through 2020, but will then be repealed on 31 December 2020, bringing clarity to the process.
It is probably worth saying that the Cabinet Office has engaged on the proposed change with the Electoral Commission, representatives of the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Electoral Management Board for Scotland, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, the Wales Electoral Coordination Board, the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the Government of Gibraltar. The Electoral Commission and other bodies agree with the Government’s approach in the instrument and consider it sensible, given that the UK took part in the European parliamentary elections in May 2019. We have also kept the parliamentary parties panel informed of the position with the instrument. I therefore commend the instrument to the Committee.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
May I say what a great pleasure it is to once again serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies? This statutory instrument is a result of the Government’s mishandling of the Brexit negotiations. They attempted to push an unacceptable Brexit deal through the House on three separate occasions, meaning that we were forced to take part in European elections at short notice and at a time of political turmoil.
The Government are now required to extend elements required for the European Parliament’s post-election processes, which relate to storing documents, filing spending returns and investigating potential electoral offences. We do not oppose these necessary provisions, but it is crucial that the Government recognise that their chaotic mishandling of elections cannot continue. The integrity of our electoral system is paramount to the strength of our democracy, yet the Government continue to put our system at risk.
The Government’s attempt to push through a half-baked Brexit deal, without compromise, caused havoc on the country. The former Prime Minister’s grandstanding with the public ran the clock down while the Government refused to entertain the idea that we would partake in European elections, leaving electoral administrators tasked with delivering a national poll at extremely short notice, to ensure that eligible electors could exercise their democratic right to vote. Once again I pay tribute to those administrators in local authorities up and down the country who managed to achieve that, despite difficult timescales. However, the Government failed to deliver.
On polling day, many EU citizens living in the UK found that they were unable to vote because they had not completed a second piece of paperwork transferring their voting rights from their home member state to the UK. The Government are solely to blame for this chaos, having ignored the advice of the Electoral Commission to streamline the two-step registration process like other European countries did after the previous set of European elections.
Labour repeatedly warned the Government that EU nationals were not given enough time and notice to complete the necessary paperwork because of the short timeframe within which the election was called. However, the Government refused to listen, and their response was to tell EU citizens to vote in their own country; of course, for many EU citizens, the United Kingdom is their own country, having lived here for several decades in some cases. Not only did that add to the anger and sense of exclusion that many EU citizen residents of the UK felt but the Government were asking people to register to vote in a country where they might not have lived for decades and where voting registration might have already closed. This is not a Government who respect electoral integrity. This is a Government committed to power by any means, which means discarding voters who are unlikely to vote Conservative.
The statutory instrument claims to be about ensuring the integrity of the electoral system. In the explanatory documents that accompany the SI, the Government talk about extending post-election processes to uphold electoral integrity, but they have not scratched the surface when it comes to safeguarding the integrity of the electoral system.
Electoral integrity is not just about fulfilling administrative processes and investigating potential breaches of the law, which the Minister spoke about during one of his explanations to the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean; it is about ensuring that every eligible person is able to vote. However, we know that the Government have engaged in voter suppression. Perhaps they believe that those struggling at the margins of society are less likely to register to vote, and if they did vote, would be less likely to vote for a Government whose austerity policies have had such a damaging effect on the public services that such people rely on more than most, cutting welfare benefits to the most vulnerable in our society and failing to properly invest in our NHS.
The Government have no interest in increasing voter registration because they believe it would not be politically beneficial. Similarly, they had no interest in ensuring that EU citizens were able to vote in the European Parliament elections. The Government announced only on 7 May that the UK would be taking part in the European elections, yet in order to take part in those elections, EU citizens needed to have returned their forms to their local authority by 7 May, declaring that they would not vote in another EU member state. Many people said that they were not sent the form by their local authority and received it just days before the deadline, meaning that councils then failed to process the forms on time. Others said that they were unaware of the process altogether.
The Government made no effort whatever to educate, inform or prepare eligible voters to register, because by admitting that we were going to have to take part in the European elections the Government would have offended a large part of their core support, whose voters we then saw defect to the Brexit Party Ltd. This comes at a time when improving voter registration is more important than ever. A new study published last week by the Electoral Commission shows that up to 9.4 million people are not correctly registered to vote—an increase of 1 million voters since the Commission’s previous estimate. EU citizens entitled to vote in the UK were disenfranchised as a result of the Government’s failure to reach a satisfactory Brexit deal—just one incident in a long line of repressive measures undertaken by this Government.
On closer reading of the explanatory documents for this SI, there is a reference to the Government
“continuing to work with the Law Commissions, as well as other stakeholders such as the Electoral Commission, to consider ways to streamline and clarify our electoral system in order to make elections easier to administer and therefore more resilient to errors or fraud.”
What progress have the Government made in those discussions and what plans do the Government have to enact the Law Commission’s recommendations, because at the moment, we cannot find any evidence of progress. It is widely accepted that the laws setting out how UK elections are run and regulated are not fit for the modern age—the digital age, the age of social media— with some provisions dating back to the 19th century. We on the Opposition Benches strongly agree with the Law Commission that the current laws governing elections should be rationalised into a single, consistent legislative framework to govern all elections, but it seems that the Government have not yet responded to that important body of work. Perhaps the Minister might clarify that.
Although we accept the reasonable and necessary provisions in today’s statutory instrument, we do not accept the Government’s mishandling of the European elections, done for their own narrow political purposes and certainly not for the good of the United Kingdom.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Sadly, it does not give me pleasure to be debating this particular statutory instrument. On the walk in this morning, I was reminded of a tweet from the Better Together campaign in 2014 that said,
“What is process for removing our EU citizenship? Voting yes”,
yet today we find ourselves debating another exiting the European Union statutory instrument. How things have changed over the past five years!
I offer the Committee its regular reminder that Scotland did not vote for this. In the 2016 referendum, we voted to remain a part of the European Union, but once again we find ourselves being dragged out by this British Government. As the hon. Member for City of Chester said, we were told that we would not be having European elections in 2019, yet of course we had European elections because the Government messed things up. I suspect that this week, we will see them mess things up once again when the Prime Minister’s proposal to Michel Barnier is rejected.
When we talk about European elections, we hear these typical arguments from the Conservative Government or Conservative MPs about unelected MEPs and bureaucrats in Brussels. I remind them that in European elections, we directly elect Members of the European Parliament, yet in this place we have the House of Lords, which none of us has elected. In this Committee Room, albeit less frequently now, we also debate the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill, whereby we are trying to prevent the Government from reducing the number of MPs from 650 to 600. While they are busy putting through legislation like this and saying, “We’re not taking part in the European elections, because all these powers are coming back to the UK Parliament,” the Government are simultaneously trying to reduce the number of MPs in the House of Commons to scrutinise the Government.
In 2019, Scotland elected 50% of its MEPs from the SNP. I end with a prediction that, come the next round of European elections, Scotland will once again send Members to the European Parliament—but this time as an independent state within the European Union.
Kevin Foster
It is always interesting to be in a Committee where hon. Members make such strong speeches condemning the Government, but then say, “Actually, we’re going to vote for what you propose.” There is always a slight irony in that. I have to say that the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow East came as no great surprise, although at least his party has been consistent and coherent in what it argues for on the issue.
I do not intend to delay the Committee unduly by responding to all the points made by the hon. Member for City of Chester. I am sure that, like me, he is looking forward to seeing the new deal that the Prime Minister will secure and getting into the Lobby to support it. There was a slight irony in his comment that failure to achieve a Brexit deal meant that EU citizens could not vote in European elections; if a Brexit deal had been achieved, we would not have had European elections, so no one would have voted in them. That was the Government’s original goal.
Let me address some of the hon. Gentleman’s more serious points. We expect the Law Commission’s final report in the early part of next year. It will set out the details and announce our intentions in the usual way; it is a very detailed piece of work, as he will realise, given the nature of the law. With any change to electoral law, it is important that we get it right rather than rushing it. We need to ensure that it is immune from certain legal challenges and that it is a robust piece of legislation, but is not so complex that it makes it difficult for people to engage in our democracy. Not every candidate for election—I am thinking particularly of independent candidates in parish and local elections—would benefit from or should have to obtain detailed legal advice merely to stand to represent their local community. The Government will carefully consider the Law Commission’s report, as I am sure Parliament will in due course.
To modernise our election law, we have already committed to bringing in a digital imprint regime. Once the technical work is completed, we will look to bring it forward. We have also committed to a consultation later this year that will focus on the rules on election spending, which I have discussed several times in the main Chamber. It will be open to all feedback, not just from Opposition parties but from stakeholders in society, about how we can tackle the challenges that a modern digital campaigning landscape presents to elections and ensure that our rules on who can fund and finance elections are modern and up to date.
I welcome the outbreak of consensus about the reasons for the draft regulations. I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid for Separated Children) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Wendy Morton)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid for Separated Children) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2019.
The draft order makes provision for separated migrant children to be eligible for legal aid for civil legal services for non-asylum immigration and citizenship matters. This important piece of legislation will help to ensure access to justice for vulnerable children.
Let me set out the purpose of this statutory instrument. For those not familiar with the provision of legal aid, legal aid for civil legal services is available to an individual if the service is in scope—in other words, if it is described in part 1 of schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. In addition, legal aid may be available on an exceptional basis where there would be a breach, or risk of a breach, of an individual’s rights under the European convention on human rights or any enforceable EU rights. This is known as exceptional case funding, or ECF.
Eligibility for legal aid, both for in-scope matters and for ECF, is subject to statutory means and merits assessments. Under current arrangements, separated migrant children who are seeking to regularise their immigration or citizenship status in the UK can apply for ECF to receive legal aid for help with their citizenship application, immigration application form or subsequent appeal. However, following litigation and engagement with key stakeholders, including the Children’s Society, this draft instrument will bring these matters into the scope of legal aid. That means that separated migrant children will no longer have to make ECF applications to receive legal aid for citizenship and non-asylum immigration matters.
Let me turn to the scope of the amendment. Since 2018 officials have been working closely with other Departments and children’s charities to finalise the terms of this amendment. It makes provision for separated migrant children to be eligible for civil legal services in relation to their immigration applications for entry clearance, leave to enter and leave to remain in the United Kingdom under the immigration rules. It also provides civil legal services in relation to separated migrant children’s immigration applications for leave to remain where the application is made and determined outside the immigration rules. That would include applications for discretionary leave to remain, leave to remain on medical grounds, as well as exceptional circumstances or compassionate and compelling factors, which may warrant a grant of leave outside the immigration rules.
Further, legal aid will be available to those children in relation to relevant applications for entry clearance, leave to enter or leave to remain made under the immigration rules by another person, including family members and extended family members, and granted either under or outside the immigration rules. Such applications are determined on the basis of exceptional circumstances under article 8 of the ECHR—the right to respect for private and family life—or because of compassionate and compelling factors. The amendment includes legal aid applications for registration as a British subject or citizen, a British overseas territories citizen and a British overseas citizen.
Let me briefly touch on the procedural and technical amendments. There are some amendments that relate to the procedures for applying for different forms of civil legal services. They are grouped into different categories: gateway work, controlled work and licensed work. The changes ensure that for controlled work and licensed work, separated migrant children who require legal representation in proceedings before a court or tribunal covered by this amendment will be able to receive it. There are also some technical amendments to other instruments relating to the merits and financial eligibility criteria. The changes ensure that the tests applied to immigration matters currently in scope for legal aid are also applied to this amendment.
The statutory instrument takes the normative definition that a child is any person under the age of 18. Where the age is uncertain, the individual is treated by the director of legal aid casework and the legal aid provider making the legal aid determination as being under 18. For the purposes of this amendment, a child is separated if they are not being cared for by a parent or someone with parental responsibility for them. It also accounts for children who are looked after by a local authority, or who are privately fostered but for whom parental responsibility has not been determined. It also acknowledges that some separated children may be in other informal caring arrangements or, indeed, caring for themselves.
A written ministerial statement was laid on 12 July 2018, outlining the Government’s intentions to introduce the legislation. Following that statement, legal aid providers were advised that in the interim they should continue to apply for legal aid via the ECF scheme. To provide clarity for Legal Aid Agency caseworkers and providers, Lord Chancellor’s guidance was issued, specifying that there is a strong presumption under article 8 of the European convention on human rights that separated migrant children require legal aid for non-asylum immigration matters and that, in the light of that, applications for legal aid on behalf of those children did not need to be supported by detailed evidence regarding their vulnerabilities and ability to participate in proceedings.
The draft instrument makes important changes, bringing citizenship and non-asylum immigration matters into the scope of legal aid for separated migrant children. It is a vital piece of legislation that will help ensure access to justice for a highly vulnerable section of our society.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
The Minister mentioned litigation very early in her speech. Would now be a good time to put on the record that the only reason that the instrument is before us today is because the Government lost litigation that was brought by the Children’s Society?
Wendy Morton
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. I think I made it clear earlier in my speech that the draft instrument was introduced following litigation and engagement, and that is why we are here today: to bring this element into the scope of legal aid.
I hope that you agree, Sir Roger, that the statutory instrument is necessary, and I commend it to the Committee.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. This is the first time that the Minister and I have been together in Committee, and I welcome her to her new role.
The plight of vulnerable unaccompanied and separated children—many fleeing truly desperate and dangerous situations around the world—who have sought safety, refuge and sanctuary in the UK should alarm us all and induce us to action. The Opposition unreservedly support today’s measure to bring those cases involving separated children back into the scope of legal aid. However, we must note not only that access to legal aid should never have been taken from this vulnerable group, but that the Government never intended to introduce today’s measure, and would never have done so if left to their own devices.
We must be clear that we are here this morning to consider the order not because the Government have, all of a sudden, had a change of heart and realised that the misery, pain and suffering that they imposed upon the children affected was too great, but because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central alluded to, of a legal challenge to their decision under the 2012 LASPO legislation to remove separated children from the scope of legal aid by the Children’s Society, an independent, third-sector charity, supported by lawyers, barristers and other legal professionals.
The Government have not introduced the draft order willingly and out of their own compassion; they did so because they have conceded to the legal case that was brought against them, fearing another damning defeat. Migrant children are among society’s most vulnerable groups, and unaccompanied children are even more so given the unique migratory factors at play and the particular vulnerabilities that they have as children without caregivers. Indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment for this statutory instrument states that these children have “distinct vulnerabilities” and needs. According to the previous special rapporteur on human rights of migrants, writing in his final report to the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2011, children who are unaccompanied or separated from their parents are “particularly vulnerable” to human rights violations and abuses at all stages of the migration process. Even the Children’s Commissioner for England has stated that children arriving unaccompanied in the UK are some of the most vulnerable that they deal with, due to the triple vulnerabilities they face.
Yet despite that, and despite the fact that children need access to high-quality immigration advice to regularise their status and protect themselves while being unable to properly represent themselves, the Government have kept unaccompanied migrant children out of the scope of legal aid for six years. Consequently, vulnerable children have been forced to represent themselves in legal cases, even though representing themselves properly is impossible due to their age, language barriers and vulnerability. That is a complex enough cocktail of factors before we even get on to the myriad immigration rules and the intricate nature of immigration law.
That has led to unaccompanied children now being at a heightened risk of having to support and represent themselves through legal processes and procedures, being more likely to receive an unfavourable legal outcome, being less likely than other children to be able to fund and apply for legal advice, and also being at increased risk of exploitation through the need to fund legal services, as the Children’s Commissioner for England has found. This is damming. It is no way to treat vulnerable children. It is no wonder that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has declared that
“the Government’s reforms to legal aid have been a significant black mark on its human rights record”
and that children more generally are being denied the use of the law to assert their rights and legal needs following the changes under LASPO.
Where free legal support does exist, many children are also restricted and frozen out of it due to the postcode lottery of legal support that sees most free legal advice concentrated in certain areas such as London and the south-east, while the number of law centres and other advice services is in decline across the whole country.
Together with the scale of the challenge faced by these unaccompanied children and the urgency of the need to address their inability to access legal aid in order to prevent abuses of their human rights, we are also deeply critical of the length of time it has taken the Government to lay the order before the House. A year went by between a Minister making a written statement conceding that removing separated children from the scope of legal aid was a reprehensible decision and the order being laid in order to reverse the changes under LASPO. Yet the Minister responsible at the time had declared in her written statement:
“The amendment will be laid in due course”.
When dealing with such sensitive issues and such vulnerable children, we should expect a speedier response, particularly considering that the Government are doing nothing new; they are simply restoring what had been taken away by LASPO. Will the Minister identify just how many separated children have been unable to access legal aid support to bring their cases to court since July 2018, when that written statement was published?
I expect that the Minister will response to that question by repeating the words of her predecessor, the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), in that written ministerial statement:
“Legal aid for other immigration matters is available via the Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) scheme”—
something to which this Minister has also alluded today—
“which is intended to ensure legal aid is accessible in all cases where there is a risk of a breach of human rights.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2018; Vol. 644, c. 47WS.]
However, if the Government were anticipating breaches of human rights as a result of their changes under LASPO, why did they enact those changes in the first place? Is the ECF scheme sufficient, and has it been so, given that the Children’s Society and the review of the Bach commission on access to justice found that it had failed to provide a safety net and still left children vulnerable? The Government’s own figures show that thousands of children and young people would have been helped through the exceptional case funding. The reality is that the number helped through that fund is in the tens, not the thousands. Again, the Government have some serious questions to answer on that.
Although we will not oppose the order—
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Well, no; you have just spoken in favour of it.
Imran Hussain
We will certainly not pat the Minister on the back and congratulate the Government, given that it has taken them more than a year to lay the order before the House after conceding defeat in the legal case, and almost a further three months to bring it forward for debate. During that time, inevitably, many more children have been unable to access the legal aid support that they have a right to, and many more children will have suffered as a result by being removed from the UK and returned to the desperate and dangerous conditions that they escaped from.
By putting off and delaying the order, the Government have neglected their duty of care to those vulnerable children and discarded their own humanity. We must never forget that, just as we must never forget that the Government removed those children’s access to legal aid to begin with, which put us in this sorry and deplorable situation. They cannot be proud of correcting such a colossal mistake and they must hang their head in shame that it has taken them so long to bring the matter back to the House.
Wendy Morton
I am grateful for the contributions to the debate and I will endeavour to respond to them as best and as carefully as I can. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East for his warm welcome and sincerely hope that we continue to meet at the Dispatch Box for some time to come. I also thank him for indicating his support for the statutory instrument.
It is important to say that access to justice is a fundamental right. Last year we spent £1.6 billion on legal aid to support the most vulnerable. On the hon. Gentleman’s point that legal aid should never have been taken away, access to legal aid was and is available for those children under exceptional case funding. As I set out earlier, between the written ministerial statement and now, the Lord Chancellor issued a very clear direction and guidance.
It has taken so long to lay the order because we have been determined to have discussions across Government and with children’s charities to make sure that we get this vital legislation right. It is better to take the time to get it right and to address the issue. I reiterate that ECF has been available during that time.
The hon. Gentleman asked how many children have been affected. Again, between the written ministerial statement and today, ECF has been available for those children with that guidance. Due to those children’s circumstances, it is often difficult to assess the number of separated migrant children who have been affected. ECF data is not always routinely collected, but we will monitor that as we move forward.
Jo Stevens
Is there a reason why ECF data is not collected? That seems strange.
Wendy Morton
If I may, I will respond to the hon. Lady in writing. I have asked that question.
Finally, as a responsible Government, we must be informed by evidence of what works, provide value for money and focus on the breadth of support that is available to ensure that everyone can access support when they need it to resolve their problems.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
The Minister is making an important point and pushing forward a powerful piece of legislation. The measure is aimed at legal aid in England and Wales, but immigration is obviously a reserved function of the entire United Kingdom. Can she outline now, or later in a written statement, how services will be funded in Scotland to support migrant children coming through there?
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend has far more knowledge of devolved Scottish matters than I do. I will certainly write to him, if he is okay with that.
I conclude by reiterating that the statutory instrument is an important part of the Government’s work to ensure access to justice for all, particularly the most vulnerable in society. I therefore hope that hon. Members will agree that it is necessary, and I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 1) Order 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 1) Order 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. This instrument is the first in a series of three, along with the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) Order 2019 and the similarly named Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 3) Order 2019. Although order No. 2 will be debated later today and No. 3 is subject to the negative procedure, the Committee should consider the whole package when looking at the first order. Together, the orders support the effective management of Operation Brock and strengthen the enforcement regime that underpins it.
As many members of the Committee are aware, the Government have supported partners in Kent to develop Operation Brock: a co-ordinated multi-agency response to situations of cross-channel travel disruption when capacity for heavy goods vehicles to leave the UK through the port of Dover or the channel tunnel is significantly restricted. We have, of course, been preparing to use Brock should cross-channel disruption occur because of the UK’s departure from the EU without a negotiated deal, although it could be deployed as a result of disruption resulting from bad weather or industrial action. Brock replaces Operation Stack and has been specifically designed to keep the M20 motorway in Kent open in both directions, with access to junctions even in periods of severe and protracted disruption.
Operation Brock consists of three phases. The first—Brock M20—is a contraflow queuing system on the M20 between junctions 8 near Maidstone and 9 near Ashford. The contraflow system enables all other traffic to travel in both directions of the M20 on the London-bound carriageway when cross-channel heavy goods vehicles are stored on the coastbound carriageway. When the M20 queuing system reaches capacity, phase two—Brock Manston—would kick in, and cross-channel heavy goods vehicles bound for the port of Dover would be diverted to Manston airport. If needed, phase three—Brock M26—could be used as a last resort to store trucks heading to Europe via the channel tunnel.
The Kent Resilience Forum, which comprises bodies such as the county council and the local police force, is responsible for Operation Brock plans. Any decisions relating to the activation and timing of the different phases of Operation Brock will be taken by Kent police as the gold command in consultation with the Kent Resilience Forum. Although we are undertaking significant activity to inform traders and hauliers of any new requirements resulting from our departure from the European Union, there is a concern that widespread non-compliance could lead to serious congestion on Kent’s roads, as was experienced in 2015 when Operation Stack was deployed for an extended period. That was down to strikes and weather. Almost a third of cross-channel HGVs avoided the traffic system, causing serious traffic problems on the local road network, with part of Kent becoming gridlocked.
The Department has held, and is continuing to have, regular discussions over the past year with the forum and other stakeholders in Kent who are very keen to see measures to strengthen the enforcement of Brock introduced. It is crucial, therefore, that these instruments are brought into force in time for a potential no-deal Brexit to ensure that the scheme operates as efficiently as possible and to reduce the impact on businesses and local communities in Kent.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am listening to the Minister with great interest. Have the Government made an environmental impact assessment of this new proposal?
Chris Heaton-Harris
May I come back to that in a second?
I am grateful that time has been found for these debates to take place quickly and also for the speed at which the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has scrutinised the instruments.
We consulted on the package of measures this summer and targeted all sorts of people, including key Kent stakeholders such as Kent County Council, the port of Dover and Eurotunnel. The responses received were broadly supportive while providing helpful points of detail that assisted us in drafting the orders as well as raising wider points on the deployment of Operation Brock. I thank everybody who took the trouble to respond.
I will set out the order we are considering today, as well as the other two orders. The No. 1 order confers new powers on traffic officers in Kent. That would enable traffic officers to require the production of documents to establish the vehicle’s destination and readiness to cross the border; direct drivers to proceed to a motorway, removing the vehicle from the local road network; and direct drivers not to proceed to the channel tunnel or the port of Dover, except via a specified road or route. Document checks to help make sure a haulier has the right documents on the M20 will be carried out by temporary traffic officers contracted by Highways England and under its direct supervision. Broader traffic management and enforcement will be dealt with by permanent staff from the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and the local police.
The order also sets out the amount of the financial penalty deposit, which will be issued and taken immediately at the roadside by the police or staff from the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. If a driver cannot make the deposit, their vehicle will be immobilised. That does not mean it will be stuck in a queue forever; rather, it will be stickered and escorted away to a point out of the queue where further action will be taken. The amount of the deposit for breaching traffic restrictions introduced by the other two instruments, or for failing to comply with the traffic officer exercising the new powers, is set at £300.
To provide an overall perspective, I will briefly outline the traffic restrictions that the other two orders introduce. Order No. 2, which will be debated this afternoon, prohibits cross-channel heavy goods vehicles from using local roads in Kent other than those on the approved Brock route. Order No. 3, which has been laid using the negative procedure, prohibits cross-channel heavy goods vehicles from accessing the coastbound carriageway of the M20 between junctions nine and 13, unless the driver is displaying a permit. That permit will be used in the Brock queue between junctions eight and nine, enabling a driver to demonstrate they have followed the approved Brock route and have complied with any border document checks that may be undertaken in the queue. It also sets the amount of the fixed penalty for offences relating to this series of instruments at £300. We have provided that the new powers and traffic restrictions in the orders will cease to have effect on 31 December 2020, in a sunset clause. This coincides with the end of planning permission for Manston airport to hold heavy goods vehicles and it is important we have that in place until that time.
Crucially, these instruments introduce powers that allow for enforceable border readiness checks to be conducted. If a no-deal Brexit happens, the UK economy will become a third country to the customs authorities in EU member states, enabling them to introduce EU border and customs rules. Traders will need to complete processes for customs and provide documentation to their hauliers, who will need it when carrying goods to let those goods move smoothly across this new border. The border readiness checks would look to see if a haulier has those documents.
That is important because, without the right documentation, drivers may not be able to complete their journey in the European Union. The UK port might turn them away because they do not have the required documentation. For example, some of the customs documentation needs to be scanned at the Eurotunnel check-in before the vehicle can board a train or they may be blocked from progressing through an EU port by a member state customs authority. Vehicles could be delayed or fined or returned to the UK, or goods could be destroyed, so that is vital.
Kate Green
I hope that the Minister is going to come back to my question on environmental assessment, but I want to ask him another question. Will those checks, particularly in respect of what might be needed at the EU port or subsequently, include checks on whether the driver has the appropriate European driving licence?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I was coming back to that, but I will answer both questions at the same point.
Highways England has undertaken the environmental assessment for the M20 Brock as well as individual sites such as Manston—so yes, environmental assessments have been concluded. I am sorry: I have forgotten the hon. Lady’s second question.
Kate Green
Will there be checking on this side for European driving licences?
Chris Heaton-Harris
Yes, there will. Currently, there are more than 50. A host of pop-up sites has already gone up, giving documentation out to hauliers and others to tell them what the checks might be. Yes, they will need a driving licence and a passport, and obviously some documentation for customs declaration. All that is highlighted in the documentation they are receiving now. They should be able to check that they are border-ready well before they get to the border.
Kate Green
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again and I am grateful for both his answers. Has the environmental impact assessment carried out by the Highways Agency been published and is it possible for us to see it—or to have it placed in the Library, if not?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I believe it is. I will find it and try to repeat that in my concluding remarks so that it is on the record, if that is okay.
I was talking about the various checks and why we need to ensure that our hauliers are border-ready. If the Brock queues are stationary, we propose conducting border readiness checks on the M20 and at Manston airport. A haulier deemed ready to cross the border will be given a permit that allows them to go to their port. Unready hauliers, who try to go to the port without a permit, will be stopped, directed to the back of the Brock queue and receive the proposed on-the-spot £300 fine issued by the police or DVSA.
The orders are of vital importance to allow sensible traffic management in Kent. They help demonstrate to the public and business that Operation Brock will be ready, fully operational and enforceable on day one, should it be needed, to deal with the impact of cross-channel disruption. I commend them to the Committee.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, as we debate this order. I look forward to debating further episodes in this trilogy. I also welcome the Minister to his place.
The Government are not shying away from taking us off a cliff edge with a no-deal Brexit, and I note that at this eleventh hour they are still bringing forward legislation to try to prevent chaos at our borders and far deeper into Kent. The delay in bringing forward the legislation does not just predict chaos in Kent but highlights chaos in Government in not being well prepared for their no-deal Brexit.
In the light of the risks already highlighted under Operation Brock, further legislation is before us today to highlight extended powers of traffic officers to direct traffic through congestion. Operation Brock provides for a contra-flow queuing system on the M20 at junctions 8 and 9, a lorry park at Manston airfield and, if necessary, holding traffic on the M26.
Paragraph 2 of the order forms the essence of this instrument, where a traffic officer may require a person driving a heavy goods vehicle to provide documentation of the origin and destination of their journey, as well as documentation relating to the goods on board. That must all be visibly displayed. That is a form of border check at a non-border. In addition, the traffic officer can then direct the vehicle to a specific route or waiting area and guard against the routes it is meant to travel along, unless it is local traffic or the lorry is refuelling.
That is clearly to stop the minor roads of Kent from snarling up and to enable non-HGV traffic to flow on major routes. Through that process, officers will also determine whether certain consignments proceed to the channel tunnel or ports, or not. That highlights how consignments of food or medicines could be seriously compromised should the powers in this statutory instrument be required. Manufacturers of goods should also be concerned that goods could be seriously delayed at the borders.
The order would give powers to the traffic officers to inspect documentation. Failure to provide that, or being in breach of directions given, could result in the driver receiving a summary conviction with a penalty of £300. The legislation is due to come in, possibly by the day after 31 October, and it will remain law until December 2020. I seek clarification from the Minister that that date is to coincide with the end of the transition period, as it currently is in law.
The legislation is a fall-back position for times of severe disruption. Even the threat of that proves the scale of the risk that border chaos could cause. The vast majority of goods flow through Kent, but are similar provisions being made around other ports in the UK, including the enhanced powers of traffic officers? If so, which ports?
How will traffic officers police the process? How many more will be deployed in Kent to manage the process? Will new officers be recruited or will officers be transferred from other places?
The Minister also referred to DVSA staff. Will more DVSA staff be recruited? I know the service is already under severe staffing pressure. If traffic proves to be more severe than set out in the order, do the Government plan to bring forward further legislation? Again, that is unclear. The order highlights the serious risks associated with a no-deal Brexit, and for that reason Labour is focused on ensuring that the Government take it off the table.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
May I ask a couple of questions? What processing capacity does the Minister expect for HGVs in the junction area of the M20 that he mentioned? I am concerned about whether that is enough.
Secondly, what facilities will be available at the places where the documents are being inspected so that HGVs with loads can become compliant and Brexit-ready by virtue of obtaining, for example, a transit accompanying document? Where they can offer the load up to be inspected, should HMRC wish it to be?
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Much preparation is going on to prepare the haulage industry and business for the Brexit deadline. Does my hon. Friend the Minister have any indication or feedback on whether hauliers are taking that seriously, given that so many parties on the Opposition Benches are trying to prevent us from actually leaving the EU? Is that standing as a barrier to businesses being ready? They are perhaps getting the impression from this Parliament that it will do everything it can to stop a Brexit result.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for bringing the order to the House. Representing Dover, which is literally on the Brexit frontline, I think it important that measures are taken to ensure an orderly Brexit.
I have a few questions for the Minister. First, what exactly is a traffic officer? It is important to ensure the orderly control and flow of traffic throughout Kent, not only on the A2/M2, but on the M20. If the Department and the Government as a whole are settled on trying to get people to Manston and to intermediate parks along the way, it is important not only that Kent police are designated as traffic officers, but that local authorities have traffic officer powers.
For example, let us say that a lorry has parked across a box junction in Dover—not a Highways England piece of road—and Kent police are busy elsewhere and do not have any officers available. It is advisable for the local authority to have traffic officer designation so that it can appoint people to be traffic officers to ensure that box junctions are kept clear and that the townspeople of Dover are able to get about their business, whatever the state of the main roads. That is important not just from the point of view of suppliers getting through, people getting to their jobs and emergency services getting access and so on; it is also important from the point of view of the orderly flow of traffic in the towns, and not simply along the main motorway arteries. I hope the Minister can give me some comfort on that.
The Minister will know that the leader of Dover District Council and I have written to the Secretary of State for Transport on the subject. I hope the Minister will be able to provide some comfort and perhaps even some level of direction and assurance. Perhaps he can even get the Department for Transport to focus on the issue to give the appropriate powers in due course.
The other key issue is that we know there are those who doubt that we can manage to leave the European Union. We know that the Opposition are strongly of the view that we should cancel Brexit and simply remain—they have basically said that time and again. We know what they are up to and we can see it. We also know that the transit convention that we extended in the event of no deal will mean that there is no need for any checks at Dover or Calais. There is no need for any “Project Fear” from the Labour party, which uses fear as a cloak for their true belief that we should remain under all circumstances, whatever the people voted for, scything, as they do, at the very foundation of our democracy.
Alec Shelbrooke
If Brexit were cancelled because of a fear of congestion, in leave parts of the world—I believe a great deal of the south-east was leave—there could well be demonstrations holding up the traffic and taking direct action, leading to the same congestion that is feared by the Labour party.
The Chair
Order. Before the hon. Member for Dover replies, I should say that a number of points have been made that go beyond the scope of this No. 1 order—into No. 2 or No. 3 orders, or the general debate about Brexit. We really have to focus on the No. 1 order.
Charlie Elphicke
I appreciate that, Mr Hanson. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell tempts me to talk about the importance of making sure that the traffic flows, even when there are demonstrations. That is part of the reason why we need these traffic officers. If someone comes to Dover and glues themselves to the roads, as the Extinction Rebellion people did the other day, it creates a problem. We want to have the powers for people to ensure that the roads are kept open and free.
The key point that I am trying to make about traffic officers is that we will need fewer traffic officers and fewer powers provided that we make sure that we are entirely ready for a smooth Brexit, using the transit convention and making sure that HMRC has done its bit. To conclude, the ideal would be that clearances were done at the factory floor, which is possible, using the transit convention and making sure that HMRC is fully ready, rather than checks at Manston.
My other concern is that the Government’s idea of using Manston is problematic. Let us say that Stanislav from Krakow is driving a lorry—many lorry drivers are from eastern Europe and do not have the best grasp of English, but they know where the port of Dover and the M20 are. They will head there come hell or high water. The problem is how on earth we are going to tell them to go somewhere else. How on earth can we tell them that they should sit at Manston and be there, potentially, for days on end?
Mr Fysh
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I, too, have very serious concerns about the idea of Manston featuring at all in a solution to this, which is why the capacity issue for the processing en route is so important. I think there is a serious danger that if EU hauliers—after all, 80% to 85% are from the EU—find that inconvenient and get fined £300 unless they go to Manston, and that completely upsets their schedules and working time allowances which will get them to a certain point in Europe, they may abandon the route entirely.
Charlie Elphicke
That is my prime concern—to make sure that the traffic is free-flowing. The focus really ought to be on making sure that HMRC is ready to give the clearances from the factory floor, rather than on producing a situation at Manston. I am concerned, as are many colleagues in Kent, that if the procedures aimed at directing lorry drivers to Manston are implemented, it will be very hard to persuade lorry drivers for whom English is not their first language to go elsewhere. That is my one concern about this.
I broached this subject because I want Brexit to succeed—unlike the Labour party, which wants to cancel it and to remain under all circumstances. I want Brexit to succeed, so we have put forward solutions to make the best advantage of the transit convention and avoid the need for quite so many traffic officers.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank hon. Members for their contributions and questions. I will try to take on all of them. If the hon. Member for York Central does not mind, I will start with my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, whose constituency would be more affected than that of anyone else in this room, were Operation Brock to stand up. He has rightly been very helpful in raising legitimate questions of the Department about the powers that might be required by individuals. He has also represented his constituents, who should expect—and, I hope, if Brock is stood up, can expect—that even though their life will be slightly different, business and life will continue, basically, as normal.
My hon. Friend mentioned using transit. The common transit convention is used for the movement of goods between member countries, and that includes the EU27 and European economic area states. In the CTC, customs declarations are not required at each border, duties are paid only at the final destination, and some procedures can be completed away from the border. So, obviously, it is very sensible for big hauliers or big traders to ensure that they use transit, and we are communicating with them all to try and persuade them that using the transit procedures is the best way to go.
My hon. Friend spoke wisely about getting hauliers, and the traders that use them, border-ready—compliant —way before they start. We are looking at all the ways we can do that, including from a simple communications campaign point of view, to ensure that every single driver who uses the short straits crossing, or another UK crossing, understands what the new processes will be.
I talked about pop-up sites appearing at motorway service stations, at ports and on ferries—and, indeed, at sites in the European Union where we know that many such drivers commence and finish their journeys. The whole point of such sites is to talk to those drivers. We have documentation being translated into 11 different languages. The hauliers’ handbook has been not only translated into those languages but road-tested by different road haulage associations—the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association—to ensure that it works for the people it is aimed at. It is in, not simple language, but the language that people use in their everyday jobs, so that they know what they are expected to do.
We are really trying to get to everybody beforehand. That is why my hon. Friend will have seen signs on motorway gantries reminding people, especially hauliers, that the paperwork that they need may change on 1 November. It is not to make a fickle political point; it is for them to go back to their place of work, and to the traders that use them, and say, “I will need this to make my living—please ensure that you are ready,” and to enquire as to how ready they are.
There is a big reason for pointing people in that direction. If traders complete the necessary process, and give hauliers the right paperwork so that they can take their goods over the border, that helps the flow of goods. Our measures are contingency measures, and if there are no problems at the border, as we hope there will not be because the whole campaign of communications and education will have worked, there will be no need to stand up any of these measures. However, as we saw in 2015, problems may occur whether or not we are in the European Union, so it is sensible to have such contingency measures anyway.
My hon. Friend also asked what a traffic officer was, and whether local authority staff could have powers. That is a genuinely interesting point. As someone who has struggled with traffic wardens in the past, I am not sure how much extra power I would like to give them, but a traffic officer is designated by the Secretary of State to support the management and operation of the strategic road network. That is the definition. Highways England has recruited more staff for border-readiness checks. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, the police and Highways England are sourcing staff from outside the south-east, which is obviously where Brock will be stood up and where any problems are most likely to occur. That answers the question by the hon. Member for York Central about why it is just for Kent. All modelling suggests that if there are problems, they will be in Kent. We have done modelling for all the other ports around the country.
Charlie Elphicke
My hon. Friend is giving some positive and excellent answers to my questions. I believe that under section 3 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, a traffic officer can be designated in relation to any relevant road in England if he is designated by or under the authorisation of the Secretary of State—not simply for the strategic road network. Highways England needs to think a little way beyond its own personal little interests in running motorways, to the towns with the roads that it does not manage, and the designation by the Department for Transport of traffic officers should be extended to local authorities to manage local roads.
Chris Heaton-Harris
My hon. Friend makes a fair point; I will get feedback from officials on the point of law. We are doing everything, but we are completely open; if he or other Kent MPs, or others from the Kent Resilience Forum, believe that there are other things that we can do to make the process simpler and more helpful and to keep things fluid within the county, we are completely up for looking at those suggestions, but we do believe that the contingency measures will be enough to deal with the levels of lorries, on which I have some numbers for my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil in a moment.
Highways England has recruited staff for the checks and the DVSA will be deploying 130 officers, 60 of whom will come from outside Kent—there will be a lot of people surged into the Kent area for this process. I would very much like to think that that is welcomed by Kent.
Rachael Maskell
I thank the Minister for the clarity on the number of additional staff who will be deployed to Kent. Are those people being transferred from other functions and elsewhere in the UK or are they new, additional staff?
Chris Heaton-Harris
It is a bit of both. Some are new staff being recruited and some are being transferred from other functions across the United Kingdom.
I hope I have answered most of the questions; I will come back to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover on those I have not. We have a forum later today with Kent MPs and I will have the answers to any questions I have not answered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil asked me what we are doing to make lorries compliant. I hope I answered that in my comments on the comms campaign. We hope to be using the pop-up sites to tell drivers that they are border-ready. Currently, the message is about making sure that they understand what they need to do. Where the sites are popular and being used properly, and when we get to 1 November, we hope to move on to messages around, “Yes, actually that is a border-ready document; you should move down to Kent and you shouldn’t have too much of an issue to maintain flow.”
I want to give hon. Members a rough idea of the numbers of vehicles that could be in the Brock process in Kent. The slip road at Eurotunnel has capacity for 450 vehicles. The holding area at the Port of Dover has capacity for roughly 1,100 vehicles. The capacity of Brock M20 will be up to 2,000. Manston airfield will hold around 5,800. The Dover traffic access protocol has capacity of about 300, and if we needed it, the Brock M26 would hold 1,700 or so vehicles.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
The plans for many thousands of lorries to be parked as part of Operation Brock are well and good, and I understand that the plans are for the worst-case scenario, as is much of Operation Yellowhammer. I recently made a trip to the continent and I have seen the lanes cut off for Operation Brock up and down the M20. If something goes wrong or something does happen, as happened to me on my way to France, all the traffic that would have been on the M20 will go through the lovely lanes of Kent. What is in place to prevent that happening across rural Kent?
Chris Heaton-Harris
Brock will be in place to stop that happening. The powers we are discussing today will be the powers that the police and the representatives of the highways authorities will be using to stop lorries from doing exactly that. That is why we are here today to examine this statutory instrument and the other two with which it is associated. There are powers that can be used in bits, but, realistically, this is the law that the Kent Resilience Forum and others have been calling for, to stop exactly what my hon. Friend has described in his intervention happening.
Charlie Elphicke
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is being incredible generous.
My hon. Friend’s previous intervention makes exactly the point that I am concerned about. Highways England has a habit of thinking only about its motorway network; it does not think what happens when people duck off to go through side streets and rat-run through villages. It is not Highways England’s road network, so it is not interested. That is why we need designation of traffic officers or direction of Kent police to do their job properly in east Kent, because they do not always do it as well as one might want them to. In the case of Operation Stack and so on, we need that designation to ensure that there is enforcement of lorries that seek to rat-run, or that obstruct roads in towns and villages.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I understand my hon. Friend’s point. To answer his earlier point, and hopefully this point at the same time, he is quite right to say that designated traffic officers can work on local roads, but they are mainly meant to be relieving problems on the strategic road network. However, we are considering designating Kent County Council officers to support Brock in this circumstance—it is not Dover Council, which I think is where his question came from, but Kent County Council officers. I hope that is of some assistance to him.
I want to finish on a couple of additional points that the hon. Member for York Central raised. She made a point on the timing and asked why the plan was timed to end at the end of December 2020. It is actually nothing to do with the transition period; it is when the planning permission allowing us to mount the operation at Manston finishes. It is about planning; it is not about any transition period should we get a deal. Why is it so important that it is done in Kent? Well, 80% of the UK’s freight goes through the Kent ports—a big percentage of our trade goes through them.
Rachael Maskell
If there is serious congestion at Folkestone and Dover ports, haulage companies will look to other locations through which to cross the channel or the North sea. Are discussions under way about contingencies in those areas, should they become the key route that traffic flows through in the future?
Chris Heaton-Harris
Yes. That is a legitimate question about what would happen should Folkestone and Dover get very busy. My personal belief is that if I was running a business—I used to import wholesale fruit and veg for a living, and I have used the short straits crossing a huge amount in the past for my business—and was worried about there being a problem, I would divert my route. That is why the Government have already announced that an extra £9 million is being made available to local areas and major ports, so that they are ready for us to leave without a deal. Some £5 million of that will be given to local councils that either have or are near major air, land or sea ports, to ensure that they can continue to operate effectively when we leave the EU. We have also done the traffic modelling and shared it with the local resilience forums in each of those individual areas, and we are working with them to ensure that they are completely ready for when we leave the European Union later this month. It is a completely legitimate and fair question, and I appreciate the hon. Lady’s asking it, so that I could clarify that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell asked me a vaguely political question, but there was a sensible question within it: are hauliers taking this seriously? It is not that the political question was not sensible; I just do not want to be told off by you, Mr Hanson, tempted though I may be to leap in. I can honestly say that hauliers are taking this seriously. I have been in lots and lots of meetings with both business representatives and organisations of the freight and haulage industry, and indeed with big and small individual companies, and they all understand what impact this might have if it were to go wrong. They all understand that if they and everybody else get the paperwork right, there would not be the problem we are discussing and we would not need the contingency plan—Brock—because flow would continue. We need to continue—we will do this as a Government and, I hope, as individual Members —to say to anybody we meet from a haulage company, “Are you Brexit-ready?” The Government should have written to them a number times through different Departments, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and so on. They should have seen the adverts that have been in the papers and on motorway gantries. There are pop-up sites up and down the country, and we are using the trade press. They have all sorts of opportunities to notice them. It is their living.
I used to work with the haulage industry, importing fruit and veg, and I know that, although hauliers put things off to the last minute because they do not want to take on board the extra expense, when they know that it is about their livelihood and those of the people who work for them—they might be a small operator with one or two rigs—they take notice. They do not want to be held up. There are not massive margins in the haulage industry, so delay costs could cost them business and therefore profit, or their living. I believe that they are absolutely taking this very seriously.
Mr Fysh
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. Was he going to come back to my question about whether there will be facilities for hauliers to undertake customs-readiness en route? My concern is that if the capacity fills up in Folkestone, Dover and Ashford—where there are customs processing facilities where they can get their documents right in the evenings when they fill up with the hauliers from Europe who want to stay the night—there will potentially need to be some en route capacity in the areas where the trucks are being held; otherwise, they will have to divert to different places, and they will not want to.
Chris Heaton-Harris
Although that is not necessarily part of this debate, I would like to answer it. I mentioned, but probably did not emphasise enough, that we are looking at changing the very popular pop-up sites that we have for this basic communications campaign—the ones where we get a huge amount of footfall—so they can check the paperwork, as my hon. Friend describes, and inform drivers about whether they are border-ready and have the appropriate paperwork. If they get into Kent, there are turnaround sites, which HMRC is setting up, on top of the numbers that I mentioned in my previous answer to my hon. Friend. For people who believe that they can get ready to cross the border within 24 hours, there will be facilities for them to do so.
I apologise for not addressing the question that my hon. Friend asked about facilities. He asked what the facilities will be for drivers and others if we are doing all this. There will be facilities—we will ensure that we look after drivers’ welfare properly—that include toilets and food. At Maidstone, there will be things like access to the internet and printers, so if paperwork needs to be checked and changed, drivers have the ability to do that. We are very cognisant of the welfare of drivers in that industry, which is very important to our nation.
Charlie Elphicke
Before the Minister took the intervention of the hon. Member for Yeovil, he was touching on the heart of the matter: there need not be any problems at the border, and there need not be any traffic officers at all. We need them only against the risk of a punishment Brexit from the other side. Only the European Union, and those in this House that it consorts with on the drafting of Bills and legislation, could cause that kind of problem and undermine our nation and national interests, and act in a frankly unpatriotic way.
My second point, which is key, is that the Minister has kindly confirmed that Kent County Council will be designated to have traffic officers; that is great. Will KCC have the ability to give a sub-designation to local authorities at district council level, should it wish to do so?
Chris Heaton-Harris
As I hope I said, we are considering the point about Kent County Council officers. We will wait until we actually need to do that before we consider going to other local councils. On the hon. Gentlemen’s first point, a general election will come, and we will all be judged on what we did. The British public are not silly, and they will make judgments themselves. I hear what he said, and I will make my own political points in a more political meeting. I just want to ensure that everybody understands the purpose of what we are doing today with this statutory instrument.
I want to clarify for the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston that when I was talking about drivers’ licences, I was talking about them in the context of Brock—in other words, drivers going out of the country. We will not routinely check at the border for drivers’ licences for people coming into the country; we will maintain the checks that we have now. I think I made that point, but just in case I did not, I thought I should say that.
I hope I have managed to address all the points that were raised in the debate. These instruments are essential to ensure the effective management of traffic in Kent for the benefit of its residents and businesses in the event that we leave the European Union without a deal. I hope the Committee has found this debate informative and will support the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 1) Order 2019.
Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) Order 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) Order 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Ryan. It is the first time that I have experienced that pleasure, so I hope that I do not cause too much distress to you—or, indeed, to Joe Lenihan, who is a new Doorkeeper just two days into his job. We are expecting a feisty debate, so we may need someone who can take a Member outside and sort them out.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I really hope not, too.
The order is the second in a series of three, along with the draft Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 1) Order 2019 and the snappily named Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 3) Order 2019. Order No. 1 was debated at 8.55 am today—the hon. Member for York Central and I enjoyed our 45 minutes together—but order No. 2 should be considered as part of the whole package. Together, the orders support the effective management of Operation Brock and strengthen the enforcement regime that underpins it. Some hon. Members present heard my speech in the debate on the first order, but for the benefit of those who did not, I will repeat some of what I said—not all of it, I promise, although I do happen to have the previous debate pack handy in case they want to hear the whole thing.
As many hon. Members know, the Government have supported partners in Kent to develop Operation Brock: a co-ordinated multi-agency response to situations of cross-channel travel disruption when capacity for heavy goods vehicles to leave the UK through the port of Dover or the channel tunnel is significantly restricted. We have been preparing to use Brock should cross-channel disruption occur in a no-deal Brexit, but it could also be deployed to address disruption resulting from bad weather or industrial action. Brock replaces Operation Stack and is specifically designed to keep the M20 in Kent open in both directions, retaining junction access even if disruption is severe and protracted.
Operation Brock consists of three phases. The first—Brock M20—has a contraflow queuing system on the M20 between junctions 8 near Maidstone and 9 near Ashford. The contraflow system allows cross-channel heavy goods vehicles to be stored on the coast-bound carriageway, while letting all other traffic travel in both directions of the M20 on the London-bound carriageway. If the M20 queuing system were reaching capacity, the second phase—Brock Manston—would be activated, and cross-channel heavy goods vehicles bound for the port of Dover would be diverted to Manston airport. If needed, the third phase—Brock M26—could be used to store trucks on the M26 heading to Europe via the channel tunnel.
The Kent Resilience Forum, which comprises bodies such as the county council and the local police force, owns the Operation Brock plans. Any decisions relating to the activation and timing of the different phases of Operation Brock will be taken by Kent police as the gold command, in consultation with the Kent Resilience Forum. Although we are working hard to inform traders and hauliers of any new requirements resulting from our departure from the European Union, should there be widespread non-compliance it could lead to serious congestion on Kent’s roads, as was experienced back in 2015 when Operation Stack was deployed for 31 days. At that time, nearly a third of cross-channel HGVs avoided the traffic system, causing serious traffic problems on the local road network, with part of Kent becoming completely gridlocked.
The Department has engaged regularly over the past year, and continues to do so, with the forum and other stakeholders in Kent, who are very keen that measures be introduced to strengthen the enforcement of Brock, and that gaps in the legislative framework be addressed. All three orders will therefore need to be brought into force in time for a potential no-deal Brexit, to ensure that the scheme can operate as efficiently as possible and to reduce the impact on businesses and local communities in Kent. I am therefore grateful that time has been found for debates on the orders to take place quickly; I am also grateful for the speed with which the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has scrutinised them.
We consulted on the package of measures over the summer. We targeted, among others, key stakeholders such as the county council, the port of Dover and Eurotunnel. The responses received were broadly supportive, while providing helpful points of detail that assisted us in drafting the orders, as well as raising wider points on the deployment of operation Brock. My thanks go out to those who responded.
I shall now briefly set out, as I did earlier today, details of the order we are considering and the other two orders, to give Members the complete picture. Order No. 2, which we are debating now, prohibits cross-channel heavy goods vehicles from using local roads in Kent, other than those on the approved operation Brock routes. To facilitate traffic flow, the legislation also requires cross-channel heavy goods vehicles to remain in the nearside left-hand lane when using dual carriageway local roads that form part of the operation Brock routes.
Appropriate exceptions to that prohibition have been provided after consultation with the Kent resilience forum and freight associations. For example, a vehicle on a cross-channel journey can make a local collection or delivery, provided that the driver can provide information sufficient to satisfy a constable or traffic officer that the vehicle is being driven on a particular road for that purpose alone.
I remind the Committee that order No. 1 confers new powers on traffic officers in Kent, which would enable officers to require the production of documents to establish the vehicle’s destination and readiness to cross the border, direct drivers to proceed to a motorway—removing the vehicle from the local road network—and direct drivers not to proceed to the channel tunnel or the port of Dover, except via a specified road or route.
Document checks, to help ensure that a haulier has the right documents on the M20, will be carried out by temporary traffic officers, contracted and directly supervised by Highways England. Broader traffic management and enforcement will be dealt with by permanent staff and the police.
This order also sets the amount of the financial penalty deposit—a penalty that will be issued and taken immediately at the roadside by enforcement authorities. If a driver cannot pay the deposit, the vehicle will be immobilised. As I described in the earlier debate, that does not mean that it will be left immobile on the motorway. It will be stickered and escorted to a different location where the matter can be sorted, away from where it was causing any blockage.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Ryan. The Minister mentioned temporary traffic officers. Will he explain where those people will be found? When the A14 in my constituency was undergoing huge works recently, it was quite impossible for local police to recruit or find such people.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I was unaware of the issues that the hon. Member for Cambridge and his authority experienced. We have been building a recruitment drive for the past few months because we were expecting Brexit to happen a bit earlier this calendar year. We are also looking to give Kent County Council officers powers to help with this. We have surged staff and recruited more staff and we have options to add extra people to help. That is where these people have come from.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)
It would be a particular issue if a lorry were to stray off the strategic road network and try to rat run, as it is colloquially known, for instance, out at the Courtwood interchange at the A20, down Folkestone road, and try to sneak through the town of Dover. There is a risk that there may not be traffic officers available to put a stop to such nefarious activities by hauliers. Can I propose that the Department urgently takes forward measures, not only to give Kent County Council powers as traffic officers but to allow district councils, such as Dover District Council, which has lots of staff who would be very happy to be traffic officers, to ensure that anyone rat running or parking on a box junction could be dealt with appropriately?
Chris Heaton-Harris
My hon. Friend, whose constituency is obviously affected by everything we debate today, is assiduous in these matters. He raised this particular point in the debate this morning. As I said, we are considering going only to the point of county council officers, but I have heard what he said, as have my officials. I promise to take that away and, if need be, we will look at his suggestion as well.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Will the Minister clarify who will pay the cost of the additional officers? Will they be paid for by the Government or will the local authority be expected to bear the cost?
Chris Heaton-Harris
The Government pick up the tab for all sorts of Brexit-related activity and, as ever, that will be the case in this instance.
If a driver cannot pay the deposit, their vehicle will be immobilised. The amount of the deposit for breaching the traffic restrictions introduced by the other two instruments or for failing to comply with a traffic officer exercising the new powers is set at £300.
To complete the picture for the Committee, order No. 3, which has been laid using the negative procedure, prohibits cross-channel heavy goods vehicles from accessing the coastbound carriageway of the M20 between junctions 9 and 13, unless the driver is displaying a permit. That permit will be issued in the Brock queue between junctions 8 and 9, enabling a driver to demonstrate that they have followed the approved Brock route and have complied with any border document checks that may be undertaken in the queue. The order also prohibits cross-channel heavy goods vehicles joining the M20 contraflow between junctions 8 and 9 of the London-bound carriageway. It sets out the amount of the fixed penalty for offences relating to this series of instruments.
The new powers and traffic restrictions in the orders will cease to have effect—a sunset clause is included—at the end of 31 December 2020, which coincides with the end of planning permission for Manston airport to hold HGVs. Manston is of course an integral part of the Brock system, so that is a suitable and consistent date for those powers to cease to have effect.
Crucially, the instruments introduce powers that allow for an enforceable border readiness check to be conducted. If the Brock queues are stationary, we propose conducting border readiness checks on the M20 and at Manston airport. A haulier who is deemed ready to cross the border will be given a permit that allows them to go to their port. Unready hauliers who try to go to the port without a permit could be stopped, directed to the back of the Brock queues and given the proposed on-the-spot £300 fine by the police or DVSA.
The orders are needed to allow sensible traffic management in Kent. It is vital that we show that we are absolutely ready and that Brock is ready and will be fully operational and enforceable on day one should it be needed to deal with the impact of cross-channel disruption.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Ryan. This is the second order in the trilogy of heavy commercial vehicles in Kent, and I look forward to debating the third in due course. This order is about the movement of HGVs through Kent and highlights the exemptions that are to be applied to order No. 1, which was debated this morning. The Committee will be pleased to hear that I will not repeat much of what I said this morning, but I wish to make a number of points.
If traffic officers announce severe disruption and heavy traffic is already travelling along the non-designated route within a two-hour period of the announcement, vehicles will be exempt from any fines. Can the Minister confirm, however, that hauliers will not receive a penalty if, when making their way to the designated route, the traffic is so bad that it takes longer than the two-hour set period?
Lorries will be allowed to travel to make local connections and deliveries and for the purposes of refuelling as provided for by their documentation. How can that documentation be made available? Can it be electronic or does it have to be written documentation, particularly as local HGVs will be making assignments to local companies so they would not have the particular permits that are required under order No. 1?
If a cab is making its way to a port but does not carry any load, the legislation is silent about what restrictions will apply. Since the cab would be travelling to the port to collect an assigned load, it would not therefore have documentation to highlight the destination of the load. How will that matter be treated? Will the same restrictions apply and what documentation will be needed? The order is silent on that.
Again, on documentation, article 3(d) states that if an HGV is being driven on a local road network, the driver must produce
“information sufficient to satisfy the specified person”.
Will the Minister explain exactly what that means? There should be greater clarity in the order about what “sufficient to satisfy” means. That should be far more transparent, because it seems that it is down to the person’s discretion. Local lorries in Kent will be required to get a haulier’s permit from Kent County Council. I wonder how widely information about that additional requirement has been spread.
I have a further question about the welfare of drivers who need to use local routes. The conditions of those working in the haulage industry who have to park at the side of a motorway or on an airfield will still be unacceptable. I heard what the Minister said this morning about there being facilities—internet access, printers and other facilities—at Manston airfield, but drivers could be expected to wait for hours, possibly a day, or even more at the roadside, where suitable conditions are not available, without a decent resting place apart from their cab. If they need a shower or healthcare, how are they meant to access that?
The physical and mental health of drivers must be a priority but, sadly, it has not been. It is not clear from article 3(e)(i) whether there are any restrictions on what happens if drivers move themselves from the main carriageway to address, say, their personal health concerns or needs. I am particularly concerned about the mental wellbeing of drivers. Being away from home for extended periods, being late for family or community events and being isolated already take their toll, and prolonging such situations will have a profound impact. How is the Minister considering that? It seems that not all scenarios have been planned for. It is regrettable that the order was rushed out without consideration being given to these important matters. How will they be accommodated?
How would road repairs or a road closure due to a road traffic accident on the M20 or some other designated route be accommodated? Are contingency arrangements in place? We could end up with a combination of events, such as congestion at the ports leading to the full Operation Brock being put in place, followed by a severe weather event. These measures could be trialled from 31 January or 1 February, when we know the weather conditions may not be that pleasant, so how would such a combination of events be accommodated?
Finally, I wish to make a point about the cost of this whole operation, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham touched on. Can the Minister tell the Committee, and therefore the taxpayer, how much these measures will cost? We have heard about the recruitment of additional staff. Are taxpayers aware that these measures, let alone all the other costs that will be incurred, all add to the escalating cost of a no-deal Brexit? I look forward to the Minister’s response on these important matters.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I will pick up a couple of other points before I come to the questions asked by the hon. Member for York Central. I say in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and the hon. Member for Cambridge that 125 contractors will be designated as temporary traffic officers to operate in the queue on the M20 to do checks of border documents. Training is already under way for those individuals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover also asked who will stop people rat running. As I mentioned, we are considering local traffic officers. However, enforcement will need to be undertaken by the police or the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, which have expanded resources to support compliance on Kent’s roads.
Charlie Elphicke
The Minister talks about the police being responsible for enforcement; in fact, the Department for Transport has the power to extend the enforceability to other officers. Long experience in Kent teaches us that the police are not always very interested in enforcing on the motorways or the roads—particularly in east Kent; they are more interested in west Kent. Will the Minister enable wider enforcement powers to be given to local authority officers, as has been done in a pilot scheme in Ashford?
Chris Heaton-Harris
As my hon. Friend knows, we are actively looking at these matters, but I cannot give him a definite yes because I very much hope that we will not need to be in that situation.
Charlie Elphicke
I completely agree with the Minister. None of us wants to be in that situation; all Government Members want a deal. However, in the unfortunate event of a no deal due to the intransigence of the European Union—egged on, sadly, by Members of the Labour party—might we not have £39 billion to help us with the cost of it?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I somehow guessed, Ms Ryan, that you would pull us back to the subject. It is a wise thing to do. I do not want to get too excited about that issue, because I really want to answer the points that the hon. Member for York Central made and stress how important it is to everybody in Kent that we get this exactly right. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover makes some very sensible, straightforward political points, and we can have a battle about them another time. I just want to make sure this item is scrutinised correctly.
The hon. Member for York Central asked me a number of questions—nine, I think—and I shall try to answer them all. What happens to lorries travelling down the route or trying to get back on to the route when the two-hour window applies? Well, I am always told that the first rule of policing is common sense. Common sense will apply, and we would like to think that police officers and those enforcing will use it in that time period.
What sort of paperwork would be required to demonstrate that people are driving on local routes? The production of a delivery notice for an address in the local area with the appropriate goods on board will absolutely demonstrate that. That is a relatively straight- forward, “as things are now” answer.
I think the hon. Lady’s third question was: what happens to empty lorries? Some restrictions apply, and they will have to join the Brock queues. We know that 30% of containers on trucks heading back to France are empty, but those trucks will have to join the queue like anyone else, because it is very difficult to distinguish them from any other lorry.
Rachael Maskell
Often a lorry is a cab without a trailer. Will the same restrictions apply despite there being no load on board?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I will double-check, but I think the answer is yes. In Kent, that is a very rare occurrence, because the type of movements across the channel are roll-on roll-off movements, and so they take the container with them. My officials are scrawling away. I will lengthen my other replies, and hopefully I can get the definitive answer within the course of the debate, but I believe that what I have said is correct.
The hon. Lady asked what paperwork would be required to satisfy the specified person if an HGV driver was trying to say that they were going down a local route. As I said in my previous answer, they should have a delivery slip—that is not the correct word—or a delivery manifest that demonstrates that the load on their lorry, or part of it, is going to a local address. There is no real discretion; they should have something that demonstrates that what they say is the case.
The hon. Lady asked about local permits being issued by Kent County Council. I have been in meetings where I have been told that they have been very well publicised locally, so haulage companies in Kent absolutely know where to get them. After this Committee, I am going to a meeting with the gentleman who is in charge of these issues for Kent County Council, and I will ask him that exact question. If the answer is not as I have said, I will come back to the hon. Lady.
On welfare, strangely enough, I am with the hon. Lady. As I alluded to in the earlier debate, I used to import wholesale fruit and veg—hauliers were the lifeblood of that business. Without them, I would not have been able to do half the things I was able to do. The job has never been as valued as it should be. We have been working with the industry to determine what might be required for drivers’ health. She made the point about mental health; there is a whole industry focus on the mental health of drivers, because there is a recruitment and retention problem in the industry. It is really important that these things are addressed properly and professionally.
We do not want drivers to get stuck in Brock and, because of something else that is going on, to stay in Brock, when they can move on and get on with their lives. I mentioned earlier that we looked at all the different welfare things that we should and could provide, from printers to toilets to food and water. We do not want to make a community centre out of Manston airport, but we want it to be a functioning workplace where people are treated with the appropriate respect.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful for the clarity that the Minister has given on many of my concerns. If lorries are parked along the motorway carriageway, could he say how frequent the spacing out of toilets will be?
Chris Heaton-Harris
Very frequent. I believe we know the designated spacing and the answer is coming to me. The toilets will be every kilometre. Going back to the point about the vehicle without the container, restrictions will apply to HGVs over 7.5 tonnes.
On the hon. Lady’s seventh question, this is a contingency plan for something that we do not want to happen. The reason we have a massive communications campaign up and down the country as we speak is to ensure that the drivers and traders who use haulage companies are ready. If they are ready, as I hope and believe they will be, there will be no issues with flow and Brock will not need to be stood up. There has been a huge amount of investment on the French side, at the ports of Calais, Coquelles and Boulogne, to ensure flow continues over there as long as we have drivers in a place where the paperwork is ready. Hopefully, this is a contingency that will not need to be stood up.
The hon. Lady asked about road traffic issues—what happens if there is a crash or unexpected emergency roadworks? It is very helpful that the Kent Resilience Forum leads on all that, which is a combination of local councils, the police and highways authorities—a whole host of different agencies and people. They are working together now and their lead police officer, Peter Ayling, is in charge of co-ordinating that. Nothing should happen that they are not prepared for, but they have extensive plans for everything including severe weather and other events that may be concurrent with problems with flow at the port. [Interruption.] I have just been corrected on the spacing of portable toilets—they are at one-mile intervals, not one-kilometre intervals. I will always be more imperial than metric.
Finally, the hon. Lady asked about costs. There is a political point to make here: if the hon. Lady and her political party had voted for the deal, there would not be the extra costs of planning for a no-deal Brexit. However, a responsible Government have to do exactly that. In 2018-19, the cost was £59.9 million, and in 2019-20 it will be about £40 million, although there are still some costs to come as and when Brock gets stood up. I hope that has answered all the hon. Lady’s questions. If I have missed any, I shall write to her, if that is okay. I hope I have answered everybody else’s points.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) Order 2019.
Draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products and Common Agricultural Policy (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products and Common Agricultural Policy (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019.
This statutory instrument amends retained EU law and domestic legislation on the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products—also known as the common market organisation, or CMO—to ensure a smooth transition to a domestic regime. It also makes minor amendments to retained EU law relating to support for rural development and the maritime and fisheries fund.
The regulations are among those that were deprioritised prior to our planned exit at the end of March, because the bulk of the CMO rules that govern the existing schemes, and the vast majority of the details of them, were fixed and addressed in previous instruments. These regulations address the finer details of the schemes, in particular their administration. It was judged that it was not critical to deliver them by March, but the luxury of time, due to the delay in leaving the European Union to 31 October, means that we have the chance to get the job done and return to some of those issues.
The instrument is therefore technical in nature and limited in scope, as it amends the technical details of the schemes in the CMO, rather than the framework itself. We are upholding standards and maintaining processes; it makes appropriate corrections to ensure that those standards and processes continue to operate in a UK context. Where changes are required, we have endeavoured to ensure that they will have a limited impact on business and other stakeholders.
We have consulted extensively with the devolved Administrations on the instrument to ensure that the legislation that it amends continues to work while, obviously, respecting the devolution agreements. Most areas covered by the instrument are devolved, with powers transferring to the devolved Ministers. In many cases, the Secretary of State can act on behalf of the devolved Administrations should they give their consent. In one or two areas relating to enforcement, Wales has chosen to introduce its own statutory instruments, for example in relation to the administration of an apiculture —beekeeping—scheme and some of the design elements of a school milk scheme.[Official Report, 4 November 2019, Vol. 667, c. 6MC.]
Some of the functions amended by the instrument that are currently carried out by the European Commission could be exercised in ways that are reserved, such as where they affect trade, or devolved, so we have worked with the devolved Administrations in those cases. We have agreed an approach that respects the devolution settlements but ensures that those functions can be carried out by the appropriate public authorities in the UK after exit, whether that is the UK Government or the devolved Administrations.
The CMO sits in pillar 1 of the common agricultural policy and was set up as a means of meeting its objectives, particularly to stabilise markets, ensure a fair standard of living for agricultural producers and increase agricultural productivity. The main CMO policy areas covered by the regulations can be broadly categorised as aid schemes for fruit and vegetables, and for milk in schools; apiculture aid schemes; marketing standards for olive oil, eggs, poultry, meat and wine; import and export licensing; and the provision of information and notifications.
The changes made by the instrument will ensure the continued operability of existing regulations, largely by replacing references to “the EU” or “member states” with alternative references to “the UK” or “the relevant authority”. The approach when amending retained EU law has been to keep the effect of that legislation as close to the current system where possible.
The instrument also contains provisions relating to rural development and maritime and fisheries legislation, which governs the operational programmes through which payments are made. These programmes were prepared either by the United Kingdom as a whole or by the devolved Administrations and then agreed with the Commission. There are currently four development programmes and one maritime and fisheries programme operating in the UK, providing support to the sectors for the 2014 to 2020 programme.
The instrument makes six minor amendments to the rural development legislation, four of which also concern funding for maritime and fisheries. It omits two references to member states and amends references to Union legislation, and it omits two powers that the Commission has to make secondary legislation where these are now redundant. It transfers from the Commission to appropriate authorities in the UK a power to make secondary legislation concerning the models to be used when reporting on financial instruments. Finally, this instrument also revokes two pieces of retained EU legislation relating to support for the olive oil and table olive sectors, as this legislation will no longer be needed in the UK after EU exit since we do not produce those particular crops.
We consulted extensively with the devolved Administrations on preparing this statutory instrument and have their consent to lay it. I should say that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs also undertook targeted stakeholder engagement from November 2018 onwards on the amendments contained in the EU exit statutory instruments so far as they relate to food, as required under article 9 of Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 of the European Parliament.
In conclusion, these regulations make changes to ensure an operable legal framework for the CMO and rural development and maritime and fisheries programmes, which support the work of farmers and deliver continuity. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes.
Every time I see the initials CMO, I break out in a cold sweat. We have had this debate so many times that we never know which bit of the CMO we are talking about at any one moment. We debated it on the Floor of the House last week, and here we are again. Can the Minister start by telling us that this is the last time we will be debating an amendment to the CMO? I know that he had a slight interregnum when he was not here, but some of us have stayed the course and managed to debate every one of these CMO amendments, because they come around with ever greater regularity—more so even than buses. I am delighted that we are holding the Government to account over this.
With the best will in the world, it is very difficult for the Opposition to know exactly how these things fit together. It is a bit like a jigsaw puzzle, except somebody has thrown away the legend and all these different parts come to us. At one level, we could say, “Well, this is only secondary legislation, so we can just nod it through because it does not really make that much difference.” However, these are important market sectors and there are important elements for how we will, in due course, derive our new agricultural policy. Sadly, the existing agriculture Bill will fall for the second time today. Some of us spent 37 hours of our time on the Bill, which will be no more. No doubt we will start all over again—unless of course the Minister has not managed even to get it into the Queen’s Speech, which would say something about the importance of agriculture in this country.
The Minister knows that I am a bit of a fanatic about the relationship between pillar 1 and pillar 2—I always get interested when he talks about that. Can he clarify that there will be no change, whatever happens at the end of this month, in the Government’s commitment to pillar 2 expenditure—whatever it will be called—and that it will continue? I have said this many times before, but the danger has always been that we have not been good in this country at spending up to the amount we could have done, or at match-funding what was allowed in pillar 2. There has always been a temptation to pour money into pillar 1, which is the direct funding for farmers. That may be a justification for what we are trying to do with some of the changes, and that is partly inevitable. Will he give a guarantee that pillar 2 will in no way be starved of cash as a result of these changes?
The Minister has been clear about the relationship between reserved and devolved matters. Interestingly, Scotland did not get a mention in his initial speech, whereas Wales did—I note that a representative of the SNP is here. What is happening with Scotland? As he knows, Scotland chose, through a schedule, not to be part of the agriculture Bill, but Wales did. What impact will these potential changes have on Scotland?
The Minister said that these are predominantly technical changes, but they encompass some pretty important market sectors. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is now somewhat dated, and it was brought forward on the basis that there would be a deal. In terms of the legislative context, where does this all now stand if there is no deal at the end of the month? If we look at the CMO in context, it does not include the whole fabric of the way in which the common agricultural policy has operated. We will not be part of that, but we will not have anything else in its place at the end of the month. We are leaving it but actually staying in it, which is quite an interesting context. That is about managing market volatility, incentivising collaboration between competitive agricultural producers, and facilitating trade. That is why this is important; it covers a whole range of aspects of how our agriculture has evolved and how it will evolve over time.
With regard to the sectors, I am intrigued about why we always seem to fixate on olives. I do not know why the entire policy is always looking at olives. Last week we revoked something to do with olives. Why are olives no longer part of the scheme? I was led to believe that we do produce some olives in this country—indeed, we produce some of our own olive oil. We are revoking something, but what are we putting in its place to ensure that the market sector—for those of us who like olives—is properly protected and not subject to all manner of issues that could arise?
The Financial Times yesterday referred to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs being under enormous pressure from the Department for International Trade to lower our agricultural standards and environmental protection, because that is the only way we will ever get a deal with the US. The Minister might want to comment on that in passing. There are those who say that will never happen, but if the Financial Times is to be believed, that is going on at the moment.
As for the consultation, it was held well over a year ago. Will the Minister say something about what has happened more recently, given that these changes have come thick and fast? They may be technical in nature but they are of great importance overall. How have the different consultees been updated to ensure that they are complicit in what is going on, rather than left trying to work it out for themselves?
With regard to guidance, I am looking at the physical copy of the explanatory memorandum. Paragraph 11.1 refers to two aspects:
“Producing and labelling food if there’s no Brexit deal”
and
“Farm payments if there’s no Brexit deal”.
But they do not appear in the online version. Is that the Government’s mushroom strategy—keep people in the dark and chuck a lot of stuff of them, on the basis that it will make no difference because they will not know? Why is that in one version but not in the other? Somebody somewhere had better provide a quick explanation. It matters, because farmers need to know, as I said in the Chamber shortly before coming here.
The National Farmers Union has some very strong words on the impact of no deal. More particularly, it clearly wants to be held closer than it is at the moment in relation to some of the repercussions. If this is anything to go by—given the number of mistakes that have been made, the number of changes that have been brought in, and the number of amendments to amendments, and indeed amendments to amendments to amendments —it is very difficult to keep up to date with what is happening and where we are going.
The Opposition will not be voting against these regulations, but we look to the Minister to give us some assurance that no further CMO amendments will be brought forward, even after we finish today’s little episode with another Prorogation. More particularly, will he ensure that the consultation on the changes is genuine and ongoing and that people know what is happening?
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Well, I cannot begin to describe the deep joy I feel at being here once again speaking on a piece of legislation that would never have been needed were it not for the wilful act of self-harm that is Brexit. Here we are again spending valuable time passing legislation to allow the EU support schemes to continue after we leave the EU. That time could be spent more fruitfully examining and passing other legislation that is probably far more needed or, at least, would be far more needed if the UK Government did not have an obsession with the EU and leaving it. Still, here we are.
I hope that the Minister will enlighten us shortly on how the Government see the support schemes for fishers and farmers diverging from the EU schemes in the early years after Brexit, and whether those currently receiving that support will continue to receive it at a level at least equal to what they currently receive. I include Scotland, of course. I will be fascinated to learn how big the real-terms increases in the payments made to the Scottish Government will be and how the Government will reimburse the mislaid convergence cash with interest, remembering that it was paid in euros and so is worth a lot more these days.
I—and, I think, food producers across these islands—want to know the Government’s future plans. We have to keep coming here to repair some small parts of the damage that Brexit is doing, so the least we should be able to expect is that we can get some idea of the future plans.
I want to know whether a divergence from the EU’s food standards is planned, particularly in light of the reports of the new negotiating position of the President of the Board of Trade and what can only be described as “toadying” to the US food lobby. Maintaining support for our food producers is vital, because the new tariffs will cripple their competitiveness, as the Prime Minister made clear when he promised a culling programme for unsaleable beasts, and the new difficulties with produce crossing borders could cripple the fishing industry. That will all be made very much worse if they also have to compete with low-quality produce dumped on our supermarket shelves from the US, so it is important that we hear about those plans.
This SI, like so many others in the crazy race that Brexit has created, will pass. It is only necessary because of Brexit. Of course, the far more sensible course of action—cancelling the whole daft malarkey—is still open to us.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
I will speak very briefly. I welcome this statutory instrument and the many others that have been made. They are a demonstration of what we should be doing in this place—making our own regulations in a sovereign way. This is a very good thing to be doing and this process emphasises that.
I have a couple of queries. First, given that this statutory instrument gives us the power as a nation to operate and set the scope of our own interventions within the agriculture market, will the Minister confirm that we are simply transferring the powers that the EU has to set these bodies and the way in which they operate back into the United Kingdom? As far as possible, will we stick to the existing set-up? Does it also give us the power at a later date to begin to diverge or to improve the way we operate, whether in animal welfare or regarding these particular measures?
Secondly, would it have been possible for Scotland to take up any powers or to have taken the same direction of travel as Wales within this statutory instrument? If so, does the Minister have insight into why Scotland has chosen not to do so?
Overall, this is clearly a solid way forward and a platform for how we will operate in the future. I virtually volunteered for this Committee; I think these are fascinating areas. I am trying to get into practice for when this place once again does what it is supposed to do, which is to make the laws of our land.
George Eustice
I will be brief, Mr Gapes, and I will try to address all of the points in turn.
The shadow Minister bemoans the fact that, yet again, we are having to discuss another complex and technical statutory instrument relating to the CMO. I hope to get to the end of the process too. I cannot guarantee that there will not be more of these SIs coming down the line; I am sure there will be more. Whatever our views on Brexit, we are all condemned to relive the groundhog day of Brexit debate until we finally get Brexit done and resolve the situation.
Many of the SIs that the shadow Minister has debated in recent weeks, although not this one, will have to be debated again because things have moved on, the EU has changed something over the summer or the dates referred to in the original SI are no longer valid. A lot of the current wave of SIs are a consequence of the dither and delay that Parliament demonstrated in deciding not to proceed with our exit from the EU at the end of March.
The shadow Minister asks about pillar 2 expenditure. We have agreed to keep funding on agriculture, including the pillar 2 schemes, at exactly the same level until the end of this Parliament; as he will know, that will be in 2022. In addition, the Treasury has guaranteed that the current schemes will continue to operate and to accept bids up until 2020, and the agreements entered into will be honoured for their full lifetime. For example, a five-year or 10-year scheme under the agri-environment schemes would be supported for the duration, even though we will have been outside the European Union for some years.
The shadow Minister asks about Scotland, which does not get a mention. That is because Scotland has been happy with these regulations. The body of regulations was made in co-operation with all the devolved Administrations. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor asked why Wales has chosen a couple of areas in which to have its own SIs. That comes down to an element of its devolved settlement; there are some areas that it prefers to do itself and that is its choice. In Scotland’s case, it was content to know that the powers are appropriate for Scotland to act through this SI. To save the hassle of having to draft the same types of SIs over and over again, it made sense for the UK Government, with the consent of the devolved Administrations, to do this on behalf of everyone.
Finally, the shadow Minister asked about olives. The CMO is a complex body of law that has to be written for the whole EU; it is a one-size-fits-all body of law. That means that we end up with lots of provisions that are not relevant to the UK. We have changed the reference about producer organisations for people who produce olives or table olives; we do not produce or grow olives or table olives in this country, so that reference is redundant. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that all the provisions relating to the marketing standards around olives have been brought across and made operable in the way he would expect.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith asked how we might diverge over time. I have to say to her that that will be for the Scottish Government to decide. The Scottish Government will no longer have to sit on their hands, awaiting orders from Brussels about what they can and cannot do. They will have power—the power to act and the power to design schemes that they think are right for Scotland.
Having wrestled with some of these schemes over a number of years, I can say that the EU schemes are far from perfect. In so far as we may—all of us—choose over time to diverge from the EU schemes, it will be to make them better, to make them more effective and to make them deliver for farmers and fishermen. I can give the hon. Lady the example of the fruit and vegetable regime, which is an EU regime that is poorly drafted and often ends up with litigation, both in Scotland and in England, and a complete muddle. We could improve on it over time.
We have examples of some of the local area groups— the LEADER groups—that are bound in completely unnecessary bureaucracy, having to keep all sorts of records, and the EU taking issue with the way we have checked whether they are VAT-registered or not. There is lots and lots of bureaucratic nonsense that can stand in the way of these schemes and really everybody accepts that it is unnecessary. If we talk to the people who have to try to administer these schemes, I think they would welcome a breath of fresh air and more of a common-sense approach. However, it will be for Scotland to decide whether it wants to do that, or whether it wants to stick slavishly to what has been inherited from the European Union.
Finally, I will address some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor. He is right that the purpose of this SI and all similar SIs introduced under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is to provide continuity. This is not an area where we are trying to change policies in any dramatic way, apart from omitting things that are not relevant to the UK. It is all about continuity, and the power to change and to diverge from these measures will be set out in the agriculture Bill; we have had a dry run of that already, as the shadow Minister pointed out.
Deidre Brock
There were a couple of questions that perhaps the Minister has not had a chance to answer yet. I wondered about the support schemes for fishers and farmers diverging from the EU schemes. I asked whether those currently receiving that support will all continue to receive it, at a level that is at least equal to what they currently receive. I wonder whether the Minister can give us an intimation of the Government’s intentions there.
George Eustice
We have set out that we will not change the budget at all until 2022. Within that, however, and again this would be an issue that Scotland would be able to take a different view on, the UK Government—the English Government for English farmers—have already set out our intention to start diverging from the so-called basic payments scheme, probably from around 2021, and to gradually phase it down and replace it with a new type of support system built around agri-environment payments and support for different approaches to livestock husbandry, for instance. So we have set out our approach there, but the funding guarantees that exist are the Government guarantees to keep the budget the same until 2022.
Deidre Brock
Could we have a wee bit of clarity on that, because quite often people say “until 2022”, but of course that is currently the date for the next election? We do not know the future; we do not know what the next few weeks will bring. I have also heard it said by various Ministers that it might be until 2022 or the next general election. Can the Minister clarify which of those it is, or say if it is actually both?
George Eustice
The hon. Lady is very experienced, so she will know that a manifesto commitment lasts for the duration of the Parliament in question. That may be until 2022, or it may be earlier. She will appreciate that this is not an appropriate place for me to start talking about the next Conservative manifesto; there are other and brighter brains than mine working on those issues. It will be for all parties to decide what level of support they want to indicate they will give to these schemes in their next manifesto, if indeed they want to give any sort of indicative figure at all; that will be a choice that every party has.
I return to the final points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor. As I said, the power to change this measure will be contained in the agriculture Bill. It will have specific clauses to give us the power to modify retained EU law, which would include modifications to improve any of the pillar 2 schemes that we choose to improve. The moment that the agriculture Bill receives Royal Assent, we will have the power through secondary legislation to start the business of improving the common agricultural policy that we have inherited.
I hope that I have been able to address many of the Committee’s concerns, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products and Common Agricultural Policy (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019.
Petition
Windsor Gate Development, High Wycombe
Westminster Hall
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Government Plan for Net Zero Emissions
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Government plan to reach net zero by 2050.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I am grateful to the huge number of Members from all parts of the House who have come along to Westminster Hall this morning. It really underlines the absolute priority that this House and the Government give to tackling the huge challenge facing us all.
There is no doubt that the UK leads the world on tackling climate change. We have decarbonised faster than any other major economy, reducing our emissions by 38% since 1990, but we all know that we need to go further and faster, which is why Parliament supported the world-leading net zero target, making the UK the first major economy to do so. The Government must now outline a strategy, with concrete policies and a road map showing how we will get there.
Climate change and the decline of nature is the most serious threat we face. Unchecked, it will lead to more extreme weather events such as floods and droughts, damage precious natural habitats, and cause sea levels to rise. The impacts could be irreversible. The response must be similarly comprehensive, and action must be taken across the whole of our economy. I am confident that we can do that, because there is concern and support for action not just in the streets outside, but in every home, every business and every community across our country. We are an imaginative, creative and innovative nation, and I think we have what it takes to rise to this challenge. It is an opportunity to grow our economy more sustainably. What is good for nature is good for human health and wellbeing.
Every week, like all hon. Members, I meet people from a wide range of organisations—local councils, students, schools, local businesses, and environmental activists—all of whom are fully invested in ensuring that we achieve our net zero target. In every meeting, there is agreement on what the challenge is and why we need to act, and the conversation moves on to how and when they can play their part. If we are to harness that enthusiasm and expertise, we need first and foremost to provide more information about the Government’s plans.
In this debate, we will hear lots of ideas for new policies to help reach net zero, and I hope that the Minister will take them on board. I will highlight just one: my recent ten-minute rule Bill, which makes the compelling case for the Government to set out a plan to retrofit energy efficiency measures in homes across the country. That Bill asks the Government to publish a plan for meeting the domestic energy efficiency targets in the clean growth strategy, to make provision for monitoring performance against milestones in the plan, and to establish an advisory body for the implementation of the plan. As we prorogue tonight, the Bill will fall, so I ask the Minister to take its provisions forward into the next Session. The Committee on Climate Change says that that action should be a priority, and the National Infrastructure Commission has also made it a priority.
The technologies required to enable decarbonisation of the building stock and energy systems are largely available today. Industry body representatives have set out clear plans, as have leading charities such as National Energy Action. Taking action on energy efficiency has the dual benefit of reducing carbon emissions and saving people money.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate, and commend her for her Bill. On housing and the Government’s performance, does she agree that it is regrettable that the ambition to achieve zero carbon homes by 2016 was torn up in the 2011 Budget? We would have made much greater progress had that not been done and we had pursued that ambition for 2016.
Sarah Newton
I would rather use today’s debate to show the collective will and determination of hon. Members to support the Government in reaching the new target, rather than engaging in a tit-for-tat about which Government could have or should have done what in the past. Let us focus on the future and on what we can all do as Members of Parliament to support the Government in reaching the target that the whole of Parliament supports.
Tackling fuel poverty will end a lot of preventable human misery, as well as save the taxpayer a great deal of money in the NHS, in social care and in the Department for Work and Pensions. Evidence clearly shows that when people live in a warm home, their health improves, children do better at school, and people are more likely to be in work. I know that Cornwall would very much love to be the area of the country to pilot the whole house retrofit.
Having pitched my Bill, I will focus my remarks on the main theme of this debate, which is the importance of making readily available to everybody in our society digestible information on what we are doing to reach net zero. That is really important, because not everyone will be able to read the 277-page net zero report by the Committee on Climate Change, or the 630-page report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which are difficult for many people to understand. Day in, day out, there is a barrage of announcements from Government Departments about what they are doing to tackle this challenge.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about setting targets. As the United Kingdom, we have a target of 2050, while devolved Administrations across the UK are setting different targets. In Scotland, the target has been set at 2045, which is dependent on the entire United Kingdom hitting the 2050 target. How can we share information through different tiers of Government right across the UK so that all our citizens benefit and all our targets are met?
Sarah Newton
My hon. Friend makes a really important point about how different nations in the United Kingdom will need to set different targets. Scotland has an abundance of natural resources for hydroelectricity among other things, so it will be easier for it to reach net zero than for England.
Some industries, such as the water industry, have already committed to decarbonise by 2030, while the National Farmers Union has recently produced a plan. It is vital to make it easy for citizens, businesses and public sector organisations to see a road map showing exactly how we will reach our targets and the contribution that everyone in society is making to enable us to reach that goal.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Ind)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does she agree that in providing better information to citizens and businesses, we must also seek to bring them with us? If people understand the issue and are made to feel part of the solution, they are much more likely to engage and take the individual actions that we need them to take.
Sarah Newton
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point: the changes needed are substantial and it is really important that people understand why we need to do what we need to and that we take people with us. We can do that largely by providing information not only about the why, but about the how. In my experience, most people are waiting for that information, because they understand the challenge and want to play their part.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate and on her Bill. Many of us believe that 2050 is not soon enough and would like to go further and faster, but irrespective of the target and the speed, does she agree that, precisely to bring people along with us, there is a role to be played by citizens’ assemblies? This is an opportunity for people to come together and work together to identify how best to make the transition.
Sarah Newton
I am glad that the hon. Lady has mentioned the target. The groundbreaking Climate Change Act 2008, which is unique to our country in having all-party support, set up the independent Committee on Climate Change. All Governments depend on evidence and the best science to show what we can do. The independent Committee on Climate Change says that the 2050 target is the right target: it is ambitious but feasible, whereas the 2030 target is not necessary and not deliverable. We risk undermining the very independence of the Committee on Climate Change and the evidence-based policy-making approach that we must take if we start to pluck numbers out of thin air for political gain.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
The hon. Lady makes some powerful points. Listening to experts is crucial, so I hope she shares my concern—I hope the Minister is listening—about the Government’s decision to overturn the advice of their own Planning Inspectorate, given on climate change grounds, regarding the new Drax gas-powered turbines at Selby. They would undermine the target that she is pushing.
Sarah Newton
I think the hon. Lady’s intervention is directed more at the Minister than at me.
To return to the theme of my debate, I believe the Government can provide a lot more information. They can share data and expertise on the smartest way to get to work and school and to travel, on what local British food is in season and sustainably grown, and on the suppliers of the cleanest forms of electricity and heating. That information could be provided in one place, where any individual, councillor, business or student can find out all they need to know to reduce their carbon footprint. Information for business and public sector organisations about how to support innovation could also be made more widely available.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (LD)
We have some of that information already, such as that last year we spent £26 billion on transport, but only £400 million of that was spent on active walking and cycling. Does the hon. Lady think that we need a shift of priorities so we are investing in green forms of transport that will also improve health?
Sarah Newton
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the need to invest in cycling and walking infrastructure. Both of us, with many colleagues, participated in a debate in this Chamber on that very subject. The Government asked the Committee on Climate Change to consider what plans they need to put in place to enable us to reach that target; they are actively considering those plans and the Treasury is looking at the cost.
I have every confidence that the Government will produce detailed plans on how we are to reach the 2050 target, but I want them to set out clear milestones for the intervening period. Judging by conversations this morning with protestors, people think we will wait until 2050 to take any action, but we have already taken significant action, and the ambition is there to go further and faster. To give people hope and clarity, we need to set out the plans and milestones in detail so that people can see what is going on.
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
This country has the opportunity, through the COP 26 conference next year, to take the lead internationally on setting out actions that people and communities can take. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a role for people across this country, in the run-up to COP 26, to identify practical steps that communities and industry sectors can take, to bring those to COP 26 and to highlight them around the world?
James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. This is a busy debate, so interventions must be brief—one sentence at the most.
Sarah Newton
We will bear that in mind, Mr Gray. My right hon. Friend makes a good point: COP 26 is a great opportunity, as he so well articulated. Some sort of roadshow would be a good idea, as it would harness the great work going on and give the Government an opportunity to communicate to communities the sort of innovation funding and support plans available, so people can engage.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Ind)
I will be very quick. There is an opportunity for Members of this House to take a lead in our constituencies. Does my hon. Friend agree that a good way would be to have local assemblies, where we inform people of what is going on, they can inform us and we can feed that through?
Sarah Newton
My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. We are leaders in our communities and we have agency, as he describes, to make a positive difference.
This country also has world-leading universities and tech companies. I would like the Government to set up an ecotech innovation fund, so we can harness expertise to create user-friendly, accessible apps and websites that seamlessly compile impartial and accurate data and explain what people can do and how they can access support.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sarah Newton
I am going to make a bit of progress because so many Members want to speak and I want them to be able to do so.
Businesses have an important role to play, and it has been great to see businesses come forward with their own net zero targets. The water industry, for example, has committed to carbon neutrality by 2030. To give hope to the citizens who are so worried about climate change, that information should be captured so that people can see what all sectors of our society are doing. To level up the expectation on all businesses to take action, the Government should require goods for sale to include climate impact on their labelling. That requirement could cover food, electronic goods, and so on. It would help consumers to make smarter choices when shopping and ensure that companies measure the carbon footprint of individual products. It will add a cost to business, but that is why we must create a level playing field by insisting on the provision of that information. We do not want businesses who do the right thing to be undercut by those who do not. Information is power and it will enable every workplace and home to make smarter choices.
To co-ordinate that activity I want the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to be given overall responsibility for net zero in the Cabinet Office. We should raise the status of the Environment and Clean Growth Inter-ministerial Group to a Cabinet Sub-Committee. The Treasury could introduce a new net zero test for every Budget and spending review, to ensure that all new Government spending and investment is aligned with the target, or at least is not harming decarbonisation efforts. The Government could ask the Office for Budget Responsibility to scrutinise whether the targets are being met.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
In the Liverpool city region, the combined authority and the Mayor, Steve Rotherham, are doing exactly what is needed to take people with us to hit that net zero carbon target. That includes plans for an ambitious tidal barrage on the Mersey, hydrogen trains—hopefully built by Alstom in Widnes—and an offshore wind array. They also oppose fracking. Is that not the way to hit the net zero carbon targets?
Sarah Newton
There are regional industrial strategies in the modern industrial strategy. The Government are clear about going for clean and inclusive growth in our economy, and I absolutely support that. I welcome the fact that local enterprise partnerships all over the country, including in Cornwall, are coming together to produce plans for us to meet our net zero targets while growing our economy sustainably. I commend any region of the country working with the Government to enable us to do that.
All the businesses I speak with want clarity and certainty about what the Government want them to do, so that they can start pricing in the changes they will need to make. Many see this as an opportunity not just to do the right thing but to innovate and reach new markets. Government Departments and their arms-length bodies should lead by example by making their buildings more energy efficient and switching to low-emission transport. That will save money as well as carbon.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is being very generous with her time. Does she agree that we should call on local authorities, which have huge purchasing power and local influence, to take action? Last month, Barnsley Council declared a climate change emergency.
Sarah Newton
I welcome the fact that Barnsley has declared a climate emergency. Cornwall Council has done the same, as have most of the parish councils in my constituency. People want to play their part. The Government have recently brought in some very helpful new regulations that will help councils. For example, most councils sit on huge pension funds; the new regulations, which came into force last week, make councils think about the impact of their decisions on reaching that net zero target. There are many contributors to enabling people, councils and businesses to make changes so that we can meet the target.
As was mentioned, the climate change movement will fail if we fail to take people with us. As we saw in France, we must be clear about why action to tackle climate change matters, and ensure people are not left behind as we transition to new, cleaner industries. It cannot just be about distant international summits with acronyms that few people understand. When the UK hosts the UN climate change summit in Glasgow next year, we must ensure that every sector of society is involved in the conversation. With an issue as big as climate change, we need everyone’s collective brainpower to find the right solutions, and we must have everyone on board if we hope to implement those solutions.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
In the light of my hon. Friend’s comments about Britain’s world-leading efforts on climate change, and all the interventions talking about the action already being taken, would not efforts to take people with us be more effective if campaigners stopped insisting that nothing has happened in the past 30 years, which is simply not true?
Sarah Newton
I absolutely agree. There is a lot of scaremongering and misinformation. Most of the people that I meet are genuine and sincere, but there is no doubt that there are people who have seen the popular support and concern about what is happening to our climate and nature and are deliberately infiltrating and organising in a way intended to create chaos, and fundamentally to bring down our whole way of life. We must guard against that. In any democracy that enjoys as much freedom as we do—it is fantastic that we have those freedoms—we must guard against extreme elements in our society, which will always want to undermine and bring down our whole way of life. My right hon. Friend makes a very good point.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I believe that the biggest danger we face is not climate change deniers, but climate change delayers—those people who think we are doing okay. It is an emergency. The guys are out there because we have not done enough. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should all take note of that?
Sarah Newton
I gently ask the hon. Lady: how can she claim to speak for everyone outside? A little bit of humility in all of us does not go amiss. Everyone in this room is 100% committed to getting to net zero. It is clear from Parliament’s actions that we want to do that. That is why I wanted to focus this debate on ensuring that we have clear plans and communications and measures are reported in an open and transparent way, so that people cannot make cheap party political points, which damage people’s wellbeing and how they feel about this issue.
Let us be honest: in post-Brexit Britain, we will need a unifying cause. We will need something to bring the whole country together, and this is it. People from all walks of life, all backgrounds and all ages want us to work together, to tackle this huge challenge, which I believe is also a huge opportunity. In this debate we should show our unity of purpose in supporting the Government to take those actions, and that we are truly a United Kingdom that everyone can be proud of.
James Gray (in the Chair)
It will not have escaped colleagues’ notice that many people wish to speak. While I do not intend to impose a formal time limit, which I believe to be bad for debate, I leave it to the conscience of individuals to recognise that they should speak for two or perhaps three minutes, because if they go on longer than that, they will be squeezing out their colleagues. To save a bit of time, let me say that I am delighted to be your Chairman; you do not need to say so.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
This debate, secured by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), is timely. We need to restate that climate change is real and that the climate emergency, which Parliament has declared, means we must do things differently.
The climate emergency declaration that this House passed is not just a statement of intent, but a challenge to business, Government, society and individuals, and it comes with a basic question: “Now that Parliament has declared a climate emergency, what are you doing differently?” If the answer is nothing, that is not good enough. If the answer is that which I have heard from many corporates, that is, the same insufficient amount as they were doing before but with more topspin, that is not good enough. If the answer is that we will park the action many decades away so that we do not have to take action now, that is not good enough.
More spin will not do it. More of the same will not do. We need bold and determined action, which means being more ambitious and swifter in our action, and more honest with the people about the massive changes to the way we live, work, travel and consume that will be required to hit net zero, by 2050 or any other date. It also means that we need the Government to put as much effort into the climate emergency as they put into Brexit. Will the Minister pass on to his Treasury colleagues that the autumn Budget must be a climate emergency Budget as much as it is a pre-election Budget or a Brexit Budget? It must cut through on every single aspect of addressing the climate emergency; nothing less will do.
That also means that as MPs we need to readjust our own campaigns. My campaign to see the M5 extended from Exeter to Plymouth means that we must bring forward the date of getting rid of diesel and petrol engines, to ensure that only electric cars use that extended road. The campaign to reopen Plymouth airport means that rather than having planes using aviation fuel landing there, we must have electric aviation.
Those are big challenges that require big and bold investment by Government. We need that investment now, because pushing it down the line will only make achieving net zero by 2050—or by 2030, as I would like, and as the Labour party has proposed, with the brilliant green new deal motion passed at our conference—harder to achieve. Let us have swifter action now and more honesty from Ministers about how much change is required to get there.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing this important debate. We all know the scale of the challenge and the imperative it entails. Declaring an emergency comes easy and “net zero” trips off the tongue, but in reality, these things are difficult. To achieve that requires a per annum reduction in our emissions 30% greater than we have achieved on average since 1990. That is why the Committee on Climate Change said that a 2050 target was the latest that our country could credibly maintain our status as a climate leader at the same time as being the earliest at which it would be credibly deliverable alongside other Government objectives.
I have asks of the Government, which I will come to in a moment, but, first, I have asks of the wider sector—everyone who has an interest in this vital subject. First, we must acknowledge progress. My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) touched on this. There is a difference between saying that more must be done and saying that nothing has been done. It can become debilitating to think that no progress has been made and nothing has been achieved.
I first came across that when I was a junior Minister at the Treasury and I would meet Finance Ministers from other countries, and we would talk about climate change. They would say, “Of course, you in the UK are leaders,” and I would say, “We are? That’s not what I keep reading.” Other countries do look to us, starting with our framework of the independent Committee on Climate Change, the periodic carbon budgets and the rest of it.
In international studies we are ranked among the top 10 nations for our performance on tackling climate change. We have made huge progress on renewables, specifically offshore wind, where we are a world leader, if not the world leader. We have also set an end date for unabated coal. Our role at COP 21 was pivotal, as was our role in showing leadership in setting the net zero target. Our international work on climate finance through the Department for International Development is pivotal, too.
The second ask is that we prioritise and triage, because we cannot just tell people that everything must change at the same time. Some things must be prioritised. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth mentioned retrofitting homes. The two biggest things alongside that are energy generation and transport, particularly domestic transport. Those two massive areas are dependent on the development of batteries.
The third ask is that we go with the grain of people’s lives. It is a hard sell to tell people that they cannot go on holiday, they will be cold when they are sitting at home and they must become vegan. It is a much easier sell to say that the electric car is now as high-performance a vehicle as a petrol car, and that we can be warmer at home and it can be cheaper to heat our homes than it was in the past.
That becomes even more important when talking about developing nations. We have had our industrial revolution and we have all reaped the benefits. It is natural that other countries want that development too, and we must help them to have clean growth.
We need a bipartisan approach. That has been a great strength of the approach to tackling climate change in this country. It is tempting to say we must always do more and we must do it sooner. As with international aid, there are two aspects to this: first, what we do ourselves; and secondly, how we can leverage our position internationally. However, leveraging our leadership is helpful only if what we say is credible—if we say not only that we are going to do something but that we absolutely will do it. If we are going to say we must do this bigger, better and faster, we must be honest with people about the implications of that. I sometimes hear people talking about change for them versus system change, as if system change has no effect on individual families and companies, but it does: it affects the rate of economic growth, which in turn affects jobs and wages, and of course it affects the taxes people pay.
We must focus in particular on what can be done, especially in transport with electric vehicles. I join others in paying tribute to those who are doing great work locally. In my area, that includes the climate action network and the work the council is doing to plant a large number of trees. This is a global problem, and every nation must play its part, but we, in our individual communities, can make a difference.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) for securing this important debate. Undoubtedly, climate change is a bigger challenge and a bigger crisis than even Brexit. It is important that we put it in that context, but given that I do not have all that much time, let me focus on Cumbria.
Cumbria receives 42 million visitors each year, and we are delighted to see them. We just wish that fewer would come by car, which is how 83% of our visitors currently arrive. That is a serious problem in our fight to achieve net zero carbon emissions, and I am sure what is true in my patch applies in many other places across the country. Therefore, in the moment or two I have, I want to address public transport, which is an enormous part of achieving net zero. Not only does the use of diesel and petrol-powered cars have a devastating impact on the environment, but the Government’s failure to invest in public transport prevents people from choosing better options.
Bus provision is a colossal problem in our communities in the Lake district. In the past 10 years, we have lost 888 bus routes in the north-west of England. To their absolute credit, communities have not just stood by; in places such as Sedbergh and Dent, they have established community bus services, which are a lifeline for people who would otherwise be isolated from the communities around them. I am massively grateful to the volunteers who make those services possible. However, with the closure just this month of bus services 552 between Arnside and Kendal and 530 between Cartmel, Levens and Kendal, the decline appears to be accelerating.
I am of course fighting those cuts along with the community but, more broadly, I ask the Minister to make provision of a comprehensive, affordable and reliable rural bus service in Cumbria a key plank in the northern powerhouse. From a rural Cumbrian perspective, the northern powerhouse does not look much like a powerhouse, and it is not even very northern.
The main public transport route into the Lake district is the Lakes line. Back in 2017, the Government shelved their planned electrification of the Lakes line on the basis of completely inaccurate projected costs. Electrification of the Lakes line is the easiest electrification project in the country. The 12-mile route carries hundreds of thousands of passengers each year, but it could carry four times as many if we introduced a passing loop at Burneside so we could run half-hourly services. If the Government are serious about tackling climate change, they need to speed up their electrification project, especially for the railway line that is responsible for taking people into Britain’s second biggest visitor destination after London.
The impacts of climate change are real, and they are being felt right now. My constituency in the lakes and the dales has been devastated by catastrophic floods. In the past nine years, we have experienced three flood events classified as one-in-200-year events, with one-in-100-year and one-in-50-year events filling the gaps. At this rate, we absolutely will need to revise the classifications. In 2015 alone, Storm Desmond caused 7,500 properties and more than 1,000 businesses to be flooded. The impact has been heartbreaking.
I want us to mitigate the consequences of our failure to tackle climate change in time to protect my communities from further flooding, but I am also determined that the Government must make the big strategic decisions to fight climate change. That requires a revolution in renewables and a push for energy self-sufficiency, especially in hydro, tidal and marine, for which 95% of the supply chain, including Gilkes in my constituency, is British. That would protect our environment, boost our economy and give us vital energy security. Just a few weeks ago, I was with students in Kendal protesting against inaction on climate change. That was a reminder that the coming generation will not let us get away with it, and they are absolutely right not to.
The reality is that we are too late to stop climate change and have perhaps a dozen years left to avoid a major climate catastrophe. Tackling this global disaster will take change in every community and lots of steps that add up to a bigger picture. Clearly, public transport is an element of that. Will the Minister therefore agree to meet me and others so we can put together a comprehensive rural bus service under the umbrella of the northern powerhouse, and a plan for the electrification and expansion of the Lakes line? In order to succeed globally, we in the lakes are determined to act locally.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Let me begin by paying tribute to my constituents, who are highly engaged on this topic. The young people in the high schools in Stirling are especially on the ball, and they are taking a lead that I am glad to be able to follow.
We owe it to the British people to talk plainly about the implications of Parliament’s commitment to get to net zero by 2050. My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) is right that that will not be easy to achieve. We need to spell out the options clearly, in a grown-up way—a way that I think our young grasp. If I have learned anything about the House since arriving here, it is that if we unite and work across parties on this issue, we can get the job done.
We have an obligation to the present, but we have a bigger obligation to the generations that follow. We have both a special responsibility and an opportunity. As has already been laid out, we have a responsibility because our country led the world into the first industrial revolution, but we have an opportunity to lead the world again in the development of new clean growth technologies and industries. There is a first-mover advantage to be had, and I urge the Government to be bold and take a lead.
In the interests of time, I will talk about one area in which the Government can take a lead and send a signal to private investors, who will then calibrate their calculation of risk and move into the sector. That area is carbon capture, usage and storage. I have the privilege of serving on the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. We published a report on CCUS, the first recommendation of which was that the Government should
“view CCUS primarily as a tool for decarbonisation, rather than as an extra cost on power generation. Deployment should be prioritised because CCUS presents an opportunity to reduce the overall cost of meeting the UK’s emissions reduction targets.”
The report went on:
“Our view is that the Government should be both ambitious and clear. We recommend the Government sets a specific target to store 10 million tonnes of carbon by 2030, and 20 million by 2035, to keep the UK on track to meet its 2050 climate change targets, as recommended by the CCC.”
However, once the Committee had received the Government’s response to its report, the Chair felt the need to write, with our support, to the Minister, stating that we were
“disappointed by the response’s content: it barely engages with the arguments made in our report, but instead appears largely to repeat previous policy statements.”
The Chair continued:
“Please could you explain why you have not committed to supporting CCUS where and whilst it remains the cheapest route to decarbonisation.”
May I use this opportunity to ask the Minister for his response to the Select Committee’s positive encouragement to make a positive decision on that very important element of our work towards 2050 and the decarbonisation of our economy?
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
A net zero target is right, but we must be aware in our battle to tackle the climate emergency that time is fleeting. The greenhouse element of carbon dioxide is not a tap we can turn off. Approximately a fifth of the carbon dioxide emitted in the past year will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. The damage we cause now will not go away if we decide to start acting responsibly in, say, 31 years’ time; it will become a feature of human life for millennia. The cumulative nature of climate change means that the more radical we are now, the less radical future generations will have to be to stop even more catastrophic change and fix the damage we have already caused.
The climate emergency has climbed up the agenda over the past months, but it is far from a new issue. The previous synthesis report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came out more than five years ago, and the Government have had plenty of time to digest its findings and implement the drastic policies that we need to tackle climate change. Sadly, however, that is not what we have seen.
We have seen the end of the White Rose carbon capture and storage project, and the end of solar subsidies and support for biomass. The Green Investment Bank has been sold, and we have given up on zero carbon homes. The Swansea tidal lagoon has been stopped, and the green tax target cancelled. Fracking continues despite local opinion in different areas of the country and an increase in ground tremors, and still the Government stubbornly refuse to lift their ban on cheap and green onshore wind. Indeed, we are led by a Prime Minister who said that wind farms could not
“pull the skin off a rice pudding”.
Action on climate change is not just necessary to protect our future; it can also provide future-proofed and sustainable jobs for many of our communities. We have seen glimpses of that prosperity already through the wonderful work of companies such as Ørsted in Great Grimsby. I was pleased to open its new £14 million east coast hub, and it also works with local schools and colleges to train the next generation of workers to be ready for a green economy. However, we seem to have a Prime Minister and Government who are genetically opposed to taking sensible decisions to protect the planet, and if we are to avoid even more catastrophic damage to our planet, we need a drastic change in governance.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) for her brilliant speech. I take pride in the fact that the United Kingdom is the first developed nation to commit to net zero emissions, and wherever we in this House sit on the political spectrum, we can take a measure of quiet pride in that achievement. It is critical to show leadership, because although in this place we rightly focus on what we do as a nation, it is what happens in other parts of the world—particularly China—that will make or break global efforts on this issue.
Consider the Paris climate accord. Emissions in the UK peaked in 1990 and are now 42% lower, but China’s emissions are forecast to peak in 2030. That matters because China produces something like 25 times more emissions than the United Kingdom. We must show leadership so that we can try to impress on nations such as China—it produces more emissions than the United States and Europe combined—that it is in its interests to take those critical steps as responsible global citizens.
What should we do? First, there is new technology, and secondly there is old technology. On the former, if the Minister has not read it already, I commend to him the “Mission Possible” report, which considers how technology can help with those hard-to-abate sectors. That includes specific technological solutions, such as electric drivetrains for heavy transport, or reducing the cost of electrolysis so that we can produce hydrogen at an industrial level. There are already solutions on the shelf that we should consider.
The Government are getting behind other technologies. They have invested around £400 million in charging infrastructure, and there is onshore wind, carbon capture and storage and so on, but let us not neglect old technology. The best piece of technology, which absorbs carbon in a way that is inoffensive and off the shelf is, of course, the tree. Let us therefore take the opportunity to plant trees and lean into our targets.
The hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) made a point about cycling and walking. After the second world war, there was a similar situation in the Netherlands with roads that crowded out cycles. In the 1970s a decision was taken to reverse that—there is no unwritten rule that people in the Netherlands should all cycle; that decision was made by the Government. We could do similar things in this country, certainly in places such as Cheltenham, which is flat and easy to cycle around. We must lean into such suggestions and ensure that we have sustainable transport. With old technologies, new technologies, and global leadership we can get this done.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I am delighted that we are having this debate, because the Scottish Government have been leading the way on our transition to a net zero emissions society. While UK energy policy seems fixated on nuclear power, with its massive costs and technical challenges, Scotland has charted a course for a 100% renewable society, and it is on course to achieve that.
There is action on the ground and out at sea to transition our society to net zero emissions. Such actions are required to meet the statutory targets that were set out in legislation last week by the Scottish Parliament, and to move Scotland forward to having net zero emissions by 2045, and to be carbon neutral by 2040. Our infrastructure is being renewed and repurposed as a key pillar of moving to carbon neutral and net zero emissions. Our rail network will be decarbonised by 2035, with electrification across Scotland progressing at a rate not seen in 30 years. Half a billion pounds have been invested in bus infrastructure, and the foundation of the Scottish National Investment Bank will provide a financial backbone and the capital needed to transform our nation. We are building the UK’s first electric highway along the A9—the spine of Scotland—and investing more than ever before in the installation of charging points for the growing fleet of electric cars on the roads.
Those actions, and many more, are some of the practical steps being taken right now to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and to leave a long-lasting and sustainable legacy for our zero carbon future. All that action is being taken by the Scottish Government, but although they have cross-party support in the Scottish Parliament, they have one hand tied behind their back. Scotland could go further and faster if it had the energy levers that remain reserved to this place—powers that, as we have heard, are not being used appropriately. Such actions include cutting subsidies to onshore wind, removing support for solar energy, cancelling carbon capture and storage at Peterhead, and imposing unfair electricity transmission costs that disincentivise renewable development in remote areas—hardly a record to be proud of.
I will conclude with some thoughts from a 1981 National Geographic energy special that I picked up in a charity shop in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). It is entitled, “Facing up to the problems, getting down to solutions”, and 40 years later, although we have come a long way, in many ways that title still resonates.
The biggest takeaway is that the environment is given nary a mention. For example, environmental concerns are mentioned as one of the last drawbacks of coal energy production. One quote that resonated with me came from an agriculturalist called Steven C Wilson:
“With our bigger-is-better disposable non-renewable energy past, I wonder if, in squandering fuel, we have not also subverted self-reliance, neighbourly concern, the active appreciation of balance and harmony. I think confronting this legacy of too much, too soon would be the proper response to the energy crisis.”
Forty years on, that still means something. It shows that we must all play a part in this, because it is not just an issue for Governments.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) for her excellent opening remarks, and for putting this subject back on the agenda. I also commend my constituents, hundreds of whom have spoken to me this year about their concerns in a way that has been constructive and productive, and that has helped me to understand my role as a local MP in bringing about change. We must do all we can to accelerate our charge to reach net zero emissions, as that is the right thing to do. The opportunity to improve people’s lives is significant, and much can be done straightaway. What is not to like?
We can improve and deliver cheaper-to-run homes and transport. Getting that right will lead to improved and sustainable farming and food production, improved and healthier natural environments, and improved skills and pay, particularly in vocational jobs. In places such as St Ives, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, vocational jobs in construction and renewable energy are a way of creating and spreading wealth.
This is a great opportunity for a progressive Government, and we need leadership. If we want to bring forward plans to ban the production of cars powered by dirty fuel—and I think we should—we must find a way to step up the production of electric vehicles and support low-income families to purchase them. We must properly roll out smart meters so that we use energy when it is available, and we must help households to generate and store energy. To achieve a significant reduction in carbon emissions, the Government can introduce helpful, exciting and ambitious legislation to bring those things together and help families to use better and cheaper transport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth talked about the opportunity to reduce emissions from our homes. As has been said, homes and transport contribute an enormous chunk of our carbon emissions. We can quickly accelerate the reduction of carbon emissions by addressing those things. With my background in the building trade, I know that it can be done. It is right to accelerate policy to make all new homes carbon neutral, and to look at providing interest-free loans to improve the efficiency of businesses and homes. However, as the draft environment Bill comes forward, we should quickly seize on the idea of having the most ambitious nature recovery network to benefit every corner of the country.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Climate change is not an inconvenient truth, as Al Gore put it. It is a global emergency. That is why thousands of people outside this place and millions across the world are saying, “Act now.” They know we are essentially smoking ourselves to death with fossil fuels. We are guzzling gasoline as if there is no tomorrow. They know, as we should, that that will force migration, war, famine, water shortages and loss of insects—the list goes on. We sit around here saying, “We played a great game in Britain,” but the reason carbon emissions have gone down in Britain is that we closed our coal mines and exported our industry to China. Now we are bringing it over in ships, using more carbon. We sit here talking about 2050 as if it is a great achievement, when it is not. The latest prediction, given by Nature last year, was 1.5° change by 2030, not 2040. That is why we need to up our game to 2030 ourselves.
The Government go ahead with fracking, which generates 5% of methane emissions. Methane is 83 times worse than CO2 for global warming, making it worse than coal. We should stop fracking now. The Government stopped onshore wind because of a few nimbies. We want wind. We want waves in Swansea lagoon. We want solar. Everyone is going on about nuclear, but the biggest nuclear opportunity is the sun itself. We should have networks—we have got Africa linked into southern Europe—and work together for change.
The Committee on Climate Change says we have done woefully badly on insulation in homes. We could combat fuel poverty and reduce emissions. We need a new clear air Act. We need to bring forward the banning of the sale of all cars that run on fossil fuels—diesel and petrol—to 2030 instead of 2042. We need to tax. We need a fiscal strategy to drive people’s expectations and interest towards carbon neutrality and carbon negativity, but we are not doing that because we want to please the motorist, and we keep a freeze on diesel. We want a tax on plastics as well.
We also need to think about our trade. Why are we, with the whole process of Brexit, turning away from our nearest market to markets further afield? There should be a carbon charge on our trade, and we should think carefully about Brexit. Why is it that we can all fly to Spain for 50 quid, when it costs £100 to go by train to Swansea? That is not sustainable. Why do we not act? It is because we are frightened of people. What about fossil fuel subsidies? We are subsidising fossil fuels by £12 billion a year, compared with £8 billion for renewables.
The reality is that if it is not painful now it will be agony later. We need to take the tough action now and stop messing around patting ourselves on the back pretending we are solving the problem when in fact we are part of it. Those who will not act should shift to one side and let someone who will do it.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Someone once said:
“It is mankind and his activities that are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways”,
adding:
“It is no good squabbling over who is responsible or who should pay…we shall only succeed in dealing with the problems through a vast international, co-operative effort.”
In her address to the United Nations in 1989, as on so many things, Margaret Thatcher was right and was demonstrating far-sighted global leadership. That is what Governments of both parties in this country have done. The Climate Change Act 2008 was passed with all-party support in this House; it set the original target to reduce our emissions by 80%—at the time, an ambitious target. It was with cross-party support in this House that we set a more ambitious target to hit net zero by 2050. That cross-party effort is helpful because it gives business and consumers the confidence to invest and plan ahead, knowing that the policies will continue regardless of who is in government.
It is worth reiterating that we have made considerable progress—but not because we want to pat ourselves on the back, as the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) suggests. It is worth reiterating it for two reasons. The first is to demonstrate to people that the issue is one that legislators take seriously and have acted on. Britain has one of the most impressive records globally, and we have demonstrated the global leadership that my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) and for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) spoke of. That enables us to keep up global pressure on countries that emit far more carbon than we do, which will be critical in hitting the target. The other reason is to demonstrate to the younger generation that people in this place take the matter seriously. We can debate—I am happy to—how much we are doing and how fast we are going, but anyone who says nothing has happened in the past 30 years is being dishonest and disingenuous. It is simply not true. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but that is exactly what I heard a number of Extinction Rebellion demonstrators say when they were interviewed on “Sophy Ridge on Sunday” on Sky. They said over and over that nothing had happened in the last 30 years, which is simply not true. I do not think that it helps the debate if people perpetuate untruths.
It is worth mentioning some of the considerable achievements that the Committee on Climate Change set out in its report, including massive reductions in emissions from power, waste and buildings. We have made considerable progress. However, I am the first to acknowledge that there are considerable challenges, and the Committee on Climate Change sets out areas where we need to make ambitious changes, such as in transport and housing—issues that Opposition Members raised.
There is a challenge for the Government, now that we have legislated for the target. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham brought in a ten-minute rule Bill, the Climate Change (Net Zero UK Carbon Account) Bill, before the Government moved in that direction, and he should be commended for that. The challenge is to respond now with detailed policy work, because it is through such work that we will get the achievements. If we are to deliver the changes while improving the population’s living standards, the challenge is to deliver the technology and innovation to reduce carbon emissions while raising living standards for all our people.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I have always thought that one of the most empowering sentences ever to be uttered was “Be the change you wish to see in the world,” and in Hull we are living it. At present, forests store up to 45% of land carbon. In Hull we want to increase that. We are launching our ambition to become a butterfly city through the mass planting of more than 3,000 alder buckthorns at the end of the year. The aim is that it will be a continuing project to create the UK’s and, as far as I know, the world’s first true butterfly city. We are beginning with the adoption of the beautiful sulphur-yellow brimstone butterfly.
The project has brought together people throughout the city. The Deep, Hull City Council, Yorkshire Wildlife Trust and Butterfly Conservation, the Plant a Tree Foundation, community allotment groups, community orchards and Hull and East Yorkshire woods group, which is responsible for delivering the northern forest in our area, have pledged to include 2,000 buckthorns in their planting over the winter. Even Highways England has got involved, having agreed to include the tree in its work on the A63 at Castle Street.
For the public planting—the launch is on Saturday 23 November—Mires Beck Nursery, a registered charity that employs and trains people with learning disabilities, is providing more than 1,000 plants, which will be available free to members of the public, schools and other interest groups, from local community growing organisations such as Pickering Road community orchard and Down2Earth. Recent research shows that a mixture of tree species can store up to twice as much carbon as single-species planting. By adding buckthorn to the mix of trees in Hull and the surrounding area, we can greatly increase the amount of carbon captured.
Those 3,000 plantings will, however, still leave us a long way short of the target of a carbon-neutral way of life, or indeed the reversal of the dramatic decline in insect numbers across Europe. As immensely proud as I am of the response that the project has received from all areas of the community in Hull, the biggest challenge lies at the feet of Government. The market alone cannot and will not solve the challenges of CO2-driven climate change. The international community is crying out for leadership on climate change, and the implementation of Labour’s green industrial revolution would provide just that. To quote Greta Thunberg,
“We cannot solve a crisis without treating it as a crisis.”
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I love the way the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) promotes what her community does. I am just as proud of my council in Bath and what it is doing.
It is true that we need to harness the energy of everybody. It worries me that we have all been guilty of complacency; we have not done enough. It is not that we are saying that we have done nothing, but we have not done enough. This Government need to step up and to understand that we need to do more than we have done in the past. That is all I am pleading for.
As Liberal Democrats, we believe that at the heart of the transition needs to be a massive transformation of how we do things in the next 10 years. There needs to be a fair transition. We need to set up a fair transition commission—the Government could do that tomorrow—to look at which communities are the most affected by the change, where we will face the most job losses and where industries will collapse, and to provide new jobs and new opportunities. We need to take those communities and the people who are most affected with us, so that the people who can least afford it do not have to pay the highest price. That is very important. The Government could set up a just and fair transition commission tomorrow if they were serious in their thinking about the subject.
Bringing people with us has been talked about a lot, as well as how we are organising citizens’ assemblies. Again, the Government could start that process now. It is not just a matter of informing people about what we want to do; we have to involve people in decision making. Citizens’ assemblies do not take decisions out of Government or Parliament; they allow people to be part of decision making by letting them develop options. Anybody who is serious about taking people with us should look at the way citizens’ assemblies work. They do not just inform people at the bottom from the top; they allow people from the bottom to help us come to good decisions. I trust in people and I believe that we can involve them. Let us set up citizens’ assemblies; we can do that tomorrow.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) for securing the debate and I congratulate the Government on the policies they have. I will suggest some ideas that they may want to take forward.
We need funding models such as the regulated asset base model for large-scale investments, including all new nuclear plants, plus a clear commitment to the funding and delivery of carbon capture, usage and storage at scale. We need to ensure that all new properties are zero carbon and have a smart meter, and to build in connection points and ultra-fast charging for electric vehicles. We need to boost energy efficiency through a national energy efficiency programme, and restrict the sale and new tenancy of properties below energy performance certificate band C from 2030. Better targeting of social support and winter fuel payments is needed.
I commend to the Minister the stance that the National Farmers Union has taken and the commitment that farmers have given to achieving carbon zero by 2050. We must farm smarter, focus on improving productivity, encourage carbon capture and boost our production of renewable energy. The climate impact of UK grazing is among the lowest in the world; that should be recognised by the Minister and this Government. At the same time, UK farmland conserves important carbon stocks in England’s uplands. The NFU has a strategy to achieve carbon zero by 2050. It is committed to doing that and has said:
“British farmers have an important role to play in tackling climate change and our members are committed to this challenge, alongside fulfilling their responsibility to the public in providing high quality, sustainable and affordable food.”
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I will be extremely brief, Mr Gray. Labour Members are proud of the Climate Change Act 2008, but we are even prouder of the green new deal that we passed at the Labour party conference, which takes forward the principles of decarbonisation, jobs and justice. That is why we held a citizens’ assembly in Birmingham within 24 hours of Parliament declaring a climate emergency. Several ideas emerged from that, which I will touch on.
First, we need green power. We spend £10 billion a year on green power in our region. Some 99% of that spend leaves the region, which is why we need a municipal solar company to turn our rooftops into power plants across the region.
Secondly, we need to decarbonise our transport system. We cannot do that unless we connect transport together. That is why we need powers over bus and rail franchising. Crucially, we need to transform the number of electric vehicle charging points. There are more EV charging points in Westminster than in the whole of the west midlands; that is not acceptable. We need to decarbonise our housing stock, which means we need devolved control of the £175 million of ecofunding that is our entitlement. We need to start building homes to A plus standards.
Finally, we need to make sure that we have a regional investment bank to back the green firms that are creating green jobs.
None of this will change the imagination without a significant investment in nature. At the moment, we need a forest the size of Tunisia to absorb all the carbon that is produced by the west midlands. That will not happen, but we could insist that our airports become carbon neutral and use that investment to replant Shakespeare’s great forest of Arden. The citizens in Parliament Square remind us that it is not acceptable for politics to remain frozen while the planet is warming. That is why we need to crack on.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton). She said that everyone in this room is committed to net zero; she is correct about that. She also said that things must go further and faster, and that we must see a strategy and concrete policies from the UK Government. I agree with her on the need for targets, tests and scrutiny, as well as on her points about retrofitting energy efficiency. However, I will be a critical friend during the short time I have to speak and point out areas where things could be done much better by the UK Government.
Spending per head on energy efficiency in Scotland is four times that in England. If it were more, we could do even more in Scotland. The UK Government are falling short on home and business energy efficiency, and they are way behind on carbon capture, utilisation and storage. They need to get on with decarbonisation of the gas grid, which must be accelerated to enable low carbon heating for homes and businesses. They must flatten the pedal on vehicle and tax incentives to promote low carbon choices. VAT must be reduced on energy efficiency improvements. This Government must drop their ideological opposition to renewable onshore wind and stop holding solar power back.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said that more of the same will not do. The budget needs to cut through to every aspect of climate change, and big, bold investments are required. James Richardson from the National Infrastructure Commission said:
“You need to really push ahead with renewables in the 2020s.”
Chris Stark from the Committee on Climate Change said that the choice is between nuclear and CCS; I firmly believe that CCUS is the way forward. Evidence abounds that poor air quality affects productivity. The National Infrastructure Commission has said that the money we need to spend on air quality should not be seen as a cost, but as a benefit to us.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) said about young people. I will focus on what he said about CCUS. He is correct that we on the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy were unanimous in expressing huge disappointment about the UK Government’s response to CCUS. Scotland has enormous potential in this area. Storage and readiness at St Fergus has the infrastructure, expertise and transferable skills to move with a fast first-mover advantage. It has capacity to store at least 5.7 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide. To put that into perspective, that is 150 times the emissions from Scotland in 2016. That is a massive storage capacity. The UK Government need to get on with doing that. Existing oil and gas infrastructure must be plugged and transferred, or it will be lost.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) talked about the UK’s obsession with nuclear power. He outlined the many actions of the Scottish Government and talked about the cross-party support in the Scottish Parliament. He said clearly that we could do more if we had the powers to do so. The UK Government need to step up and allow us to go even further and faster with what we need to do.
The cost of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant, already the most expensive single development on the planet, is set to rise by nearly £3 billion. The Government should not be pouring money down the bottomless pit of new nuclear when offshore wind, for example, is much less than half the price for consumers and does not blight the planet with further nuclear legacies. It is important that this Government strip out their nuclear obsession.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) talked about the fantastic opportunity for butterflies and, more important, for trees. Forestry is a critical area where this Government need to up their game dramatically. In 2019, the new Scottish Government forestry strategy and tree planting scheme across Scotland took enormous strides. The industry employs 25,000 people and the trees planted in Scotland make up 84% of all trees planted across the UK. Some 22 million trees were planted in Scotland, while England fell 7 million short of its target. The Government need to get that fixed.
Drew Hendry
I will not take any interventions, because I want the Minister to have time to respond.
The Scottish National party Scottish Government are leading by example, redoubling efforts to end Scotland’s contribution to climate change by 2045. The Secretary-General of the United Nations described Scotland’s holistic approach to tackling climate change as “a qualified success,” and called on the UK Government to follow. The UK Government should use their reserved powers to help Scotland to achieve its climate change ambitions, not hinder us with opposition to renewables and inaction on energy efficiency.
We welcome the UK’s joint bid with Italy to host the UN framework convention on climate change COP 26 in Glasgow. That should be a progressive and inclusive event, and the Minister here today should absolutely disagree with the Prime Minister, who said at the Tory conference that the First Minister of Scotland should be banned from attending. That comment was puerile, ignorant and has been roundly condemned across Scotland; I hope the Minister will do the same today.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on obtaining today’s debate. It is truly important, but should not have been obtained by a Back-Bencher. It should have been scheduled in Government time, on one day, as I called for a few months ago when we passed the Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019, amending the Climate Change Act 2008 to move to net zero. That was a 90-minute debate on an amendment, and this is our next debate on the matter.
In the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), it is not good enough. We need urgently to debate this matter properly. An indication of why that is so important is the tremendous turnout of hon. Members today, and the informed and thoughtful contributions from around the Chamber that hon. Members have had to gabble through on a two-minute time limit because there is no opportunity to debate the topic properly, on the Floor of the House, in Government time. The first thing I ask the Minister is whether he is willing to ensure that a debate is obtained at the earliest possible opportunity, to discuss this important series of events properly and do it justice on the Floor of the House.
We might ask ourselves why it is that a debate has not been scheduled. Is it that:
“Overall, actions to date have fallen short of what is needed for the previous targets and well short of those required for the net-zero target”?
Maybe that is why this issue does not seem fit for a debate. Is it because:
“The Government’s own projections demonstrate that its policies and plans are insufficient to meet the fourth or fifth carbon budgets…This policy gap has widened in the last year as an increase in the projection of future emissions outweighed the impact of new policies”?
Is it because the Government:
“has been too slow in developing plans for carbon capture and storage”?
Is it because:
“The ‘Road to Zero’ ambition for a phase-out of petrol and diesel cars by 2040 is too late”?
Is it because:
“Policies are not in place to deliver the Government's ambitions on energy efficiency”?
None of those words are mine; they are all the words of the Committee on Climate Change’s 2019 report to Parliament, which set out a coruscating catalogue of things that should have happened and have not as far as policy development is concerned. That underlines a theme that has been part of our debate this morning. It is not that nothing has been done since 2008, when the Climate Change Act was passed; it is just that nothing much has been done, and that ambitions for doing things next fall woefully short of what is needed, given the climate change emergency that we have declared and that we know is underlined by the people now demonstrating outside Parliament.
It is not that nothing has been done on climate change in particular areas, but, as the Committee on Climate Change itself indicates, the only area where any significant progress in reducing carbon emissions has happened since 2008 is in the power sector—not even the energy sector as a whole, because nothing much has happened on heat. The power sector has been responsible for 75% of emission reductions overall since 2008. Every single other sector has been level or increasing—in transport, housing and industrial sectors, emissions are level or going up. Those are areas where we can go further than saying that nothing much has happened: nothing has happened in those areas over the period.
It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that those things happen, and they are woefully failing to set policies that can really shift those numbers on climate change, given the 12 years that were set out by the IPCC as the time available to achieve measures that move us toward the zero-carbon economy. We have set ourselves that target, but we have no policies in place to achieve it. We have 12 years to get those policies, not only on paper, but in place in reality on the ground.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to look seriously at how we live in the homes we already have and the energy efficiency needed in our homes, not only in Wales, in Cardiff North where I am, but across the whole UK, as well as ensuring that the new homes we are building are built to a very high sustainable standard?
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend has read my mind, because I was just about to come on to that. She is absolutely right, and it is one element of the difference between the ambition we should have for the extent of the changes we need to make, and what we see before us in terms of the existing clean growth plan, which, as I have emphasised, is not meeting its own targets even on the old emissions levels, and is certainly not addressing what we need to do with our new targets. We need a comprehensive, country-wide, house-by-house energy refit, and it must be done urgently—in stark contrast with the pick-and-mix approach that has been taken so far on energy efficiency management, with the occasional person getting a refit.
There are a whole series of other areas where the numbers that we need to achieve bear no relation to the ambitions currently in Government policy. To achieve our energy ambitions, we urgently need to increase our offshore capacity sevenfold over the next few years. We need to increase solar provision threefold over the next 10 years. As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) mentioned, we need to really get going on carbon capture and storage, not just with a few projects but comprehensively across industry across the country.
We need trees, as has been mentioned, but we do not need to put a few trees in here and there, important though that is. In order to replace the forest cover lost in this country over the years, which is absolutely central to capturing and maintaining carbon stores, we need to plant 2.4 billion trees over the next 10 to 20 years— 30,000 hectares per annum of new forest cover—to get us anywhere near the sort of levels we need to achieve our ambitions. That is solely lacking in the Government’s actions at the moment.
I will just draw attention to one little thing that came out recently.
Dr Whitehead
Very briefly. The 2019 spending review came out with the fabulous figure for decarbonisation of £30 million. To get some scale on that—
Dr Whitehead
Indeed; I am about to wind up, Mr Gray. For scale, “Paddington 2”, the movie, had a budget of £32 million.
James Gray (in the Chair)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is time for the Minister.
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
Thank you very much, Mr Gray. I have to say that this has been an excellent debate, and I sincerely commend my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) for securing it. I hope that we can have more time in the House of Commons to discuss these important issues.
One thing that struck me in the debate was the level of consensus. There were one or two examples of political point scoring here and there, and we can accept that, but I was delighted to see so many MPs sing the praises of their local councils and of the fact that local communities are making great strides. In one of the few agreements I have ever had with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), I completely agree that the Government have to be involved in this. No one in this House has praised the free market as extensively as I have over the years, but even I, as an energy Minister, realise that, as she clearly said, private enterprise and the free market economy will not deliver this target on their own. That is very clear. As a Government Minister, I am absolutely committed to the target.
We can argue about how quickly we are reaching the target, and I happen to think that we have done a great deal as a country. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) said, “Oh well, you’ve done okay in the power sector”, but the power sector is huge. Looking at the history of this country, at what the industrial revolution meant and at industrialisation across the world, power is absolutely at the heart of it. For a country that for 300 years was powered by coal burning and fossil fuels, taking coal off the system entirely in 2025, in terms of power generation, is an achievement.
I do not want to rest on my laurels. I do not want to be accused of complacency—there is still a hell of a lot to do. However, to face the future, we have to recognise where we have come from. I pay tribute to the last Labour Government for passing the Climate Change Act 2008. I do not think we need to play childish, point-scoring games on that. It was a significant piece of legislation, and I am happy to say that. I think that what we did in amending that Act in 2019 was also significant and bold and showed leadership.
As the new Minister—I have been in post for two months—I have seen a number of my counterparts across the world, and all have said that the United Kingdom is a leader in this area. That does not mean that we have solved everything. I think it is impressive that we have reduced our carbon emissions by 42% since 1990 while growing our economy by two thirds, but I fully recognise that we need to do more on energy efficiency and insulating homes, which is why we are spending a large amount of money dealing with fuel poverty. We have put in bids for the Budget; it would be inappropriate for me to say exactly what those bids are, but we are looking at this. Our officials and Ministers are very focused on the idea that fuel poverty is a real problem.
We have also committed ourselves to offshore wind. Ten years ago, many people thought that offshore wind was a crackers and slightly bizarre idea. An energy specialist was telling me that the reduction in the costs of offshore wind is the biggest story of the decade. We were looking at costs of £150 per megawatt-hour at the beginning of the decade. The first auction came in at £119. Only two weeks ago, the price was £39 per megawatt-hour. That is a significant achievement. Nobody was saying that these targets were in any way achievable, and while I fully appreciate that Opposition Members say that we should move further and faster, and I fully understand that we are not exactly where we should be, we have to recognise that there have been big achievements in this.
On the forward view, we can dwell on the past and say that we got the right legislation, but my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth are absolutely right that we can all say a date. It can trip off the tongue—net zero by 2050 or 2030—but how do we actually get there? That is exactly what the Government are trying to set out. My team is looking at pathways to net zero, and it is clear to me that the best way, in terms of energy security and also cost, is to have a balanced approach. The question of an entirely renewable economy was raised, but the problem with that is that we would need huge amounts of capacity because of the intermittent nature of that power.
Drew Hendry
On that balanced economy, the CBI, while acknowledging the offshore wind success story, said that investment in onshore wind and solar has stalled for political reasons, and urges this UK Tory Government to take politics off the table for onshore wind. Will they do that?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the target has changed. The Climate Change Act 2008 set an 80% reduction, but this year we have set a net zero carbon target. There is absolutely a wider debate about how we move on—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is trying to put words into my mouth, but I am just saying that there is a broader debate.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am not going to give way any more; I have to sum up.
It is absolutely right that we should debate these subjects. There has been considerable progress with a bipartisan approach. I will not stand here and say that everything that Labour did was terrible and that everything we have done is brilliant. That is a childish approach—[Interruption.] For the avoidance of any doubt, I am not saying that Opposition Members are saying that. I am just saying that we have to have a bipartisan approach, because as an hon. Member suggested, that is the only way that businesses will be able to invest in this sector and work with the Government.
Lastly, I will talk about COP 26. Hosting it in Glasgow will be a great opportunity for the United Kingdom to show its strengths and to show the progress we have made in this area. People from around the world are looking forward to this event. They say that Britain seems to have cross-party consensus. They look at our politics in other areas, such as Brexit, and think it is very disunited, but on this particular issue, people say that, across the board, from the Conservative party to the Labour party, the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrats, there is a degree of consensus, which we should build on and encourage. In that spirit, I will take a very quick intervention.
Anna McMorrin
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is very kind. What is the ambition for COP 26 next year? What is his ambition going forward? Will it be harder, faster targets than 2050, which is what we need?
Kwasi Kwarteng
First, we need to get other countries to sign up to the net zero carbon target. They have not done that. This is one thing that will absolutely be at the top of our agenda at COP 26. That is exactly how we are showing leadership. The Chinese Energy Minister says that they do not want to pollute their country and want a cleaner energy approach, and that they are looking to countries such as Britain to help them. That is where the leadership comes in, and that is what we will apply at COP 26.
Sarah Newton
In the very few seconds I have left, I thank everyone here. Can I take it that I can add their names to an application for a Backbench Business debate in the Chamber, so that we can carry on this really important debate? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I will do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Government plan to reach net zero by 2050.
Transport: North East Bedfordshire
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Gray (in the Chair)
Would those hon. Members who took part in the previous debate leave the Chamber swiftly and quietly, please? [Interruption.] Fewer conversations on the way out might be helpful. If Members who are leaving would please do so—[Interruption.] Order. Will Members please leave the Chamber quietly? You are delaying this debate. It is thoroughly bad manners.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered transport infrastructure in North East Bedfordshire.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and, as always, it is a great pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Minister in his place, with his Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield).
North East Bedfordshire is conveniently located north of London and squarely in the new Economic Heartland area, which has a population of 3.7 million and had a growth rate between 1997 and 2015 of 25%, which compares with a national average of 15%. Attention is focused on the broad Oxford-to-Cambridge corridor, with the new expressway, East West Rail and up to 1 million new houses expected by 2050. However, although addressing east-west connectivity has been a regular UK pastime for decades and people welcome what is proposed, the reality for many of my constituents is that north-south travel is still of more importance. The increased population in recent years has meant steadily increasing numbers on main road and rail routes in and out of London. Rail journeys in the east of England, for example, rose by some 139% between 1995 and 2018. We are struggling to ensure that passenger journeys remain bearable. I therefore want to focus on train services to and from London and on the A1.
My constituents use Thameslink services from Bedford, the Great Northern service from Sandy, Biggleswade and Arlesey into King’s Cross, and East Midlands Railway, which used to be run by Stagecoach but is newly franchised to Abellio. The trains there offer a faster service than Thameslink from the north, via Bedford, into St Pancras. I do not want to focus on those today, but I ask the Minister to note previous correspondence on the reduction in peak-time services, and many passengers’ desire for some reinstatement of lost services north and south.
My principal concerns today are focused on the two Govia services: Thameslink and Great Northern. Context is vital. First, let me acknowledge the efforts made to improve rolling stock and services over the years. The cross-London network bears little relation to what there was in the past. Passengers played their part by accepting significant alterations in services and closures of stations while works were being carried out over a lengthy period. Secondly, as I have noted, more passengers makes ensuring quality of service genuinely difficult at times. However, passengers are entitled in return to some stability, not least for the increasing fares, which are as expensive as anything in Europe, but that has not been the case.
Let me focus on the period since May 2018. In my experience, the timetable chaos of that and the following months was unique. In 32 years as an MP, I never had the reaction from constituents that I had then, to what must have been the outstanding example of transport incompetence of our times. Whatever was responsible initially, the length of the disruption made matters worse. That scale of misery is over, but the maladies linger on.
The first is the skipping of stations: Sandy, Biggleswade and particularly Arlesey. The system is so full that if a delay to a train occurs, further disruption must be prevented; and to correct late running, stations on subsequent services are skipped to make up time. The overriding theory is seemingly that for the good of the many, the few stations must take a hit again and again. On one route that serves my constituency, figures show that those three stations are the most skipped north of London. For the year from August 2018 to September 2019, Arlesey faced 187 skips, Sandy 174 and Biggleswade 169—and to that must be added cancellations.
Some protected-status trains run regardless of wider disruption, but the impact of failure to stop at Arlesey is high, because of the lack of other options. There have been promises of making alternative transport available at Hitchin when Arlesey is skip-stopped, but we have regular reports of constituents arriving at night, with nothing available, and having to make their own way home and then fight to reclaim taxi fares, or just not being given advice on what to do and not being told until they get to Hitchin that Arlesey will be skipped.
We asked GTR—Govia Thameslink Railway—to place some limit on the process. A formal review was set up to monitor the impact on the entire network, but following the review, GTR advised that it was not possible to put a limit on the number of times that a station was skip-stopped without creating more disruption for the wider network—so bad luck, Arlesey.
What does this mean in practice? One constituent wrote to me—I have heard from plenty of others—and said:
“I don’t think they really understand the impact of skip-stopping Arlesey. Passengers arrive at a station in good time to catch a specific train—particularly when there is only one train every 30 minutes. You get to the station and that train has been cancelled. Then you wait half an hour to find the next one has decided not to stop at Arlesey. So you wait for another 30 minutes to hope that that one will stop. If, best case scenario, they have protected that train and it is running, you have ‘only’ waited for one hour at the station. Who has an hour to waste sitting at a station? How many people are just on their way home from work with nothing else to do? We have appointments, delicate childcare arrangements etc. And it isn’t like this only happens once every now and then. It happens regularly.”
I cannot tell the House how heartbreaking some of the comments that we have received are. They are about mums not being able to pick up children and people missing hospital appointments. I met a London Transport worker whose professionalism has been questioned because she cannot guarantee arriving at work on time. I have seen constituents give up their jobs because they cannot be sure of getting a train on time. This simply is not good enough.
Then there is the issue of staffing levels. I am aware that the biggest expense of any business is human, and transport is no different, but I understand that staffing is so tight that there is nothing spare in the system. Train services have to rely on voluntary overtime, which is difficult during holidays or big events—the champions league final this summer was quite a big issue. Since the disaster of May 2018, staff training has been the regular reason given for shortages, but as that has now been completed, we should not be hearing it as an excuse again. Can the company manage its rosters sufficiently well that we do not hear “driver unavailability” as an excuse again? It is an excuse, with the innuendo not missed by staff that it is the drivers’ fault rather than the company’s.
Then there is the issue of train technical problems. On 9 August, a failure in the national grid caused a power outage, one consequence of which was major paralysis of the train system. A principal reason for that was that the new 700-series trains apparently cannot restart promptly if they have been stopped because of a reduction in voltage. The trains were at the time of the outage situated around the London area. That they could not restart meant that significant sections of the network were blocked, hence the paralysis.
I accept that that incident was very unusual and that cause of power failure may be a once-in-many-years event, but the vulnerability of the new trains to electrical failures is a matter of concern, because evacuations of passengers have had to take place, and some of them in the dark. I am grateful to Steve White, chief operating officer of GTR, for a letter that deals with those matters and I will make it available to constituents, but the reliability of the whole service surrounding those trains must be improved. Whatever the varied causes of delays and cancellations, they are not the passenger’s fault.
We have trouble getting information during disruption. We constantly raise this issue with the company, and it keeps saying that it is doing more, but more could always be done.
Then there is the core routes issue. Thameslink changes over the years have been designed to offer many more routes through a crowded London rail space. My constituents applaud the vision of those changes, but they are very concerned that the ambition outstrips the ability to run them. Problems elsewhere on the route—south of London—are affecting those in Bedfordshire. Although GTR believes that the benefits of the routes outweigh the problems, rail user groups are adamant that the through-routes are the cause of the issues, in that GTR cannot adequately staff the routes or maintain service during any sort of disruption. Plenty of them agree that GTR should accept route failure and amend the plans. The Minister may wish to raise the matter with the company, but I would prefer the answer to be ensuring adequate staffing and service rather than losing the advantages of the new routes.
Mentioning my rail user groups allows me to pay tribute to them, particularly Arlesey Commuters, which has kept me and the company informed and engaged over many months. I am grateful that several of its members have been completely unselfish with their time to work on behalf of many others; I am indebted to them. I also pay what some, although I hope not those who know me, might regard as an unusual tribute to my Labour opponent in the 2017 election, Julian Vaughan. Julian is a rail union official and has been of great and genuine help with user groups, particularly in assisting those of us who campaigned for better disability access at Biggleswade station—a campaign that reached a successful conclusion. I will not be seeing him on the campaign trail next time, but I thank him as a constituent and community activist and wish him well for the future.
I need to move on to road issues, so time prevents me from saying much more about trains. Suffice it to mention that station improvements are needed at my constituency stations, which now qualify for grants from GTR because they were so disrupted by past events—a dubious honour, but perhaps the Minister can ensure that the company follows through on it. I should say that I have found the company always willing to engage with me and constituents; I do not fault it on that, but I have to say in some frustration that good contact is no substitute for remedying the problems, which seem as far away from being solved as ever. I know that they do not all lie at GTR’s door, but frankly my constituents do not care and nor do I.
Is it the breakdown of function? Is it the franchise? Are the components of privatisation working? The Minister will know that I have little interest in ideology. If the trains would be better off under another system, I am all for it. I am not convinced by unicorns, so I do not immediately fall for renationalisation, but if the Government cannot fix my constituents’ rail problems when their patience and good nature has been stretched beyond breaking point, they may well find someone who can. And do not put up the fares—they have had enough.
Let me turn to the A1. I hazard a guess that it is the best-known road in the UK. It is our longest numbered road—a road that I first represented 37 years ago as local councillor for Archway ward on Haringey Council—but its romanticism masks its current serious problems. While upgrades to motorway status have occurred throughout its length, the neglect in Bedfordshire is now impossible to justify. For example, there are few roundabouts anywhere on the A1—roundabouts slow traffic, add to pollution, and are increasingly inappropriate on major routes—but we have four out of the five on its total length from London to Edinburgh: Biggleswade South, Biggleswade North, Sandy and of course the famous Black Cat, which has its own website.
The Black Cat is shortly to be the focus of a £1.4 billion scheme, but that typifies our problem. The scheme will form part of work to improve east-west connectivity, with a new stretch of road through Cambridgeshire to link with the A14 to Harwich and Felixstowe; the Black Cat will be the key link between north and south and between east and west in southern England, which is great. However, there is motorway to our immediate north, there is motorway to the south, and there will be a major upgrade east-west, yet through Bedfordshire there is a dual carriageway, which is increasingly used and congested at peak times. Some communities live very close to it, and some are actually on it.
The town of Sandy is particularly affected. I am grateful to the town council and to local residents’ groups such as the SG19 Road Safety Group for their persistence in making a case to the Department for Transport and the Highways Agency—now Highways England—for changes that would make a difference. Over the years, I have written many letters and held meetings in London and the constituency with Ministers and officials, seeking some of the changes and investment that would make a difference, but effectively nothing has happened. It is time to change that.
I will come onto the larger strategic issue in a moment, but for the record and for the Minister’s attention, let me set out some of the improvements that are sought locally at a smaller scale.
First, the implementation of an average speed camera scheme throughout the Sandy to Biggleswade stretch was agreed by the Department and the Highways Agency back in 2016, but three years later it has still not happened. Most recently, it was turned down on grounds of cost—the costs seem to have accelerated significantly since the scheme was first suggested and agreed. Why is it not happening? Will the Minister tackle it, as an immediate priority, to demonstrate some concern for those who live close by and for all who use the road?
Secondly, there should be improved signage along the A1. Thirdly, there needs to be renewed consideration of the New Road junction and the Beeston crossover. The crossover’s design—or lack of it—poses a serious hazard, and sooner or later there will be a terrible accident. Personally, I would close it; the knock-on effect on traffic in the town makes it very hard for the town council and Central Bedfordshire Council to contemplate that, but there must be a better answer than what is there at present.
Fourthly, and above all, the road should be re-lined and rerouted to take it away from Sandy. In 2018, a study by the World Health Organisation showed that fine particle air pollution in Sandy is at 12 micrograms per cubic metre, making it one of 31 sites in the UK with levels above the recommended 10 micrograms per cubic metre. The sites in Sandy were those close to the kerbside of the A1, where people are living. As a petition from Sandy that I recently presented to the Secretary of State makes clear, a possible re-lining of the A1 was considered carefully back in 1994. It was turned down then, but in 2014 a new strategic study looked at the A1 in the east of England. In 2016, when of course all decisions were on hold, the study reported that options for a new line or local improvement were further to be considered, but hopes for that have now also been dashed.
A recent letter from my noble Friend Baroness Vere of Norbiton rather sums it up:
“The study focused on the non-motorway section between junctions 10-14”—
my constituency—
“where issues on the route are most acute. This work found there is a value for money challenge for improvements on this stretch.”
That is the first time that I have come across the phrase “value for money challenge”—it is a cracker. What I think it means is that the Government are not spending any money on the route where the problems are most acute. I am puzzled about why they are getting away with that.
The major strategic problem, however, appears to be that several major projects have been considered almost simultaneously, but there has been no transparency about the sequencing, despite many requests from me and local authorities to agree that to enable effective local planning. Progress on the A1 has been the most expendable casualty of the lack of strategic decision making. The route of a new section of the A428 from Caxton Gibbet to the Black Cat occupied the Government for some years. That has now been fixed and decided, as I mentioned, but decisions are still outstanding on the line of route of east-west rail from Bedford to Cambridge, which will cross the A1 near Sandy. Exactly where it will cross has an impact on local decisions about the housing expansion needed for central Beds to fulfil its housing targets. The decision is anticipated next year, but it has been in the pipeline since early 2016.
Decisions on housing are also pertinent to where a new line of the Al might be. As far as I can tell, everyone in government seems to be waiting for everyone else: Transport is waiting for housing decisions, Housing is waiting for transport decisions, and the urgent need to face up to change on the A1 is just getting lost. No more!
First, Minister, do something immediate to show good will about the average speed cameras. Then attend to the smaller improvements sought by residents and the town council, reinstate the need for the A1 re-lining proposals to come before Government again as a matter of urgency, and demand that some of the money that the Chancellor recently found for investment heads to the A1 in Bedfordshire.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (George Freeman)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Gray. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on securing the debate. May I say how nice it is to have the chance to respond to him, knowing that he is one of the most assiduous representatives of his constituency and is highly respected across the parties? It is a shame that no Opposition Members are present.
I am pleased to respond to the debate as the new Minister for the future of transport, with a new mission from the Prime Minister to focus on the challenges of disconnection, decarbonisation and digitalisation, and bring a new urgency to the Department’s focus on place-based solutions that put the people and places we serve before the convenience of infrastructure providers. As my right hon. Friend said, we need to ensure that services are working for the people who rely on them and are ultimately paying the bills.
As we all know, well-planned transport infrastructure is critical to the health, wealth and wellbeing of our communities. Bedfordshire is an historic county and an important one in strategic transport terms, with key roads such as the A1, the A5 and the M1 running through it, along with a number of key rail routes; it is also home to Luton’s international airport. Across the transport modes, the Government are making several key investments to help to drive sustainable economic growth. Before I come to them, however, let me deal with my right hon. Friend’s specific points.
On rail, I absolutely understand the concerns that have been raised. I would like to offer some explanation for the performance issues that are affecting my right hon. Friend’s constituents. I know that the railway stations in the towns of Sandy, Biggleswade and Arlesey are vital pieces of public infrastructure. Whether people use rail services to commute to work, to visit family or for any other reason, it is crucial that they can rely on receiving a service that is reliable and frequent. That is why, since joining the Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my other ministerial colleagues and I have made the bread-and-butter issue of the reliability of rail services our No.1 priority.
Let me be very blunt: recent performance on the Great Northern line has not been good enough. Over the past year, we have seen 8% of services on average being cancelled or delayed by 30 minutes or more. That figure is a lot worse than that for the vast majority of other train-operating companies, and the situation has been exacerbated in recent weeks by a series of significant infrastructure issues, including issues with overhead wires, track failures, falling trees and a broken-down train on the key Thameslink route near Blackfriars last week.
I absolutely understand the frustration that passengers must feel when these issues arise; as a rail user, I share it, as does the Secretary of State. That is why he recently met the chief executives of GTR and Network Rail to make it clear to them that improving the reliability of services in this area is vital. Although this does not excuse poor performance, I am pleased to note that GTR held an event at St Pancras last night, allowing passengers to speak directly with the company management, and I will put on the record here that I look forward to hearing the outcome of that meeting.
Notwithstanding those incidents and the urgent need for them to be tackled, I do think that we are seeing some positive signs more generally on the franchise. I know that many of my right hon. Friend’s constituents use the Thameslink service from Bedford, where we have seen significant improvements generally to performance over recent years. Over the past 12 months, about 85% of Thameslink services arrived within five minutes of the schedule. The year before, the percentage was 83% and the year before that it was 79%, so the service is getting better. However, I acknowledge that incidents such as the impact of the May 2018 fiasco and the August power cuts have impacted passenger trust, and we have to sort out this situation to restore that trust.
My right hon. Friend mentioned stop-skipping, and it is without a doubt hugely frustrating for passengers to see the train that they were supposed to board go past without stopping, or for the train that they are on to go past the station at which they had planned to get off. For this reason, the decision to miss out a call is not one that operators should take lightly; it should not be routine.
Skipping stations is one method that operators can use to allow the rail network to recover from disruption. Operational staff take the decision to miss out a stop by balancing the impact on those passengers who are directly affected against the wider impact of allowing the service to continue. Skipping stops helps operators to avoid the knock-on impact that delayed services can have on other services, but if it is not managed proactively, delays can spread quickly across the network and affect hundreds more passengers. There is sometimes a misconception that operators take the decision to miss out stops to manipulate their performance scores. That is not, and absolutely should not be, the case. Any service that misses out a stop is counted as a part-cancellation for the purposes of the performance benchmark that the Department uses to hold operators to account. If train companies exceed that benchmark, they will be subject to financial penalties. Personally, I would like to see more of that money going to the passengers who are affected, but that debate is for another day.
What is absolutely crucial in these situations is the attention that is paid to the poor passengers whose journeys have been disrupted, and communication is vital. We should not have situations where, as my right hon. Friend highlighted, passengers are stuck for long periods with no information about the options to complete their journey. Part of my portfolio is dealing with disconnection, and that is an example of disconnection between the train-operating company and its passengers, who have paid for a service, and one that is completely unacceptable, particularly in a digital age, when communication should be so much easier. I completely understand the frustration of passengers about such situations and I continue to press the rail industry to improve their processes, to make sure that we get this right, and I will pick it up following this debate.
Going forward, and notwithstanding those concerns, we should also speak about some of the positive things that we are seeing on the railways in my right hon. Friend’s area. The Thameslink service from Sandy, Arlesey and Biggleswade, which was introduced last year, now provides weekday passengers with two direct trains per hour to the heart of London. I am pleased that, from December onwards, the current Saturday service to King’s Cross will transfer to this route, providing passengers with a much wider range of direct destinations.
Those constituents of my right hon. Friend who use Bedford station will obviously see service improvements. From December 2020, two East Midlands Railway services per hour will call at all stations between Corby and London St Pancras, providing a big capacity uplift. This, combined with the increased capacity of trains serving the London commuter route, will result in a significant increase in the number of seats, particularly during peak periods, and should release capacity on inter-city services, which will also improve access to and from Luton airport.
Furthermore, I know that my right hon. Friend campaigned passionately for Biggleswade station to receive Access for All funding. Earlier this year, Biggleswade was confirmed as a successful applicant and I congratulate him personally on his leadership in that campaign. Improving accessibility to our railway network is something that both he and I care passionately about. I understand that the plans for Biggleswade are at an early stage, but when the scheme is delivered it will provide an accessible route into the station and between the platforms.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend warmly welcomed the recent housing infrastructure fund award of nearly £70 million for the transformational growth in Biggleswade project, something that he has championed. The funding will provide a new transport interchange at the train station and a replacement bridge over the east coast main line. This is an excellent example—dare I say it, decades late but none the less excellent—of Government funding for transport infrastructure in North East Bedfordshire, which has the potential to help to deliver up to 3,000 new homes. In addition, GTR is also delivering a £15 million passenger benefit fund, which will deliver £80,000 of improvements at Arlesey, Sandy and Biggleswade stations respectively, as well as at Bedford station.
I am conscious of the time, so I will turn now to the strategic road network. We absolutely recognise the importance of the A1 and its impact on my right hon. Friend’s constituents. That is why, as part of the first road investment strategy, we committed to examining the case for improvements to the A1 between the M25 and Peterborough. Anyone who has driven on that road, as I have, knows the problems on it. Following an initial study, our focus has been on the sections between junctions 10 and 14, where we recognise that the challenges on the route are most acute. Initial work has shown that improvements—including some new alignment, or bypassing—would offer poor value for money on current metrics.
Substantial future local growth, which is coming, could and should change that assessment. Therefore, we expect there will be opportunities to re-examine the case for potential improvements to this section, particularly as proposals for the Oxford-to-Cambridge arc, which I am responsible for, are developed. In the meantime, however, we understand that local partners are taking forward some study work to look at the feasibility of improvements to the A1 in the short term. In addition, in February we also announced a preferred route for the A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet scheme. As my right hon. Friend knows, this is a new dual carriageway link between the junction of the A1 and A421, and between the junction of the A428 and A1198.
My right hon. Friend raised the important issue of speed cameras on the A1, and I can reassure him that both the Department and Highways England take the issue of speeding very seriously. I share his disappointment that it was not possible to deliver the previous scheme. I have checked with and am chasing Highways England to ensure that it investigates the possibility of a camera system on this section of the A1, explains to me why the costs have spiralled as they have, and makes sure that it looks seriously to see whether such a camera system is possible. I think that it must be possible to find a way to do it and I will raise this issue with Highways England again following this debate.
I will also raise the issue of congestion on the local road network. My right hon. Friend and I both take congestion very seriously. We do not want to see strategic road work driving up congestion in neighbouring towns and villages, which is why we have made a number of investments for local transport infrastructure projects within wider Bedfordshire. These include providing £2.5 million towards a new Bedford western bypass and £11 million towards the regeneration of Bedford town centre. We are also providing funding towards the A421 dualling scheme that is being led by Central Bedfordshire Council. That is a £22 million investment, which will ease congestion from Fen Farm up to junction 13 of the M1. I understand that Central Bedfordshire Council is also taking forward proposals for a link between the M1 and the A6, with funding from the local growth fund.
Future funding for major transport infrastructure is absolutely key to the Government’s new emphasis on integrating housing and transport, as recent statements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government have made clear. Crucial to that in the south of England is the east-west corridor, which, as I have said, I am now responsible for. It will provide better east-west connectivity across the arc, including in North East Bedfordshire. I will shortly be signing off on the rail routing decision, and I will also push to make sure that, as we build that line, we also consider strategic ways to capture land value and ensure that we are putting money into transport infrastructure, including the strategic roads, so that we have a genuinely integrated approach to road, rail and housing.
I hope that I can reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire that considerable investment is being made in transport infrastructure in his area as part of this Government’s major infrastructure programme. I absolutely hear him on the issues with the railway line, which we are actively pursuing. He made a very good point about rail staffing, which I will pick up on following this debate, and he also made good points on stop-skipping and on speed cameras on the A1.
Alistair Burt
I think we have just 30 seconds left, so I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. I thank him very much for his responses. However, because we have heard many of these responses before, particularly from Highways England—responses about things that will happen, only for everything to get held up because of decisions made elsewhere—can he make sure this time that some of these improvements are made? If they are not made and we have to keep waiting for others’ decisions, once again nothing will happen.
George Freeman
I am delighted to give my right hon. Friend that reassurance. This is my first appearance in Westminster Hall in this capacity and I look forward to picking up on the issues that he has raised. If we cannot show our constituents that we are putting people and place before the convenience of providers, we will not carry their trust with us. This strategic junction in the UK network—A1, east-west, rail and road—is vital and I will happily give him that undertaking.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered transport infrastructure in North East Bedfordshire.
Procedure for Appointing Judges
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the procedure for appointing judges.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I look forward to a positive and perhaps consensual debate on the procedure for appointing judges and the importance of those procedures being consistent with the independence of the judiciary, the separation of powers and the rule of law.
I sought this debate because I was concerned about certain headlines that appeared in the press in the days following the Supreme Court judgment in the Cherry and Miller cases. I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) for her work on the Cherry case, as well as the legal team, which did such great work. I was pleased to be one of the MPs party to that case. The headlines I was concerned about came in response to a decision that the Government did not particularly like. They were perfectly entitled not to like the decision, but they were not entitled to consider changing the system for appointing the Supreme Court judges.
For example, a headline in the Daily Mail read:
“Geoffrey Cox suggests UK could move to US-style political vetting of judge appointments in the wake of the Supreme Court’s prorogation ruling”.
The Daily Telegraph ran the headline:
“Supreme Court justices could be appointed by MPs in wake of Brexit ruling, Geoffrey Cox says”.
In a slightly more understated fashion, The Law Society Gazette headed its report with certain exchanges in the Commons Chamber with the headline:
“Supreme Court appointments may need MPs’ approval—attorney general”.
In fairness to the Attorney General, it took a degree of journalistic licence to get from what he said in the Chamber to what was reported. Those headlines arose from exchanges in the Chamber during an urgent question tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the independence of our judiciary and the way in which we appoint them is admired right across the world, and that that fits in with our role in the Council of Europe, which is there to uphold the rule of law?
Stuart C. McDonald
I agree with the hon. Gentleman wholeheartedly. I will return to that point later. The exchanges that sparked those headlines came when the Attorney General was asked by one of his Back Benchers whether it was time for MPs to get involved in approving appointments at the Supreme Court level. The Attorney General responded:
“I do think that we are going to have to look again at our constitutional arrangements…there may very well need to be parliamentary scrutiny of judicial appointments in some manner.”—[Official Report, 25 September 2019; Vol. 664, c. 666.]
As I said, I think the subsequent headlines required considerable journalistic licence. It would be useful if the same headline writers would publish the subsequent remarks that the Attorney General made during Attorney General’s questions last week, when he said that
“certainly US-style hearings—would be a regrettable step for us in our constitutional arrangements.”—[Official Report, 3 October 2019; Vol. 664, c. 1360.]
Similarly, I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s words this morning at Justice questions in defence of judicial independence and against any notion of political appointments.
With impeccable timing, as soon as I received notification that I had secured this debate, I received a written answer from the Minister—I welcome him to his place—confirming that there were no plans to change the judicial appointments processes. The answer continued:
“Our judges are selected following a rigorous, independent, merit based process which is key to maintaining the quality, integrity and independence of our world class judiciary.”
That answer echoed the point made by the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell).
In the light of all those assurances, I wondered whether it was worth proceeding with this debate, but I think it is. I am grateful to hon. Members for staying to take part. It is still relevant to proceed because, despite the words of the Minister, the Attorney General and the Lord Chancellor, one fairly significant member of the Government does not seem to be singing from quite the same hymn sheet—perhaps not for the first time. Between the Attorney General’s original comments and his clarification, when the Prime Minister was asked about the consequences of the Supreme Court judgment by The Sunday Telegraph, he said:
“It will take a while to be worked through. But I think, if judges are to pronounce on political questions in this way, then there is at least an argument that there should be some form of accountability.
The lessons of America are relevant.”
Whether the Prime Minister was thinking about putting the UK on the path to a US-style system, under which Supreme Court judges are overtly political appointees, as The Sunday Telegraph interpreted it, only he knows—I very much hope not.
The pot was stirred even more firmly by a former Conservative leader who told The Times at the end of last week that
“more and more people are beginning to ask, with some legitimacy, whether it might be time to hold hearings as they do in America to find out what their political views are and what we can expect. We need to know more about these people.”
I could not disagree more strongly with that statement. A better response to the Prime Minister’s comments came from a former Cabinet colleague of his in an article for The Sunday Times this weekend:
“If he means we should learn from the weaknesses of the US system, he is absolutely right. If he means we should copy that system, he is wrong. It involves far too much political interference in the appointment of judges and also too much judicial law-making.”
My ambition in this debate is, therefore, quite modest: to achieve as broad a consensus as possible, saying clearly and loudly that we believe in the rule of law, the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary; that our appointments processes must always respect that; and, specifically, that we reject the politicisation of the judiciary, in particular through US-style appointments processes. The Prime Minister and some of the less sensible members of the Conservative party should stop stirring that pot.
I am not saying that the appointments processes in the UK are absolutely perfect, whether through the Judicial Appointments Commission of England and Wales, through its Northern Ireland equivalent, through the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland or through the appointments commissions that are convened for the purposes of selecting Supreme Court justices. No system is perfect, and they have all been criticised. It is absolutely right that we should keep those systems under review and scrutinise them to ensure that they deliver the appointment of the best judges.
Other hon. Members may want to make suggestions about how we can improve each of those systems, including to better protect judicial independence or to improve the scrutiny and accountability of judges through ombudsman and complaints processes. I have no doubt that more can be done to improve diversity on the bench, for example.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate, and I join him in congratulating the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) on the stunning cases that she brought over the past two weeks. Regarding diversity, the old system required the Lord Chancellor to make all the appointments of the judiciary on the advice of civil servants. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the new system, with the Judicial Appointments Commission, has gone far enough in reflecting the diversity of the community at large? Obviously, gender diversity has increased, because we have a woman President of the Supreme Court, but what about ethnic minority diversity?
Stuart C. McDonald
I do not have a ready answer to that. The numbers show that it may not have gone far enough. I agree that there is more to be done to ensure that we have a bench that reflects the society that it serves, but I am not sure what the means and mechanisms for that should be.
My key point is that we should never consider or undertake the politicisation of the appointments processes, because the arguments that have been put forward in support of political interference in the appointments process are flimsy and, I would say, misguided. There is an assertion that because judges have suddenly got involved in matters that are deemed to be political, their political judgment should be open to scrutiny by parliamentarians before they are allowed to sit, but to take that view is to misunderstand the role of judges completely. Although what they decide has important political consequences, the decisions they make are not political, but legal. Therefore, a candidate’s legal abilities alone need to be assessed and compared to those of their peers.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate, and I agree with much of what he has said. I support the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. Many judges—particularly those with academic backgrounds—may, although they were appointed through an independent process, have expressed views in the past that could be considered political; in some cases, those may be historical political views. That may lead some people to be concerned about the politicising of the judiciary and the potential for judges’ views to influence their decisions. How would the hon. Gentleman address the perceived concerns of political bias on the part of some judges because of views they have expressed in the past as academic lecturers or in other forums?
Stuart C. McDonald
I welcome that intervention, and the hon. Gentleman raises an interesting question. There are a couple of things I would say. First, we will never have a judicial bench that does not have political opinions. Just because we do not necessarily know what those opinions are does not mean that members of the judiciary are not normal human beings who have political views. Secondly, all we can do is to ensure that candidates are assessed, like all others, by an independent judicial appointments board to ensure that appointments are made on the basis of their ability to do the job as independent judges. It may be that certain individuals have expressed views such that that is called into question, but we have independent panels in place that are designed to filter out any suggestion that candidates are making decisions for political reasons, rather than simply on the merits of a particular case.
As Sir David Edward, a former judge in both the European Court of Justice and the Court of Session, put it in a recent Scottish Legal News article:
“Many judicial decisions have political consequences but it is a quite different thing to say judges have made decisions for political reasons.”
He argued that if there is a lesson to be learned from America, it is the
“malign effect of a system dependent on political or doctrinaire allegiance”.
There is nothing new about judges making decisions that have political implications or cause political controversy—although given some of the recent commentary, people might think otherwise.
It is worth noting that one of the key reasons why judges’ decisions frequently have significant political implications is precisely because this Parliament has required that of them. The Human Rights Act 1998, for example, requires judges to look at whether Acts of Parliament are compatible with the European convention on human rights. Acts of the Scottish Parliament can be literally struck down, not just under the Human Rights Act, but if the Scottish Parliament is found to have strayed beyond its competence under the Scotland Act 1998. The acts of Ministers here and in devolved Administrations are subject to judicial scrutiny. European Union law has also been a ground for challenges. That links with the growth in the use of secondary legislation—legislation that in my view is often not scrutinised particularly well here—which at least has the fallback and safeguard of judicial review.
Increasingly, judges have been asked by this Parliament to take decisions that have political ramifications, but they make those decisions on legal grounds alone, and we should not forget that. Ultimately, the key point is that the different branches of government should provide checks and balances against each other. The judiciary provides a key check against Executive overreach. To my mind, the cases of Cherry and Miller are brilliant examples of that, though perfectly reasonable people can disagree. The point is this: what sort of check does the judiciary provide if it is stuffed with Government or political appointees? It is either a check that is ineffectual in reality, or one that is perceived to be ineffectual, and both matter for the rule of law.
I will finish with a quote from the vice-president of the Law Society, Stephanie Boyce. In responding to the recent controversies, she told The Law Society Gazette:
“An independent judiciary is fundamental to our democracy. The notion of vetting judges for their political opinions is at odds with the whole construction of British justice.”
I very much hope that is something we can all agree on.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma.
I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on securing this debate. I agreed with virtually every word he said, and I hope we can establish a consensus in Westminster Hall. Like him, I was heartened to hear the very clear statement of the Government’s position from the Lord Chancellor in Justice questions today. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that were we to embark on an American-style system of political selection for our Supreme Court or any other court, we would indeed be the poorer for it. Anyone who has seen the farrago that passes for confirmation hearings before the Senate in the United States—a process that diminishes the quality of law and, frankly, if anything, undermines the integrity of its judiciary—would never wish to see that in the United Kingdom. I think the debate is useful, because it perhaps enables us to put a hare that has been set running by one or two people firmly to rest, where it belongs and where it should stay.
John Howell
Would my hon. Friend make a distinction between the sort of confirmation hearings that we hold as members of the Select Committee on Justice and those in the United States? The ones we hold are very much part of the establishment and are a way of looking at the process, rather than being a way of generating political attacks on the individual.
Robert Neill
My hon. Friend is right. There are two misnomers in this sense. Confirmation, in the strict sense of the word, is not really what we are doing. We are scrutinising the integrity of the appointments process, which is an altogether different matter and entirely consistent with our tradition. In the same way, I wonder, were the legislation for the Supreme Court being drafted now, would we call it a Supreme Court, as opposed to a Court of Final Appeal? That has rather unfortunate implications, but that is really what it is. It is not quite like the Supreme Court in the United States, and the name sometimes gives people the wrong idea about its function.
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East is absolutely right to say that in the recent cases that have attracted press attention, the courts—both at first instance the High Court or the Court of Session and then the Supreme Court—were asked to answer legal questions, and they gave legal answers. It is as simple as that. The judges did their job as lawyers. The attacks on our senior judiciary by some of the press are an outright disgrace and a shame upon this country. They should be called out for what they are: gutter journalism. Would to God that we had a press in this country that had anything like the quality and integrity of our judiciary. We would be the better place for it.
We are fortunate in the quality of our judiciary in all parts of the United Kingdom. We have a rigorous selection process. I am particularly aware of the work of the Judicial Appointments Commission in England and Wales, but I am cognisant of the like work that is done in Scotland and Northern Ireland by their appointments boards. I pay tribute to the work of Lord Kakkar and his colleagues on the Judicial Appointments Commission for England and Wales. The Justice Committee has had the opportunity to observe and scrutinise its work, and it is accountable to us and to Parliament for the process it engages in. Recently it published its report for the year just gone; it is a substantial document that clearly sets out the methodology by which it works and the consequences.
Keith Vaz
I am most grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for giving way. May I declare my interest, which I forgot to do earlier, as a non-practising barrister? My wife is a part-time judge. I put this to the hon. Gentleman: with the system we have now—as opposed to the old system, where the Lord Chancellor made the decision himself, and it was only men who were Lord Chancellor in those days—what does he think about laypersons being able to appoint judges to the highest judicial offices when they themselves are not legally qualified? I think the system is working well, apart from the diversity angle, but what does he think, not only as Chair of the Committee but as a lawyer, about people who are not legally qualified being able to opine on giving posts to those who are the most legally qualified?
Robert Neill
The right hon. Gentleman reminds me to refer Members to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I think I would approach the matter he raises in this way: for transparency and because the judiciary needs the confidence not only of the profession but of the wider population and the society it serves, there is a proper role for a lay element in the selection process. The set-up we have in England and Wales with the Judicial Appointments Commission, which has lay members together with experienced practitioners and members of the judiciary, is probably a pretty fair balance as far as that is concerned.
Keith Vaz
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way for a second time and enabling me to tempt him a little further. The cut-off age has deprived us of some pretty distinguished judges. Does he think we should go that step further and raise the limit from 70 to 75? Can I tempt him down that road?
Robert Neill
The right hon. Gentleman tempts me and I fall into the trap willingly: I entirely agree with him. It is a great shame that we have seen the retirement recently of very distinguished and able judges simply by effluxion of time. Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, Sir Brian Leveson, Lady Hallett—I was delighted to see her gain a peerage—and others still have much to offer the bench. When we have real difficulty with the recruitment and retention of the highest quality judges, it seems absurd to me to set 70, which most of us would regard as the new 50—certainly those of us who are getting nearer to it—as the limit. We are cutting people off at the height of their professional powers. They have much more to offer and, interestingly, will very often be found, perfectly legitimately and properly, exercising their skills as arbitrators or mediators in commercial jurisdictions, when they would be very happy to continue exercising those skills in high public office as members of the judiciary.
I earnestly hope that one message the Minister takes back to the Lord Chancellor, who I know is apprised of the matter, is that if we have a legislative opportunity in the new Session, we should tack on a clause to increase the judicial retirement age to 75. That would be warmly welcomed. There is more that we need to do at the other end in terms of diversity. There have been improvements, but the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) is right that we need in particular to improve black, Asian and minority ethnic representation in the judiciary. There are signs of improvement, but there is much more to do.
We have made improvements in relation to gender diversity, but ethnic diversity is something that we still need to work on, as well as perhaps social background more generally. As a member of the Bar, I recognise the potential value of recruiting solicitor judges in broadening the social background base of the profession. There are now some very good and able solicitor judges, and I hope that we can encourage that too.
In a short speech, I wanted to reinforce what the Lord Chancellor, who is admirably playing his role in defending the independence of the judiciary, has said, and to recognise the point fairly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) that the independence of the judiciary is not just important in terms of the checks and balances of our own constitution, which are critical, but wholly consistent with our international obligations. My hon. Friend serves as a distinguished member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which is something that I have had the pleasure of doing, as have you, Mr Sharma. We all know that Britain is looked up to by our colleagues because of the independence of our judiciary. How would we be able to exercise restraint on some of the emerging democracies in eastern and central Europe, where such independence is not always to be found, were we to do anything that diluted our judicial independence?
It is important that we maintain judicial independence to meet our obligations under article 6 of the European convention, never mind article 14 of the international covenant on civil and political rights and, of course, the UN basic principles on the independence of the judiciary. If we want Britain to remain a world leader in high esteem, maintaining the independence of the judiciary is critical. I hope that the debate will enable us to send a message to all at large that we recognise the checks and balances that are implicit in, and that underpin, our constitution, and that the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary, and the acceptance of its independence by all, whether we agree with an individual decision or not, are crucial to our national wellbeing.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Sharma. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on securing this important debate. What a pleasure it is to speak after the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill).
I will begin by declaring a few interests. Not surprisingly, most of us speaking in the debate are lawyers, and I am a non-practising member of the Scottish Bar. I am also vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the rule of law and, as has been kindly mentioned by others today, I was the lead petitioner in the case that came to be known as the Cherry case, because that is my surname, which went to the Supreme Court. I am also involved in litigation currently proceeding in Scotland under the name of Dale Vince. I declare my interest, having been supported by the Good Law Project and the generosity of Mr Vince, who is a green energy entrepreneur.
Today’s debate has come about because of comments prompted by ill-informed fallout from the decision of the Supreme Court on Prorogation. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East laid out the circumstances in which that happened. It is a particular matter of regret that on 11 September Downing Street sources briefed The Sun that
“legal activists choose the Scottish courts for a reason”.
Well, I chose the Scottish courts because I live in Scotland. The implication that the Scottish courts are somehow politicised is offensive as well as ignorant. There is, however, a tradition in Scotland going back to the declaration of Arbroath and the claim of right that neither the monarch nor the Government are above the law. I was very proud to see that tradition followed by the Scottish courts.
It was also great to hear Lady Hale, the President of the Supreme Court, remind us that it is also part of the English tradition, when she said that
“the courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction”
over the lawfulness of acts of the Government “for centuries”. As long ago as 1611, the court held that the King, who was effectively the Government, had
“no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him”.
I join others in particularly deprecating not so much the press, of which we have come to expect very little, but Government sources—particularly unnamed Downing Street sources, who seem to be cropping up all over the place at the moment—for the anti-judicial and anti-Scottish sentiment that they tried to stir up.
It was also a matter of some regret that a Government Minister, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), went on television and said:
“The extent to which lawyers and judges are interfering in politics is something that concerns many people.”
He went on to say that
“many people…are saying that the judges are biased”.
He specifically claimed that
“many leave voters...are beginning to question the partiality of the judges”,
while going on to state that he personally believed that the judges were impartial.
Dr Poulter
As I was sitting here, it occurred to me that a former colleague of ours, albeit from before our time in the House, Humfrey Malins, who was the hon. Member for Woking, was, while he was a sitting MP, a practising barrister and, I believe, a recorder. I do not believe that anybody called into question his impartiality when he was overseeing cases in that role, or indeed subsequently when he stood down from the House, even though he is a committed Conservative. I wonder whether the hon. and learned Lady would like to reflect on that, in the context of what she was just saying.
Joanna Cherry
I was not aware of that. Certainly my party, the Scottish National party, believes that MPs should devote themselves full time to that job. That is why I have been a non-practising member of the Scottish Bar from the moment that I was elected. I would find it rather curious if a Member of Parliament were, in the modern age, sitting in a judicial capacity. I think that would rather interfere with the separation of powers, whereby legislature, Executive and judiciary should be separate. However, I was not aware of those circumstances, so perhaps I should not say any more about them.
Returning to the comments made on television by the right hon. Member for Spelthorne, although it has been good to hear the Lord Chancellor repeatedly assert the independence of the judiciary, including today at Justice questions, it is reprehensible for Government Ministers to attempt to stir up anti-judicial sentiment as in this situation. I totally believe in freedom of speech, and am on the record as being somebody on the left who is very much in favour of it. Sometimes the champions of freedom of speech are to be found very much on the right, but there are some of us on the left, and I would never question anyone’s right to say that they disagree with a decision. However, if a Government Minister or unnamed sources call into question the independence or impartiality of the judiciary, such comments can serve to normalise a crude scepticism that ignores the legally complex and personally demanding work that judges have to perform. That is why we politicians have to be careful what we say. Many decisions in the past have not pleased me, and I have certainly criticised them, but I have not tried to suggest that they were made because the judges were of a different political persuasion to me.
We can do no better than look at one of England’s most respected jurists, Lord Bingham, who said in the Belmarsh case in 2004 that it is wrong to argue that judges are somehow undemocratic simply because they are unelected, or because they are asked to assess the legality of the Government’s decisions. He said that, on the contrary,
“the function of independent judges charged to interpret and apply the law is universally recognised as a cardinal feature of the modern democratic state, a cornerstone of the rule of law itself.”
I think what Lord Bingham was really saying is that the very concept of a modern democracy envisages an important role for the courts.
It is particularly important to remember that the decision that was made by the Supreme Court justices was not a political decision; as Lady Hale was at pains to underline, it was a decision on the law. In Scotland’s Court of Session, Lord Drummond Young said in relation to the case:
“The courts cannot subject the actings of the executive to political scrutiny, but they can and should ensure that the body charged with performing that task, Parliament, is able to do so.”
That is what the case was about: restoring to Parliament its function of politically scrutinising the Executive. Those on the right of British politics outside this room who do not like what happened in the Supreme Court should ask themselves how they would feel if a left-wing Prime Minister sitting at the apex of a minority Government prorogued Parliament because it was getting in his or her way. It cuts both ways, and that is why this is a principle of law and democracy rather than a political decision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East has already quoted some pertinent comments made by Sir David Edward, former judge of the European Court of Justice. I will also quote Lord Hope of Craighead, former Deputy President of the Supreme Court and a former Lord President of the Court of Session, who said that the suggestion—initially made by the Attorney General—that there might need to be some parliamentary scrutiny of judicial appointments was “wholly misguided”. He said:
“The Supreme Court justices were careful to explain in their judgment”
in the Prorogation case
“that they were not pronouncing on political questions. The issues with which they were dealing, as is the case with all the other issues that come before them, were issues of law.”
He went on to say that vetting judges
“would risk politicising the office which they hold, in the minds of the public”
and would be
“contrary to the fact that political opinion plays no part in the work that they do.”
He finished by saying:
“The guiding principle is that they decide cases according to the laws and usages of this country, and not according to such political views, if any that they might happen to hold.”
Very trenchantly, he added:
“We have nothing to learn on this issue from what happens in the United States.”
Somebody pointed out earlier that there will be some judges in position who have, in a previous life, expressed political views. Of course, in Scotland we no longer have a tradition of political appointments for the Law Officers—they are apolitical appointments—but in the past, we did. Frequently, the Lord Advocate in Scotland would go on to sit on the bench, and he—it was always a “he” in those days—would have been from either a Labour or a Conservative background. However, the crucial thing was that when he took his seat, he took the judicial oath of impartiality, and put aside the politics he had had before to enable him to make impartial decisions on the law. I do not think the ability to do that is confined to men. Thankfully, there are at last plenty of women coming through in the judiciary, both north and south of the border. We would all like to see more, but it has been very important to see a female English judge at the apex of the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court. As others have said, there is still much work to be done to ensure that the diversity of all our communities across Scotland and England is represented on the bench.
I will finish with a quote from almost 15 years ago, when Professor Anthony Bradley was advising the House of Lords Constitution Committee. I am pleased to say that Professor Bradley was my tutor when I was an undergraduate at the University of Edinburgh, 30 years ago; he was then, and is now, a very respected authority on constitutional law in the United Kingdom. Back in December 2005, he told that Committee:
“It is more important than ever that the courts should be able to do justice in an even-handed and impartial manner. Ministers and the Government in general should not seek to blame the judges when the courts make decisions that are adverse to the wishes or policies of the Government.”
All of us who are politicians should aspire to follow that advice. His message is just as important now as it was then, given the fallout we have had from the recent, landmark constitutional cases.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on securing this debate.
It is fair to say that in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, some Government Members and even Ministers began to call for the reformation of the judicial appointments system. That tells us that some of those people—often those with very hard Brexiteer points of view—are not interested in parliamentary sovereignty or judicial independence, and they do not respect our traditions or our democracy. As the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) said earlier, the attack on the judiciary by the media was disgraceful, but, sadly, so were some of the words used and the comments made by Members of this House.
It should be said repeatedly and clearly that the selection hearings of the US system have no place in our democracy, and nor do the highly political workings of the US justices. In the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Attorney General seemed to suggest that Parliament would need to look at a judicial appointments system, although I am pleased to hear that he has rowed back on those comments since making them. Those calling for an American-style process rather than a Supreme Court-style one have little interest in the constitutional frameworks that have been essential to government in this country for centuries.
Although these arguments will not be new to anyone, they perhaps deserve reiteration. The US system is beset with practical problems. It allows the President to nominate judges on an explicitly political basis, and even if we accept that idea—which we do not—the power to nominate is not equally distributed. Instead, the make-up of the US Supreme Court is determined by whoever is President when judges become unable to continue in their role. The make-up of the most powerful court in the land is political and dangerously random, and the result is neither stable nor fair. That holds especially true when an Executive like the USA’s current one chooses not to respect conventions or tradition. As the Chair of the Justice Committee also said eloquently, we have only recently seen the unedifying spectacle of a USA-style confirmation hearing.
There is a great deal to be proud of in our judiciary. Our commercial courts are widely recognised as some of the best in the world; every year, a huge number of international litigators choose to come to the UK because they know they can rely on fair treatment. Last year, our legal sector alone contributed around £26 billion of trade to the UK. Even in our tragically undervalued criminal courts, on the back of yet another week of courts being unnecessarily shut, the judiciary is soldiering on impressively.
I admire the durability and professionalism of our judges, along with the rest of the court staff. They deserve significant credit for propping up a system that I am afraid the Government have done little to support, as shown by those court closures. Only recently, I have received emails from some judges—especially recorders—who say that they are expected to attend different courts in the UK at the last minute. They sometimes cannot do so because of their own work commitments, but they are effectively told that if they do not, their chances of being confirmed as judges may well be impacted. There is evidence, even from the Ministry of Justice’s figures, that the time it takes for court cases to come to trial has recently grown longer, while courtrooms are sitting empty and shut. Despite that, our judges, recorders and magistrates continue to work really hard to support our system, and I commend and thank them for all their efforts.
Despite attempts by some people to find political intent in the recent Supreme Court ruling, the decision was a powerful demonstration of the vital power of a genuinely independent, apolitical judiciary. It ruled without fear or favour, and in doing so it protected our democracy. The judiciary in this country has a long and noble tradition, and it is best that we respect that.
Balanced, learned and direct, Baroness Hale is in many ways the best of that British tradition, but the barriers that she has faced are illustrative of how uneven our justice system still is. For far too long, justices have been predominantly people of privilege with wealthy backgrounds, predominantly men and predominantly educated at private schools. Baroness Hale was only the second woman to be appointed to the Court of Appeal. She is the first female Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and the first female President of the Supreme Court. It should worry us all that women still have to break the glass ceiling. A century on from the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919, we are still yet to achieve real proportional equality in our public bodies and institutions. The Law Society also agrees that our current system for the appointment of judges should be maintained and not changed.
I hope we can all agree that the US system is clearly a bad one, but perhaps today is an opportunity to focus the debate on how we can alter our judicial appointments system not to make it political, but perhaps to make it more representative. As a young barrister, I saw many hugely talented people who did not fit the accepted demographic of a judge. Some struggled their way to the top; too many did not. There have been encouraging steps as the number of female judges has risen. However, it is important that we do not fall into the trap that many businesses do and focus exclusively on comparing numbers without looking at seniority. Although it is heartening to know that the percentage of female tribunal judges is nearing 50%, that falls to 32% for court judges, and for high court judges the figure is well under 30%.
The issue is even more glaring in the case of black and ethnic minority members of the judiciary. Reading through the judicial diversity statistics this year, I see that the Ministry of Justice reports that 11% of new judges in the court were BAME, compared with 6% of those leaving. That is a paltry rate of change that will leave our judiciary disproportionately unrepresentative. The judicial mentoring scheme and the pre-application judicial education programme are good initiatives, but they are nowhere near enough. In a judiciary that continues to display systemic problems, well-intentioned mentoring schemes are unlikely to go far enough.
Worryingly, a metric seems to have crept in that rarely appears in official Government documents in any other Department. For several years in a row, the annual judicial diversity statistics have qualified their admission that the number of BAME judges remained low by comparing the ratio of BAME judges with the ratio of people within a certain age bracket. We are told that
“BAME representation among tribunal judges was similar or higher than that of the general population at all age bands from 40 and over.”
That might seem reasonable at first reading, but it deserves further attention. Where else in Government documents are disparities justified by cherry-picking age groups for comparison? That is done to match proportions that are decades out of date. Our judiciary should not be representative of people over 50, or even 40; it should be representative of our nation as a whole at every stage. Everyone who passes through our justice system should feel that it genuinely represents them. Between 2014 and 2019, the proportion of BAME court judges increased by 2%, which takes us to 7% of court judges. The Government need to move faster.
In the Lammy review, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) stated:
“The government should set a clear, national target to achieve a representative judiciary and magistracy by 2025. It should then report to Parliament with progress against this target biennially.”
It was a bold aspiration with an ambitious deadline. It was an opportunity to facilitate a change, but the Government have missed the opportunity. Despite some positive noises, we have not seen any real changes, and that leads us to the inevitable conclusion that a wealth of talent in the BAME community is ignored.
The fact that more than half of those currently held within the youth estate are BAME shows that there is something fundamentally wrong with our criminal justice system. Although improving judicial diversity is not a panacea for the wide variety of self-inflicted ills that harm our justice system, it would certainly be a significant step. Our judges should be representative of our country and should be diverse in terms of gender, ethnicity and, crucially, socio-economic background. We should also provide more support for those who are not barristers moving into the judiciary. Solicitors continue to form a small minority of judges, closing the profession off from other highly talented practitioners.
The Law Society has suggested some practical steps to ensure representation of solicitor judges: for example, ensuring that solicitors’ experience is given the same due weight as barristers applying for the Bar; ensuring that solicitor judges are involved in the selection process; considering the development of judicial career paths; promoting cross-deployment of judges from tribunals to court; and providing access to shadowing and mentoring opportunities for existing judges. That could apply to women, to members of the BAME community and to those from poor financial backgrounds; children from working-class backgrounds are very under-represented in our system.
Far too often, the Government treat representation as a cosmetic issue that can be changed with minor tinkering. They fail to recognise that the disparities come from histories of inequality that require fundamental reform to remedy. Rather than simply analysing data retrospectively, the Ministry of Justice should set clear deadlines and put plans in place. The public have a right to a judiciary that represents them in all their diversity.
With that in mind, will the Government accept that their judicial appointments system is not sufficient and adopt the approach laid out by the Lammy review? Will the Minister clarify what moneys will be set aside to ensure that judicial diversity is a central objective, rather than just a buzzword? That is essential not only on a moral basis, but on a practical one. A judiciary that is not perceived as representative will have difficulty in maintaining its legitimacy in the long term, particularly for communities who do not see themselves reflected at the most senior level of our justice system. We can fix the problem. It will require funding, long-term commitment and clearer strategic planning, which the Government appear not to offer at the moment. The Government need to go beyond expressing sympathy and set proper deadlines. I hope that when the Minister responds, he will be able to give us some deadlines and suggestions for what they can achieve.
Finally, I want to emphasise that my observations about the representation of ethnic minorities, women and working-class people have no bearing on my belief that our judiciary is the best in the world. No one should ever attack its credibility. Our judges are the best in the world, and they decide things on law, not on politics. The press and Members in this House should appreciate that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma, in my first appearance as Minister in a Westminster Hall debate. I add my congratulations and thanks to those that other Members have offered to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), who secured this timely debate.
I will begin by directly addressing the hon. Gentleman’s question about the independence of the process we have adopted to appoint members of the judiciary. I and the Government as a whole fully support the position articulated by the Lord Chancellor, that judicial appointments should be wholly independent and separate from any interference by politicians of any kind, including any form of parliamentary oversight. Speakers in the debate, including, of course, the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), have powerfully and eloquently made the case for that approach. If judges are to act impartially as interpreters of the law that Parliament enacts, they cannot be subject to any form of political interference, including at the moment of their appointment. I join the Lord Chancellor and other Members who have spoken in stating clearly that the American system of Supreme Court confirmation hearings, and even elections for some judicial positions, would be wholly inappropriate in this country. It would undermine the principle of judicial impartiality that has prevailed in all four corners of the United Kingdom for so long. I hope that straight away I can give Members reassurance on the critical question in the debate.
The Lord Chancellor has been extremely clear in his comments, both those he made by the modern means of communication, Twitter, in the immediate aftermath of the various judgments that we have discussed, and those he made on the opening of the English and Welsh legal year last Tuesday. I attended that event in Westminster Hall, a few feet from where we are, and in his opening remarks the Lord Chancellor made it clear to the entire assembled judiciary that he would stand in defence of their independence and impartiality. That message was heard loud and clear. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East has acknowledged, a couple of hours ago in the main Chamber, in response to a question from the Chair of the Justice Committee, the Lord Chancellor reiterated his and the Government’s unequivocal support for the principle of judicial independence and the independence of the judicial appointments process.
That process was established and put on a statutory footing in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. As has been said, prior to that the Lord Chancellor exercised the power on advice from civil servants, but since the Act was passed the Judicial Appointments Commission has made recommendations, which the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice and Senior President of Tribunals approve. However, the Judicial Appointments Commission is essentially the body that makes the recommendations and whose voice is decisive. I join the Chair of the Justice Committee in thanking Lord Kakkar, the commission chairman, for his work and that of his fellow commissioners—both lay and lawyers.
On at least two occasions in recent years the work of the Judicial Appointments Commission has been examined. A House of Lords Committee scrutinised the process in 2012, and during the passage of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 a great deal of work was done, looking at the process by which the judiciary are appointed. Recommendations were made and they were enacted in the 2013 Act, which amended the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. They included transferring responsibility for the selection of deputy High Court judges to the JAC. JAC lay commissioners were also allowed greater involvement in more senior judicial appointments above the High Court, including chairmanship of the panel to select the Lord Chief Justice and the President of the Supreme Court. The latter is done in rotation with their counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) will be pleased to hear. The process under which the JAC currently operates is a good and effective one. It received significant scrutiny in 2012 and 2013 and I can confirm that the Government have no intention of altering the process.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), drew attention to the fact that England and Wales is an international jurisdiction of choice for many litigants whose cases do not directly relate to the United Kingdom. I know less about Scotland in that respect, and would be happy to hear about it. Such litigants choose to use our courts because of their reputation for impartiality, effectiveness and sound decision making. There could be no greater vote of confidence in our courts system than the fact that so many people from around the world choose it. I add my thanks to those that the hon. Lady expressed to all the judiciary, from the magistracy to the Supreme Court, for the work they do to uphold the rule of law and for being a beacon of impartiality and sound judgment around the world.
Some hon. Members raised the topic of the composition of the judiciary, including the retirement age. That is currently 70, but it was older in the past. The Chair of the Justice Committee drew attention to the fact that many capable members of the bench, at all levels, retire while still exercising their functions at a high level and with the benefit of many years’ experience. I saw that at my local Crown court in Croydon. The chairman of the bench there had retired at the age of 70 a year or so ago—in his prime, I would say. The Government and the Ministry of Justice have heard the message from several quarters this afternoon and have listened carefully. We are considering the comments carefully and I suspect that we will consult on the matter before too long.
Robert Neill
I welcome what the Minister says, which gives me the opportunity to pay a personal tribute to His Honour Judge Warwick McKinnon, an old professional and personal friend who retired as resident judge at Croydon. I am also glad that the Minister mentioned the magistracy. Constituents of mine who were fine, experienced bench chairs had to retire at 70 when they still had much to offer.
Chris Philp
I concur with both comments. I would also like to thank Judge McKinnon, who is a constituent of mine as well as a former chair of the bench. I agree that my comments on age apply as much to the magistracy as to the judiciary more generally—the court judges. As I said, I think my hon. Friend can look forward to a consultation on the topic before too long.
Several hon. Members raised the matter of the gender balance and ethnic composition of the bench, and I entirely understand why those points were raised. The proportion of newly appointed court judges from BME backgrounds is 11%, which compares to slightly over 15% of the population as a whole. Currently 7% of court judges and 11% of tribunal judges are, as the hon. Member for Bolton South East said, from BME backgrounds.
As for gender balance, as the hon. Lady said, 27% of High Court judges are female, and that figure rises to 32% across the courts more generally and 46% in tribunals. Also 56% of the magistracy are female and about 50% of court judges under 50 are female; that is an encouraging sign. Qualifying those remarks, I would say that we rightly expect more senior court judges to have decades of experience at the Bar, so appointments today reflect the Bar 30 or 40 years ago, when diversity was not what we would like, and there is a measure of unavoidable time lag. That does not mean that we should not take proactive and active steps—we should. We should encourage the JAC and work generally to improve diversity in the magistracy and the courts. The figures are moving in the right direction and improving, but I am sure we can do more. As a newly appointed Minister I will certainly consider what active steps can be taken in that area.
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this debate, to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East for securing it, and to other hon. Members for attending. Those include the now very famous hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West—
Chris Philp
Let me be generous and say famous! It gives me, the Lord Chancellor, and the Government as a whole great pleasure to reconfirm our commitment to independent, non-political appointments to the bench at all levels. That is the foundation on which the rule of law is built, and that should not change.
Stuart C. McDonald
This has been a worthwhile debate with cross-party strong and unequivocal support for the principle of judicial independence, and the idea that that must be at the centre of our judicial appointment processes. We have heard interesting points about diversity on the bench and retirement ages, and received a sympathetic response from the Minister. We will obviously scrutinise and debate these issues further in future. I therefore thank hon. Members for their excellent contributions, and the Minister for his response.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the procedure for appointing judges.
Tata Steelworks: Newport
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of Tata’s Cogent Power steelworks in Newport.
I am immensely grateful to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the dedicated workforce at Tata’s Cogent Power plant, the Orb works in Newport, representatives of which are in the Public Gallery. They are most welcome.
The need is urgent. This is a steelworks threatened with closure by Tata and it is due to close at the worst possible time, just before Christmas. It is unique, as it is the only steelworks in the UK making electrical steel.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Losing the Orb plant would be devastating for our economy in south Wales. It would also be a huge missed opportunity. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is still massive potential for the plant?
Jessica Morden
My hon. Friend represents a steel community, too, and I completely agree with his point, as I will make clear in my speech.
With the investment and support it needs—there is a plan, which I will come to later—the plant could and should have a bright future, especially at a time when, due to the growth of electric vehicles and electrification generally, demand for this type of steel is only going to grow. It would be a travesty if we were to lose the plant, and my ask of Ministers—I welcome the Wales Minister here today—is that the Government do all they can with Tata to protect this national asset.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I should declare that my father worked in the steelworks throughout his working life and is a British Steel pensioner. As we speak about the future of our automotive sector and moving to electric cars, does my hon. Friend agree that it is simply short-sighted to be losing Orb at this moment?
Jessica Morden
I absolutely agree, and I will make that point later.
Tata announced that it would be closing Cogent Orb steelworks on 2 September, with the loss of 380 jobs. This has come as devastating news for a dedicated, highly skilled workforce and their families, and for the city of Newport as a whole, where Orb has been part of the landscape since 1898. I pay tribute to Community, Unite and other unions for the support they have given and continue to give to the workforce, and for their general fight to save our steel industry.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very timely debate. I represent a steel community in Scunthorpe, and we know exactly what it is like as a steel community to have these things happen. We stand side by side with the steel community in Newport. Does she think that the work the Community union and others have done through the Syndex report gives a possible way forward for the plant?
Jessica Morden
My hon. Friend is indeed a doughty and fantastic champion of his steel community, and the thoughts of our steel community are very much with his community and the difficulties it has had recently. I will talk about the Syndex report, because it is very important.
The attendance of my hon. Friends from Wales and fellow members of the all-party parliamentary group on steel and metal related industries represents the importance of the steel industry to us all. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) said, many of us have a constituency interest but also a very personal interest. My parents met in the steel industry in Ebbw Vale, and my hon. Friends have close family who have worked in the industry, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan).
Fewer work places are more ingrained into the life of Newport than Orb. Our iconic transporter bridge was originally built to carry Orb workers over the River Usk. There are street names in Newport such as Dudley, Walsall, Bilston, and Handsworth, and even the Wolverhampton Wanderers-based colours chosen for Newport County AFC commemorate the west midlands migration to Gwent initiated by the Lysaghts family moving their sheet steel production to Newport at the end of the 19th century. Orb played an important role in Newport in both world wars and, from the late 1960s onwards, its activities moved towards cold rolled and electrical steels, a field that became the site’s speciality, as it remains today.
Losing Orb would mean losing the electrical steels skills base that has been built up since the era of Harold Wilson’s “white heat” of technology, and at a time when electrical steels will be more in demand that ever before. Tata’s decision to close Orb, citing losses and wider challenges in the sector, will hit many people in our communities extremely hard. They include recent recruits such as an electrician who joined the company two days before the announcement and is one of 70 new starters over the last two years, and a long-time worker who says, “Orb works has been a part of my family for nearly 60 years. Between my father and brothers we have over 100 years’ combined service. The Orb paid for everything when I was a child and is now supporting my three children.”
Another man’s family came from Tipton; his great-grandfather, grandfather and father all worked there, and their names are on the works’ cenotaph. Mickey, who started work as a 16-year-old messenger boy and ended up as section manager, said, “To allow over 100 years of electrical steelmaking skills simply to disappear is a crime against everyone who contributed to Orb’s history, and the knock-on effect on the Newport community’s economy will be devastating, as these jobs are of high value.”
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour from Newport East for giving way, and for her powerful speech. This is an issue of importance to people in Newport West, Newport East and across south Wales, and it is a pleasure to hear her speaking about it. The potential closure of Orb in Newport will mean that hundreds of jobs are put at risk, and our people and communities need certainty. I reassure my hon. Friend of my commitment to work with her to save jobs in Newport. Does she agree that we need a level playing field for UK steel producers by addressing the energy price disparity, preventing steel dumping and investing in research and development, so that the British steel sector can compete and thrive globally?
Jessica Morden
My hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right, and those are many of the asks for which the all-party steel group in Parliament has been calling for many years. It is something on which the Government need to take more action.
Mickey is absolutely right. Although it is important to emphasise Orb’s proud heritage, this debate is not about nostalgia, but about the future. It is about calling on Tata and the Government to ensure a future for a plant with enormous potential at a time when demand for the type of steel Orb could and should produce is set only to grow. Orb is important not just to our community, but to the whole of the UK, because the works is the only plant in the UK with the potential, with investment, to produce the electrical steel needed for electric vehicle motors. The Government, too, say it is important.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Since they first got into power in 2010, the Government have been banging on about how they would be the greenest Government in history. Is it not time that the Government put their money where their mouth is and invest in Orb to bring about the electrical steel that we need and to start reinvigorating the electrical vehicle industry in this country?
Jessica Morden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government have said the electric vehicle industry is important to them, and they say it is a priority. In his first speech to the Commons after moving into No. 10, the Prime Minister spoke about his vision for the UK as the “home of electric vehicles,” something he also touched on regularly during his leadership campaign. In a recent response to a question I asked, the Prime Minister also stated his commitment to use UK steel in the supply chain for electric vehicles, but we need electrical steel to create an end-to-end supply chain for those vehicles. If the Prime Minister is serious about the UK being the home of electric vehicles, we must, as Community’s Roy Rickhuss has said, consider the Orb a national asset and step in to protect it.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a really powerful speech. What she said about looking at history and the future is so important, and the dedicated workforce and plant have been so successful because they have encouraged innovation over the years. They have been strategic and looked forward. That is what the Government now need to help the plant do with electrical steel.
Jessica Morden
My hon. Friend is exactly right, and we need that investment to do it.
Attention has been given to electric car battery production —the Prime Minister mentioned the gigafactories needed to produce high volumes of battery products in his conference speech—but electric motors are an equally important part of the supply chain. They are built from the high-quality, non-oriented electrical steels that could be produced at Orb, and the demand for this type of steel is expected to increase tenfold by 2030.
The number of electric cars on our roads will grow and grow over the next decade. The UK Government are providing millions of pounds to support the roll-out of charging infrastructure, and it is imperative that we use UK steel in all this. The Government have awarded Jaguar Land Rover, which is owned by Tata, a £500 million loan guarantee to help the company sell electric vehicles. In this context, with the Government’s stated support for the electric vehicle industry, I ask what the Government can do for all. Electric cars need electric motors. Why should we have to import them? We have a site here in the UK that, with support, could be part of the supply chain.
We need UK steel every step of the way, and electrical steel is part of that. As members of the all-party group and the unions have long said, the industry can be a key part of building the infrastructure we need to green our economy in the future.
At Labour’s conference, we pledged to accelerate the electric vehicle revolution with 2.5 million interest-free loans for the purchase of electric vehicles, a new requirement for the Government car fleet to be 100% electric by 2025, and action on a private fleet. Labour is determined to ensure that the right conditions are in place for this revolution, and the Government should be, too. If the Orb works is not kept open, the potential to build a supply chain will be squandered. It is not an overstatement to say that the UK could lose its capacity to be a global leader in electric car manufacturing.
Developing a supply chain for electric vehicles will be hugely important for the national balance of trade. Across the UK, 10,000 workers are making internal combustion engines, and Community has emphasised that a failure to develop the supply chain will result in a loss in the export value of those engines. It will be replaced by the import cost of electric motors, which equates to £1.2 billion for every 1 million electric cars. That is why Community has called Orb a
“strategically important business underpinning this vital industry of the future.”
Tata has publicly confirmed that, with investment, the Orb works can produce the steels required for the future production of electric vehicles. Community’s steel consultant, Syndex, has researched and concluded that with a new strategy and some public support, there could be a sustainable future for the business. So what is the plan? The new strategy for Orb would mean transitioning to a new model and producing non-oriented steels, in addition to grain-oriented steels, based on a new Wales-only supply chain and using coil from Port Talbot. To fund the necessary capex, the profits from the sale of Cogent Power Inc—another part of the business, which is wholly owned by the Orb—would be reinvested into the business, along with the money set aside to finance a closure.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. The Government often criticise us for critiquing their failure to support the steel industry without proposing a constructive plan, but she has just outlined an absolutely compelling and viable plan. One of the vital parts of it is that we would be relocating the supply chain for hot rolled coil from IJmuiden to Port Talbot. Surely if the Government are talking about backing British business, they should back the Syndex plan.
Jessica Morden
My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is a very important and well-thought-out plan, and I hope Ministers are listening to it. The 2018 memorandum of understanding agreed with Tata in advance of the failed joint venture contained a commitment to reinvest the proceeds of the sale of any UK-owned assets back into the UK. Tata should honour the spirit of that agreement. That would leave a shortfall of just £30 million, and we could look to central and devolved Government to contribute to the new strategy. Given the role that Orb can play as a strategic business of the future, enabling the Government to deliver on their climate commitments, there is a compelling case for Government support.
The strategy advocated by Syndex includes three key aspects: a new annealing line at Orb, investment in automation to make Orb’s grain-oriented products more competitive, and relocation of the hot rolled coil supply chain from IJmuiden to Port Talbot.
I want to put forward a series of asks to the Government. First, will the Minister ask the Secretary of State to call a UK steel council urgently, with Orb at the top of the agenda? We have not had one since June 2018, and the need is urgent. Will Ministers commit to meet urgently with trade unions and local politicians to look at what can be done to support Orb and its workers at this time? Community has requested meetings with the Welsh and UK Governments to present the Syndex plan directly to them. Will the Minister and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy agree to meet it?
The Prime Minister committed last month to ensure that UK steel forms part of the supply chain for electric vehicles. Will Ministers ensure that that actually happens? While I am on that subject, we now more than ever need a sector deal for steel—something we have been asking for for a long time.
This Saturday, hon. Members will be joining Community, Unite and other unions in a march through Newport to save Orb steel. We are fighting for it, and I hope everyone will join us. Orb is a site that could be underpinning a dynamic UK automotive industry, and could be at the cutting edge of new steel technologies. Newport, Wales and the UK would be worse off if the Government fail to work with Tata to grasp its enormous potential before it is too late. If the Government are serious about an industrial strategy, will they back up their words with proactive action?
I am calling on the Government to prioritise our industrial policy and to support our steel industry, including electrical steels, and building an electric vehicle industry. The Prime Minister says he wants to do that. I say yes, and so do the Welsh Government. Who else needs to say yes to save the Orb plant? I ask Tata to say yes too. Together, let us save Orb and build a new electrical steel economy in the UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) on securing this debate, which has given us the opportunity to come together to discuss a topic that is important not just for Newport but for the whole of Wales. She has always been, and was today, an energetic and passionate advocate for her constituents and those affected by the potential closure of Tata’s Cogent Orb plant.
It is clear that there is a shared understanding of the important role the steel sector plays in communities and its critical place as a foundation industry in the national economy, especially in Wales. That is evidenced by the number of Members attending this debate. I have heard their comments and the request to meet the unions. I understand that the Secretary of State for Wales has already been in contact with them, and I am more than happy to facilitate meetings. I will pass on the request for a meeting of the steel council. That is something we are always happy to do, and certainly if hon. Members request it. Those who have dealt with me previously know that I am only too happy to meet Members, particularly if it relates to matters in their constituencies that are this important. I would be happy to facilitate that.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Is the Minister saying that he will go back to his colleagues and recommend that the UK steel council meets, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) has requested?
Kevin Foster
I will pass on the strong demand that the hon. Member for Newport East has made for the council to meet. In terms of what I can offer, and the direct request for meetings with Ministers about the Orb plant, I am more than happy to arrange to do that. That was the second part of her request.
Although there are considerable challenges, we believe there remain great opportunities for the industry to secure a successful, sustainable future at the centre of British manufacturing. The announcement on 2 September 2019 that Tata is to close its Orb Electrical Steels plant in Newport has understandably been a huge blow for employees, their families, contractors, suppliers and customers. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her commitment to working with Government and other stakeholders, including the Community union, to help secure the future of the business, both in her role as MP for Newport East and as an officer for the all-party parliamentary group on steel and metal-related industries, many of whose members are in the Chamber.
The Government have worked with Tata to seek possible solutions to the financial challenges facing the company. We have also met with the unions to discuss the concerns of the workers and their families. This was a commercial decision by Tata Steel Europe. The Orb Electrical Steels plant has been on sale for two years, but sadly Tata was unable to find a buyer. We are open to considering plans that would deliver a long-term, sustainable future, based on a clear business plan, but as I am sure hon. Members realise, that cannot just be based on an ongoing subsidy or on merely hoping that business will come forward. We have sought and had reassurance from Tata that every effort will be made to mitigate the impact on affected employees. It is offering alternative employment opportunities where possible at other Tata Steel sites. The UK Government are committed to working with Tata to avoid job losses as a result of any closure of the Orb steel plant, as Tata is one of the most important employers in Wales. We will keep all options open to support a sustainable future for that plant and for Tata elsewhere in Wales.
Nick Smith
The Minister says that the Government have met Tata, but what has he been able to offer it to help keep Orb open and keep steel going in south Wales? Can he be clear about what the Government are willing to put on the table?
Kevin Foster
The Government are clear that if a sustainable, long-term business plan can be produced, we will consider support packages, but the key part is that it must be sustainable for the long term, and it must be based on a clear business plan.
Nic Dakin
We have heard today about the Syndex report, which places a way forward on the table. Will the Government meet the unions, Syndex and Tata to see how that could be turned into the sort of plan that would deliver not only for this workforce and industry, but for UK plc?
Kevin Foster
We are more than happy to meet. Obviously we cannot guarantee that a third party would wish to be involved in those meetings, but certainly from the perspective of the Government and the Wales Office, we would be more than happy to arrange a meeting with the unions and Syndex to see how their plan could be taken further. The key part has to be whether it can provide a long-term sustainable future, and we note that the plant has been for sale for two years with no purchaser having come forward. Certainly, UK Government Ministers are more than happy to meet interested parties to discuss what we could do.
In the context of the wider steel industry, the Government have made up to £800 million of funding available to support decarbonisation and innovation in the industry. We remain committed to supporting the Welsh steel sector in accessing this funding and ensuring that it is able to compete with the best in the world. Recent and ongoing work to support the steel sector includes establishing the £250 million clean steel fund, which was announced in August and will support the sector’s transition to lower-carbon iron and steel production through new technologies and processes. It will also maximise longevity and resilience in the UK steel sector by building on longstanding expertise and skills and harnessing clean growth opportunities.
Our industrial energy transformation fund is a £315 million fund supporting short-term projects in both energy efficiency and decarbonisation for businesses with high energy use. The fund will help businesses with high energy use, including steel companies, to cut their bills and transition UK industry to a low carbon future.
The industrial decarbonisation challenge is a £170 million fund aimed at the UK’s industrial carbon emissions clusters. South Wales has been identified as one of six clusters in the UK that will benefit from that fund, which supports our grand challenge mission to develop a net zero emissions cluster by 2040 through the development of innovative low- carbon solutions. It will provide long-term support to the industry, ensuring Britain’s long term sustainable future.
Ruth Jones
The Minister is making some laudable points about laudable plans for the future of the steel industry, but does he not agree that closing the only electrical steel plant in the UK makes absolutely no sense in terms of future planning? That is not joined-up thinking at all.
Kevin Foster
This is a commercial decision by the company and the plant has been for sale for two years, but as I have already said, we are more than happy to meet stakeholders to see if the Government can provide some support. That support would have to be based on a sustainable long-term business plan for the future.
We are also providing up to £66 million through the industrial strategy challenge fund to help steel and other foundation industries develop radical new technologies and establish innovation centres of excellence in those sectors. This challenge will create a pilot facility to demonstrate new technologies, and develop a cross-sectoral approach for research, innovation and skills. To date, the UK Government have provided more than £312 million in compensation to the steel sector since 2013 to make energy costs more competitive, including over £53 million during 2018.
Stephen Kinnock
The Minister talks about this being a commercial decision, but it is absolutely clear that the underlying conditions for the British steel industry are completely undermined by the energy price disparity. Is he aware of the fact that it costs £50 per MWh in the UK, compared with £31 per MWh in Germany, a disparity of 62%? The disparity with French energy costs is 80%. The Minister cannot claim that this is a purely commercial decision; it is a commercial decision based on the utter failure of the British Government to deal with this energy price disparity.
Kevin Foster
As has been mentioned, to make energy costs more competitive, we have made £312 million in compensation available to the steel sector since 2013, including £53 million in 2018 alone.
We have commissioned independent research to identify high-value market opportunities for UK steel producers that will be worth up to £3.8 billion a year by 2030. The UK is a supplier of steel for a range of high-value applications and is a strategic part of the supply chain for the automotive, aerospace, construction, defence and oil and gas sectors. We are successfully working with the steel industry to introduce steel procurement guidance that will ensure that Government and the wider public sector take into account social and environmental benefits when procuring and designing their major projects.
Kevin Foster
I have to conclude, as I am starting to get close to time.
We have also signed up to the UK steel charter, acknowledging and supporting that initiative from industry. We continue to press for the introduction of trade defence instruments to protect UK steel producers from unfair steel dumping. Tata has confirmed the closures are not linked to Brexit; instead competition from much larger players in China and Japan is understood to be the key reason.
Kevin Brennan
On a point of order, Mr Hanson, this kind of debate is supposed to be a conversation between the Minister and the Member who secured it. There are five minutes left in the debate; surely it would be appropriate for the Minister to give way to the person who secured the debate.
David Hanson (in the Chair)
As you well know, Mr Brennan, it is for the Minister to decide whether he wishes to give way. Clearly at the moment he does not wish to do so.
Kevin Foster
Thank you, Mr Hanson. I will take another intervention as I come nearer to the end of my speech, but I have not been ungenerous in taking interventions from Opposition Members so far.
The UK Government are stepping up their efforts to ensure businesses are ready to leave the EU on 31 October via their national communication and engagement campaign. We are also urgently identifying and delivering actions to support businesses in improving readiness. The Government will take economic measures to mitigate any short-run disruption, to support the economy through the transition and to boost the long-term potential of the UK economy, taking advantage of the opportunities outside the EU. As I said, the Government are prepared to look at and discuss any plans that present a long-term, sustainable option for the plant.
Jessica Morden
I appreciate the Minister responding today, but members of the all-party parliamentary group on steel have not yet had a real opportunity in a debate to question the new steel Minister. I ask the Minister to convey to the new steel Minister the urgency of the situation, because if we lose Orb, we lose the opportunity of an end-to-end supply chain for electric vehicles before Christmas.
Kevin Foster
I will certainly convey the hon. Lady’s message to the steel Minister. I have to say, looking at the many Opposition Members here and given my knowledge of their determination to stand up for the communities they represent, that I have a feeling that the steel Minister will get a number of opportunities in the very near future to discuss steel on the Floor of the House, if not in a debate in this Chamber. Certainly as a Minister, I would be badly mistaken to think I can ignore some of the people on the Opposition Benches.
However, it is worth reflecting on the fact that there are currently 46 trade defence measures in place to protect UK steel products from unfair steel dumping. As we operate an independent trade policy, the UK will continue to champion free trade and take a proportionate approach to trade remedies, with a view to continuing the defence of our industry where necessary. The steel industry is an important industry in Wales, as reflected by today’s turnout among Members representing Welsh constituencies. The UK Government are committed to supporting companies, such as Tata, that have contributed to the local economy in Wales for decades, and we will continue to work with the sector, the unions and the devolved Administration to support the UK’s steel sector in developing a long-term, viable solution for that industry.
In closing, I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to today’s debate, and the hon. Member for Newport East for having secured it. I know that she will continue to be a strong advocate for those she represents and will ensure that the Government hear loud and clear their views and what she believes the options to be. I would certainly be more than happy to have a longer discussion with her about some of the proposals that are being put forward; I look forward to the opportunity to do so. However, as I say, those proposals must be based on providing a long-term, sustainable future for the plant, not just subsidy with a hope of something coming along.
Question put and agreed to.
Prison Officers: Pension Age
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the pension age of prison officers.
Police offers, firefighters and prison officers are all classified as emergency workers. They all do an extremely important job, and their work is physically demanding and often involves an element of risk and danger. Because of that, police officers and firefighters, quite rightly, are allowed to retire at 60 years of age. However, prison officers, who work in an equally stressful operational environment, have been told that they must wait until they are 68. That is not right. In fact, it is patently unfair and deeply resented by the hard-working prison officers in the three prisons in my constituency. I am not surprised by that, because the prospect of having to work until almost 70 years of age adds to the stress of what is already a stressful job.
From the point of view of health and safety at work, there is a clear argument for reducing the retirement age of prison officers, but I believe there is another equally good reason to bring their pensions into line with those of their colleagues in the police and fire and rescue services. Last week, at the Conservative party conference, the Home Secretary made an excellent speech in which she made it clear that Government would crack down on serious crime. That commitment resonates with the public, particularly those who have been victims of such crime, because they want tough action. However, inevitably, such a crackdown will lead to more criminals being sent to prison.
Also last week, the Justice Secretary made a speech in which he made clear his determination to ensure that those who have been convicted of serious crimes will have to serve two thirds of their sentence, rather than the half that they currently serve. Although both initiatives are highly commendable, they will put pressure on already-stretched prison places. That is likely to mean that more prisons will have to be built. If that happens, I have a couple of suggestions. First, finding a suitable location for a new prison is always difficult, because few communities like the idea of having a prison in their backyard. Those of us who live on the beautiful Isle of Sheppey understand the benefits of having a prison, and particularly the work involved. As I mentioned, we have three prisons and plenty of room for more, so we will have another prison if the Government want to build one on the island, subject to improvements to the road that leads to them.
My second suggestion is offered more in hope than with any great expectation that it will be taken up. The Government should abandon their support for private prisons and ensure that any new prisons be run by the public sector. Do not get me wrong—I am a free-market Tory who believes that there is a place for the private sector in the prison service, for instance in catering, education, training and rehabilitation.
I have a couple of examples of the positive involvement of the private sector in the latter of those fields. A private construction company has set up a workshop in HMP Elmley, in my constituency, to train inmates how to install drywalls in buildings. The company guarantees that everyone who completes the course will be offered an interview when they leave prison. Obviously, that does not automatically mean a job, but an interview is the first step. I visited the workshop as part of the Prison Service parliamentary scheme, of which I am a member. I was impressed by the positive attitude of the inmates who were being trained. One of them told me that the training had turned his life around. Also in my constituency is HMP Standford Hill, an open prison where more than 250 inmates are allowed out every day, to do either voluntary work in the community with charities or paid work in one of the local companies that have agreed to employ them.
Those are just two ways in which the private and third sectors can help to rehabilitate prisoners. There are many other examples, but I do not have time to mention them all. Despite those excellent examples of involvement by the private sector, the supervision and care of prisoners should be the sole responsibility of the public sector, for two reasons.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I also have a prison in my constituency, since Deerbolt was upgraded from a young offenders institution to a prison. I agree that a lot of positive work goes on in prisons, but is he not concerned by the increase in violent attacks against prison officers in recent years? Does he not agree that that is another reason why 68 is too late?
Gordon Henderson
The hon. Lady must have been listening to Justice questions this morning, when I said exactly that. Since she has a prison in her constituency, I urge her to join the Prison Service parliamentary scheme. If she will bear with me, I will come to the issue of violence in prisons later.
My first reason is that the state has a duty to protect the public. That is why it is the state that prosecutes those suspected of committing a crime, and the state—only the state—that locks up those who are found guilty. That being the case, I do not believe that the state can subcontract the incarceration of those prisoners to the private sector. That leads me to my second reason—
Gordon Henderson
I will just give my second reason, which is that allowing private companies to make a profit out of the incarceration of human beings is simply immoral.
David Hanson (in the Chair)
Before the hon. Lady’s intervention, I remind hon. Members that the debate is tightly focused on the pension age of prison officers, and I hope that interventions and contributions will focus just on that.
Jo Stevens
Thank you, Mr Hanson; I will do a quick swerve. On the point about private prisons and the influence of private companies, does the hon. Gentleman agree that privatising probation—the state’s care for people on probation—was the wrong thing to do?
Gordon Henderson
No, I do not. They are two entirely different issues. When people are on probation, they have either completed their sentence or they have not yet—[Interruption.] We will have to disagree on that.
If new prisons are built, the Government will have to recruit many more prison officers to staff them. In my area, it has often proven difficult to recruit enough prison officers. I am sure that that applies to many other areas, particularly in south-east England. There are a number of reasons for that difficulty, including the relatively poor salary offered to prison officers, their working conditions, their retirement age and the rising level of violence in our prisons.
The average salary of a prison officer is £23,530 per annum. The problem in my constituency is that people can earn more than that working in one or other of the two supermarket regional warehouses that operate there. There are also plenty of other well-paid jobs in the pipeline locally, and people can commute to London. Those available jobs are more attractive because they provide better working conditions than those of a prison officer.
What are those working conditions? For a start, prison staff are almost as much prisoners as the inmates they look after. Day and night, they work inside buildings surrounded by fences and high-security walls. In addition, prison officers spend their days dealing with inmates who do not want to be where they are. Unsurprisingly, that can make them unco-operative, aggressive and sometimes violent. To add to the problem, an increasing number of inmates have mental health problems.
All in all, that does not make for a happy work environment, and the situation in prisons is getting worse, with ever increasing violence. On average, 30 members of prison staff are assaulted every day. Last year, 1,000 of those assaults were classified by the Government as serious. I know what serious means, because I have seen at first hand the results of some of those assaults, including broken bones, dreadful facial injuries and fingers that have been bitten off.
To try to cut out those assaults, the Prison Officers Association has called repeatedly for frontline prison officers to be equipped with PAVA spray and rigid police-style handcuffs to protect themselves. Last year, the Prison Service ran a pilot in which PAVA spray was issued to staff in four prisons. That pilot was successful, and the Government promised to roll out PAVA across the prison estate. However, that promise has not yet been delivered; indeed, the roll-out has come to a juddering halt. I suspect the reason for that is complaints from the usual suspects, including the Prison Reform Trust, which claimed that prison officers would use PAVA indiscriminately and that its use would breach the human rights of prisoners.
The first of those claims is a shocking slur on the integrity of hard-working professional prison officers, and the second is simply utter rubbish. If the use of PAVA spray breaches a criminal’s human rights, why do police officers carry PAVA as part of their standard equipment? If it is okay for police to carry PAVA, why is it not for prison officers? Section 8 of the Prison Act 1952 states that prison officers
“shall have…the powers, authority, protection and privileges”
of police constables. PAVA offers protection for police and prison officers alike.
That leads me nicely to my last point. What reward do prison officers get for being treated like second-class emergency workers? What reward do they get for dedicating their working lives to the Prison Service in return for a pitiful salary, for working without complaint in a sometimes hostile and dangerous environment, and for risking life and limb on a daily basis? To be made to work eight years longer than their counterparts in the police and fire service, that’s what.
Finally, let me return to the Home Secretary’s speech last week. She said:
“And as well as giving the police the kit and powers they need, we must do more to recognise their commitment, their bravery, and their professionalism.
I have been humbled by the officers I have met and the experiences they have shared with me. This is why I have personally accelerated work to establish the Police Covenant.
This is a pledge to do more as a nation to help those who serve our country.
To recognise the bravery, the commitment and the sacrifices of serving and former officers.
And we will enshrine this into law.
We will also ensure that anyone who assaults a police officer receives a sentence that truly fits the crime, to make the thugs who would attack an officer, think twice.”
Prison officers are equally committed, equally brave and equally professional—they, too, serve our country and make sacrifices to protect the public—so I would like to make my own pledge to the prison officers who work in HMP Swaleside, HMP Elmley and HMP Standford Hill, and their colleagues in prisons across the country, that I will continue to represent them to the best of my ability. I will press the Government to introduce a Prison Service covenant, and I will press for prison staff to receive the same protection from assaults as the police. I want to ensure that those who attack prison staff are given stiff sentences, not a simple slap on the wrist, as has happened so often in the past.
In addition, I assure prison officers that I will support their campaign against prison privatisation, I will support their campaign for better conditions of work, including pay, and I will support their campaign for action to reduce violence in our prisons and for officers to be issued with the equipment they need to protect themselves from attack. Finally, I want them to know that I understand it is wrong that they have been forced into a position where retirement is becoming ever more out of reach and, for some people, potentially unachievable.
As I mentioned, the law is clear that prison officers are entitled to the same powers, authority, protection and privileges as the police. It is time to deliver on the 1952 Act and treat prison officers the same as police officers. As the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) said, and as I said this morning, 68 is too late, which is why I also support the POA campaign for a lower pension age. I urge the Minister to listen to the concerns of our fantastic prison officers and let them retire at 60.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a member of the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group, which includes the Prison Officers Association.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on securing this important debate. Unusually, given the nature of the debate, I agreed with 95% of what he said, and I was very impressed by the way he delivered it. I did a bit of research and noticed some interesting comments by him on KentOnline about being willing to go to prison for Brexit so, come November, he could bring a unique perspective to debates on this subject. I hope it does not come to that.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s strapline: 68 is too late. We should not expect a prison officer approaching 70 to deal with violent and dangerous criminals in their 20s, 30s and 40s. He mentioned some of the challenges prison officers face. Of course, another challenge is the availability of drugs in prisons and their effect.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Ind)
As my hon. Friend knows, Holme House Prison near my constituency has recently seen a rise in the abuse of Spice. That has caused dangers in itself, but it has also led the local mental health trust to withdraw services from the prison. Does he agree that that shows how dangerous the situation is for prison officers these days?
Grahame Morris
I completely agree. The conditions in many of our prisons are explosive. Holme House Prison is quite close to my constituency too, and I have visited it on a number of occasions. It is not just prison officers who are subjected to assaults; support staff are, too, and they need to be protected.
The debate is really serious. It is about life and death. Assaults against prison officers have almost quadrupled since 2010. As we heard this morning at Justice questions, there are more than 10,000 assaults a year, 1,000 of which are very serious. That works out at more than 28 a day on average—the same as the number of assaults experienced by the whole of our police service, which is a much bigger force. I am not justifying assaults on any emergency workers, but that is the scale of the problem.
I read through some newspaper headlines, which are really quite disturbing. I will mention a selection of them. One paper reported that a court was told how an inmate used a
“sock filled with pool balls to smash windows”
and injure prison officers. Another reported that a prison officer was stabbed in the head by an inmate in a “savage UK jail attack”. One story read:
“Teenage thugs injure 20 prison officers in riot at young offenders’ institute…One officer suffered a broken nose and another was concussed after being repeatedly punched.”
Other headlines included “Prison officer seriously hurt after being ambushed in cell” and “Prison officer has ‘throat cut’ by inmate at HMP Nottingham”. Conditions are difficult for new prison officers in our violent and dangerous prisons.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Prison officers need to be fit enough to protect not just themselves but prisoners from violence. Someone elderly, who does not have the same reflexes or strength as a younger person, cannot protect themselves or the people they are there to guard.
Grahame Morris
I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s analysis. We heard the Minister talking this morning about the recruitment of an additional 4,500 prison officers, but from the information provided by the POA it seems that substantial numbers of newly trained prison officers—at least 72 trainee prison officers—are leaving the service each month. That must be due, at least in part, to the terrible conditions they face. Again, that is placing great strain on older officers who are expected to take up the slack.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, as did the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson). Is it not the case that beyond a certain point some jobs are difficult to do? In the past, that could have included construction workers, working on cold, tough building sites in the dead of winter. This is another example of people reaching a point in life when it is no longer tenable for them to be expected to carry out these duties.
Grahame Morris
It is no longer tenable, Mr Hanson. We have reached tipping point, if I might quote a couple of quiz shows. The fact that prison officers are expected to work until the age of 68 disregards basic health and safety; in the opinion of many, it is a complete failure by the Ministry of Justice in its duty of care, under legislation, to prison officers.
I and many Members of the House believe that our uniformed emergency services deserve pension protection. Police officers and firefighters are able to retire at 60,
“to reflect the unique nature of their work”,
to quote Lord Hutton. A prison officer’s unique nature of work has been recognised as being the same as that of a police officer. Section 8 of the Prison Act 1952 gives prison officers
“all the powers, authority, protection and privileges”
of police officers. So the Hutton pension test—
“to reflect the unique nature of their work”—
applies equally to prison officers, police officers and firefighters. Sixty-eight is too late. How many Members of this House would be able to serve on prison landings at 68? There are few who would be able to serve for a week, or even a day, in such violent and dangerous prisons.
Jo Stevens
My hon. Friend is being generous with his time. He has talked about staff morale being at rock bottom, the soaring violence and the cuts to prison officer numbers. Does he agree that the prospect of having to work as a prison officer until the age of 68 is fuelling the record number of resignations from the Prison Service? We are in a cycle that we cannot get out of unless the pension age is changed and lowered.
Grahame Morris
I agree with my hon. Friend. There are many pressures and causes, but the pension age is a significant one. There are a number of remedies that need to be applied, as outlined by the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey.
If it is not presumptuous, I wonder whether the Minister might consider inviting the right hon. Lord Hutton of Furness, who I understand is aged 64, to work in a prison and be part of a team being confronted by inmates with socks filled with pool balls, with razor blades and improvised knives, or surrounded by a group of youths, many of whom seem to have access to Spice and illegal substances, who are only too willing to attack prison officers. Setting prison officers’ pension age at 68 must have been an oversight. If the Government seriously and knowingly took that decision, it is a cruel and callous one, and risks the lives of prison officers working in physically demanding and often violent workplaces.
I urge the Minister to take two actions. First, to acknowledge that 68 is too late to expect a prison officer to work in an unsafe workplace. Secondly, to commit to bringing forward in the next Parliament—next week—the legislation and regulations required to align the pension age of prison officers with their colleagues in other uniformed emergency services.
Prison officers have heard the excuses in parliamentary responses; we heard some of them this morning in Justice questions. The offer that the Government previously made, to reduce the retirement age to 65, is simply a bad deal. Prison officers want pension age parity with their uniformed colleagues. The previous offer was attached to a derisory three-year pay deal and excluded many uniformed staff, who would still have to continue to work until they were 68.
I ask the Minister and everyone listening to the debate to watch the latest videos published by the POA and look at the horrific injuries suffered by prison officers. We should feel ashamed that they are doing a public service, protecting the public, while Parliament stands idle, forcing them to work in terrible conditions that are neither healthy nor safe. We should feel ashamed that we outsource our prison service and system, and that the safety and security of prison officers is left in the hands of companies such as Serco and G4S, whose first and foremost interest is shareholders and profits. We should feel ashamed that we want to put prison officers approaching the age of 70 into such terrible and dangerous situations.
Our prisons are unsafe and understaffed. Prison officers are unappreciated and underpaid. The Minister should set out a comprehensive package to recruit and retain prison officers through improved pay, pensions and conditions. I ask the Minister to do more than give empty platitudes and hollow promises to prison officers. Please accept that 68 is too late and lower prison officers’ pension age to 60. No ifs, no buts; stand up today, make the promise and bring forward the necessary legislation next week—and I guarantee the Minister will get my vote for that legislation.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) for securing this important debate.
Prison officers are another group in a long line of people in the UK that this Government have let down. They deal with some of the most threatening and disruptive people in society, and their retirement age should recognise this. On average, eight prison staff are assaulted every day. The severity of the attacks and the nature of the injuries result in long periods of sick absence, which can only increase with the link to normal pension age and state pension age.
This policy is another blow to the morale of frontline prison staff, which we have already heard is at an all-time low because of the numerous changes being imposed by Government on the working conditions in prisons. The perpetual call for efficiency savings and cuts demanded by Government is creating a thoroughly demoralised and underfunded essential service. I should point out, Mr Hanson, that prisons in Scotland are administered by the Scottish Government but pensions are reserved to Westminster. So, Scottish prisons and English prisons are administered differently.
In recent years budget cuts have seen the Prison Service impose an almost total recruitment freeze, alongside pay freezes, leading to a return to a long-hours culture as prison staff are forced to work excessive hours, leading to staff becoming burnt out. The UK Government have still not provided any evidence that frontline prison staff can work in an operational role above the age of 65. When will we see that, if the Minister does not accede to the requests of everyone in the Chamber regarding the pension age of prison officers?
Have the UK Government conducted an impact assessment on raising the retirement age for prison officers above 65? The savings that the Government expect to make from increasing the pension age of frontline uniformed staff will be negated through an increase in payments for temporary injury benefit awards, medical inefficiency payments and medical retirements, along with permanent injury benefits.
Is the Minister’s Government confident that people over the age of 55 would pass the stringent fitness test for a frontline member of the Prison Service? They have to do annual tests. The Ministry of Justice, in its submission to the Cabinet Office on the proposed changes to the pensions, also believed that it was not acceptable for frontline prison staff to retire at the standard pension age.
In April this year, I invited the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir David Lidington), to accompany me and my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) to Her Majesty’s Prison Shotts, which is a maximum security prison that holds the most dangerous prisoners in Scotland, to see how well the right hon. Gentleman, who at that point was aged 62, could manage to do the job there. Unfortunately, he declined my invitation, but I am happy to extend it to all Ministers and the Minister for the Cabinet Office, because until people see the work that these people do on the ground, it is impossible for them to imagine what a day in a prison, working as a prison officer, can be like.
One requirement for prison officers is the ability to complete mandatory annual control and restraint training. Under the UK Government’s policy, that would require a 65-year-old—previously a 68-year-old—to physically restrain, potentially on their own, a violent person at the peak of their fitness. I must say that I saw prisoners in Shotts Prison who spent day in, day out in the prison gym, and they were terrifying. If those young, often fit men—they are all men in Shotts Prison—decided to turn on a prison officer, the officer would have no chance. The whole visit was quite scary, to be fair. Clearly, according to the UK Government’s policy, the Minister firmly believes that prison officers aged 65 fulfil their role properly and safely. So, again, I say to her: “Come and visit Shotts, and tell me what you think afterwards.”
The UK Government’s policy on prison officer pensions reflects its policy on pensions in general. It is not just prison officers who cannot be expected to work until 68, but millions of workers across Scotland and the rest of the UK. People are being expected to work until they drop. It is easy for members of the Cabinet and the wealthy to retire whenever they like, since they own their home and have plenty in savings and a massive pension pot, but most people in my Motherwell and Whishaw constituency work hard all their days, sometimes on low wages, to receive a pension that is one of the lowest in western Europe. The UK Government are allowing that. Working people deserve to earn a decent wage and expect a fair pension at a reasonable age.
Under section 8 of the Prison Act 1952, as has already been mentioned, prison officers,
“while acting as such shall have all the powers, authority, protection and privileges of a constable.”
If police officers retire at 60, it is only right that the men and women who work on the frontline of the Prison Service are afforded the same right by the public and Government that they protect.
The SNP commends the bravery, commitment and dedication shown by prison officers who face challenging, dangerous and physically demanding working conditions on a daily basis. We believe that the Prison Service must be treated as a uniformed service alongside the police service, fire service and armed forces. We call on the Government to lower the retirement age for prison officers in line with other frontline officers.
In December 2016, the UK Government presented a proposal to reduce the retirement age from 68 to 65 for some prison officer grades in England and Wales. That proposal was not extended to Scottish prison officers. So, if this Government see sense and propose to reduce the prison officer retirement age, the proposal must be made for all countries in the UK. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. In the brief time I have, I will start by thanking the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) for securing such an important debate. I think the whole House can agree that he made a powerful speech, much of which hon. Members across the House will agree with. I have to say that I disagree with him on the points he made about the privatisation of probation, but that is a debate for another day; I will park that for today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) also made a powerful speech. In particular, he gave accounts of some horrific assaults and attacks against our hard-working prison officers. Many other hon. Members contributed through interventions. The theme of much of the debate was that 68 is too late, and I will come to that shortly.
I thank our prison officers for the hard work that they do, often unseen and behind the scenes, to keep us safe. The job that they do on a daily basis is one of the most difficult, and in one of the most dangerous settings imaginable. Yet rather than treating them with the respect and dignity they deserve, for almost a decade this Government have treated them with anything but. Instead of overseeing a highly motivated and trained workforce on the frontline of reforming offenders, the Government have overseen years of declining morale, declining working conditions and declining numbers among our prison officer workforce. The raising of a prison officer’s retirement age is one part of that. It is an important one, but it is not the whole picture.
Last week, in a debate secured by the Select Committee on Justice, we heard how the Ministry of Justice budget has been savaged in the name of the Government’s ideological austerity agenda. Thousands of prison officers and tens of thousands of years of irreplaceable experience have been lost as a result. Between 2010 and 2015, close to 7,000 frontline prison officers were lost. Despite a recruitment drive once the Government realised the terrible damage they were causing to the prison system, we are still well short of 2010 numbers.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
It is very interesting that the Government have now decided to replace the numbers of police officers that they lost over the eight or nine-year period, but they cannot do the same for prison officers. I agree with the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) that a prison officer’s job is just as dangerous in some ways as that of a policeman or a fireman, but there is this disparity. Does my hon. Friend agree that public services over the last eight or nine years have been the recipients of some of the most vicious cuts that have been implemented by this Government?
Imran Hussain
I absolutely agree. Given the frontline work that our hard-working prison officers do, they should be an emergency service—a frontline uniformed service—as our other services are, and they should be rewarded and treated exactly the same. I have made that point before.
Like many other public sector professionals on the frontline of vital services, prison officers were also subject to the Government’s harsh pay freeze and public sector pay cap for many years. Even though the pay cap has now been lifted, prison officers are unfairly disadvantaged when compared with their public sector counterparts. For too many prison officers, it is too late. They still feel inadequately rewarded for the important work that they do.
Safety for prison officers has also declined dramatically, with a quadrupling of assaults against prison officers since 2010 and an alarming number of serious injuries, as found in the recent response to my written question, rising from 160 in 2010 to 850 last year. A number of examples have been given by hon. Members; time not permitting, I cannot go through them all, but the reality is that prison officers now go to work fearing for their safety—expecting to be assaulted, beaten or abused. It is truly horrific that they feel that way while this Government do little to address the underlying issues. Those are not the actions of a Government who respect prison officers or treat them with the dignity that they deserve, and nor is raising the retirement age of prison officers to 68.
The job of a prison officer is physically demanding and requires the satisfactory completion of a demanding fitness test. It requires fully fit personnel who are able to perform control and restraint techniques, exercise strength, maintain their fitness and stamina over long periods and react with agility in demanding and quickly changing environments, as alluded to by several Members. The public would not expect anything less from those who keep them safe—and neither, it seems, would the Ministry of Justice, which stated in its submission to the Cabinet Office that the changes were unacceptable. However, the Government have ignored serious concerns about prison officers’ ability to carry out their roles effectively as they get older, despite the Ministry of Justice’s own admissions.
The Government have repeatedly refused to engage with the Prison Officers Association and the prison officers that it represents. Instead of getting around the table to work with the POA to seek a solution, and to look for ways to resolve prison officers’ serious concerns about the retirement age, the Government have sought to pin the blame on it. I am deeply disappointed that Ministers—I appreciate that this Minister is new in her role and is not the Minister responsible for prisons and probation—have failed, quite frankly, to show the leadership needed. They have put the health and safety of prison staff at risk and made it clear that the Government see prison officers not as a vital workforce worthy of investment and support, but as a dispensable commodity.
Because of the way they have been treated by the Government, and with horrendous and dangerous conditions on the balconies and in the wings, many prison officers no longer see their role as a long-term career. It is little wonder that prison officers—both those who have served for years and those in their first year of service—are leaving at such a pronounced rate, creating a retention crisis and worsening the huge problems in our prison system that are of the Government’s making. That is why the next Labour Government will address this issue, and we will work with the POA and prison officers to make sure that they are properly trained and rewarded, and that they are physically capable of doing their jobs. Only then can we deliver a prison system that provides us with security and rehabilitation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Wendy Morton)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I understand that your chairing the debate is quite fitting, given that you still have a special interest in prisons and all things justice-related.
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson)—the beautiful Isle of Sheppey, as he referred to it—for securing the debate on this important subject. He clearly demonstrated an ongoing commitment to raising awareness of the issues around the three prisons in his constituency, the prison officers and their families. I thank other hon. Members for their contributions. In the time I have, I will endeavour to answer as many as possible of the questions that were put to me.
Let me begin by providing a little of the history of prison officer pensions, for those who may not be aware of the retirement ages for prison officers and how they have changed since 2007. Pensions are, by their very nature, complex, but I will try to be brief. Prison officers are members of the civil service pension scheme, the policy and rules of which are owned by the Cabinet Office. Prior to 2007, the retirement age for those covered by that scheme was 60. Following an annual review by the Government Actuary’s Department, a new career average pension was brought in, with a pension age of 65 for new entrants from July 2007.
The demands of the prison officer role were considered at that time, and it was decided that when compared with other civil servants in the scheme who had demanding roles, such as seamen on Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships, a special exception could not be made. The Prison Officers Association signed up to the 2007 scheme, which introduced a pension age of 65. In 2015, a new scheme was introduced that regularised the position for most staff and changed the pension age to 65, or to a staff member’s state pension age, which for many is 68.
It is important to be clear that the Government are alive to the issue and the views of staff and trade unions on retirement age. Efforts have been made twice—in 2013 and again in 2017—to provide a route to lowering the retirement age. The 2013 package offered prison officers the ability to purchase a lower pension age of 65 through the payment of heavily subsidised additional contributions into the scheme, with the additional option to pay further contributions to purchase a pension age of 60. A similar offer was made to prison officers in 2017, but there was no cost to the individual member of staff to purchase a lower pension age of 65. Both offers were rejected by the POA membership.
A comparison has been made today with firefighter and police pensions. Staff in those schemes have a retirement age of 60. Although it is true that work in those roles has some similarities to the work of prison officers, as was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, because of the higher physical demands consistently placed on firefighters and the higher potential for serious injury and fatality in both roles, the Government felt that the role of a prison officer was not analogous to those in the emergency services.
Putting that assessment to one side, it is crucial to understand that that lower retirement age is supported by pension contributions by staff of up to 14%—almost 10% higher than the average 5.45% contribution rate in the civil service. It is not, therefore, a like-for-like comparison. Should a change in retirement age be contemplated again in the future, it would involve a significant increase to the staff contribution to the scheme.
Wendy Morton
I am going to make some progress. I am really trying to get through these points in the time that I have.
The role of prison officer is a diverse, interesting and critical one, parts of which can be physically demanding. All prison officers who joined the service after April 2001 must pass an annual fitness test in order to remain prison officers. We do not discriminate on the basis of someone’s age; many factors determine a person’s ability to pass a fitness test. Staff who do not meet the annual fitness test standard are provided with advice and support by a fitness assessor on achieving and maintaining the required fitness level.
The Prison Service recruits staff to work up to the normal pension age of 65, and it has employed new prison officers in their 60s who have passed the fitness test and are performing their roles effectively. In addition, many staff who have the right to retire at 60 choose to work beyond their retirement age. It is therefore not true to say that it is inappropriate or unsafe for prison officers to work over a certain age.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey is right when he says that we must recognise the commitment, bravery and hard work of our prison officers.
Wendy Morton
Let me see if I can make some more progress, and then, if time allows, I will give way.
The Prison Service and Ministry of Justice already recognise and reward excellent staff work through a range of awards and honours, such as the Prison Service long service and good conduct medal, the prison officer of the year award and the Butler Trust awards. We are also proposing to the honours, decorations and medals committee the introduction of a new Queen’s Prison Service medal. The concept of a covenant has been raised, and I assure my hon. Friend that we are already considering whether such a covenant for prison staff would be beneficial.
The Government seek pay recommendations from the independent Prison Service pay review body. We recently accepted in full its recommendations for 2019-20, which resulted in the highest increase for prison staff in more them 10 years, with band 3 prison officers—the largest group of staff—receiving a headline increase of 3%.
On the Isle of Sheppey, recognising the competitive labour market, we implemented a market supplement to support the recruitment and retention of staff. This means that the current starting salary for a prison officer at the Sheppey prisons, as well as a number of other sites in the south-east, is £27,293. After an officer has gained four years’ experience, that salary increases to just shy of £30,000.
HMPPS takes very seriously, as I think we all do, the health and safety of all staff working in prisons, whatever their age. Staff have access to on-site care teams and to an employee assistance programme that includes confidential 24-hour support, 365 days a year. They are covered by a wide range of occupational health services provided by specialist healthcare professionals. HMPPS has invested in nearly 6,000 body-worn video cameras and has started to implement the national roll-out of PAVA, which is a synthetic pepper spray. We are also introducing rigid bar handcuffs for use by prison officers as part of our continuing focus on improving safety and reducing violence.
We take attacks on our prison officers seriously. Under the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, they are treated equally in law with assaults on the police and other emergency service workers. HMPPS has been working closely with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that they understand the impact of crimes committed in prison. In May, we published the new crime in prison referral agreement between HMPPS, the police and the CPS to provide a more consistent approach to dealing with these matters. In addition, as part of a crackdown on crime behind bars, the Government are investing £100 million through the introduction of airport-style security measures, cutting-edge technology to detect and block mobile phones, and new funding to tackle corruption. Coupled with the 4,700 additional staff recruited since 2016, that investment should have a major impact on crime behind bars.
The Government are investing £2.5 billion in 10,000 new, modern prison places and will also spend an extra £156 million next year on maintaining our existing jails. That will give us space to absorb any rise in prison population created by the increase in police officers on our streets, along with tougher sentencing for the most serious offenders. Our ambition is to create a decent, safe and secure estate that is sustainable into the future.
Mr Lord
I welcome much of what the Minister says, but does it not underline the point that if we are to have a police officer covenant, a prison officer covenant would also be a good idea? It would be a way of recognising prison officers and ensuring that we treat them in the right way, both during and after their service.
Wendy Morton
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I think I have already addressed his point in my speech, but it is clearly a point that he is interested in.
The first new prison will be built on land adjacent to the existing well-performing maximum security prison at Full Sutton. Along with further building works, it will be subject to Government working through the best value-for-money options. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey for suggesting the existing cluster of three prisons on the Isle of Sheppey as a location for a further site. [Interruption.] I believe he is indicating that he would be happy with a fourth, but I am sure that he will understand that decisions on the location of further sites have not yet been made.
It is again too early to say whether the new prisons will be privately or publicly run, but the Government are committed to maintaining mixed market provision in the custodial sector, with prisons run by both the public and the private sectors. Any decisions on the future management of the new build prisons will be announced in due course.
Grahame Morris
The Minister is setting out the case for financial prudence, but may I point out that private prisons account for 15% of the prison population but almost 25% of the budget? If we are being prudent with the public finances and looking to secure a decent settlement for prison officers, surely we should not be privatising our prison service.
Wendy Morton
As I said, it is too early to say whether the new prisons will be privately or publicly run, but no doubt we will be debating that question for some time to come.
On recruitment and retention, we know that retention of staff will take more than a one-size-fits-all approach, so specific action is being taken where attrition is most acute. Improvements to the recruitment process are ongoing and are aimed at reducing the time and cost of hiring, increasing the diversity of new recruits and ensuring that we attract the right people with the right skills.
Wendy Morton
If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will press on. I have only five minutes left, and I would like to leave my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey time to wind up.
The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) pointed out that eight prison staff are assaulted every day, and she spoke about morale and impact assessment. As prison officers are part of the wider civil service pension scheme, any impact assessment would consider a range of professions. There is a range of physically demanding roles, and when the pension scheme was introduced an exemption for prison officers was not seen as appropriate. I believe that workforce policy in Scottish prisons is devolved to the Scottish Government.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. Although I understand the concerns of staff and their trade unions about retirement age, there are no plans to consider an exceptional package to allow prison officers a lower pension age than their colleagues across the civil service. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and all hon. Members for their time and for sharing their views with me this afternoon.
Gordon Henderson
I will make just a few points, if I may. We have had consensus today, but I have to say to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), that the last Labour Government did not cover themselves with glory in the eyes of the POA. Talk to my prison officers: they remember vividly how the Labour party embraced the privatisation of prisons with great enthusiasm. But that was then.
Gordon Henderson
I do not have time.
With regard to what the Minister said about the difference between prison officers and police officers, I revert to section 8 of the Prison Act 1952, which states that prison officers
“shall have all the powers, authority, protection and privileges of a constable.”
Yet because prison officers happen to be part of the civil service pension scheme, they have to work until they are 68 when the police do not. The Government might have to look at whether prison officers should be part of the civil service, or whether they should be a separate entity again.
The Minister mentioned that staff on Sheppey are getting enhanced pay, and that it is up to £27,000 for new staff. I accept that, but it creates another anomaly in the system: the existing staff do not get that enhancement, so there will be some instances of new staff actually earning more than existing staff. Once again, that is something that we need to look at.
I will end with a little advert. I urge all Members present who have shown an interest in the debate to get involved in the Prison Service parliamentary scheme.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the pension age of prison officers.
Written Statements
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Energy Council
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
The UK did not attend the EU Energy Council in Brussels on 24 September 2019.
The UK Government have decided that from 1 September until exit day, UK Ministers and officials will only attend EU meetings where the UK has a significant national interest in the outcome of the discussions.
[HCWS1854]
Energy Planning Project
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
This statement concerns an application made by Orsted Hornsea Project Three (UK) Limited under the Planning Act 2008 for development consent for the construction and operation of the proposed Hornsea Three offshore wind farm and associated offshore and onshore infrastructure in the North Sea and in Norfolk.
Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make a decision on an application within three months of receipt of the examining authority’s report unless exercising the power under section 107(3) to set a new deadline. Where a new deadline is set, the Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament to announce it. The deadline for the decision on the proposed Hornsea Three offshore wind farm development consent order application was 2 October 2019.
The Secretary of State has set a new deadline for deciding the application of 31 March 2020 to allow further information in respect of offshore environmental effects to be provided and considered. The decision to set the new deadline for the application is without prejudice to the Secretary of State’s decision on whether to ultimately grant or refuse development consent.
[HCWS1852]
Competitiveness Council
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Chris Skidmore)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Lord Duncan of Springbank—has today made the following statement:
The UK did not attend the Competitiveness Council in Brussels on 26 and 27 September 2019
The UK Government have decided that from 1 September until exit day, UK Ministers and officials will only attend EU meetings where the UK has a significant national interest in the outcome of the discussions.
[HCWS1853]
ECOFIN
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sajid Javid)
A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) will be held in Luxembourg on 10 October 2019. The Council will discuss the following:
Budgetary instrument for convergence and competitiveness for the Euro area.
The European Commission will present the governance framework on the budgetary instrument for convergence and competitiveness for the euro area.
Current financial services legislative proposals.
The Finnish presidency will provide an update on current legislative proposals in the field of financial services.
European Court of Auditors’ annual report.
The President of the Court of Auditors will present the auditors’ report on the implementation of the budget of the European Union for the 2018 financial year.
The European financial architecture for development.
The chair of the high-level group of wise persons on the European financial architecture for development will present the main findings of their report to the Council. This will be followed by an exchange of views.
Implementation of the anti-money laundering (AML) action plan.
The Council will hold an exchange of views on the progress made in implementing the AML action plan and consider the future strategic priorities in this area.
Anti-money laundering directive: policy towards “high-risk third countries”.
The Council will hold an exchange of views on the policy towards AML-related “high-risk third countries”.
European semester 2019—lessons learnt.
The Council will hold an exchange of views on lessons learnt from the European semester 2019.
Preparation of the G20 meeting of Finance Ministers and central bank governors and of the IMF annual meetings.
The Council will be invited to approve the EU’s G20 terms of reference and international monetary and financial committee statement, ahead of the annual meetings in Washington DC.
Coalition of Finance Ministers for climate action.
The Finnish will present the state of play of the Coalition of Finance Ministers for Climate Action.
Appointment of a member of the executive board of the European Central Bank.
The Council will be invited to adopt a recommendation to the European Council on the appointment of a new member of the executive board of the European Central Bank.
Capital Markets Union.
The Commission will inform the Council on its plans on the capital markets union and the presidency will outline next steps.
Status of the implementation of financial services legislation.
The Council will take stock of the status of the implementation of financial services legislation.
[HCWS1857]
Agriculture and Fisheries Council
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Agriculture and Fisheries Council takes place in Luxembourg on 14 and15 October.
As the provisional agenda stands, the main item for fisheries will be fixing the fishing opportunities in the Baltic Sea for 2020. Member states will also discuss the regulation on the European maritime and fisheries fund (EMFF) for which a preliminary agreement on the proposal, a partial general approach (PGA), is sought in Council. Ministers will also exchange views on the annual EU-Norway consultation for 2020 and on the 22nd annual meeting of the international commission for the conservation of Atlantic tunas (ICCAT), which will be held in Palma de Mallorca on 18-25 November 2019.
In the field of agriculture the main focus will be the state of play on the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform package. Member States will also exchange views on the EU Forest Strategy post-2020 followed by a presentation by the commission and an exchange of views on stepping up EU action to protect and restore the world’s forests. The Commission will also brief member states on the market situation.
There are currently five items scheduled under “any other business”:
The presidency will brief Ministers on the outcome of the European bioeconomy scene 2019, which was held in Helsinki on 8-10 July;
The Slovenian delegation will brief on the outcome of the Ministerial conference “Strengthening the Generation and Transfer of Knowledge for the Progress of Agriculture and the Rural Areas", which took place in Ptuj, Slovenia on 23 August 2019;
The Italian delegation will provide information on the serious damages caused by the Asian stink bug (Halyomorpha halys) to the fruit and vegetables sector;
The commission will give a state of play on African swine fever; and
The commission will provide a state of play on the major issues within food safety.
[HCWS1851]
Continuity of Medical Supplies
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
This statement provides an update on my Department’s plans to support the continuity of supply of medicines and medical products into the UK if we leave the EU without a deal on 31 October.
The multi-layered approach put in place by my Department remains essential to help ensure the continuation of medicines and medical supplies across the UK if we leave without a deal. An update on the components are below.
My Department is today writing to pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers and the adult social care sector. As part of working closely with the devolved Administrations (DAs) and Crown dependencies, communications will also be shared with healthcare providers across the scope of the programme.
Improving trader readiness for new border arrangements.
Companies need to ensure they are “trader ready” for the new customs procedures involved with importing and exporting goods that will come into place if we leave the EU without a deal. To support industry in their preparations, I am today announcing that, following engagement and feedback with trade associations, suppliers and distributors, the Government are establishing a dedicated trader readiness “support unit” to provide assistance to suppliers of medical goods. These teams of specialists will be able to provide traders operating in the health and social care sector with up-to-date advice and practical guidance on the steps they need to take to prepare. Details on how to access the support unit are being communicated to industry today.
Building up buffer stocks.
My Department’s approach to buffer stocks remains unchanged from 26 June and involves a range of national measures and asks of industry that are designed to provide contingent measures for medicines, medical devices and clinical consumables, blood and transplants, vaccines and countermeasures, supplies for clinical trials and non-clinical goods and services.
Procuring extra warehousing space for stockpiled medicines.
To help ensure sufficient space to store stockpiled medicines ahead of Brexit on 31 October if we were to leave without a deal, my Department previously agreed contracts for additional warehouse space, including ambient, refrigerated and controlled drug storage. We will continue to provide warehousing capacity.
Securing freight capacity.
The Department for Transport-led cross-government procurement for securing freight capacity by 31 October is progressing as planned. On 20 September, as announced by the Secretary of State for Transport, eight companies were successfully appointed to the freight procurement framework. These include ferry operators Brittany Ferries, DFDS A/S, Irish Ferries, P&O Ferries, Seatruck and Stena, as well as operators from the aviation and rail industries, Air Charter Services and Eurotunnel.
Also, on 20 September, DfT launched two call-off mini-competitions, which set out the Government’s freight requirements in preparation for leaving the EU. These provided freight operators on the framework the opportunity to bid for contracts to transport medicines and medical products—and other category one goods—into the UK in a no-deal scenario. The deadline for framework suppliers to submit bids was 1 October. Subject to evaluation, contracts with successful freight operators to provide capacity on specific routes will be agreed shortly. Once known, Government will inform industry of the details as soon as possible. In advance of this, the Department is today inviting suppliers of medicines and medical goods to register to access this freight capacity.
My Department is also leading a procurement for an “express freight service” to provide access to an end-to-end solution for medical products to deliver small parcel consignments and pallets. This is designed to be used only if suppliers’ own contingency measures encounter difficulties or there is an emergency need for specific medical products. The bid response window for this procurement has now closed and we are currently reviewing the bids. Again, my Department is looking to award the contract(s) as soon as possible.
Changing or clarifying regulatory requirements.
So that companies can continue to sell their products in the UK even if we leave without a deal, the Government have made changes to, or clarifications of, certain regulatory requirements. Statutory instruments, covering the regulation of human medicines, medical devices and clinical trials were considered and approved by Parliament.
Strengthening the processes and resources used to deal with shortages.
In addition to the normal shortage management routes, my Department has also put in place legislation to enable Ministers to issue serious shortage protocols that, where appropriate, enables community pharmacies to supply against a protocol, for example, to issue a substitute medication instead of the prescribed medication without going back to the prescriber first.
My Department will again be standing up a national supply disruption response (NSDR). The NSDR processes will monitor the supply situation and co-ordinate actions to address supply disruption incidents that occur after Brexit where normal procedures are unable to provide a resolution.
Message to NHS and the public.
Our message to the NHS, the adult social care sector, patients and the wider public remains unchanged.
My Department, working with partners across Government, industry, the health and social care system, devolved Administrations and Crown dependencies, are putting in place these arrangements to protect medical supplies from any potential disruption if we leave without a deal for the whole of the UK and its Crown dependencies, so that service providers, patients and members of the public do not have to take action themselves. Local or personal stockpiling remains unnecessary and could cause shortages in other areas, which could put patient care at risk. It is important that patients keep taking their medicines and order their repeat prescriptions as normal.
As the NAO’s recent report recognised, the scale of the challenge has been unprecedented and the Department, working with pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers, has already achieved a great deal in preparing for leaving the EU, whatever the circumstances. I am confident that the Department is doing everything appropriate to prepare for leaving without a deal on the 31 October.
[HCWS1856]
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011—the Act—requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of her TPIM powers under the Act during that period. TPIM notices in force (as of 31 August 2019) 3 TPIM notices in respect of British citizens (as of 31 August 2019) 3 TPIM notices extended (during the reporting period) 1 TPIM notices revoked (during the reporting period) 0 TPIM notices revived (during the reporting period) 0 Variations made to measures specified in TPIM notices (during the reporting period) 4 Applications to vary measures specified in TPIM notices refused (during the reporting period) 0 The number of current subjects relocated under TPIM legislation (as of 31 August 2019) 1
The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
The TPIM Review Group (TRG) keeps every TPIM notice under regular and formal review. Third quarter TRG meetings took place on 4 and 18 September 2019 and 1 October 2019.
The Section 9 TPIM Act 2011 judicial review of the TPIM against QT was heard at the High Court between 24 and 27 June 2019. The judgment in this review is yet to be handed down by the Court.
[HCWS1855]
No-deal Brexit: Temporary Tariff Regime
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
Today I am informing the House about updates to the temporary tariff regime announced in March. This regime would come into effect if the UK leaves the EU without a deal on 31 October 2019.
The temporary tariff would apply equally to all countries where the UK does not have a trade agreement or other preferential agreement in place, this would include the EU.
The policy announced in March, and updated today, is designed with consumers and producers in mind. The majority of imports will be tariff free, with tariffs only applying on a small percentage of UK imports. The Government have listened to the concerns and needs of businesses and consumers since the temporary tariff regime was first announced and has made three specific amendments to the tariff rates published in March.
Lower tariffs on HGVs entering the UK market, striking a better balance between the needs of British producers and the SMEs that make up the UK haulage industry, ensuring that crucial fleet replacement programmes that help to lower carbon emissions can continue.
Adjusted tariffs on bioethanol to retain support for UK producers, as the supply of this fuel is important to critical national infrastructure.
Applied tariffs to additional clothing products to ensure the preferential access to the UK market currently available to developing countries, compared to other countries, is maintained.
These three specific amendments will enable UK supply chains to continue to operate smoothly, keep prices down for consumers and ensure that we are fully prepared to leave the EU on 31 October whatever the circumstances.
In considering adjustments to the temporary tariff, the Government have continued to give regard to the five principles set out in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018:
the interests of consumers in the UK;
the interests of producers in the UK;
the desire to maintain and promote external trade of the UK;
the desire to maintain and promote productivity in the UK;
the extent to which goods are subject to competition.
Throughout the temporary period, the Government will also consider exceptional changes where clear evidence is provided by stakeholders against the criteria set out in the Taxation (Crossborder Trade) Act 2018 and would provide a mechanism to hear business and consumer feedback.
The Government aim, where possible, to minimise any new costs to business and mitigate any price impacts on consumers. For that reason, tariffs will only apply to 12% of total UK imports but there will need to be tariffs on some imports to make sure certain industries get the support they need.
This remains a temporary policy that would apply for a period of up to 12 months in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal on 31 October.
Information on specific tariff rates that would apply under the temporary tariff have been made available through the Government website.
[HCWS1850]
House of Lords
Baroness Boothroyd
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, on behalf of the whole House, I would like to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, one of our most distinguished Members, on her 90th birthday. As noble Lords will know, it is not customary to single out individual Members from the Woolsack, but I am very happy to make an exception on this occasion. The noble Baroness was not only an exceptional champion of the ancient and undoubted rights and privileges of the House of Commons as its Speaker but has continued to make an invaluable contribution to this House since she was introduced 18 years ago. She is now widely recognised as a champion of Parliament and the indispensable role it plays in our constitution.
I read recently that the noble Baroness had told the House magazine that she considers herself rather timid. While that was not exactly my experience in the Commons, I think I speak for the whole House when I say that her no-nonsense approach is as refreshing today as it was on the day that she took up her seat in the Commons. She has always been independently minded but has, in my experience, always acted with courtesy and charm. She is a role model for all parliamentarians—Speakers very much included. We wish her a very happy birthday.
Falkland Islands: Landmines
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Trefgarne
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether landmines laid in the Falkland Islands by the Argentinean forces in 1982 have been removed.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, under the anti-personnel mine ban convention, the UK is obliged to clear the Falkland Islands as its only mined territory. After the conflict in 1982, the UK cleared all known British-laid mines. The remaining mines, spread across 122 minefields, were laid by Argentina. Since 2009, the demining programme has released over 21 million square metres of land and destroyed over 9,700 anti-personnel mines. The current phase of the programme will complete the mine clearance.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Is it not the case that there was a new international convention on these matters quite recently—certainly since 1982—which was much encouraged by the support of the late Diana, Princess of Wales, and more recently by His Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Absolutely, and I am sure I speak for everyone in your Lordships’ House in paying tribute to the late Princess Diana for her incredible leadership on this, drawing attention to the issue of minefields around the world. Of course, we also pay tribute to His Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex on his recent trip to Angola to further highlight and continue the good work of his mother.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, how helpful have the Argentinians been in the clearing process? Shifting sands were always the difficulty, requiring maps and Argentinian personnel to help identify where the minefields were in the first place to allow a proper clearance programme.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
A joint report was done back in 2007, to which the Argentinians contributed, but we are mindful that the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is that of the United Kingdom. We have taken the lead and sole responsibility for all continued mine clearance.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I understand from information I got from people doing mine clearance some years ago that the difficulty in the Falklands is the nature of the terrain, or the earth. Some of the unexploded ordnance has sunk so deep into the earth that it is very difficult to clear, which is one reason we have not been able to achieve 100% clearance. I want to use my question to widen the discussion a little. There are so many areas in the world where unexploded ordnance is causing serious risk to ordinary people long after the conflict has ceased. Can the Minister say a little about what we are doing to support MAG and other organisations that are doing this valuable work internationally?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
First, on the earlier point raised by the noble Lord, and made earlier, I agree with him: the terrain has proved challenging. However, we are confident that, with the Ottawa convention and the timeline set for 2024, we will complete all the demining in the Falkland Islands. On the broader issue, we are very much committed. His Royal Highness’s recent visit reflects our continued commitment and we have allocated a further £100 million to this primary objective of clearing mines around the world.
Baroness Northover (LD)
I think the Minister was referring to the 1997 Ottawa landmine treaty, which aims to free the world of landmines by 2025. The Minister just mentioned Angola; it is likely to be 2045 before it is clear of landmines. At the end of its civil war in 2002, there were as many landmines in Angola as people. What are we doing internationally to build on what Prince Harry has done in southern Africa—particularly in Zimbabwe and Angola—in that regard? Also, are we ensuring that we are doing all we can to discourage the use of landmines in the conflict in Syria right now, which will cause problems for many years to come?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Baroness is quite right. That is why I mentioned the Ottawa convention. We are abiding by the extension granted by the convention as part of fulfilling our mandate in the Falkland Islands. As for Angola and, indeed, other places, as I have indicated, we are absolutely committed. In 2017, the UK tripled its funding for mine action around the world. As I said in response to the previous question, we have now committed £100 million over three years to tackle the humanitarian and development impact of landmines. This is a scourge that impacts on every conflict zone. I have seen it directly through various visits. The noble Baroness mentioned Syria; of course, that remains a primary concern but we need stability and security in Syria before we can embark on any demining that may be required in that part of the world.
Lord Robathan (Con)
I was responsible for clearing landmines in the Falkland Islands and I subsequently became chair of the Halo Trust. The reason we stopped clearing landmines in the Falklands is that certainly more than two people—I am not sure exactly how many—lost limbs clearing Argentinian landmines that were not mapped. There is new technology, but can it clear all these mines without danger to British personnel?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I pay tribute to my noble friend and all those involved in this important work. Demining areas that were previously conflict zones is a key priority and we pay tribute to those who put themselves at risk for this purpose. My noble friend raises an important point about using technology. I assure him that we deploy the best technology available in the work we do internationally. I understand that, subsequent to what happened in previous years, clearing landmines in the Falkland Islands has not resulted in any significant injury to any person.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that these mines were laid in a vain attempt by the Argentinians to prevent the recapture of the islands. The recapture involved a task force of over 60 warships and 73 merchant ships. Twelve of those frigates and destroyers were either sunk or very badly damaged. Today, we have 19 frigates and destroyers. Does the Minister not agree that it is all very well ordering frigates to replace frigates one for one, but we need to increase the number of ships in our Navy to make the seas of the world safer and look after our interests worldwide?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I am sure many are full of admiration for the noble Lord and the work he did in Her Majesty’s Navy. I agree with him on the important role that the Navy played during the Falklands crisis. I am sure my colleagues at the Ministry of Defence have noted carefully his suggestion about our current capacity. It is important that we look towards all our military across the piece, whether it is our Air Force, our Army or our Navy, to ensure they are fit for purpose for 2019 and beyond.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that there is a great danger of conflating this issue with the very valuable work done by Diana, Princess of Wales, who was mindful that the landmines she was trying to clear were in areas of high population? This does not apply to the Falklands, where all the anti-personnel mines are fenced off. There is a minimal population there and people avoid going near the area where the mines are.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My noble friend is correct that in the Falkland Islands the areas containing mines are clearly and carefully designated, but important work continues to ensure that we can rid the islands of mines altogether. I emphasise the point that the work done by Princess Diana, currently being led by His Royal Highness, provides focus on this important issue, to make it a priority for all countries that can assist in this area.
Sale of Knives
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Naseby
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to ensure that retailers selling kitchen knives adhere to regulations on the sale of knives.
Lord Naseby (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so I declare an interest, in that my daughter has a cook-shop in Bedford.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, it has been an offence for many years to sell a knife to anyone under 18 in England and Wales, including kitchen knives. The Offensive Weapons Act 2019 will further strengthen the law on the online sale and delivery of knives. We continue to work with retailers to ensure that they have effective measures in place to prevent underage sales of knives.
Lord Naseby
Does my noble friend agree that we should pay tribute to the supermarkets and others which have carried out age challenges? Are there not two other areas we should seriously consider concerning the awful challenge that we face? First, could trading standards not do a thorough check throughout the retail trade and with the online trade in some way to ensure that everybody is complying with the age challenge? Secondly, could Her Majesty’s Government not consider introducing legislation to extend the Primary Authority scheme to knives as soon as possible, ideally in the Queen’s Speech?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I join my noble friend in paying tribute to the supermarkets and the work they have done in this area. I think it is Morrisons and Lidl which have decided not to sell knives in store. Asda has stopped selling single knives and other supermarkets have either stopped or restricted the sale of knives in areas where levels of knife crime are particularly high. We enforce this Act through trading standards and the use of test purchase operations in store and online. The £500,000 prosecution fund, which was introduced as part of the serious violence strategy, helps trading standards to prosecute rogue retailers that repeatedly fail test purchases.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I speak as the mother of a victim of knife crime. I am surprised that the “No Points” campaign has not been mentioned; perhaps Members are unaware of it. However, identifying which variables can be changed to make it difficult to commit a particular harm has been proven to succeed. For example, restricting the amount of paracetamol that you can buy led to fewer deaths from paracetamol overdoses. Sixty years ago, our domestic gas supply changed from coal gas to natural gas, thus effectively removing an effective means of taking one’s own’s life that was readily to hand, and there was a profound drop in the rate of suicide. Does the Minister agree that it would be worth piloting the recommendations in the “No Points” campaign to see if it can achieve similar results for homicide? The point of the campaign is that you do not need a point in the kitchen, and there are good designs available.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I totally empathise with where the noble Baroness is coming from. She speaks from personal experience when she outlines the devastation that knives can cause to communities. I have some empathy with the “No Points” campaign, although there are very dangerous knives that do not have points at all, such as machetes. The Government believe that the current controls, which will be strengthened by the Offensive Weapons Act, will support this. A further point—no pun intended—is that it is not only legislation that will reduce and curtail knife crime.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
I declare my interest as chair of National Trading Standards, an organisation that receives Home Office money to deal with the sale of knives to underage people. Can the noble Baroness tell the House what further measures she thinks are necessary in respect of handling online sales—making sure that delivery points are properly safeguarded and follow the law—and whether similar arrangements should be extended to the sale, in stores or online, of acids and corrosive materials?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
This is a subject that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and others discussed with me during the passage of the Bill. We decided not to do so—that corrosive products are clearly labelled. It is true that in both the online and retail worlds, age has to be verified at both ends, and how the online or street retailer does that is up to them. It is, however, an offence to deliver to a delivery box or a residential address without that verification.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my local authority interests as recorded in the register. This year’s APPG report on knife crime demonstrated a link between the serious cuts in services to young people—for example, local authority youth services received a 70% cut in funding—and knife crime. Effective measures to reduce knife crime must include significant rises in funding for youth services. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
What I do agree with is that the issues of knife crime are complex, many and varied.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, as the Bishop of London, knife crime is of huge concern to me and a source of great sorrow. I thank the noble Baroness for her response regarding the “No Points” campaign. However, research undertaken by the Home Office Scientific Development Branch showed that round knives had significantly less penetration capability than pointed knives and are therefore less likely to be life-threatening. Will the noble Baroness comment on how the Government are responding to the advice given by the Scientific Development Branch?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question. On round versus pointed knives, as I said to the noble Baroness, it is not necessarily the point that is lethal, hence machetes. The legislation is not the only solution in tackling this problem.
Museums and Galleries: Financial Sustainability
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lee of Trafford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the current financial sustainability of national museums and galleries.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare an interest as the chairman of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the 2017 Strategic Review of DCMS-sponsored Museums found that the national museums and galleries received £340 million in government grant in 2016-17—around 42% of their total income, which also comprised other public funding, donations and self-generated income. Year on year, this investment, maintained in real terms for the next spending review, allows them to welcome millions of visitors, promote Britain to the world, and protect and preserve their unique collections for their global audiences.
Lord Lee of Trafford
I hear what the Minister said, but in a letter to the Times last week headlined “Neglected Museums At Breaking Point”, museum chiefs and the director of the Art Fund drew attention to the serious essential maintenance backlog at our national museums. Do not the fires in Notre-Dame and the Glasgow School of Art, and, indeed, the costs and upheaval we now face on the Parliamentary Estate, point to the dangers and extra costs of putting off vital necessary work? I urge DCMS Ministers to shake the Javid/Johnson money tree for extra resources to protect our national treasures. If the Government wish to maintain free entry, they surely have to pay for it.
Baroness Barran
The noble Lord is absolutely right that many of our national museums are housed in wonderful heritage buildings, but those buildings require constant upkeep, which is obviously very expensive. To help address this, the Government awarded earlier this year £44 million of one-off funding over the next two years to support essential maintenance for our national museums.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
Does the Minister share my view that the experience of visiting galleries and museums has changed quite radically in recent years since we saw the introduction and extension of the iPad and iPhones? Often when we try to see a picture we are surrounded by people taking selfies in front of it. It has changed completely from what it used to be. There is a great opportunity for museums and galleries to raise money from this. It is very simple indeed: nobody takes a camera in unless they pay a fee to do so. Could she try to run an experiment with a museum or a gallery to see how that works and just how much money could be raised?
Baroness Barran
I had not thought about it in quite the same way as the noble Lord, although when I go to a museum with my children I spend quite a lot of time trying to stop them taking photographs of the pictures. I am not sure about selfies, but more seriously, I am happy to take his suggestion back to my colleague in the department.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, we reap considerable financial and cultural rewards from what is a modest state investment in our national museums, but would not the Minister admit that museums cannot continue to be shackled by association with fossil fuel companies? It would be a sign of the Government’s seriousness about addressing climate change if they pledged to cover the shortfall in funding when museums, as is inevitable, drop that sponsorship. Will the Government do so?
Baroness Barran
The noble Lord will be aware that museums act as arm’s-length bodies. Therefore, it is up to the trustees of each museum to scrutinise potential donors and make their own judgments on this.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, for the very first time, I find myself in absolute disagreement with the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I believe it is very important that museums and galleries should receive sponsorship. Where does one draw the line? If a bank was “BP Bank” and offered some sponsorship, would one not accept it? That is utterly ridiculous and totally against the interests of our great museums. I do not mind saying to my noble friend that I would be delighted to receive some sponsorship from BP for the art gallery that I am struggling to save in Lincoln.
Baroness Barran
I cannot speak for BP or the art gallery in Lincoln, but I reiterate that these are complicated and sensitive decisions, which the trustees of each museum need to deal with.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, will the Government consider designating other regional museums as national museums, to better and more accurately reflect their nationally and globally significant collections, and, crucially, to try to prevent the gradual decline caused by local authority funding cuts?
Baroness Barran
The Government do not have any plans to designate any other museums as national museums. Moves have been made to increase funding, particularly to regional museums, through Arts Council England; obviously, we are very keen for them to thrive. We have seen new museums open regionally, and important loans have majorly boosted visitor numbers. We are keen to see that continue.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, many other large cities have a hotel tax. One only has to go to New York to see that it is quite a large percentage of what one pays. What about having a hotel tax in some of our cities—particularly London, which is awash with tourists all the time—and using at least some of the proceeds as a contribution to our museums and galleries?
Baroness Barran
Again, the noble Lord makes an interesting suggestion. Our broader view is that we expect museums and galleries to continue to be funded by a mixture of public money, philanthropic money and other forms of fundraising.
Visa Applications: Dr Mu-Chun Chiang
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what (1) lessons they have learnt, and (2) procedures they intend to change, following the reconsideration of the visa application by Dr Mu-Chun Chiang.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased that the case of Dr Chiang was successfully resolved following the provision of new evidence by Dr Chiang and reconsideration by UK Visas and Immigration. UK Visas and Immigration continually utilises customer feedback and experiences to review processes and procedures with the aim of enhancing services.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, this was indeed an unusual case in that the Home Office gave in before the bitter end. About 20 years ago, I first came across immigration and nationality issues with the Home Office when a busload of asylum seekers was dumped on an industrial estate in Colne in the middle of the night. Experiences then—and, I am sorry to say, since then—have led me to believe that too much of the immigration and nationality section of the Home Office is riddled with what I would call bureaucratic incompetence tinged with institutional racism. Nothing has improved; in fact, it has got worse. Recently, the co-chair of the Green Party suggested that the immigration and nationality functions should be separated off and made into a separate department, starting again based on a culture of efficiency and humanity. Is that something that the Minister will put forward to her colleagues for the Queen’s Speech?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
On the noble Lord’s last point, about a culture that is far more humane, I would certainly totally subscribe to that, as would the Home Secretary. Regarding the balance between bureaucracy and subjectivity, it was the criticism of subjectivity that led to a much more objective way of determining applications. The noble Lord referred to a coach-load of asylum seekers 18 years ago; I am afraid that neither I nor the Conservative Party can answer for what happened 18 years ago. He also talked about the Home Office giving in before the bitter end; actually, the case was resolved quickly—not that I am in any way trying to defend the fact that it could have been resolved more quickly.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
For a Government who think there is far too much red tape and what they describe as bureaucracy, it is revealing that, when it comes to dealing with work visa applications, rigid application of the very strict rules seems to be the order of the day. The reality is that the decision on Dr Chiang only got changed because there was a lot of adverse publicity about the actions of the Home Office and influential people took up the case. How many other decisions, of a similar kind to Dr Chiang’s, have already been taken and enforced by the Home Office under its now renamed hostile environment policy because the individuals adversely and unfairly affected were not able to get the necessary publicity and support of influential people to get the Home Office ruling changed? Do the Government know the answer to that question? Do they care about it?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, we certainly do care. The issue was resolved very quickly, and it is not correct that it only got changed because people intervened. It got changed because new evidence that had been asked for was produced. The fact that we have a 98% grant rate for such applications is evidence of how many people successfully apply.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the Minister may recall that I wrote to her regarding a young Indian girl who wanted to come and spend Christmas with her relatives in Liverpool. She applied twice for a tourist visa and twice was turned down. The Minister kindly put me in touch with the relevant Home Office official, and it was found out that she had been turned down because there was an unexplained sum of money in her bank account—she was fully employed in India. The unexplained money was from her father to pay for her trip. I refer to what my noble friend Lord Greaves said: should officials not deal with these applications with a more sensitive and humanitarian touch?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do; I agree. The case was resolved, which is good. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, 98% of these types of visas are granted.
Road Closures in Central London
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that roads in central London, including those leading to the Houses of Parliament, are clear and free from obstruction and what is their assessment of the performance of the Metropolitan Police in this regard.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the right to protest peacefully is a long-standing tradition in this country. However, this does not extend to unlawful behaviour and the police have powers to deal with such acts. The use of these powers, and the management of demonstrations, are operational matters for the police. The Government have been clear that they expect a firm stance to be taken against protestors who significantly disrupt the lives of others.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, what then is the meaning of the sessional order passed by this House at the beginning of this Session? It reads:
“It was ordered that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis do take care that the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Lords to and from this House during the sitting of Parliament; or to hinder Lords in the pursuit of their Parliamentary duties on the Parliamentary Estate”.
The failure of the commissioner to comply with that Motion resulted in a number of disabled colleagues being unable to leave the House yesterday because taxis and other vehicles were not able to come here and they were not able to walk considerable distances in the rain. It resulted in a huge disruption to business. I ate in a restaurant last night where there was only one occupied table; all the others had been cancelled. It resulted in congestion throughout the city, adding to pollution. Surely my noble friend needs to intervene, or is this just another example of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Cressida Dick, doing her best and it not being good enough?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I empathise with most of what my noble friend has just said. He is absolutely right about pollution: central London is now gridlocked, with nobody able to get in or out. The effect on businesses is quite disgraceful, particularly small businesses such as restaurants. This morning, I had to step over people to get into the Home Office, so I absolutely take his point about disabled Members of this House and the other place. It has been difficult enough to get in here when you are able-bodied, never mind if you are disabled.
I observed something else this morning. I took the bus in and it was apparent that the bus could get me only to Piccadilly Circus. It was fine for me, because I could walk, but people who cannot afford to take the Tube were forced to do so this morning or they would not have got in. That particularly stands for disabled people, so I completely accept my noble friend’s point. I know that the police are in discussion and that half the sites have now been cleared, but we are endeavouring to clear the other half.
Baroness Boothroyd (CB)
My Lords, as Speaker of the House of Commons over many years I read out the sessional orders that were accepted by the House at the beginning of every Session. Later that day it was always confirmed to me that they had been received by the police, were understood and were being carried out. I am not an anti-demonstrator. I confess to your Lordships with pride that, as a young person, I carried the banner at many demonstrations in central London, but in those days the police were in control of me as a demonstrator. Now it seems to me that the demonstrators are in control of the police. When is that going to change? When will we have some sensible methods of getting into our work and carrying out the democratic process in this building?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I completely agree with the noble Baroness: for an ordinary member of the public, the balance feels to have been skewed. I understand that the Met was last in contact this morning and, as I said, half the sites have now been cleared, but nobody should be in the position where they simply cannot access their place of work, not least the people making laws in this country.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is not often that I am driven to protect the reputation of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, but on this occasion I think that some balance has been achieved. I deeply regret that any Members were not able to get in but, if we are going to talk about gridlock, is the Minister aware that the gridlock on Lambeth Bridge this morning was from cars, and almost every car had a single occupant? They were also, of course, polluting. On air pollution, is the Minister aware that air pollution levels in central London have probably dropped—I monitor this quite closely—simply because our roads are full of brave Extinction Rebellion planet protectors, rather than filthy, dirty cars?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness about balance, and that is what the Met police are trying to achieve, but I cannot agree with her about the Extinction Rebellion protesters. I have had a little campaign of my own over the past 24 hours, which has been to go around photographing single-use plastics, which are strewn all over Westminster. The amount of pollution caused by the gridlocked cars is unbelievable, and the pictures of very old diesel 4x4s going along country roads on Sunday, as if somehow making a difference to the planet, were just ridiculous.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)
My Lords, we are all very glad that this is a peaceful demonstration, but it makes life very difficult for those of us who are disabled, particularly Members of this House who find walking very hard. At least we have wheels under us. What advice does the Minister have for us for next week, particularly starting on Monday? How will we get to the House to take part in debates on the Queen’s Speech? The weather may turn bad, and if there are no cars to bring us here, it will make life very difficult.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I understand that the protesters will not disrupt the Queen’s Speech. It would be quite ironic if they did, given that she will arrive in a horse and cart and they are driving trucks to London.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Or a carriage. We can be sure that she will get here by a very green method indeed. The noble Baroness might say that it is peaceful; it feels peaceful but with sinister undertones.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, how do Ministers respond to the legitimate argument made by many of the demonstrators, that only demonstrations that irritate or annoy the establishment ever have any effect?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do not think that is true. We talked about balance earlier; we are a country that absolutely allows for peaceful protest. We are talking about people not being able to get into work, businesses being disrupted and the disabled of your Lordships’ House and the other place not being able to get to their place of work. That is slightly different. It is absolutely vital that the people of this country are able to protest peacefully, but not to disrupt the entire infrastructure of the city of London.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that much more serious than any of the factors mentioned so far is the fact that patients who are ill have been prevented getting into St Thomas’ Hospital? That is a scandal. Doctors cannot get in there either to treat them. What will be done about it? It is a monstrous situation.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I agree with my noble friend that it is monstrous. People may be unable to seek medical treatment or, indeed, emergency treatment in St Thomas’. Exactly the same thing happened in Bristol, where somebody could not get to see their dying parent, who died before they could get to see them. It is monstrous. As I said, half the sites are now cleared, and I hope that the area around St Thomas’ Hospital will be accessible to all those who need to go there.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, dealing with the nature and volume of demonstrations we are currently seeing is very resource-intensive. Does the Minister agree that the dramatic reductions in police numbers under this Government not only impact on day-to-day policing but reduce the resilience of the police and their ability to respond to such demonstrations?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Certainly, this current set of protests has been very resource-intensive. Obviously, the noble Lord will join me in being very pleased about the plans for 20,000 more police officers over the next three years.
Sir Richard Henriques Report
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cormack
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, following the publication of the report by Sir Richard Henriques and the publication of the report by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) on Operation Midland, whether they will review the composition and terms of reference of the IOPC.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, while this is clearly a concerning case, it is vital that an organisation such as the IOPC operates independently of both the police and the Government. The Government have introduced reforms to improve its efficiency and effectiveness, progress has been made and we expect that trajectory to continue. The Home Secretary has asked HMICFRS to conduct an inspection of the Metropolitan Police Service to ensure that lessons have been learned from the issues highlighted. This will take into consideration the IOPC recommendations.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for her Answer, I must regret that it is nowhere near as robust as the Answer she gave to my noble friend Lord Forsyth. Does she agree that Sir Richard has performed a notable public service by examining rigorously a very shameful episode in our history which tarnished the reputations of some great people? Does she agree that, in contrast, the IOPC, whose duty should surely be to be a rigorous upholder of the highest possible standards, has delivered an abject apology for an appalling failure?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I would most certainly agree with my noble friend that Sir Richard has performed a notable public service. It is also important that we have an independent body that oversees, independently of both the police and the Government, the conduct of the police, so I would disagree with my noble friend on the second point.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Yesterday, I asked the Government what they meant in their response to an Urgent Question when they said that the Chief Inspector of Constabulary should,
“take account of the findings of the report of the Independent Office for Police Conduct”.
I asked if it meant that the Chief Inspector of Constabulary would take the findings of the IOPC report as read, or whether he would be able to consider, if he so wished, whether some of the report’s conclusions or statements were, in his view, valid or not. In response, the Government said that they meant that the chief inspector would,
“consider the Metropolitan Police Service’s progress in learning from the … recommendations of the IOPC report”.—[Official Report, 7/10/19; cols. 1985-86].
Would it not be helpful if the chief inspector was also able to consider, if he so wished, whether some of the conclusions or statements in the IOPC report were valid or not?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, in drawing up the terms of reference for the inspection, HMICFRS will come to its own conclusions about what the noble Lord has just outlined. I think taking into account the IOPC’s recommendation means taking a view of it in the round.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, Sir Richard Henriques’s report states that there were such inconsistencies between the fantasist Nick’s statements to Wiltshire Police and his later account to the Metropolitan Police that it was obvious that Nick’s account could not be relied on. In the full knowledge of that information, the senior investigating officer told a press conference that what Nick had said was “credible and true”. How can the so-called Independent Office for Police Conduct exonerate all those involved in such circumstances? Who are the IOPC trying to protect, and who was the DAC in overall charge of the investigation’s line manager at the time?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
First, the noble Lord will know that Wiltshire Police dismissed the claims of Nick. On his question of who the IOPC is trying to protect, the IOPC is independent of both government and the police, and it is absolutely right that such a body exists to be able to scrutinise them.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Henriques report on both the police force and the IOPC. I regret to have to make this point, but will my noble friend also comment on the role of Tom Watson, who seems to have unduly pressurised the police and who made the terrible remark about the late Lord Brittan that he was as near to evil as any human being could be—a remark made without any real foundation? Does she not agree that anyone who can make such a remark on such flimsy evidence is not fit to hold public office?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend reminds me of how the influence of public figures can influence the progress of an investigation. The decisions that Tom Watson makes about his future will be a matter for him, but it is very important that in the future the police are allowed to get on and do their job without external influence, particularly from people who are quite influential themselves.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, I have mentioned to my neighbour in Crondall, Lord Bramall, the satisfaction that many must feel at the robust nature of the final report of Sir Richard Henriques. I have also made a point—and perhaps the Minister will comment on this—about the sniping about Cressida Dick, who is good news as the recently appointed Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. Further to the question asked by the Member from the Liberal Democrat party, she should not take the rap for the dreadful mistakes made in this matter by the Metropolitan Police.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, in terms of taking the rap, the Henriques report makes it clear where accountability or failings have lain. It is a matter for the Metropolitan Police to hold the commissioner to account.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, is it not the case that this sorry story might never have unfolded if anonymity remained for victims until the police are ready to charge?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Of course, the presumption is anonymity before charge, but there will be circumstances where the police will feel it necessary to release names—although that is not in most cases; quite honestly, in a lot or most of the cases recently, it was through the media actually releasing names. It is against the law, I think, and anonymity before charge is an important standard to uphold, but of course we can all think of people who, had anonymity not been there, may never have come to justice.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Can my noble friend tell us a little more about the scope of the proposed Sir Tom Winsor inquiry? What did she mean when she said that it would ensure that lessons have been learnt? Does she not agree that, in addition to Carl Beech himself and the appalling incompetence of the police, there are a good many other parties involved who carry responsibility in this miserable affair, including some grandstanding Members of the other place and the more venal parts of the media—although there have been some very brave journalists as well? Is there not an important case for the Home Secretary to widen the scope of the inquiry. I greatly welcome that she has taken this move at last, in line with the very strong feelings of this House, but should this not be a wider inquiry into a miserable and disastrous affair, which reflects very badly on all those involved?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do not disagree with my noble friend calling it a miserable and disastrous affair. I know that the Home Secretary has been in communication with HMICFRS, not to try and direct the role of the inspection but to discuss with it what might be within the scope of the inquiry.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, returning to the issue of anonymity, the law does not work, and the Minister knows it. Many reputations have been destroyed. Can I raise the question that I raised the other day about Mr Steve Rodhouse, director-general of operations at the National Crime Agency, who is principally responsible for this disaster? Why is he not going to be sacked?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am afraid that the matter concerning the individual whom the noble Lord mentioned is a matter between him and the NCA.
Brexit: Preparations
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will repeat a Statement made today by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, with your permission I would like to make a Statement on our preparations to leave the European Union on 31 October and the steps that we are taking to get ready.
It is the strong desire of this Government to leave the EU with a deal. Our proposals to replace the backstop were published last week. I commend the Prime Minister and the Exit Secretary for their continued efforts to ensure that we can leave the EU with a withdrawal agreement in place. We have put forward a fair and reasonable compromise for all sides that respects the historic referendum result, and we hope that the EU will engage with us seriously.
In setting out these proposals, we have moved—it is now time for the EU to move, too. If it does, there is still every chance that we will leave with a new deal. However, if the EU does not move, this Government are prepared to leave without a deal on 31 October. We must get Brexit done so that the country can move on and focus on improving the NHS, cutting crime, helping families with the cost of living and further improving school standards.
In preparing for every eventuality, we are today publishing our No-Deal Readiness Report. This document is a comprehensive summary of the UK’s preparedness for leaving the EU without a deal. It sets out the preparations that the Government have made and how they have been intensified under the determined leadership of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, and also the steps that third-party organisations and individuals need to take in order to get ready.
The actions in this report reflect our top priority: ensuring that we maintain the smooth and efficient flow of goods and people from the UK into the EU and vice versa. The actions are also aimed at ensuring that we continue to support citizens—upholding their rights and helping them prepare for the changes ahead.
In order to prepare for Brexit, my right honourable friend the Chancellor has doubled funding from £4 billion to £8 billion. We have also published a significant volume of material relating to no-deal planning, including 750 pieces of guidance setting out the steps that businesses, traders and citizens should take in order to prepare. We have also published 31 country guides for all EU/EFTA states, setting out what UK nationals living there need to do in order to get ready for Brexit. And this morning my right honourable friend the Trade Secretary published the temporary tariff regime that will apply from 1 November. In all, it liberalises tariffs on 88% of goods by value entering the UK. It maintains a mixture of tariffs and quotas on 12% of goods, such as beef, lamb, pork, poultry and some dairy products, to support farms and producers who have historically been protected through high EU tariffs. As a result of cutting these tariffs, we should see a 15% reduction in the cost of honey from New Zealand, a 9% cut in the cost of grapes from South America and, of course, a 7% reduction in the cost of wine from Argentina.
Businesses raised a number of points in response to the publication of the original tariff schedule in March. The Government listened carefully to these representations and made three specific changes as a result. We are reducing tariffs on HGVs entering the UK, adjusting tariffs on bioethanol to retain support for UK producers and applying tariffs to additional clothing products to ensure that developing countries continue to have preferential access.
But it is not enough for just the Government to get ready; we need businesses and citizens to get ready too. Even with every government project complete, and necessary IT systems in place, flow at the border would still be affected if hauliers did not have the right paperwork. If companies do not prepare, they will face challenges in trading their goods and services with the EU. While the Government can of course lobby EU member states to improve their offer to UK nationals living in their countries, we need individuals to act as well, to register for residency and to make arrangements for continued access to healthcare. For that reason, the Government are investing £100 million in one of the largest public information campaigns in peacetime. Through both mass market and targeted advertising, we are alerting businesses and citizens to the actions they need to take to get ready. We are also providing a further £108 million to support businesses in accessing the information and advice they need.
My right honourable friend the Business Secretary is overseeing a series of events with businesses around the country, designed to provide information on all the steps that they need to take to get ready, including actions that will support the flow of trade through the short straits. My right honourable friend the Health Secretary has today established a trader readiness support unit for suppliers of medical products. This week, HMRC is writing to 180,000 businesses setting out the full range of steps that they need to take in order to import and export with the EU after we leave. Of course, in advance of 31 October, we will continue to use every means at our disposal to communicate to businesses the need to get ready.
I want to pay particular tribute to the automotive, retail and transport sectors, including authorities at the Port of Dover and Calais, as well as Eurotunnel, for the extent of their Brexit preparations. On a recent visit to the West Midlands, the heartland of our automotive industry, I was impressed by the steps that manufacturers are taking to prepare. Retail businesses have also made significant strides: Morrisons, for example, now reports that it is ‘prepared for all eventualities’ in the UK, while the Co-op says that it is ‘prepared for the worst case’. Of course, risks remain and challenges for some businesses cannot be entirely mitigated, even with every possible preparation in place. But the UK economy is in a much better position to meet those risks and challenges thanks to the efforts of those sectors and companies and my right honourable friend the Chancellor.
It is also the case that the impact of no deal on both the UK and the EU will depend on decisions taken by the EU and its member states. On citizens’ rights, internal security, data protection and the vital position of Northern Ireland, we have taken decisions that will benefit UK nationals as well as EU citizens. I hope that the EU will match the generosity and flexibility that we have shown.
Through the EU settlement scheme, we have ensured that every EU citizen resident here by 31 October can acquire a formal UK immigration status, protecting their rights to live and work in the UK. To date, 1.7 million citizens have applied and 1.5 million have been granted a status. Those who have not yet applied have until the end of December 2020 to do so. So far, very few EU member states have made as generous an offer to UK nationals as the UK has made to EU citizens. We do not believe that citizens’ rights should be used as a bargaining chip in any scenario. EU citizens in the UK are our friends and family—we want them to stay. We now hope that the EU extends the same hand of friendship towards UK nationals as we have to EU nationals.
At the same time, keeping our fellow citizens safe should be a priority on all sides. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has written to Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans to ensure that effective arrangements are in place on the exchange of passenger name record data, disconnection from SIS II and working arrangements with Europol, as well as the transfer of law enforcement data. We hope that the EU will respond positively, in the interests of the shared security of us all. We have also unilaterally ensured that personal data can continue to flow freely and legally from the UK to the EU and the EEA. A swift adequacy decision from the EU would reciprocate this arrangement, providing legal certainty to EU entities and UK companies.
With respect to Northern Ireland, in order to avoid a hard border, we have committed not to introduce any checks at the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. The limited number of checks that need to take place, due to international obligations, will all be carried out well away from the border and will affect only a very small number of businesses. The Irish Government and the EU have not yet set out how they will manage the Irish border if we leave without a deal. We urge them to match our commitment.
Let me finally turn to the opportunities from Brexit as laid out in the report. For the first time in 50 years, the UK will have an independent trade policy and we will be able to take our own seat at the World Trade Organization. We will be able to introduce a points-based immigration system that prioritises the skills that we need as a country. We will have autonomy over the rules governing our world-leading services sector and continue our leading role in setting global standards for financial services. We can be a beacon for the world in setting progressive policies on farming, fishing and the wider environment and, outside the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, we will set our own rules, putting in place smarter, more responsive regulation.
Of course, no deal will bring challenges and I have been open about that today, as I have been in the past. It is not my preferred outcome, nor that of the Government. We want a good deal, but whatever challenges no deal may create in the short term, and they are significant, these can and will be overcome. Far worse than the disruption of no deal would be the damage to democracy caused by dishonouring the referendum result. Some 17.4 million people voted to leave, many of them turning out to vote for the first time in their lives. They voted to ensure that the laws by which we are governed are set by the politicians in this place whom they elect. They voted for a fairer immigration system which attracts the brightest and the best. They voted to end vast financial contributions to the EU budget and instead invest in the people’s priorities such as the NHS and our brave police service. That is what the British people voted for and that is what this Government will deliver. I commend the Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement which, despite what we hear from sources at No. 10, claims,
“the strong desire of this Government to leave the EU with a deal”.
It is now 76 days since Mr Johnson became Prime Minister and 23 days until 31 October, but he has failed to get a deal: a failure that he said, and for which he would share responsibility, would represent “a failure of statecraft”. So, we have no deal, but is that the fault of the Prime Minister and his incompetence? Oh no, it is the fault of those pesky Europeans; it is the fault of the unbending Irish; it is the fault of Mrs Merkel; it is the fault of those pesky parliamentarians; and it is probably the fault of your Lordships’ House. But the truth, as we now know from the ever-helpful Spectator, is that there is no desire for a deal. It is all a ruse.
The Government are spending taxpayers’ money on advertisements to promote the 31 October date and the notion that we will leave on that day even though it would be unlawful without the consent of the House of Commons. The ads and the endless repetition of the date are all to absolve this incompetent Prime Minister of his failure, and it is all about preparing for an election where he can blame everyone but himself for our continued membership. But at what cost? What would be the cost of that much-trailed no deal? The IFS says £150 billion a year for business in administration alone, while the Government themselves are spending £8 billion to soften the blow. Then there are the tariffs to be paid by exporters, consumers and some importers—although not on Argentinian wine or New Zealand honey, which are not very high on the ordinary person’s shopping list. We will see higher food prices for consumers and the ending of pet passports. I am not making this up. It is all in the misnamed document I have in my hand. This is called “readiness”, despite what we hear from Ireland, from farmers, manufacturers, exporters, road hauliers, expats, medics and small businesses—that we are woefully unready. Indeed, it makes Ethelred the Unready seem extraordinarily well prepared.
Tariffs would hit us three weeks on Friday with an immediate impact on availability and prices. UK citizens abroad would lose some of their rights, while traffic congestion near Dover would make Parliament Square look like an open space. Moreover, with no adequacy agreement, any firm without an appropriate contract would lose data flow rights while the European arrest warrant would end. I say again: three weeks on Friday. Small businesses, hit by customs declarations for the first time, will be stymied in their work, and it is clear that the Government, despite this Statement, simply do not want a deal and are playing with people’s livelihoods. As Mr Tusk writes,
“what’s at stake is not winning some stupid … game. At stake is the future of Europe and the UK as well as the security and interests of our people”.
Speaking to the Prime Minister, he says:
“You don’t want a deal … you don’t want an extension”.
That says it all. The Deputy Prime Minister of Ireland agrees with the Tusk statement, which she says,
“reflects the frustration across EU and the enormity of what’s at stake … We remain open to finalize a fair #Brexit deal but need a UK Govt willing to work with EU to get it done”.
We are pleased that the Government have published this document. However, let us be clear: we on this side of the House—I probably speak for the whole House, not just this side—will do everything in our power to ensure that the no-deal nightmare does not come to pass.
I have only two questions for the Minister. First, does he really think that his Government will be thanked for taking the UK out of the European Union in this way? Secondly, does he think that the EU will help us to find a way forward when Leave.EU tweets over a picture of Mrs Merkel today the words:
“We didn’t win two world wars to be pushed around by a kraut”?
Is the Minister as embarrassed by that as I am?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, it is very difficult to know how much of this Statement to believe. It says that the Government still think that there is a chance of no deal. The text from No. 10 from last night—which the Spectator has now published—suggests that people with influence inside No. 10 have clearly entirely given up on the idea of a deal and are moving towards an election, so we have to treat this as the beginning of a series of election statements.
The statement that we will leave with no deal if necessary is a statement that the Government will defy the law. That is also an interesting statement for the Government to make to Parliament at this point. I note that, among other things, last night’s text says:
“To marginalise the Brexit Party, we will have to fight the election on the basis of ‘no more delays, get Brexit done immediately’”.
If that is what the national interest has come down to, we are all in deep trouble. Dominic Cummings appears to text as madly and prolifically as Donald Trump tweets.
There are a number of other fantasies in the text. However, I would like to start by pressing the Minister a little more on the fantasy that he gave us yesterday in suggesting that one could have production with different standards for the domestic and export markets. I am not sure whether the Government have had any discussions with any industrial sectors about having separate production lines. Perhaps they could tell us. We know very well that cross-contamination makes that sort of thing very difficult indeed in the food industry. The pharmaceutical industry depends on global markets, global standards and global research efforts. It will cease production in Britain if we start doing things like that. Non-tariff barriers produced by the British at different standards might also get us into trouble with the World Trade Organization.
If and when we leave the European Union, we will become “an independent trading country” again—as the Statement says—but we will not become an entirely independent economy. We depend very heavily on multinational companies which produce and invest in this country. If they cease doing so, we will all be poorer.
The Statement congratulates the automotive industry on how well prepared it is. What preparations is it making? It is closing plants for periods and reducing plans to build new models in this country. I remember a representative of the automotive sector saying to me in a briefing some weeks ago that it is now impossible to justify new investment in this country. That is the sort of preparation that it is making. This will make us and our children poorer over a longer period.
Another fantasy is that the World Trade Organization will be a major gain for Britain because we will have our own seat; this does not accept the deep crisis within the WTO which the United States has itself created. There is a failure to recognise that between the referendum three years ago and now there has been a downturn in the world economy, a protectionist turn in US policy and a trade conflict between the US and China, which makes the international context in which we manage the British economy much more difficult.
No form of Brexit offers comparable benefits to staying in the EU. That is what, after three years of discussions, the Government have discovered. As a result, the Government are not saying, “Now that we have been through all this, we need to modify our position”. They are saying, “Now that we have been through all this, we need to mitigate the disaster we are committing the country to”. This is a betrayal of Margaret Thatcher’s legacy. She pushed through the European single market as a major exercise in globalisation and deregulation by having common standards in one of the biggest markets in the world. The Government are now retreating to the idea that we will have our own little standards in a much smaller and weaker economy.
There have been all these comments about “vast financial contributions” to the EU budget. As I recall—since we are one of the richer countries and a major contributor—these are said to be £9 billion per year. Well, so far, we have spent £8 billion on the additional costs of leaving, and we have not yet begun to calculate the costs that we will incur from having to replace the shared agencies and facilities to which we have contributed as part of the EU with separate, national facilities. I mentioned yesterday the Joint European Torus in Culham; this is to become a national facility for which, I assume, the British Government will in future pay all the costs rather than a contribution towards shared costs. That is the sort of new cost that we will be developing.
When it comes to Britain in the world, where is British foreign policy? There is no sense of where Britain goes. This is a Vote Leave Government, not a Conservative Government. So much in this Statement seems to be without any foundation whatever. Lastly, it says there will be “damage to democracy” from “dishonouring” the referendum result. After the referendum, our current Prime Minister published an article in the Telegraph saying that there was no question that we had to leave the single market. He has changed his mind. Is it not time the Government changed their mind?
Lord Callanan
I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments and questions. I say to my opposite number, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that what I found interesting about her lengthy contribution—she had a number of clever debating points to make—was that she said nothing at all about Labour’s policy on Brexit. Of course, as we all know, Labour is against everything: against a deal, against no deal, against revoking Article 50. One of these days, maybe even in our debates, we may get to discover what the Labour Party is in favour of.
I will correct some of the points that the noble Baroness made. She said that it is unlawful to leave without a deal. That is not correct. Leaving without a deal is the legal—
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I referred to leaving without a deal without the consent of the House of Commons.
Lord Callanan
The record will show what the noble Baroness said. I wrote down that she said it was unlawful to leave without a deal, which, as she has now correctly said, is not the case. That is now for the European Council to determine as a matter of EU law. She said that businesses would lose their data flow rights; that is also not true. We have put in place substantial mitigations through standard contractual clauses. The Statement said that this will enable the transfer of data. We are urging the EU to put in place a proper adequacy decision, which should be straightforward on the basis that our regulation is, in fact, identical. We hope that it will do that.
Lastly, the noble Baroness asked me to condemn—which I happily do—the embarrassing, incorrect tweet from Leave.EU. Germany is a close friend, neighbour and ally. That comment was appalling and I join her in condemning it.
Moving on to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I picked up very few questions in his contribution. He said businesses would not have different production lines, but many already do. If you want to export to the Chinese, Indian or US market, you already have to meet the different standards they have. However, I readily accept his point about non-tariff barriers. He asked about the single market being an exercise in deregulation. I think that would come as a shock to many businesses that have to meet its standards. He talked about the £8 billion cost. Yes, the cost is considerable, but much of that expense would be incurred anyway. Even if we left with a deal, we would still incur the costs of leaving.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the civil servants and officials responsible for this document. Listening to the speeches from the Opposition Front Benches, it is perfectly obvious that they have not read it. It is very helpful indeed. The only criticism I make of the Government is that they did not give us very long to read it, but I have read it. On page 46, for example, it makes it absolutely clear that pet owners will still be able to travel to Europe with their pets after Brexit. They may need to take additional steps to prepare but it explains what these are. The opposition parties are scaremongering and making the same speeches. They have demanded to know what would happen if we left, but when a document is produced all we get are the same tired old arguments that we have heard over and again. I congratulate my noble friend and his officials on the fantastic piece of work that has been done in this document.
Lord Callanan
I thank my noble friend for his comments and join him in congratulating all the officials across government who are working on no-deal preparations. We have some excellent civil servants who are putting in a great deal of work to make sure that the country is prepared to honour the democratic decision the British people took to leave the European Union.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, at lunchtime, the BBC news reported that Mrs Merkel is looking for a customs union element in Northern Ireland in order to find some common ground. Given that Mrs May’s Government had that as a policy, and given the single market policy of the present Government, is it not possible to bring these together to find a compromise that can avoid us crashing out on 31 October?
Lord Callanan
The noble Lord makes a good point. We are seeking a compromise and have compromised considerably by conceding that Northern Ireland will remain aligned—part of the single market, effectively—for agri-foods and goods on the island of Ireland. We look to the EU to make similar compromises. No nation on earth has an internal customs border in its territory and it is unreasonable to expect the UK to do that.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Statement addresses the danger of dishonouring the referendum result, suggesting that 17.4 million people voted to end vast financial contributions to the EU and instead invest in people’s priorities, such as the NHS—I seem to remember that being on the side of a bus—and our brave police service. Fine, those investments would be great, but in light of the IFS’s suggestion today that a no-deal Brexit would lead to borrowing at levels not seen for 50 years and to our debt-to-GDP ratio rising to 90%, when will Her Majesty’s Government stop dancing to the tune of the Brexit Party, the Spartans and Mr Dominic Cummings, and acknowledge that the financial costs of Brexit, especially a no-deal Brexit, will outweigh any financial contributions that we have been making to the European Union?
Lord Callanan
I accept that the Liberal Democrats are quite open about the fact that they want to dishonour the result of the referendum; if only the Labour Party would be more honest, we might have more of a debate on the subject. We have accepted that there will be costs involved in honouring the referendum result and leaving the European Union. We are doing our best to mitigate those effects.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, the Minister talks about risks as well as the efforts to mitigate them. What will the Government do to support households on low incomes, particularly low-income families, if food prices rise? Will they raise benefits to support low-income families should food prices rise significantly after a no-deal Brexit?
Lord Callanan
This is an area that we shall have to look at if there is a fiscal event organised by the Chancellor later this year. The economy, however, is in great shape: we have unemployment levels that the Labour Party would have been proud of if it had been in office, the lowest unemployment for 40 years and the strongest level of growth over the past few years—even since the referendum result that Labour was always telling us would be such a disaster. Many European countries would give their hind teeth for the UK’s economic performance and unemployment levels.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, while I welcome the nature of this report, and, like my noble friend Lord Forsyth, its comprehensive approach to these matters, I have a question about the reference on page 142 to the powers of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. My understanding is that the Northern Ireland Civil Service does not have all the powers required in the event of no deal. Will he confirm whether that is so, what the consequences are, and when the Government intend to address the situation?
Lord Callanan
We have been liaising extensively with the Northern Ireland Civil Service, and indeed—the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, will be pleased to know—with the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government. If we have any announcements to make on that, we will make them in due course.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Will he confirm how many organisations are currently receiving funding for the asylum, migration and integration programmes via the responsible authority in the UK, and whether these will be placed at risk from a no-deal Brexit?
Lord Callanan
I do not have the figures for the number of organisations in front of me, but I will gladly write to the right reverend Prelate with them. But we have given guarantees to organisations receiving EU funding that they will continue to receive that funding after a no-deal exit.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, with regard to security, page 154 shows that we are taking powers to ensure that,
“Border Force Officers will have greater scope to refuse entry on the basis of criminal behaviour”.
How will they access real-time information about criminal behaviour in future?
Lord Callanan
One of the challenges of Brexit is internal security. We have done a huge amount of work on that behind the scenes. It is disappointing that the EU seems to be refusing to discuss many of those points with us, but we are, the noble Lord can be assured, putting in place all the appropriate mitigations so that we can still get access to much of this information.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I echo the implication of the question from the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. Will the Minister confirm that no deal in respect of the Irish border will require direct rule, so that the necessary civil contingency arrangements can be put in place? There is no question that that is so, and I would be grateful if he confirmed it. Can the Minister also explain why he said one thing to your Lordships—it was also said by the Minister in the other place—on the question of a deal, while a No. 10 source is quoted in the Guardian online, just an hour ago, as my noble friend Lady Hayter indicated, following conversations with Chancellor Merkel and other leaders, including in Dublin, that a deal looks,
“essentially impossible, not just now but ever”?
Lord Callanan
With respect to the noble Lord’s first question, I will not go further than the answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. I take the point made by the noble Lords, but when we have announcements to make on such matters, we will do so in due course. I will not comment on off-the-record sources in the Guardian.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Given that any delay would have to be decided collectively by the 28, I ask the Minister to answer a straightforward question: will the Government send a letter asking for a delay if 19 October arrives without a deal?
Lord Callanan
I have to give the noble Lord 10 out of 10 for persistence. We have been around this course a number of times. I will give him the same answer I gave in the debates and the Questions last week: the Government will of course abide by the law.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Page 29 of the Government’s paper shows that British exporters would see price increases on 60% of the UK’s exports to the EU. It says that these include increased prices of 65% for beef, 53% for lamb and 10% for cars. The Government must have estimated the total value extra of British exports regarding price increases. What are they for those businesses exporting to the EU?
Lord Callanan
We have been very open about the fact that some of the sectors the noble Lord mentions face very real challenges due to the EU’s protectionist nature and the imposition of tariffs. We stand ready to help those sectors in a no-deal scenario and we have interventions ready to mitigate the worst effects of tariffs in those sectors.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that for Northern Ireland to be outside the single market when Great Britain is inside it in no way infringes the constitutional position of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom? If he does so agree, could not exactly the same argument apply to the customs union?
Lord Callanan
I thank my noble friend for his question. The proposal we have put forward is for Northern Ireland to be aligned with the EU single market for agri-foods and industrial goods but not part of the customs union, but he makes an important point.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, under the heading “Harnessing Economic Opportunities”, the paper speaks of,
“a different approach to government procurement”.
What will this approach be? Is the idea that it will help UK companies? Will it incorporate British Standard 95009, a new standard that sets out the social and economic standards for public procurement? Is the idea of this to help UK companies? If so, how will that operate under WTO rules?
Lord Callanan
Of course we will always want to act in compliance with WTO rules, but the noble Lord will be well aware of the EU public procurement directives, which offer a very rigid and inflexible approach to public procurement. It is one of the many opportunities that we will be able to indulge in with smarter regulation but, of course, any proposals will be fully discussed in this House and the other place.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, this has been a tortuous process, but there will come a point when we will need to rally around the flag. Does the Minister agree that the time will come to keep politics out of this process and that we will start accepting the practical reality of no deal and the subsequent consequences? As things stand, what shortcomings still require urgent attention, or are the Government satisfied with the level of preparedness as set out in Operation Yellowhammer?
Lord Callanan
The noble Viscount makes a good point. I am reminded of the famous quote that an independent is a guy who wants to take the politics out of politics. I am not sure that we will ever take the politics out of an issue such as this. Operation Yellowhammer is mentioned in the report. It comprises the reasonable worst-case planning assumptions that we are operating under. It is put forward by the Cabinet Office Civil Contingencies Secretariat, which operates under a strict set of guidelines. We are attempting to mitigate the effects against those guidelines.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, as somebody who has just finished a nine-year stint as an adviser in the Northern Ireland Office, I lend my support to the comments of my noble friend Lord Bridges and the noble Lord, Lord Hain. In the unfortunate event of no deal, it will be absolutely crucial that the Government take powers to provide for the control and direction of the Northern Ireland Civil Service and Northern Ireland government departments, and appoint additional Ministers to the Northern Ireland Office to carry out and discharge those powers in the interests of the good governance of all the people of Northern Ireland.
Lord Callanan
My noble friend speaks on this subject with great authority. I entirely understand his point, but from his knowledge he will also understand why I cannot go any further than the answer I gave earlier.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, this is a factual question, not a pejorative one. What is the Government’s central estimate of the additional average time that it will take a lorry to pass through the channel ports from Dover to Calais, and what is their estimate of the economic cost of the delays that will result?
Lord Callanan
I am always suspicious when anyone gets up and says, “This is a factual question”. The noble Lord knows very well that it is impossible to put numbers on these issues—it depends on a huge range of factors. If he tells me what the exact interpretation and application of the regulations will be by the French authorities, I may be able to get closer to an answer that he wants. Our job is to ensure that businesses and hauliers are well prepared. That is why we are investing so much in a huge public information campaign. One of the interesting statistics is that more than 80% of hauliers crossing the short straits are not British operators; they are mainly from other European countries. This is one of the reasons why we need to reach out to those countries, to haulage associations, drivers, organisations et cetera, to ensure that those organisations know the requirements and have the appropriate paperwork in place to ensure that there are no delays.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, page 67 of the report, in the section on services, makes it clear that UK businesses and individuals operating in the EU will need to comply with host state rules, including on business travel, investing in and running companies, getting professional qualifications recognised and the levels of access to market. This may mean different regulations in every domain in which they operate. Can the Minister help me understand how this aligns with the Statement, which says that we will have,
“autonomy over the rules governing our world-leading services sector”?
Lord Callanan
The noble Baroness is a doughty defender of the services sector, and rightly so; it makes an invaluable contribution to the UK. The distinction is that we will be able to regulate our own services sector, but the regulations that apply on exports in individual EU and non-EU countries are matters for those countries themselves.
Lord Wrigglesworth (LD)
Given the IFS estimate that the economy is smaller by £60 billion as a result of the Brexit process, can the Minister tell the 60% of the electorate who did not vote for Brexit how much this whole exercise has been costing the United Kingdom since the Conservative referendum?
Lord Callanan
I think it was a UK referendum, not just a Conservative referendum. We are committed to honouring the result. I entirely understand the position of the Liberal Democrats: they want to forget about it and disavow the result, hoping that it will all go away. That is an offence against democracy, but I am sure that we will have this debate when it comes to the next general election.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that most people in this country will not share the indignation expressed by some noble Lords about the Government preparing for no deal, but will think that it is the obvious responsibility of the Government, while continuing to work towards a deal, to prepare for the contingency of no deal, which remains a very real possibility? Does he also accept that whatever the present intransigence of the Commission, the member states of the European Union will surely recognise that it is in their interests to work very closely and collaboratively with us on issues of security?
Lord Callanan
As always, the noble Lord makes very good points. Most people will of course accept that it is the legal default, and we should be preparing appropriately. I also entirely accept his other point. A lot of security co-operation takes place outside of the EU sphere, and we have been assured by the people responsible that that co-operation will continue, but of course, some security co-operation relies on access to EU databases et cetera. It is extremely disappointing that the Commission does not wish to discuss how we can better keep people safe in these areas.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, do not the comments of the German Chancellor to the Prime Minister—that Northern Ireland must remain in the EU customs union for ever—now reveal the true nature of both Dublin and the European Union? Furthermore, this demonstrates clearly what some of us have been saying for quite a while: that the backstop was intended to be neither temporary nor an insurance policy; rather, it was a device to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom.
Lord Callanan
I have seen lots of these rumours flying around on social media, and I adopt the same policy as I do towards other off-the-record briefings. I have not seen an official read-out of that phone call, but I hope that those were not comments that the German Bundeskanzlerin would make. If that were the case, the noble Lord would be correct, in that it is unacceptable to have a customs border within the territory of the United Kingdom.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I had understood that there was an additional 10 minutes of Back-Bench time on the Statement and it says 30 minutes on the screen. Would it be in order for this debate to continue?
Lord Callanan
I understood that it had been extended; I was not watching the clock. I am happy to stay and answer questions for as long as the House wishes, but it is for the Whips to determine.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
My Lords, I hope that the Minister would agree that, whether we leave the European Union with a deal or without one, we will need to have good relationships with our friends and colleagues in Europe in the future. That was implied in the question from my noble friend Lord Howarth. I do not agree with his views on Europe, but I do agree with him on that. Does the Minister think that last night’s briefing from Downing Street to the Spectator, which has not been denied or repudiated since, is likely to encourage co-operative and fruitful relationships with our partners in Europe, particularly in the event of a no deal? I very much hope we can avoid that, but I do not see much prospect of it at the moment.
Lord Callanan
Apparently there was a mix up in communications, but I am happy to answer the noble Baroness’s question. She made a good point in the first part of it: of course, we have to have good and friendly relations with European Union countries, both under the aegis of intergovernmental relations with the EU and bilaterally, and we are ramping up co-operation in embassies in order to do that. The reality is that there has to be a deal, whether that happens before our exit on 31 October or afterwards; it is not possible for us not to have a deal in our relations with the European Union. I totally agree with the noble Baroness on that point.
I cannot respond to all off-the-record briefings that appear on social media and elsewhere.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
In his Statement, my noble friend said that one of the opportunities of exit would be having our own seat at the World Trade Organization. What changes in policy does he expect to adopt as a result of us sitting alone at that table? Given the demise of the Trade Bill, how will Parliament and business be able to contribute to that important policy in future?
Lord Callanan
My noble friend makes a good point. We will want to be international champions for free trade, which is under threat in some parts of the world. The Trade Bill has not yet reached its demise; it is currently suspended and I hope there will be an opportunity to bring it back. On the more general point, we will want to consult closely with Parliament on our future trade relations.
Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, the Minister stated that the no-deal mitigation plans for meat exporters are in place. Does this include the mass slaughter of livestock for which there is no longer an EU market, given the huge hike in tariffs? The chairman of the Heart of the South West LEP has said that the impact of a no-deal Brexit on agriculture in the south-west will be considerably worse than foot and mouth. Do the Government agree?
Lord Callanan
I answered a question earlier on this business and I fully accept that the challenges of a no-deal exit are particularly acute for various meat and livestock sectors. We are aware of that, we are working closely with them, through the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and we stand ready with a package of assistance to aid those sectors.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, in reference to the reply that the Minister gave to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, page 15 of the report says:
“The Government has prioritised the smooth and continued flow of goods in and out of the UK in the event of the UK leaving without a deal on 31 October 2019”.
The Statement says:
“I want to pay particular tribute to the automotive, retail and transport sectors, including authorities at the Port of Dover and Calais, as well as Eurotunnel, for the extent of their Brexit preparations”.
In view of the doubt the Minister expressed about the position in Calais, will he confirm that this Statement and report mean that traffic will flow smoothly through Dover and Calais in the event of a no-deal Brexit?
Lord Callanan
I can certainly confirm that traffic coming into the country will flow smoothly, because we have said we will prioritise flow over checking. We hope that the French authorities will adopt a similar position, but we are doing our best to alert drivers and others, on a reasonable worst-case scenario, about what delays may occur and to advise them to minimise those delays by turning up with the correct paperwork.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
Does the Minister accept the judgment in the Scottish courts yesterday, where it appears that the judge argued that because he accepted the assurances given, both in writing and orally, by the Prime Minister or his aides at No. 10, there was no need to seek a declaration ordering the Prime Minister to honour the obligations that he appears to have entered into in Parliament? Does the Minister agree with the judge that it is now incumbent on the Prime Minister, therefore, to honour the requirements of the amendment, passed in this House originally, to give Parliament a meaningful vote, and also for Parliament to have the right to have the Benn Act taken fully into account?
Lord Callanan
We will abide by the law and of course we accept all court judgments.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, since we have this extra time, I ask my noble friend, in the midst of all this animosity, whether the United Kingdom is or is not, under international law and the 1993 treaty, as many legal authorities argue, still a member of the European Economic Area. If we were, that would obviously vastly ease the problem of deal or no deal and enable us to have an orderly transition and comply with all necessary aspects of the law.
Lord Callanan
My understanding is that when we leave the EU, we also leave the European Economic Area: we are members of that by virtue of our membership of the EU.
Lord Judd (Lab)
The Minister stated with absolute certainty that the Government are convinced that when a narrow majority of the population voted in the referendum to leave, they did so for a number of reasons listed in the Statement. What is the evidence that the majority of people voted for all these principles spelled out in the Statement? I have seen none. It is purely subjective, purely rhetorical and purely emotional. What is surely clear is that nobody, or very few people, can possibly have begun to understand in the referendum what all the implications and costs would prove to be. How can a Government committed to democracy and bringing the country together countenance going ahead with the course they have chosen without the people being given the opportunity to say whether they accept all these consequences or not?
Lord Callanan
I suspect that the noble Lord and I will not agree on this one. We think that the referendum result needs to be respected.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, three and a half years ago, I was asked to put together a team from my old company, P&O, to cover every aspect of transport in every form along the roads. On what is happening at Calais and Dover, Manston Airport will be used for the Dover-Calais runs, and the M40 will be used for the tunnel. One hour before the meeting this morning I was fully updated on the work that is being done. I assure my noble friend Lord Forsyth that what is shown in this document today is vastly advanced compared with how it has been for many years, and my compliments go to those involved. Most people want to come to an agreement—I hate the word “deal”—but if we do not, I reassure your Lordships that in practice, so much of what everybody is talking about today is to do with software, and many companies have already been set up to handle that. Can the Minister ensure that this is publicised? The software aspects of nearly everything we are involved in are the key to our success.
Lord Callanan
My noble friend makes some good points. We have put a huge amount of work in to make sure that traffic continues to flow freely through the Channel ports.
The Earl of Listowel
With the leave of the House, can I press the Minister a little further on the impact of a no-deal Brexit on low-income families in particular? I recognise the Government’s great achievement in achieving such a high rate of employment, but as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children, I have been examining for several years the impact of the cuts in local authority funding on families with low incomes. Many of the essential services that support low-income families have been lost; they have carried a heavy burden through the years of austerity. Can the Minister please look carefully, as far as he can, at mitigating any adverse impact, particularly of possible significant food price rises?
Lord Callanan
I thank the noble Earl for his persistence in this matter. He is quite right to raise these important issues, and I commend the work he has done in this area. We will of course keep this matter under review, and will certainly look closely at any appropriate mitigations.
Syria: Withdrawal of US Troops
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to an Urgent Question asked in another place on the withdrawal of US troops from northern Syria. The Statement is as follows:
“We are in close consultation with the US on its response to the proposed Turkish military action in north-east Syria. The Foreign and Defence Secretaries both spoke to their US counterparts yesterday. The US position, including any movement of US troops, is a matter for the US Government. However, the US Department of Defense said in a statement yesterday that the US does not endorse a Turkish operation in north-east Syria. We have been consistently clear with Turkey that unilateral military action must be avoided, as it would destabilise the region and threaten efforts to secure the lasting defeat of Daesh. As members of the global coalition, our focus remains on securing the enduring defeat of Daesh. We will continue to work with the US and other international partners to that end”.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, it has long been a concern that, due to Turkey’s veto, Kurdish representatives have been excluded from the Geneva and Astana peace processes, and are now excluded from the Syrian committee on constitutional reform. Will the Minister insist that in all future talks about Syria’s future, Kurdish representatives have a guaranteed seat at the table? Unfortunately, I understand that the US had not even notified the UN in advance of the decision to withdraw. In any contact that the Foreign Secretary has with our US allies, and indeed others, including the Turkish Government, will the Government ask that all parties engage through the proper international institutions?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s second point, yes, of course we are making that point very clear. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spoke with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo yesterday, when the threats of a Turkish military incursion were raised as a serious concern. The noble Lord raised another valid point: the SDF has been a key partner in the defeat of Daesh and now, as we seek to bring stability to the region, we must stand by our coalition partners. We have not defeated Daesh yet—perhaps geographically we have, but the ideological base is very much still present.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for his reply. Will the UK raise this at the UN Security Council? In this incredibly dangerous situation, will the Government provide any assistance, if necessary, to the Syrian Democratic Forces to enable it to maintain security at the seven camps that hold ISIS fighters? What assessment have the Government made of the impact of any further Turkish invasion of north-east Syria on UK military operations against ISIS and the security of British humanitarian organisations in the region?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the noble Baroness and I often discuss this, both within and outside the Chamber. To put it on record and to be absolutely clear, first, we do not support the proposed Turkish action. We are working very closely with international partners. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is seeking a call with the Turkish Foreign Minister in that respect. On support for the global coalition, the SDF continues to receive support. It has been extremely consistent and, indeed, integral to the defeat of Daesh. The gains made should not be lost.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what consultation took place from the US side with the British Government, given that we have resources deployed in that area? Secondly, it is not about whether it is the right of the Americans to withdraw their troops—of course it is—but whether we have made representations that we do not wish them to do that. Have we done that? Do we feel no shame at all that our principal ally is abandoning those who have died to enable us to defeat IS?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, first, as I said, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to Secretary of State Pompeo and relayed our concerns to him directly. We have also made very clear that we do not support any unilateral action by Turkey, which is also an ally. We will continue to work with our allies in the region, not only in support of what has been achieved on the ground but to bring stability to Syria as a whole.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench was absolutely right to draw attention to the risk of the sudden release of ISIS prisoners, which could undo the huge gains achieved in recent years. Will the Government reconsider their policy on the widows and children of ISIS fighters, particularly those who originated from this country? Other European states have taken back some of their people; surely we should do the same.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the Government’s position on foreign fighters has consistently been and remains very clear: those who have committed crimes should face justice for their actions. We have also been clear that foreign fighters should face justice in the most appropriate jurisdiction, which will often be the region where the crimes took place. I can reassure the noble Lord that we continue to work closely with all key partners in this respect, including on ensuring the safety and security of UK citizens as the Government’s number one priority.
I am acutely aware—I had meetings to this effect on the margins of the UN General Assembly—of the issues the noble Lord raises about camps, including those in Syria. I understand that one camp currently holds up to 40,000 either combatants or families of Daesh. That is of deep concern. It is an issue not just for Syria or Iraq; there is a global challenge and we need to be ready to face up to it.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
What is the United Kingdom Government’s long-term policy towards the Kurdish people? As we know, they were the one nation left after the First World War with no territory of their own. They are split among five nations, many in hostile environments. What is our long-term policy towards the Kurdish people, who have helped us so much in the fight against Daesh?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Wherever the Kurdish community is, we have continued to campaign and advocate for its important inclusion in any future settlement, whether in Iraq or Syria, which have made, as we have seen, certain gains— although recent events in Iraq have caused concern. We continue to ensure that all minority communities, whatever country they are in, including the Kurdish community, continue to receive vital rights of representation and are fully engaged and involved in all processes. As for immediate support, as I have indicated, the SDF has been part of the global fight against Daesh and remains an important coalition partner.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I understand every word of the question, but I do not understand the answer. What is our policy towards the Kurds? Do we have no shame about betraying them now? Have we made any representations to the United States? Will we be making any representation to the Turks?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I challenge the noble Lord; I do not agree with him. It is not we who have made any declarations; it is the United States. It is entitled to make decisions of its own. The United Kingdom remains a committed partner to ensuring that we bring peace and stability to Syria. As I have said, we stand by the SDF and our Kurdish partners, in both in Syria and Iraq. That position is clear and I am not sure why the noble Lord is so confused.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked what representations Her Majesty’s Government are making to the Turkish Government as well. Clearly, the United States has a sovereign right to withdraw its troops, but Turkey remains a NATO ally. Do we not have some leverage to talk to Turkish leaders to try to ensure that their actions against the Kurds do not lead to any further reprisals, going beyond what is happening in Syria in any case?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I agree with the noble Baroness. She is quite right to say that Turkey is a partner in NATO. We provide continued support for many Syrian refugees who have taken refuge in Turkey, which has supported the Kurds and other refugees from Syria. We will continue to raise our concerns. On this specific issue, the rights of the Kurdish community—indeed, any minority community—should be part and parcel of any future settlement found in Syria, as we continue to campaign for greater stability, and in representation in Iraq.
Customs Legislation and Amendments: Impact Analysis
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat, in the form of a Statement, the Answer given by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, to an Urgent Question in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
“Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am delighted to respond to the right honourable gentleman’s Question. The Government are devoting huge energies, as the Minister will know, to Brexit preparations. As the Prime Minister has stated, the Government’s preference is to leave with a deal, but, if necessary, without a deal, since it is so vital that we get Brexit done and move the country forward. The last thing businesses need is more uncertainty or delay. A key part of those preparations is to ensure that there is a functioning customs, VAT and excise regime on exit. To put the legal underpinnings in place, HMRC has laid 56 regulations to date following last year’s Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act.
To support the latest bunch of statutory instruments, debated by this House yesterday, the Government published a third edition of the overarching impact assessment of the movement of goods if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. This updates and builds on the previous versions of the impact assessment published in December 2018 and February 2018. The new version provides updates to cover the September 2019 regulations, including transitional and other arrangements for safety and security declaration requirements for the period after exit; further temporary customs and excise easements to extend the transitional arrangements after exit; further VAT-gathering powers to specify the type of information that can be collected from postal operators; and, finally, various technical amendments and transitional provisions.
As I said, our preference is very much for a deal, but the Government continue to make sure that this country is ready for no deal and that the impacts on businesses will be minimised as far as possible. That is why we have introduced a series of easements for traders moving goods in the UK, to take effect in a no-deal scenario. These easements—for example, our plan to simplify radically import processes for EU goods —mean that the costs identified in this impact assessment will be mitigated for UK importers. Crucially, the Government are also working to boost the long-term potential of the economy so that the United Kingdom can seize the opportunities that will exist for us outside the EU”.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. We have had a significant debate on Brexit under a number of headings this afternoon, and perhaps this one, the most precise of the lot, is likely to cause the most pessimism. This is HMRC indicating what will be the costs to business, and it has made it quite clear that the costs will be very significant.
Large companies importing and exporting in high volumes will face a cost of £28 for filling in the forms for each load imported, and this will take an employee on average one hour and 45 minutes. If the work is outsourced, HMRC estimates that the cost will rise to £56 for each consignment, based on the average charges of freight forwarders. This is HMRC getting down to nuts and bolts and being as accurate as it can—and it can only fill all involved in the health of our economy with considerable anxiety.
This of course is based on a no-deal Brexit. However, from the tenor of the discussions this afternoon in the House, it seems that there is a growing opinion that we are heading somewhat remorselessly towards no deal—or, to put it more accurately, none of us can see that any progress is being made towards an agreement with the European Union.
Left out of the analysis was any reference to the financial services industry. We cannot overestimate the significance of that industry to the overall health of our economy. So, although this is parlous as far as industrial goods and manufactures are concerned, we do not know the picture for a very significant part of our economy—and can only, therefore, I am afraid, be anxious about it.
What we are witnessing now is a process that reflects the failure of the Government, ever since they established their notorious red lines and made up their mind that they were going to set objectives that the European Union was unlikely to meet.
There is one additional feature on which the noble Lord did not make any comment. I do not blame him for that, because it is not directly related. Another aspect of a no-deal Brexit is that it is estimated by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that government debt will rise to its highest level for half a century. Bearing in mind that this takes into account the inevitable debt we ran into during the financial crash of 2008 to 2010, if this will be worse as a consequence of no deal, we can only yet again, I am afraid, tremble at the prospect, and at the same time redouble our efforts to ensure that the Government, even at this very late stage, strike a deal that is better than no deal.
Lord Bethell
I completely endorse the noble Lord’s sentiment. It is very much the Government’s policy to strike a deal and I, like others in the Government, very much hope that will be successful. The Government’s efforts are very much focused on that objective.
Let me strike at the heart of the question. The noble Lord started by saying that this report articulates what will happen, but actually it articulates what may happen under very strict circumstances. I pay tribute to the officials who prepared such a detailed report for its transparency and integrity. The report in no way dodges or mitigates for several areas in which performance may be considerably better than the headline figures.
First, there are areas in which easement by British government policy will help improve performance. There are three of those easements: the delay in the submission of customs declarations, which we discussed last night; a period of grace to get a guarantee in place to cover additional duties; and the phasing-in of pre-arrival requirements for the entry summary declarations. Secondly, we do not know what the EU will do to improve the situation and, thirdly, the behaviour of importers may introduce new efficiencies. With those in mind, I am hopeful that the headline figures may prove higher than those if a no-deal Brexit were ever to occur.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for speaking to me before Questions; I welcome that courtesy.
In its impact assessment, HMRC itself suggests that many of its assessments are cautious. This is an impact assessment just on the export of goods to the EU for UK bureaucracy; the £15 billion a year is on UK bureaucracy. As indicated, it does not cover exports of services or the likely reduced revenue to the UK Treasury from those extra business costs. It does not include any estimate of the additional bureaucracy costs to the recipient market in the EU. All those must together be marginally more than £15 billion, but—even if it were just the cautious £15 billion—that is massively more than any estimate the Prime Minister has made of the financial benefit to the UK of leaving the European Union with no deal at all.
As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, after being pressed by me and others, the Government are working on a package of assistance to benefit the agricultural sector and for the new tariff regime that we will put in place. Indeed, as the readiness report said, there will have to be mechanisms for off-setting new VAT procedures for services and new procedures for VAT processes on parcels—not included in the impact assessment. What are the mitigation measures and what is their value? What is the emergency package that would be necessary for the agricultural sector and small businesses? The Government have not published any information in global sums about what those mitigation factors might have to be. Finally, what is the global cost to British businesses of the increase in tariff prices, in addition to this bureaucracy that HMRC is indicating?
Lord Bethell
The noble Lord makes very thoughtful points, but I remind him that the estimates in this report are a responsible, thoughtful and transparent effort to calculate the kind of costs that a no-deal Brexit might bring about. They cannot anticipate how the EU might respond, how tariffs might be negotiated or how a trade deal with the EU might affect those costs. With so many imponderables, it would be extremely difficult to tot up a large total of the kind he asks about. I am happy to ask officials whether there is some kind of arithmetic that can be done and to write to him with whatever they can come up with.
Rural Economy (Rural Economy Committee Report)
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foster of Bath
That this House takes note of the Report from the Select Committee on the Rural Economy Time for a strategy for the rural economy (HL Paper 330).
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, given the current political turmoil, it is tempting to confine my remarks to just one of the issues in our report that will have a huge impact on the rural economy, namely Brexit. While I can see no good news for the rural economy coming from Brexit, not least from a no-deal Brexit, I am sure your Lordships will be pleased that I shall avoid the temptation.
However, I am reminded of the story of the teenager who borrows his father’s new car. When he returns he asks his father if he wants the good news or the bad news. The father asks for only the good news, so the son replies, “Well at least the airbag on your new Volvo works perfectly”. There is certainly some good news alongside the bad in relation to the rural economy as your Lordships’ committee, which I had the privilege to chair, discovered. It was set up in May last year with the wide-ranging task to,
“consider the rural economy and to make recommendations”.
We published our report in April this year and the Government responded in July.
I am enormously grateful to the committee staff—Simon Keal, Katie Barraclough and Breda Twomey—and to our two special advisers Mark Shucksmith and Brian Wilson. I am also grateful to the Minister who throughout showed a close interest in the work of the committee. I am confident that he is as keen as the committee to get things done to support rural economies, so I hope he was pleased with our recommendation that his status in government be elevated. I am especially grateful to the talented team of Peers who served on the committee. The wealth of expertise of committee members in your Lordships’ House should surely make any Government take their recommendations very seriously. My only claim to rural fame is living in a hamlet of eight people in deepest rural Suffolk, but our committee included a number of farmers, the former chair of the commission on the future of farming and the countryside and a former Defra Minister as well as the current chair of the Woodland Trust, the current president of the Countryside Alliance and the current chair of the Prince’s Countryside Fund.
Of course our recommendations were significantly influenced by the evidence we received and by the visits we made. We took oral evidence from 60 individuals and organisations, received more than 200 written submissions and visited rural areas in Herefordshire and South Yorkshire. We quickly realised we should not talk about “the” rural economy—there are many different rural economies. Some are sites of innovation and creativity that, on some measures, outperform their urban counterparts. For example, rural businesses are more likely to report a profit and more likely to be successful exporters than their urban counterparts.
The first paragraph of our report begins:
“For many, rural England is a great place in which to live and work or to visit, with the countryside rightly regarded as one of our greatest assets. With a vast range of rural businesses and initiatives, and new sectors growing fast, rural economies are increasingly diverse, dynamic and vibrant”.
That is the good news, the airbag working well, but the paragraph continues:
“But successive governments have underrated the contribution rural economies can make to the nation’s prosperity and wellbeing. They have applied policies which were largely devised for urban and suburban economies, and which are often inappropriate for rural England. This must change. With rural England at a point of major transition, a different approach is urgently needed”.
Inevitably our deliberations were wide-ranging. After all, a thriving rural economy depends on many factors: adequate and affordable housing and work places, decent broadband speeds and mobile coverage and access to finance, business support, skills and training as well as a fair share of funding for local services such as transport, policing and healthcare. No wonder our report is somewhat weightier than is normal for such documents.
Rurality brings special challenges in all those areas but we discovered that relatively little has been done to help rural areas address them. Often the policies—or lack of policies—of successive Governments have created obstacles, hindering the success of rural economies so that rural businesses contribute less per head to the national economy than urban businesses. There is a huge disparity between rural and urban service support. Support for rural public transport is far lower per head than for urban public transport, leaving rural areas increasingly car-dependent, despite 25% of rural people having no access to a vehicle or being unable to drive.
The formula that determines health funding currently transfers at least £1.3 billion away from rural areas and does not properly account for the additional costs of rural health provision. Rural areas receive almost 25% less funding per head for policing than urban areas. Average rural housing costs are nearly £90,000 higher than those in urban areas, excluding London, while average wages are 10% lower. Furthermore, rural areas really lose out in council funding. In this year’s settlement funding assessment grant, rural councils are getting 66% less per head than urban councils, and to make up the gap rural residents are paying around 20% more in council tax. No wonder our report called for urgent action, which is covered in nearly 100 recommendations to government and, in some cases, to other bodies such as councils and LEPs.
However, the first and central recommendation stemmed from our clear belief that at present rural policy is disjointed and badly prioritised by urban-oriented policymakers without due regard for rural interests. Therefore, just as the Government saw the need for an industrial strategy, we believe that they now need a comprehensive rural strategy, and we provide details on what we think it should look like to release unfulfilled potential and enhance the contribution that rural England can make to the whole nation while, crucially, retaining its distinctive character. To achieve this, we argue that the rural strategy must be linked to re-energised rural-proofing and a place-based approach to delivery, in which rural-facing LEPs step up their game.
Despite hearing some positive examples of rural-proofing, such as in the development of the industrial strategy, we also heard of major problems, including late timing, poor consultation, inconsistency of application and lack of transparency and accountability. There is clear room for improvement and we make recommendations on how this should be done, including the requirement of an annual report to Parliament on how departments have fulfilled their rural-proofing responsibilities. In recognising the huge variety of rural economies, we stress that the rural strategy, and the policies that flow from it, must take these variations into account and ensure that local communities are fully engaged—hence our call for a place-based approach involving local people and organisations. Therefore, our three key proposals are interlinked and mutually supportive: a coherent rural strategy, re-energised rural-proofing and a place-based approach to delivery.
However, we have also made many recommendations on service delivery. For example, rural areas currently receive vital support from various EU schemes. If we leave the EU, similar help must be continued with, for example, the planned shared prosperity fund, including a dedicated funding stream to support rural economies. We argue for a fair funding review that ensures that local government and other service providers have enough funds to deal with rural challenges and the additional costs of rural service provision. We point out that connectivity is a major key to unlocking the potential of the rural economy. However, rural digital infrastructure has lagged behind in the past, so, while welcoming some of the recent very positive moves, we propose further measures to ensure that that is not the case in the future.
We also argue that affordable housing must be a priority. Only last week Sky News reported that the number of social homes being built in rural England has fallen by more than 80% in the last six years. Our report suggests that that is partly to do with government policies that too often disregard rural interests. For example, in most cases the NPPF prevents local authorities requiring affordable housing on developments of fewer than 10 homes, which are common in rural areas, so we propose a rural exemption. Moreover, knowing that since 2012 under the right-to-buy scheme, of every eight rural houses sold only one is replaced, we suggest that the right to buy in rural areas should be suspended or made voluntary. I am sure that noble Lords will refer to many other recommendations made in the report, from a review of rural rates relief to measures to maximise the benefits that the creative industries can bring to rural economies.
When our report was published, we were extremely heartened by the response to it. Organisations such as the Rural Services Network, CLA, ACRE, CPRE, the Rural Coalition, the Rural Housing Alliance and the National Rural Crime Network, were all extremely positive. Our key recommendation for the introduction of a rural strategy was especially well received. But, sadly, the Government’s response takes us back to the story of the new car and its functioning airbag. There are some positives and some good news. Perhaps the best is in relation to rural-proofing where the Government acknowledge that more can be done. The response talks of helping departments to develop a greater understanding, of publishing an evidence-based report on rural-proofing each year, and of establishing a rural affairs board to steer work on rural-proofing. We welcome all of this, but the response clearly illustrates that there is a long way to go. For example, we are told:
“DfE and DfT are currently preparing a joint proposal for discounted public transport for apprentices”.
I wonder whether the DfE and DfT yet realise that there is little or no public transport in many rural areas, so that is of no real help to rural apprentices and hardly evidence of good rural-proofing.
Even so, there is other good news. On tackling rural crime, we were encouraged that in the Prime Minister’s proposals to increase police numbers by 20,000 he said specifically that the increase will focus in particular on underresourced rural areas, while the fair funding review appears to be moving in the right direction. There is support for our proposed community capacity fund to support local leadership and voluntary action but not, as we suggested, any government funding for it. In the area of boosting digital skills in rural SMEs, the trailblazer digital skills partnerships may well point the way forward. Even while our report was at the printers, we read that our desire to see re-established and re-invigorated Wheels to Work schemes may well be realised by the launch of a new national charity, W2W UK, to do just that.
We have heard warm words. Recently, the new DCMS Secretary of State, Nicky Morgan, said:
“Rural communities are a thriving hotbed of industry and technology and for them resilient digital connectivity is vital. They must not be forgotten as we continue to improve Britain’s digital infrastructure”.
There is some good news and some warm words, but not much.
Two years ago, the then Business Secretary, Greg Clark, said
“Some of the biggest economic opportunities are in the rural parts of the United Kingdom”. [Official Report, Commons, 12/9/17; col. 631.]
We anticipated a very positive response from the Government to many of our key proposals, but much of it was disappointing. It acknowledges the importance of tackling challenges such as connectivity, housing, business support and transport, but largely just restates existing policies rather than committing to new ones. In some cases, such as the committee’s call for landowners not to be held liable for the costs of clearing up fly-tipping, the Government simply dismiss our recommendations.
Most regrettable is the response to our proposal for a comprehensive rural strategy. While stating that the Government will,
“expand on its strategic vision”,
for rural areas, they go on to reject the idea of a strategy. They claim that rural priorities can be delivered through local industrial strategies, thus avoiding the risk of,
“rural areas being placed in a silo through having a single rural strategy”.
Several rural organisations wrote to the Times stating they were “deeply disappointed” by this decision. The Rural Services Network added:
“It shows not only a lack of government ambition for rural communities, but also a lack of appreciation of how strongly rural communities feel disconnected from government policy-making”.
It says that the response is,
“missing the point and misrepresenting the purpose of a rural strategy”.
Can the Minister explain why the Government claim that a rural strategy will create a silo for rural areas while at the same time agreeing to beef up rural-proofing?
I am clear that the scale of the challenges we identified cannot be remedied with sticking plasters, nor are commitments to promoting rural proofing meaningful without a clear strategic framework in which rural policy is made. I believe that the Government's response fails to engage with our key premise—that rural areas are distinctive and require a distinctive approach from policymakers.
All too often, the policies highlighted by the Government in their response are not rurally specific. This confirms our criticism that successive Governments have seen rural areas as an adjunct to urban areas, rather than as areas that need to be treated as separate and distinct, with specific challenges and priorities. As the letter to the Times says,
“overall the failure to put in place a robust and properly funded rural strategy constitutes a worrying missed opportunity and risks a continuation of the status quo … Yet again the Government's attitude towards rural communities has left people feeling frustrated and ignored”.
For too long, successive Governments have had a blind spot for rural economies. We now need more than an enthusiastic and supportive Minister. Whatever the outcome of the current political turmoil, we need all relevant departments and the Government as a whole to heed the words from the Countryside Alliance in its briefing for today's debate:
“It is now time for the Government to move away from one size policy fits all and sit up and listen to the voice of rural Britain.”
I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for his very good chairmanship of the committee. He had a diverse group of Peers with different interests to handle, but we all managed to come up with a report with which we agreed unanimously. I also thank our clerk and his staff, as well as the two special advisers, Mark Shucksmith and Brian Wilson, for their support.
Examining the rural economy was a huge and diverse remit, possibly too big for the structure and timetable imposed upon us. Our report makes recommendations for not only the Government but various other organisations, as appendix 8 makes clear. I wish to focus on our main recommendation for the Government, which is also the title of our report: Time for a Strategy for the Rural Economy.
I have never sat on a committee where so many—often positive—policy changes by different departments were announced during our consideration. That these were not co-ordinated merely confirmed the overwhelming evidence we received that a strategy for how land is used is essential for understanding change in a multifunctional landscape. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have spatial policies to take stock of land use, setting out a vision for how the country could make better use of land, whether for development, farming, energy, recreation, conservation or other uses. It is long overdue that England should have one too.
We are not the first to recommend such to a Government, nor will we be the last. We had high hopes that the Government would be more sympathetic this time, especially after the very good evidence session that we had with the previous Secretary of State and my noble friend Lord Gardiner, but no—the same negative and disappointing reply was forthcoming.
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the recently published Glover report on national parks only adds to our arguments? It states that:
“There is no common ambition and a culture which has neither kept pace with changes in our society nor responded with vigour to the decline in the diversity of the natural environment”.
I agree. I would merely extend the criticism to the rural economy. A quarter of England is already covered by national landscapes. If the Government implement the Glover recommendations, with the extra costs, at a time when government borrowing is expected to rise to levels last seen in the 1960s if we leave the EU without a deal, I fear for the rural economy in areas outside the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. They will suffer disproportionately and become increasingly neglected without a rural strategy.
While on the subject of landscapes, there is a concern that the focus on climate change and net zero, welcome though it is, may override other policy objectives such as biodiversity and agriculture productivity. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the key is to consider mitigation strategies across the land management system rather than dramatic landscape transformations resulting in changes to ecological balance that affect biodiversity? Can he also tell us how he sees the role of agroforestry in meeting woodland planting objectives?
The evidence we took on rural-proofing merely confirmed that which we had received in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 Select Committee a year earlier. It is still not working satisfactorily. It is nearly 20 years since the recommendation that rural-proofing should be formally established. Therefore, I wonder if “congratulations” is the right word in response to Defra finally setting up a rural affairs board of senior civil servants from various departments. This is just not enough. What Whitehall needs is the enthusiasm and vision of my noble friend the Minister. It needs to bring that focus both at the early stages of policy development and during implementation of those policies, because rural-proofing is an ongoing process.
We made other recommendations. I move quickly on to broadband and have just one question for the Minister. Does the Prime Minister’s commitment to deliver full broadband to every home in the land by 2025 still hold good? Recent announcements seem to weaken that promise.
Crime is a key issue for rural communities and is growing rapidly. It is also underreported in rural areas, as confidence is low in the ability and willingness of the police to solve a crime. Does the Minister agree that fear of crime has a debilitating effect on the quality of life, and that the number of people worried about becoming a victim of crime in rural areas is twice that of those in urban areas? This needs attention.
I turn next to local enterprise partnerships. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, is unable to take part today as he would wax much more lyrical than me on our concerns about them. Clearly, most are not taking the rural economy into consideration in the way that they should. It is all very well to say that they must work with local authorities but, as their boundaries are often not coterminous, there are in-built difficulties from the start. With 25% of all registered businesses in rural areas, the Government will have to ensure that some LEPs revise how they work.
Finally, I turn to rural services, which the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, also covered. These are the glue which hold communities together and thus play a more significant social role than in towns and cities, yet they are in more comparative decline than in urban areas. As he—our chairman—said, this needs addressing urgently to rectify the balance.
In conclusion, I come back to where I started. We appreciate that Defra is nearly submerged by the very pressing problems and opportunities of Brexit, especially if it is with no deal. I ask the Minister to think again about the need for a rural strategy; this would be the basis for all subsequent decisions, which could be taken in a much more coherent and satisfactory way than has been the case to date.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, it was both a pleasure and a privilege to serve on this committee, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, whom I warmly congratulate. I pass my sincere thanks to my fellow committee members for their wisdom, insight and experience, and for the fun we shared. My thanks also go to our very able clerk, Simon Keal, and his colleagues, and to our excellent specialist advisers, for their wonderful servicing.
The visits that we made out of London were challenging for the staff to organise but they did an exemplary job, and those visits were particularly informative and helpful to our deliberations and eventual conclusions. I was very pleased to visit my home county of Herefordshire and see some of the innovative work going on there, although my local contacts—especially in my role as patron of Herefordshire Carers Support—give me grave concern about the resources available to the local authority to support the health and care needs of their population.
The ageing population and rural health services were a particular concern to me and to some other members of the committee. Our strong recommendation was that the higher than average age of rural dwellers, which is of course increasing, should be reflected in policy and funding allocations, especially in view of the additional costs associated with things such as transport in rural areas. The availability of staff is an issue too, particularly those on low wages. Very few health and care workers will be able to afford a house in an area of outstanding natural beauty.
Rural people understand that they will never have a major general hospital in every market town, but they should not be further disadvantaged by their rurality and asked to accept inequity of access to facilities by thoughtlessness—simply assuming access, as many agencies do—or deliberate use of resources to service only those in urban areas because these services are easier to plan. Loneliness and isolation must also be taken into account, especially where mental health in rural areas is concerned. I hope the Minister will confirm that the Government will take steps to support rural mental health more widely.
The title of our report indicates, as have other Members, that we discussed the issue of a rural strategy widely, and we very much hope the Government will follow our recommendations on this. We had most valuable contributions from our many excellent and knowledgeable witnesses and notably from Action with Communities in Rural England. I must declare an interest as my husband chairs this organisation. Its analysis helps us conclude that rural people are not some kind of exception, to be thought about only after we have made the major decisions for our society with cities and towns in mind. Some 17% of the UK’s population live in rural areas and they enjoy the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else; they must be thought about as part of the whole. That is why ACRE believes that nobody from a rural area should be unreasonably disadvantaged by where they live.
Living in a rural area may be a choice for some, and I am one of those for whom it is a very welcome choice. However, it should never be considered just a lifestyle choice for anyone. Beautiful surroundings are less of a privilege when low incomes and disadvantage mean you cannot access the necessities of life or when your family have had to move away for jobs and income and are therefore unable to care for you when you are unwell.
When it comes to the complex and sophisticated requirements of a modern society, rural residents require public administrators and politicians to be innovative about how access is created for them. We know that solutions to the problems facing society will become increasingly dependent on digital hyper-connectivity. It is essential that rural areas are enabled to play a full part in these solutions, as well as benefiting from truly nationwide digital initiatives. Public investment in these must be assessed on an appropriate long-term basis, with equity for rural people firmly in mind. As one who had to make 87 separate phone calls to get broadband established, I feel that very strongly.
The issue of connectivity, whether for business or social purposes, came up time and again, and other committee members will cover this with more expertise than I can. Any assumption that people can access everything online is dangerous. If you live in a rural community, you are constantly reminded that the delivery of the parish magazine on paper by someone on foot is still very important.
I hope that our call for a strategy emphasises that we have been too prone to see rural and urban issues as separate. While acknowledging, as my noble friends have, the distinctive nature of our rural areas, we must acknowledge that the urban and rural parts of the English regions are much more interdependent than we have perhaps realised. As far as the economy is concerned, food production, waste management, the provision of clean water, flood prevention and so on are all interlinked, as the Minister has often acknowledged. I hope he will confirm that in his response tonight. Public investment must reflect this interdependence and ensure a fair future for all a region’s residents, both urban and rural.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I add my thanks to our chair, clerks, advisers, the expert witnesses who appeared before us—and especially to the community members who hosted our committee’s visits. Mainly, however, I thank my fellow Peers for their collegiality on the committee.
Like our chairman and others who sat on the committee, I am disappointed that the Government have declined to accept our recommendation that they initiate a rural strategy to outline the future they see for rural communities. As committee members and advisers analysed our evidence-taking sessions and examined documents we had received, we concluded that the Government’s present reliance on policy priorities leads to inconsistencies in delivery as current priorities are inevitably replaced by others.
Calling for a government strategy is, I believe, appropriate. We set out our definition of such a strategy as,
“an over-arching framework document which would set out the Government’s vision, aim and objectives over a multi-year period”.
Such an approach would allow government departments to feed into the framework and, crucially, would provide the long-term certainty that our rural areas need.
I will highlight three issues. The first has already been referred to by our chair. One of the most common complaints we heard in our witness sessions was the lack of consistency in the quality of the rural-proofing process at both government and local levels. This was highlighted for me when, earlier this year, I paid a visit to Bishop’s Castle in Shropshire and was fortunate to meet the pupils and staff of the community college there. The college is a highly successful rural LEA secondary school situated in the idyllic countryside of the Long Mynd in the south of the county. Last year it was failed, probably as a result of the law of unintended consequences. Nevertheless, it was failed.
Since the 2014-15 financial year, the college had received sparsity funding of £100,000 per annum, the maximum allocation available, but for the 2018-19 financial year changes to the funding formula were introduced. The maximum allowance was reduced to £60,000 per annum, and schools with more than 300 pupils on roll suddenly found that this was to be reduced on a falling pro rata basis. The consequence was that the school’s allowance was reduced by £66,200 to £33,800—a massive drop in income for a school of this size. In the words of the head teacher, “the formula just doesn’t support rural schools”. So much for rural-proofing. It also begs the question: what is the Government’s strategy for rural schools? How do they ensure that policies or formulae that support rural schools cannot be changed to the detriment of the very schools they were designed to help?
My membership of your Lordships’ Rural Economy Select Committee coincided with news of the closure of the last bank in the small market town where I live, and it became obvious that access to cash would be a burning issue for our rural community in north Wales, as it is for many communities throughout the UK. It is an issue that the committee took very seriously. Throughout the UK, many of our shops, cafés and other businesses still deal only in cash, and many people prefer to use cash for small transactions. Indeed, there are up to 1.2 million people in the UK who do not have access to a bank account.
Access to cash is only one side of the coin: cash circulating in a community needs to be deposited by businesses. The Post Office, as it has done in many communities, has stepped in to fill the gap. I certainly welcome the co-operation between the Post Office and the UK high street banks, which led to the establishment of the banking framework in 2017 and which has enabled customers to carry out day-to-day banking at Post Office branches. I welcome their commitment to banking framework 2, which will see a significant increase in the fees paid to the Post Office by banks for processing transactions.
The coalition Government began a programme to maintain and modernise the Post Office network in 2010 and I welcome and acknowledge the £2 billion that Governments have committed since then, but could the Minister assure me that there will be continued government investment in the maintenance and modernisation of the network? What strategy are the Government intending to put into place to ensure the future of post offices in our rural areas?
As a committee, and as individuals within it, we are very aware of the problems of loneliness and social isolation in rural areas. I was particularly impressed by the scheme we heard about when we visited Fownhope in Herefordshire. Its compassionate community scheme has 18 companions, who make weekly or fortnightly visits to those who need company and support, based on referrals from the local medical centre. These visits help reduce hospital visits, encourage sociability and combat isolation.
One of the major contributary factors to rural social isolation is the worsening situation regarding rural transport. Indeed, in many areas the rural transport system has virtually collapsed. The system in Wales is no exception. Rural areas throughout the UK have similar problems, but devolution allows the devolved Administrations to tackle problems in a different way or at different paces.
Earlier this year, the Welsh Transport Minister announced £1 million of funding for pilot projects that, together with Transport for Wales, will test innovative forms of demand-responsive bus travel across Wales. Conwy County Borough Council, where I live, was one of the three project winners and the county will stage a three-year trial based on the Conwy valley area, aiming to give those who live in a six-mile radius of Llanrwst, our market town, access to all our facilities. It is an exciting project that, if successful, will see demand-responsive transport available to everyone, whatever their age, free for those with bus passes and £1 per journey for others.
The Chancellor’s recent infrastructure funding announcement that a national bus strategy will be initiated in England begs the question: why cannot the rural element of that strategy for buses contribute towards a rural strategy framework document covering all the issues that the committee has raised?
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, you may well ask what the Bishop of London is doing adding her voice to a debate on our strategy for the rural economy. Despite having spent most of my adult life in London, my five years in the West Country and latterly as the Bishop of Crediton in Devon demonstrated to me the challenges of rural life. I also know how, as a country, the strength of our economy as a whole is interrelated with the rural economy. The World Bank has said that the rural environment is often the country’s “growth engine”, and, particularly relevant in the light of this week’s events,
“the food supply and the rural population are custodians of the environment and ecosystems”.
As co-chair of the All-Party Group on Rural Health, I am grateful for the excellent work of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Rural Economy. I thank it for its hard work. I also support the need for rural strategy to be taken seriously by the Government.
As already indicated in this debate, the rural economy has its roots in many interrelated aspects, IT, education, healthcare and transport being four. If we want a strong rural economy, we need to ensure that strong infrastructure is in place. The report comments on the need for strong IT infrastructure. With more people working at home in our rural communities than in our urban centres, and with the increased need for digital health, the rollout of broadband is essential. Where there should be hot-spots, rural-proofing reveals that there are not-spots. Cornwall is much better for digital access than where I was in Devon. Why? Because of EU funding in Cornwall.
When I was in Devon, I saw the challenge of maintaining quality education and healthcare when the road infrastructure in some areas was so difficult. Ensuring the recruitment and retention of teachers, nurses and doctors depended as much on transport accessibility as it did on the quality of organisations. I have been encouraged over recent months by campaigns to encourage people to train as nurses. Primary school children have access to mini nurses’ uniforms. Apprenticeships and cadet schemes have been introduced, but more could be done to tailor these to rural communities. Three avenues that I believe should be explored further are direct entry into community nursing courses, just as we have direct entry into midwifery; increased distance learning for healthcare professionals; and improving the understanding of the nature of rural healthcare within our training organisations.
We must also be honest. In some of our more isolated rural communities, providing healthcare and education will cost more than providing the same service in our urban centres. Yet the report highlights that despite the population in rural areas being older, there is less spending per head of population on healthcare. Yes, this is good investment, because it contributes to our rural economy, but fundamentally it is a mark of our Christian hospitality to seek to include all of society in its flourishing.
I also welcome the Government’s commitment to the role of volunteers in building community life. The church continues to be at the very heart of the rural community, often there after the post office, the bank, the library and the pub have left. There are over 10,000 Church of England churches in Defra-defined rural areas. Many who go to church are also involved in other activities in their communities. This makes a real difference to the whole vibrancy of place. As part of our evidence for this report and written submissions, the Church highlighted the importance of our community action, our buildings and the Church’s involvement in social enterprise. In its 2018 survey, the Rural Community Action Network found that of the rural parishes surveyed, 80% were involved in running community events; 65% provided lunch clubs or similar activities for older people; 31% had community cafes; 49% offered a parent and toddler group; 17% provided activities for people with dementia; and 23% had active youth work. All of these contribute to the rural economy.
We have also extended the use of our church buildings. For example, St Giles, Langford, in the Diocese of Chelmsford, turned its vestry into the village shop, without significant adaptation of the rest of the building. St Mary the Virgin, Stannington, in the diocese of Newcastle, adapted its buildings to create a community meeting space and an IT room, much needed by the local community. The Arthur Rank Centre and the Plunkett Foundation found that social enterprises in churches make a significant contribution to the provision of the much-needed services in rural communities, as well as improving the sustainability of the building itself.
I am pleased that in their response, the Government illustrated their support for rural communities through their investment in the Plunkett Foundation, which supports the development of rural community businesses owned and run by residents. I also welcome the Government’s expressing an interest in working further with the foundation to host community businesses. Can the Minister explain what practical help the Government intend to provide it with to take this work forward?
Additionally, what is the Minister’s response to some of the issues that I have outlined, specifically on the Government’s commitment to increasing community-driven digital infrastructure in rural areas to help bridge the digital divide; improving transport links in these areas; and taking into account geographical factors in healthcare funding differentials?
Given the level of complexity, it is clear that a strategy for the rural economy is a cross-government agenda. As such, I welcome the promise made in the Government’s response that Defra will produce an annual evidence-based report on rural-proofing, which is taking place across departments. I hope the Government will confirm that this report will include evidence of rural-proofing in LEPs’ industrial strategies and give a clear indication of when the first report will be published.
I am grateful that this report highlights the need for a comprehensive approach. I hope it proves a catalyst for the policy changes that are desperately needed to ensure the flourishing of our rural communities, for the benefit not just of the rural economy but the country as a whole.
Lord Haselhurst (Con)
My Lords, I salute the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and his colleagues, for their work in producing this mammoth report. I was struck by the range of organisations that impinge on the rural economy and the host of funding bodies that have been created for particular reasons. That the acronyms occupy three and a half pages of the report gives an idea of the complexity involved.
However, defining a rural economy these days is becoming more difficult. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, referred to this. It seems to me that we are in a more mobile society, where the differences between certain urban and rural areas are starting to break down. There is an obvious division between the rural areas which are in the hinterland of our major cities and those which are not. To refer to the example of Uttlesford District Council, which I had the honour of representing in the other place for a number of years, if you fly over that district, you will see vistas of barley and wheat, and it is still designated as a hugely rural area. However, the operative word is “fly”, because most of the people who fly over Uttlesford are flying in and out of London’s third airport, which is situated in that district and has had a major impact.
Therefore, I am wary of having a single strategy for the rural economy. The Government must have an overall strategy for the country—notably to help cure the north-south divide, but also, I would also argue, the east-west divide that we have—but I favour the strategic plans being formed at a more local level. The question we have been thinking about for decades is just how local that should be. There is a danger that the units created could be too big or too small. I do not think we have got it right yet.
There is also an advantage in having some recognisable uniformity in the structure created. Otherwise, there is a patchwork quilt of authorities and not everybody recognises to whom to turn for their services and the advocates they need. A degree of uniformity in structure would help the transfer of best practice. We talk about that a lot, but we are not very good at doing it in this country. I may be sticking my neck out, but I have become attracted to the format of a mayor-led combined authority. These are early days, but there is some merit in the direction we are going in. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, referred to coterminosity. I am glad I was not the first person to mention that word. It would be helpful if we could try to ensure that everything is contained within whatever unit of government we are looking at.
I am not sure whether the business input should come from LEPs. They are not coterminous to a great extent. Could we have a much more effective network of chambers of commerce, as they do notably in Germany? It would help if all other stakeholders could similarly be brought within the circle. This might help to bring in more private finance than at the moment, when businesses are uncertain whether to commit themselves. It might be argued that larger authorities, of the kind we have seen pioneered in certain parts of the country, are taking power from the people, but I do not accept that argument. You could perfectly well delegate day-to-day responsibilities to parish councils—either singly or combined—much more than at present.
We have to get away from a culture of resistance to change, which is enveloping more and more of our communities. Change has to be packaged in an attractive way. At the moment, it seems to have too many negatives in the eyes of the population. To use the example of Uttlesford District Council again, after nearly four decades of argument—I was part of it—it became the home of London’s third airport. For all that that has become the district’s biggest employer, since its inception there has still been no railway upgrade between the airport and the capital city or branching out more to the north and the east. The dualling of the A120 has not yet been completed, despite my being assured, in 1977, that it was one of the key arteries to bring transport from the east coast ports to the Midlands and the north. Yet we are now flirting with the idea of an Oxford-Cambridge link. We might be better off completing the A120 first, as our contribution to east-west healing, rather than embarking on that wholly new idea.
We are seeing redundant farm buildings occupied by high-tech companies. People are migrating into the area, because they want somewhere nicer to live and to fill the many jobs being created. There is an acute housing need, but this is resisted by the population who fear that the consequences will make matters worse than they are at present. There is sufficient evidence that that is the case.
Like everyone else, I cannot avoid using the word, “digital”. There is a growing anger over poor or non-existent digital connectivity. Fewer people may live in rural districts, but they have exactly the same needs as those who live in the towns and cities. There is no clarity on when fibre will come. When David Cameron was Prime Minister, he talked of it being made a universal service obligation. The fact is that in many parts of rural England there is no universal service obligation in the provision of mains drainage or private water supply. We have a long way to go in some areas.
A neutral person, coming upon this country’s situation, might conclude that we have somehow muddled along in the way we have approached local or devolved government. We have done it in a way that has created more anger and frustration than satisfaction. Fresh thinking and dynamic leadership are required if we are to unite communities behind bold action. I agree with the authors of the report that the time has surely come.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the Rural Economy Committee on the strength of this report, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for calling this debate. However, I am also disappointed, not with the report, but with its finding that,
“successive governments have underrated the contribution rural economies can make to the nation’s prosperity and wellbeing”.
The Government’s recent response to this report reinforced my disappointment, in that it rejected a key recommendation of the report that a comprehensive rural strategy is needed. I hope that, in his reply to the debate, the Minister will set out more clearly the Government’s strategy and vision.
There have been a number of recent reports on the rural economy, from this House and the other place, to say nothing of the many interest groups and scholars who regularly conduct and publish research on issues relating to rural life. These reports all reinforce the analysis in the noble Lord’s report of the importance of the rural economy, the challenges it faces and its vast potential. None of these three things can be in doubt. The overwhelming majority—over 90%—of land in England is rural. Nearly 10 million people live in rural areas, and they contribute £246 billion to the economy. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, reminded us that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said, only recently, that,
“some of the biggest economic opportunities are in the rural parts of the United Kingdom”.
For many, to think of England is to think of rural land. It is vital that we in this House keep our rural communities front and centre in our deliberations, to support them in overcoming the challenges they face. They certainly do face a set of challenges, distinct from our urban communities. The committee’s report describes many of these. They face problems of physical connectivity, in the form of poor and irregular public transport. They face problems of digital connectivity, with slow broadband speeds making it frustratingly difficult to take an active role in the digital world. Of particular interest to me, they face a shortage of affordable housing. I declare an interest as the chair of the National Housing Federation.
Housing affordability, or lack of it, is not unique to rural areas. Many of the root causes are the same as those being experienced by all our communities: the high price of land; underresourced local authorities navigating a planning system in need of reform; and the need for greater funding for social housing. These are all issues which, in the long run, it is in the Government’s gift to resolve. It is vital for smaller towns and villages across England that the Government do resolve them. While the root causes may be the same, their impact is felt more acutely by our rural communities, and particularly by younger generations. Young people struggle to afford to live in these areas and choose instead to move to more affordable urban communities. The knock-on effects on our rural communities are made clear in the report. Rural businesses lose potential workers and customers of the future; public services become less sustainable; and our buses have fewer passengers as our schools and hospitals face recruitment crises. The community as a whole loses some of the vibrancy associated with different generations living side by side.
The lack of affordable housing is driving these issues at just the time when our rural communities should be experiencing a renaissance. Modern technology presents a fantastic opportunity for towns and villages across England, as a greater number of companies embrace new ways of working. The flexibility given by virtual working gives us a unique opportunity to create a sustainable environment in which geography is no barrier to achievement. Soon it will be the norm for workers to have a real choice about where they live and build their lives, unconstrained by physical proximity to a workplace. Rural economies should be beneficiaries as these new practices become standard, but the growing unaffordability of housing risks squandering the opportunity that technology presents.
Our rural communities are already valuable contributors to the national economy, but they want to do more. They seek to overcome the challenges imposed on them by lack of affordable housing. Housing associations are at the forefront of this activity, working with communities and residents to make rural communities more sustainable. Through such partnerships, we now have such organisations as the Rural Housing Alliance—a coalition of rural housing associations sharing innovation, good practice and ideas. Its rural housing pledge presents a set of commitments to work with rural communities delivering good quality, well-designed homes that prioritise local people in housing need. But as this report finds, there is more to be done if we are to unlock the true potential of rural economies.
We need to ensure that we have the right skills, now and in the future, to build the homes we need. We need to support emerging technologies relating to construction and design, not least modern methods of construction. We need greater levels of funding to deliver homes for affordable and social rent. In particular, we need a planning system that supports the delivery of suitable affordable housing, and local authorities with the resources to facilitate it. By their very nature, many rural schemes are small, and this can lead to them not getting the priority and attention of larger schemes. This is a mistake, because a small number does not mean a small impact when it comes to rural affordable housing. I give the example of west Dorset and the village of Toller Porcorum, where residents have lost their local pub and shop. In 2015, their post office was similarly under threat. Residents worked with the housing association Aster to build six new homes for affordable rent and in the process provided a new, sustainable site for the post office. A vital community hub was kept open thanks to a development of six homes.
That is just one of many examples demonstrating how tackling the issue of affordable housing in our communities can empower the rural economy and make villages and towns sustainable, but so much more could be done with the right government support. So does the Minister agree that we have a duty to support our rural economies? Does he agree that the Government must take action to support the delivery of affordable homes, whether in rural or urban areas? Like others, I urge the Minister to reconsider the need for a strategy. I hope, perhaps above all, that he will re-energise the rural-proofing process, to ensure that all domestic policies take account of rural circumstances and that the needs of the 9.5 million people in rural communities are reflected in government policy and legislation.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Foster on the scale and ambition of this work, which will surely go on people’s shelves for years to come as a reference work when it comes to the economies of rural areas. Having said that, I think that some of it has a slightly old-fashioned approach, and I will explain why in a minute. The noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, talked about how much of the countryside now looks rural but, in terms of its function, is actually quite urban. This is absolutely true. I was musing, as somebody who can remember that dreadful night when Grace Archer died in the fire, that in those days “The Archers” was genuinely about countryfolk. Nowadays, a great deal of it is about middle-class people who live in the countryside. That is a symptom of the way the countryside has changed.
Much of this report seems to be based on the urban functions of the countryside and it misses out quite a lot about geography and the environment, which are different from urban areas, and the things that really make the countryside different. I was looking back on previous debates we have had on these matters in your Lordships’ House and came across the debate on agriculture, fisheries and the rural environment on 2 November 2017. I discovered that during that debate I quoted some of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, had said slightly earlier in the debate. I thought, “These are very sensible. I will quote them again”. Then I discovered that he is to speak immediately after me, which makes it a very dangerous thing to do—he might stand up and say he has changed his mind since then, but I do not think so. I might be making part of his speech for him, I do not know, but what he said was that:
“Any vision for our countryside has to include agriculture, the environment and rural communities. They are all interlinked … what is our countryside for? There are services that society will want to buy from our land managers: landscape, improved access opportunities for leisure and health and greatly improved diversity of habitats and species”,
as well as farming economy and the rest. He spoke about the need to “create more diversified jobs”, including tourism, partly to help farmers,
“and their households … survive on the land”.—[Official Report, 2/11/17; col. 1447.]
I do not see a lot about this relationship in this report.
I want to speak a little about rural tourism, particularly outdoor activities and recreation. In that same debate I talked about the organisation Walkers are Welcome, which I paid tribute to and which is still going strong, I think. I talked about the detailed outdoor survey from the British Mountaineering Council—I declare an interest as a patron—in 2015-16 about just what people do in the countryside and how much more it could contribute to rural economies. In February 2017, an excellent report, Reconomics Plus: The Economic, Health and Social Value of Outdoor Recreation, from Manchester Metropolitan University set out a whole series of statistics. There are 3.2 billion visits by adults to the great outdoors, of which over half are to the countryside—plus, of course, visits by children, for whom it is so important. Some 1.31 billion went to the countryside and 456 million used pathways, cycleways and bridleways. I remind the House of the Question for Short Debate I tabled two or three months ago about the cut-off date in 2026, which is causing a great deal of worry for a lot of people who are working hard to claim historic footpaths and bridleways. It is something I shall come back to and I hope that the Government will come back to it, to put that deadline back, at least.
In 2015, £2.6 billion was spent on outdoor activities in Great Britain. Obviously, a lot of that was spent in the countryside. There were 250 million day visits in Great Britain which involved outdoor activities, of which 113 million visits had outdoor activities as their single main activity. One key issue we have talked about in various debates in your Lordships’ House is the need to work together, to integrate and to prevent the conflicts that can easily arise, some being conflicts between people going to do outdoor activities, et cetera, in the countryside and people using the land for other purposes, notably for agriculture. There are also conflicts between catering for local needs—the needs of people already living there—and the needs of people who want to go and live there.
My noble friend talked about the importance of allowing rural councils to decide whether to have right to buy or not. I remember, back in 1974, when I had become the chairman of the housing committee of the new Pendle Borough Council, that there were two rows of nearly derelict old water board houses in the village of Barley. One thing I managed to do was to persuade the old water board to transfer the houses, at midnight on 31 March, to the new council that came into being on 1 April. The clerk was the same person in each case, and I am not sure how he did it, but he did and we renovated those houses in the village as council houses, in co-operation particularly with the local WI. Unfortunately, we were not allowed to exempt them from right to buy, and I think that all of them, or perhaps all but one, have now been sold and do not provide the social housing in that village. I am still proud that they have not been pulled down, which was what was going to happen, but it is not quite what we wanted. We were not allowed to take sensible, local decisions on the basis of local circumstances at that time. Unfortunately, that is the case in too many instances.
On 16 May 2013—a long time ago—I instigated a debate on the contribution of outdoor activities to the United Kingdom economy and to the health and well-being of the population. I ended with a quote from John Muir, who, as noble Lords will know, was a founding father of the modern conservation movement. I will repeat it, because it emphasises just how important an active, well-run countryside is to everybody, not just the people who live there:
“Everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in and pray in, where nature may heal and give strength to body and soul”.
I hope that that kind of thing will be remembered when the Government bring forward their 25-year environment plan—if that is still in existence and still going to happen, and whoever form the Government—and that we will be able to integrate the question of the geography, the landscape, the environment and value for everybody, as well as for the people who live in the countryside itself.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and his committee for an excellent report. It has a good broad approach, and above all, the case the committee makes for a new overall rural strategy is very convincing. But it is disappointing that Defra has not picked up on that, and, like other noble Lords, I want to focus on the importance of this integrated agenda. I realise that Defra now has its hands full with the replanning of agriculture, fishing and the environmental infrastructure in this country post Brexit. However, rural prosperity continues to be important to the prosperity of the UK as a whole and needs the attention of government, and that rural prosperity involves not only Defra but all departments. As the report recognises, rural prosperity depends on housing, transport, law and order, health, education and training, so it is a multidepartmental issue as far as government is concerned. In this speech, I want to make the point that Governments do not treat the countryside with any degree of equality or fairness, and thus we do indeed need some general focus, across government, on how to make things work better.
In terms of the disparity, I will start with local authorities. Obviously, the delivery of services costs more per head in rural areas because of the distances and sparsity involved—social services, refuse collection, school transport, et cetera—and yet, in terms of central government support, urban areas get 48% more per head than rural, which means that rural council tax payers pay on average 17% more than their urban cousins—my figures are slightly more conservative than those of the noble Lord, Lord Foster.
In education, too, the lower educational results of our coastal and market towns are almost certainly due to the unfair distribution of educational resources, as the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, has already referred to. On transport, rural residents take one-third as many bus journeys as their urban cousins. This is not surprising, as, due to the 25% cut in local authority funding over the last four years, hundreds of shire bus services have disappeared. A car is now absolutely essential to the rural household. Meanwhile, jobcentre closures all over England mean they get further and further away from the rural population—as do our courts.
It is not only public services. Banks are closing all over the countryside, and there is a shortage of ATMs in rural England. I learned the other day that there is now not a single bank in the whole of Dartmoor National Park, and mostly you can get cash only from post offices. Without cash, of course, your tourist and rural retail economy is severely disadvantaged, which of course makes the rural post office a vital service. But the bureaucracy of post office counters still does not allow local post offices to provide all the services they wish to, including banking services.
On health, the situation here is probably best summed up by two facts and one illogical consequence: the most expensive age cohort to treat medically is from 65 to death; and those aged over 65 represent 16% of the urban population compared to 23% of the rural population. In an attractive county like Devon that figure is 26%— nearly twice as high as some of our large cities. People like to retire to the countryside. Therefore illogically, funding for public health services, for instance in the county of Devon, is 40% lower per head than the national average and nearly 80% lower than in London, and that ignores the extra costs of actually running a rural health service.
One of the overall problems—this is a general point—is the lack of proper data collection. The health service does not produce rural datasets. The Home Office does not collect rural data on the police service. MHCLG admits to not separating out statistics about housing in rural communities of under 3,000, thus having no real understanding of the effects of its pretty disastrous policies. Since the demise of the CRC there has been very little effective rural research, although last year Defra announced a fresh programme of research, which I hope will prove revealing. I hope so, because the only recent relevant rural research was by the Social Mobility Commission, which found that rural social mobility and intergenerational poverty was now as bad, if not worse, in rural England than in our urban slums. But no one seems to be concerned about this poverty and lack of opportunity.
The reason for my moans about the wider problems of rural living and the rural economy is to show that these issues are multidepartmental. I am not expecting Defra, nor indeed the Government as a whole, to put right the inequalities I have mentioned. There is no extra money. Our national debt is now £1,800 billion—do your Lordships remember the shock and horror when it was £500 billion in 2010?—and, from what we hear today, it is going up by £50 billion per annum. So, as I say, there is no extra money. You cannot alter the formulae for the distribution of existing funds, because that would mean that urban man would lose out—and they have more votes and thus more clout. But this makes the need for a cross-departmental rural strategy even more important. The Government need to find other ways to reach out to their rural constituents.
From my point of view, I still think that rural-proofing, if properly applied, is a key solution. It is the way that services are delivered to rural England that matters, along with the understanding of the rural issues by the civil servants of all departments, such as poverty, transport, housing, training and broadband problems. Rural-proofing is a relatively cheap way of reaching out to rural communities, but unless the civil servants are trained on a regular basis as to what it means and involves, it will never properly happen. Without training, rural-proofing means nothing. As we said in our report on the NERC Act last year, it would be much the best if this agenda was driven from the heart of government, namely the Cabinet Office, although it is to be hoped that the new Defra board will be a step in the right direction. We shall see.
There is huge potential in rural communities, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said, and we should always emphasise that. Given the chance, we can help ourselves. There are far more VATable businesses per head in rural England than in urban England, and more manufacturing businesses in rural than in urban England. We are an entrepreneurial lot. Of those in work, there is a higher rate of self-employment: I believe that in urban England the figure is 5%, but in rural England it is on average 9%—in Cornwall, the rate of self-employment is 28%—although unfortunately, they are not always successful. For that reason, we need help. We really do need a long-term strategy for growth. The Government need to pay attention to their rural constituents, and if because of Brexit they cannot take action now, I still believe that, as soon as the post-Brexit systems have bedded down, they should look again at setting up a multifaceted and cross-departmental panel to produce a rural strategy to ensure equal opportunities for all, no matter where they live. Post-Brexit Britain cannot afford to waste its rural potential.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be asked to follow my noble kinsman, as I am conscious of the amount of time that he has dedicated to the subject of the rural economy. Today, with the aid of this exemplary report, we are being asked to consider a strategy for the whole rural environment, and the committee has done a good job of assessing all the elements needed for people to function with full access to all that technology has to offer. At the same time, I think we are all conscious of the Countryside Alliance briefing providing us with a full report on the part it played in amassing all this information.
From reading the Government’s response, which we have all received, my understanding is that it argues that they have got most of the issues raised covered, but it is hard to see that it produces anything that the rest of us can understand as a strategy. A strategy still needs to come. The element that most interests me, as I have always declared on the record, is agriculture. I am very grateful that my noble friend the Minister is here today to answer our questions, because he is largely responsible in government for that issue. The most encouraging thing going on that I have come across is that, since July, the Government have been conducting an independent review to develop a national food strategy. It is perhaps too early to know what that will come up with, but it is bound to be a key kernel of any rural strategy. Can my noble friend offer any comment on how it is progressing?
If I may, I shall reflect on some of the history of the sector. Noble Lords present may well be acquainted with a marvellously descriptive book about farming at the time of the First World War by a well-known agricultural correspondent called AG Street. The book was called Farmer’s Glory. The last chapter gives the farmer’s perspective on the scene in 1931, reflecting on what he terms,
“the last seven years of depression”.
That takes us back quite a long way, but it has many parallels with what is faced by the agricultural industry today. I quote a few lines he wrote at the time. He said:
“Probably one of the hardest things for farmers to realize to-day is that they are considered unimportant people by the majority of the community … to-day the consuming public are being fed by foreign countries very cheaply”.
Is that the way we are heading? His other comment of the farmer was that,
“he is engaged in an occupation for which his country has neither use nor interest”.
I hope we have not gone that far. That is only the beginning. Agricultural memories are full of the crash in agricultural activity that followed, which continued up until the Second World War. Strangely, the only way ahead he saw in those days was diversification and grassland farming. My Lords, have we not heard of that formula once again?
Now we are coming around to the same story. A no-deal Brexit sounds like it will just repeat that scene. I know, having talked to farmers in Northern Ireland, that they are watching all the different proposals that the Government are producing for their southern border with some trepidation. Half the lamb crop there has to be exported live to the Republic for slaughter and processing. None of us knows whether the EU will wish to reciprocate our tariff-free approach, which, so far as I can understand from the Government’s announcement, will be only for one year anyway.
We have heard reassuring noises from the Government about how they undertake to devote the same finance to the rural economy as has been customary for the next two years. That is far from a rural strategy for the industry, where a significant proportion of production is tied into a three-year process. It is easy for Governments to be critical of the money put into farming. We have been offered as a starting point the statistic that 20% of farmers produce 80% of goods. It would then be easy for the economists to say, “We will cut out a large part of all the inefficient farmers”. What remains to be seen is whether the present Government’s new green approach will recognise that some of what we might call industrial production methods offer the least in terms of the green criteria. Perhaps any strategy for food will have to allow for some element of the less productive farming enterprises to be maintained.
Looking at the issue more widely, I know that the Scottish Government have opted to turn a much bigger area of the country over to forestry. Can my noble friend tell us what is the approach nearer to where we are now? Will that be part of a rural strategy for the rest of the country, and will the Government be looking at a strategy as they go forward?
Lord Carter of Coles (Lab)
My Lords, it was a delight to be a member of the Select Committee on the Rural Economy. We are a diverse group, there were some strong views and we took evidence from a number of organisations which were similar. It was a very good process and it is great credit to our chair, the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, that he managed to corral us—or guide us, whatever the word is—to produce what another noble Lord called this mammoth and, I think, comprehensive report. We were also extremely well served by our clerk, his assistants and our two advisers.
Essentially, the report is about fairness. It is about what should be the division of government expenditure and influence between the various sections of society. Many aspects of rural life are disadvantaged by the unwillingness of successive Governments of all parties to take steps to secure those who live and work in the country—which, despite its charms, is disadvantaged in receipt of key services. I shall cite what I think is the guts of the report. It states:
“No resident or business should be disadvantaged unreasonably by their rural location”.
The report is wide-ranging and covers many subjects—housing, healthcare, training et cetera—but I should like to focus on three: transport, digital connectivity and economic development.
Those of us who use the transport system in London are used to a train a minute on the Jubilee line. Sometimes we get frustrated on other lines when we have to wait for seven minutes. Contrast that with other parts of the country, where sometimes you have to wait seven days for a bus, if it comes at all. Bus services, and trains to a degree, in rural areas are characterised by low frequency, limited hours of operation, indirect routes—they tend to wriggle around—and inconsistent connections with other modes. Other countries have done somewhat better. In certain cantons in Switzerland, they have what is called pulse timetabling: it is regular, every hour. In many communities in Switzerland, there is a bus or a train every hour between 6 am and midnight. That means that people can count on it and, not surprisingly, the public transport system is widely used and serves the function of holding things together.
If you look at how these things are financed, there is no greater disparity than the subsidy that we in London and the south-east receive, which is practically £2,000 a head, contrasted with the north of England, where people are getting just £427 towards transport. That is then reflected in fares. If you have to pay, you can get a five-mile trip on a London bus for £1.50. If you go to parts of Hampshire, you will pay £5.65 for the same distance journey. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, I think, the sad story of the boy in Cornwall who was offered a tremendous training opportunity—a course. When he asked, “How am I going to get there?”, they said, “Take the bus”. “But”, he said, “it is every two days and I have to attend daily”. That is a real failure of policy to deliver. It would be interesting to see, if we took the London subsidy per capita and applied it to rural areas, what a tremendous transport system we could get.
We have heard a lot about digital connectivity. It is very straightforward, but it has been patchy, which is a great disappointment. It is ironic that farmers and the people who serve them are now, in this time of great uncertainty, being told to diversify. Here I declare an interest as a farmer. We have been told to look at other things. Digitally, we need to be enabled, yet it is patchy and inconsistent. For instance, where I live in rural Hertfordshire, recently a group of three houses were quoted £25,000 to be connected to high-speed broadband. The only saving grace is that now they will get £3,400 a head to compensate for it. Looking forward in the digital age, the Government require us to be digital. Healthcare will become digital, and all those things need good connectivity. I hope the Minister can reassure us that the Government will meet the timetable that they have laid down for high-speed connectivity throughout the rural economy.
I turn now to economic development. We had the RDAs; I think their disappearance had a mixed reaction. They have been replaced by LEPs. It is very important that we pay attention to the evidence we heard in the committee. The evidence is that the representation of rural needs around the country, both in membership of LEPs and the economic benefits flowing from them, is inconsistent. There are examples of good practice. The South West Rural Productivity Commission clearly shows how four LEPs joining together can do this. But, in a sense, the key to the rural economy are SMEs. How do we help them become formed? Above all, how do we help them sustain themselves in the early years in what are very difficult times? Clearly, they need broadband. You cannot now develop a business nationally or internationally from some remote part of Britain unless you have adequate broadband, and it is the responsibility of the Government to make sure that is available.
Over and above that is the issue of physical support. In the evidence we took, we heard that there was a shortage of small workplaces and small offices around the country. One reason is because these are often bad for investors. SMEs are notoriously prone to failure, and therefore there tends to be a market failure of providing for them. In certain parts of the country we have seen local authorities pick up the baton. North Kesteven is a very good example in Lincolnshire, where they have picked up the baton and built small workshops and small offices, and over time these become very successful and self-sustaining. So we need two things: electronic connectivity and physical presence to allow people to come together and do this.
Other noble Lords have mentioned that successive Governments have disregarded the place of the rural economy in our country. It is rather strange, given that it involves 17% of the population—getting on for one in five people—yet I feel that they feel unrepresented. I hope that the Minister, when he responds, can tell us that there will be a more determined, active and pace-driven approach to this, because it is a very important sector, which will come under pressure. Whatever happens with Brexit now, undoubtedly there will be great change in the countryside, and it is critical that we have a clear rural policy.
I was reflecting that the approach of successive Governments has been like the legendary dog watching television; you know what they say: “He can see it, but he doesn’t get it”. There is something like that in all these successive government policies, and I hope that the report, complete with its recommendations on rural-proofing, gives this Government some means of actually getting it.
Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I give my thanks and appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and to the Rural Economy Select Committee for its mammoth report. The committee’s work raises so many important issues. It has been a busy weekend to consume, let alone digest, its 235 pages. I declare at the outset my interests as set down in the register. I manage an old, family-run SME that is impacted by almost every recommendation of this report. I live in a rural community and make daily use of rural services, including transport, schools and connectivity. I champion in this House the interests of Devon, notably a rural county that has been much mentioned and is keen to engage in this rural strategy debate. I pay tribute to the work of the local LEPs in Devon and, in particular, the South West Rural Productivity Commission.
While applauding the focus on the rural economy and rural interests, I think it is worth debating the benefits of a separate and distinct rural strategy. One of the real challenges faced by folks living in the countryside is a sense of separation from the urban majority. I am not yet clear on whether a focus on a specific rural strategy, as distinct from an urban strategy, does not risk encouraging a sense of separateness and of alienation from the mainstream. Indeed, it may have the countereffect of causing rural communities to be further marginalised. One lesson of the committee’s focus on rural life is the remarkable diversity of businesses, communities, environments and people that can be categorised as rural. All of these have different needs that may not be satisfied by a single strategy.
Historically, rural and urban communities were wholly and consciously interdependent. This is seen well in Devon, where medieval agriculture and rural production were fed down rivers and canals to be processed and milled in market towns, such as Tiverton and Honiton, before being traded and exported via urban centres, such as Exeter and Bristol. The interconnectedness and interdependence of rural and urban society were clear. While we do not see the relationship between urban and rural communities in nearly the same way today, that interconnectedness is very much still present, and it is only going to increase between now and 2050.
It is the rural economy that our urban population depends on for its water, food and fresh air and, increasingly, for the management of the nation’s reserves of natural capital. Indeed, at page 8 in the report, where the committee discusses the elements of a rural strategy, rather than considering,
“the contribution of rural economies to the wellbeing of rural communities”,
should it not equally focus on the contribution of rural economies to the well-being of urban communities? Does the Minister agree?
As the nation sets its world-leading climate mitigation targets and strategies, as well as ambitious, nationwide health and well-being policies, it is to the rural landscape and the rural economy that the nation will look to deliver these policies. It is only the countryside that can offset our carbon emissions; it is only the countryside that can provide locally sourced, ecologically sound and nutritious food; and it is only our rural communities that provide opportunity for well-managed amenity space for leisure and well-being.
Ideally, this interaction and interconnectedness between urban and rural communities should be driven by market forces, encouraged by national policy but informed and designed at the local level, with devolved decision-making powers allowing rural communities to determine their own rural needs, as well as how best to satisfy those urban demands.
Rural-proofing is a concept that I think remains ill defined. I know that my noble friend Lord Cameron has done much excellent work in this area, and I support the need to assess the impact of government policy on rural areas. I agree that rural-proofing needs to be better defined and better implemented if it is to be effective.
With respect to place-based approaches, I agree it is essential that rural policy, particularly at a local level, is driven by rural, not urban, decision-makers. If a sustainable solution is to work, it must surely be those who live and work in rural communities and who manage rural businesses who decide on how rural policies are to be developed. I am concerned to see the Government’s response stating explicitly that rural decision-making must be handled by local authorities because,
“local authorities are accountable to their own electorates and should decide their own priorities”.
This suggests that, if a local authority’s electorate is predominantly urban, that local authority is entitled to ignore the needs and demands of its rural constituencies—the tyranny of the democratic majority.
The digital revolution provides great opportunity for rural communities, particularly with respect to artificial intelligence, remote working and virtual businesses. But the greater the disparity in connectivity, the more economic disparities will increase. Devon has seen considerable challenges with its rural digital rollout in recent years, despite considerable focus from local government. Ofcom’s registration and authorisation processes need urgently to be reviewed and better articulated, as they are acting as a considerable brake on fibre connectivity.
I have been involved in our local village neighbourhood plan over the past three years and can speak with some authority on the way in which the neighbourhood planning process works. First, I can vouch for the fact that it is very hard work and demands a considerable amount of effort from the unpaid volunteers involved. This will be the reason why its uptake is restricted largely to affluent and older communities—because only they can afford the considerable time to commit to the process and adopt it.
Secondly, I note that, by natural selection, those who sit on such community-focused committees and engage with their processes tend to be older and retired, which means that the neighbourhood plans reflect the views of only part of the population—typically not those with school-age children or a need for affordable housing. I agree with the conclusions and recommendations on affordable housing. One of the notable characteristics of our local housing stock is how many older empty-nesters remain in large family houses, for want of alternative smaller homes in the local community. Affordable housing is essential both for those starting the journey up the property ladder and those moving gently down. I do not pretend to understand the complex relationship between land prices and government policy, but would expect that, with a simpler planning system and the increased supply that would result, the cost of small, mixed housing developments would decrease considerably.
The provision of services to rural populations needs renewed focus, and I support the committee’s efforts in this regard. The relative underfunding of schools, doctors, transport, social care, police and other essential services in our rural communities is a stain on our public life. It is often only the strength of rural communities, and the generosity of local volunteers, churches and neighbours, that keep these communities functioning, by stepping in where public services fail.
Finally, we are all well aware of the greatest challenge facing the rural economy now: the threat of a no-deal Brexit and the disastrous consequences that would follow. As I mentioned earlier, the LEP in Devon has said that it would be worse than foot and mouth. I wonder whether the Minister agrees with that statement, as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, did earlier. The rural economy is living through a period of terrifying uncertainty, with no clarity whatever on the future of agriculture, fisheries or the environment. Prorogation is only hours away and a Queen’s Speech is due next week. I make a simple request of the Government: please get Brexit resolved and give rural communities the legislative framework they deserve to plan for and deliver a sustainable future.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to participate in this debate and add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and the whole committee on the excellent work and the conclusions they reached in their report. I have come to a slightly different conclusion, which is entirely complementary to the recommendations and conclusions that the committee reached. The conclusion I have reached is that most of the policies we have discussed in this debate were devised by many who enjoyed an urban upbringing, went to an urban-based university and then went into one of the main departments of state. One tweak to the report that does not encompass just the work of Defra could be that any new civil servant and government official who commences working for the Government should spend three months embedded in a rural environment, going round and experiencing at first hand how the policies they are going to implement will impact on the rural economy.
Why did I reach that conclusion? I grew up in the Pennines. I worked for a number of years as an MEP. In fact, I was my noble friend Lord Haselhurst’s MEP; he was my MP. More recently, I spent years in North Yorkshire as a local MP. I was also educated in Harrogate. I was sorry to hear how few shops there are in Harrogate and ashamed to remember how much I enjoyed visiting them as a schoolgirl, which I was not meant to do during school hours.
I will declare other interests. I was privileged to serve as chairman of the Defra committee in the other place. I am currently patron of the Institute of Agricultural Secretaries and Administrators. I sit on the Rural Affairs Group of the Church of England. I am an honorary associate fellow of the British Veterinary Association and an honorary president of the Huby and Sutton agricultural show. Part of the work that I undertake outside is working for the Dispensing Doctors’ Association. My father and brother were both dispensing doctors in their time. This is one area that goes to the heart of how those in the Department of Health and Social Care fail to understand the role of dispensing doctors and pharmacies in rural areas, as opposed to those who work in urban areas. We just need to look— as has been rehearsed this afternoon—at how delivering healthcare in rural areas is more expensive: running ambulances is more expensive, and obviously it is more challenging for patients to reach their GP and hospital appointments. If they do not have a car, they have to rely on neighbours or very erratic bus services.
However, what the Government often seek to do is almost cut the money in primary healthcare in favour of secondary healthcare, which is normally delivered in an urban area. How many times do people now go to hospital as an emergency rather than having a GP appointment because it takes three weeks to get a GP appointment, both in rural and urban areas?
So I hope that the Government might reverse their priorities and look to give more funds to delivering healthcare in rural areas through dispensing doctors, because they are the first line of patient care. If we fail the dispensing GPs and reduce their resources, it will make life more difficult for hospitals. The number of closures of community hospitals has, again, had an impact on acute hospitals, because there is nowhere else for people to go to recover after an operation or stroke—which is one of the roles of community healthcare.
To me, the heart of a rural economy is the farm and rural businesses, among which farms are obviously pre-eminent. Then there is the mart, where animals and livestock are taken. North Yorkshire is one of the excellent livestock production parts of the country. If farmers are doing well, market towns will do well. I see marts as having both an economic and a social function. When we had the foot and mouth crisis, to which the noble Earl, Lord Devon, referred, farmers could no longer go to the mart—and that was where churches in rural parts of North Yorkshire came into their own, because they were able to assemble farmers and their families on a Sunday for a form of worship.
The farmers are coming under unprecedented pressure, because we know that European Union funds will go. We do not know whether they will go at the next election, which is imminent, or will be phased out from 2020 over a seven-year period. I do know that the North Yorkshire Moors National Park has benefited to the tune of £2.3 million under the LEADER programme, which has had to be wound up early because we are leaving the European Union. It helped create 54 jobs and 69 businesses, attracted 65,000 more visitors to the park and aided more than 6,000 rural residents in the park. Some £138 million across the whole of England has benefited rural areas through the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development.
The point has to be made: if we are taking access to direct payments and countryside stewardship schemes away from farmers and are going to have environmental schemes, ELMs, which have not been trialled and tested—we do not know what they will look like and the farmers do not know what criteria they will have to meet—we have to be aware that the only people who will benefit from many of the environmental benefits such as planting trees and creating bogs and dams will be the owners of the land.
In this country we have a long tradition, not understood in the rest of Europe, of tenant farmers. Particularly in North Yorkshire, County Durham, Northumbria and other parts, tenant farmers are graziers on common land. I urge the department, through my noble friend the Minister, to have particular regard to the future of these graziers on common land—tenant farmers and those who do not own the land but nevertheless look after it. I also hope we will look to increase food production to make sure we remain mindful of food security and, if anything, become more self-sufficient.
I have reached the conclusion I have because all rural services are intertwined: access to rural transport, affordable homes, rural schools, the health service, good communications—both broadband and mobile phone coverage, which is woeful and dangerous in parts of North Yorkshire—and, as others have mentioned, access to a post office, bank, community shop and the local church. It is obvious that many across government departments do not understand rural areas. I make this plea: perhaps a three-month period at the start of a new person taking up a role will enable them to understand rural life and the rural economy better.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, I begin my remarks this evening by thanking the usual channels for finding time, in these rather uncertain times, for us to have a debate on this report by the Rural Economy Select Committee, albeit at the second or third time of asking. From a personal point of view, it has been a privilege to serve on this committee. The subject matter is somewhat apart from my normal spheres of interest, but, as the declarations of interest show, I live in rural Norfolk, run the family arable farm and am a past president of the Royal Norfolk Agricultural Association. Moreover, it has been a pleasure to serve under the expert committee chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. I have much valued the experience of being a member of this Select Committee, enjoyed the interaction with its other members, appreciated the advice of our clerks and advisers and been impressed by our witnesses.
After much discussion, our report was given the title, Time for a Strategy for the Rural Economy. We believe that the rural economy not only needs a strategy but needs it now. In our view, it is indeed time for a strategy for the rural economy. That is our conviction, even if we have so far failed to sell that to the Government. At the risk of repeating what has already been said this evening, I underline the imperative of our core objective: to make the case for a thriving rural economy, which, in our view, can best be achieved by an effective strategy underpinned by better rural-proofing and delivered through a place-based approach—an approach that fully reflects the diversity of our countryside and the capabilities and knowledge of those who live and work there. The report expands on how this can come about, and we are grateful to the Government for giving consideration to many of our recommendations.
However, I would like to underline one of our key recommendations that, in my view, has been rather lightly acknowledged and addressed by the Government. In paragraph 58 of our report, on the need for a comprehensive rural strategy, we said:
“Development … must involve all … Government departments and bodies who must then be responsible and accountable for its implementation. To enable scrutiny of performance, there should be an annual report to Parliament, coordinated by Defra and drawn from all Government departments, which would set out the Government’s performance against the strategy and include an update on how departments have fulfilled their rural proofing obligations”.
To the committee, this seemed potentially a most effective way to hold the Government to account to ensure that the intent of any given strategy was implemented in the way envisaged. It is therefore somewhat disappointing to note in paragraph 8 of the Government’s response that our recommendation for an annual report, while accepted implicitly, is not given the prominence that such a key scrutiny mechanism deserves. Instead, we are offered the rather limited statement:
“The impact of new policies on rural areas should be systematically and consistently monitored as they are implemented. This would include an update on the performance of rural proofing across government in the Government’s annual report on the implementation of the rural strategy”.
While I accept that these words acknowledge the need for an annual report, I remain concerned that the Government have not taken on board fully that this is a key recommendation. Moreover, it is a high-profile way to make sure that not just Defra but all government departments, whose services play a vital role in rural areas, have a shared responsibility—albeit co-ordinated by Defra—to report to Parliament annually on the delivery and implementation of the overall strategy. I would be grateful for confirmation from the Minister that this recommendation is fully understood and will be acted on.
Many other points could be addressed this evening, but I will highlight two other issues covered in the report: the challenges of building rural communities and the challenges surrounding loneliness in rural communities.
The report acknowledges that many of the elements that have traditionally bound communities together have been eroded. Many local shops and pubs have closed, as have post offices and bank branches. Local leaders, such as a priest in every parish, are a rarity. Finding volunteers to join parish councils is a challenge in many areas. While the report urges local authorities to do what they can to promote the development of communities, there is also a realisation that much of the initiative lies with local charities and individuals. In this regard, the Village Survival Guide published by the Prince’s Countryside Fund, which gives sound advice on how to build a strong community, is to be warmly welcomed.
Moreover, an effective community is an important element in reducing the sense of loneliness that many people experience in rural areas. Poor local transport services exacerbate a sense of isolation, especially among older people. Furthermore, modern farming methods often mean that individuals spend much time on their own. These circumstances combine to create mental health issues, which place great pressure on the delivery of healthcare services in rural areas.
The report welcomes the Government’s loneliness strategy, and it is pleasing to note in the Government’s response to the report that last year the Minister for Loneliness co-hosted a round-table discussion on rural loneliness with the Minister for Rural Affairs. But there is only so much the Government can do, and much of the initiative lies more effectively with the charitable sector. In Norwich Cathedral last Sunday, along with the harvest produce processed to the altar at the harvest festival service was a pair of work boots no longer needed by a farm worker who had just taken his own life. This sad sight was a sobering way of highlighting the loneliness issue by a charity called YANA: You Are Not Alone. Again, this illustrates that many of the solutions to pressing problems can best be found when the public, private and charitable sectors work effectively together.
In conclusion, I urge the Government to regard this comprehensive Select Committee report as an important baseline document on which to plan and build a proper strategy for the rural economy. I look forward to seeing the first annual report to Parliament at some point next year.
Baroness Rock (Con)
My Lords, it has been a privilege to serve on the Select Committee on the Rural Economy and to contribute to the report we are debating. I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for his enthusiastic and engaging chairmanship and to my fellow committee members for thoughtful discussions. I also thank our clerk, Simon Keal, and the special advisers for their invaluable support.
The Government’s embrace of a sophisticated approach to an industrial strategy was welcome recognition that a modern economy, competing in a globalised world, requires partnership between the public and private sectors. Nowhere is this more the case than in the rural economy. This is why I fully support the committee’s conclusion that a comprehensive rural strategy is the antidote to today’s world of rural poverty, decline in agriculture and poor connectivity, both physical and digital.
To be clear, this is not about success subsidising failure. Indeed, when it comes to the give and take of tax and spend—and as we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Cameron of Dillington—urban areas in 2017-18 received about 45% more per head for local government services than their rural counterparts, despite rural residents paying 17% more per head in council tax. This is actually about realising the potential of all our assets and skills. A strong economy, increased productivity and thriving communities cannot be achieved without realising the vital role of our countryside. As we have heard, the Government reject the idea of a distinct rural strategy while agreeing with the need for more placed-based initiatives and the rural-proofing of all policy. Let us hope that this is a semantic difference and instead focus on some key areas of policy that require a sharp focus on rural affairs.
First, with Brexit stalking their every move, we should start with the plight of our farmers. I refer the House to my interest set out in the register as a director of a farming enterprise. I am certainly no defender of the common agricultural policy. It represents poor value for money and creates perverse incentives up and down the farming value chain. However, it is the system into which our farmers are currently locked so, like the rest of the business community, they are still wondering what will come next. The Agriculture Bill has no date for Report or Third Reading, despite the Public Bill Committee having completed its scrutiny. I share the Defra Secretary of State’s view, given most recently at the Conservative Party conference, that we must release our farmers from the rigidity and bureaucracy of the common agricultural policy, but we need as much clarity and certainty on this as possible, not least about the fate of the Bill in this or any future Parliament.
I shall make one small comment on policy. It was eloquently made by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. Tenanted agricultural land makes up more than one-third of all farmland in the country. Presently, many tenant farmers are restricted in the use of their holdings to agricultural purposes only. This means that they may well be disfranchised if landlords do not give consent for tenants to access new financial support schemes to provide the public goods the Government intend. It is important that landlords do not take advantage of tenants under these circumstances, and indeed that tenants are given the right to seek consent that the landlord cannot unreasonably delay or deny. I know that representations have been made to include agricultural tenancy reform provisions in the Agriculture Bill. Will the Minister give assurances that when the Bill moves from the back burner to the front burner such provisions will be included? It is vital that tenant farmers are provided with the necessary and reasonable tools to be sustainable and resilient in the long term.
As we all know, the rural economy is not just farming, but is a diverse, dynamic and innovative community of small businesses. These businesses need the support that rural-proofing might bring. I shall highlight two specific areas. The first is, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, stated, a key responsibility of any Government: digital infrastructure. Some 70% of respondents to a Countryside Alliance survey cited digital infrastructure as the most important issue facing the rural economy. Our committee found that in the rollout of full fibre and 5G technology, policy and funding announcements were encouraging. The Government agreed that mobile operators bidding in the 700 megahertz spectrum auction would ensure that rural areas were prioritised. However, we now see that Ofcom has committed to only 90% coverage over four years. We must hope that the sharing of spectrum bands and the discussions between the Government and operators to create a shared rural network bear fruit. If they deliver the coverage our rural economy needs without resorting to coverage obligations, so much the better, although I note that the Countryside Alliance believes that coverage obligations remain essential.
Finally, as a complement to infrastructure, rural SMEs also need access to world-class skills and talent if they are to grow and succeed in the global economy. There is much in existing policy frameworks to give encouragement, but we must ensure there is throughput. The business productivity review should benefit rural communities, given the significant numbers of rural SMEs, but only if the Government follow through on rural-proofing it. We talk a lot in this place and elsewhere about innovation and productivity as the means to continue to succeed as a global economic power. Let us not forget the role of the rural economy in helping us do this because in it there are innovation, creativity, jobs and opportunity. All we have to do is empower.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, on his deft chairing of the committee, and I thank the other members of the committee for making it such an enjoyable and informative exercise. My entry in the register of interests shows that I have a lot of commitments to the rural sector, and it was a real privilege to serve on the committee. I also thank the staff, two of whom are present. The clerk was Simon Keal, and such was the sure touch with which he conducted our affairs that we would never have known that it was his first time in such a role. Katie Barraclough, the policy analyst, and Breda Twomey, the committee assistant, instilled great confidence, and their committee was grateful for their application and professionalism.
The remit of the committee,
“to consider the rural economy and to make recommendations”.
could not have been broader and each chapter in the published report could have constituted the basis of a stand-alone report. However, there are two recommendations by the committee to which I would like to add further comment in the light of the Government’s response. The first relates to digital connectivity. The House has already heard much about this from committee members. On 3 August, the new BT chief executive gave no comfort at all when he was reported in the Times as saying that the company was ready to step up the construction of the next generation network and that:
“It could be a very positive story, a national mission”.
He has since tabled six points to the Government on behalf of the industry that must be addressed to meet the 2025 target. In addition, the Chancellor announced last week a further £5 billion to improve digital connectivity, but without, it must be said, the authority that would seem necessary to insist on the work being done with the timeliness that is required.
Let me give him a first-hand account of the obstacles that he, and we as a country, face. I am one of 45 households in our area of West Kent discussing a community fibre partnership with Openreach. We are located 30 miles from Hyde Park Corner, so it is not exactly the back of beyond. We are a mix of individual residential houses and businesses, and we are in the process of sending a sheet of completed information back to Openreach to apply for the requisite vouchers. We are told that this process will take four to six weeks in addition to the nine months that it has already taken us to get this far in the process, and we are assured that the work will be carried out within 12 months, but that is after the additional three months that it will take DCMS to approve the rural gigabyte voucher scheme. That means that if all perform up to their promise, it will have taken us two years to upgrade from our current 2.15 megabits per second to a promised superfast broadband speed. For rural businesses and communities, this timescale is calamitous. We have been told that 550 such CFP partnerships have been delivered by Openreach to date, with 90,000 households connected out of the 5% of the country still without broadband. Given that there are 1.5 million households still to be connected, it is evident that the recommendation in our report that Ofcom urgently review the universal service obligation is something on which this Government, and every future Government, must concentrate with an all-out effort to achieve. Our Prime Minister, in Billy Bunterish mode in his conference speech last week, referred to gigabit broadband spreading rapidly across the country like tendrils of superinformative vermicelli. Well, if he wants culinary imagery, he is talking tripe.
The second set of recommendations that I seek to highlight relate to recommendations 90 and 91 in our report on the subject of apprenticeships, and the Government’s reply, which in large part supports our suggestions. I know that the whole House agrees that in the person of the Minister, my noble friend Lord Gardiner, we are fortunate to have someone who is so totally in tune with and so personally well informed about the issues sweeping across the rural economy. However, I ask him to give special consideration to the apprenticeship issue. With the uncertainties relating to the availability of skilled full-time and part-time employees across the rural sector as a whole, and in particular horticulture, silviculture and now increasingly viticulture in Kent, these positive responses by the Government to the whole question of apprenticeships and the training of young people are to be welcomed. I urge the Minister to do his utmost to accelerate assistance in this area and to further the positive momentum that the Government have already generated. I would like to hear from him how this can be achieved.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I add my thanks and congratulations to my colleague and noble friend Lord Foster of Bath on his excellent report into the state of the rural economy and on his all-embracing introduction. I declare my interest as the chair of the National Community Land Trust Network and as a vice-president of the LGA.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, eloquently illustrated the problems of rural areas. The state of the rural economy has been debated many times over recent years but nothing seems to happen. Back in March this year, I had the privilege of being a speaker at a conference in Taunton whose sole purpose was to call for a government strategy for the rural economy. We have strategies for industry and business and strategies for transport but there is nothing for the rural areas.
Those of us living in rural communities feel that we are the Cinderella service areas of the country. Sadly, unlike Cinderella, no handsome prince is going to come over the hill on his white horse to rescue us from our fate. It is up to us to make a noise about the huge disparity in the services that rural areas receive and those enjoyed by residents in more urban and city areas. I think that we have done a pretty good job of that today.
I was not surprised that the lack of digital connectivity came out top of the significant issues covered in the report. Broadband is essential, as nearly every speaker has demonstrated. I welcomed the comments about local enterprise partnerships. Their constitution and make-up mean that they are concentrated in centres of population. LEPs that operate in areas where two-tier local authorities exist only ever hear the view of a single district council, as only one seat is allocated between their districts. This can lead to investments being skewed. I share the concerns of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—LEPs should embrace rural-proofing without delay.
I am also concerned about the lack of public transport and long journeys to school for children in deep rural areas. Noble Lords who have spoken in this very interesting debate have covered a great many of the aspects that those of us in rural areas encounter on a daily basis. The noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, spoke about bus services. My noble friend Lady Humphreys raised the issue of funding in rural schools and access to cash. With the closure of hundreds of small rural banks, it was essential that post offices were able to step forward. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, emphasised the need for rural-proofing, which is multidepartmental, covering health, education, transport, rural crime and business development. I am sure that most noble Lords agree with that.
As I was, sadly, not a member of the committee under the excellent chairmanship of my noble friend, I cannot comment in depth on this report. Instead, I shall concentrate on the lack of affordable housing. If young people, couples or families are unable to access decent housing that they can afford, their ability to thrive and enjoy access to employment and health provision will be severely diminished.
Many of us who walk around London on a regular basis are well used to seeing people sleeping and living on the streets. I assure the House that that is not confined to cities. It is a scene that can also be witnessed in market towns, where those who are unable to afford a home to rent are driven to desperate measures. A report published on 4 October indicated that 94% of homes for rent in the country are unaffordable for people in receipt of benefits and on low incomes. There will be numerous reasons why people “fall off the kerb” of housing and find themselves homeless. The tenant or home owner will not be at fault. They find themselves unable to pay their mortgage or rent and end up sleeping in shop doorways. If they are lucky, they might be offered bed and breakfast accommodation or find a bed in a hostel on a nightly basis but with no security for the future. Homelessness is a scourge on our society and needs to be tackled without delay.
Up and down the country, many rural communities have realised that they need a better mix of accommodation to meet the needs of their residents. Housing schemes that come from the efforts of the communities themselves are more likely to succeed. Currently over 280 community land trust schemes are running in the country. I am not pretending that this is a quick fix—far from it—but there are some significant successes, and CLTs are definitely place based.
During September, I was lucky enough to be at the opening of a CLT housing development of eight homes in Dorset. It consisted of very high-quality homes of mixed size. The occupants ranged from an elderly couple who had downsized to a bungalow to a single mother and her daughter, other families with children and a young adult with learning difficulties. This young man’s family were in the three-bedroom home and he was going into the one-bedroom home. He would have independence but his mother would be on site to keep an eye on him.
Understandably, villages do not want their size to be doubled by a single housing development but they are open to small, carefully planned housing that will meet the needs of their parish and carry them forward on a sustainable basis. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, gave another excellent example of that.
Many speakers mentioned the lack of public transport. In my village the regular bus service has long since finished. It has been replaced by a dial-up service to divert a bus from the route along the A30. This means that planning ahead is essential, and there will be no second chance if you miss that bus. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London gave a wonderful list of the services that churches are providing to rural and other communities. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Devon, about the difficulties of neighbourhood plans, having been involved in one. The noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Rock, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, highlighted the problems facing farmers. We should not underestimate these problems.
We have had a very informative debate about the serious issues and difficulties that plague our rural communities. A government strategy for the rural economy in Britain is long overdue, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to the many questions that have been put to him.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, this is an excellent report and a credit to your Lordships’ House. I welcome this debate and am grateful for all the contributions on the wide-ranging issues generated by the report. I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for chairing the Select Committee and for his excellent introduction to the debate. He gave a very good synopsis and I agree with his conclusions. I also thank all members of the committee for their contributions, drawing attention to the rural economy. I declare my interest as a farmer in receipt of EU funds and, in previous times, as a director of the Cheshire & Warrington Economic Alliance—a sub-regional body under the North-West Development Agency—and other organisations.
Rural England faces significant and wide-ranging challenges, as demonstrated by the sheer size and breadth of the committee’s report. The committee is to be congratulated further in that the report brings with it reflections of the long tailback of different approaches and attempts by different Governments over many years to deal comprehensively once again with the challenges of the rural economy. I concur with the report’s conclusion that current government policy does not take enough account of the contribution that rural economies can make to the nation’s prosperity and well-being, or the specific needs of rural economies and the challenges facing them.
For too long, these issues have been sidelined and not considered in the context of wider policy-making, which has resulted in the application of policies devised largely for urban and suburban economies, which are often inappropriate for rural Britain. The report is timely and urgently needs to be responded to more adequately by the Government and by Defra in particular, as the UK has to regenerate from the misguided policies of austerity as it stands on the cusp of a decision on its future place in the world. There needs to be a concerted focus on putting the rural economy at the heart of policy-making. We have heard several proposals recently concerning whether this policy area should be separated from the current Defra brief. The Government and Defra need to consider carefully the language and names they give to policy initiatives if they are to embrace the right culture. This tends to have the bureaucratic straitjacket of the machinery of government and how that interacts with businesses and communities at all levels, whether central, regional or local. To talk universally about an industrial strategy is immediately to paint all areas with one brush. The word “industry” is not one that resonates with rurality or diversity. While there may be different interpretations of demarcations and structures, there is a need for a different tone and use of language to reflect the rural perspective with titles such as “rural enterprise strategies” or even “local enterprise strategies” rather than using the word “industrial”.
Some 72% of people in rural areas are employed in SME companies, compared with 42% in urban areas. There can be little embedding of new approaches and outcomes are unlikely to change if there is a lack of recognition in the Government’s approach, as characterised by their general complacency in their response, emphasising local authorities when they are highly constrained by central government financial statutory straitjackets and where public-private partnerships struggle with bureaucratic interpretations of what their areas need most. The report concludes correctly that there is a huge disparity and inconsistency between delivery in different areas. Devolution, regional authorities, city-based structures, development agencies and LEPs all face challenges in engagement, effectiveness and relevance. The restructuring tends to lead to tarnishing changes with a political hue. The report underlines the target of successful evidence-based outcomes in individual areas that work best for them.
Perhaps Defra as a whole should be the champion of the rural economy given that the nomenclature of “rural affairs” carries with it the downplay of the rural economy into an odd mixture of miscellaneous activities on the periphery. Being the champion of the rural economy does not mean that the department must be diminished by hiving off parts to the DCLG, the Cabinet Office or DCMS. A key undercurrent of the report is the emphasis it places on rural-proofing as a vital ingredient to embed the interests of the rural economy into government. This is fundamental and cannot be emphasised enough. I welcome the recommendations made in the report in this respect. It draws attention to the inclusion of a rural impact assessment in all legislation and providing an annual report to Parliament to include non-departmental public bodies, local authorities and all spending bodies.
Our rural towns and villages are home to 9 million people and the vital role of genuinely affordable housing in thriving rural communities must not be underestimated. An understanding of this, together with the report’s recommendation for adequate rural-proofing of our housing and planning policies is critical to the very survival of rural communities. They are feeling the pressure of the broken housing market as much as towns and cities are. A quality affordable home feels out of reach to so many, given that most such homes cost 8.8 times the average lower wages in rural areas as compared with 7.5 times in predominantly urban areas excluding London. I thank my noble friend Lady Warwick for her remarks on housing and its central role in rural communities.
The rural housing crisis has been exacerbated by government policies. Indeed, the report highlights that since 2012, of every eight homes sold under right-to-buy schemes, only one is replaced in the rural community. Unless action is taken now to replace the affordable homes that have been lost to right to buy and rocketing house prices, there is a real danger that living in the countryside will become the reserve of the wealthy and that the diversity of rural communities will be undermined. Access to affordable homes can enable generations to stay in close proximity, keeping families together and tackling the other scourges of rural living—loneliness and social isolation—as highlighted in the report. Affordable homes provide critical support for the rural economy, including the labour force needed for the farming and food businesses that contribute so much to the rural economy. The National Housing Federation and housing associations believe that genuinely affordable homes are the key to equipping rural communities to thrive.
Successful rural economies depend on a wide range of services and support to help individual businesses grow and attract people to work and prosper in our countryside. However, as local people struggle to remain in their communities due to the housing crisis, we are seeing the loss of vital services. Education and colleges were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys. Schools in rural areas have made up 40% of school closures over the past decade, up from 20% in the decade before, while we are losing rural post offices at an average of three per month. Travelling to appointments further afield is made even harder due to the cuts in bus services in rural areas. This, together with cuts to rural post offices, banks and enterprise through the Plunkett Foundation mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of London, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, my noble friend Lord Carter and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has made life for people in rural Britain extremely difficult, hitting the hardest those most in need of public services.
Any consideration of the rural economy and its needs is answered by the number one priority, that of digital connectivity. It is the cornerstone that shapes the transformation of all areas of rural life and success is dependent on it. All the contributions to this debate have mentioned it. The nature of the rural economy means that it is much more diverse, with challenges around costs and scarcity. This needs to be recognised in the targets for the delivery of broadband and mobile phone signals. Some 95% of premises in the UK have access to broadband, but this covers only 75% of rural businesses.
Figure 3 in the report gives the percentages of registered business units in rural England and portrays that the largest of them are, first, agriculture, forestry and fishing, and, secondly, professional and technical services at 15% each, with the accompanying food and tourism sectors at 5%. It also reveals that more than 35% of enterprises are SMEs. Development can only proceed in step with the digital economy. The revolution of computerisation and data management in agriculture is needed both at the cow side, as I can vouch for in dairying, and in the tractor cab, where precision farming is necessary for minimum tilling and the avoidance of soil compaction. It is not clear from figure 3 where transport and integrated supply chains for goods come in this appraisal, but necessarily professional and technical services provide vital support across all enterprises. Tourism, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is crying out for a rural sector deal and is characterised by establishments all needing connectivity for their customers.
However, in the digital world, the government targets are too slow. Currently, 4G coverage is at only 67% of geographical UK coverage even though this may be at 98% in urban areas. For rural areas to benefit from the expansion of 4G, 2026 is too slow: 95% coverage is needed by 2024. Focusing on 5G fails to recognise that the basic infrastructure of 4G has to be in place for areas to be able to benefit from 5G. Treasury spectrum auctions need to recognise the payoff between price and a more ambitious, quicker coverage, with more capacity throughout rural areas. No modern business—certainly not a rural-based one—can exist without 100% coverage of fibre to the home.
In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this thorough and well-considered report, as well as all those who have participated in this excellent debate. While many of the challenges identified and discussed are not new, it would be remiss of me not to highlight the challenge Brexit presents to the rural economy. Indeed, the report acknowledges that rural economies and the farming sector in particular are significantly affected by the CAP, including its rural development pillar. Some rural areas have also received considerable support from other EU structural funds. The UK will lose access to such funding after its departure. Although the Government have committed to replacing these funds with a domestic shared prosperity fund, it is not yet clear how such a fund will be administered or how it will be delivered in rural areas, or even if the same total funding will be available.
With just three weeks until the Prime Minister insists that we will leave the EU—“do or die”—businesses remain very concerned about the prospect of a no-deal Brexit, which will have a catastrophic impact on the rural economy. I make no apology to the Minister for drawing attention once again—building on the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Devon—to the fact that farmers are particularly vulnerable to a no-deal Brexit. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to address these concerns and additional challenges in his response. I note that nearly every speaker today has expressed disappointment in the Government’s reply.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as stated in the register. I thank the committee for its report and for the opportunity to give evidence earlier this year. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and all members of the committee on such a wide-ranging and thorough inquiry. All of us who care for the future of our rural communities must welcome the report as a thoughtful and constructive contribution.
At the heart of our debate this afternoon is the question of how best to nurture rural communities. It is a goal we all share. We all want to see flourishing rural communities where people thrive, businesses prosper and the rural way of life continues in all its richness and diversity.
As the committee’s report acknowledged, strong foundations are already in place. Indeed, the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Grantchester, referred to the great contribution rural areas make—nearly £250 billion to England’s economy. Half a million businesses are registered in rural areas, which is one-quarter of the total. Employment rates in rural areas are higher than the UK average. Many people choose to live in rural areas because of the quality of life. Net migration to rural areas has increased since 2008. Life expectancy and well-being are deemed higher. As the committee expressed, there is much to be said for rural life.
However, we must not forget that the very characteristics that make life in rural areas so attractive also present challenges for those who live and work there, as many of your Lordships have described. Rural areas are more geographically dispersed and more sparsely populated. While these features are among the key attractions, they bring challenges all too familiar to those who live there. Digital connectivity and public transport are poorer. Affordable housing is in short supply. People have to travel further to access essential services such as schools, colleges and hospitals. Distance makes many public services more costly to deliver. There is a higher proportion of older people, which places pressure on health and social services. As we know, there are pockets of extreme deprivation.
My noble friend Lord Caithness mentioned Julian Glover, who I am very much looking forward to working with. It is important that we work on this in cherishing landscapes—it is a vital part of what the countryside can do for all of us.
I return to the committee’s recommendation. Many of your Lordships have expressed disappointment in the Government’s response. I want to spend a little time on this. As we set out in our response to the report, while we agree about objectives, we think there is a different way forward. I am mindful of what my noble friend Lord Haselhurst and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said about this matter. We want to place rural areas at the heart of policy development, not treat them as a land apart. We want to ensure that policy can respond effectively and flexibly to a rapidly changing world and is not caged within a fixed framework. Although the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, may not think he said it, I think he was going along on some of those themes of needing flexibility and effectiveness.
One of the privileges of my role is to see many parts of the countryside. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, and his committee’s report were absolutely right to say that each is distinct and many need different solutions. We therefore want to empower rural communities to define their own ambitions and decide what is right for their circumstances, not to impose a central template on them. In short, as I have always said, I want us to be the helping hand, not a heavy one.
That is why our strategic approach is based on rural-proofing. This offers a flexible and dynamic way to keep rural concerns at the heart of policy development across government. Many of your Lordships raised this, including the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lord Caithness. I will particularly emphasise what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, said, as he has had so much to do with rural-proofing and helped us with earlier versions.
I have said before that rural-proofing is not an academic exercise. It is about achieving real benefits for those who live and work in rural areas. It ensures that policies are designed with the needs and challenges of rural areas in mind, so as to deliver the best possible outcomes. I think that is very much what the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, raised. As the committee’s report noted and the Government set out in its evidence, there are good examples of rural-proofing. However, we accept that more needs to be done, which is why we are taking further action to strengthen it.
We have now nominated rural leads in each department. These departmental leads regularly meet Defra officials to ensure that rural-proofing is at the heart of the policy agenda. We are looking to improve the rural-proofing guidance for departments and we are building up the evidence base on rural needs through research projects, the work of our in-house statisticians, and our rural academic panel.
When the previous Secretary of State and I gave evidence to the committee earlier this year, we were quite rightly challenged on the effectiveness of rural-proofing. This led us to think about how we could improve the governance around it. In our response to the committee, we therefore said that we would set up a rural affairs board. This is now up and running and held its first meeting last month. Chaired by Lizzie Noel, a Defra non-executive director, with whom I look forward to working closely, the board will support and steer our work on rural-proofing. This approach clearly requires effective engagement with rural stakeholders. I would like to see a good, two-way flow of information. As has been raised, we shall publish an annual report on rural proofing to improve transparency.
I hope I can reassure not only the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, but the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London: our aim is to publish this report a year after our response to the committee. I place enormous importance on rural-proofing—it is the route to getting this right. We believe that, together, these measures will ensure that it works more effectively.
The committee’s report touched on all aspects of rural life: skills, education, housing, health services, tourism, transport and crime. I am afraid so many points were raised that I will not be able to do full justice to them, with respect to the breadth of the report.
My noble friend Lord Caithness mentioned crime. Tomorrow, I will be visiting farms that are concerned about rural crime. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, spoke of health, transport, age, Acre—I am so pleased to be part of that team—and the rural community councils. I am very pleased that the noble Baroness also mentioned loneliness, as I am the ministerial representative on that ministerial task force.
The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, mentioned post offices as did the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. I place great importance on the work of post offices and of having hubs in every village. This matter was also raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London in relation to the importance of health.
Many of your Lordships mentioned connectivity. We all know that it is one of the most important features to get right. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and others raised that this is an area on which we have to work. I am horrified by the 87 calls that the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, had to endure, knowing her part of Herefordshire. We want to improve digital connectivity and have introduced the “outside-in” approach as part of a future telecoms infrastructure review precisely because we want to ensure that rural communities do not continue to be disadvantaged.
There are many points to make on hard-to-reach areas. We have introduced the USO—universal service obligation—from next March for those premises that do not have access to decent broadband. I want to place on record—I hope it will please the right reverend Prelate—the great work of DCMS, Defra and the Bishops and others who I have been working with; the Church of England accord has meant that many villages have been able to use church infrastructure to help improve connectivity.
Of course, more must be done. The Prime Minister has set out his ambition very strongly. The Government are now working out the policy and regulatory changes that are necessary to enable faster deployment of broadband across the country. That includes my noble friend Lord Colgrain in Kent. I am mindful of that, and mindful that the Chancellor has already announced that £5 billion will be spent on gigabit connectivity to underpin that “outside-in” approach.
I was very struck, interestingly, by the fact that I think my noble friend Lady McIntosh was the only speaker to specifically mention mobile. Again, this is an area where we need to improve connectivity. We are committed to extending geographical mobile coverage to 95% of the UK, as well as providing an uninterrupted mobile signal on all major roads, and we are considering all of the options available to facilitate this. We clearly need to do more. The Government believe firmly that rural areas should not be left behind during the rollout of 5G services. Two of the six projects that were selected last year in the first phase of funding for 5G trials focused on rural areas.
On housing, I declare a personal interest in so far as I facilitated a rural housing scheme at Kimble many years ago, so this is strongly in my thoughts. I am delighted that the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and others emphasised that decent, affordable homes are the bedrock of any community, but especially of small rural communities where even a handful of new homes can make a difference. I remember opening a rural housing scheme in Buckinghamshire. That rural housing scheme next to the village school ensured that six children were immediately on the school roll. What more could any parish council want than to encourage that? I say to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, that during Rural Housing Week I held a discussion with leading stakeholders and senior officials from MHCLG because we need to work in seeking to remove continuing barriers to progress
I turn now to business support. It is essential that rural businesses are able to access easily the support, skills and finance that they need. The committee was concerned that not all LEPs took their rural interests seriously. One point has very much come up in my discussions. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, referred to positivity in relation to what was happening in Devon. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, referred to concerns about other local enterprise partnerships. We expect LEP boards to ensure that their growth strategies are relevant, representative and widely supported across their whole geography—I emphasise, their whole geography. It is worth noting that 12 local enterprise partnerships have now appointed a board member with explicit responsibility for rural issues. Furthermore, Defra officials are working closely with BEIS, MHCLG and other departments to support the LEPs’ analysis of opportunities for their rural areas. With respect to the UK’s shared prosperity fund, rural-proofing means that it is shared. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Grantchester, that we all know that SMEs are the lifeblood of the rural economy. They are where many of our great enterprises have been established. I do not have time to talk about the agri-drinks sector, but we all know what that sector presents.
I am under the cosh of time, but I want to say that your Lordships have highlighted the strength and diversity of rural England as well as the profound challenges our rural areas face. Having been to the Kent County Show, I was struck by my noble friend Lord Colgrain talking about “agri, horti and viti” cultural matters. I was pleased to have a positive meeting with a former Minister in the Department for Education about the importance of traditional rural skills. His commentary has triggered me to have a further conversation about those matters.
I say to my noble friends Lady Rock and Lady McIntosh that, on tenancy reforms, Defra has published a consultation in April this year. We seek views on options. The consultation closed in July and we are analysing the response.
I return to rurality in its more heady sense. This place provides treasured landscapes. Each rural community is unique and they all have great potential. The Government, and all of us, want to boost their best efforts. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, with her housing expertise will identify with what I want to emphasise, as indeed may all your Lordships: we want our villages to be multigenerational. They work best when they are multigenerational, when people look out for each other, whether within families or not. I believe that is the way we can pursue prosperity, not only of a financial nature, but in terms of well-being, contentment and the best approach to ensuring that people are physically and mentally well; it is the way to ensure that people in the countryside have fulfilling lives, wherever in that great diversity they live, whether in the very sparsely populated areas of Northumberland or the Welsh Marches, or whether closer, as in west Kent. All these are places we should cherish because of their diversity.
We would all do well to remember how much we depend on our rural communities—the noble Earl, Lord Devon, the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in particular raised this. Across the country, whether people live in towns or suburban areas, it is essential that we recognise what rural communities do, and what they can do, to protect and improve our environment, from securing clean and abundant water on which all life depends to supplying the high-welfare, high-quality, nutritious British food, which is prized at home and abroad.
My noble friend the Duke of Montrose mentioned the food strategy. This is something that Henry Dimbleby is progressing and it is about from farm to fork. The review is currently asking for evidence and the call for evidence closes on 25 October, so I very much hope that my noble friend will encourage others to contribute to it. We are looking forward to publishing those findings in the summer of 2020.
So many points were raised and—candidly—I have not done them justice. We should have had a five-hour debate to go through all these things. I reiterate my acknowledgement of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and all the committee most warmly. Giving evidence to the committee was rather like playing tennis with someone much better than one; it raises one’s game. The former Secretary of State and I really found it compelling. It was quality time, even though it was quite challenging. I want to acknowledge that, because it is terribly important that these committees, their reports and their work do not gather dust. I assure your Lordships that the rural affairs board had a lot to do with the grilling we received, and it is very important that I should acknowledge that.
I hope this debate will have left no one in any doubt about the importance of the rural economy for our national quality of life. That is why the Government are committed to supporting vibrant rural economies and the businesses that are at the beating heart of our rural economy. I have not mentioned Brexit, candidly because your Lordships have had many discussions about Brexit, this week and before, and I am sure they will continue. As a farmer, I am well aware of the challenges and of what may happen. That is why the Government will be standing by and will act to help. As the Rural Affairs Minister, I want to do all I can to ensure that rural communities continue to grow and flourish and I know that your Lordships share that ambition.
Lord Foster of Bath
My Lords, no one can doubt the passion and enthusiasm of the Minister, and I suspect that he and the committee are far closer than the Government’s response would suggest. Indeed, I suspect it is the rest of government that we need to persuade.
I thank all members of the committee and all other noble Lords for their contributions to what has been a very encouraging debate, in the sense of supporting many of the things that we have said in our report. The disappointing thing is that the majority of Members of your Lordships’ House want to see a rural strategy, but the Government currently do not. Prorogation is about to be upon us. It is the ending of something, but it also heralds the beginning of something new: a new Queen’s Speech, a new Budget and possibly even a new Government. Let us hope this will bring about new thinking on the importance of having a comprehensive rural strategy, whatever Government we have. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and I beg to move.
Census (Return Particulars and Removal of Penalties) Bill [HL]
Royal Commission
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, it not being convenient for Her Majesty personally to be present here this day, she has been pleased to cause a Commission under the Great Seal to be prepared for proroguing this present Parliament.
Royal Assent
Tuesday 8th October 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 7 October 2019 - (7 Oct 2019)
Prorogation: Her Majesty’s Speech
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, by virtue of Her Majesty’s Commission which has now been read, we do, in Her Majesty’s name, and in obedience to Her Majesty’s Commands, prorogue this Parliament to the 14th day of October, to be then here holden, and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Monday, the 14th day of October.