House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
Football is nothing without fans, so it has been a joy to see them back cheering on their teams this week, and we stand unequivocally on the side of fans. Our manifesto committed to putting them front and centre of our review of football governance and we are delivering on that. That is why I appointed my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) as chair and, this weekend, I will announce the membership of the expert panel, which will include players, management, regulators and, of course, fans. This is a serious review; I know people want to see change and this review will deliver it.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am sure the Secretary of State will join me in congratulating Hull City on being league one champions this year. Hull City are one of many examples in recent years of where football club owners have not had the best of relationships with their fans. The recent breakaway attempt by the European super league cartel of greed brought many of the issues that concern fans to a head. Fans do not just pay a lot to support their clubs; they are custodians of their heritage and they deserve respect. To avoid taking his eye off the ball, will he explain a bit more about exactly how fans will lead the fan-led review and when it will report back to the House?
Oliver Dowden
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. First, of course, I join her in congratulating Hull City. She is absolutely right that football clubs form the heart of their communities and, indeed, our heritage. It is essential that fans play a significant role in the fan-led review, and I have been discussing that extensively with my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford.
In terms of explicit engagement, the chair will be engaging extensively with supporter trusts and fan groups over the coming weeks, but I understand that that will not work for everyone, so there will also be a consultation process, which we will set out. Of course, the chair, the Sports Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston)—and I will be engaging with parliamentarians as part of the review as well. On the question about timing, I would expect an interim report by the summer and a further report by the autumn.
Tony Lloyd [V]
There are two football teams in my life: Manchester United, who are No. 2 in the premiership, and Rochdale, who are sadly heading for league two of the football league. The idea that they are part of the same football pyramid has frankly been a nonsense for many years, but what unites the supporters of both those clubs and many more is the demands that we will never again see the ability for a European super league to take place, that the clammy hand, the dollar-studded fingers, of the corporates such as the Glazers be taken off the throat of football—that is so important—and that, once again, we will recreate a proper pyramid of football in this country. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that he will legislate to bring about those kinds of ends?
Oliver Dowden
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The points he made about the football pyramid are precisely why the terms of reference of the review, which we set out to the House, explicitly covered examining
“the flow of money through the football pyramid, including solidarity and parachute payments, and broadcasting revenue.”
I have said before, and am happy to say again, that I have set up this review with someone who is genuinely independent in the form of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford. I fully hope and expect to accept the recommendations, and should those require legislation, we will find time to do that.
Zarah Sultana [V]
As an MP for Coventry, where, in recent years, our football club has repeatedly forced fans to drive miles from the city to watch home matches, and as a diehard Liverpool fan, one of the clubs involved in the proposed breakaway European super league, I know fans’ anger at owners’ decisions all too well. Ultimately, this will be changed only with fan ownership, like the 50+1 rule in Germany, but the Government could make a more immediate change to improve this. On major decisions such as moving ground or forming a new league, they could require clubs to secure a 50% plus 1 majority of season-ticket holders. Will the Government heed that demand or will they just kick the problem into the long grass?
Oliver Dowden
The hon. Lady mentions the governance structures in other countries. The terms of reference of the review explicitly say that we will be exploring
“governance structures in other countries, including ownership models, and whether any aspects could be beneficially translated to the English league system”.
The review will proceed at pace, as I set out in a previous answer, and we will then proceed at pace to implement any recommendations that follow from it.
Mr Dhesi
The greed of the super-rich club owners who wanted to destroy the football pyramid, which benefits everybody, and proceed with their botched plans for a European super league has been well and truly kicked into touch by the power and solidarity of football fans across our country, but this Government helped to create the crisis by ignoring Labour’s calls for years and by failing to progress with a fan-led review of football governance, so would the Secretary of State like to apologise on behalf of the Government for failures and missed opportunities and tell us exactly when the review will report back to this House?
Oliver Dowden
I do not intend to apologise. I would have expected the hon. Gentleman to welcome the robust action that this Government took, standing behind fans and standing alongside the nation, in stopping these outrageous proposals. On the fan-led review, while Labour has talked for years and years, it is this Government who are actually delivering on it.
Mr Speaker
We now come to the Chair of the Select Committee. I call Julian Knight.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
“Guess what? Next time you come into the stadium you will be paying, son, not playing.”
That is how one youngster of my acquaintance had his dreams crushed by a Premier League club when being released as a player. With the fan-led review into football, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), under way, does the Minister agree that it needs to be more than about the architecture of our national game and that it needs to incorporate a review of how clubs treat the 98% of young people who do not make it, how they equip them for life beyond football, and how they safeguard them and their mental health?
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend raises an important point, which I have discussed with him. As ever, he is absolutely right. Clubs clearly owe an obligation and a duty of care particularly to the young people they work with, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford will consider those points. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Football Association has recently received a report on safeguarding and has committed to implementing all its recommendations. We will certainly be holding the FA to account for doing that.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Given that there was a Select Committee report and a Government response saying that they would legislate 10 years ago, it is a bit rich for the Secretary of State to claim that he is acting swiftly—but anyway, that aside, given the announcement only last week that the Government are prepared to set aside competition objections to preserve the status quo for three years, he will understand the healthy scepticism at the idea that the Government genuinely want change. So to answer that scepticism, will he confirm that, by the end of this Parliament, we will see a better model of redistribution in football that will see more money shift down the pyramid—yes or no?
Oliver Dowden
The hon. Lady is conflating two issues about competition law and the Premier League. The Sports Minister has set out the Government’s position in a written ministerial statement. This is about securing football finances during a period of crisis, and it is essential that we do that. Clearly we will all have an open mind as we get the response, but the reason for considering this is that we want to ensure that money keeps going into the game.
On the point about change, of course that is precisely why I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, who I know the hon. Lady has worked closely with in the past, and I think we can trust her to come up with serious recommendations to address precisely the issues that the hon. Lady raises. I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of that review, but I can give an assurance that I will deliver on the outcome of the review as much as we possibly can. I am not pre-empting it, but we will find legislative time for doing so.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
The Government are making huge progress on our ambition to deliver gigabit broadband across the whole country. Only last week, Openreach increased its planned investment target and it has set itself a target of 25 million premises to connect in the next five years. Some 40% of UK premises can already access gigabit broadband, and we expect that to rise to 60% by the end of this year. That is on top of the shared rural network commitment that will see mobile coverage increase across the whole country.
Sally-Ann Hart
A number of rural areas have been recategorised as urban for the purpose of broadband community vouchers. While the majority of premises will retain their eligibility under the new voucher conditions, premises in an area where Ofcom believes a gigabit-capable network is likely to be built commercially—including Ofcom area 2—will not be eligible for a voucher. Does my hon. Friend agree that that lack of certainty risks villages such as Three Oaks in my beautiful Hastings and Rye constituency ending up being missed out? What steps can he take to ensure that this cannot happen?
Matt Warman
It is of course welcome news that a commercial roll-out will reach more of the country than ever, but my hon. Friend raises an important point. This Government will make sure that no part of the country is left behind on that roll-out, which is why there is flexibility in the voucher scheme that she describes and why Project Gigabit is there to scoop up all the remaining premises. I am happy to discuss the villages that she mentions in person as well.
Imran Ahmad Khan [V]
I am pleased to see the Government delivering on their pledge to level up connectivity across the UK, including through the £1 billion deal to bring better mobile coverage across the country and banish rural hotspots. That will greatly aid constituencies such as Wakefield, which suffers from poor mobile coverage in some rural areas. Will the Minister confirm that his Department has already begun using this funding to improve mobile coverage in rural areas?
Matt Warman
It is good to see that working from home can provide a grander backdrop than this place. My hon. Friend is right to welcome the shared rural network. The roll-out has already started to benefit a large number of constituencies. It began in Wales and we will be talking in the coming weeks in much more detail about where it is going to benefit in coming years.
Lee Anderson
Residents in the rural part of Ashfield suffer from a lack of access to superfast broadband and feel that accessing it through the community fibre partnership scheme is far too expensive. When will areas such as Teversal in my constituency get access to this much-needed service?
Matt Warman
My hon. Friend is right to say that community fibre partnerships, although they work well in some places, do not work well everywhere. That is why Project Gigabit is so important; that £5 billion of Government money will be coming down the tracks very quickly. We published plans in April and there will be more detail in June, and Ashfield certainly will not be left behind.
Dr Poulter [V]
I thank the Minister for his helpful answers so far in response to the substantive question. I want to ask him specifically about access for homes in very rural areas, which have historically had not much better than dial-up speeds. How will he help those homes? In Suffolk, we have found that fibre-to-cabinet is not adequate in improving broadband speeds in many of our more rural parishes and villages. What will he do for very rural areas that need better than fibre-to-cabinet?
Matt Warman
The universal service obligation is a help in the situations my hon. Friend describes, but of course we need to go further. That is why the Government are consulting on what we do in the very hardest-to-reach premises, and I look forward to talking more about what satellites and other solutions can offer in the near future. We have already seen some commercial roll-out, for instance, from Starlink, and interesting work is being done by OneWeb to make sure that absolutely no premises in this country is left without the connectivity it deserves.
Mark Fletcher
I strongly welcome the Government’s commitment to rolling out faster broadband, but I constantly get letters from people in parts of my constituency, such as Barlborough, Clowne, Heath and Shirebrook, saying that the broadband connections are not good enough. Will the Minister meet me to discuss those areas and what more we can do to improve their broadband connections?
Matt Warman
I am of course happy to meet my hon. Friend, but he will also know that in the Project Gigabit plans that we have laid out Derbyshire is very much already on that road map. That is good news and I look forward to talking about it in more detail with him.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
Our 10 tech priorities include building a tech-savvy nation so that no one is left behind in the digital revolution. Adults can, free of charge, undertake qualifications designed to build digital skills up to level 1, and the Government are encouraging broadband providers to roll out low-cost-broadband social tariffs for lower-income households.
Rachel Hopkins
Recently published Office for National Statistics data showed that in the first quarter of 2020, some 22% of people in Luton who were over 16 had not used the internet for three months—that is more than double the national average. Many of my constituents were severely disadvantaged at the start of the pandemic, particularly as work, school and social lives moved online. To support my constituents—who had to choose between data and dinner—I would like specific information about whether the affordability of access to broadband and online services will be adequate.
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the fact that the pandemic has demonstrated how digital inclusion and accessibility have been fundamental to our ability to learn, work and meet our friends. Social tariffs are already available that offer low-cost landline and broadband services for those on certain means-tested benefits. However, the Government are now encouraging all fixed-broadband providers to introduce a social tariff.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
The Minister says that no one should be left behind, but 60% of over-50s with household earnings under £20,000 per year are not online; more than half of adults who are not online are disabled; 2 million households in the UK have been without internet access during lockdown; and there are up to 900,000 children without devices. Yet the Government’s digital inclusion strategy was last updated in 2014 and there is still no target for inclusion. Why will the Minister not tell us what proportion of the population she is happy to leave behind in this digital age?
Caroline Dinenage
I feel that that is a massive under-representation of the huge amount of work that has happened over the past year. The Government agreed a set of commitments with the UK’s major broadband and mobile operators to support vulnerable customers during the covid-19 period. A whole heap of extra laptops—1.3 million of them, on top of the 2.9 million that were already in schools—have been rolled out to young people. In February, to tackle the disproportionate impact of covid-19 on disabled people, the Department launched a £2.5 million digital lifeline fund to support 5,000 people with learning disabilities to access devices, connectivity and digital skills support.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
Last week we published the Online Safety Bill. For the first time, tech companies will be held accountable by an independent regulator for keeping their users, especially children, safe from harmful content and behaviours online. If companies fail to keep their users safe, Ofcom will have the power to fine companies up to £18 million or 10% of their annual global turnover.
Rob Butler
I thank the Minister for her answer. This is an incredibly important policy area. As well as the online harms that she mentioned, an increasing number of people throughout the country, including in my Aylesbury constituency, sadly fall prey to online financial scams, which can not only have a profound impact on somebody’s financial status but result in great anxiety for victims. Will the Minister outline the action her Department will take to ensure that technology companies really step up and play a full part, alongside the police and banks, to protect us all from online fraud and identity theft?
Caroline Dinenage
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, which he is absolutely right to do, because we know that scams of this kind can ruin lives and, as he says, a growing number of people are encountering them online. The Government are approaching the issue in three ways. First, we are working closely with law enforcement, technology companies and banks to tackle online fraud at source. That work is led by the Home Office, which is currently developing an ambitious fraud action plan, on which we have been providing support. The Online Safety Bill that we published last week will tackle any kind of fraud that is facilitated through user-generated content. On top of that, we are consulting on tougher advertising regulation and will be doing that later this year.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
The Government were vocal in their opposition to the European super league, which would have been detrimental to the entire football pyramid.
In fact, the whole House was united in opposition. I am glad that all the English teams that were to be involved have now withdrawn from the project, and that was the right result for football fans, clubs and communities right across the country.
Mr Bone
The super league was based on the American model of football, which does not have promotion and relegation. It has other criteria such as the draft and salary caps to make it a more competitive league. Will the Minister give an assurance to this House—in fact, prejudge the review if you like—and promise that, whatever happens, there will be promotion and regular relegation between the different football leagues?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. I know that he shares my passion for American football, but it is not necessarily a model that we would wish to emulate. It has strengths and weaknesses, but, at heart, football—in fact, all sport—is about competition and fairness, and those should underlie the sport. We are conducting the fan-led review. I am afraid that I cannot pre-empt the conclusions of that review, but I think that we are all looking forward to the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), a highly regarded and respected Member of this House, will be conducting over the coming weeks, and I am sure that he will contribute to that debate.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this timely topic ahead of English Tourism Week, which kicks off this weekend. In total, we have provided more than £25 billion already to the tourism, hospitality and leisure sectors to see them through this challenging period. With large parts of the sector now reopened, we are working with partners to champion the UK’s tourism offer through the “Escape the Everyday” marketing campaign, for example. Businesses can also benefit from the VAT cut, business rates relief and other measures. Our tourism recovery plan will set out the role that the Government will play in accelerating the tourism sector’s recovery from covid-19.
Andrew Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for his excellent work in promoting this sector, an important part of which is business tourism, which is also getting going again. For example, keeping it very local, Harrogate Convention Centre will host Clarion Events’ Home & Gift Buyers’ Festival in July, and that will bring many thousands of visitors to the town. This sector of the industry is large in scale and consequently has a significant supply chain, both directly and indirectly, including, for example, hotels and guest houses in Harrogate. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will do all he can to ensure the best restart possible for this important business sector?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I pay tribute to his support for the tourism sector—business tourism as well—both in his constituency and right across the country. Business events are indeed highly valuable to the UK economy, directly contributing more than £31 billion each year before the pandemic, supporting a vast supply chain and filling hotels, often in the tourist off-season. The Events Research Programme held its first business event pilot in Liverpool last month, which I was delighted to attend. That is a big step forward in our work to fully reopen the sector. Our tourism recovery plan will soon set out more detail on how we will support business events with their long-term recovery.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
We are working flat out with the industry to support creative workers to tour the EU, and we have a dedicated DCMS-led working group to achieve that. Our priorities are to provide clarity for artists on any rules, to work bilaterally with other EU nations to ensure that the new processes are as easy and straightforward as possible, and to try to secure transitional funding support.
Alex Cunningham
We are extremely proud of our Stockton International Riverside Festival, which, as well as attracting street acts from across the world, commissions its own work to showcase what our own talented people can do. Now those same people face those barriers of fees and all other manner of problems—and they are still barriers today—if they want to take their work into the EU. That is due to the Government adopting that attitude of “it’ll be alright on the night”. Well, it will not. I heard what the Minister said, but what guarantees will she give artists from Stockton and the rest of the country that the Government will sort out the travel problems soon and that we can share our art and culture with the world?
Caroline Dinenage
As I have already explained, we have been working non-stop since the transition period finished to make sure that we were working through those issues. We have confirmed that portable musical instruments do not require carnets. We have confirmed that touring artists will not be double-charged social security contributions, and we have published new guidance for touring to other EU nations. Through bilateral discussions, which have been taking place at official level between me and the Secretary of State and our opposite numbers in the EU, we have established that at least 17 member states allow some visa or work permit-free touring activities, and we are continuing to do that work on a daily basis.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
My top priority has been getting back to the things that we love. We have now moved to step 3, but I know that it is essential that we return to events without social distancing at step 4. That is why we have undertaken the events research pilot programme. Pilots including sporting events at Wembley, the Brits and music events in Liverpool have been building up a picture of how the virus spreads in different settings, and we have been looking at a range of factors, including ventilation, testing protocols and people’s behaviour.
Christine Jardine [V]
The successful and safe reopening of events is, of course, vital to individuals and the economy generally, but particularly in my constituency of Edinburgh West. We have already lost the impact of Edinburgh International Festival each year, but also specifically the Royal Highland Show, which contributes £65 million to the economy, and more than a year of international rugby events at Murrayfield. With the measures that the Secretary of State has outlined, I hope that we will soon be able to host these events again, but will he assure me that the impact of these trials and the lessons learned will be shared with the Scottish Government to ensure that they can also take them forward?
Oliver Dowden
Yes, I am very happy to give the hon. Lady that assurance. This programme has been world-leading. I do not think that any other country in the world has done quite such extensive piloting of events, and the outcomes of the pilots are helping to shape the sort of guidance that we will impose at stage 4 of the road map.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
Earlier this week, I joined millions of people up and down the country in sharing the joy of seeing great sporting, cultural and tourism venues open again. I was delighted to reopen the National Gallery, and to visit Tate Modern and the English National Ballet. However, those institutions and others can only operate sustainably if we move to step 4 and remove the remaining restrictions. We set up the events research programme to examine safe ways of doing that. I can tell the House that we have had positive findings from the pilots at events such as the Brits, the FA cup final and at the Crucible, and this will inform our approach to reopening at stage 4.
Mr Betts [V]
The proposal for the European super league was driven by a small number of clubs wanting greater financial power and control, which in some ways was exactly the reason that the Premier League itself was set up in the first place. I was somewhat disappointed by the Secretary of State’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), when he described the £4.8 billion deal that the Premier League has just done on TV rights—with only £100 million coming to the rest of football—as money flowing “through the…pyramid”. May I seek reassurance from the Secretary of State, therefore, that his support for the financial status quo will not in any way compromise the ability of the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) to recommend in her review the radical changes to governance, regulation and the distribution of finance in football that the vast majority of fans want to see?
Oliver Dowden
The short answer is yes, of course I will look at the outcome of the inquiry that I have commissioned. I have specifically asked my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) to look at football financing and the pyramid, because I know all the challenges with it. That is separate from the interim measures that will cover the next three years. That will ensure that money flows through the pyramid, because it is not just the additional £100 million; it is all the other payments to the English Football League that will be secured through that announcement, should it go ahead.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Oliver Dowden
Yes, our £1 billion shared rural network is eliminating mobile coverage notspots across the country, including in East Hampshire. Operators have already announced the first 333 upgrades and 54 new sites in England. We will shortly be announcing the next stage of the programme. Although I cannot give full details now, I very much expect this to contain more good news for my right hon. Friend’s constituents.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
More than 3 million people participate in parkrun in England, and it plays a major role in the physical and mental wellbeing of participants. Parkrun has had legal permission to return since 29 March under the covid framework from the Government and Public Health England, but there is completely inconsistent decision making across authorities, and the situation is threatening parkrun’s future. As Great Britain Olympian Greg Rutherford has said:
“If we’re all allowed to go and pile into restaurants and pubs again why on earth would we not be allowed to run about outside?”
Will the Secretary of State give a clear, simple statement here today and say that local authorities and landowners need to recognise and accept the nationally approved framework and allow parkrun to start again?
Oliver Dowden
Yes. I completely share the hon. Lady’s frustration that this is not happening. I have discussed it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and he and I will shortly be sending a very clear message and signal in writing to local authorities about our expectation that those events should proceed.
Jo Stevens
I am delighted with the Secretary of State’s response and grateful for it.
Singing also makes a positive difference to the health of over 2 million people who sing in amateur choirs. The go-ahead was given for indoor rehearsals from Monday of this week, following step 3 of the roadmap, but on Tuesday, literally as conductors were on their way to rehearsals, late guidance was issued by DCMS limiting indoor rehearsals to just six people in total. This news was devastating to choir members but also to their conductors and directors, who lose their income because of it. I am afraid that confusing and contradictory communication is the hallmark of this Government. Last year it was the Secretary of State encouraging rehearsals for pantos that were never going to happen; this year it is choral concerts with no rehearsals. What is going on? Why the late guidance? Will the Secretary of State publish the evidence that led to his decision? Thank goodness his Department is getting an experienced director of communications, because he needs one.
Oliver Dowden
I share the frustration of many Members of this House that we have not been able to permit more people to participate in amateur choirs. I can tell the House and reassure Members that that decision was made on the basis of very clear public health guidance. Ultimately, the Prime Minister and I did not feel that we could contradict that public health guidance. Of course we published the guidance, and the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies recommendations are regularly published. I very much hope and expect that by step 4 —all going well, we will proceed with that on 21 June—we will be in a position to remove all legal limits on social contact and ease restrictions on large events and performances, including those that apply at step 3.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) [V]
Oliver Dowden
As my hon. Friend knows, I am a great supporter of Cornish culture and heritage, and I know of the outstanding reputation of Falmouth University. We have done a huge amount to support this country’s film industry, which is currently probably stronger than it has ever been, notwithstanding covid. I or one of my ministerial colleagues would be delighted to meet her to discuss what more we can do to support the Cornish film industry.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
Last week the Culture Secretary boasted that his Government were defending heritage. If only that were so. Cuts have led to almost 800 library closures, the Whitehall Bell Foundry has been passed by Tory Ministers into the hands of commercial developers after 450 years of continuous existence, and we have heard nothing of what will replace Creative Europe culture funding. What is the Culture Secretary’s focus in telling museums what statues they can have and blocking trustees that he does not like? As one museum curator said, “arm’s length” Government interference is now becoming “knuckle length” interference. Should the Culture Secretary not be focusing on sorting out the Brexit visa mess rather than on petty culture wars and museum meddling?
Oliver Dowden
There were an awful lot of questions wrapped into one from the hon. Gentleman, but in terms of what I am doing and where my primary focus is, it is about returning the things that we love and ensuring that we move from stage 3 to stage 4 of the road map to enable heritage attractions, theatres and companies up and down the country to operate normally again. We have given £2 billion-worth of support—the single largest injection by any Government ever—but I make no apology whatever for standing up for this country’s heritage against a small and noisy minority that wants to tear down the things that we enjoy as a nation.
Mr Speaker
I am disappointed we did not get through more topicals, folks, because it means there are disappointed Members.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Attorney General (Michael Ellis)
The Crown Prosecution Service published an ambitious 12-month domestic abuse programme in January, which aims to help to narrow the disparity between reporting and criminal justice outcomes through a focus of co-ordinated multi-agency action and specialist support for victims. The CPS has also taken steps to increase domestic abuse prosecutions at a local level. For example, since the start of the pandemic, CPS Thames and Chiltern has increased lines of communication with police forces to ensure domestic abuse cases are appropriately prioritised.
Jessica Morden
The criminal justice system is facing unprecedented backlogs, with survivors of domestic abuse and sexual assault forced to wait more than a year for their day in court. The Queen’s Speech was an opportunity for the Government to address these failings, but it was an opportunity missed. Labour’s “Ending Violence Against Women and Girls” green paper was announced this week and is ready to go. Will the Attorney General support it?
The Attorney General
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which focuses on an extremely important issue of domestic abuse, which is one that I and the entire Government feel strongly about. In fact, I am sure everybody in this Chamber does. It is this Government who introduced the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. In a recent case that I conducted myself in the Court of Appeal, the offender’s sentence for extremely violent domestic abuse was increased from nine years to 15 years on my application. That is how seriously we take domestic abuse, and that is how seriously it is taken in terms of punishment and the crime. The point that the hon. Lady makes is that we should prioritise domestic abuse in the criminal justice system, and I can confirm that we do that. It is a very high focus for this Government and for the criminal justice system.
Rachel Hopkins
The “Evidence led domestic abuse prosecutions” report states that
“the domestic abuse caseload for both the CPS and the police has increased by 88% against the backdrop of a 25% reduction in police and CPS funding.”
Does the Attorney General think that the current level of resourcing to tackle domestic abuse is sufficient?
The Attorney General
The hon. Lady is right to point to the case load. In fact, the Crown Prosecution Service’s case load has increased considerably. It is also right to point out that the conviction rate rose to 78.7% in quarter 3 of 2020-21, up from 77.4%. The Government have recently announced, as I am sure she knows, several funding packages specifically on domestic abuse, including funding to deal with the effects of the covid-19 crisis as it relates to domestic abuse. The decrease in the volume of overall prosecutions due to the impact of covid-19 is a factor, but this Government are funding this area and giving particular focus to it.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
The number of domestic abuse-related prosecutions fell by 22% in the year ending March 2020, despite a 9% increase in recorded crimes. When I asked the Secretary of State for Justice how many specialist domestic violence courts have been in operation over the past 10 years, he could not give me an answer. Will the Attorney General commit to our proposals, set out in our “Ending Violence Against Women and Girls” green paper, to introduce properly funded specialist domestic violence courts across the country?
The Attorney General
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which is an astute one, and she recognises, as we all do, the importance of this area. It is of course this Government who have already put the Domestic Abuse Act on the statute book, so we are ahead of her party in prioritising this area, and that is a simple fact. The reality, I have to say, is that the CPS’s domestic abuse best practice framework seeks to address the withdrawal rates. She talks about the number of prosecutions, and of course prosecutions have gone down across the board because of the impact of the covid pandemic. However, we want to deliver a high-quality service to victims, and the work that is being done on the framework encourages more timely court listings to get these cases on more quickly and reduce victim attrition, which I know is something the Ministry of Justice and the whole criminal justice system are working very strongly on.
Ellie Reeves
It is interesting that the right hon. and learned Gentleman says his party is ahead when it is Labour that has set out a green paper to tackle these issues head-on. What is even more worrying is that domestic abuse prosecutions now seem to be going the same way as rape prosecutions, which are at their lowest recorded level, and new figures show that 44% of rape victims give up before their trial even begins. Will the Attorney General adopt our fully drafted survivors support plan for rape victims and will he commit to backing Labour’s violence against women and girls green paper, or will he continue to sit on his hands and allow the continued systemic failing of the criminal justice system for women and girls in England and Wales?
The Attorney General
I do not think it is accurate to refer to the criminal justice system as failing women and girls. It is a high focus for the criminal justice system, and there are a lot of people—thousands of people—working very hard, day in and day out, in the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service and police forces around this country, with a very high priority to focus on this area. It is this Government who have allocated another £76 million to support victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence and modern slavery, as well as vulnerable children. It is this Government who have put the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 on the statute book. It is this Government who are creating 20,000 more police officers, and who have already funded the Crown Prosecution Service to over £85 million—closer to £100 million. It is this Government who recognise that we have to do better. We have to do more, and I accept that. There is always more that can be done, and in such an important area, one can never sit back. We have received 180,000 responses, as I am sure the hon. Lady knows, following the tragic case of Sarah Everard, to the consultation that the Government set up, and we will be looking very closely at those responses.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
According to the Centre for Women’s Justice, one woman every week for the last two years has reported domestic abuse by their police officer spouse or partner, and every woman it spoke to said that the police had failed to investigate their case. Given the severity of these statistics, how confident is the Attorney General that the correct processes are in place in the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that complaints involving the police are investigated objectively?
The Attorney General
Of course, the issue of the police is a matter for the Home Office, but I would say that I know the police are working very hard to prioritise and focus on these domestic abuse cases, and they do seek to achieve the very best possible results in all circumstances. There are tried and tested mechanisms for making complaints against the police, and clearly they are available to anyone who feels that a complaint would be appropriate and justified. We have worked very hard to produce the Domestic Abuse Act, which covers a number of areas that, as we have already rehearsed, will protect women and girls, and we will continue to do so.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Lucy Frazer)
How we communicate with victims is absolutely critical to the delivery of justice. Having spoken to the Director of Public Prosecutions and others at the CPS, I know that they are fully committed to and understand the importance of clear and open communications to victims, giving explanations about their cases. That is why the CPS is carrying out a root and branch review to assess how best to deliver on its commitments to victims.
Simon Jupp [V]
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for her response. What steps is the CPS taking to ensure that, in cases where the victim is known to have autism and other mental health conditions, they receive priority communications so that their mental health is not put under yet more pressure?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend raises an important question. In 2019, the CPS published its revised guidance on prosecuting cases where the defendant may have a mental health condition or disorder. Furthermore, where the CPS is aware that a victim has autism or mental health issues, it will consider writing in addition, or instead, to a guardian or parent, to deal with that case. For cases of rape or serious sexual offence, the CPS ensures that either the police officer overseeing the case or the independent sexual violence adviser is present to help explain to the victim any decision taken by the CPS in relation to the case.
Simon Baynes [V]
It is essential that victims receive justice for the crimes committed against them. How is my right hon. and learned Friend ensuring that victims in Clwyd South, and elsewhere in the UK, are aware of their right to challenge unduly lenient sentences?
The Solicitor General
I am pleased that my hon. Friend has highlighted the importance of the ULS scheme. The Attorney General’s office promotes that scheme on social media, and we are working with the Ministry of Justice to raise awareness of the scheme as part of the revised victims code that came into force last month. For example, the code now includes a requirement for the witness care unit to inform victims of the scheme promptly when sentencing takes place. That will help improve awareness of the scheme, including for my hon. Friend’s constituents in Clwyd South.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the draft victims Bill provides an important opportunity to place the victims code on a proper statutory basis? Will she consider whether the Justice Committee would be suitable to carry out prelegislative scrutiny? Does she agree it is important that the code includes communication pre-charge by the police, as well as by the CPS post-charge, as both are equally important?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of the victims Bill. As he says, that Bill will have prelegislative scrutiny, and we welcome the Justice Committee’s views on that. He is right to highlight the importance of the work that goes on pre-charge, as well as post-charge, and we will be looking carefully at those matters.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
The Attorney General (Michael Ellis)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question on hate crime. I have been appalled by recent examples of hate crime, which are an utter disgrace. I warn racists and antisemites alike that the Crown Prosecution Service recognises the devastating impact that hate crime has on victims and communities, and it is committed to bringing offenders to justice. That is evidenced by the continued rise in sentence uplifts. This year, increases in sentences for hate crime reached the highest rate yet of nearly 80%. Outreach has continued throughout the pandemic with a range of community organisations to increase community confidence and improve the prosecution response to hate crime.
Ian Levy
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his response. Recently in my constituency, the owner of the Delaval Tandoori was physically and verbally assaulted by two men. The wonderful community of Seaton Delaval has rallied around to support that family-run business in the wake of the attack, but I know they will join me in looking to my right hon. and learned Friend for his assurance that the CPS will do all it can to bring those responsible for hate crime before our courts.
The Attorney General
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Crown Prosecution Service will prosecute cases referred to it by the police and other law enforcement agencies, and where the test set out is met, it will prosecute those offences. Those who commit such offences must understand that their sentences have an 80% likelihood of being uplifted as a consequence of the hate element of their crime. According to one media report, we have recently seen a 600% increase in antisemitic crimes. We recognise that any form of hate crime against any group is obnoxious and antithetical to the interests of this country, and cannot be tolerated. The CPS recognises the devastating impact. Everything will be done and continues to be done to check those offences.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Lucy Frazer)
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern about this issue, which he has already brought to my attention. The CPS makes its charging decisions independently, with every case judged on its own merit, based on the tests set out in the code. In this particular case, my understanding is that the CPS reviewed it and determined that there was insufficient evidence to continue with the proceedings. That was because there was no evidence that the suspect was responsible for the excess numbers present outside the church.
Mr Hollobone
There is widespread dismay and outrage in Kettering that the organiser of that huge Irish Traveller funeral, held during the covid lockdown, has in effect got away with it. Clearly, however, the Crown Prosecution Service cannot successfully prosecute on any criminal case unless it is provided by the police with sufficient formal evidence against the accused. Given that the court hearing was held five months after the funeral took place, will the Solicitor General confirm when the CPS received the case file from the police?
The Solicitor General
I understand the concern of my hon. Friend’s constituents, as of many around the country who are abiding by the rules, which is what has managed to get our infection rates down. To answer his specific question, the first hearing was at the Northampton magistrates court on 19 April. The police had not previously sent the file through to the CPS due to a technical error on the part of the police. The file was received at 11.30 am on the morning of the hearing.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
The Attorney General (Michael Ellis)
I am pleased that inspections in both June 2020 and March 2021 found that the CPS responded well to the challenges caused by covid-19. Those inspections were by Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate. The CPS has made a significant contribution to supporting the criminal justice system during an exceptionally difficult time, working closely with partners. I am proud of prosecutors and staff who have continued to deliver their essential services, both virtually and in person where necessary, throughout the pandemic.
Laura Trott
I thank the Attorney General for his answer and for his welcome focus on domestic violence, which he demonstrated throughout this Question Time. Will he reassure me that the Crown Prosecution Service will do all it can to prioritise cases of domestic violence and sexual abuse in the backlog, as those types of cases have a higher drop-off rate the longer the delay?
The Attorney General
Yes, tackling domestic abuse, as I have been saying, is a key focus of the Government. In my hon. Friend’s constituency, the CPS south-east region, which covers her area, identifies domestic abuse cases, working with the Courts and Tribunal Service, to ensure that they can be listed before the court as a priority and that trial dates can be brought forward to avoid any unnecessary delay. She is right to focus on the issue. Work is being done in support of her point.
Catherine West
While a defendant typically has legal representation following the reporting of a rape, the victim has to wait months before an independent advocate becomes available. Even then, the independent sexual violence advocate is not permitted to go into the court to support a woman at the time she desperately needs it. First, why is there a three to six-month wait for an advocate to become available to deeply stressed individuals who have been assaulted? Secondly, will the Government undertake to review the situation in which the advocate, who is meant to support the victim, has to stay outside the courtroom? It is ridiculous!
The Attorney General
As the hon. Lady may know, a rape review is due to be published soon. Together with the police, the Crown Prosecution Service introduced an interim charging protocol in April 2020 to prioritise the most important cases, to which she is referring, through the criminal justice system. Those are high-harm cases, including rape and domestic abuse. I am proud of the CPS’s response. I am sure she recognises that the exigencies of the pandemic have affected backlogs to a significant extent in many areas of public and private life, but a huge amount is being done to ameliorate that backlog. Particular priority is being given to the sorts of cases to which she is referring.
Sally-Ann Hart
What learning will the CPS take forward from its pandemic response to increase resilience in the future?
The Attorney General
One of the things that we will be looking at is the cloud video platform. The CPSI report published recently recognised the flexibility and adaptability of the CPS in responding to the pandemic. The cloud video platform was enabling around 20,000 virtual hearings a week, and post pandemic I am sure we will be looking at that among many other things.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) [V]
If the Government are serious about tackling the backlog of court cases, will the Attorney General explain why his colleague in the Ministry of Justice has halved the amount spent annually on recorded sitting days in the past five years, from £19 million to £9.5 million?
The Attorney General
I have actually discussed the issue of recorders very recently with the senior judiciary. The Ministry of Justice has recently arranged for an unlimited amount of sitting days—I think I am right in saying—so that the judiciary and the courts system can keep up with all the work that is going on. That is a very generous arrangement to allow the courts to make dramatic progress, and that includes recorders and the judiciary generally.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Although it is important that partner agencies in the criminal justice system do everything possible to eliminate the delays caused by covid-19, some of these problems stretch back much further than the start of the pandemic. In 2017 we reformed pre-charge bail to introduce time limits on how long suspects could be on bail before being charged. That came after the terrible treatment of some individuals, including Paul Gambaccini, who was held on bail for a year without being charged. Today, a number of people are still being bailed for a shocking length of time—years on end. I currently have a case where the National Crime Agency has kept an individual on bail for almost six years. That has ruined her life. The Government are now seeking to undo even the inadequate protections in the Police and Crime Act 2017 with the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Will the Attorney General tell the House what the Government will do to protect against these injustices in coming legislation?
The Attorney General
I thank my right hon. Friend for the point he makes. He thinks of the defence position, and is right to do so, and I am very grateful to him for raising it. I recognise how distressing delays can be, both to defendants and, of course, to victims, but these have been unprecedented times.
On the case my right hon. Friend refers to, decisions on whether to impose or extend pre-charge bail are operational and are not therefore something that Ministers can interfere with, but he makes a powerful point. It is right that those decisions are independent of Government, and it is important to note that the length of pre-charge bail is separate from the length of the investigation. There may be particular circumstances that cause concomitant delays in individual cases that are outwith my immediate knowledge or ability to intervene, and nor would it be appropriate for me to do so, but I recognise the point he makes. If he wishes to write to me about that individual case, we can certainly forward it to the relevant authority.
Mr Speaker
I now suspend the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Business of the House
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the future business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 24 May will include:
Monday 24 May—Motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Finance Bill followed by, remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
Tuesday 25 May—Remaining stages of the Telecommunications (Security) Bill.
Wednesday 26 May—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Environment Bill (Day 2).
Thursday 27 May—General debate on dementia action week followed by, general debate on implementing the 2020 obesity strategy. Both debates were previously recommended by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House will rise for the Whitsun recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 27 May and return on Monday 7 June.
Provisional business for the week commencing 7 June will include:
Monday 7 June—Remaining stages of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for the business.
We all share the horror at the reports of antisemitic hate speech and attacks this week, yet some people are falsely defending antisemitic hate speech on university campuses under the guise of free speech, which the Government plan to make into some sort of law. Can I ask the Leader of the House, genuinely, if he will ask the Secretary of State for Education to consider working with, rather than against, universities on how to respond to antisemitism? The priorities of free speech and protecting people from incitement to racial hatred are both important, and his Government will need to exercise care, not a blunt instrument, if our universities are able to call out antisemitism “at every stage”, as the Prime Minister rightly said we should do yesterday.
It is Dementia Action Week. One in three of us will develop dementia in our lifetimes and 1 million people in this country will have the condition by 2025. There was moving testimony this week from people living with dementia at the Health and Social Care Committee. No one here can ignore the heartbreak of this cruel disease: those who live with it and those who love them. This last year has been awful for everyone, but people living with dementia and its consequences have had a particularly difficult time with isolation, people caring at home and those in residential care. And yet, 666 days since the Prime Minister promised the people of this country that his plan for social care was ready to go, yesterday he was unable to answer a simple yes or no question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on the whereabouts of the plan. Could the Leader of the House help?
Last week, the Leader of the House said at business questions in response to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) that the Government can do anything they want because they have a majority of 80—it was that or thereabouts. Well, if they say they can do anything they want, we can only assume that if they do not do something, it is because they do not want to. This week, as well as deciding not to fix social care, the Government have decided not to fix building safety. After telling the House—and, more importantly, the thousands of people across the country affected by this scandal, some of them constituents of Government Members—that residents would not be left to pay for the mess made by some parts of the building industry, the Government voted down Labour’s amendment to the Queen’s Speech this week to sort this out urgently. People across this country who have been so profoundly let down by the Government on this issue will have noticed that their Tory MP has failed them yet again.
This was also the week that the Government continued not to reward dedicated key workers, including nurses and NHS staff, with an adequate pay rise. Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) asked the Prime Minister what he thinks when he hears Jenny McGee, the nurse who cared for the Prime Minister when he was so ill with covid, say of NHS staff:
“We’re not getting the respect and now pay that we deserve. I’m just sick of it. So I’ve handed in my resignation.”
But all the Prime Minister could do was trot out a load of waffle, and clearly that does not pay the bills. What does the Leader of the House have to say to Jenny and other key workers, so that they might feel valued, protected and respected?
Finally, may I wish the right hon. Gentleman an advance happy birthday? I am fascinated to discover that he is, in fact, my junior—“No, no!” Members cry—but what to give the man who already has a hedge fund of his own? Perhaps some legal advice, so that he can sue all those shocking websites selling shoddy goods featuring his likeness—the calendars, the mugs, the folderols. Or perhaps a session for the Cabinet with the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, to try to work through their many and varied disagreements—whether or not Brits can travel abroad, for what reason and under what circumstances, or to help the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the International Trade Secretary and the National Farmers Union decide which of them knows more about food and farming.
I could take the right hon. Gentleman for a parkrun. Surely there is a pent-up runner lurking in there, longing for release. If he could only get his Government to give parkruns the green light—and we all know about green lights—so that we can all taste again that joy of running 5 km up a hill together; he looks puzzled, but I can tell him that it is fun. The nation’s fitness and mental health would benefit, as could his.
But no, it is obvious. For his birthday, I hereby present the right hon. Gentleman with the happy knowledge that, despite his Government’s continued failure to fix social care, reward key workers or act urgently on climate change, his constituents—the good people of North East Somerset—have had another week under the transformational leadership of the man they voted for as his metro Mayor and mine: Labour’s Dan Norris. Happy birthday to the Leader of the House.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am absolutely delighted and honoured to receive such kind birthday wishes from the hon. Lady. I do not think anybody in the House will believe that I am younger than her. That simply cannot be true, although it would be improper of me to suggest that the House has been misled. If looks are anything to go by, I have aged less well than her.
The hon. Lady suggests all sorts of excellent presents. They are already there, wrapped and splendidly arrayed, because we know exactly what the Government’s position on travel is. The law is clear, and the guidance is clear. The law is that people may travel if they need to and there are requirements when they get back. There is a testing environment if someone goes to a green country; there is a quarantine regime at home if someone goes to an orange or amber country; and there is further quarantine if someone goes to a red country, whereby they have to stay in places approved by the Government, to ensure that people are kept safe. It is a very sensible way of approaching these things and accepts that people will be making choices for themselves, which is inevitable as we come to the end of this pandemic.
Free trade is one of the greatest advances of prosperity that has ever been known. We saw this in the 19th century, which reminds me that my birthday is also the anniversary of the birth of Queen Victoria. In the good old days, it used to be Empire Day, and we got a public holiday, but alas, no longer; I was rather sorry that the hon. Lady did not call for the public holiday to be restored. Free trade has been absolutely essential to this nation’s prosperity, and the more free trade we have, the better it helps consumers and producers alike. It helps producers to become more efficient and more globally competitive while providing lower-cost goods and food and so on for consumers.
On parkrun, I am not quite sure I see myself in running kit. I was surprised that the hon. Lady did not mention the football that is coming up—the euro games, with England, Scotland and Wales all involved. The selection of the Scottish team caused greater interest, I understand, than the reshuffle of the Scottish Administration. That will be fun and fancy for people to have.
Let me come to the really serious points that the hon. Lady raised. I entirely agree that this Government and this country must root out antisemitic hate speech. It has no place in a civilised society. It is the most wrong and wicked of all the unpleasant and wrong prejudices that people have, bearing in mind the history of Europe over the past 100 years. There is absolutely no place for it. Incitement to racial hatred is illegal, and that is not in contradiction to the right to freedom of speech.
On Dementia Action Week, the hon. Lady is again so right in saying that dementia is the cruellest disease. It is sometimes crueller on those who are caring than on those who are suffering. The long time it has to be borne can seem endless. It is a great burden for families, and the last year has been simply horrible for people with family members suffering from dementia whom they have not been able to see in the normal way. However, I reassure her that a social care plan is being brought forward; there will be one by the end of the year. It is not easy, and everybody recognises that. The last Labour Government—although that is now, by the grace of God, some years ago—had a royal commission and two Green Papers on the subject. If it were easy, it would of course have been done already, but it is difficult, and it is important that it is got right, and it is therefore right that time has been taken to do it.
The building safety Bill was in the Gracious Speech, which we have thanked Her Majesty for with an Humble Address, which will be delivered in due course to Her Majesty. I do not quite know whether it has gone yet. The Whips take it in fine fettle and parade, and they will come back at some point carrying a wand; we will see it all splendidly done. However, the building safety Bill will be brought forward, and there will be a clear declaration of policy as to how the paying for the difficulties with the removal of unsafe cladding will be taken forward. Buildings taller than 59 feet in the social housing sector that have cladding of the type that Grenfell had have either already had it removed or a plan for it to be removed is in place.
Finally, the hon. Lady mentions nurses’ pay. A 1% pay increase is being given to nurses. Over the last year, 56,900 more people have begun working in the NHS. That is a real success. It shows that the recruitment is right, which usually indicates that the pay is right.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
I have been inundated with correspondence from residents in Tividale in my constituency who are unable to access GP appointments. A campaign is now being spearheaded by Emma Henlan, a local campaigner trying to ensure that her community can get GP appointments. We know that the Government are committing £1.5 billion to primary care, but can we have a debate in Government time on the future of primary care? We know that our GPs want to step up, but we need to ensure that there is a real integrated strategy that allows them to provide the services and ensures that people like Emma and her residents and my constituents can access those vital GP appointments.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Let me reiterate what I said last week: all practices should offer face-to-face consultations where appropriate. That is absolutely right. They have an obligation to do that. To help expand general practice capacity, Her Majesty’s Government have made available an additional £270 million of funding from November 2020 until September 2021 to ensure that GPs and their teams are able to continue to support all patients, and those who require face-to-face appointments should and must be given them.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I join the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), in wishing the Leader of the House a very happy birthday when it comes—he does not have too long to wait—and in her comments on Dementia Action Week. It is very important, particularly this year, that we mark and remember it. I certainly welcome next week’s debate, in which a great many Members will take the opportunity to have their say and make a contribution.
Last year, a young constituent of mine had to defer a place that they had been awarded at the United States basketball academy because of late cancellations of a visa appointment at the US embassy. The family are frustrated because they are facing the same situation again this year. The embassy appointment is scheduled for just days before he is due to travel, and, despite a number of efforts on our part to see what we can do, we are struggling to make any progress. Will the Leader of the House do anything in his power to see what the Foreign Office could do to assist with any interventions to make sure that young talent such as my constituent are able to undertake the options they have before them to pursue exciting careers?
I was disappointed that there was nothing in the Queen’s Speech to protect workers’ rights or to stop the tactics of fire and rehire. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) had a private Member’s Bill in the previous Session, but that has obviously now fallen. I would be grateful if the Leader of the House would undertake to bring back, perhaps in Government time, something in the terms of the Bill that my hon. Friend had introduced, so that we can consider and resolve these issues.
Last week, when I raised the issue of arms licences, the Leader of the House indicated that they were “extremely carefully controlled” and that we
“sell arms only to those countries with which we have the closest relationship”.—[Official Report, 13 May 2021; Vol. 695, c. 264.]
Will he therefore advise us of whether credible evidence of weapons being used in breach of international law, even by allies, is a criterion that results in the suspension of these licences? Can he provide time to review the rules on arms sales to ensure that the UK never turns a blind eye to war crimes?
Mr Rees-Mogg
On the hon. Gentleman’s final point, the licences are indeed carefully controlled and kept under continuous review. So, yes, of course it is expected that the arms we sell are used, even by friendly nations, in a proper way, and I am absolutely confident that our close allies are using any arms we sell to them in a proper way.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the issue of his constituent who hopes to go to the US basketball academy. I cannot promise immediate access to the US embassy but I will certainly take this up immediately after this session with the Foreign Office to see whether anything can be done to help his constituent. I cannot promise more than that.
As for workers’ rights and fire and rehire, the ACAS report has been produced and sent to the Department for Business, Energy and Industry Strategy, which is considering it and will update the House in a reasonably rapid fashion. That is not a commitment as to timing, but this is certainly at the forefront of the minds of those there, as is an employment Bill, which will be brought forward, as the Prime Minister said, when the time is right, to protect and enhance workers’ rights. I have said before that fire and rehire is one of the things that gives capitalism a bad name. It is usually in the interests of businesses to co-operate and work with their employees, who provide them, ultimately, with the profitability that ensures that the nation’s economy grows and strengthens.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Covid infection rates in my council area of Kirklees remain some of the highest in the country, although, thankfully, hospitalisations are low. Last night, the Health Secretary announced surge testing and extra vaccination capacity to help reduce those infection rates and protect local people across Kirklees. May we please have an update statement from the Health Secretary early next week? Will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging all those eligible for their jab to come forward and get it when it is offered?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and he is of course absolutely right; we want as many people as possible to be inoculated—to come forward for their jab—as this provides the best possible protection against the virus. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has been absolutely assiduous in attending this House and keeping it updated, and I am sure he will continue to do that. With 36 million people having had their first dose and 20 million people having had both, the percentage take-up rate is really encouraging. Some 90% of people say that they want to have the jab—obviously, that includes those who have already had it. There is enthusiasm for it, it is working extraordinarily well and it is helping us to get back to normal. So people must roll up their sleeves and expose their upper arm, as His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge did yesterday, and get jabbed.
Mr Speaker
Let us go to Ian Mearns. Congratulations on returning unopposed as the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
Thank you very much indeed, Mr Speaker.
I wish the Leader of the House a very happy birthday for Monday, and thank him for his follow-up letter after last week’s exchange. I welcome the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), to her place and I thank her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), who was a pleasure to work with in the role. I am hoping that the Backbench Business Committee will be open for business as soon as possible—I truly hope by next week.
We are now in the third decade of the 21st century. Based on statistics that the Department for Work and Pensions and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs published in March this year, and research by Loughborough University, the number of children living in poverty in my constituency of Gateshead has risen by almost 12% since 2015, meaning that 38% of children in my constituency now live in poverty. These are the Government’s own figures, and they require an urgent cross-Government response. Can we have a debate in Government time about what the Government’s immediate plans are to end the scourge and waste of child poverty in the United Kingdom in 2021?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his unopposed return? We can continue our Bill and Ben act of his asking for more time for the Backbench Business Committee and my telling people who ask for debates that they should ask him, rather than asking me. I am looking forward to continuing that, and I congratulate him most warmly. It is a sign of the House’s confidence in him that he was returned without opposition.
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. Progress has been made, and I am sorry to hear that his constituency has not been reflective of the nation as a whole, where, since 2010, the number of children in absolute poverty has fallen by 100,000. This is because of a number of policies that have been and continue to be introduced: the national living wage, which is worth around an extra £4,000 a year; the doubling of the personal tax threshold, which is worth an extra £1,200 a year; and an extra £1.7 billion going into universal credit work allowances by 2023-24. A number of steps are being taken and continue to be taken. They have been successful in the past, and I am sure they will continue to be successful in the future.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On 10 March 1987, Daniel Morgan, a private investigator, was brutally axed to death. So far, the family have never had justice because a series of police investigations have gone awry. There are many allegations about corrupt involvement of police officers and the News of the World under Rupert Murdoch.
The family were delighted when the former Home Secretary and then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), set up an independent panel to investigate all this in 2013. That has now completed its work, and the understanding, because it says so in the terms of reference laid out by the Home Office, was that the Home Secretary would only arrange publication to Parliament—not review it, not redact it, not interfere in any way at all, but publish it to Parliament. She is refusing to do so.
Will the Leader of the House please make sure that this is no longer delayed? Otherwise, it is an outrage to the family—a “kick in the teeth”, as they have said themselves. Can we have the report published on Monday? Can we have an oral statement from the Home Secretary herself, so that we can get to the bottom of this and, most importantly, give justice to the family of Daniel Morgan?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises is one of great importance and great concern, which is why the former Home Secretary set up this inquiry. The hon. Gentleman is unfortunately wrong, because the Home Secretary has not received the report from the commission. The Home Secretary will follow her statutory responsibilities—
Mr Rees-Mogg
This was checked with the Home Office this morning. I was told that the Home Secretary had not received the report, so I asked the obvious follow-up question: is it in the post room of the Home Office? It has not been received by the Home Office as of yet.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
With Greater Manchester police in special measures for poor leadership, I wish to reaffirm and put on record my support for our bobbies on the beat. With the Government’s commitment to the delivery of more policemen, including 348 already in place in Greater Manchester, may I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate in Government time on the importance of neighbourhood policing and the benefits to the community?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I so agree with my hon. Friend that neighbourhood policing is extremely important, effective, reassuring and helps to reduce crime. The Government are doing everything they can to help policing and we should show our admiration for the constables who keep us safe, not least the constables around the parliamentary estate. Their numbers are being added to—not particularly on this estate, but around the country at large. Twenty thousand additional officers are being recruited; 6,600 have already been recruited. The police are, of course, operationally independent and that is an essential part of our Peelite tradition, but “The police are us and we are the police” is the fundamental basis of how we are policed by and with our consent. Local police forces—neighbourhood policing—is fundamental to that.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
A subject access request to Pioneer Academy has revealed that it sent covert participants to planning meetings of the “Save Moulsecoomb Primary School” campaign, taking notes to use against the school community and parents. Compared with Moulsecoomb, Pioneer Academy has more schools with worse results than it has better. After last month’s alleged incident of the Pioneer Academy boss manhandling a child outside the school, 96% of parents now balloted are against the academisation. The local authority, all the unions and the parents are against it, and now even Ofsted is saying that the school has made progress in the two years since it was last inspected. Can the Leader of the House suggest a way that I and my community can stop this level of intimidation, take back control of their local school and keep it for the local community?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I say two things in response to that. One is that the academisation programme nationally has been an enormous success, has helped to raise standards in education and is giving people better life opportunities. It was part of the levelling-up agenda before we even embarked on the levelling-up agenda and it is fundamental. However, I add that any organisation must follow best practice and the law of the land in whatever it does. If the hon. Gentleman has specific examples of where the law has been breached or guidance has not been followed, he would be right to take that up with the Secretary of State for Education. If I can facilitate any correspondence between him and the Secretary of State, I will, of course, be happy to do so.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
On Friday, I had the pleasure of visiting the brilliant staff and pupils at St Mary’s Roman Catholic Primary School, alongside Tony from our local business, What More. Not only did we see their eco-classroom, answer their questions and read about their eco journey so far, but Tony was able to talk to them about how his business reuses and upcycles plastic, proving that not all plastic is drastic. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking both the staff and pupils for the work that they are doing to protect our environment and will he allow a debate in Government time on how we encourage others to follow their lead on our journey to net zero?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I obviously join my hon. Friend in thanking the pupils and staff at St Mary’s for doing their bit. Of course, May is the month of Mary, so it is a very good time to be visiting Catholic schools named in honour of Our Lady. It is a reminder that we all have a role to play in protecting our planet. The United Kingdom will continue to lead the way in acting on climate change, hosting COP26 in November and moving the United Kingdom to a net zero economy by 2050. Rather remarkably, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, since 1990, we have cut our emissions by 40% and have grown our economy by more than 70%, so we can have economic prosperity, economic growth and levelling up, as well as make our way towards net zero.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
May I also congratulate the Leader of the House on his upcoming birthday? I wonder who is going to sing “Happy Birthday” to him. Perhaps it will be a rendition by one of the wonderful choirs and choral societies that exist across Bath and North East Somerset. They include the Golden-Oldies, a charity that uses singing to tackle loneliness. However, unlike professional organisations, amateur choirs are not allowed to rehearse with more than six people, although the covid risk is exactly the same. Does that reflect somewhat the mistrust of the Government in voluntary organisations—a feeling that they are less responsible and less organised? Do the Government not value the contribution that voluntary organisations and amateur choirs make to society at large? Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to explain this unfair treatment of amateur choirs compared with professional ones?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her kind wishes. I think the House will be sitting until 10 o’clock on Monday, so I probably will not get the rendition—from my children, on their trumpets—of “Happy Birthday” that I would get if the House were not sitting so late. None the less, I am actually the patron of the Mendip male voice choir, which is a marvellous choir in North East Somerset. They invited me to be their patron many years ago and I have thoroughly enjoyed their concerts, which are to the highest standard. Indeed, they have performed in Bath Abbey in the hon. Lady’s constituency to great acclaim and success. I completely understand the point she is making and am very sympathetic to amateur choirs, but it is a road map and things are gradually unlifting across the country, with 21 June still pencilled in as the date when we will be getting back to normal, at which point I am looking forward to, as part of my patronage of the Mendip male voice choir, going to one of its concerts.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
It is clear that we need more housing, and in particular more affordable housing. However, we need the right houses in the right places and houses that are in keeping with their local areas. Would my right hon. Friend contemplate a debate so that we can talk about how can we achieve those ends?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. The planning system has failed people. It has not always given them the houses that they want. Surveys have always indicated that people want houses, ideally with gardens—although that may be difficult in my hon. Friend’s constituency—and then clever people have thought that they should be given tower blocks, which they have never wanted; this is shown in surveys going back to the 1940s. I have always thought that we should look at where and in what sort of houses the architects and the politicians live. By and large, that is what we should then provide for our constituents and we should have a planning system that does that.
I am glad to say that the Government are bringing forward ambitious planning reforms that will deliver for the British people, and reinvigorate the home owning democracy of which we used to be so proud and in which home ownership has declined in recent years. This is a fundamentally Conservative thing to be doing: allowing people to achieve their lifetime’s ambition of owning their own home and doing so earlier in their life, rather than later in life. What we were able to do before we were 35, people are now no longer able to do so easily. We must ensure that that is able to happen again, and that will be done through the planning reform Bill.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
The Leader of the House may be aware of a report published today by the Social Mobility Commission into the composition of the civil service. The report found that, among top Whitehall civil servants, some 59% attended private schools, compared with 7% in the general population, and that there is a culture in the civil service that seems to favour polish over performance, creating a class ceiling that prevents people from poorer backgrounds from achieving the top jobs. Would the Leader of the House be good enough to arrange for a debate in Government time to allow Members to discuss the findings of this report, and how we might begin to ensure that ability and potential future contribution—rather than the privileges of background—become the key determinants of success and allow the civil service to become a beacon of inclusivity that sets an example to other employers elsewhere in the country?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I actually think that the civil service is a model of good employment practice. Since the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms in the middle of the 19th century, it has been merit based, and that is absolutely how it should be. People get on in the civil service if they are good at their job and perform it well. Our civil service does a remarkable job, and in some cases—looking towards the Box, if I may—an outstanding job, of serving the people of this country. In my own office as Leader of the House—a small office—we have an apprentice, and we had an apprentice before who has been promoted and is succeeding considerably within the civil service. That is a good way of improving accessibility to jobs within the civil service to a broader range. I have not read the report, although I have heard of it and heard some of the headlines about it. It seemed to be concerned that people in the civil service remained calm in a crisis. It seems to me that it is essential to remain calm in a crisis; that is exactly the sort of thing we need from our civil servants.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend knows that I have been an advocate for the Places for Growth programme, and he will bear witness to my fight to move Government Departments out of London to Rother Valley as part of the Government’s levelling-up agenda. In the light of this groundbreaking decentralisation, why cannot we have the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport based in Dinnington, the Attorney General’s Office in Aston, the Department of Health in Hellaby, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in Thurcroft and the MOD in Maltby? But levelling up is not just about moving Government Departments north. Will my right hon. Friend agree—and speak to the Government about this—that the Places for Growth programme should be expanded so that other bodies, such as the National Lottery, can move to Rother Valley, which will spread prosperity across the north, as was envisioned when the lottery was founded?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for his constituency, Rother Valley. I think the last movement of the capital of this nation was from Winchester to London, and he now suggests that it move from London to Rother Valley. I slightly warn him to be careful what he wishes for, because that would be quite a change in the nature and composition of the Rother Valley, but his broad point is really good: it is not just those organisations directly under the control of Her Majesty’s Government that should think of moving; quangos should also think about whether they best serve the nation by being in London or could move elsewhere. He has raised the idea and I hope they will take notice. I remind him that the Government plan to move 22,000 civil service roles to the regions and nations of the UK by 2030. To return to the previous question, from the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), I think that will help by including more people who are more likely to apply for civil service jobs near where live, rather than our having the London-centric focus that we have. I am not, though, in favour of moving our capital city to the Rother Valley quite yet.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]
I add my birthday wishes to the Leader of the House for Monday. However, I fear that, for an increasing number of children in this country, their birthdays are not so happy. Between 2015 and 2020—the five years before the pandemic hit—child poverty increased by more in north-east local authorities than it did in any other region. My constituency, Newcastle upon Tyne North, has seen child poverty increase to 33% over that period—that is one in every three children, even before taking into account the impact of covid-19. It is shocking and appalling. How can the Government talk about levelling up when ever-increasing numbers of children and young people in the north-east are growing up in poverty on their watch, even while their parents are mostly already in work? May we have an urgent debate on the need for a comprehensive strategy to tackle child poverty—something that was conspicuously absent from the Government’s agenda for this Parliament?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful for these birthday wishes, although they are beginning to get a little embarrassing; I normally keep my advancing age quiet, rather than showing off about it quite so much as I have been doing this morning.
The hon. Lady’s point is fundamental to the Government’s agenda. This is what was set out in the Queen’s Speech: it was about levelling up and continuing the work that has been done. As I said to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), there are 100,000 fewer children in absolute poverty than there were in 2010. That is an important achievement. The national living wage; the personal tax threshold; the national insurance threshold; the extra money into the universal credit work allowances; the tax-free childcare; expanded free school meals; and the temporary extension of universal credit—all those things have helped people to get out of absolute poverty, which is a very important part of what the Government are doing. The levelling-up strategy, to ensure that all parts of the country can be more prosperous as the years go by, will help to reduce poverty further.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) [V]
In the town of Kimberley in Broxtowe, residents are currently participating in a levelling-up consultation so that we may submit the strongest possible bid for the second round of the fund. Will my right hon. Friend confirm the deadline for the second round of levelling-up funding, so that towns such as Kimberley can have the best chance of receiving long-overdue investment? Also, may we have a debate on levelling-up long-forgotten communities throughout the east midlands?
Mr Rees-Mogg
This is a golden opportunity for a Backbench Business debate to discuss the levelling-up agenda broadly, although of course people debated it during the debates on the Queen’s Speech. There will be £4.8 billion in the levelling-up fund, to spend taxpayers’ money in a way that improves infrastructure and helps everyday life across the United Kingdom, including by regenerating town centres and high streets. The application deadline is one of those great days of the year—one of those anniversary days that nobody can ever forget: Waterloo Day.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) [V]
During the pandemic people have not been able to take their practical driving test due to covid restrictions. Many of those who have taken their theory test may have to take another one because of the time lapse between their practical and theory tests, which is obviously no fault of their own. May we have a debate or statement from the Government about what they intend to do to correct the situation and whether the Department for Transport can extend the expiry date of the theory test certificate for those who have been unable to take their practical driving test due to the covid-19 pandemic?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My own constituents correspond with me about this issue. It always seems to me that the Government must treat people fairly and when they ban things, for whatever good reason that ban may be, constituents should not lose out because of that ban. I am therefore very sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The decision is, of course, one for the Department for Transport. The Secretary of State for Transport is on his feet to talk about trains later, so I do not suppose that this will be within that remit, but I shall ensure that it is taken up because the hon. Gentleman is rightly seeking redress of grievance for his constituents.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Hampshire has a significant Nepalese community, many of whom are deeply worried about family and loved ones in Nepal, where covid has taken a terrible grip and there is inadequate access to oxygen and ventilators. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement to the House about what assistance the UK can give to help Nepal come through this crisis?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for her question, because I can provide her with the answer as to what has been done by Her Majesty’s Government. The United Kingdom has provided £548 million to COVAX, which has already delivered over 59 million doses across three continents, including 348,000 to Nepal. In total, COVAX has allocated almost 2 million doses to Nepal, which will be delivered free of charge. In response to the first covid wave, we repurposed a large portion of our programme to ensure that we were able to focus on Nepal’s recovery. In response to the immediate covid crisis, among other things, we have just provided a new £180,000 duplex oxygen generation plant to Nepal Police Hospital in Kathmandu to help address oxygen shortages and treat covid patients. I hope that that information will help reassure some of my right hon. Friend’s constituents.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) [V]
I am sure that you and the Leader of the House will join me, Mr Speaker, in sending best wishes to Warrington Rylands football club, who are playing at Wembley in the FA vase final on Saturday. Non-league and grassroots football have taken a massive kicking during the pandemic, without the resources of clubs higher up the football pyramid. While Warrington is most famous for our rugby league sporting successes, we have a vibrant football scene as well, whether it is the newly promoted Warrington Rylands, Cheshire league teams such as Greenalls Padgate St. Oswalds FC, or Warrington Sunday league clubs, including Wolfpack FC, Cheshire Cheese FC and Winwick Athletic FC. Can the Leader of the House please arrange for a debate in Government time on support for grassroots and non-league football, including improving facilities across towns such as mine so that this sport can grow and thrive in the interests of players and fans?
Mr Speaker
I pass on my congratulations, and to Bolton Wanderers on getting promoted.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I pass on my congratulations, too, to Warrington Rylands football club. I must say, I think the Cheshire Cheese football club is the best name for a football club that I have heard recently—it is an absolutely splendid name—although if the Cheshire Cheeses were to play the Cheddar Cheeses, I would be on the side of the Cheddar Cheeses for obvious Somerset-related reasons. The point that the hon. Lady makes is right: it has been a tough time for grassroots football. Obviously, the higher levels of the game have carried on getting money in and various schemes have been proposed to help ensure that the grassroots game prospers. In the initial instance, this is absolutely a Backbench Business debate, but one that I think would be very well supported.
Mr Speaker
And it used to be Lancashire cheese before they renamed it with the boundary change.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
The 2019 MP intake had little time to get their feet under the green Benches and learn about parliamentary protocol before covid struck, and procedures in this House rightly changed so that Parliament could function. Structure replaced spontaneity and call lists replaced bobbing. As we emerge from the shackles of covid, does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to resume normal procedure as soon as possible so that we can scrutinise Government and represent our constituents?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I hear a very loud “Hear, hear!” from my hon. Friend, who I am so pleased to see in his place, as I teased him last week for not being—I am delighted that he is here. I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton): we need to get back to do it properly. The key is that scrutiny is good for the Government, as it is for our constituents and for seeking redress of grievance. The tougher the scrutiny, the better policy is thought through, the better policy is presented and the more it becomes possible to avoid making mistakes that may prove an irritant to our constituents. Getting back to the Chamber and doing things properly is absolutely essential. We have 21 June—Midsummer’s Day itself—pencilled in, so people can leave Stonehenge and come to the Chamber of the House of Commons on that day.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) [V]
The issues around severe court delays are well documented in this place, but I would like to draw the Leader of the House’s attention to the real impact that these waiting times are having on my constituents. One is a 100-year-old woman, whose fraud case against a former carer has been charged by the Crown Prosecution Service and amounts to more than £250,000. This case was discovered and initiated more than four years ago, yet court delays mean that she is unlikely to see justice served in her lifetime. Will the Leader of the House please urge his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to step in to seek a resolution, and at the very least will he grant a debate on this issue in Government time?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is always difficult to suggest any degree of intervention with individual cases, because those are obviously matters for the court, although I will of course pass on what the hon. Lady has said to the Lord Chancellor. Let me just set out what the Government have done to try to ease this problem, because it is one that has been recognised and, along with other effects of covid, is one of the greatest seriousness. The Government have committed a quarter of a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money to a covid recovery. Additional space has been created to hear more cases, with 60 Nightingale courtrooms that have been opened, and plexiglass, as we see in our own Chamber, has been installed in 450 rooms. More than 20,000 hearings using remote technology are taking place each week, which is an enormous increase from March last year, so things are being done. Now, 2,000 cases a week are being completed in the Crown court, which is similar to pre-pandemic levels, so it is a question of working through the backlog. However, the issue the hon. Lady raises is one the Government take seriously, and as I have said, I will of course pass on the details to the Lord Chancellor.
Mr Bone
One of the great advantages of leaving the European Union was that we escaped from the protectionism of the superstate. Free trade agreements give more choice to the consumer and lower prices. Could the Leader of the House arrange a debate in Government time on a substantive motion, to allow Government Members to indicate how united we are behind free trade agreements and see whether the Opposition will support us?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: free trade is one of the great advantages of leaving the European Union, which has always been essentially a protectionist racket and has led to higher prices for many staples of daily life in this country. The Government are a believer in free trade. We have rolled over any number of trade agreements, with the fantastic work done by my right hon Friend the President of the Board of Trade in ensuring that this has happened and in the negotiations with other countries. Free trade is good for both sides, but it is particularly good for the side that reduces tariffs. Why? Because we lower prices to consumers, which means they have more disposable income to use on other things, be it on investment in their country or buying other goods and services. So we grow the overall economy, reducing the tax burden on individuals because tariffs are taxation, and taxation on staples is not necessarily the best way to lead to economic growth, but it also helps producers because producers have to be more competitive, and that means that, globally, they will do better. For economic growth, free trade has always been the way forward, and God bless the late Sir Robert Peel.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I hope the Leader of the House cleared that with the Prime Minister, because on 21 April I asked the Prime Minister to demand that public bodies should “buy British first”, and he responded, “of course”. Clearly, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), had not got the memo by yesterday, when he did not blame the EU, but started by bleating about World Trade Organisation restrictions. I suppose next it will be little green men from UFOs that Ministers use as their excuse for inaction. Can we have a debate in which Members from all sides can demand that Ministers, civil servants and public bodies buy British goods, food and services first?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Since we have left the European Union, we have much greater freedom to buy British first. We do have some international agreements on procurement to ensure that we do things fairly and properly, and that other countries do the same, but it seems to me perfectly reasonable, as there is good and affordable British produce available, that we should decide—where we can, and where it is prudent and affordable—to have a preference for British meat over non-British meat. I do not think that is unreasonable, and I hope the House of Commons will do the same.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) [V]
My constituent Rosie Aldridge’s son, Alfie, was diagnosed at eight with adrenoleukodystrophy. He can no longer walk, chew or swallow. Rosie describes this as every parent’s nightmare, and my heart goes out to her. In the United States, a post-natal heel prick is routine, and the question is whether this simple procedure could have meant a very different outcome for Alfie and others like him. Will the Leader of the House advise the House whether a debate could be held to consider the case for adopting a similar practice in the UK?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue with the House. It is of great concern, and I offer my sympathies to Alfie Aldridge and his family. As constituency MPs, we all know that these are the most heart-rending cases, and the families go through so much in looking after a child who is unwell.
The Government recognise that ALD is a devastating disease and acknowledge that the physical, mental and financial effects harm not only the individual but their families. The UK National Screening Committee advises Ministers and the NHS in all parts of the United Kingdom on aspects of population screening and supports implementation. The UKNSC continually reviews the evidence for newborn screening tests and is currently reviewing the evidence on screening for ALD, following a public consultation, which closed on 30 January.
Comparison of population screening programmes such as the newborn blood spot with other health systems can be misleading. In the UK, newborn screening is quality-assured and includes all parts of the pathway for babies, through tests, retests, referral, diagnosis and treatment. In other countries, such as the USA, that is not necessarily the case. I would therefore recommend, in the first instance, that my hon. Friend apply for an Adjournment debate, but I will of course pass on the issue she has raised to my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
Around this time last week, the residents of Kenmure Street in Pollokshields safely and peacefully assembled to prevent a Home Office immigration removal van from leaving. The cry, “These are our neighbours—let them go!” rang out in the streets for many hours. I am still awaiting a response from Home Office Ministers as to why they sought to remove two of my constituents in a pandemic and on Eid al-Fitr. Can we have a debate on the practice of so-called dawn raids and why they have no place in civilised society?
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) [V]
Last weekend I was pleased to volunteer to direct constituents having their covid vaccinations at my GP surgery in Hendon—a programme that involves a partnership between several local practices. However, my office has since received a number of calls from people who have passed the 12-week interval after their first vaccine and who cannot get an appointment for their second. This is usually where the first vaccination has been via another GP; on one occasion, the reason given was that the practice did not have any vaccine. Will the Vaccines Minister make a statement about the autonomy of practices in inviting their on-list patients to attend surgeries to ensure that eligible patients receive their second vaccine within the 12-week period?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point and for volunteering service—he is a model to us all in his public service and the service he provides to his constituents.
It is essential that everyone receives their second vaccine dose at the agreed time, and recent figures indicate that very large numbers of people are receiving their second vaccines at the right time. Established systems and procedures are in place to ensure that second doses can be booked easily. The national immunisation management system is the centralised service for the management of the covid-19 programme established by NHS England.
It is obviously concerning for patients if they fear a delay in their second dose. In some exceptional circumstances, people may not receive an invitation for their second dose from their GP practice. If a full 11 weeks have passed since the first dose, and no offer of a second appointment has come, people should arrange a jab through the national booking system on the NHS internet page or by calling 119. I will obviously pass my hon. Friend’s concerns on to the Vaccines Minister and the Health Secretary, but I suggest that he goes back to his constituents and says, “Go online or ring 119” if 11 weeks have elapsed.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I am proud to chair the all-party group on parkrun. I bet every MP in this House has a successful community parkrun. We know that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of our constituents want to put on their running shoes on a Saturday morning at 9 o’clock, and see their friends and run a timed 5 km race come rain or shine. Our all-party group wrote to the Prime Minister yesterday asking him to bring down the barriers which parkrun UK says are holding back this brilliant public health initiative from beginning again in June. It was good that the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport supported parkrun from the Dispatch Box earlier, but may we please have an urgent update and a statement highlighting the practical actions in hand to get us all on the run again?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I get into terrible difficulties with these areas, because it is very much do as I say, not as I do—I am afraid I am not running three miles for all the tea in China. Talking of running shoes, I did actually discover, in an unopened cupboard, my old cricket boots from when I was a schoolboy. I am not even going to put those on. They are splendidly old-fashioned in the way of cricket boots of the late 1980s now are.
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. It is helpful for health reasons, and for fun, for people to get involved in sport as a collaborative and collective activity. He raises issues relating to the regulations that are making that difficult. I will take that up and get him a proper answer, rather than telling people to do things that I do not want to do.
Mr Speaker
Would it be easier for the Leader of the House if we called it the 5K?
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) [V]
I think, Mr Speaker, it’s a case of howzat.
My right hon. Friend may have received, as I did, a letter from the leader of Somerset County Council, which was sent to every household across Somerset at huge public cost. It is actually full of false flannel and bare-faced lies, unfortunately. It was another attempt to fool the Somerset voters about a referendum that is being organised by the district council to find out what people really think about the different plans for local government. Somerset County Council wants its plan to succeed, so thousands of these spoiler letters suggest it is a waste of time because the Government will not listen, which I believe came from the Government. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State helped to fuel this when he told district councils that the referendum was a mistake. However, the people of Somerset take a dim view of being dictated to. As you well know, Mr Speaker, we do not like being told things by tinpot county councillors or, dare I say, out of touch Ministers. May we have a debate on this, because I’ll tell you what we think of it—[Interruption.] We don’t like it. We never have.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is beginning to model himself on Corporal Jones. I thought he was about to say, “They don’t like it up ’em,” but he did not quite go that far. I am absolutely intrigued as to what false flannel is. Is that flannelette? I am not entirely sure. Obviously, documents sent out by county councils should be accurate and factually true. The Government are running a consultation on the new structures for Somerset. My hon. Friend knows my preference. I think Somerset should be restored, reunited, returned to being not quite one holy catholic and apostolic Somerset, but that is the direction in which we both believe in heading. But this should be a fair and properly conducted and civilised debate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I wish the Leader of the House many happy returns for Monday. We do not count the years anymore, the Leader of the House and I and others, but instead we make the years count. We look forward to that.
The newly released 2021 annual report of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom warns that the Chinese Communist party’s hostility towards certain groups, for example Tibetan Buddhists, was among the most troubling developments seen in 2020. Under the CCP’s systematic campaign of “sinofication”, many minorities are seeing their religious identities suppressed and their beliefs persecuted. The religious activities of Tibet’s 8 million Buddhists are severely restricted with state surveillance, harassment, arrests, forced labour and the detention of religious leaders. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate or a statement on this matter?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman raises a point that is rightly raised in this House. The treatment of Tibetan Buddhists should be of the gravest concern to the House, and to anyone who believes in freedom of religion, but the communist regime in China does not respect any religion. It is an atheistic creed; it does not respect Buddhists, it does not respect the Uyghurs and it does not respect Catholics. It has consistently persecuted and borne down on religion in China, and that is something that ought to be condemned.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
About 14 months ago, a much-loved Ipswich man, Richard Day, walked back after a night out with his brother, minding his own business. He was set upon by three youths who attacked him. One of the youths punched him in the neck, and that was a fatal blow. As Richard lay dying on the floor, they stood over him laughing and rifling through his pockets to steal his belongings. The individual who threw the fatal punch was actually awaiting sentencing for another similar crime. The people of Ipswich are shocked that that individual was given a sentence of only four years in a youth offenders institution. He will be let out automatically halfway through, and he has already served 14 months on remand, so in 10 months he will be back out, presumably on the streets of Ipswich. My constituents are furious that justice has not been done, and there is also a question about the public safety of my constituents if he is back out on the streets of Ipswich. Will the Leader of the House find Government time for us to debate sentences such as these and what we can do to restore the trust of the British people in our criminal justice system?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises a deeply troubling case. The sadness for Mr Day’s family and the burden that they will carry all their lives is one of unimaginable distress. It is hard in these circumstances to go through the reassurances about the Government taking tackling crime seriously, which of course they do. This is where general national policy meets the individual circumstance, and it is so important that, in the individual circumstance, the right, appropriate and just sentence is passed. Parliament gives the power to the courts to do this, and the maximum penalty for manslaughter is a life sentence. We have independent courts, but it would be wrong to pretend that our courts always get the individual judgments right. It is therefore quite proper for people such as my hon. Friend to seek redress for the grievances of their constituents and to raise these matters in the House so that the judiciary may know what concern there is when light sentences are passed on people who, by a violent murder, have destroyed the happiness of a family.
Mr Speaker
I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Britain’s Railways
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the future of rail.
The railway is one of the nation’s proudest and most enduring innovations. Almost 200 years ago the first line opened—the Stockton and Darlington in County Durham. Within decades, the railway’s iron web stretched across the nation, carrying trains that transformed our economy and society. From steam icons such as the Flying Scotsman and the Mallard, to the high-speed InterCity 125, which became the stalwart of Britain’s railway for 45 years, this country was built by the railway.
In the 19th century, rail helped to make us so productive and turned us into the workshop of the world, and rail powered our great Victorian cities and shaped our economic geography. Rail opened up vast, long-distance travel for ordinary people, transforming opportunity for the masses. Just as rail moulded our past, so will it shape our future. No other form of transport can bind the nation so effectively and help us to level up our country, bringing new jobs and investment to regions such as the north and the midlands, as we build back from covid.
However, for rail to play that key future role and reach its true potential, the industry requires radical overhaul. The Government are deeply committed to rail. We are spending tens of billions on modernising rail infrastructure, electrifying existing routes, updating signalling stations, renewing train fleets, building new lines, and making up for decades of underinvestment, but there are problems that investment alone cannot solve, such as too many delays, too much confusion for passengers, and different parts of the industry not working together.
The part-privatisation of the railway in the mid-’90s successfully reversed its long-term decline. Private sector involvement has seen passenger numbers more than double, rising more quickly than in most of Europe. Passenger travel is safer, and our country is better connected, with billions invested in new, modern trains and upgrading our stations—investment that would not have happened under nationalisation. However, the industry is fragmented, it lacks accountability, and it is lacking in leadership. The chaotic timetable change of three years ago this week demonstrated that point, as did the Government being forced to step in to take over failing franchises. Those are just some examples of how the railway was not working, and of how it was neglecting its greatest, most precious asset: the passenger.
Today I am proud to announce the beginning of a new start for the railway in Britain. It is the biggest shake up in three decades, bringing the railway together under a single national leadership, with one overwhelming aim: to deliver for passengers. The new public body, Great British Railways, will own the infrastructure, run and plan the network, organise the timetable, and set most fares. It will be one organisation, accountable to Ministers, to get trains running on time, make the customer experience as hassle-free as possible, and bring the railway into the 21st century, a single, familiar brand, with united accountable leadership.
We are going to sort out and simplify ticketing. Instead of having queues at stations for wads of paper tickets, we will roll out convenient, modern ways to pay and book—smartphones and contactless—and a new Great British Railways website for selling tickets across the network. We will welcome independents continuing to compete in the ticket retail market, particularly where they can grow new markets, recognising the value of private sector innovation. Pay as you go will be more widely accepted, and flexible season tickets will be introduced next month, saving money for an increasing number of people who do not commute five days a week. At the same time, “turn up and go” tickets, conventional season tickets and Britain’s comprehensive service will all be protected.
Although Great British Railways will manage the network, we must not ignore the contribution that the private sector continues to make. This is not renationalisation, which the Government continue to believe failed the railways. Rather, this is simplification. While Great British Railways acts as the guiding mind to co-ordinate the whole network, our plan will see greater involvement of the private sector. Private companies will be contracted to run the trains and services, with fares set by Great British Railways. It will work more like London buses and London Overground, delivered by private companies but branded as a single national service.
The operators will be rewarded for providing clean, comfortable, on-time services, and our reforms will unleash opportunities for them to innovate, helping us to change the way tickets are sold and the way data is used, so that passengers can plan their journeys more easily. These contracts will lower the barriers and bring in new entrants, including community rail partnerships and other innovative bidders operating on branch lines. That will make the competition process easier and will be good for taxpayers and passengers.
In England, we will work to bring the railway closer to those who use the services, and in Scotland and Wales, we will continue to exercise the current powers under devolution. Close collaboration with Great British Railways will help to ensure that delivery improves across the services and provides consistency for passengers across the country.
This is also about changing the culture of our railway. Covid has shown the very best of the railways. Ticketing staff, engineers, drivers, guards, cleaners, signallers, maintenance workers and timetablers have all played their part in keeping supplies, vaccines and essential workers moving, and for that we owe them a debt of gratitude. They have shown us what can be achieved when this industry comes together, and we want to strengthen that.
Simpler structures and clearer leadership will make decision making much more transparent and will remove the blame culture. There is far too much bureaucracy focused on establishing who is to blame rather than finding solutions. For example, all delays greater than three minutes have to be allocated to someone for financial penalties to apply. Until recently, under the delay attribution rules, when a train was delayed by being hit by a bird, who got the blame depended on the size of the bird. A small bird was the fault of a train company and a large bird the fault of Network Rail. Of course, trains are expected to withstand, say, a sparrow, a pigeon or maybe even a smallish duck, but not a swan or a goose.
Once a train has collided with said bird, it creates an industry for debate, argument and litigation. Network Rail and train operators currently employ a stunning 400 full-time members of staff known as train delay attributors, whose sole job is to argue with each other about whose fault the delay is. There is even a national attribution board—a sort of supreme court for the railway—which looks at these disputes and, in one case recently, had to rule on whether a pheasant is a small or large bird. It is completely bonkers. This is the sort of thing that will end. As soon as possible, under our reforms, everyone, including the train operators, will be tasked to work towards common goals and manage costs. We will create a more financially sustainable railway, saving money for the taxpayer. Rail services will be better co-ordinated with each other and better integrated with trains, buses, bikes and trams.
This new plan for the railways, three years in the making, is not about ideology. I am more interested in fixing problems, getting things done and creating the public services that people want. This plan is therefore about delivering for passengers—an ambitious but common-sense blueprint for a more customer-focused, more reliable and growing railway. As we head towards the 200th anniversary of rail’s inception, the network faces perhaps its biggest challenge with the collapse of passenger numbers during covid. This new rail revolution will restore trust and pride in Britain’s railways, secure it for the long term and ensure that it plays just as formative a role in our future as it has done in our past. I commend this statement to the House.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
May I start by thanking the Secretary of State for Transport for an advance copy of the statement, together with the report that was issued earlier this morning? It is two and a half years since the Williams review was first commissioned, and the very fact that Williams was commissioned at all shows that the state, the travelling public and those excluded from the railways because of accessibility have been given a poor deal.
While much has changed through the network due to covid, what the Secretary of State has announced today was pretty much what was recorded in The Daily Telegraph last November. If that is the case, will he confirm why did he not make the announcement back in November, when it was reported in the national press?
Taking the announcements in turn today, the Secretary of State said that control of the infrastructure and the contracting of train operations will be given to this new arm’s length Government-owned body, with private firms bidding for concessions with an agreed profit margin built in. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether a publicly owned provider will be able to bid for these concessions on a level playing field? Will he also confirm whether the operator of last resort will continue to exist? If so, will it be brought fully back in-house?
It has been reported that the Treasury is demanding cost cuts of between 10% and 20%. There is concern that rather than seeing increased investment, the real driver behind bringing all this together is more about disguising painful cuts. Any talk of cuts in funding, such as the £1 billion funding cut to Network Rail that we have already seen, will have a direct impact on jobs, our regions and vital maintenance and upgrade works. Does the Secretary of State know how many jobs could be lost with a reduction of 10% or 20%, and what it might mean to each of our regions? The head of Network Rail, Andrew Haines, and its chairman, Sir Peter Hendy, are to be tasked with drawing up the processes and structures of the new Great British Railways. What date have they been given to report back?
On freight, can the Secretary of State say a little more about how the reforms will impact on the track access regime and about the governance arrangements that will exist for freight when Network Rail takes control of the passenger railways and freight together, albeit under a different name? Decarbonising transport will require a much greater shift if we are to move more from road to rail. How will the reforms help rail freight grow as part of decarbonising freight transport? Importantly, what targets will the Secretary of State set in that regard?
The Government have also made an announcement on flexible ticketing, although to date few details have been provided. The lack of any detail on these tickets and whether they will actually be cheaper for the travelling public frankly renders the announcement almost useless to millions of passengers. There is a danger that flexible ticketing will fail to meet the test of encouraging people back on to rail as we come through this pandemic. What research have the Government done to ensure that the type of product being suggested will address the needs of the travelling public and get more people back on to rail?
This report fundamentally fails to tackle one of the biggest challenges with our transport system, which is that the different modes of transport just do not talk to each other. They do not turn up together when required and they are not joined up. We need a bus and train system that genuinely connects people, rather than leaving them cold, standing, waiting for connecting services. Will the Secretary of State work towards joining up different modes of transport? Critically, if so, what devolved powers does he envisage for our metro Mayors and our transport authorities as part of this plan?
On devolution, will the Government finally follow through on transferring train station responsibilities to our metro Mayors, as was expected in Greater Manchester some years ago? We have not seen any detail on what profit margin operators can expect in practice and whether the cost of that will hit fares or investment. How quickly will the Government publish that?
While I welcome the steps to increase public ownership and control over the railways, as hon. Members might expect, they do not go far enough in this plan. There is ample proof to demonstrate that fuller public ownership, rather than a concession model, would better serve the state, the public and long-term investment. I fear that the Government have really not understood the scale of the challenge in front of them. While we may well see a change of name on the side of the trains, fundamentally passengers will still be left short-changed. Although the Minister says that this is not about nationalisation, the fact is that, as we have seen through covid, we have nationalised risk but continue to allow the privatisation of profit.
Grant Shapps
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have to say that I sympathise, because I appreciate that it must have been difficult to take in a report of 114 pages in the time available. Skimming through it and coming up with questions will have been difficult, and I therefore understand why he asked some questions that are answered fully in the White Paper itself. Less understandable and harder to fathom is how it was possible to put out press comments about the content of the White Paper last night before it was even seen, including a lot of points already covered in the White Paper, and therefore rather misfiring in direction. Let me try to pick through some of the questions asked.
Why two and a half years? As I mentioned, the breakdown in the timetable took place three years ago this week. Keith Williams was appointed to carry out the review, which he has done at no cost to the taxpayer, I should mention, and brilliantly. There was this thing called covid, and we went into the second and third lockdowns in November, so it was perfectly proper to wait until we had a clear indication and for the vaccine to be deployed before coming to the House with the full report. That also enabled us to bring that report up to date with what is actually happening in the running of those rail services.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the operator of last resort and whether it will still exist. The answer is in the report: yes, very much so. As he knows, I already effectively run Northern and the east coast mainline through the operator of last resort. It is not about disguising cuts of any type. He keeps coming back to £1 billion of control period 6 rail funding. Because of covid, operators were unable to spend the money, but they will have that money to spend in the next period. None the less, we have ongoing one of the biggest ever rail transformation programmes, if not the biggest.
The timescales for change are all in the White Paper, and the good news is that we will get going on this immediately. The hon. Gentleman will notice that the bottom left-hand corner on the front of the White Paper says “CP 423”, which means that it is command paper 423, which means that we can get on with it, and we are doing that from this moment. A very good example of that is flexi-tickets. He says that there is not enough detail. I am pleased to let the House know that that detail will all be available on 21 June, and that they will go on sale on 28 June. If he takes the time to look in the notes to editors at the back, he will see a large number of examples of what fares will be. These will save people money in each circumstance if they are travelling two or three days a week.
The hon. Gentleman asked about freight. I refer him to page 78 of the White Paper, which talks about freight and our desire to make sure that those freight paths are available within our railway. The advantage of Great British Railways looking after all this is that we will be able to accommodate freight paths. He asked about the decarbonisation that freight will help to bring, and he is absolutely right to focus on that. I am pleased to tell him that a transport decarbonisation plan will be published before the summer that will focus very much on how we already use the best form of transport when it comes to decarbonisation in order to shift more freight around.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the joined-up nature of transport, with people, as he says, waiting in the cold sometimes for transport that may or may not turn up. I know he has not had long to look at the White Paper, but he only has to get as far as the foreword to find my talking about that exact issue. He asks about the way this will work with devolution. He will be pleased to hear that I spoke to his friend the Mayor of Manchester only yesterday, and I was pleased that he warmly welcomed the White Paper today. Page 41 has all that detail.
I know that Oppositions, almost for Opposition’s sake, have to nit-pick and find problems, but the reality is that the nationalisation that they would impose on this country would lead to fewer passengers, as it did last time; fewer stations, with stations closed in our constituencies, as it did last time under British Rail; track being cut, as it was before; and appalling sandwiches. We are not going back to the days of nationalisation. We can do better than that.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) [V]
I welcome the statement, the White Paper and indeed the birth of Great British Railways. We look forward to the Secretary of State giving more detail to the Select Committee on Transport this Wednesday with Keith Williams. In the meantime, let me ask about page 56 of the White Paper, which deals with passenger service contracts, promising:
“Revenue incentives and risk sharing”.
How will that work to ensure that the private sector continues to invest in a way that it has done over the past 20 or so years, when it doubled passenger numbers? Page 71 talks of “New flexible season tickets” allowing eight days’ travel in a 28-day period. Does that equate to 28% of the cost that passengers would expect to pay and therefore make it an incentive to travel in our new world?
Grant Shapps
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee and I look forward to coming before the Committee on Wednesday. I hope I will get a bit more chance to expand on some of these subjects. When Keith Williams and I were looking at the role of the private sector, we very much looked at what was happening in London with Transport for London: the way the buses, London Overground and the Docklands Light Railway are all run by private enterprises and how they bring something more than would have been available if the state was simply running all those services. The incentives for such enterprises will be to run good, efficient, trains, on time—clean trains, with wi-fi; these are things that passengers want—to carry on innovating and to bring their private ideas and capital, while allowing Great British Railways to set the overall picture. I do not want to disappoint him on the flexi tickets; the 28 days does not refer to 28%, but I can tell him that, fortunately, every ticket will be cheaper than buying a season ticket when people are travelling now, in a more flexible world, perhaps two or three days a week. These tickets will be warmly welcomed by the travelling public, as people start to go back to work.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]
I, too, thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement. I have to report that, yet again, although there was consultation during the initial review, there has been no discussion of the actual plan with the Scottish Government. As for the so-called “Williams-Shapps” plan, it will be interesting to see how quickly it is renamed the “Williams plan” if it does not work. Although there are elements to be welcomed, I am afraid that it amounts to a real missed opportunity, with the Tories’ continued belief that the private sector knows best and yet more money flowing out of the system and into shareholders’ pockets.
By contrast, the Scottish Government have committed to taking ScotRail into public ownership. Will the Secretary of State confirm that nothing in this plan prevents the Scottish Government from doing so? I am disappointed but wholly unsurprised to see that the advice given by the former Rail Minister Tom Harris to devolve Network Rail to Scotland has been ignored. Moreover, the plan states:
“Dedicated station management teams will be created locally within regional divisions of Great British Railways to manage stations, land and assets.”
Will the Secretary of State confirm whether that results in GBR taking on the management of some Scottish stations and taking it out of ScotRail’s hands? How will the plan to roll station improvement funds into a central accessibility fund affect current relationships between Transport Scotland and the Department for Transport and annual bids for Access for All money? The plan also contains zero mention of international connections and Eurostar, which is a big omission, given the potential collapse of Eurostar. The plan document for GBR contains lots of nice pictures but not a single one has been taken outside England, which is indicative of a plan that fails to recognise the need to devolve more power to the devolved Administrations. Despite all the noise and rhetoric around the Government’s 10-point plan, the document contains just one page out of 116 on rail electrification. It says that the Government will announce further English electrification programmes, but we have been here before and their track record is utterly woeful. So when will this plan be announced? Will passenger service contracts be compulsory?
Lastly, the plan contains little specifically about Scotland. Given that the functions of Network Rail are not being devolved, can the Secretary of State tell us how the operational relationship between the ScotRail Alliance and Transport Scotland and GBR will work? The extension of ministerial control over GBR/Network Rail means that that is likely to become far more complicated.
Grant Shapps
I wish to correct a couple of things that the hon. Gentleman said. There has been extensive discussion with the Scottish Government at official level about all of this, so they have been very much briefed. I am sorry that they have not briefed him along the way, as that would have been helpful. I know that he approaches this subject with tremendous dogma as if our railway lines do not interconnect, but they do, or as if the only way through this in the case of ScotRail is to nationalise it. We just take a much more open view about the best way to run a railway. First, the lines happen to connect England and Scotland together. Secondly, we have said in this White Paper that we are happy not only to have this national body, Great British Railways, involved, but to have competition from the private sector or, indeed, an operator of last resort, the public sector. We just have a much less ideological view of all of this. I think it is about trying to juxtapose his very ideological views with this much more straightforward plan to do what is right for the passenger that is causing him quite a lot of his confusion.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned numerous different issues. For example, he said that, on the international side of things, Eurostar was in trouble. He may not have spotted it, but Eurostar was refinanced just last week. He asked about the transport decarbonisation element of it. He may have missed the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) a moment ago, but the transport decarbonisation plan is referenced in the White Paper, because it is due out very shortly and will tackle those issues in a great deal of additional detail.
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that Great British Railways will carry on running the infrastructure side of things, but there is nothing in the White Paper that reverses or changes the devolution picture: the Scottish Government will carry on running ScotRail as they see fit. None the less, we do have to recognise that we all need to work together. I normally hear him say exactly that, because our constituents need to travel around and they do not really care about all of the insider detail. They just want a railway that works, which is why he should be welcoming Great British Railways and this White Paper today, because we will get a railway that works.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) [V]
May I start by welcoming my right hon. Friend’s statement today? The people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke elected me on a pledge to better connect places such as Milton via the Stoke to Leek line, which I hope will reopen under my Restoring Your Railway Fund bid. I also want to ensure that railways and stations are responsive to the needs of local communities, such as providing Access For All upgrades and car parking, which is happening at Kidsgrove, thanks to Joan Walley from 2015, and I hope to see it replicated at Longport railway station. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as part of these reforms announced today, our railways will be more responsive to local community needs and work for every part of our United Kingdom?
Grant Shapps
I can most certainly provide an absolute assurance to my hon. Friend, who, I have to say, has been an incredibly doughty fighter on behalf of his Stoke constituency. He mentioned the Stoke to Leek line. I know that he has spoken to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and I know that he has an application into the third round of the Restoring Your Railway Fund application, which is enormously popular across the House. That is getting rid of the damage that Beeching did to our railways in this country under British Rail and it is good to see this Conservative Government opening it up again.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Passengers in Luton North will be concerned by reports that the Chancellor is planning to cut our railways. After 15 years of Access For All funding, it is truly shocking how many stations, including Leagrave in Luton North, remain inaccessible to wheelchair users, those with mobility issues, and parents like myself with pushchairs. Under this review, will the Secretary of State accelerate Access For All funding so that passengers with access needs in Luton North can have proper and equal use of our railways?
Grant Shapps
I do agree, but we have a fundamental issue here: our railways were built by the Victorians, who did not have any kind of disability discrimination legislation at the time. Many of the stations are far less accessible than we would want to see, which is why we have the Access For All fund, with which the hon. Lady is familiar. I always encourage people to bid for it. There is no prouder moment than when I go round the country with my fellow Ministers to open up stations that are now accessible to people in every kind of way, and I encourage her to apply for that. I have to say that the Chancellor would be pretty surprised to hear the hon. Lady talk about his “cuts” to our railways. He has just put £12 billion into keeping them running over the past year due to covid.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
I welcome any reform that puts passenger interests at the heart of the railway, but may I say to the Secretary of State that what passengers in Alfreton and Langley Mill want is for their direct link to London each day to be retained and not scrapped by East Midlands Railway? Can he confirm that, under his new structure, those sort of decisions about where trains stop and how often will be for the new Great British Railways Company and not for the individual franchisee or operator to make?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend illustrates the problem with the setup that we have at the moment, where each individual railway company bids for its own bit of the track—its own path. We are not using the railway as efficiently as we should, so we cannot run as many services as we should. I can absolutely confirm to my hon. Friend that all decisions on direct links to London will be made by Great British Railways in the future. I should have pointed out to the House that this is a multi-year upgrade to our railways. It will take time to provide fully, as the White Paper explains, and it will require primary legislation. However, we will get on with the main parts of it today, so from today, things will start to improve.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I welcome the review and the statement from the Secretary of State. My constituents will particularly welcome the news about flexible season tickets, which will be of huge benefit to commuters right across London and the south-east, particularly those who might be thinking of working from home more once all the covid restrictions are lifted. I am a bit concerned about what protection there will be for commuters from the undue hiking of rail fares. How will Great British Railways be prevented from imposing disproportionate fare increases on commuters?
Grant Shapps
I most certainly welcome the hon. Lady’s welcome for the White Paper. It is great to hear that she thinks that flexi-tickets will help her constituents; I think that they will, as work patterns evolve post covid. I can provide her with the reassurances that she is after, because today’s announcement of Great British Railways does not change how fares have been capped up to now, and all those regimes will remain in place. I think there are great benefits coming down the road—down the line, actually—for her constituents.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I welcome the commitment to making our railways more passenger-focused and, indeed, resisting Opposition Members’ calls to go back to the bad old days of nationalisation. My right hon. Friend will know, however, that my constituents suffer at the hands of the railway that we do not want, HS2, while the railway that we do want, East West Rail, lacks a firm commitment to the important connectivity of the Aylesbury spur. As a key strand of this review is passenger-focused connectivity, will he fully commit to the Aylesbury spur?
Grant Shapps
I do not think we could ever accuse my hon. Friend of not putting on the record his concerns about a new railway line, HS2, being built through his constituency. He has been a clear champion for his constituents in that regard. The other new railway—East West Rail and the Aylesbury spur—is a matter that is under consideration. I note that there is an Adjournment debate on the subject this coming Monday, which one of my hon. Friends will be answering. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) will get the opportunity to put many a point across as we consider the exact path for East West Rail and its spurs.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Full public ownership of the railways is very popular with the public, so it is disappointing to see the half measures announced today that seem to nationalise risk but privatise profits. Will Ministers allow a publicly owned company to bid for these concessionary contracts?
Grant Shapps
As I have tried many times to stress to Opposition Members, we are not ideological about this; we just want to do what works for passengers, because they are the people who matter in all this. I have pointed out—I hope the House will think that I have been fair—the relative disadvantages of our previous public and private versions of the railways, and I think this will capture the best of both worlds.
To answer the hon. Lady’s question, I want community groups to be able to be involved, as I have mentioned. I said to the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) that the operator of last resort will still be a factor as well. We will make sure that this is run in the best possible way. I cannot really fathom why anyone would want to carve out the private sector’s incredible contribution to the railway, which has doubled in size over the last 25 years and is growing.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) [V]
The Fat Controller could not manage it, and choo-choo Portillo cannot document it. Can the Secretary of State harness Great British Railways to make it the legend that brings a direct line train from London to Bolton?
Grant Shapps
Well, there is a challenge. As I said, the strange thing about the May 2018 timetable change is that it attempted to make more paths available in order to use the track that we have better, but the problem was that no one was in charge, and we know what happened. The great thing about Great British Railways looking after all these different elements is that it will be able to use the track more intelligently. I do not know, but I very much hope that one day that might lead to a train direct to Bolton.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Angela Crawley. Not here, so I call Martin Vickers.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) [V]
Unlike Labour Members, I welcome the Secretary of State’s focus on what works rather than just on ownership, but we should not lose sight of the fact that competition is a spur to improved services. Open access operators have provided services to towns that were not included in franchises. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that these services will continue? Paragraph 25 of the White Paper states:
“New open access services will also be explored where spare capacity exists.”
Can we be assured that the default position will be to do everything possible to ensure that we do not reduce existing services and that we extend and improve services? As chairman of the all-party rail group, I can tell my right hon. Friend that an invitation to address the group is already winging its way to him, and I hope he will be able to do so in the next few weeks.
Grant Shapps
Yes, absolutely—open access is something we really think is an important part of the structure. It provides the competition. It keeps everybody on their toes. These are often extremely popular services. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, we absolutely back them in paragraph 25 of the White Paper. Having visited the National Rail Museum in York on Tuesday this week, I cannot wait to bring my stories of looking round that museum to his group.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Angela Crawley appears still not to be here, so we will go to Yvette Cooper.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) [V]
The current system has been failing my constituency for far too long, so I urge the Secretary of State to make sure that this plan improves things and is a step forward. The five towns are less than 20 miles from the centre of Leeds. If we were that close to the centre of London, we would have many trains an hour into the city, yet Normanton has only one train an hour into Leeds; Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley are all underserved; and we need more trains to Sheffield, York and Hull. I have met Transport Ministers repeatedly on this, so will the Transport Secretary now guarantee that this new plan will mean more local trains for the five towns?
Grant Shapps
I certainly welcome the right hon. Lady’s partial welcome, at least, for the White Paper. I completely agree with her about the necessity to join up northern towns. As the northern powerhouse Minister in Cabinet, I spend a huge amount of my time looking at the way that the railway service that I now get to run, Northern, operates through the operator of last resort. The service at the moment is just not good enough. She is right to say that if it was in the south the connectivity would be vastly better. That is why this Government are obsessed—obsessed, I say—with levelling up, and why I hope that her discussions with the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), are very fruitful. Great British Railways will, I think, be of great assistance to her constituents.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) [V]
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s focus on delivering for passengers. Many commuters face really significant changes in their working week, and flexible season tickets will help, but will he go on looking at affordability for long-distance commuters on the Wessex route through Basingstoke? London depends on highly skilled workers from places like Basingstoke, but the cost of distance commuting needs to be kept under really close review.
Grant Shapps
Yes, we are charging Great British Railways with looking at the way that all ticketing operates. One of the things that is so crazy at the moment is the extent to which we are still walking around with paper tickets, which are about half of all tickets sold, and the additional cost that a not-very-streamlined system to use our trains brings to bear. One example that I hope to be able to deliver for my right hon. Friend’s constituents—it has actually recently been delivered to mine, although before I was Transport Secretary—is the ability to touch in and touch out. That then works with the Oyster system—although it is not Oyster outside of London—and caps the fares, so that if her constituents make more than X number of journeys a week, it automatically prevents them from being charged more. Those are the sorts of much more advanced ticketing plans that will be much easier to do with Great British Railways because it will all be under one roof.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
I welcome much in this statement, but it is meaningless if we cannot get more than one train a week through Reddish South and Denton stations. At the convention of the north in 2019, the Prime Minister promised northern mayors that they would be able to run their own trains. Greater Manchester has ambitious plans for both GM Rail and tram-train integration with the bus and Metrolink networks, with full London-style integration. I accept that today’s announcement is a big step in the right direction, but it falls a little bit short of that 2019 promise. How do we make Greater Manchester’s vision a reality?
Grant Shapps
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s tacit support for this; he is right about what we want to do and where we want to go with it. As I mentioned earlier, I spoke to the Manchester Mayor yesterday about the way that GM Rail can help to integrate all these services. Needless to say, since that 2019 speech we have all been tackling covid, and I think it is fair to say that GM Rail would not necessarily be immediately in a position where it would want to take over these routes, all of which are under enormous financial stress and are being rescued by the Chancellor’s £12 billion. It is our intention to press on with the agenda of making sure that people can take one form of transport to another—in the case of Manchester, on trams, buses and trains.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Integrated public transport will be crucial to the north’s post-covid recovery and the levelling-up agenda. It should be as easy for my constituents to travel around Greater Manchester as it is to travel around Greater London. As we have heard, transport powers are devolved to the Mayor of Greater Manchester, and a number of other organisations are involved in the region’s transport infrastructure, from the operators to Network Rail to Transport for the North. How will my right hon. Friend ensure that existing transport proposals for Greater Manchester and the north are consolidated into this ambitious plan for our railways?
Grant Shapps
That is an excellent question. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; when she reads out the list of different organisations involved, each of which has its own plans and ambitions, hon. Members can quickly understand why we need this national body bringing everybody together. It will be an effective way of picking up on the ambitions of those organisations and, more importantly, her constituents—the passengers who use those services. She has brilliantly echoed the point of several other Members in saying, “Actually, if it was London, it would already be integrated.” That is where the Government want to get to, and today’s announcement is one small step on that path.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]
Whatever the future model of the rail industry, the east coast main line will be key to enabling major projects such as HS2, Northern Powerhouse Rail, Midlands Engine and East West Rail. That points to the urgent need to improve the line itself, as it last saw major investment about 30 years ago and just cannot cope with the demands placed on it. Will the Secretary of State confirm when the long-awaited integrated rail plan for the north and midlands will be published? Will he give a commitment to properly fund this key piece of national infrastructure? Will he also meet me and cross-party colleagues on the all-party parliamentary group on the east coast main line to discuss how the Government can deliver on the capacity and reliability improvements that this strategic line so badly needs?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady does not know it, but she and I share something very much in common: a love for the east coast main line. I live not a quarter of a mile from it and it is the line that I essentially end up using more than any other; I was on it a couple of days ago. We have actually been putting in massive investment, which she may not have seen. For example, I have signed off at least £300 million—I forget the exact figure off the top of my head—to upgrade digital signalling, which will make a big difference to both the reliability and the number of trains that can travel up the line.
I feel that the thrust of the hon. Lady’s question was really about the integrated rail plan and how we are going to use the east coast main line within that part of the programme. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson)—who is the Minister for both HS2 and the integrated rail plan—will be saying more about this with me shortly. We share the hon. Lady’s ambition to ensure that the east coast main line is capable of taking the traffic required to service our constituents today.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) [V]
Faster trains to London from Weymouth in my constituency will be a key infrastructure improvement if we are to create more jobs and prosperity. The line via Poole and Bournemouth operates to capacity, so restoring a short stretch of track to the south-east of Yeovil Junction to link up with the Salisbury line would do the trick. Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that this easy improvement is a large blip on his radar?
Grant Shapps
I was just conferring with the Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, and this is absolutely on his radar. There have actually been few things we have done that have been more popular in transport and rail than restoring a railway. I know my hon. Friend will know all about that and be bidding into the process, as others have around the House. This just demonstrates, as his eloquent words show, the extent to which these railway reconnections can make big differences to our constituents, and this Government are fully in favour of doing that.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) [V]
Following the timetable chaos, the fragmentation and three franchise failures on the east coast main line, my constituents already knew that privatisation did not work, so I welcome the Secretary of State’s acknowledgement of that today. However, we know that Transport for the North’s core funding has been cut and that transport spending per head in London is three times larger than it is in Yorkshire and the Humber, so my constituents would like to know what benefit today’s announcement will bring for HS2 phase 2b to Leeds, future investment in Leeds station and getting on with Northern Powerhouse Rail.
Grant Shapps
The right hon. Gentleman will not have to wait very long for the answer, which I mentioned before, about the integrated rail plan, which includes things like what will happen on 2b east to Leeds and much more on the east coast main line, as we were just discussing.
I want to pick the right hon. Gentleman up on one point. I was in the middle of nodding and agreeing with him, certainly about the timetable debacle and what that demonstrated, but it is not the case that TfN’s core funding, as he describes it, has been cut. It has the money in the bank; it has not spent it. The actual spending is in the billions of pounds, while we seem to have got stuck talking about a £3.5 million administrative fund that is already in the bank.
My point is this: we are committed to levelling up the north—all constituencies, including the right hon. Gentleman’s own—and it will not be very long before we are saying more about that through the integrated rail plan. I entirely agree with him that it is many years overdue, but it is great to have a Government who are getting on with it now.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) [V]
I very much welcome this greatly long-awaited plan. We have all waited for it with such great anticipation, and finally it is here. Can the Secretary of State set out how the plan will embed the role of the existing rail ombudsman as the champion of the passenger interest in the new system? Will he ensure that all ombudsman decisions are binding on rail companies that obtain concessions, and that their participation in the ombudsman system is a condition of obtaining such a concession?
Grant Shapps
I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend because, as a former Rail Minister, there are few people in this House who will know more about this subject than him. During this White Paper’s time, he has made a significant input to what we have today, so it is in no small part his triumph as well. We have Great British Railways thanks to him.
To pick up my hon. Friend’s point about the rail ombudsman, there is clearly talk in the White Paper, which I think he will appreciate—and even recall—about strengthening the role of the passenger champion. I know he pushed for that in his time in the job, and I think he will be pleased with what he reads today.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Welsh rail services too often do not work at all or work very poorly indeed. That is unsurprising given that, as Professor Mark Barry of Cardiff University says in a Welsh Government report, in Wales we have 11% of the rail network, but it gets 1% of rail investment. This White Paper, as far as I can see, unfortunately offers not a lot that is new or useful to address this. Is the Secretary of State aware that the respected Wales Governance Centre, also at Cardiff University, reports a very straightforward conclusion? It says that rail enhancement spending to improve the often dire service that local people endure in Wales would be
“higher under a fully devolved system.”
So will he just ensure that the Welsh Government get full control of rail in Wales?
Grant Shapps
I should point out that the railways have not been some sort of money spinner for the Treasury in the last year. We have spent £12 billion, including on the Welsh services, so I am not sure that anyone would have welcomed the cost of the lines. Of course, I have devolved the core valley lines to Wales. In general, though, the infrastructure is run at the moment by Network Rail and it will be run by Great British Railways. I do want to challenge the hon. Gentleman on the figure he used, because I do not want it to go uncommented on. I am sure he is aware that the 11% and 1% figure is hotly disputed, due to the fact that it does not look at passenger numbers and that geography is different in different parts of Great Britain. None the less, on the main thrust of wanting to see those services developed, I am entirely in support of that and I will do whatever I can, while, as the name suggests, Great British Railways will cover the whole of Great Britain.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s decisive action on flexible ticketing. It is ludicrous that, since the 1950s, the railways have operated on the assumption that commuters go to their place of work five days a week. That has not been true for years and it is high time that it was brought up to date, and my constituents will strongly welcome it. Will he continue to press the case for reform by making sure that contactless travel is available? It has been available for 20 years in London. It is ridiculous that it is not available beyond London so that people can avoid having to queue up to print paper tickets before they can travel.
Grant Shapps
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about contactless travel. I mentioned that the experiment that happens to run out to Welwyn Garden City has been enormously popular. The problem with actually running the system out is that, as soon as someone crosses more than one different train operating company, or even if they do not and there is only one, there is a huge resistance in the system, because it is so incredibly complicated, with its fragmented nature at the moment, to bring that in. Great British Railways will allow us to bring in more contactless travel, which he will clearly warmly welcome, and I should mention his phenomenal campaigning on the subject of transport for his commuter constituency, particularly in Tunbridge Wells and Paddock Wood. I notice all the time how hard he is working for them and I think these reforms will be warmly welcomed by his constituents.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
The Labour party has long argued that public ownership of the rail network will provide better value for the taxpayer and for passengers, who deserve more than rhetoric from this Government, and yet again, the Government have not gone far enough. Secretary of State, Great British Railways is not the biggest shake-up of the railways in the last quarter of a century; it is just another example of papering over the cracks. Can he give assurances here today that this will not lead to thousands of job losses and attacks on workers’ terms and conditions?
Grant Shapps
I am sorry that the hon. Lady does not agree with quite a number of her colleagues across this House. Rather than dogma and worrying about whether it is public or private, as if there is some sort of clause IV incentive to set this up in a particular way, why do we not just do what works for commuters and for passengers? There was nothing about British Rail that worked last time in favour of passengers—except for, as I say, closing stations, closing track, serving terrible sandwiches. I do not know why we would want to go back to those days and this Government will not do that. Instead, we will do what works, and what has been working is doubling the number of miles that passengers have been taking on trains to the highest on record by 2019, before covid. The reforms today with Great British Railways are designed to take that further forward.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for today’s statement. Over the last 25 years, we have seen passenger numbers grow to 1.8 billion a year, up to the pandemic, of course, and we have seen service levels grow to 140,000 services per week. They are both at the highest level ever in British history, so he has a successful platform, shall we say, on which to build. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you. This was due to innovation, competition and, above all, a focus on customers. Can he expand a little more on how that focus on the customer will be maintained in the new structure?
Grant Shapps
We are honoured to be surrounded by successful former train Ministers in the House today, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend not only for having been a great train Minister but for knowing exactly how many passengers—1.8 billion—travelled in the last, most successful ever year for our railways, which was 2019, before covid. He will be pleased to hear that the entirety of the White Paper is written on the premise of putting the passenger first and working out what they need, which is not very complicated: trains that run on time, are comfortable—warm in winter, cooled in the summer—and have wi-fi available. And no more of those uncomfortable cardboard ironing board seats either! People want to find it easy and comfortable to get on, with tickets that are easily available and contactless, as other hon. Friends have mentioned. That is the way that we will take the numbers back to 1.8 billion and beyond.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
Some 50% of rail stations in Greater Manchester are inaccessible to people with a disability, and I hope that the Transport Secretary agrees that that is unacceptable. On the face of it, these plans are going to do little to improve accessibility, so can he confirm that he will be giving our regional mayor, Andy Burnham, the funding and powers he needs to control and improve stations, as they do in London?
Grant Shapps
As I have tried to stress all the way through, we are trying to do what helps the passengers. I work in a completely cross-party fashion on these things, including, as I mentioned, speaking to the Mayor yesterday and supporting anything that will help passengers, because that is a win for everyone. I agree with the hon. Lady entirely about the inappropriateness in the 21st century of a high proportion of stations being inaccessible. She mentioned a figure of 50% in her case. That is not acceptable in the 21st century, but nor can we magic a solution overnight. I am afraid that today’s White Paper does not do that on its own, but I think she will be impressed with other work that the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), is doing in the Department on accessibility, meaning that we are making stations more accessible every single month now. I look forward to that process continuing with Great British Railways.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
I welcome the use of private sector capital, ideas and management skill in the new railway, and I welcome the forthcoming attack on late trains, hard seats and dirty carriages. Will Great British Railways ensure that it is genuinely open to bids and offers for new routes, improved timetables, property developments on railway land and improved service quality? Local partnerships and private sector competitors can bring these about as long as they are not thwarted from the centre, as they often were by Network Rail.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) [V]
Given that 60% of people in Scotland want total control of the railways to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament and only 30% do not want it to be devolved, can the Secretary of State explain why he did not give consideration to this in the White Paper?
Grant Shapps
Network Rail currently runs the services, and for a good reason, which is that the whole country is connected by rail. The railways do not stop at the Scottish border and then turn into a different format or track size. For the same reason, we want Great British Railways to take overall control and, if we are to run an efficient service, it would be crazy to do that and at the same time split bits off. That would be completely against the whole purpose of carrying out this reform. However, we have the Union connectivity review, which is, for example, involved in looking at how we can make London to Edinburgh a three-hour journey on the train. I would really welcome the hon. Lady and her colleagues being as involved in that as possible, because I am heartened by their desire to see the whole of Great Britain connected up.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Greater Anglia’s current franchise agreement provides for the reintroduction of a through service from Lowestoft to Liverpool Street, but this has been delayed, partly by the pandemic. The service is much needed and it is to be regretted that this contractual undertaking has not yet been fulfilled. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend could provide an assurance that the service will be brought in as quickly as possible, preferably under the current franchise agreement, but if not, under the proposed concession agreement.
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to ensure that his constituents get the best possible service. I was just conferring with the rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry; of course, the current franchise agreement does not stand because the franchise agreements are being ended. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) will rightly continue to battle for that service and that my hon. Friend the rail Minister will be happy to discuss it with him further.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) [V]
There is much in the statement that I can welcome, and I am grateful to the rail Minister for meeting me earlier this week. Widnes and Runcorn are great northern towns, and there are three stations in my constituency, so the electrification of the Liverpool-to-Manchester railway line that runs through the Widnes and Hough Green stations is very important. On the Runcorn side of the river, the superb redevelopment of the Runcorn main line station quarter by Halton Borough Council needs to be complemented with a new station at Runcorn. I hope the Government will come forward with plans to support that.
Grant Shapps
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s welcome of the policy paper and I know he is meeting the rail Minister on this as well. We will publish the pipeline for future railways works shortly and the hon. Gentleman’s effective representations will have been heard.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
I support the comments made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) in respect of the Yeovil south-east chord. This announcement is absolutely brilliant news: it is the first clear statement we have had in this House on radical reform to our passengers’ benefit. It will also correct Labour’s disastrous Railways Act 2005, which further separated the railway, rather than reintegrated it. When a Member of Parliament has to point out to his local train operator that 15 lights at a train station are not working and the operator still cannot fix them, something is terribly wrong with the system today. That is one example. Will my right hon. Friend assure me personally that he will not only prevent franchise boundaries from being a blocker to further through services for regional connectivity, but work with me to sort out the dreadful frequency and continual issues we have on the Heart of Wessex line, which has the worst frequency in the entirety of England?
Grant Shapps
It is a pleasure to respond, on this last question, to somebody who has actually worked on the railways and understands these things. I feel for his franchise, because it has to deal with him and he will not take no for an answer—and quite right, too. He points out several things about this reform that are really important. The franchise boundaries, as he rightly describes them, cause too much disruption and fragmentation—that is the key thing that will end with Great British Railways bringing it all together and finally listening to the representatives of the people. I believe and have, I hope, strongly indicated through things such as the Beeching reversal fund that Members of Parliament in this place have an absolute right and duty to be involved in the way that services develop in their areas. I know that my hon. Friend and other Members throughout the House will appreciate that Great British Railways will be more responsive to them, as the rightful representatives of their constituents.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Secretary of State for making the statement and suspend the House for three minutes to make arrangements for the next business.
Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.
Building works have long been on the minds of those in Westminster—ever since the 8th century, in fact, when St Peter and an accompanying heavenly choir descended from above to suggest to a passing fisherman that a church dedicated to him might be constructed on a site very close to where we stand today. Over the years, the view from that spot of raised ground on a marshy island between the Thames and two branches of the Tyburn has featured more than its fair share of scaffolding—the embankment of the Thames; the small palace of Edward the Confessor transformed into a sprawling complex of buildings; the construction of Westminster Hall; and the building of, first, a monastery and then Westminster Abbey itself, not to mention the creation of the neo-Gothic masterpiece whose preservation we are debating today.
Throughout the centuries, those bustling about Westminster have assented to these works because they recognise the importance of this place at the centre of our national story, and so it continues to this day, as we saw in the recent state opening when Her Majesty set out the Government’s plans to level up from within a building now receiving significant attention once again.
Such has been the zeal with which politicians of recent decades have concentrated on delivering for their constituents, however, that the present Palace of Westminster has been somewhat neglected. The Joint Committee on which I sat concluded in 2016 that the short-term fixes and sticking-plaster solutions that had prevailed in the post-war environment could no longer keep pace with the building’s deterioration. Although it recognised the limitations of the assessments before it at that stage, its recommendations for action were accepted by the House in early 2018.
Some cynics say that nothing has happened since then, but in fact, we have been a veritable hive of activity—not with bees on the roof, but with work to fix the cast-iron tiles that has made considerable progress. The encaustic tile restoration programme has been completed, in the final instance by Mr Speaker himself, who deserves congratulations for the splendour of our encaustic tiles, made in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan). Some of these significant projects upon which the building’s future depend have been able to commence and even reach a degree of completion. The risk of a serious fire has been significantly reduced, with real progress towards proper compartmentation and the installation of over 8 miles of piping for the basement’s sprinkler system.
The Elizabeth Tower’s restoration is now nearing completion, and we all look forward to hearing Big Ben’s bongs resound once again. Indeed, they were bonging earlier today, though in a slightly random fashion; we look forward to them bonging the right time, as if we had dialled the speaking clock. The escalating cost of that project underlined the importance of our establishing the right governance structure for a programme of this magnitude. That has been achieved for restoration and renewal through primary legislation diligently piloted through the House by my illustrious predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom).
The Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority set up as a result have been able to start conducting preliminary work, including the first of 100 detailed surveys of the Palace, to help them more fully understand the scale of the challenge before them. As a result, the programme remains on track to begin its main phase as planned—again, so wisely by my predecessor—in the mid-2020s. However, its ultimate approval is a matter for Parliament, and will proceed only if we can achieve the broadest possible consensus across the House.
That is why today’s debate matters, because it fires the starting gun on what amounts to a critical phase for the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. The coming months are an important period, during which we, the parliamentarians—the custodians of Westminster’s history, but also those responsible for protecting taxpayers’ interests—make our expectations clear, so that when the fully costed proposals are put before us in early 2023, we are able to approve them full-throatedly, safe in the knowledge that we are doing the right thing for our constituents and for our country in preserving both the cockpit of our democracy and the means of its proper functioning.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
Clearly, value for taxpayers’ money is a massive concern for residents right across Bishop Auckland, so will there be a limit on the spending for this restoration project?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend puts her finger on the nub of the issue. The business case will be brought forward in early 2023, and this House will have to approve it. At that stage, we will decide whether the amount being asked for is an amount we feel our constituents can afford.
Earlier this year, the Sponsor Body published its own initial thoughts on how to proceed in its strategic review. That reflected work completed in 2020, before the full extent of the pandemic’s implications for R and R could be appreciated. It recommended that a period of vacation of the Palace remained necessary and that the main temporary facilities for the Commons should continue to be provided on Parliament’s secure northern estate. However, the past 15 months have shown that we are able to function for a time without every facility and, indeed, without a full Chamber. Doing so will always reduce our effectiveness—I am no great fan of remote proceedings, and I am delighted that this Chamber will be back to its bustling norm once restrictions are lifted—but I recognise that during the pandemic we have seen that some of the ancillary services the Joint Committee considered essential to be physically present next to the Chamber have turned out not to be so. It also seems reasonable to consider how technology might be used on a stand-by basis—in case of an emergency recall, for example.
Those are the sorts of things that we must collectively think about so that we can be clear what we are asking for. So many of the assumptions made just a few years ago now seem out of date. To decant or not to decant, that was the question. I have no opposition to a full decantation if it were nobler in the mind to suffer it, other than that it, as with the entire programme, needs to represent the best value for money, not a vehicle for a consummation devoutly to be wished. Given the efforts now under way to explore a maintained presence, it may be that we can take arms against a sea of troubles. Yes, we are likely to bear fardels because of the scale of these works, but the idea of Members being marched out of the Palace of Westminster for an entire Parliament or longer now appears more fanciful than it once did.
I am encouraged by the current explorations into whether a maintained presence is possible in the Palace of Westminster during the works and look forward to the conclusion of the Sponsor Body’s explorations in this regard. That is precisely the sort of issue on which it is quite right that guidance is provided by parliamentarians, who need to ensure that during this period our ability to conduct effective scrutiny is not unduly hindered.
The strategic review contains eight so-called stretch objectives, which set out how the works might go beyond the “do minimum” basics. Do we want to install systems that provide the best levels of comfort? Given the pressing priorities elsewhere on public spending, the answer seems obvious to me, but the Sponsor Body cannot proceed unless we spell it out to it. Do we want to meet the legislative, statutory and planning obligations when it comes to questions of sustainability, or do we want to exceed them? Members will be aware that discussions around environmental priorities have already changed since 2018, given the Government’s commitments towards becoming carbon neutral and the impact this change would have on energy inputs.
On the question of disabled access, I hope that we can all agree on a cost-effective approach which provides disabled Members with accessible workplaces and visitors with access to the key democratic parts of this building. On the question of accessibility, the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) has already made clear her commitment to championing accessibility for people with autism. Her contribution on this point is one I welcome and take seriously. It is a good example of the kind of cross-party working which can help us to shape the plans.
There will, of course, be more detailed conversations on that as we consider whether we need disabled access “to all users to all areas of the building”. These can build on the opinions already heard and the information already received from many Members as part of the Sponsor Body’s strategic review. I know the Sponsor Body also wants to consult around issues like a secondary debating chamber within the Palace, for example, or how best Members would like to use the available space. The next phase of this process, involving more formal consultation, will take place over the summer when Members will be invited and encouraged to share their views directly. If I could put in a plea from the Sponsor Body: please do take the opportunity to express your views to it.
As its work progresses, each period of engagement offers the chance to give ever more detailed views as the specific proposals for restoration and renewal are further developed. For this to be useful, Members must be invited to prioritise what matters most, where money must be spent and where it can be saved. Members will need to know the cost and benefits of each aspect of the schemes, so the choices and pay-offs between paying least and getting best value are understood and grasped by all of us. Ideally, each idea would have a clear price tag attached.
The Sponsor Body will be inviting the wider parliamentary community, including Members’ staff and administration staff, to take part in this consultation period, too. But Madam Deputy Speaker, it is the views of Members as the representatives of taxpayers whose voice I want to amplify today. It is, after all, our constituents and our constituents alone who give us a seat in this place and whose views we represent. When we knock on doors at election time, we need to be able to look them in the eye and explain why the public funds devoted to this project are not being spent on local schools or hospitals or other public services. We want to level up the country, not the Palace of Westminster, so we must be clear that we are concentrating on vital works. We do not want
“To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
To throw a perfume on the violet,
To smooth the ice, or add another hue
Unto the rainbow, or with taper light
To seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish
Is wasteful and ridiculous excess.”
Our more modest requirement is merely that our democracy should be able to function properly during the period of the works and thereafter. The building’s primary purpose should not be as a museum or a tourism hotspot or as another Disneyland. It should not be, to misquote a famous advertisement campaign of the Victoria & Albert Museum, “An ace caff with quite a nice parliament attached”.
The United Kingdom’s Parliament is a place of work and has been for centuries; a collective endeavour where our primary shared goal is legislating. That is how we make a difference to the lives of our constituents. We should have the confidence and the pride in our role as lawmakers to explain this and to shape the programme accordingly. So I look forward to hearing the views expressed in this debate today and I hope Members will come forward as more details emerge throughout the year: Members of all parties, of all regions and nations, Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike; newer Members who may still be around throughout the period of the works; and time-honoured Members who understand the value of a give-and-take proper in-person debate in the Chamber, just as much as they do the usefulness of a quiet word with the Minister in the corridors of this building.
During the rest of this year and beyond we will be doing what those before us have done for centuries in Westminster: using the power of this sovereign institution to improve people’s lives. Yet as we do so, we should probably also spare a moment or two to attend to playing our part in shaping Westminster’s long history as the centre of our national life, of our island story. So when, eventually, St Peter returns with his heavenly choir, he will look from his abbey across to a building that he will be able to report back to a carpenter’s son is one that he can be proud of. In that spirit, I look forward to the remainder of this debate with bated breath, and I commend the motion to the House.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Many of us, and I hope all of us, love this place. I share that love, obviously, with the Leader of the House—this place, its history, its architecture and what it means to be working in the home of our democracy, one of our greatest traditions and most successful exports. Today, we get our first chance to debate the restoration and renewal of the Palace since a major review recommended that the full decant—moving everybody off the estate for a short period—is required. We will debate whether that is short or long enough, but it is indeed required—for cost as well as for safety and effectiveness.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, this is a place of work, but it is a place of work in which we are the custodians of a world heritage site, a world heritage site that has seeping sewage, asbestos, and pipes and wires going who knows where, doing who knows what, and where there is flood and fire risk. That needs fixing urgently, and we can no longer rely on luck. The public care deeply about this place. The right hon. Gentleman is right to mention our accountability to the taxpayers; they want us to spend the money wisely, and they deserve to have this monument to democracy preserved as a place of business in a way that they may continue to be part of, scrutinising our proceedings in this place safely and accessibly.
The House of Commons Commission, before I became a member of it, asked the sponsor body to investigate works for “a continued presence” on the estate. However, the review has already recommended that the best and most cost-effective thing is to continue with a full decant. We cannot carry on like this, endlessly going backwards and forwards, with debates and reviews, endlessly revisiting decisions that have been taken. I declare right now, if it is not already obvious, that I am firmly in the camp that many MPs, staff, trade unions and specialists are in, which is the “let’s get on with it” camp.
I know what it is like—I understand right hon. and hon. Members who worry about missing this place. I know what it is like to miss it and, like all of us, at some point to wonder whether we will even return to it after an election. We all come to this place knowing that we could leave at short notice, and we all want to make the most of it while we are here. Only those with a heart of stone could fail to be moved by the magnificence of Westminster Hall—a millennium of history, a cathedral to democratic representation and civic engagement, from the throwing of ordure in the civil war to, yes, the gift shop and caff. There is, too, the wonderful art of the “New Dawn” stained glass, celebrating women’s suffrage. I get that people are in love with this building—I am, too.
I will never forget my first experience of this Palace, as a young campaigner wanting to change the law on domestic violence, sitting right up there in the visitors’ Gallery till the early hours of the morning, watching the debate on a law that I had helped to shape and hearing a Labour Front Bencher—from this Dispatch Box—propose amendments that I had campaigned and provided the evidence for. I felt in awe of what happens when democratically elected representatives—not just the campaigners—are convinced of an argument sufficiently to change the law of the land in ways that benefit millions of people.
After being taken for tea in what I now realise must have been the cafeteria, the late noble Lord Russell, with whom we had been working, took my colleague and me back through the Palace to his car to give us a lift to the station. As we turned a corner, I heard what I still swear was Shirley Bassey singing. I cannot prove that but, if any hon. Members were here in 1996, on Third Reading of the Family Law Act 1996, I will be grateful if they could not disabuse me of that special memory and tell me that, actually, it was they who were singing “Goldfinger” at 3 o’clock in the morning. My heart stopped as I saw for the first time the Gothic temple that is Central Lobby and heard that voice.
I never tire of skipping up the majestic staircase from Members’ Cloakroom to Members’ Lobby, thinking of Members in times past who had to do their casework on their briefcases at one of the side seats. The Library is where I have done some of my best work for my constituents, researching their problems, finding solutions and, of course, gazing at the river outside. Make the most of it. Enjoy the Library, make friends with the Members’ staircase and marvel at Westminster Hall, but please do not let us be selfish and mess this up by blocking what is needed to preserve this place as a place of democracy, either by insisting on keeping a presence—thereby introducing delays, further expense and possible risks to safety—or by endlessly delaying it. The work need doing, and doing urgently, if we are to hand over this place and its history to the next generation.
When surveyed, the British people say that they want us to look after Westminster. They support restoration and renewal. Yes, it is a tourist site. The Leader of the House is correct to say that that is not its only significance, but it matters to people so much that they care about it, even if they do not visit. We are its custodians, but the taxpayer, the British people, and their children and grand- children to come, own it. It is theirs. The right hon. Gentleman talks about Members needing to know the price tag, and I completely agree. On behalf our constituents, we have to know that price tag, but we must also know the price of not doing certain works, and of not doing them in a timely manner. In my experience, the price of such things does not tend to go down by delay, and we must understand those counterfactuals.
I understand from the Sponsor Body that we will have clearer information by September and October, but we can already assess some of that from the assessments made so far, and from the evidence of our own eyes, ears and noses. There is leaking sewage. Who here in the summer of 2019 could forget that delicate scent, as they walked down the corridor to the Library? There are wires and plumbing that nobody knows the function of. There is asbestos, flooding, fires—please let us not say, “Well, we’ve managed to avoid disaster so far.” We have been a whisker away too many times, and eventually our luck will run out.
As hon. Members may—or may not—know, in 2016 the Joint Committee recommended a full decant as the safest, quickest, and most cost-effective way of fixing all that. Yes, we have learned a lot in the past year, including that we can be swift enough at moving to different arrangements, and then moving back. In 2018, that decant was endorsed in the Joint Committee’s full report, which also made the case for the Sponsor Body to act as client on our behalf—quite right too; politicians interfering as clients can be incredibly unhelpful—and the Delivery Authority to carry out the work.
Also in 2018, this House rejected the options of a rolling programme or partial decant. We voted for that. We made our views known, and in 2019 we voted for the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019. That Act established the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority, which came into existence last year. The Sponsor Body was asked to review the full decant, and consider the potential for continued presence in this House throughout the works. It published its recommendations recently, and it strongly recommended that we continue with a full decant on the grounds of value for money, safety, and speed.
If we attempt to maintain a continued presence in this building while building works go on around us, I invite all hon. Members to consider what that would be like. Will the right hon. Gentleman really tell the builders to keep the noise down? If he were to get builders into his own home, and commission them to work on every single part of it, sorting out sewers, wiring, lighting, and removing dangerous materials, would he tell them that he also wants to continue living in the middle of it? What contractor would take on that job?
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that experience suggests that what people say they are prepared to put up with and what they will actually put up with are two very different things?
Thangam Debbonaire
Yes, I could not put it better myself. It would be interesting to know whether the Leader of the House intends to come in here in a high-vis jacket and a hard hat. Will he expect his staff to do the same? He said that we need to maintain our work without being unduly hindered, but we would be hindered on a building site.
Today is Global Accessibility Awareness Day—surely a day to take stock and to reflect on what that means for restoration and renewal. If any hon. Members have accompanied a constituent in a wheelchair around this place, they will have experienced, as I have, the acute, painful embarrassment of realising that the democracy we prize is on show for them only via a very awkward, pre-booked route, if that.
If Members have been here with partially sighted constituents, they may have noticed poor lighting and hidden hazards around the building. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for recognising my commitment to autism awareness, which is at least in part inspired by our much missed colleague, Cheryl Gillan—surely no Member here has not been on her training course—and any Member aware of that issue will know what a challenge this place is for many autistic people, and that making it good for autistic people, and for those with disabilities, makes it better for us all.
Disabled people make up 10% of the population—our voters. They have a right to be here. They have a right to scrutinise us. They have a right to be unimpeded witnesses to democracy. Are we really saying that they should not have that?
Our staff and the thousands of other staff who work on the parliamentary estate are dedicated public servants. They are patriots; they love this country and the democratic institution of Parliament. They come to this place each day to serve it and the people of this country. They deserve our gratitude, and like so many public servants, they deserve a pay rise, especially those who kept coming into the building throughout the pandemic, although that is not the subject of the debate. They surely deserve safe working conditions.
A full decant will ensure that staff have the safest possible conditions in which to work while the works are done and when they are over. Remaining on the estate will mean that those who are required to be here—although that may be a smaller group than once thought, some will be—will not have safe working conditions while that work is going on. It will put them in an intolerable position. It will mean delays. It will mean risks. It will mean that those staff required to be on the estate will have to tolerate all of that.
Many of those staff will outlast many of us, but they will not have had a say or a vote. They may have been consulted, but that is not the same as what we have. We have decision-making powers that we need to take seriously on behalf of our staff, parliamentary staff and our constituents. We have had our say, we have taken a vote and we need to honour that commitment. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to imagine himself saying to the Doorkeepers, cleaners and Clerks that some of them will be required to work on a building site, which will remain a fire risk and where asbestos is being removed. I wonder if he will ask his own staff to do that.
Please let us get on with this. The right hon. Gentleman mentions the value of quiet words with Ministers in corridors. He must know that other corridors exist. Ears of Ministers can be bent in corridors far and wide. Some of us may not be MPs by the time the work is done—if we get a move on, some of us might be—but it is not about us. It is about the British people, their love of democracy and the rule of law and their right of safe access to bear witness to the lawmaking done in their name. It is about making sure that our staff and the entire parliamentary staff have a safe place to work as soon as possible, without working in risky situations in between. It is about the public of the future. If we mess this up and it ends up costing us more through delay and removing essential parts of the works, they will rightly blame us for putting off what should not have been put off, for fudging what should have been done with clarity and for failing to avert a disaster that could and should have been avoided.
For goodness’ sake, let us heed the assessments of the experts, let us allow the Sponsor Body to get on with creating the detailed plans for the outline business case and costing, and let us commission the Delivery Authority as soon as we have those agreed plans. Politicians do not make good project managers for things like this. That is why we voted for the Sponsor Body. We interfere beyond our skills, we change our minds, we have to think about elections. We are not the experts; we are the custodians, and now that we have been given the information, we need to get a move on. Those who come after us will not thank us if we duck it, but they may just recognise that we were the parliamentary generation that put first the British public and our love of history and democracy and got this done.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
These Houses of Parliament are falling apart faster than they can be fixed. All the old fire, heating, drainage, mechanical and electrical systems need replacing, ditto the sewage system, which dates back to 1888, and there is asbestos throughout. The cost of maintenance projects and ongoing work has doubled in three years to £127 million a year.
The fire at Notre-Dame in 2019 reminds us of the importance of protecting the world’s most treasured and symbolic historic buildings. Our 150-year-old building has a floor plan the size of 16 football pitches, with 1,100 rooms, 100 staircases, three miles of passageways, four floors and 65 different levels. It houses 11,000 historic artefacts. Restoring this place is an enormous undertaking. It is also a duty—a legal duty for us, but a moral duty too, to protect this heritage asset and our liberal democratic institutions.
What it is not is something that will benefit Members here today. We do not yet know quite how long the project will take—that will come in the full plan that will come before the House in early 2023—but we do know that it will be a substantial period of time, completing sometime in the 2030s. MPs average 13 or 14 years’ service, and the average current MP has already done six of those, so the sobering truth is that, though many colleagues here will be around during the most disruptive times of the restoration, most of us will not be here when it is finished. None the less, as the shadow Leader of the House said, it falls to this generation of parliamentarians to ensure that the necessary work gets done and that we secure the future of our Parliament, and the building that houses it, one of the free world’s most iconic.
As MPs, we are answerable to our constituents. This is their Parliament; we are just passing through. Especially at this time of enormous economic and fiscal strain, we are acutely conscious of the need for best value. Given all that had changed since the publication of the independent options appraisal in 2014 and the Joint Committee report in 2016, to which the Leader of the House referred, it was right to look again at the plans. The recent strategic review concluded that vacating the building while works take place remains the best approach in terms of both time and cost, but that we can reduce the length of time away, with more done before MPs and peers leave through a more phased approach and possibly through the use of a cofferdam for access to the works from the river.
On the question of where to relocate during the works, that review looked at—or, in many cases, relooked at—41 different options in 20 different locations. When we talk about relocating, we tend to think first about this debating Chamber, but the footprint just of the Committee rooms, for example, is about four times the size of this debating Chamber and these two Lobbies, let alone the displaced office space. All told, on my rough calculation—colleagues are welcome to check this—the total space used by the Commons in the Palace of Westminster is 47 times the space of this Chamber. It is the combination of the need for a lot of space with the huge premium there is on being within the existing secure perimeter, for all sorts of clear reasons, that points to Richmond House, possibly in combination with other parts of what is known as the Northern Estate, which is better known to colleagues as Norman Shaw North and South and the other buildings in that part of the estate.
There are trade-offs and compromises that could be made to make the decant phase cost less and, in the time to come, we have to focus sharply on those. I stress that we are talking here about a temporary period during the works. Probably the three biggest compromises that could be made to reduce costs are, first, accepting having a slightly smaller Chamber and/or reconfiguring the voting Lobby, because although the Chamber may be a small fraction of the overall space requirement, its dimensions as a single room are a big constraining factor in the relocation; secondly, a willingness, to a degree, to rearrange our Committee business and other business to reduce the amount of space requirement; and thirdly, having fewer MPs’ staff having to be accommodated on the estate itself. Each of those three things—by the way, there will be others—would give more flexibility to the decant and so could make the temporary siting less costly. It will be vital over the coming months to hear further from colleagues on such compromises that could be made to reduce cost.
Notwithstanding the need to vacate, in the next phase, towards the full plan and business case, the programme will also examine the possibility of some continued presence —I think my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred to it as a maintained presence. Essentially, it is the question: could we keep this Chamber operating here during the works, even with other Commons functions being relocated elsewhere within the secure perimeter? If that were possible, my personal view is that it would be very valuable, because it would minimise the disruption to our liberal democratic institutions. But it is clearly not without risk or challenge, given some of the safety considerations, with the flow of large numbers of people, particularly when there is a Division, and as MPs, we must never forget that we are a relatively small minority of the people who work in these buildings. There are also all the other functions that today go with the operation of the Chamber, such as the Table Office, the Vote Office and so on. It is not guaranteed to be possible, but it is important to investigate thoroughly any possibility. We will have to look at the relative cost of it and the timings, as against a full decant and all the practicalities.
The cost of the decant is one thing. A much bigger consideration is the cost of the project itself—the thing we are decanting for. Here, again, there are choices, trade-offs and compromises. As my right hon. Friend said, it is a question of priorities. This project is called restoration and renewal, and clearly there is a balance between those two things. We must restore, but how much renewal is right for taxpayer value in aspects such as visitor access or the education function? In the approach towards the full business case, the programme will be working up a bare minimum option—what is essential to arrest the decay of the buildings—but also conducting value analysis in 14 categories, from logistics operations to environmental and net zero aims to visitor facilities, to see where it may make sense from a value perspective to go beyond that minimum.
Again, it is vital to hear from colleagues on these matters and for us all to consider that they do involve trade-offs. There are many things that we may want to see for the future of the seat of our democracy, but we have to consider their cost, what is essential and what can be done without. It is too easy to say, “We want X, Y and Z, and we want the thing to come in at the lowest possible cost.” Ultimately, this comes down to specifics, not generalities, and making physical trade-offs.
Debates such as this are one way—and an important way—for Members to make their points, and there will be a range of other channels over the next few months for engagement with colleagues on these important questions. Four of us in the House sit on the Sponsor Body board. We will hear shortly from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami). My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy) also sits on the board; he apologises for being unable to be here, as he is sitting on a Bill Committee. We are keen to hear from all colleagues on their views.
In the main, it will not be us who will see the end results of restoration and renewal, but many colleagues here today will operate in a time of significant change and disruption, and we need to ensure that MPs are still able properly and fully to serve their constituents and scrutinise Government throughout that time. We need to ensure that this centre of our nation’s democracy and symbol of democracy for the world is restored for future generations. A decision has been dodged repeatedly over the years, and that has made this more expensive today than it would have been. If we dodge it again, it will become more costly again. The most cost-effective thing to do is to act, and now is the time we must ensure that it is done at the best possible value.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) [V]
As has been noted, I am one of the people on the Sponsor Body board, so I want to make it clear that I have that interest in what is being discussed.
This afternoon is a space for a general debate. We could have been debating the private Member’s Bill on fire and rehire promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands). We could have been debating the issue of dawn raids raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). We could have been debating the fact that the EU settlement scheme is only open until 30 June, and our constituents only have that long to apply for settled status. Instead, we are taking part in this ridiculously self-indulgent debate about improving the workplace for MPs. The building is dark, smelly, inaccessible and unsafe; however, I do not believe this is the time to discuss restoration and renewal, particularly when we are coming out of a time when people have been excluded from payments. People have not had money because the Government’s furlough scheme has fallen far short, yet we are talking about spending billions of pounds. This is a huge amount of money and it just seems unbelievably self-indulgent.
Let me look at some of the issues that have been and are likely to be brought up in this debate. I have said already that we are talking about a massive amount of money, but that is true in respect not just of what will be spent when work on the restoration and rebuild actually begins but of what is being spent now. The House of Commons has made decisions and decided the direction in which we should go, yet the Sponsor Body is being pointed in all different directions because of the House of Commons administration cannot make up their minds and are asking us to look at things that were not originally in the brief. I genuinely believe that millions of pounds of public money are being wasted on doing things like looking at a significant foothold in the Chamber. I make no apologies for prejudging that: I do not think it would be sensible to keep the Chamber if the rest of the House of Commons was decanted. I cannot imagine why anybody could possibly think that was a good idea, unless they were looking at this from the point of view of themselves wanting to appear in the Chamber.
I understand the shadow Leader of the House’s point about people really loving the building, but for most people the Chamber is a stuffy place that they see on the TV and certainly have not visited in real life, unless they live somewhere in the south of England—most of my constituents have not been anywhere near the House of Commons. Not everybody has a deep feeling of love for the Chamber and I think the general public could do without it for quite a period of time during a decant. The significant foothold is just a daft route to go down. We have talked about democracy functioning properly; democracy can function properly in a room where people can vote with buttons. That is still a democracy. We do not have to troop through the Lobbies in order for this place to be considered a democracy.
I was struck by the shadow Leader of the House’s comments about accessibility. I agree that there is a massive issue with accessibility in the building. If I were in charge and able to wave a magic wand and change things in the building, one thing that I would change is the accessibility, but I want to be clear that it is not just about people who visit the building or members of staff; we are failing in the number of disabled MPs we have and we are never going to be able to encourage more disabled people to stand for Parliament unless we can say, “Yes, you can actually get to the Chamber—or wherever it is you need to be—in time for a vote.” We need to very be clear that that is important. If we are looking at having any kind of significant foothold, or whatever it is called, during a period of decant, we need to make sure that disabled MPs can still access wherever the significant foothold is supposed to be. I do not imagine we could do that for people with significant physical disabilities that mean that they cannot get to places. People will not want to walk through a building site filled with asbestos to get to the Chamber.
Other than the money and accessibility, the other hugely important thing that needs to be taken into account is the need to be environmentally friendly. We cannot just say, “Well, we don’t have very much money for this so we are going to put carbon neutrality down the agenda for refurbishing the House of Commons.” This place talks so often about wanting to be a leader and to model good behaviour; if we cannot ensure that the building is as carbon-neutral as possible, we will fail to meet our climate change obligations and to ensure that future generations are not further harmed by climate change.
There are a few ways of doing things that could require a much smaller area for a decant. For example, post the Scottish independence referendum we will have 59 fewer MPs, so you will not have to worry about us, but we could also take the opportunity to get rid of 850 people in the House of Lords—well, not get rid of them but get rid of the House of Lords and the positions that they hold. That is an outdated institution that is taking up space, and it will cost a significant amount of money coming out of the public purse to pay for the refurbishment of the building that the House of Lords exists in, which is an institution that a significant majority of Scots do not support.
I was concerned when I saw the call list for today’s debate. I have talked already about the fact that this debate is self-indulgent. We have 16 Conservative Members wanting to stand up and talk in this debate, and only six Opposition Members. If we had a debate on one of the things that desperately matter to our constituents, we would have had far more people wanting to contribute.
At the time when I was put on the Sponsor Body, people wanted to contribute because that was when they thought it was a good idea to lay out their very important views on this matter, but we can always just respond to the consultations, rather than taking the opportunity to eat into time in the Chamber.
I think this is an unbelievable amount of public money. I am hugely concerned by the amount being spent, even now, looking at different things, such as the decant options. We should be putting the public purse and the spend up there, along with accessibility and environmental friendliness. That is what we should be considering. We should not be considering whether we get to sit in a certain big green chair during this interim period. That should not be the most important thing, because it is absolutely unnecessary for democracy to function.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
September 2016, January 2018, July 2020, and here we are again today. Members of the public might think that everything that can possibly be said about restoration and renewal has already been said. They might also think that we should just get on with it. I am frankly amazed that we are rehashing this debate yet again and that some are trying to draw a different conclusion.
We debated restoration and renewal at great length in 2018, and we even achieved Royal Assent for the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019. This House and the other place decided to accept the findings from the Joint Committee, set up in 2014, that the best value for taxpayers’ money is achieved by a full decant from this Palace.
To try to carry out the project while colleagues continue to work here would, according to every assessment, cost the taxpayer significantly more—potentially up to seven times as much over several decades. A recent NAO report has stated that the ongoing maintenance work to patch and mend has doubled in just three years to more than £125 million a year. We are spending £2 million a week just to keep this building going.
It appears that there are those who would prefer to stay in these beautiful palace surroundings rather than save money for the taxpayer, but my direct question to them—they know who they are—is: why pretend that staying in the Palace is the cheaper option when all the evidence points to the contrary?
Established back in 2014, which is now seven years ago, the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster concluded in 2016—now five years ago—that the Palace faced
“an impending crisis which we cannot responsibly ignore.”
The report referred to the pre-feasibility study concluding that there was
“a clear and pressing need to tackle the backlog of work”
and observed that the
“longer the essential work is left, the greater the risk becomes that the building might suffer a sudden, catastrophic failure”.
The independent expert advice that it received pointed to one clear conclusion:
“a full decant of the Palace of Westminster is the best delivery option”.
“Impending crisis”, “clear and pressing need”—we cannot responsibly ignore it, but we are ignoring it, are we not, Madam Deputy Speaker? My question for the Leader of the House is: why is the one clear conclusion from the independent expert evidence that he himself heard when he was a member of the Joint Committee now being disregarded? Why is the clear decision of this House and the other place in 2018 now being watered down? To suggest that previous debates proposed profligate expenditure is utter nonsense, so going round this circular procrastination serves only the purpose of the procrastinators.
My right hon. Friend has described at length the excellent work that has been undertaken to install fire breaks and sprinkler systems, but, as he knows only too well, there are other potential catastrophes that would require an immediate and potentially multi-year evacuation of the entire Palace. Those could happen today, tomorrow, over the weekend. Such catastrophes could include an asbestos leak from anywhere in the basement or the many chimneys that rise up through the Palace. It could include a major collapse of stonework. My right hon. Friend will be aware of recent cases of falling masonry. I am pleased to say that so far there has been no damage to human life, but he will know that our right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General did fall victim to a stone gargoyle crashing through his car windscreen while in the car park. Masonry has also fallen on to a path that is regularly used by members of the public and colleagues.
Other disasters that could befall this world famous building—today, tomorrow, over the weekend—include major failures in the electricals, sewerage, gas and water installations that make up the bulk of the spaghetti of wiring and pipework in the basement. Much of it is now well beyond the patch and mend approach being taken to the work at a cost of two million quid a week. In today’s debate, we should surely be considering the design of the basement itself. I know that those Members who want to stay in the Palace make the case that the mechanical and engineering works that make up the vast bulk of the restoration can be done in bits and pieces, so that they can therefore move between this Chamber and the other place without any incremental cost or difficulty. But you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the House and many colleagues right across the House know full well that the basement runs the entire length of the Palace. To shut off one part of it while MPs can occupy another would be vastly expensive, time consuming and incredibly complicated.
As MPs, we all know how tough it has been for so many throughout the pandemic. It is totally understandable that many colleagues feel nervous about actively voting to spend any money on restoring the Palace. For many, it is easier to kick the can down the road, ignoring the rising costs and risks to the Palace in order to avoid facing up to having to pass an outline business case that would approve the cost of restoration and renewal. However, all colleagues should be aware that there is a significant upside to the restoration of this UNESCO world heritage site: the fantastic opportunity for UK businesses, for UK crafts—old and new—and for apprenticeships right across our country.
The work carried out here will become a showcase for the best of British for future generations. Not only that, but engagement by the R and R Sponsor Body has identified that 75% of the public want to see this place restored. They might not know what goes on here or they might loathe what goes on here, but they do not want us to let it sink into disrepair, or to see that the most famous and iconic building in the world is lost due to our mismanagement and failure to act.
There is one more factor to consider. Quite apart from the fundamental issue of saving the taxpayer money by volunteering to move out while the restoration takes place, there is also the need to provide proper contingency arrangements for our democracy that any 21st century Parliament needs to have in place. Democracy has not been functioning well during the pandemic. The Leader of the House has himself admitted that Ministers have had an easier ride, while the majority of MPs are absent from the House. We are all agreed that healthy scrutiny of the Government is dependent on MPs and peers being present to provide tricky interventions and, yes, the opposition that makes for a functioning democracy. A hybrid Parliament such as we have seen during the pandemic is no solution to the multi-year restoration that is needed.
Even once the restoration is completed, there will always be the risk that an unforeseen future event requires temporary evacuation from the Palace, so the Palace of Westminster needs a permanent contingency arrangement. Of course a temporary arrangement does exist, and I know we do not talk about it, but this would not be adequate for more than a couple of weeks, which is simply not good enough. It therefore seems extraordinary to me that MPs refusing to decant will not only cost far more but will also mean that we never have a proper contingency plan for the future of our democratic institutions. If, as is likely, the Sponsor Body does end up promoting a full decant to a converted rather than a rebuilt Richmond House, this would offer the right compromise. It would enable our democracy to function properly while the critical work goes ahead in the Palace. In addition, the legacy value of having a permanent contingency arrangement in Richmond House would ensure the safety and security of all who work and visit here for generations to come.
I will leave hon. Members with a quote from a 30-year-old resident of Northern Ireland taken from the R and R public engagement strategy:
“It would be embarrassing if people around the world could see the state the building has gotten into. It is supposed to be a symbol for democracy around the world.”
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Let me start by saying that I agree totally with the words of the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who is very knowledgeable on this subject. I recommend that Members watch her presentation to the Institute for Government, which was also very good.
I remind the House that it is nearly three and a half years since we voted in favour of a full decant and the establishment of the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority—which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) said, was enacted in 2019—and nearly five years since the Joint Committee produced its report. I have the pleasure, or some may say the misfortune, of serving on all these bodies, including the current Sponsor Body board. There is great enthusiasm on the board for this project, and work is under way to produce a business case for the required work with the intention of putting it to the House in 2023. Personally, I would like that to happen sooner, but I accept that we have to produce a robust business case and then we need to make our minds up in this House.
Doing nothing, patching up and making do, and pretending it is all fine are not viable options. Carrying on as we are, as if this is somehow a no-cost option, is just ridiculous. We are spending millions of pounds every year on work much of which will probably have to be ripped out and done again as part of the overall project. The Leader of the House is a decent chap but he does not like or accept the decision of this House to decant completely. He believes that we should stay put, even though every estimate that I have seen says that that is the most expensive and time-consuming option that we could choose. I accept that it is an honest view and he believes that that is the best thing for us, but where I would part company with him is in the practice of persistently kicking the can down the road.
The Leader of the House wanted a review of the decision, and that has happened. I hope that he and others will accept that the review broadly went along with the established position and recommended a full decant. It did accept that there are ways in which we could minimise the amount of time that Members are absent from the estate. Of course it is technically possible that we could stay on site, but, as other Members have made very clear, that would probably cost billions more and take 30 years to complete. Not content with these delays, the can has received another good kick and we are to have further work undertaken to find whether we can have some form of presence on the estate. We can go on and on like this, but all it does is to incur more delay and more cost.
Why do we want to stay here? Do we honestly believe that if we move out the world is going to fall apart? Do we believe that this is part of some terrible plot and that if we leave we will not be allowed back in? I have heard all those stories, but they are just not true. As other hon. Members have said, this is not just about us. It is not just about the 650 MPs or the 800-odd Lords; it is about the thousands of staff—the Clerks, Doorkeepers, caterers, cleaners and on and on—who make this place actually function, because, without them, this place would not function. We are the minority, and this should not be just about what is convenient for us; it should be about meeting the requirements, and most importantly ensuring the safety, of everybody.
R and R is not a vanity project, as some would have us believe. It is not a blank cheque to spend public money on luxury surroundings. It is about saving and restoring this great building and, importantly, creating a safe and secure environment for everyone to work in. Of course we have to deliver value for money for the taxpayer, but, equally, we have to deliver a building that can offer much greater access for all and that is actually fit for purpose.
I firmly believe that Richmond House should be the preferred option for a decant for the Commons. However, while knocking most of it down and rebuilding it may offer the best outcome in terms of a useful building, I acknowledge that that is probably not going to happen, and we will have to work within what we have now. That is not the end of the world—far from it. As the Leader of the House said, we have seen during the pandemic that we can do things differently. I am not the biggest fan of electronic voting, but we have managed to make it work. Virtual participation means that the amount of space we will need can be reduced. At the time of the Joint Committee, the Leader of the House was very concerned that we would not get two Division Lobbies, but we could probably live without that.
As the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire said, R and R will be a great opportunity for the country as a whole. The Prime Minister is always going on about shovel-ready projects, and this surely meets that criteria. However, the Leader of the House wants to rip the shovel from the hands of the Prime Minister and throw it in the Thames.
Although R and R is a project in London, it should not be a London-centric project. The Sponsor Body has made very clear its determination that businesses from around the UK should have the opportunity to bid for work. We cannot and must not allow some big company just to dish out the work to its usual mates, as we have seen with many big contracts in the past. We then find that all the steel has come not from the UK but from China. We cannot make those mistakes again. To achieve that, we have to ensure that the tender process, while fit for purpose, does not deter smaller companies because of its cost and its length.
Central to the project must be the establishment of a substantial apprenticeship scheme, hopefully taking on at least 160 or more people from around the UK, creating the next generation of heritage experts. I hope Members will embrace that and encourage businesses and individuals from their areas to play their part in what will be an exciting project.
In the coming months, R and R will be reaching out to Members and Members’ staff and administration staff to help explain and build that business case. I hope colleagues will take part in that and help the process. There are those who will always say that this is not the right time to restore this place—“Let’s just keep putting it off and make it the next generation’s problem.” That has been the approach for 80 years; for 80 years we have been putting it off, patching and making do—"Don’t worry about it. This'll get us through the next 10 years.” We knew the problems then and we know the problems now, and they have just got worse. If we persist in kicking that dreadful can down the road, we will face not only mounting costs, but the real prospect of a catastrophic fire or other significant failure. That would put not only this building at risk, but the lives of the people who work in it. I believe that it must be in everybody’s interests that we just get on with the job and stop putting obstacles in the way. Let us restore this place and create a Parliament fit for the 21st century.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
There is a lot of what the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) said that I agree with. Let us get on with it. Let us come together in this. I commend both the Leader of the House for his approach and his speech and the spokesperson for the Sponsor Body, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). They both spoke in a very outgoing, moderate and sensible way.
This is not a debate between decant and not decant. It is not a debate with, on one side, pragmatic modernisers who want to do what is right and, on the other side, stuffy traditionalists who just care about staying in a Palace that they love. It is far more complex than that. So it is not a debate about decant or not decant—it is about how we get on with the job of restoring this Palace and not having a gold-plate operation. That is what I want to address my arguments towards.
I have to deal, in that regard, with the present proposal—the Northern Estate programme as it is. This is the entire demolition of Richmond House, and this is where I follow what the right hon. Gentleman just said; I would argue that it is financially wasteful, environmentally unsound and not necessary.
Let me look at this in a bit more detail and go back to the original Joint Committee report, which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House signed. It said that
“a temporary Chamber could be established in its”—
that is, Richmond House’s—
“inner courtyard and the rest of the House of Commons’ core operations could be consolidated in and around Portcullis House and the Northern Estate”.
The Northern Estate programme later found that measurements of the Commons Chamber, including the exact footprint of Division Lobbies with the oriel bay windows, would not fit in the courtyard, so the Northern Estate programme claims that this requires the entire grade II* listed building to be demolished, except for its façade, and for total replacement with a new permanent building.
On 31 January 2018, the Leader of the House said that
“the conclusion that we came to, preliminarily favouring a complete decant, was based on the assumption that a temporary Chamber could be put up in Richmond House.”—[Official Report, 31 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 885.]
Demolition of Richmond House is a completely different cost basis and I, for one, would not have come to that conclusion, had we known the true picture. The possibility of demolishing Richmond House is not mentioned at all in the Joint Committee report.
Damian Hinds
My right hon. Friend is right, of course, about the historical sequence, but I hope that it is of some reassurance if I tell him that, since I have been involved in the Sponsor Body, I can honestly say that I have not met a single person, either in this House or on the restoration and renewal programme, who now believes that it is desirable to make the full demolition of Richmond House that he alludes to. We have to cut our cloth and, as I said in my remarks—and indeed, as the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) just said—we have to work within what we have, and we need to work out what compromises we need in order to do that.
Sir Edward Leigh
That is extremely helpful because, as I said, I have to work with what we have at the moment, and from what the spokesperson for the Sponsor Body now says, we seem to have moved on from the demolition of Richmond House. This will be of enormous comfort to the heritage organisations such as SAVE, with which I have been working very closely. If we are looking at a grade II* listed building, even the lowest level of listing is defined as
“warranting every effort to preserve”
these buildings—that is according to Historic England—and Richmond House is above that. It was, of course, one of the most important public buildings created in the 1980s.
I can cut short my speech, because I appear to be on a bit of a winning streak. I do not really need to quote all the various points that have been made by numerous distinguished architects and historic buildings organisations in favour of Richmond House, which was put up only 30 years ago. Of course, demolishing it would be environmentally unsound.
Mark Tami
I do not want to upset the right hon. Member, but my preferred option would be to knock the building down, apart from the façade, and to create something that would have a useful legacy. The reality is that I do not think that will happen, so we have to work within the given footprint. That would probably mean that we had only one Division Lobby rather than two, which would not be the end of the world.
Sir Edward Leigh
It is so wonderful to all come together and find a way forward. I can provide a way forward, because I have been working with SAVE on the matter. This is called the Mark Hines proposal, and it is from a professional architect. SAVE commissioned Mark Hines Architects to look into preserving Richmond House. He found that a replica Commons Chamber would fit into the Richmond House courtyard. His proposal includes a full Chamber of the same size and layout as at present, Division Lobbies, public and press seating at gallery level—somewhat reduced, understandably —and handicapped access. It would fulfil the full security needs, having a separate public entrance with security clearing area and a blast-proof structure. A private security firm has assessed the plan and said that it meets security requirements.
Architectural plans prove that this is possible. The building could be prefabricated off site and installed using cranes within a matter of months, and independent security consultants confirm that it is as safe as existing proposals. It is professionally costed at £46 million, in contrast to reports in the architectural press that the current plan would cost £1.6 billion. To reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), the former Leader of the House, if the House of Commons insists that we decant and create an alternative Chamber, I proffer that solution. It would save a listed building and provide a perfectly adequate alternative.
I must say that there is an even cheaper proposal, and I hope the House will forgive me if I share it. That is the Anthony Delarue proposal—again, he is a professional architect—which I commissioned. He accepts that a top-to-bottom renovation makes sense, because, as we have heard, the systems need a total revamp. He proposes that we move temporarily to the House of Lords Chamber, as we did in the second world war, and that the House of Lords move to the Royal Gallery. He suggests—this is a professional architect, not me—that these areas could be sectioned off with complete external servicing, with linear access to Portcullis House via New Palace Yard, and with temporary canteens, lavatories and so on accommodated in Old Palace Yard, Victoria Tower Gardens or Abingdon Street Gardens.
That proposal has all the advantages of a full decant. Every electrical socket, bit of wiring, air duct and climate control system can be pulled out and comprehensively done in one go. It solves the most expensive problem—the provision of temporary accommodation—by housing two plenary Chambers within the existing Palace. Richmond House will not be just preserved but integrated into the estate, to house workers displaced from the Palace. The proposal eliminates the lengthy timeframe of potential public inquiries into the demolishing of a listed building. Of course, it retains the QEII conference centre, with all the financial advantages to the Treasury of retaining its income from the centre. That is the proposal. I put it forward as probably the very cheapest option, rather akin to what we did in the second world war. If the House insists on a full decant into Richmond House, however, I proffer the courtyard idea.
None of these plans is set in stone. We can be clever, and we can pick and choose. Surely, time has moved on. As has been said again and again in this debate, we have proved that we can work virtually. I am with the Leader of the House; I do not like virtual working, but it can greatly shorten the time for which we have to be away from this Chamber. There are other proposals I have put which are even cheaper. We know—I know we cannot say much about it—that there is already an emergency alternative pop-up Chamber stored somewhere. If we had to move away for a few months or a year, we could use the atrium of Portcullis House. I met the architect of Portcullis House. He actually designed it so a Chamber could go in the atrium. A Chamber with Division Lobbies could fit exactly in that space. Not ideal, but surely we have proved during this pandemic that we do not have to move out of this place for ever. I was very interested in what the Leader of the House said, and I think what the Chairman of the Committee said, if I remember rightly, that while we would want to move out all the Committees from here, we could actually seal off the Chamber and have access through the corridor past the Prime Minister’s office.
I want to emphasise that this is not a debate between decant and not decant. I am perfectly happy, and all those colleagues on the Back Benches I have been working with are perfectly happy, if we have to decant for a few months, eight months, nine months, a year. What we do not want—I will finish on this point, Madam Deputy Speaker—is a gold-plating operation. We do not want Richmond House demolished. We do not want a permanent replica Chamber created at vast cost. We do not want to surrender our fate to an army of consultants and architects to leave this place and be out of it for five or 10 years. Look at the Canadian example: we could be out of this place for up to 10 years. I do not believe that that is what the public really want. This is a citadel of our democracy. For many people in the world, this democracy is about this building. By all means, let us come together and get on with it, but let us have a short decant, not a long, highly wasteful decant of up to 10 years.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), but there is a danger that he is doing what I am very concerned about, which is keeping going the debates about many options. He is, of course, entitled to his opinion, but we are getting to the crunch point now. It does feel a bit like groundhog day. We are, once again, debating these options and, in essence, what has changed?
What has changed, as others, including the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), have said, is that we are spending more money: £127 million a year, according to the National Audit Office. What has not changed is that we still need to do a major refurbishment. What has changed is the personnel involved. I caution new Members in particular that it can be tempting to say—I think the Leader of the House is dangling this in front of us regularly—that Parliament has changed, people have changed and there are new views. But that is the thing about this place: it is a constantly renewing democracy and place. Unfortunately, with the byzantine structure of Committees and Members changing all the time, if we take the view that we always have to revisit everything because it is a new group of people working here, we will never settle on tough decisions. The Government are the same. How long does a Government Minister last or indeed a permanent secretary in Whitehall? I have been the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee for six years. Only one permanent secretary is still in post, in a different Department, from six years ago. We therefore have to recognise, as the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said, that we are the custodians now and we need to make the decision.
It is worth noting—this is a bit of a back-of-the-envelope calculation, so there is probably somebody I have missed out—that there have been three Clerks of the House, two Mr Speakers, at least three Leaders of the House, three Prime Ministers and three Parliaments since the Joint Committee reported in 2016. As others have pointed out, it was on 31 January 2018 that this House made a decision to get on with it. It has been a very slow process since. There is a danger that this will be endlessly revisited, with new Parliaments, changes to the public finances and everyone coming up with a great new idea about what the different needs are.
Let me re-emphasise, as the former Leader of the House the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire did, that there is a risk of catastrophic fire here. There have been 29 incidents between 2015 and 2020. There are 24 fire wardens on three shifts, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Not long before lockdown, one of the fires was found on a weekday. If it had been a weekend, the wardens’ patrolling pattern meant that they might not have picked it up. Mechanical and engineering is a mess. Anyone who has been down to the basement can see the problems there, with hot water next to electricity. This has all been highlighted many times, as have issues with the sewers; you do not need to ask someone where the lavatories are in this place because you can sniff them out most of the time, and staff have to work in that stinking smell. The great stink got the sewers of London built, but the great stink might finally get us out of this place. There are holes in carpets, with more seeming to emerge even in lockdown, and dangerous voids, top and bottom of the building.
The main change is that a lot of money has been spent to keep people safe in the event of a catastrophic fire. So we have all got fire alarms in our rooms and in Committee Rooms, but that does not save the building; if the worst happened, that is what would happen. That is a real issue because this is a grade I listed building, a heritage building and a UNESCO site, so there is no option here. Ultimately, the Government—it is the Treasury’s responsibility—under UNESCO rules, have to make sure that this building survives. Much of the work that has been done, with this £127 million a year, will have to be redone once major works start.
The Leader of the House has used his position to delay, not progress. Of course we have to keep an eye on things, but we have set up a structure that allows us to do that. I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) that there is a danger that it is seen as self-indulgent to discuss this today. We should not be discussing the principle of what we do and when we do it; if more Members were here talking about the businesses that could benefit from this, that would be a good thing. There are many other issues we could be discussing. Rather than this, we could be talking about jobs and opportunities for people who have had a really tough time over the past year. The Leader of the House is proposing options that would put staff at risk. I do not want to be responsible for any staff in this building once we start ripping out asbestos. He is also proposing options that would lead to a lack of clarity over who is responsible. If we had a hybrid set of working, are the contractors, the Sponsor Body or the Delivery Authority responsible, or is the Clerk of the House? If something went wrong, who is in charge in that complex set-up? We need to be clear that those are dangerous and risky options.
The Leader of the House speaks of Parliament agreeing it, but I remind him, as others have, that Parliament has agreed with this. We must be careful about endlessly opening up options, and having a start-and-stop approach. There is a sense that this is a bit like musical chairs, with everybody believing or hoping that they will not be standing when the music stops, a bit like as it is with covid-19. I recall that just over a decade ago, probably about 12 years ago, I was serving on a pandemic planning sub-committee of a Cabinet Sub-Committee, where I was a bit-part player in discussing then how to deal with a pandemic. It is apparent that over time that drops down the agenda because nobody thinks that they are going to be the Minister in charge when the pandemic hits. It dropped down the priority list, but this issue cannot, as we know what we want to do and there is a real risk here.
Of course, value for money is very important—I am clear about that. I chair the Public Accounts Committee for a reason: I believe that every pound of public money saved is a pound for the Government of the day to spend on something else that they consider to be important, on the basis of the manifesto on which our voters elected them. That means that the business case is important, but it will cost billions and billions of pounds to do this work. Let us be honest about that. Let us forget this £4 billion figure that is being bandied around. We know it will cost a lot of money, but it cannot be done on the cheap—there is not a cheap option for a building such as this. We have to acknowledge that and accept that we are the custodians and we have to make the tough choices. This must be value for money and in response to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) let me say that, yes, there needs to be an envelope of costs, contingency needs to be built in and we need to be rigorous about testing and pursuing people on that. That is why we have made sure that the National Audit Office looks regularly at this and that the Sponsor Body works closely with the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, so that each step of the way the project planning is in place to make sure we are doing this.
Of course we should not gold-plate things. We certainly do not need to gold-plate temporary provision, because it will be temporary. It needs to be functional and workable. We have shown over the past year that we can be very adaptable and their lordships seem to be even more adaptable, able to work in different ways. We work in our constituencies and in all sorts of different environments. We do not have to have the perfect solution, but we need a solution for the time we are out of the building.
We must also plan to ensure that businesses up and down the country are enabled and prepared to bid for the contracts that will come up. Some years ago, I visited New South Wales ahead of the London Olympics to see how businesses in New South Wales had been worked with to get them ready to understand what they needed to do to bid for contracts for the Olympics. We can do a similar engagement project, but while we are debating whether or not we do it, we are going to be a long way off getting to that point of supporting such businesses to get jobs.
All the evidence shows that any major project will get more expensive and more complex the longer it goes on, so we need to decide and we need to get on with it quickly. We should not be prolonging it, and we need to have a focus on what needs to be done, including setting the parameters and making sure that good governance is in place to get on with it. This will also help us control costs, which of course we are all concerned about, but we must not be concerned about the big figure at the beginning, because there will be a big price tag. There is no getting around that.
Let us just run through the governance. We have the Sponsor Body, which is a group of professionals who understand how to manage projects, and it will oversee the Delivery Authority. Of course, Members—we have heard from some of them—are represented on those bodies. In the House in the past, and let us look at the Elizabeth Tower as an example, reporting to the Clerk of the House through the system in the House has not worked. The Elizabeth Tower refurbishment started off with a price tag of £29 million, and it ended up at £80 million. So the idea that somehow we are passing responsibility over and losing control of costs is hardly borne out. We need to keep a close eye on the costs, but the idea that it can be done in the old-fashioned way through the House systems has not proved to work. I will not highlight it, but I recommend to Members the National Audit Office report of last year that looked at the Elizabeth Tower, when the House’s own auditors recognised some of the challenges and problems, such as mission creep and the inability to bottom-out costs at the beginning.
We need to get on with it, and we need to open up the opportunities. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire says, doing nothing is not an option. We must not reopen every option every time we debate this. We all aspire to run the country—sadly, my party is not running the country at the moment—but if we want to be in that position, we need to show that we can boldly take difficult decisions. Government is not about being popular and always choosing an easy option; it is usually the opposite. Proper governance is actually about making difficult decisions.
I want to put on record my thanks to the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire. She did not mince her words today, and I thank her for that. It is not a political game. It is not about pitting London against the country. It has just got to be done, and if we do it well and we do it right, we will be thanked, ultimately, because we will have saved this building and created jobs around our country.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who talked about the length of time it can take to make decisions and to plan properly for the inevitable in this place. I have been a Member of Parliament for almost 30 years, and as she alluded to, it is certainly a regular pattern in this place that, when a difficult decision comes along, there are in effect three parliamentary ways to deal with it: first, legislate for it, whether it is good legislation or bad legislation; secondly, throw money at it, whether or not it is good value; and, thirdly, put it off. It seems that there are still some of those who want to do the last.
I plucked this notice from the staircase close to my office a little while ago. I would be showing it to the House, but I know that would be against the rules about using props, so for those who were not able to take advantage of seeing it, it says:
“Do not enter
Masonry falling on staircase
Use lift only”.
It was not that inconvenient until a couple of days ago, when the lift did not work either, and I was not able to access my office in St Stephen’s Tower, and neither were any of my staff. To those who say this is something we can put off again, I say that it is not. If we actually care about things like the health and safety of our own staff, it needs to be dealt with. One thing I think the House needs to agree on is that we have to get on with it. Further delay should not be one of the options that we consider.
Those who say that we should not be talking about this now because there are much more important subjects for Parliament to talk about, or that we should try to do it on the cheap, are failing in their duty as Members of Parliament. In terms of those who say that there are much more difficult issues to talk about in the covid environment, I am getting fed up with that sort of virtue signalling from people in this Chamber as an excuse to put these things off because they believe it will buy them favour with bits of the media or the electorate. It is irresponsible to put it off, for the very reason that has been given by so many Members today.
The idea that we should do it on the cheap is actually to betray those for whom we hold this place in trust. It is an amazing, wonderful building, but we are not just temporary residents; we have a role in holding it in trust for our country. It is shocking that we have allowed ourselves to get to this position of patch and mend at a huge cost, let alone even considering carrying that on. We would regard any Government proposal that took a similar approach as a shocking waste of public money that would ultimately require a bigger bill to put it right. That is the case in this House, and we have to face up to that today.
The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch made the very interesting point—with her PAC hat on, I imagine—that, were we to go ahead with what will come at a very large cost, it will provide employment for people with great skills and crafts, many of them diminishing in number, who are able to repair a grade I listed building. We have just gone through a period in the pandemic when we have paid out huge amounts of public money for people to not actually be doing anything in many cases. We have an opportunity to provide employment, skills and training for those in our country, and it is a unique opportunity in many ways that we should not overlook.
In this short contribution, I want to say something about the historic political and constitutional importance of this House—the House of Commons, not the House of Lords. The Houses of Parliament are, of course, iconic nationally and internationally, but the position of the House of Commons is a unique one. I have not taken part in these debates before, but I have listened with great interest to Members talk about the difficulties with the solution of decanting the House of Commons to the House of Lords or vice versa until we get the building work done in one place. I entirely understand that, but I believe it is something that we should consider for the following reason.
The House of Commons and the House of Lords are not of equal constitutional importance, and keeping a democratic link between the House of Commons and the Palace of Westminster is, in itself, of great national importance. I listened to the argument made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) about the basement and the problems in this place. We hear all these arguments about cost and difficulty, but—again, to refer back to the contribution of the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch —we were told prior to covid about the cost and difficulty of mRNA vaccines, and when we had to put our minds to it, we were able to provide solutions in a relatively short time.
I accept the difficulties, and I am by no means an expert in any of that, but if it is possible to maintain the link between the elected House of Commons and the Palace of Westminster, we should take it. When German bombs fell on this Chamber during world war two, the House of Commons remained inside the Palace and moved to the House of Lords. Many of Churchill’s greatest speeches during world war two were, in fact, given in the House of Lords, because that historic and iconic link was maintained between the democratic Chamber and the Palace of Westminster.
However long or short our tenure in this democratic House of Commons, we are not just temporary residents here; we have duties to those who have sent us. The historic continuity of the world’s oldest democracy inside this building is extremely important, and such rare links should only be broken when there is no alternative but to do so. The link between British democracy and the House of Commons is of tremendous value—a value that can be measured in terms of more than just the cost we face for refurbishment. As Members of Parliament, we should strongly consider our role in our heritage and the future of this Parliament before we take such decisions.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
It is a pleasure to participate in this important debate. Looking at the Benches, this seems to be a bit of a minority sport, but it is an important matter that all of as parliamentarians must take seriously. I am the longest-serving Member on the Labour Benches, which means I am coming to my 41st year in Parliament later in the year.
I love Parliament and I love the building, and over this last year we have all been conscious that the beating heart of our democracy is not just about the Chamber, Committee rooms, and the formal side of Parliament, but it is the Tea Room, the Lobby, the chat on the Terrace—the political life that goes on and is nurtured in a building such as ours. Covid has badly affected that vibrant life, and we know what it is like to have real challenges to our normal political and parliamentary life.
Nevertheless, I am on the “let’s get on with it” side. We have had two big votes, and as the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) said with such clarity in a very good speech, it is much more expensive to do the job now that we could have started some time ago. Interestingly, I am just clocking the number of speeches from former or current Chairs and members of the Public Accounts Committee, and I was a member of that Committee as a very young MP.
I wish to make two rather different points. Yes, I want to get on with this. I understand that we will have to decant. I look back at the amazing achievement of the London Olympics and at how people in my constituency—Huddersfield is a very typical constituency—were full of pride at the way those Olympics were managed and at how, it seemed to them, no expense was spared to make them the finest Olympics they could be. Reading the report we are discussing, all the time it comes back to value for money. Of course we want value for money, but this is a vital and important building and we cannot do it on the cheap. It must be done to the finest specification, because we owe it that. When it comes to their Parliament and their great institutions, the people of this country do not penny-pinch. They want to be proud that a leading nation such as the United Kingdom can do something, do it well and, as with the Olympics, do it on time. That is an important point: let’s get on with it!
Could we also be a little more conscious of the tremendous effect that this massive renewal programme will have on the whole of our capital city? I am a member of the River Thames all-party parliamentary group, and we have a little commission on the renaissance of the Thames. Major construction companies came to us and said, “You realise that the renewal of Parliament is such a major job that it will clog the roads of half of London for years.” The number of trucks carrying materials and taking away waste will involve tens of thousands of truck movements in our city. I believe that the impact of that on the rest of our capital city has been rather neglected.
I have been in touch with the commission, who are a very good group of people, and they are aware of the interests of a number of Members in this subject, and of the additional challenge of making the renewal programme more sustainable. Some of those major players came to talk to Members of Parliament and said, “Do you realise the impact on the whole transport infrastructure of London, and how that is going to hurt?” In a very good speech, the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee mentioned the importance, in major projects such as this, of talking to local people—of consulting in a meaningful way about what is going to happen. We should renew those efforts to consult, as London will be massively affected by this, the biggest construction programme since the second world war.
The alternative that people have been talking about for some time now is bringing the River Thames back to life as a major transportation highway. So many materials that are required by this massive construction site could come on the river, and most of the waste and the detritus could be taken away on the river. There is a real opportunity here not only to do something wonderful in terms of bringing the River Thames back as a major conduit for our capital city, but to reduce the enormous pressure of this important and challenging piece of work. Therefore, that broader context is important. I implore every Member of Parliament to take that alternative seriously. It is not an easy choice to make, because most of the jetty points on the Thames that are good for getting goods on and off boats are increasingly being bought up, sold and given planning permission for rather expensive apartments. There are enough still left, and they should be rapidly secured so that we can have that supply chain. Down the line, all the experts and people who know about our docks, our transportation links and much else say that that renewal of the Thames, even when we have finished the building work, will mean that food to the House of Commons and supplies to the whole of central London can come in on newly developed, electric and low-impact craft. I wanted to make that point very strongly.
Madam Deputy Speaker, like many others, you might think, “What has got into the hon. Member for Huddersfield?” Well, it is no secret that I was born on the River Thames, I went to school at Hampton, which is on the Thames, and I have spent 40 years in Parliament, working by the side of the Thames. I care about it and can see the potential for it in the future.
May I make one further point? There will be massive contracts. I do hope that we deliver on the large number of jobs that will be required for craftsmen and other people employed all over the United Kingdom. As much material as possible that is used in that big construction project should be derived from the UK. We talk about apprentices, and I hope that they will be given a thorough education and training in the highest level of skills—skills of which we can be proud. The potential that exists in this project in terms of the sheer number of jobs that can be generated is greater than the report has indicated.
I wish to mention one other important point. It is strange that I should be in agreement on this not only with the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), but with my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), who made a very good speech. As he said, in order to do this, all the options must be kept open. There are some very innovative ideas for what will happen to Richmond House, but that must not be an excuse for delay. We must get on with what we are doing.
Lastly, I am a little disturbed that some of the early contracts, when we had sight of them, did not have enough of what they call environmental sustainability elements—an audit of its sustainability. During the procurement process, please do not let us make considerations based only on cost. Please let it be done on quality and, vitally, on sustainability and the environmental impact. Environmental audits will be crucial to this whole process. We could send a message, at a time when we face climate change and global warming, that we can do major construction sensitively, sustainably and in a way that employs great craftspeople and trains great skills.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I apologise on behalf of the House authorities to Members in the Chamber that a report that ought to have been on the Table, having been tagged in today’s Order Paper in connection with this debate, has not been made available. It is of course in the Vote Office. The reason I mention it is because several Members have raised matters that are dealt with in the report.
In particular, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) mentioned that the programme of works that will take place here in some form or other ought to be constructed in such a way as to provide employment and other opportunities for every part of the United Kingdom, not only for London. That matter is mentioned in the report. Another matter mentioned in the report, which the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) just alluded to, is the number of apprenticeships to be created and the number of apprentices to be given opportunities. I mention it to the House because it would be wrong if the impression were given that nothing is being done and that no one is overseeing the current work that is being done in preparation for the necessary works that everyone acknowledges must be done to this building.
It will not surprise Members in the Chamber to hear me say that the reason why I am aware of this report is that I wrote it in my capacity as Chairman of the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission. It was not on the Table. It should have been. I can see that you have all missed it. Now that I have told you about it, I hope that it will be taken into consideration, as indeed it has been by the Treasury and the Sponsor Body.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) [V]
As the newly elected Member of Parliament for Clwyd South 18 months ago, I was awestruck to be working in such a beautiful and historic building, but also acutely aware, from all the internal hoardings and cordoned-off spaces, of the serious of the problems of repairing and renewing the deteriorating fabric of the Palace of Westminster. As a member of the Speaker’s Advisory Committee on Works of Art, I am also aware of day-to-day problems such as leaking roofs and the need to protect the many and varied works of art within the Palace of Westminster.
Before I became an MP, I was much involved in heritage projects, mainly in Wales, and therefore have nothing but respect for the experts who are advising us on the scope and scale of the restoration and renewal programme. But equally, representing my constituency, which has many fine buildings in need of restoration and renewal, not least those relating to its proud mining and industrial heritage, I am aware of the need to be realistic about the amount of public money that can be spent on the Palace of Westminster. I therefore welcome this general debate because it is vital that MPs scrutinise restoration and renewal. Although the 2019 Act established an independent Sponsor Body to carry out the project, it is essential that there is a mechanism to ensure that the House’s views are heard, particularly as circumstances change as the project proceeds, as was eloquently discussed earlier. We are, of course, the guardians of taxpayers’ money, and restoration and renewal will involve a vast sum of public cash. It is right that the project should be completed, but it is essential that Members are in a position to scrutinise the way the money is spent in line with the Act, which stipulates the importance of seeking value for money.
As the Chancellor has made clear, the public finances are in a difficult state and it is therefore only right that we find ways of economising with restoration and renewal. It is clear from the terms of this debate, and has been pointed out several times this afternoon, that the terms around the project have moved on significantly since the Act was passed, and that the make-up of the House has changed since then as well. Some of the lessons that we have learned from the hybrid Parliament can be applied to restoration and renewal, and it is right for Members to raise this with the Sponsor Body. We know that hybrid proceedings have been a poor second best, but surely they are a viable temporary option to be used if it means saving hundreds of millions or even billions of pounds in construction costs and minimising the need for a full and lengthy decant. In particular, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I would like to express my support for the ideas put forward by Save Britain’s Heritage for an alternative scheme for retaining Richmond House, which was cited in the recent strategic review as
“the cheapest of the shortlisted options by some way”.
In conclusion, this debate comes at a critical time in the restoration and renewal process. The programme is on track to commence the main phase of works in the mid-2020s, which is why it is so important that the broadest possible consensus is achieved across the House and that this consensus also commands the support of the people who elected us to Parliament in the first place.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak on this issue, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank you for calling me to contribute to the debate. The history of this place simply resonates with every step up those ancient stairs in Westminster Hall, with every breath that is taken in this history-saturated Chamber, and with every glance heavenward in Central Lobby where the four nations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland come together as one in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We are part of the living history in this place, and the preservation and restoration of it are essential. We are literally preserving the history of our nation.
I came into this House in 2010 when I was elected as the Member for Strangford. Before that, I served as a councillor for 26 years and in the Assembly for 12 years. I love the tradition of this place, and I love the building. I stay in the hotel across the bridge, and every morning when I walk across and look at the Houses of Parliament, I never fail to gasp and say, “Wow, look at that building!” Coming to this place inspires me every day of my life. It also makes me very proud to be British and to have the traditions, the history and the culture that we have in this House. Wow, I am really proud and pleased to have that! It makes me so proud to be British.
I love the pomp and the pageantry. When I have had the chance to be a bit player when Parliament is prorogued, I love to watch how it is done, and to watch the state opening of Parliament and the Queen’s Speech. Wow! Those things are incredible. Nobody anywhere in the whole world can do it like we British can in this House. That is something that I want to put on record. I truly love the democratic process. This mother of Parliaments has sent the democratic process across the whole world to many nations who have all had a chance to embrace the democratic process that we have in this place. I am humbled to be the MP for Strangford and represent the good people of Strangford. When we come here, ever mindful of the history, we are walking in the footsteps of some of the greatest political giants that ever walked, in all the history of this world and our great nation, and now we have the chance to be here and be a small player. A wee boy from Ballywalter—that is what I am—has had the opportunity to be the MP for Strangford. That is a reflection on the place that I come from.
This place is steeped in history. I love the building, not just for the building alone, but for the democratic process that it represents and for the opportunity that it gives everyone to represent their people in this House. On my trips to the United States, pre-covid obviously, I am always thoroughly impressed by their attitude to their nation’s history and the care that they take of it. Their monuments and memorials gleam, they have tours and information at every place of historical significance, and they are proud, as they should be. However, when I look at the attitude to our history in this place, a lot is left to be desired.
Most recently, there has been a desire to remove historical figures and to attempt to paint our historical literature and films with warnings. The past is the past and we are shaped by the lessons learnt from it. If we alter the past to suit a modern narrative, we do our history a disservice. The House is part of the fabric not simply of British history, but of the foundation of democracy. It deserves a top-class restoration to secure and preserve it for generations to come. To walk through and see beams from 1400 is humbling. The duty on us is clear: we must do what is right, we must get this right and we must pay what is right.
On 16 July, the Leader of the House said—I read his comments before the debate—that
“the proposal must be robust and evidence-based…must give value for money and…cut out unnecessary spending; and…the plans need to be up to date.”—[Official Report, 16 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 1737.]
That is important. Whether the crux of the issue is value for money, what compromises need to be made to save money, what opportunity exists for simpler, quicker and cheaper temporary accommodation, or how new ways of working developed in response to covid-19 affect Parliament’s requirements, they are all things that we must look at.
The review also found that by approaching restoration in a new way, with a phased approach to the delivery of the works in the Palace of Westminster, the time that Members and staff will spend in temporary accommodation could be kept to a minimum. I very much look forward to the Leader of the House’s response and a look at that timescale. A detailed and costed restoration and renewal plan will set out specific timescales, but the period in which works take place in the Palace of Westminster should be thought of in terms of years and not months.
I was slightly dismayed by some of the briefing that I looked at. It was indicated that while theoretically this is a House matter, concerning the running of the Commons and the Lords, given that several billions of pounds are involved, the Government have a stake. There are suggestions that Downing Street is jittery about the cost. A possible final bill of £4 billion is often quoted, but that is a ballpark estimate made several years ago. No one can be sure—it could cost a lot more. The Government must know that the restoration must be done and done soon. They must back it.
I am a proud Ulster Scot, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I know that you are a proud Scot. That history is something that we both share. I loved history, and it was the one subject at school that I did rather well in and enjoyed. As an Ulster Scot—I do not want to put words in your mouth, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you might say the same—I say, every pound is a prisoner. If it is, the thought of spending huge amounts of money is not the kind of decision that I take lightly. However, this is not an option but a necessity.
The money must be spent, and we must do it to as tight a budget as possible, but it must be done. There is much uncertainty about how to go forward. I am reminded of an Ulster Scotsism that is used, which I always remember, along these lines: they used to be indecisive, but now they are not sure. Sometimes, we might show some reluctance to make decisions in this House, but I hope that we do so.
It is also my opinion that the options presented allow us to do the work and yet still participate in this Chamber. I would like that to happen, but I am not sure whether it is possible, and others have reflected on that as well. Having spent a large part of the past year fiddling with Zoom passwords, battling wi-fi connections and frozen screens, and not really understanding exactly what was happening—I am not technologically minded—one thing has been made abundantly clear to me: this place is special and to do it wholly remotely simply does not cut it.
The thrust of the debate and the outworking of the role of an MP is simply not up to the same standard when carried out remotely. We must be able to retain a base in this place. I know the history of former decants and it is clear that they were not the best route.
I also saw in the background notes a quote stating:
“The work to save our Parliament buildings for the nation is essential and urgent, and the Palace of Westminster continues to be at a high risk of catastrophic damage, be that a major fire, flood or falling masonry”.
I am reminded of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Parliament buildings. On 2 January 1995—just before I entered the Forum for Political Dialogue and ultimately into the Assembly—there was a fire in the Parliament buildings. It was over the Christmas and new year holiday period, so no one was aware of it and the fire had been burning for a period of time in the main Chamber.
The Parliament buildings of the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont replicate this House; they are not as large, but, as people can see on television, they are based on this place. The fire at Stormont was started by two wires rubbing together. After a number of years, that friction caused a fire. Someone living down in Dundonald, at the edge of Stormont, saw the smoke coming up the chimney. There was lots of talk that it was a terrorist attack, but it was not—it was just the age of the electrics. That is a reminder to me that perhaps we need a high level of maintenance in this House.
I have read reports that
“the Restoration and Renewal Programme team found that moving MPs into a temporary chamber in Richmond House on Whitehall and peers to the nearby QEII conference centre remains ‘the most secure, cost-effective and practical solution’ to keep parliament in operation while works take place.”
The cost of this is extremely prohibitive and leads me to the idea of hybrid systems. At least with a hybrid system, there could be some people in this place and others able to work effectively in other places; the background notes also referred to the Northern Estate programme. As the Leader of the House said, we have to focus on value for money. I am very much on that page. I am not the greatest advocate of hybrid proceedings —my ability would indicate that—but I would rather have hybrid proceedings for a little bit while we could not use this Chamber than spend £1.5 billion.
The background notes state that an hon. Member
“asked the House of Commons Commission if it had considered ways in which hybrid or virtual proceedings could reduce the cost of the restoration and renewal programme and minimise the need for decant during the programme. Sir Charles Walker, who answers questions on behalf of the Commission said that no formal assessment had been made and that it would be for the House to determine whether to adopt different ways of working.”
I believe that we can have the best of both worlds. The creation of a replica Chamber is not a good use of funding if there is a way to keep this place open while continuing the works.
The comments of the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), regarding wheelchair and visually disabled access are welcomed by everyone here. She also referred to those with autism and challenging educational issues. I entirely support her proposals in that regard. I have often had the opportunity—as have other right hon. and hon. Members—to engage with schools from our constituencies in the education centre, which the former Speaker was instrumental in bringing about, and which was really good news.
I understand that the safety and security of staff is paramount, and changes will have to be made to the placement of staff in our offices, yet it seems to me that there is a way forward: we must look to a hybrid model as the best of both worlds.
At the end of the day, this is undoubtedly and unfortunately a costly project—costly but worthwhile. We have an opportunity to take lessons learned from Parliament by Zoom, along with sensible financial decisions, to ensure that this Parliament can continue to operate effectively while we restore and protect this living and breathing seat of democracy for hundreds of years to come. We do this not just for us at this time, but for everyone who comes after—everyone who will walk where political giants have walked before.
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the detail that you gave: it was good that you were able to inform us that all parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will have a part in the work. I welcome that and am encouraged by that. Perhaps the Leader of the House could provide some assurance that apprentices from Northern Ireland will have an opportunity to be part of that work.
I realise that I have gone on a wee bit long, so I shall finish with this. There are reports that say that a delay in starting work would add to the cost, because this 150-year-old building is falling apart faster than it can be fixed, with the cost of maintenance having doubled in just three years to £127 million a year in 2018-19, so it is clear that the decision must be made shortly. I urge the House to consider a hybrid model as the right decision, if it is in order and Members agree. We need to put up with the inconvenience, knowing that we are preserving this wonderful place—this incredible seat of democracy, the envy of all the world—and doing so as cost-effectively as we can while ensuring that we can all work well and still do the job we are elected to do.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) [V]
It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); I share his delight in that incredible view on Westminster bridge. This place is an iconic symbol of our country and a symbol for democracy around the world. It is an immense honour to be an elected representative, but we also have a duty as custodians to take care of not only the fabric of the building but the culture and ethos. The hon. Member for Strangford is the embodiment of a very good ethos and culture that our Parliament represents.
We have heard about the decisions that have already been made and the extensive work that has already been done—including by you, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I pay tribute to everybody who has worked so hard to get us to this place. I wish to expand the debate to look forward, because the Leader of the House is right when he says that we are now moving to the next stage. To date, the biggest concern has been clarity on keeping the lid on costs, as was said earlier, and for this place not to be closed for business for any longer than absolutely necessary. That message has been sent loud and clear. Those issues remain of paramount importance, but we also need to make sure that there is just as much clarity on what a modern democracy needs from its buildings.
The No. 1 recommendation of the report we are considering is that we need to move the discussion on and, in particular, to look at a balance between restoration and renewal. What is it essential to preserve and what should we change? No one wants to gild the lily—all right hon. and hon. Members who have made that point today are absolutely right that we do not want to over-engineer R and R—but there are issues that we need to deal with. There are issues of restoration and issues of renewal and we need to consider them. It would be wrong to allow other people to decide the priorities for us, so we need to grasp the matter.
A vision has already been clearly set out to
“transform the Houses of Parliament to be fit for the future as the working home for our Parliamentary democracy, welcoming to all, and a celebration of our rich heritage.”
But what do we mean by that? That is a lot of words that are open to a lot of different interpretations. One theme in the plans for restoration and renewal is accessibility and inclusiveness, but what do we mean by that?
The Joint Committee that looked at these issues back in 2016 was absolutely right that this is a one-off opportunity to get things right—to renew and transform Parliament to be fit for the 21st century. That is fundamental to the planned building works and refurbishment. Most importantly of all, we have to avoid mission creep when the work actually starts. Current Members and, indeed, those who will be elected in elections to come—I am sure they will come on a frequent basis—should not feel that we have missed the opportunity to see this project as one of renewal, too. The Leader of the House is absolutely right when he says that we need to move on to that part of the debate and not just repeat debates of the past, and I am sure many Members would agree.
I have always believed that the right approach is to do the minimum, but what that means will be very different for everybody. Our Parliament is a building that has literally shaped our democracy as it has emerged and grown. It reflects the history of our democracy, and that is absolutely right, through its architecture, its artwork and its sculptures, but the democracy when this building was built back in 1837 was very different from the one we have today.
Parliamentary buildings are really important. They reflect democracy. They reflect our history, and that rich history is crucial to preserve, but they also condition us for the future. We have a duty to ensure that they reflect the entirety of our democratic history and perhaps our ambitions for the future, too. A celebration of our rich heritage and the need to be welcoming to all, which are clearly in the vision for this project, must be taken seriously as we move into the next stage.
Our plans for renewal need to seriously take into account and articulate to the Sponsor Body the importance of preserving our history, which needs to be firmly protected and not subject to any rewriting exercise. We also need to ensure that the currently untold stories of our Parliament are there, too, to make sure we are celebrating the full richness of the history of Parliament. Also, as set out in the restoration and renewal vision, we must consider the importance of making sympathetic changes to ensure that we are welcoming to everybody, whether that is disabled people visiting Parliament, members of staff or, indeed, Members ourselves.
Most important of all, we need to make sure that when we come back after all these works are finished, it is a place that is fit for the future. In particular—many Members have referred to this in the debate already—we have to ensure that we have the digital technology we need to run a modern democracy, whether that is in the Chamber, our Committee Rooms or our meeting areas. We need a clear plan for setting priorities for delivering a Parliament that is, as the vision says, “welcoming to all”.
I commend the Women and Equalities Committee for considering some of that as part of its broader inquiry on a gender-sensitive Parliament. A number of other Members in this debate and elsewhere have raised the issue of disability access, but we need to have a much more cohesive consideration of these issues that looks at more than just the bricks and mortar; we need to look at what is going to happen. We have to determine how we can ensure that this restoration and renewal project of the fabric of our democratic institution will be viewed by all the people we represent. We need to make it a place that is welcoming for all, whether that is people considering standing for election or people visiting to see their democracy in action.
I would like to make one final point, which is that there is a significant section in the strategic review on the growing use of the Palace. The report noted:
“To avoid disturbing Members and staff, major works programmes try to operate outside of ‘normal working hours’”,
and of course that is important.
The strategic review goes on to say that
“the growth in the 24/7 culture means many onsite business activities now operate beyond normal working hours. Saturdays are busy with commercial tours, weddings and other events. Hansard production plus coverage of political TV programmes (followed by production of digital newsprint) also occurs during weekend hours. Requests to film on site are also regular. Catering are now just as busy during some recess periods as”
when Parliament is sitting, and
“August is the busiest month for Tours which operate every weekday during the month.”
The report goes on to say that all of that is squeezing out some of
“the time for major building works.”
We should be concerned about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), the Chair of the Administration Committee, has taken this issue head on. He is to be applauded for his tireless work to make sure that Parliament and the House of Commons focus on their core business, and are not distracted by becoming a corporate entertainment venue or a tourist attraction. That is a cause for concern. We must not allow activities that are not core business to prevent major building works from being done now. We need to get a much better grip on this place being used for our core business as a democratic institution first and foremost, and not allow these secondary usages to crowd out the essential work that we do, but also the essential maintenance that the building needs.
I wholeheartedly disagree with the comments made earlier that this debate is self-indulgent—far from it. The way we renew our Parliament and transform it to be fit for the future as the working home of our parliamentary democracy could not be more important. Making it welcoming for all and a celebration of our rich heritage really matters. It should matter to everyone who values the future of our democracy, so it should matter to every Member of this House.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) [V]
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) is absolutely right about the importance of this iconic building. Coming from the other end of the earth, I watch many of the Commonwealth Parliaments mimicking, or trying to mimic, this one, but they cannot mimic the building.
I was a little concerned when this debate came up because I was worried that the Leader of the House was going to tell us that the can was going to be kicked further down the road. So I enjoyed his speech, but I am afraid that I join his opposite number, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), in the “get on with it” gang.
When I was on the Commission with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), we discussed this issue backwards and forwards, and we came forward with the decision that a full decant and “get on with it” action should happen. She gave an excellent speech on that—I am sorry she is not here to hear me put this point—which has saved me from having to do an awful lot of talking.
When we discussed this issue, I became aware that some of my friends in the press—I have some friends in the press, including the national press—were pretty cynical and pretty worried about the cost. I took two of them—one each from two of the national papers—around individually to show them the masonry, which was falling apart and decaying. Some of it was very ancient and in desperate need of restoration and renewal.
I also took them down to the basement—the long passageway that runs the length of the building—and showed them some of the 86 vertical chimneys running from it. They were originally designed for ventilation, which of course meant that a fire could travel laterally and vertically extremely quickly. At present, these chimneys carry a mass of electrical services of varying ages, many of them clearly defective, as well as gas pipes and so on. We have gas pipes down in the basement, as well as air conditioning conduits, steam pipes, telephone systems and communication fibres—there is, of course, also a hugely overlaid and overworked sewerage system. That infrastructure serves the whole building from end to end, moving up through the chimneys.
There is also a small duplication, which many Members will be unaware of, in the form of a corridor, much like that in the basement, running along the top of the building. In the days before the dangers of asbestos were known, that dangerous material was literally and liberally splashed everywhere from buckets. All that needs to be dealt with and preferably removed.
The sewerage system is extraordinary. It consists of two very large steel tanks, which are listed, at the Commons end, and that collect from a very large pipe that runs the whole length of the building. If we are going to do a part-and-part arrangement, that would be exceptionally difficult to deal with. As somebody mentioned, the system was put in place in 1888. It not infrequently bursts and not infrequently leaks. If it bursts over equipment or some of the infrastructure, disaster may well be staring us in the face.
Infrastructure has been laid on infrastructure. All must be removed to allow for a modern, safe replacement. This has long been realised by most who have looked into the basement over many decades. In fact, I understand that the problem was discussed in the House in 1904, as well as interminably since, but the radical renewal required has been consistently put off—the can being kicked down the road.
Any suggestion that the work could be completed from one end of the building, proceeding to the other defies logic. To even try that would greatly extend the period of the renovations and vastly increase the cost. We have to understand that the longer we wait, the more the risk of catastrophic collapse of service looms over us. In 2020, if my memory is correct, the risk was rated at a 50:50 chance of a catastrophic collapse of our services—not just fire but a collapse of our electricity, gas, telephone systems and fibres, where we have that. Fires regularly break out. We are at a real risk that means we could well have a total collapse of our internal communication system and of Parliament at both ends. As I said, I join the Opposition gang: the longer we delay, the greater the risk.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) [V]
I was shocked and saddened to learn of the death of our former colleague Mike Weatherley. I offer my deepest sympathy to his family and friends. He was an outstanding colleague and Member for Hove.
Having been a Member of Parliament for a long time, I fully understand, better than most, the need for restoration work to be conducted. I could actually do with some myself. Although I was greatly heartened by the opening statements of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I take nothing for granted. There are so many potential fire hazards around, not to mention the unsanitary state of the place generally.
When I was a member of the Administration Committee, we were taken up the Elizabeth Tower to see for ourselves how urgently the repair work was needed. Water was pouring in through the windows and the masonry was in a very poor state. As the scaffolding is gradually being removed, we can all see the transformation that has taken place, with the minimum of disruption to the work of the Palace of Westminster. This project should be taken as an example of what can be achieved without interruption to the life of the parliamentary estate. Will my right hon. Friend tell me when the project will be completed and the whole tower will be revealed?
The Palace of Westminster, as many colleagues have said, is a symbol of democracy the world over, and the envy of most other countries, but behind the façade there is severe decay. Over the past few years, there have been several instances of pieces of stonework falling from the building, endangering staff and visitors. The sewers are no longer functional. The smell along the Terrace Corridor is absolutely appalling. One need only visit the cellars, as I have, to realise the very real fire risk from the miles of electrical cabling. Electrical wiring has been added in layers over many years until it hangs like jungle creepers everywhere. A modern Parliament needs modern services, and a full upgrade is long overdue.
As a member of the all-party fire safety and rescue group, I regularly receive reports on the number of minor fires that are dealt with every month as a matter of routine. Over the past few years, much has already been done to improve fire safety. Thousands of new sprinklers have been installed, along with miles of pipework to service them. Thousands of automatic fire detection devices have also been fitted, along with voice alarms. All this has been done without disturbance and almost without the knowledge of Members and their staff. I do not think any Member would wish to see this magnificent building share the same fate as Notre Dame. The roof is leaking and stonemasonry needs restoring, not to mention the problem of the asbestos that needs to be safely removed.
I therefore accept without reservation the need for action. What I remain unconvinced by is the proposition—because it is still there—that the elected House should move out of the building. I fear that Parliament may never return, in spite of all the guarantees given.
The plan voted on by the House of Commons recommended a full decant and the provision of a temporary Commons Chamber in the courtyard of Richmond House. May I point out that the vote was extremely close—but I fully understand that every vote counts—with a majority of only 16? That is not exactly an overwhelming endorsement. Apparently, these plans, as we have heard, have now been shelved and there is a new plan to completely demolish Richmond House and rebuild it. This is not only a horrendous waste of money and time, but totally unnecessary. Demolishing a perfectly serviceable, thermally efficient, relatively modern listed building to accommodate a temporary Chamber is absolutely crazy. The so-called gold-plated solution, which seeks to create an exact replica of the Commons Chamber, is a ridiculous idea. It is also costly in terms of emissions, given the Government’s pledge to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Demolishing the building and rebuilding it is not only a complete waste of money, but would result in unnecessary additional carbon emissions.
Richmond House, a grade II listed building, where I worked in my days as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, is barely 35 years old—I was there on the day it opened—and to consider demolishing it is an absolute act of vandalism. It also delays the start of the restoration and renewal work for several years, possibly until 2027. Work should start as soon as possible to renew the hazardous wiring and other services in the Palace and to create a modern, sustainable working environment within the historic fabric of the building.
Since the vote in 2016, there has been a considerable change in the make-up of the House and the arguments for and against a full decant need to be looked at again. The Sponsor Body needs to be held to account by the elected members and its proposals properly scrutinised. I think the unelected Chamber should be the ones to decant, if that has to happen, as they have done admirably well during the covid-19 pandemic—it would probably be my only opportunity to sit on those red Benches. Hybrid or fully virtual proceedings have worked well for them over the last year, so I have favoured us using the Lords Chamber while the Commons and surrounding areas are restored. The work on the services for the whole Palace, including the cabling in the basement, could then go ahead with a minimum of disruption to Members and their staff. The Lords Chamber and the Royal Gallery can be serviced externally in terms of electricity, lighting and so on, which would provide enough working space and eliminate the need to convert the QEII Centre for the use of the House of Lords at an estimated cost of £350 million or more. The estimates of cost for the conversion of the QEII Centre did not take into account the loss of earnings for this publicly owned building and the subsequent loss to the Exchequer. Plans for the QEII Centre also include major building works to create a working space to replicate the height of the Lords Chamber—it is absolutely ridiculous.
Since 2016, with the uncertainty of Brexit compounded by the covid-19 pandemic, money is now very tight, so the economic considerations are absolutely crucial. Affordability and value for money are so important. The Chancellor has said that huge efforts need to be made to balance the books after the enormous cost to the public purse of supporting businesses throughout the pandemic. The current plans will cost billions, and I think we need to take into account the sacrifices made by our constituents over the past year and think of how it will look to them if we allow taxpayers’ money to be wasted on a white elephant. By comparison, the cost of a new school is between £20 million to £30 million, so we need to be both careful with costs and transparent in how the money is spent.
Both Houses have proved their ability to work flexibly and embrace new technology over the past year, which is what I am doing right now. It is only right that all options be looked at in order to save millions of pounds of public money and start the process of renewal as soon as possible. Virtual proceedings are not ideal, but all options need to be considered.
I do not want the Sponsor Body to be given a blank cheque. Elected Members should have oversight of the budget for this project. The recent strategic review has costs redacted, even in the copies provided to Members of Parliament. Every solution presented so far by the body inflates the costs and increases the delay in commencing the urgent work that is required to make the Palace safe for everyone who works in and visits the building.
If a temporary Chamber is required, there are cheaper and less disruptive options available, and Members of Parliament should be given the chance to debate them. The House should take this opportunity to rethink plans for a full decant and instead consider a rolling programme of work on the Palace structure and services, working continuously in three shifts. It could be completed in five years, and the continuity of Parliament in this place maintained. The current plans in no way represent value for money, the importance of which was stressed in the Act of Parliament that set up the Sponsor Body.
Some Members of Parliament serve only for one term. My length of service, together with that of a number of colleagues who have spoken in this debate, is quite unusual these days. I will never forget walking into this building on my first day as a new Member of Parliament—even if some people mistook me for a Labour Member. The magnificence of the architecture and the weight of history that these walls carry was quite overwhelming. To deny the next generation of Members of Parliament that experience, and instead to swap it for a soulless copy of the Commons Chamber in another building, would be absolutely unforgivable.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you, Sir David. You mentioned the architecture of this building, which is vital, but it is the people who make this building. Mike Weatherley was one of those people, and I counted him as a personal friend. He told me that he was standing down because he did not want to leave it too late to start another career. He did start another career, and he did it admirably well, travelling between California and the United Kingdom. I was devastated to learn of his illness, and more so this morning when I learned of his passing. My deepest condolences to his family.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) [V]
It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess); contrary to what he said, he looks to me to be in fine working order.
In preparing for this speech, I tried to think about what the public would make of what we are debating this afternoon. For someone who does not live or work around Parliament, it is probably rather hard to envisage the scale or the incredible intricate detail of the Palace of Westminster. As a new MP, I am still struggling with it. I imagine that when we talk about Parliament requiring, in some cases, quite literally hundreds of millions of pounds to be spent on it, it is probably very difficult for someone in the outside world to comprehend just where and how much of that money needs to be spent. That is the crux of this issue; in the eyes of the taxpayer, we have to justify that money.
Before I became an MP, I had some experience of renovating buildings and upgrading property. I was a director of a very large, historic family department store, which was extremely old, and we had a huge listed building that we were constantly improving, upgrading and modernising. I appreciate that that is not quite on the scale of what we are discussing. However, it beggars belief that we are in perhaps one of the greatest buildings in the world, steeped in such history, and our Parliament is in such a dire condition around us that we are discussing the need to decant. Talk about kicking the can down the road.
That raises the even bigger question of how, once we get this magnificent building restored and repaired, we keep on top of it year after year—for heaven’s sake, let us make sure that we do—and not let it get into rack and ruin before fixing it again. I have no doubt that had we maintained it properly, we probably would not be dealing with the eye-watering cost and disruption that we now face. This is an historic icon and one of the most famous buildings in our country. We absolutely should restore it to its former glory, but then we need to keep on top of it and maintain it for the next 1,000 years.
In my experience of refitting old buildings, extending supermarkets with thousands of people a day walking through them, and even putting in new floors—yes, I have also removed asbestos from buildings—we never ever shut the business for one trading day. The people we inconvenienced were far more important than us MPs. They were called “customers” and, like taxpayers, they paid for the work. I am fully aware that Parliament is a much bigger and more complex job, but the principle is the same. This is a long-term, decade-long project, and I for one am more than happy to be inconvenienced. I cannot see the public having too much sympathy for us in that respect.
The public will want to know that we are doing our job properly, making good decisions, and that they are getting value for money—more than ever at this moment in time, given the state of the public purse. Yes, it is common sense to evaluate what is best for the taxpayer, but I question whether it will be cheaper to move out entirely, allow a blank canvas, and be away from the home of democracy for years on end. I fear the repercussions of a project of this scale rolling on indeterminately, and when we would get back. Indeed, as some Members have said, some of us might never return. Alternatively, we could put up with inconvenience, but we should get on with it as these works are much needed now. Obviously, we must ensure that it is safe, but let us not keep putting off the issues, and instead start to deal with them now.
We are in recess for around four months of the year. That gives a huge degree of flexibility, and the ability to tackle the project in stages. Surely it must be feasible to work around a functioning Parliament, if that is possible, viable and cost effective. Being here is a powerful incentive to get on with the job. Out of sight, as they say, is out of mind. We have had months using a hybrid Parliament system, which could be used again if absolutely necessary, when some parts of the building were being worked on. It is fair to say that nothing is impossible, as we have seen over the past year, but we owe it to the taxpayer to spend their money wisely and properly. We as MPs are capable of being flexible and adapting, just as we and the rest of the nation have done. There are no such words as “can’t be done”, and great chunks of the work could be carried out around us, or indeed have already started. Above all, this is our home. It is where we represent our constituencies. This is the mother of democracy, and I would think carefully about the repercussions of not being inside these four walls, should we move out for a long period.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
As ever, I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for his characteristically fabulous history lesson which, as so often, filled me with a warm glow at having the honour of representing my constituents in this place. He was right to highlight the importance of this place at the centre of our national story. The walls that surround us, the very fabric of the Palace of Westminster, are a central tenet of our democracy. The palace may feature on postcards, tea-towels, ceremonial mugs and—I am guessing—the screensavers of many parliamentary staffers across this place, but first and foremost it is a working office.
This is a meeting place for representatives from around our Union, and an open and accessible centre for constituents to lobby us as their Members of Parliament. It is, of course, a thriving melting pot of political plotting, which happens in every corner of the building, not just here in the Chamber. It is vital not to lose sight of the fact that even though the palace is a symbol of London and of our nation, it is home to thousands of members of staff who support our work. Those members of staff deserve to work in a building whose fabric is not crumbling around them, where they can walk around without fear of falling masonry, and where they do not have to greet the office rat alongside their colleagues in the morning.
Naturally, the restoration of a grade I listed building and a UNESCO world heritage site housing a working legislature comes with unique challenges that are not faced by other large-scale restoration projects. We must complete the works quickly in a cost-effective manner and, vitally, with as little disruption to parliamentary business as possible, because what is this place for if not for legislating effectively, and never legislating for the sake of it, but instead doing all within our power to make people’s lives better?
The restoration and renewal process has felt like a black cloud looming over Westminster for too long. Since the appointment of a Joint Committee six years ago, it seems we have had endless back and forth and um-ing and ah-ing about the best route to follow, with no clear decision making and a troubling lack of clarity and transparency. The Sponsor Body’s strategic review—itself due in October, but published in March—was full of redacted costings, including the capital costs of a number of potential decant locations for both this place and the other place. If the Sponsor Body is trusted to make operational decisions for a significant chunk of the restoration and renewal works, it must be open and honest about how much these things are likely to cost.
I cannot stress how important it is that the cost of the work is reduced as much as feasibly possible, with no gold-plating in sight, while ensuring that democracy can still be done and we can continue to change lives for the better. I know that the past year has been an economic whirlwind for my constituents right across Bishop Auckland, and I have heard far too many stories of lost incomes, despite the Government’s unprecedented support schemes. On that note, I have severe reservations about voting in support of giving a blank cheque of up to £6 billion or more against the backdrop of such intense economic hardship, with millions upon millions spent on a management report alone, before a single brick or cable has even been restored. It is completely unacceptable.
In Bishop Auckland, we are waiting patiently for the result of our bid for just £46 million from the towns fund, so just imagine what we could do with £500 million. I do have a shopping list, Mr Deputy Speaker, including restoring the A&E, a Toft Hill bypass and a new school in Shildon, but I will save that for another day for fear of getting into trouble.
After this Chamber was bombed during the blitz and the question turned to how it should be rebuilt, Winston Churchill said:
“We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us.”—[Official Report, 28 October 1943; Vol. 393, c. 403.]
I would like to see it restored in all essentials to its old form. Churchill understood that the form and fabric of the Chamber is an essential ingredient of the fiery debates we hold in this place.
For that reason I would like to make clear how important it is that, whatever decant arrangements we agree on, we do not see a permanent return of hybrid proceedings. While virtual proceedings have allowed some hon. Members to spend more time at home with their families and in their constituencies in a difficult year, I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that not being physically in the Chamber is detrimental to the parliamentary experience. I heard the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) make this point even more eloquently than me earlier. Small things, such as the inability to intervene in virtual speeches, have led to a significantly reduced quality of debates.
I know that the proposals included in the Sponsor Body’s strategic review involve the demolition and complete redevelopment of Richmond House as the location for the decant, and these plans involve the construction of a number of, in my view, unnecessary and expensive add-ons. I may have spent only about 18 months here as a Member, but I would be more than happy to forgo access to new cafés, Committee Rooms, replica voting Lobbies and gyms if it meant that I was saving my hard-working constituents their taxes and stopping them being wasted. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) so eloquently outlined, we have heard alternative proposals, such as those from Mark Hines Architects, which has drawn up plans for a temporary Chamber of the same size and layout as the current one, saving over £500 million compared with the current proposals—and I am back to my shopping list.
However, I will admit that I do have some concerns about a full decant. That is not, as the shadow Leader of the House lightly alluded to earlier, because I would miss the place, though I would, but for two reasons: first, as I have already highlighted, because I believe we need the minimal possible disruption to our ability to do our jobs and to serve our constituents, but also because of the optics. In a time when the nation’s finances are stretched by the pandemic, how does it look to our constituents to demolish a 30-year-old building, only to construct a swanky new shiny one at vast expense just to be used temporarily?
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) cannot be here today, but she asked me to represent her view in this debate, which is that we should seek both to reduce disruption to our democratic institutions and try to save our constituents money. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough highlighted a number of cost-effective possibilities, but my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton spoke to me about the possibility of shifting this Chamber into the House of Lords and moving the peers out to an alternative place, while ensuring that the democratically elected element of this place would continue to function as normal. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) has spoken eloquently about that, too.
As I highlighted earlier, given its UNESCO heritage site recognition, this place is of global significance. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher), who also cannot be here today. She believes that the decant works must be carried out as swiftly as possible. In her words, although I would never try to deliver them in her usual vivacious style and nor in her accent from what I consider to be the wrong side of the Pennines: “In the era of global trade deals an extended decant risks our global perception. I am of the view no longer than six months is tenable or we risk the following with our global trading partners, ‘Well, why would I use your company for my projects when you can’t renovate an old building to time?’”
On the point about the companies working on these projects, I agree with the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) that this should be a huge opportunity for businesses right across our country to contribute.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) highlighted earlier, the devastating fire at Notre Dame cathedral in 2019 acted as a tragic reminder that we must get the restoration and renewal works done as quickly as possible. If we waste time dithering and delaying, quibbling over how best to decant the Palace, not only does that risk spiralling costs to the taxpayer, but it increases the risk of a catastrophic incident such as what happened in Notre Dame. That is why, contrary to the view of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), now is the time for this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) stated eloquently that since the restoration project was first actioned, circumstances have changed and the political make-up of this place has changed, and that is why it is right we have this debate today.
In conclusion, I implore the Sponsor Body and corporate officers of both Houses to come together swiftly to find a definitive path for the works. Members’ staff and most importantly the public need certainty over the timescale, costings and style of the works to rest in the knowledge that their democratically elected representatives will be able to do their duty to legislate, to scrutinise the work of Government and to keep the beating heart of democracy that our ancestors planted in this place alive and kicking for many generations to come.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
After that fantastic contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), I feel this is going to be a bit of a disappointment, but let us see how it goes.
This has truly been slightly seat-of-the-pants stuff today, believe it or not. I did not really know what to expect when I came into this debate. As we saw the opening salvos from the Leader of the House of Commons and the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), I thought we were going to see the old arguments of leave or remain, but just that we had stepped through the looking glass a little bit. As the debate has progressed, however, I think some really important points have been made. I am conscious that I will probably not be able to address all of them to the extent that I would wish to, but I would like to touch first on the idea of the opportunities that come out of this.
The right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and other hon. Members are absolutely right: there is an opportunity with these works, either way, to ensure we see the best this country has to offer—whether that means ensuring we have builders from Wednesbury, bricklayers from Spennymoor, electricians from Haslington, surveyors from Clitheroe or artists from Clifton—and to ensure that as we do this work we can showcase the best this country has to offer. We all know that it truly does have the best to offer. We need to ensure, as we come out of the pandemic and out of the economic hard times, that we use the restoration of this Palace as a symbol to everyone else that we are back and that we do support those industries, we do support our economy and we do support our local artisans. It is important that we do that at the heart of our democracy.
Picking up on a point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), this is an important debate. Do not get me wrong. There are other things I wish to talk about as well, of course. I want to have debates about how we protect survivors of domestic violence. I want to have debates about ensuring that the children in areas such as Princes End in my constituency, which has some of the highest rates of child poverty, get the resources and the opportunities they deserve. But at the moment, the way we do that is by ensuring that the basis of our democracy—the area we have those debates in—functions; that it can operate, that we can have those debates and done in the right way. Because if this place slows down and is not operational, we cannot do that and we cannot change people’s lives. That is why every single one of us is here: to change people’s lives for the better. That is why we are here, irrespective of party and irrespective of whether we are a socialist, Conservative, Unionist or nationalist, and to be able to do that, we need a place to do it from.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland that we must ensure we are back here after any sort of decamp, because that is what the public expect. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North made an interesting point when she said that her constituents saw this as a stuffy place. For the schoolchildren from areas such as Tipton in my constituency who came down pre-pandemic, this place was awe-inspiring. I remember welcoming a school down from Tipton just before the pandemic and their awe at this place. Many of them felt that this place was inaccessible to them, and I was so proud, as their Member of Parliament, to show them round and say to them, “No, you can come here, and do you know what? One day you could be sat on these Benches, and you should be able to aspire to be here.”
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is making a fantastic point. I have had the opportunity, through the Parliamentary Education Centre, to have schoolchildren from the different strands of education—state schools, Catholic-controlled maintained schools and integrated schools—come to this place, and they all look forward to it, because it is an opportunity for them to see the mother of Parliaments at work and to ask their Member of Parliament questions. He is right: it is also an opportunity for us to give encouragement to those young people, who one day could be Members of Parliament.
Shaun Bailey
I thank the hon. Gentleman—my hon. Friend, if I may say so—for that intervention. He is absolutely right. It has been disappointing that, because of the pandemic, I have not had the opportunity to show more schools round, but I hope to be able to do so in the future with our fantastic Education Centre, which I pay tribute to for the work it does, as I am sure all Members do.
I touched previously on the best of British, and we have to ensure that the procurement is open and transparent. That is key, and it is what the public expect, particularly given the fact that we have gone through some interesting times over the last few months. We need to ensure that there is transparency. I will not regurgitate all the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland made about transparency on the costings, because she articulated them much better than I would, but we need to be up front with people about the cost of this. When we talk about billions of pounds, what does that actually mean? We bandy these words around in the Chamber quite a lot, but sometimes that can feel quite disconnected, as I know from the conversations I often have with my constituents, particularly a few weeks ago on the doorsteps.
For example, the £29 million spent on the Elizabeth Tower project could pay for us to run nearly 1,000 police stations in my constituency. I am actually losing all my constituency’s police stations, but that is a different matter altogether that we are not going to talk about right now. The point is that we have to make this relative to the people we represent, because I think we all agree that ultimately this is their Parliament. We are the custodians of it, but this is their Parliament, and we have to ensure that we do the work on their building—on the people’s building—in the way that they would expect us to do it, which is transparent and cost-effective and respects the situation that we now find ourselves in.
As many Members have said, when people are losing their jobs and their livelihoods, it is difficult to explain why we are spending millions of pounds on a building. I would find it difficult to go into some of my most deprived communities that have lost so much and say to them, “We’ve just spent millions of pounds on knocking down a 35-year-old building.” I would struggle to look them in the eye and justify that.
I am conscious of the need to allow colleagues to make their contributions, so I will conclude. We have to get this right. As many Members have said, it is about the people who are here; they are at the heart of this. I echo the comments made about accessibility, which is really important. The hon. Member for Bristol West articulated that very well, and I absolutely agree with her. We have to ensure that, as part of the works, this place is accessible to everyone and allows everyone, irrespective of additional need, to access it.
Equally, we must ensure that the people we engage to do the work pay the living wage and use apprentices and that this work is done to advocate social mobility, so that people from all backgrounds and all strands of life can be part of the work and benefit from it.
This is vital work. It will set the stage for how this place is viewed in the decades to come. It is vital that we get this right and get this done, but it must be done in the right way that respects our communities.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
It is always an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey). I must mention my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham) really wanted to contribute to the debate. I know he shares many of my views. I am grateful to be able to speak in this critical debate on how this fantastic building can be protected, preserved and restored for generations to come.
I start by agreeing with the general principle that Parliament must be restored, not only because I seem to spend more of my time with Stuart Little in this building than with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), but because, as much as it is a working building, it is also a symbol identifiable around the world. It is our physical manifestation of democracy and British values, and it is a majesty to work in. I still remember the feeling I had after the 2019 general election when I came into this place for the first time as the representative of Hyndburn and Haslingden. I remember it because I still feel it to this day. This building gives us pride. It encourages us to be thoughtful, considered and collegiate, and it is steeped in history, from Westminster Hall to St Stephen’s Chapel. Let us not forget, and as we remembered only last week, that night during the second world war when this place was bombed by the Luftwaffe.
As a new MP, I cannot imagine being elected and not having the experience of walking into this place, but sadly that is what is proposed. Rather than work occurring around Members of Parliament, recognising the importance of this place’s continuing to function, as it managed even after being bombed during world war two, the proposal is for us all to leave. We all recognise that remaining in situ, with construction occurring around us, would be disruptive, but disruption is, I believe, a price worth paying. It can only be because of an aversion to disruption that works have not taken place already. Generations have ducked this question. It is right and proper that we do not, and that we finally take the decisions on how much disruption can be tolerated and how much we are willing to pay, both immediately and over time.
Unfortunately, nothing that I have seen in these costings indicates a genuine attempt to get a handle on the costs of this colossal project. The most striking number I have heard so far is a potential cost of the survey running into the hundreds of millions of pounds. That money spent elsewhere would fund new schools, hospitals, road upgrades, rail line openings, freeports and research and development—all things that can make an enormous difference to the lives of my constituents. They create jobs, they level up, they spread equality of opportunity. For that money being spent on this project, what do we get? How much change do we see? Not very much. It will fund investigations and deliberations.
I accept that work will cost money, and my constituents accept that too, but we have to be proportionate. We have to consider the wider economic circumstances and those of our constituents. We have urgent infrastructure needs in Hyndburn and Haslingden. We do not need surveys. For this project to succeed, and most importantly to bring the public with it, we need to be realistic on the cost. What is realistic in the short term that needs doing as one block, and what can we span over multiple years, allowing our economic recovery to take hold, allowing us to deliver on some of our levelling-up promises so that opportunity is spread?
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) [V]
It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe). The Palace of Westminster is a building, but it is more of an institution. It is of incredible historical importance, and for new Members like me, who have been deprived of valuable time in it, it is an iconic place to be revered for future generations. I, for one, fully support the move to not only restore it but to bring it up to date, ready for others to use it, appreciate its history and create more history within its walls. Its importance is enjoyed not only by those of us who sit here; more than 1 million people visit Parliament every year, including schoolchildren, constituents, businesses, charities and tourists.
However, a large part of this debate is about the value for money of this project. It is imperative that the many Members who, like me, are recent additions to this place are given the opportunity to scrutinise this project for our constituents. After the last year or so that they have endured, they need to see us enact our role as custodians of the public purse, which as we all know has taken a real hammering because of covid. However, we also need to make progress and not procrastinate any further. This place deserves our attention and investment, which has been delayed for too long. We need to reappraise what we are spending and how. Clearly, there are some non-negotiables, such as improving fire safety—we certainly do not want to see a Notre-Dame. However, covid, although wreaking havoc on so many aspects of life, has also shown us that changes in working practice can be delivered at extraordinary speed when there is a will. We need to take that mindset and see how we can substantially reconsider the ways in which operations can continue, albeit with some transitional inconvenience, while the restoration and renewal is delivered.
An ex-boss of mine, now sadly departed, had a phrase in managing our business: “follow the cash”. We need to do precisely that. It is said that if we look after the pennies, the pounds will look after themselves, but we also hear about people being penny wise and pound foolish. It is imperative we look for value at every stage and keep our focus on the pounds. We need proper procurement and management. This is not a private project with a private purse, so we must not be wasteful and we must have a stringent procurement process that is robustly and explicitly in control. We must see that things are done not only well and right, but appropriately, and without extravagance and wasteful spending where it is not really necessary.
There is also a way in which we can make this project contribute to the country’s purse. The Houses of Parliament restoration and renewal programme states that the restoration will be a
“national infrastructure project that will benefit small and medium-sized enterprises and create training opportunities all over the country.”
Small and medium-sized enterprises will be engaged in supply chains and will benefit significantly from the contract spend. It certainly makes sense that the contracts born of the restoration of such a quintessential British heritage site be given to British businesses. Only by ensuring that this project provides jobs to British companies and British people, and provides stimulus to British supply chains, can we truly claim that we are providing value for money and offsetting costs by allowing the job and business benefits to be here, where the source of the money is.
The project writes:
“The Delivery Authority will create a host of new employment and training opportunities, supporting thousands of jobs in construction, engineering, design, and IT”.
This will be
“as well as attracting those with specialist skills in carpentry, stonemasonry, metalwork, and heritage conservation”
and more.
The latter of those trades, which will have struggled during our national lockdown and need contracts, are also often to be found and practised in the areas we might call “left behind”. We need to ensure that unless there is absolutely no alternative all contracts remain on British soil. Not only would we support those who have faced some of the worst effects of the pandemic, but this might go a way towards our levelling-up agenda and give stimulus to some sectors and areas that have fallen behind in recent decades. Here is a good opportunity to take a good deal of money, which it will be, by necessity, and inject it into areas that really need it.
I must be clear that, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, this place is special. It is fundamental that it remains special and it continues to be a special home of democracy. Technology must be used to help the transition and we must minimise the frustrations to true debate, which this place affords normally but has failed to deliver over the past year, just as now, when I am giving a speech but this is not a debate that I am part of, even though we have this video link. Of course we need to deliver technology in this place that is as future-proof as possible, but we also need to have such broad thought on that, because in the time it will take to do that we cannot possibly imagine the further technological innovation that will take place. It is a difficult thing to do, but we must attempt to make sure we future-proof, where possible. We of course need to recognise that the positive changes in the perspective of inclusivity that we have seen in society must be fully incorporated into the fabric of this programme.
In conclusion, done well, this project is an excellent opportunity to invest, rather than just spend, the taxpayer’s money, but it must be delivered in a way where our constituents can be confident that their money has been appropriately spent and that this place retains its place as the iconic seat of democracy.
Thangam Debbonaire
We have had a good debate today. I am pleased to be part of closing this debate and to have seen almost every speech and heard the range of views. The well-informed right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who worked hard on so many things in her time as Leader of the House, reminded us, with a note of frustration, of how we got here. I understand that frustration, because she reiterated —as it needs to be reiterated—the increased costs of either delaying things or maintaining a continued presence in this place.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) has enormous expertise and is a font of knowledge not only on why we need to just get on with the job, but on how to do that well. As he said, he has been on every Committee that has discussed this matter over many years. He has put a great deal of thought not only into making sure that we are doing a good job as custodians for future generations, but into how we can make the decamp work.
It is also fair to say that other hon. and right hon. Members of the sponsor body board, including the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who have obviously put in an enormous amount of work and said so today, made it clear that doing nothing, patching up and making do are no longer options. I do not know whether there is anybody left in this House who thinks that it is an option to do nothing, patch up and make do, but just in case, let us make it clear that that is not an option. Pretending that we do not need to do this is also just wrong, but so, too, is pretending that it is not going to cost more if we do this in a way that keeps us in here at increased cost, expense, time, risk and various other things that I might not have thought of.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, with her eye for detail and ability to cut to the heart of the argument, pointed out that the costs of endlessly and repeatedly debating the matter means that we keep on spending money. We carry on spending the taxpayers’ money that many hon. Members here today have said that they want to take care of. We all want to take care of taxpayers’ money. I cannot think that there is a single Member in this place who is not acutely aware of taxpayers’ money. That is why so many of us want to ensure that we are preventing the further unnecessary spending of taxpayers’ money that is occurring because of delay in the stop and start approach.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) made his case for getting on with the job with his customary style. He raised concerns about the disruption to the centre of London and put forward the interesting case for using the Thames as a conduit. While I am extremely fond of the Thames, I have also seen the sort of construction works that are needed to take place to make a landing-stage in tidal water such as the Thames, and I do have to say to him that I would like him to come to us with more information, but I am very concerned that his suggestion would mean more disruption, more noise and possibly more delay. However, it is obviously something that needs sorting out and with speed.
It was disappointing to hear so many hon. Members talking about taxpayers’ money as if we are not at risk of having to spend more taxpayers’ money if we do not act or if we do not decant to allow the work to get on efficiently. It is disappointing to hear it framed as if this were not a place of work for thousands of people, not just MPs, and as if it were not also the property of the taxpayers whom we are representing.
I have not yet mentioned voids. Anybody at all who has visited a tower block with dangerous cladding or other fire safety defects in the past few years, as I have, cannot fail to be horrified at the news of the voids that exist across this estate that present a great fire risk if they are not remedied. If we remain here while they are being remedied, that, in my view, represents an unnecessary risk at which to put MPs and, more importantly, staff.
I am glad to say that I found myself in agreement across party lines many times this afternoon—as I have already said with the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire and other members of the board. The right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) put forward many well-made points. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke with his customary charm and showed his willingness to try the difficult road. He has embraced technology even when he, I and many others have been, frankly, quite bothered by it at many times in the past year, and he is willing to put himself through more of the same so that we can do our work efficiently on behalf of the people we represent. Would that everybody would follow that example and be willing to take that difficult road. I say that even though I have frequently had cause to want to do something really rather fierce with my iPad when I have heard yet another person say, “You’re on mute.” I am going to get that put on a T-shirt to save everybody time.
What is in it for taxpayers? Apprenticeships, jobs, skills and crafts—businesses up and down the country are going to benefit from the money that we are not spending but investing. We are investing it not just in the building but in the constituencies of those Members who have expressed understandable concern about the cost. Of course, there must not be an unlimited flow of money—we all agree that that is essential. I cannot stress too highly that I do not think a single Member does not believe in value for money for the taxpayer—but in my view, from what I have read and been briefed on by the various experts, the idea of a partial decant to the House of Lords fails to take into account the fact that this is an entire estate, complete in itself. Although flawed, it is connected, with those flaws, which would in itself put us at possible further risk.
Mark Tami
I thank my hon. Friend for the very kind words she said about me earlier. On the point she is making, I am sure the Leader of the House agrees, because he was also on the Joint Committee, and we spent months—probably more than a year—looking at every one of the options, including using the House of Lords. On the surface it seems quite a sensible case of just moving down there, but as my hon. Friend rightly says this is one building and one set of services. It would be incredibly expensive and difficult to try to create new services, and we would still be working in a building site, so it just would not work.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank my right hon. Friend for that detailed and informed view.
It is also worth reminding Members—and I say this respectfully to newer Members—of the awful day when we were locked in here because of the terrible murder of PC Keith Palmer. That cannot have failed to have alerted everybody in this place to security risks that we all would really rather we did not have. We have to remain within a secure perimeter, and I want to take seriously the advice that we have had from security specialists who say that staying within the northern estate is vital if we are to maintain security. Again, I have to say that it is not about us; it is about our staff and the public.
I have heard mention of Portcullis House; I walked across Portcullis House atrium yesterday and counted not one, not two, but three buckets collecting water from a leaky roof, so we are going to have to do some work if we think we are going to decant into Portcullis House. That is also a cautionary tale of what happens when we do not keep up with the maintenance.
I say to all right hon. and hon. Members, whether new or long-standing, that if they have not—as I have not yet, but I am booked to—taken the tour of horror, which I am told is really quite the horrifying tour, please will they do so? I think it will help those who have said that they do not how to explain it to their constituents. I completely get that, because to begin with I was not sure how, but once I had seen some of the pictures and heard some of the tales—I am about to go and see for myself—I finally understood how to talk to my constituents, because my constituents own this place, as do the constituents of other Members. That is why we need to stop the delays, recognise that the costs of delay are high and realise that a partial decant is in and of itself both a delay and a cost.
We need to recognise that the specialness of this place is worth preserving. This place is worth modernising and enhancing. Debate itself can take place anywhere that there are two politicians of different parties in a room—and even more so if they are of the same party. That debate can take place anywhere, and we now know that we can also vote in really quite constrained circumstances. It is not ideal, but it will do us until we can get back in here, fully modernised and fully safe.
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I begin with the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) and by you, Mr Deputy Speaker: our mutual friend, Mike Weatherley, whose death was sadly reported today? He and I coincided—we were elected to Parliament at the same time—and he was a friend to every Member of this House. He was a kindly, good, decent, hard-working person. We send our deepest sympathies to his family and pray for the repose of his soul.
This has indeed been an excellent debate. I am grateful to everyone who participated, particularly the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), who has taken a very constructive and thoughtful approach to this matter. I think that we can work together, because it is one of those occasions where there is much more agreement than perhaps there appears to be on the surface. I will try to go through that and, at the same time, try to respond to all the contributions that have been made.
First, let me record my gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for representing us on the Sponsor Body, for the work that he is doing, and for the extremely measured and thoughtful approach that he characteristically takes, pointing out to us that ultimately we will have to make choices. We will have to decide on what we want, to consider phasing, and to work out how much is renewal and how much is straight restoration. This will be fundamental to how the scheme is costed in the end.
I also thank my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who unfortunately is not in her place for the wind-ups. Given that she was the Leader of the House, she knows where this programme began and piloted it through its beginning stages very successfully. She made some important points about recognising that the work has to be done. That is fundamental. There is nobody who disagrees with that at all. The work needs to be done, and it needs to be done as soon as is practicable. There has been absolutely no delay in my period as Leader of the House. Indeed, I would argue the reverse.
Interestingly, my right hon. Friend gave an example of the stone falling on to the car of our right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. That was not at the Palace; it was at Norman Shaw. That is why the works that we are doing have to be phased, and the work on Norman Shaw is taking place. I can tell the House that the plans for Norman Shaw are under way and the proposals are being made, and, as we are not now intending effectively to bulldoze Richmond House, they are going ahead faster. The planning permission went in, I think, in March and the work on Norman Shaw North should have its own decant in December 2021, with external works commencing in January 2022 and completion of the project in October 2025.
I have to tell the House that if we were continuing with the Richmond House programme, were waiting for that to happen and had not used Richmond House as the decant option for Norman Shaw, we would not even have started on Norman Shaw until 2025, let alone completed it. I must therefore reject the idea that things have not been happening.
Derby Gate, which of course creates some of the space for people moving out of Norman Shaw, will see people moving into it on 31 July this year. The preliminary works are taking place, and they are taking place faster because we have been trying to get the scheme under control. That is the second part of the work. The first part was to recognise that it needed to be done, but the second part was to look at the cost.
When I became Leader of the House, in one of my early meetings on restoration and renewal, it was suggested to me—this is not a formal forecast—that the cost range was likely to be £10 billion to £20 billion. That is ridiculous. It is not an amount that even those of us who are most committed to the project think is reasonable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said in his excellent speech that the figures for Richmond House had risen to £1.6 billion. I knew that the combined cost of moving the two Chambers was £1.5 billion, but my right hon. Friend was suggesting £1.6 billion just for Richmond House.
The right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), as always, made a thoughtful contribution in which he spoke about decant. My opposition to decant has never been decant per se; it has always been a means to an end on cost. We were getting schemes that were so ridiculously expensive that one had to push back and say, “Surely there is a better and cheaper way of doing it.” Whether we can get it down to the £46 million suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, I am not certain, but £1.6 billion is not proper stewardship of public funds.
Meg Hillier
The right hon. Gentleman talks about cost, but we of course do not know what the cost is until the business case comes through, and I think that needs to be clear. Is he really suggesting that if we do the work around us, that will be cheaper than if we move out and do it in one hit and then come back?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I have not begun to suggest that, and I am very glad that the hon. Lady has intervened on me, because the figures given by the Public Accounts Committee on the £127 million of running costs that we are expending are not very well explained in the Committee’s report. If she wants to explain them, I would be delighted to give way.
Meg Hillier
The figures quoted are from the National Audit Office, and the full details are in the National Audit Office’s work. They are then simply quoted in the Public Accounts Committee report. It is National Audit Office work that is done to get those figures in the report.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Those figures seem to relate to the £44 million spent on the Northern Estate project, the £24.6 million for Canon Row, the £15.9 million for fire safety, the £12.6 million for the Elizabeth Tower and the £4.8 million for IT, almost all of which will continue regardless of how R and R is done. Therefore I am concerned about the impression being given by this figure that there is a massive increase in cost because we have not yet moved out. I do not think that is accurate, but if the hon. Lady would like to give more elaboration on the figures, I would find it very helpful.
I have tried to look for further details to understand what is being quoted in that £127 million figure that was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire and alluded to by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). I think it is important to get an understanding that a lot of the costs we are being told are extra are actually preliminary, because we are getting on with the work to get things ready.
There is the crucial work—a number of people have mentioned Notre Dame—on fire safety. We should bear in mind that the fire safety work has been tested and completed, with the exception of the Victoria Tower, in the past few months, and includes: 7,112 automatic fire detection devices; 1,364 locations for fire stopping compartmentation, dividing the Palace into 16 compartments; 4,126 sprinkler heads in the basement of the Palace, so the risk that we have heard about of a conflagration from the basement is very, very significantly reduced; and the 8 miles of pipe that I have referred to before.
It is really important to understand that a lot of work is already going on and ties in with the outline business case, which is being carried out to schedule by the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority. That is the right way to proceed, because a number of people have mentioned the Elizabeth Tower, including the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, and what went wrong there with the cost going up from £29 million to £80 million. The key thing we learn from that is that we need to do the outline business case in detail.
I actually think that had we said to the British people, “To redo Big Ben, a national symbol, would cost us £80 million”, the British people would have said that that was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I think the criticism came because the expense rose as the process unfolded. We want to ensure that that does not happen with restoration and renewal and that we get a figure that is realistic.
Shaun Bailey
Just to touch on that very briefly, if I understand my right hon. Friend correctly, it is not so much that we have an aversion to public expenditure; what I think he is trying to say is that we should be up front with the public about exactly what that looks like. Am I correct in understanding what he is trying to say there?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Absolutely, but within limits. The £10 billion to £20 billion would, I think, test the patience of most of our voters. That is why I do not think that this House should go blindly into approving or delegating this scheme without knowing precisely what the cost is. This debate is therefore important, because the outline business case is being worked on as we speak. Those involved have begun the survey work, and they are getting on with it, which is really important. But if they come back to us in early 2023 and say, “The cost is going to be £10 billion to £20 billion.” there will be a vote in this House to approve it or not. I have a nasty feeling that if it is at that level, we will not approve it, and yet the work must be done. So now is the time to give the message that we are willing to accept a little inconvenience and to have more restoration than renewal, and that while we have to ensure that disability access is done properly, we recognise that the last percentage of disability access is the most expensive. There are therefore compromises that we will be called upon to make.
Meg Hillier
On the Elizabeth Tower—I alluded to this, but perhaps I should quote directly from the NAO report—Parliament’s internal auditors identified, among other things,
“inadequate project governance; high turnover of project staff; and poor cost estimation.”
That really encapsulates the things that we do not want to get wrong with this project. It will cost a lot of money, but we need to be sure that we have had proper governance and proper cost destination and that we are presenting to the public a figure that is real, even though it will not be cheap.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am absolutely at one with the hon. Lady, and I am grateful for that helpful intervention. That is why the outline business case is being worked on now. We hope to have some preliminary idea about it early next year, with the vote on it in 2023.
Let me return to some of the individual contributions. My neighbour and right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) emphasised the symbolism, the need to get on with things and the stonework. It is important that, under the Act, the Commission—I can assure the House that the Commission is very aware of this—is allowed to carry out repairs before the R and R body takes over. We have scaffolding up, so it seems sensible to try to do repairs where we can. There is no point in having scaffolding, as it currently is, just acting like the slips, waiting to see what catches come its way, although of stonework rather than cricket balls. So I agree with what my right hon. Friend said.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) seemed to want to become Old Father Thames, which was a rather charming way of suggesting how we should rebuild the Palace. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) emphasised the limits on public money, as did the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He also encouraged, as did many others, UK-wide working and opportunities, and pressed for answers on timescales, which we will get in the outline business case.
I find myself in a very high level of agreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who pointed out that this is a place of work. Although it is nice that tourists come to see it, that must not interfere with its work as a legislature, and if we need to do building work in August, it cannot be open to the public in that time. Getting that priority right is very important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) said, “Get on with it!” I hope that I have persuaded him that we are getting on with it, and that is what everybody wants to do. As I have set out, the preliminary works are very much already happening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West wanted a date for the Elizabeth Tower, and I will give him a date. I am told that the bells will ring in early 2022. Now, “early”, when used by the civil service, is one of those things that I have learned about in my brief time in Government, and early 2022 could mean some time in December, but it would be early December. However, there is a better promise, which is that the scaffolding will be down by summer 2022—“summer”, of course, is an equally elastic term. What particular point in summer, I do not know, but we are almost there. The bells were being tested this morning, and it was really rather wonderful to hear them—it was uplifting. My hon. Friend made the crucial point, which was so helpful to the argument, that the Richmond House planning would have delayed us until 2027, which would have been an added complication and problem with the whole programme.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) brought his own experience to bear in a very interesting way, and talked about how we look after customers. He said that we do not inconvenience them, but that we sometimes have to recognise the need to keep going regardless.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) made an inspiring and sparkling speech. She was against gold-plating, as am I, and did not want a blank cheque in these economic circumstances. She reminded us of Churchill’s view of how buildings shaped our democracy. She also talked about what it would look like to our constituents if we decided to do things in a sort of Liberace way—I am not very keen on doing things in a Liberace way. [Interruption.] I am being mobbed out from the Front Bench by the Deputy Chief Whip. As he has 330 votes in his pocket, I must not ever dare to disagree with him; otherwise, Government business might become problematic.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) mentioned opportunities and the need for there to be a plan for jobs. I think his basic plea was for every member of his constituency to be employed on the parliamentary estate. He referred to apprenticeships. Apprenticeships will be important and will have a long-running benefit for the heritage of this country because the stonemasons who are trained here will then be stonemasons who work on our great cathedrals and other heritage buildings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) mentioned the symbolism of this place and told us very clearly—I think this is the right way to put it—that we cannot duck the question. If we duck the question, we will end up grousing, to carry the bird thought through. But that is what we are doing now: we are not ducking the question.
I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) spoke. I fear that even now, nearly 18 months after the general election, one’s heart still leaps at the thought that Sedgefield is a Conservative seat. Leaving that little point aside, he mentioned what an iconic institution this is with its 1 million visitors. Follow the cash, as his old boss used to say to him, is what we must definitely be doing. The important point is that it is very hard to future-proof in terms of technology, because we think we are future-proofing but the technology goes off in some other direction that we did not think about. So we have to be open to a variety of opportunities.
This is a long-term project and it will come at very considerable cost to the taxpayer. The solutions we arrive at must therefore be the best option for the preservation of the Palace of Westminster and in the public interest, prioritising value for money. This is fundamentally a parliamentary project. I cannot remember who said that actually it is a fundamentally House of Commons project, because the symbolism of this House as the democratic House is what people think about when they look at the Palace of Westminster. I have the greatest admiration and respect for their lordships, but when people look at this palace, they think of the home of the world’s oldest democracy. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset made that fundamentally important point. It is a parliamentary project. It is a House of Commons project. We are the ones who are accountable to taxpayers.
I have set out my Government’s views and other hon. and right hon. Members have set out theirs. I am confident that the restoration and renewal programme team will listen to those carefully, and in the coming months the Sponsor Body will engage with MPs and peers to seek their views on how the proposals should develop. It is vital that parliamentarians give their time, energy and expertise to this process so that collectively we shape a programme that safeguards both the Palace of Westminster and taxpayers’ money, and will make St Peter proud.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
If there is a Liberace candelabra going spare, I can think of no more fitting place than the Leader of the House’s modest office.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.
Business without Debate
Standards
Privileges
North of England: Transport Infrastructure
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am pleased that other hon. Members intend to make a contribution.
The Government talk a lot about levelling up and there can be few more important elements of that agenda than transport. It is critical if we want to grow our national economy or cut our national carbon emissions. It is critical if we want to heal the growing inequality, division and disillusionment that are tearing at the fabric of our country. However, this is not just an agenda for the north; it is an agenda for the whole of the UK—one we should be able to collaborate on constructively, no matter what our party. But it is also an agenda that demands action, not words. The change we need will not come with half measures.
Of course, right now, all our transport is reeling from the impact of covid, so the first ask of Government is to ensure that support is sustained until passenger numbers and confidence recover. Cutting back too soon would force urgent cuts to services, needlessly deepening the hole that we need to climb out of. I know that the Minister takes these matters very seriously, and I am sure—and certainly hope—that he agrees that any such cuts would be very short-sighted.
However, our goal has to be so much more than survival, and nowhere is there more potential or more need for ambition than with our buses. They have suffered from decades of ideological neglect—a perfect example of free market fundamentalism—but they are the backbone of our public transport and the most realistic place to look for the quick results we need on decarbonisation, congestion and inclusion. The only appropriate ambition for our buses is a truly world-class service, and that is what I am working to achieve in South Yorkshire. That ambition means a rapid shift to a zero carbon fleet. It means affordable, flexible fares. It means routes and frequencies that genuinely serve all our communities, and it means buses integrated into a coherent regional system, with seamless connections across every mode. If the Netherlands can do it, why cannot we? If we build a system that works, people will use it, but that, of course, needs funding.
I am genuinely pleased that we now have a national bus strategy. It is a welcome recognition of the utter failure of deregulation but, so far, it is long on aspiration and short on detail, with no clarity yet over how 85% of the promised £3 billion will be spent, or how much of it will reach places such as South Yorkshire. The Government’s ZEBRA—zero emission bus regional area—funding for electric buses similarly sounds great, but it is a competitive pot that will cover only a handful of areas across the whole country. Central revenue funding for bus services was slashed by almost 20% between 2009 and 2018 and is an unbelievable 15 times lower per head in Sheffield than it is in London. Three billion pounds sounds quite a lot, but it is a fraction of what is needed to repair the damage. If the Government are serious about change, we need to have adequate, long-term and reliable funding.
The issue with buses is not just funding, but structure and ownership. Deregulation has been disastrous, so the Government must give Mayors and local government leaders not just the freedom, but the support to make bolder changes, such as moving to franchising, if that is needed, in order to have the control, integration and value for money that a world-class service demands.
We need a similar ambition for our trams. Supertram is a great, zero-emission success in Sheffield but, after 30 years, it needs funding for renewal and improvements such as extending our groundbreaking tram-train services. Meanwhile, there is enormous untapped potential for similar systems in other northern regions such as West Yorkshire.
Active travel must be another central priority for northern transport. It helps people to live healthier lives, supports more pleasant and connected communities and gets cars off the road. It reduces carbon emissions and other air pollution, and is accessible to people on lower incomes. That is why, in South Yorkshire, we are investing more than £100 million in it over the next two years and are working with the Government to do still more. But we need that sort of investment right across the north. We also need to electrify all road transport, not just our buses. The Government have a critical role in encouraging a wide network of charging points, but the rate of installation is currently just a fifth of what it needs to be to meet the UK’s climate goals. The modest means available betray the grand aspiration.
The role of central Government is especially critical in rail. High Speed 2 has dominated much of that debate but, for me, faster rail journeys to London are a distinctly secondary contribution to levelling up. My first priority is transport within my region—the sort that gets people to work and the shops every day—and then the transport between the cities and towns of the north, especially Northern Powerhouse Rail. HS2 makes sense because it promises to enable those things but, if it undermines them instead, it deeply compromises its claim to be part of levelling up.
Like other northern leaders, I am hugely concerned that the Government are considering delaying or cutting corners with NPR, or combining it with the trans-Pennine upgrade to help pay for HS2. The Minister has been supportive in the past and I hope that he will reassure me today that that is not the case.
Equally concerning is the possibility that HS2 East through Sheffield and Leeds could be postponed. Not only would that make HS2 meaningless in terms of levelling up for a huge swathe of the north, including some of its most deprived areas, but it would jeopardise NPR and local transport investment around Sheffield. It would be the worst of all worlds.
Therefore, if the Government are serious about HS2 being a project for the north, they should build phase 2 in its entirety, on time, while doing the same for NPR, Midlands Engine Rail and other supporting works. That might sound like quite a lot to ask, but having embarked on HS2 with a promise that it would not come at the cost of northern regional rail renewal, the Government cannot now propose half measures.
The full impact of HS2 and NPR is more than a decade away, so the Government can and must move decisively to level up northern rail now. Across the region, there are smaller-scale investments that can have an outsized impact. We have set out the case for early investment in midland main line electrification up to Sheffield and the work between Sheffield and Clayton Junction to deliver an HS2 and NPR-ready section within 10 years. I hope that the Minister will agree that that should be prioritised, irrespective of when HS2 East goes ahead.
The works to improve the Manchester central corridor will have benefits across the north of England. A rail link from Doncaster Sheffield Airport would unlock the huge potential of GatewayEast. Simply getting on with the endlessly delayed electrification of our existing lines would give a major boost not just to decarbonisation, but to simplified rail operations and high-skilled jobs. Instead, we are left fighting service reductions, like the potential suspension of direct trains from Sheffield to Manchester Airport. The lack of a direct link to a major airport 45 miles away is just not compatible with any serious ambition for our railways.
Amid all the talk of renewal, the Government are cutting Network Rail’s enhancement budget by £1 billion and have slashed the operating budget for Transport for the North. The just published Williams review is a welcome, if so far incomplete, admission of the failures of privatisation and the need for a single strategic body for rail. However, it still runs the risk of putting profits ahead of passengers and leaves major questions unanswered, notably on the structure of our railways and decarbonisation.
Over the decade to 2019, the north received barely 40% of the per capita public spending on transport that went to London. That is a huge gap to make up, but it is not just about the money; it is also about how things are done. To succeed, transformation needs to happen in partnership with—and where possible, led by—local government. We need stronger local and regional devolution, including a northern transport budget and an end to piecemeal competitive funding pots, so that we can plan for the long term and reshape our transport systems as a coherent whole.
We need a transport strategy defined not just by greater investment but by a compelling vision for the sort of society we want to build in the north and beyond, with liveable communities, affordable transport and a rapid and just transition from fossil fuels. With the greatest respect to the Minister, whose sincerity and hard work I have seen on countless occasions, I do not believe that the Government yet have that vision. I want to acknowledge, though, the positive moves they have made, not least the providing of emergency covid support, and I am grateful for the investment that we have been able to secure in South Yorkshire recently. But if you have committed yourself to transformation, there are no prizes for good work at the margins. The Government’s talk about levelling up conceals a much meaner reality. From HS2 to TfN to buses, the investment does not yet match the fundamental change that I think we all want to see.
To conclude, the transformation of northern transport is the right goal. Our economy demands it, our environment demands it, our people demand it and basic fairness demands it. I want to work together with the Minister and the Government to ensure that we achieve it, but that means that words alone will not do. Promises alone will not do. A low-balled, scattergun investment will not do. If the Government talk about transformation, they need to act like they mean it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Dan Jarvis, the mover of the motion and Andrew Stephenson, the Minister responding, have given permission for three short contributions, and I have been informed, as per the rules.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and the Minister for allowing short contributions to this Adjournment debate from me and my colleagues. I agree entirely with the points the hon. Gentleman has been making about the crucial role that transport plays in levelling up and in delivering our environment targets, and about how we can improve our communities right across the country and especially in the north. I have absolutely no doubt that connectivity drives economic activity and that economic activity is a key driver of growth, but it is harder than it should be to move people and goods around our country, and around the north in particular.
It was great to hear the hon. Gentleman talk so much about buses. As the Minister responsible for the Bus Services Act 2017, I have to say that there were not that many voices in support of buses then. It was like, “You what?” from colleagues at the time, but buses seem to be much more in favour at the moment, and that is a good thing. I slightly disagree with one of the points the hon. Gentleman has just made, however. The deregulation of buses was not a cause of bus use decline. In the 30 years leading up to deregulation in 1985, passenger numbers on buses went down from 15.5 billion to 5.5 billion passenger journeys per year. That is an average decline of 2% a year. Since deregulation, yes indeed, passenger numbers have continued to go down, but they have gone down at the significantly reduced rate of 0.2% per year. So I think that those who were responsible for bus deregulation in the 1980s could easily make the case that they went into new territory and saved the bus industry from its precipitate decline. But let’s not worry about that. The key thing is that we have a new enthusiasm for buses.
Buses are the hard yards of our public transport system. It is impossible to imagine a good, effective transport system without buses at its heart. The drive towards more environmentally friendly buses, particularly electric powered buses such as those we have in Harrogate, will be popular right across the country. Today, we have seen the publication of the response to the Williams review. I have not yet read it all, and it will be interesting weekend reading. Again, we have questions about how to take things forward from a position of more strength. We have 140,000 services per week in our country, which is the highest level in our history. Passenger numbers have grown to 1.8 billion—a billion more passenger journeys a year since rail privatisation. People have been choosing rail, which has been a key ingredient of economic progress in this country ever since railways were invented.
Railways helped to drive the industrial revolution and made the UK the economic powerhouse that it has been. It will be interesting to see how we build on that to make it even better. There is no doubt in my mind that the system was over-complex and needed reform, and I look forward to the work that has taken place in the Department, and the Williams review.
I will conclude—short contributions only—by highlighting a couple of areas. The Minister is a great champion for investment. He has been consistent and hardworking on this issue, and I ask him to consider two areas. The first is connectivity to ports—sea ports and airports; goods and people. Liverpool2 is an example of an interesting port development. Improving access to maximise that investment is not easy, given its location, but it is important to grasp that nettle. Leeds Bradford airport involves a different mode of transport. Some years ago, more people were leaving Yorkshire to travel from Manchester airport than travelled from Yorkshire itself. If we could improve airport capacity and connectivity within Yorkshire, a significant amount of journeys would become unnecessary.
Finally, I am a big supporter of HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail, which includes delivering the eastern leg of HS2. It is important to separate the trans-Pennine rail upgrade from Northern Powerhouse Rail. Northern Powerhouse Rail is about fast connectivity between the cities of the north; the trans-Pennine rail upgrade is about connectivity into the slightly smaller towns and cities—the Huddersfields, or wherever. There is a difference between into and intra. That is not widely understood, but it is significant. The projects do different jobs, and both need to proceed. I am conscious of time, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will conclude my remarks. I know that the Minister is a great champion both from and for the north, and I want to support his work to ensure that the north gets the services it needs.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for allowing us to highlight some of the infrastructure needed in our constituencies, which go under the title of “the north.” The Minister will know all about what I am about say. I have been working with Ministers for more investment in a strategically important freight terminal in Huncoat, and the redevelopment of the Skipton to Colne railway line. Both would deliver significant economic growth in my constituency and across the north. One priority of this Government has been to set out the importance of improving west to east connectivity in the north, primarily joining Liverpool to Hull, and I reiterate the important role that Hyndburn and Haslingden can play in that.
The location of the Huncoat freight terminal is perfect and, if realised, it would be a major step forward in making connectivity more viable. Many important stakeholders in the north have already recognised the potential of a Huncoat freight terminal, as they recognise the significant role it would play in increasing distribution capacity for the movement of goods across the north-west. That is even more important when congestion at the Manchester freight terminal is taken into account, as that is a major block to continued economic growth in the north.
Manufacturing businesses across Lancashire see the terminal as a huge opportunity for them to increase their output and expand their logistics network, which will be key to increasing exports as part of our post-Brexit, post-pandemic economy. Huncoat is especially suited to work for Lancashire businesses as it sits at the centre of the motorway network. It is on the motorway junction and will need only a feeder road, meaning that goods vehicles will not cause congestion in residential areas.
As is well known, the last mile in logistics infrastructure is often the most difficult, and that is the case for Manchester. The opportunity at Huncoat would not be hindered by such challenges, however. It is a unique investment opportunity in building freight capacity not only because of its proximity to the motorway network, but because all the ground conditions are already in place for freight, as it was once part of the now-closed Huncoat quarry. In Hyndburn Borough Council’s local plan, it has been preserved for the use of a freight terminal for decades, with the support of Northern Rail, which also believes the site could be strategically important.
This project would play a wider role in supporting the reopening of the Skipton to Colne railway line, which needs a major freight transport element to make it viable. That has been highlighted by the local authority and the campaign group Skipton East Lancashire Rail Action Partnership, who have indicated that passenger journeys alone will not make the business case strong enough for this investment. I thank SELRAP for its hard work in the development of this line, and I know my hon. Friend the Minister will join me in doing so.
I will continue to work with the Department for Transport on the matter. We need that railway line, because it will provide numerous benefits to commuters and our local economy. The line will link east Lancashire with new economic opportunities in cities across the north, and better east-west connectivity will improve access to diverse employment opportunities for everyone. Importantly, the new route will connect affordable housing in east Lancashire with employment opportunities across the north, and it will be a catalyst for regeneration in communities such as mine in Hyndburn and Haslingden. The reopening of the Skipton to Colne railway line and the development of the Huncoat freight terminal will assure residents— first-time Conservative voters, I might add—across east Lancashire that the Government are delivering on their promise to level up.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
It is always an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe). I thank the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for securing this debate and allowing us all to speak on incredibly important issues. To me, transport in Rother Valley, which is in the north and part of the Sheffield city region, is one such issue. I want to focus particularly on connectivity between the two biggest towns in my constituency, Maltby and Dinnington, which have no direct bus link. That is a crucial issue for residents of those towns. It is great that the hon. Gentleman has secured this debate, because I know that he, as the Mayor of the Sheffield city region, will be listening to my pleas for that bus service.
My constituents are concerned that Maltby and the rest of Rother Valley have been neglected when it comes to recent investment in transport and infrastructure projects. Of the £47 million allocated to Rotherham to improve transport last year as part of the transforming cities fund bid submitted by the Sheffield city region, only £2.25 million has been allocated to projects that directly benefit Rother Valley. Although the transforming cities fund scheme will provide a bus corridor along the section of route between Rotherham and Maltby, the basic, core issue—the need for reliable and frequent buses connecting Maltby to jobs and educational opportunities —is not being addressed.
Maltby is the 76th most left-behind area in England, and 32% of households do not own a car. Constituents contact me constantly with deeply concerning tales of missing work, education and important appointments because buses drive past them or do not turn up. Maltby schoolchildren who are placed at Dinnington High School face a colossal one-hour journey with a bus change to travel just 5.2 miles. Workers who are offered jobs in Dinnington and Doncaster are unable to accept those opportunities because of the lack of public transport options, and I have heard cases of people missing interviews for jobs because of the poor connectivity.
I welcome the Government’s announcement of the national bus strategy, but the Sheffield city region must play its role in ensuring that Maltby and other towns and villages across Rother Valley—Dinnington, Kiveton Park, Swallownest, Treeton, North Anston and all the others—are not forgotten about. Unless the Sheffield city region steps up and presents viable projects to attract the investment that is needed, it will simply not happen. Obviously there are many other projects—this is not just about buses. For instance, I hope that Sheffield city region will join me in trying to get the South Yorkshire joint railway reopened and support my campaign to get a new station at Waverley.
Sheffield city region and this Government must prioritise Rother Valley’s transport, rather than focus on white elephants such as HS2. Rother Valley does not want HS2. South Yorkshire and my part of it do not want HS2—it is not a priority. What is a priority is the buses and the connectivity, especially to and from Maltby, to ensure that no community is left behind. I invite all parties—whether it is the Government, Sheffield city region or Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council—to work together to get the buses that my towns and villages need to be connected and to truly level up Rother Valley and all of South Yorkshire.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing this important and timely debate, and I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) and for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) for their short contributions.
I think we can all agree that we share the same vision: a north that is better connected, more resilient and fully able to realise its full economic potential—in short, levelling up the northern powerhouse and building on the £29 billion invested in transport across the region since 2010. The Government are steadfastly focused on delivering that vision. The Department for Transport in particular, led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is also the Cabinet Minister responsible for the northern powerhouse, is delivering real change on the ground and accelerating priority projects to make that ambition a reality. We know that there are significant challenges. The pandemic has dealt a huge blow to transport users and operators across the north. In South Yorkshire, the Department ensured continuity of services with £500,000 in the bus service support grant and almost £10 million in light rail support to the Sheffield Supertram.
As the vaccination roll-out continues at pace across the country and we look forward to the lifting of restrictions, the challenge now faced by the north is how we get on with building back better after covid-19. There are already promising signs. For example, the pandemic has renewed our focus on moving to a zero-carbon future. Sheffield city region received almost £7 million from the emergency active travel fund during the pandemic. In addition, the Prime Minister has announced £2 billion in funding for active travel nationally, with the aim of half of all journeys in towns and cities being on foot or by bike by 2030. That funding, underpinned by strong partnership working with local and combined authorities, is key to improving active travel, reducing our carbon footprint and creating thriving town and city centres across the north.
This is levelling up in action. Indeed, let no one be in any doubt about the Government’s commitment to levelling up the north as we recover from this dreadful pandemic. It is at the centre of the Government’s agenda, with a White Paper in development led by the Prime Minister himself. Significant progress has been made, with over 60% of the north now covered by metro Mayors, offering a strong voice for the people of those areas, as well as access to new funding opportunities, particularly for transport. The intra-city transport settlements announced in the 2020 Budget deliver £4.2 billion to mayoral city regions over the next five years from 2022-23. In the Budget earlier this year, we announced more than £30 million of capacity funding for northern city regions to help prepare for those settlements. That funding is crucial to places such as the Sheffield city region, where engagement is ongoing between the Department and the combined authority on the proposed Sheffield Supertram renewal. On top of that, we have the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund, cementing our commitment to the vision of a prosperous and thriving nation where no area is left behind.
Transforming railways in the north will have a dramatic impact on our national infrastructure by releasing capacity, reducing our carbon footprint and improving journey times and reliability, and this was touched on by all hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn continues to make a compelling case for the Colne to Skipton line and especially for a freight terminal at Huncoat in her constituency. I pay tribute to her continued campaigning on that issue; given my constituency interest, I will leave that one there. Other Members continue to make a compelling case, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who continues to make important points about freight. I am pleased to tell him that I met the metro Mayor for the Liverpool city region on Monday to talk about freight, among other issues. Those conversations across the midlands and the north continue to be ongoing as we look to support freeports and other investment which will have an impact on the need for increasing the amount of rail freight we can transport.
We have made significant progress on the railways in recent years. We brought the failing Northern franchise under direct departmental control in March 2020. We removed the last Pacer train from operational services in December. However, we know that there is much more to do. On the trans-Pennine route upgrade, £589 million, with more to follow, has already been allocated on the main route between Manchester and Leeds. I know the hon. Member for Barnsley Central shared my joy at the announcement of £137 million to upgrade the Hope Valley line. These improvements will deliver much needed capacity and reliability between Sheffield, Manchester and Leeds to better connect our northern powerhouse, but our vision goes beyond upgrading existing infrastructure and we want the north better connected by both conventional and high-speed rail services.
Last year, following the Oakervee review, the Prime Minister confirmed that HS2 would go ahead. He also committed to delivering an integrated rail plan to determine how best to deliver phase 2b of HS2 alongside other major rail investments in the midlands and the north. I want to reiterate the Government’s commitment to HS2, much to the disappointment, I know, of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley. We are committed to delivering HS2 and to enabling the east midlands, Yorkshire and the north-east to reap the benefits of high-speed rail services.
Alexander Stafford
On HS2, may I have a commitment from the Government that if it does go ahead—I hope it does not—every step will be taken to mitigate the dangerous and damaging effects that could destroy villages in Rother Valley?
Andrew Stephenson
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case on behalf of his constituents, something he has done repeatedly in meetings with me since he was elected. When I was put in charge of the HS2 project in February last year, I committed to ensuring that communities are put at the heart of the project. We have had a land and property review. We have taken various other steps to ensure that impacts on communities are mitigated, so I hear loud and clear the concerns of his constituents, while still believing that this project is of vital importance to this country.
Since the announcement of the integrated rail plan, I have met local leaders, Members of Parliament and business groups to hear about their priorities for major rail investment, including meeting the hon. Member for Barnsley Central on a number of occasions. As things stand, communities on the eastern leg would be waiting until 2040 to realise the benefits of HS2. That is clearly too long to wait, which is why the work of the integrated rail plan is looking at ways to scope, phase and deliver phase 2b alongside other transformational projects, such as the midlands rail hub and Northern Powerhouse Rail, to bring down the cost and also deliver the benefits as quickly as possible.
I can assure all hon. Members that the Government remain committed to Northern Powerhouse Rail, with over £100 million spent to date and a further £75 million commitment for this financial year. We share the hon. Gentleman’s desire to see spades in the ground on that as soon as possible. The Government continue to consider all options for Northern Powerhouse Rail as part of the integrated rail plan, including those in Transport for the North’s statutory advice. Once the integrated rail plan is published, TfN will submit a business case for NPR that is consistent with the integrated rail plan’s policy and funding framework. This will mean a more rapid alignment around single route options with NPR and an accelerated delivery timetable, which will allow us to realise the benefits for communities in the north as soon as possible.
Growing local economies and levelling up the north and the midlands is at the heart of what we are trying to achieve. That is why Ministers from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and from the Treasury have been closely involved in drawing up the integrated rail plan. I know that this is not just about building railways. We need to take a holistic view of how to capitalise on our investments and to support regional economies. I would add that our vision of levelling up goes beyond new lines, trains and stations. It is about creating a forward-looking simplified travelling experience which puts passengers first. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced today the biggest shake-up of the railways in 25 years. We want to see simpler fares, flexible season tickets and clearer routes for compensation. We will also integrate infrastructure, revenue collection, fares and timetables under a new body, Great British Railways, providing a single recognisable brand with accountable leadership for all passengers.
The reforms announced today will empower local areas to have a say over the design of the railways post pandemic, including stations, through new partnerships with Great British Railways regional divisions. These partnerships will be flexible regarding the needs of different places, and I am sure the hon. Member for Barnsley Central will welcome the ability for local leaders to control stations, buy additional services and infra- structure, and integrate provision with other types of transport.
Our focus, of course, is not just on rail. We want to level up all modes of transport, and we all know that buses are absolutely vital to the north’s economy and to our communities. This point was made strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, and very eloquently about some of the bus service challenges by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley, who talked about some of the poor connections in his constituency.
There can be no greater champion of buses than the Prime Minister himself, who has committed us as a country to bus back better from covid, but I know that this ambition is shared because the hon. Member for Barnsley Central has commissioned the South Yorkshire bus review. He commissioned it as the Mayor of Sheffield city region, and he found significant challenges in declining ridership and passenger dissatisfaction.
Bus patronage has also suffered greatly because of covid, and we know that it will take a concerted effort from Government, local transport authorities and operators to build back better. That is why we announced the national bus strategy in March this year, backed by £3 billion in transformational funding, to help us move forward with joined-up plans in the years to come. Local authorities, working in collaboration with their local bus operators, have been asked to publish a bus service improvement plan, setting out how they will use their enhanced partnership or franchising scheme to deliver an ambitious vision for travel by bus. Some £25 million is being made available to support authorities with this, including the creation of a bus centre of excellence.
I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman, in his capacity as the Mayor of Sheffield city region, to make the ambition behind the national bus strategy a reality. I am sure that he will want to work with local Members of Parliament across the region to ensure that the right service is delivered for everybody living across the region.
In addition to the advice we receive from Transport for the North, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has established the Northern Transport Acceleration Council, providing a direct line between local leaders in the north and Ministers in the Department for Transport. NTAC ensures that Ministers are kept updated about priority projects, are active in unblocking barriers to their progress and are accountable for their delivery. We have so far met as a council to dissect crucial Government announcements on levelling up the regions, such as the national bus strategy and the Green Book review.
My hon. Friend the rail Minister—the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris)—chaired a productive NTAC meeting on Tuesday to discuss timetabling in central Manchester, which the hon. Member for Barnsley Central attended as the Mayor of the Sheffield city region, alongside fellow northern leaders and industry experts. The hon. Gentleman made his views very clear about his desire to maintain a direct service between Sheffield and Manchester airport, and to ensure that the timetabling will not be impacted by the ongoing upgrade to the Hope Valley line, to which I referred earlier. As he will be aware, a short intensive review of the Manchester recovery taskforce recommendation will now take place, starting with an extended session tomorrow, at which all parties will review the proposed solutions once again and grapple with some of the difficult choices involved in implementing a reliable timetable. We look forward to arriving at a workable solution, and I am sure we share the ambition of the hon. Gentleman to come up with the best solution for all involved.
I could go on, but I think that by now I have, I hope, done enough to convince everyone sufficiently that levelling up the north and investing in northern transport remains our top priority. The Department is at the centre of this, but the Government at large are committed to levelling up and we are committed to ensuring that we build back better after probably the most difficult 12 months any of us can recall, so let us now get on with it and make it happen.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I would like to thank the technicians and the broadcasting unit again for performing miracles in allowing such an Adjournment debate virtually and physically—hybrid—to be conducted. I thank them very much indeed.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Mobile Homes (Requirement for Manager of Site to be Fit and Proper Person) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and sit only in places that are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members sent their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Eddie Hughes)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Mobile Homes (Requirement for Manager of Site to be Fit and Proper Person) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve—incredibly briefly—under your chairmanship, Ms McVey; having given the speech yesterday, I do not intend to repeat it today. I refer Committee members to the speech I gave yesterday, and commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, I believe for the first time—and certainly for the first time in my new role as shadow planning Minister. I am happy to support the statutory instrument, which corrects the reference to
“the Local Government Act 1992”
within the Mobile Homes (Requirement for Manager of Site to be Fit and Proper Person) (England) Regulations 2020. We have no problem at all, obviously, with that change, but I will leave the Minister with two questions. I hope that he will get back to me in writing in due course.
The arguments in favour of the 2020 regulations, which today’s draft regulations amend, surely also support the strengthening of the rogue landlord database, so will the Government commit to making that a priority as part of the Queen’s Speech commitment to enhance the rights of those who rent? Given the Minister’s responsibilities, I want to mention an additional specific group of people in private managed accommodation for vulnerable people where I have some concerns as well.
Secondly, the provisions of the 2020 regulations have yet to come into force, so I would be grateful if the Minister let us know how his Department is working with local authorities to get ready for 1 July—the first stage of implementation. Are the Government confident that councils have sufficient officer capacity to implement the new, and welcome, regulations, given the cuts that so many councils have had to make to their staff complement?
The Chair
Before the Minister speaks, I should say that I have just received clarification from the Clerk that the speech that he gave yesterday will not be in Hansard. If he wants it recorded, he should read it again.
Eddie Hughes
I do not think that that is necessary, Ms McVey.
I will take the two issues that have been raised in reverse order. On the capacity of councils to deal with the new duty, we have funded them to the tune of £172,000. We have been working very closely with councils across the country where there are park home sites to ensure that they are well prepared, so I do not think that we have any reservations about their ability to deal with it.
As the Minister who will be responsible in part for our ambitious plans for renters’ reform, I look forward to writing to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth with more details and answering her question in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Return to work after the pandemic
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 20th May 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 May 2021 - (20 May 2021)
The Chair
I remind hon. Members to observe physical distancing. They should sit only in the places that are clearly marked, and it is important that Members find their seats and leave the room promptly to avoid delays for other Members and staff. Members should wear face coverings in Committee unless they are speaking or medically exempt. Finally, questions to witnesses should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and we must stick to the timings in the programme order that the Committee agreed on Tuesday—we have plenty witnesses and only a finite amount of time. There is one other issue: we have some problems with the cameras, so we can see and hear the witnesses, and they can hear us, but they cannot see us.
We will now discuss the lines of questioning to this morning’s witnesses before we start the session in public.
The Chair
I call the first panel of witnesses. Campbell Robb is the chief executive of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, and Helen Berresford is the director of external engagement for that organisation, so we have two from NACRO. Sam Doohan is policy officer at Unlock. I would like each witness to introduce themselves very quickly so we can crack on with questioning.
Campbell Robb: I am Campbell Robb, chief executive of NACRO for the last two years. I am really pleased to be here—thank you for the invitation.
Helen Berresford: I am Helen Berresford, director of external engagement at NACRO. Thank you.
Sam Doohan: Hi, I am Sam Doohan, and I work for Unlock. We are a charity that focuses on the challenges of people with criminal records.
The Chair
Great. It is nice that we can hear you in the ether. We cannot actually see you either now, so you cannot see us and we cannot see you. We would quite like to see the witnesses if that can be organised. Who would like to ask the first question? I call Sarah Champion.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Q
Sam Doohan: There are some things in the Bill that will help to some degree, but there are some omissions. A good deal of the youth offending regime, with regard to criminal records, will stay the same. Larger changes in the Bill, particularly around cautions, are not being made for young offenders, so they will face the same regime as now and will not receive any benefit.
Another critical omission is that once the Bill passes it will still technically be possible for someone to commit a crime as a child, be convicted after they turn 18 and then receive a criminal record as if they had committed the crime as an adult. We are very keen to see some change to that. We firmly believe that we should stick to the principle that young people deserve not only a second chance but special treatment and consideration.
Helen Berresford: While there are some things in the Bill that we welcome in terms of young people—for example, the changes to remand, which will make a really big difference to what has been an ongoing issue for a while—we have a number of concerns about some of the proposals, which will likely increase the number of children and young people in custody and the time they spend in custody, with no evidence of the impact that that will have on either reducing crime or reducing reoffending. We have seen significant progress over recent years with the decrease in the numbers of children being sent into custody. That has been a really positive story, but we are very concerned that a number of the proposals in this Bill will reverse that and increase the number.
Sarah Champion
Q
Helen Berresford: Some of the proposals will increase the sentencing, such as some of the proposals around sentence length and the starting tariffs for murder, for example, and some have implications for increasing the numbers, such as the changes to detention training orders. There are a number of different proposals that will likely increase the numbers of children and young people going into custody.
Campbell Robb: I would add that, overall, some of the welcome things around problem-solving courts and some of those things could be extended into the youth, and we need to see more of that. I would like to see some more discussion during the passage of the Bill about some of the non-custodial approaches that could be introduced in the youth estate, as well as in the adult estate.
Sarah Champion
Q
Sam Doohan: To a large degree, Unlock would say that we are happy with the direction of travel, but we do not think that the Bill in its present form goes far enough. There is something of a split in the criminal records regime, essentially between those who go to prison and those who do not, and we are happy to see that the majority of people who do go to prison will see reduced spending periods for their convictions. However, we are still quite unhappy to see that some people will still disclose for life. We believe that needs quite close attention paid to it.
Further down the regime, even when we talk about what in the grander scheme of things we might think of as quite minor offences, the criminal spending regime around road traffic offences, and speeding in particular, is radically out of step with everything else in the rest of the spending regime. People end up having to disclose, say, a speeding ticket for five years, which is longer than if they had gone to prison for a year. We think that not only does this need to change and be brought into step, but that on the whole we should emphasise not only faster spending but fewer situations in which people legally have to disclose, and a higher standard of demonstrable need to discriminate on the basis of a criminal record.
Helen Berresford: We would very much agree with that. At Nacro, we run a criminal records support service, and we receive thousands of inquiries every year from individuals who are trying, and often struggling, to navigate a very complex system. We very much welcome the direction of travel and the proposals in the Bill to reduce that burden, which is also felt by employers. That is a really important part of this: lots of the employers who we support struggle to navigate the system themselves, and that can lead to them being more risk-averse when it comes to employing people with criminal records.
I agree completely with what Sam said. There are some anomalies and outliers here, and this Bill is a real opportunity to deal with them. Motoring convictions is a great example of that, and I think that can be fairly easily dealt with. There are a couple of other points that come up in this Bill, such as the new out-of-court disposals and the diversionary caution. A simple caution previously did not have a disclosure period, and I think putting one in only increases barriers, which is contrary to the Government’s direction of travel. I think there are some real opportunities to go further and tidy that up, but we very much welcome the direction.
Campbell Robb: I have nothing to add—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Sorry, Mr Robb, we did not hear that because we have a bell going off in our ears. Could you repeat that?
Campbell Robb: I hear the bell ringing. I was just agreeing with both of them; I have nothing to add.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Q
Have we got the balance right? To what extent is an employer entitled to know somebody’s criminal history? Can we do more to work with employers to get them to understand? Companies such as Timpson, for example, have been very good at taking on people who have criminal pasts, and rehabilitating them. Does the Bill move in the right direction on this? Does it protect employers from potential criminal activity from employees and does it make it easier for people to get into work?
Sam Doohan: The direction of travel is certainly positive. At the same time, we do not think the balance is right yet in the overall rationale for employers at the basic level, who are not obliged to ask for a criminal history and have a free choice whether they do or not. The fact that employers can ask because they are nosy is not fair to applicants at any level.
A 2001 study commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions said that a lot of the problems around employers asking come from the recruiter and the person who chooses to ask. The study broke that down across several categories, including age and position within a company. There are various factors that make people more willing to ask and more willing to discriminate if people disclose a criminal past.
Another factor that came out from that was that employers would, if given scope to do so, claim that just about any job you can imagine had some tangential relationship to someone’s previous criminal history. Perhaps in a very loose sense, that could be argued to be true, but we see driving convictions being held against people in jobs that do not involve driving, or people with a driving ban, who cannot legally drive, having that conviction held against them for pushing trolleys in the car park in Asda. There is some rationale in allowing employers to ask, but we do not think the balance is there yet. It is being used just to discriminate.
Helen Berresford: The balance point is a really important one. We work with employers as well, and understanding their needs is a really important part of that. For a lot of the employers we have supported, it is about transparency and knowing what they can ask and understanding that point. The system is so complex and arbitrary at the minute, and the transparency is not there, so the faith and trust in the system are not automatically there. We have to get to a point where it is transparent, easy to navigate and much simpler.
Sam’s point about motoring convictions is absolutely right. We have supported people who have had job offers withdrawn because an employer has come across their motoring conviction, which has absolutely nothing to do with the job that they would be doing. It is about relevance for the job. That is a really important factor.
Campbell Robb: As both my colleagues have said, this is a step in the right direction. There is more we would like to see in the Bill. The other point is that, when we get through this, whatever the new regulations are, the Government, working with ourselves and employers, need to really think through how we talk about this. We need to run campaigns and explain to employers and work with businesses and business organisations, so that we do not just all talk about Timpson—which is brilliant at this and does a very good job, but we want to have dozens of organisations. We know they want to do more in this space, but feel put off and worried by the complexity that comes with it. We would like to see a bit more in the Bill, but we also want to work afterwards with the Government and employers to make the measures work better.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Campbell Robb: We work every day with thousands of people who are coming out of prison, trying to settle them. We work with employers across the country to find either permanent or short-term opportunities. Criminal records are just one barrier to many people who are trying to get work when they come out of prison. It is about training and education, rehabilitation in prison and what is available then, and suitable accommodation. There is whole range of factors.
The new changes to the probation system, which I know the Justice Committee has looked at recently, are hopefully opening up some opportunities for all of us who work in this space, to provide a more rounded service. These changes to criminal records will help a bit, but they will make a big difference if we can go just that bit further.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Q
Campbell Robb: It is simple: the answer is yes. The commitment in the Bill to community sentences, treatment requirements and problem-solving courts is a real step in the right direction for non-custodial, rounded approaches to sentencing and rehabilitation. When we work with problem-solving courts in the areas that have them, our experience is that they do work. We need to provide that rounded approach to non-custodial sentences, which is to do with treatment, problem solving, a good probation service, training and development. In short, the answer is yes. These are a good thing. We would like to see more of them. The evidence is generally positive, both for pathways out of addiction and into employment, and for reducing reoffending. We look forward to working with whoever is providing them to really get that.
The second thing to add is about better awareness among judges about the success of these courts and how to use them. When the Bill is passed, how do the Government intend to work with the judiciary and other providers to make sure problem-solving courts become more available and better used?
Maria Eagle
Q
Sam Doohan: While we talk about the further end of the criminal justice system, rather than the sentencing part of it, one thing that we see as being particularly positive about problem-solving courts is that while, yes, they are potentially more expensive up front, they have a much stronger ability to head off reoffending, which saves money further down the road in potential future court cases and prison sentences.
We see it as a false economy to say that problem-solving courts cost more in the immediate term. The Government’s White Paper, which led to this Bill, put the cost of reoffending at something like £18 billion—a huge amount of money. For relatively low-level offences that, in the grand scheme of things, are typically associated with reoffending over a more protracted period, if there is no intervention, that extra money is well worth it. We just have to invest it up front and make sure that the solutions actually work.
Maria Eagle
Q
Sam Doohan: Certainly, in the present climate, we would probably see a pilot as a political necessity. However, we would expect a pilot to be very positive. We see no reason why it would not be. It would be nice if we could make them happen tomorrow—have ring-fenced funding and have some long-term commitment to them—but if it takes a year or two years to prove the point and make them a permanent fixture of the justice system, that would be more positive in the long run.
Maria Eagle
Q
Campbell Robb: The evidence from the Bill suggests that most of the approach in it will lead to longer sentences and people in prison for longer. It is also disappointing that there is nothing in the Bill that tackles the issue of the 30,000 short sentences of under six months that are given out every year, which cause significant damage to the individuals involved. We understand the desire of the Government to meet what it feels is the public’s desire to see longer tariffs for some crimes. However, we could have done so much more, particularly on short sentences, to really think through who is ending up in prison, why and for how long.
Maria Eagle
Q
Campbell Robb: I misunderstood, sorry. On treatment orders and the others types of things that we have just been talking about, if they are too harsh or too difficult to pass, or if people have been set up to fail, there is a danger within those that if they are not done properly with the individual and they do not understand the consequences of what they are doing, people could end up back in prison for failing on a relatively minor breach of a treatment order. It is hard to say there is evidence of that, but there is some concern that that might be the case. I hope that answers your question.
The Chair
I will bring in the Front Benchers in three minutes. Mr Dorans, do you want to ask a question?
The Chair
Are all the Back Benchers content and happy? Mr Levy, I did not see you hiding behind the Perspex. You have three minutes before I bring in the Front Benchers.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
Q
Campbell Robb: Central is the answer. We as an organisation have been working in this space for nearly 50 years, and we feel that the partnership between the new probation service and organisations such as ours, both locally and nationally, is absolutely essential. We need local partnerships in sentencing and pre-sentencing, and in problem-solving courts and the treatment centres. Local charities and national charities should be working together with the statutory services, providing a wraparound—ideally, to stop people offending in the first place.
When people first hit the criminal justice system, we need to bring in organisations such as ours and others in order to be able to work with people and to keep them out of it through education, training and apprenticeships that we can offer at a whole range of levels. When they are in the system, it is about making sure that they get out as soon as possible, and that they get the rehabilitation and education they need when they are in it. Charities are definitely a part of the process, and we would want to see relationships between charities supporting this work.
Ian Levy
Yes, if we have time.
Sam Doohan: I would certainly say that there will continue to be, and there should continue to be, a strong partnership between Government and the charitable sector, but it should also be clear in Parliament’s mind that Government services for probation, youths and all manner of things should not take as read that the charitable can fill in any shortfall. It is important that we work together—we can make more of a difference together than we can separately—but things such as, for example, informing employers about criminal records and the risks associated with hiring someone who has a criminal record, which is the single biggest piece of information that changes an employer’s mind about whether to hire people, are at the moment done almost exclusively by the charitable sector. We are happy to do that work—it needs to be done and it is important—but having more resource and focus from the Government to ensure that message gets out far and wide would be extremely valuable on a number of levels.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Q
Helen Berresford: I am happy to go first. You are right that we are concerned about the disclosure period. One of the other points that I would raise is that obviously the new proposal is for two tiers—a diversionary caution and a community caution. One of the things that we would really like to see from this is a growing use of out-of-court disposals to keep people out of the formal justice system, which we know has a positive impact. The more we can use them, the better. What we do not want to see with this new approach is more people being given the upper-tier caution as a result of it being two tier. We want to see more people coming into out-of-court disposals more broadly. We need to be aware of the risk of more people having the one that has more conditions attached to it, which makes it more difficult.
The second point is very much about the disclosure period. If we take the disclosure period out, we have much more of a chance to use out-of-court disposals in a positive way that does not put up additional barriers and gives people the chance to move on and not to get engaged with the formal justice system.
Sam Doohan: I entirely agree with Helen about the disclosure periods for the new upper-tier caution. That is certainly a problem; I will not re-tread that entirely. One of the other concerns that we have about the new cautions is that now, at least in the adult regime, there will only be conditional cautions, which require a fairly in-depth process of paperwork to set and monitor conditions and ensure compliance. There is now no other caution option available. Those cautions will be delivered largely on an individual officer level and by individual forces.
As a result, forces will be much more hesitant to use a caution. Whereas in the past, they might have been quite content to give a simple caution and send someone on their way with a formal warning or reprimand, now the force in question will have to take on the burden of monitoring, compliance and potentially re-arresting someone if they breach conditions. They will be forced either to go above the caution and see more cases through to prosecution, even though it would not necessarily be in the public interest to do so, or not to take action at all.
As we know with the criminal justice system as a whole, when we start having these slightly weighted decisions about who falls into what tier of disposal, those who are from disadvantaged backgrounds, along the lines of race and religion, almost universally fall into the harsher end, and those who are not do not. We are creating a system that incentivises busy working police officers to say, “Actually, I am going to make this the CPS’s problem, not mine, and I have the choice of who to do it to.” Is that going to lead to good criminal justice outcomes? We think it may not. We do not know yet—I stress that—because it has not been studied, but it does have the characteristics of a system that will not have the desired outcomes.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Campbell Robb: We do have that concern. The Government’s own impact assessment suggests that that might be the case, and that it was in the public interest to continue. We know that, at every stage, young BAME youths, in particular, are disproportionately likely to be stopped and searched, and to end up in the system in different ways. We do have that concern. We would like to see more evidence used to understand what the impact of the proposals might be. We know from previous proposals and reports, such as David Lammy’s, that the system is not working in the way that it could, and there is nothing in the Bill that will positively change that. We urge the Government to think about whether there is more that we could do on that through the passage of the Bill.
Sam Doohan: One important thing to keep an eye on is that the out-of-court disposal family is one that requires co-operation from the person who is receiving the disposal. That is fine if you have a community that is reasonably homogenous and where there is no tension with the police, because people are much more likely to co-operate. They may not see the police as being friendly, but they at least understand the interaction better.
Where there is less community cohesion and there are people from all manner of underprivileged backgrounds who historically do not have good relationships with the police and are less likely to be co-operative, that again puts us in a situation where the out-of-court disposals and their relatively lesser impact on someone throughout the rest of their life will end up going to people from relatively more privileged backgrounds, and those who end up being prosecuted and receiving full convictions will be people from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Helen Berresford: No, I think that is right. Sam has just explained that very well. I think that there is a risk. We can see across a number of the proposals and, as Campbell said, the Government’s impact assessment the impact on people from black and minority ethnic communities. Out-of-court disposals are a good case in point in terms of how we ensure that they do not discriminate. We can see it at every stage. We need to be looking at how we reduce the disproportionality in the justice system, and what actions we can take to do that. We can see that some of these proposals do the opposite.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Helen Berresford: We know from the evidence that community orders are more effective in reducing reoffending than short prison sentences, which are ineffective at doing that. We want to see much better use of community sentences where they are more effective. Community sentence treatment requirements are a really good example of how we can do that, ensuring that we also put in the drug treatments and mental health support that are needed alongside it. That is really important.
A lot of these orders have the potential sanction of being sent to prison if breached. We do not support that as a way forward. We do not think that that is effective. If a community sentence is not working, we already know that a short prison sentence is less effective, so it does not make sense that that is the penalty. There is evidence to show that continuing the support in the community, to ensure that we are actually dealing with the issues, is more effective. It is about ensuring that community sentences are not setting people up to fail, and that the conditions around them try to help with their different needs, such as alcohol and drug treatment, mental health treatment, and homelessness. All those different parts need to be addressed. That is where the focus is.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Sam Doohan: The one thing that needs to be considered with community orders and criminal records is that when a community order is given alongside another disposal and it becomes an ancillary order we have to be very careful about how long we set the orders for. At present, the full conviction does not become spent until the full ancillary order is completed or ended by the court. A lot of orders are given for three years or five years. Some are given for life. We need to be aware of that, so that we are using orders in a proportionate way that matches the intention of them. They should not be given out simply as a five-year ban from this location, say, which will in fact end up with someone taking six years before what is probably a relatively minor conviction is taken off their record.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Campbell Robb: It is one part. To isolate it solely as being effective on its own is not something— It can be a very useful method of keeping people out of prison, but it has to be wrapped around the probationary offer and the other offers available to the individual, so that they have meaningful engagement, either through unpaid work or training or development, and are in stable, suitable accommodation, so that they are not moving all the time. So, in and of itself, it can add some benefit, but it cannot be taken as a single thing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
Q
May I start with problem-solving courts? Clearly, as with so many things, it is important that the implementation is right; there are some things that work and some things that do not. Can you give your views on the things that have worked and the things that have not worked in problem-solving courts that we have tried in the past—I think there was one in Merseyside a few years ago—and the lessons that we might learn from problem-solving courts in the US, as we design and implement the pilot?
Helen Berresford: This is not something that we have significant expertise in at Nacro, in terms of learning from previous pilots. With any of these things, we have to understand, as you say, what has worked and what has not worked.
The point that we made earlier about the role of building judicial confidence, which was picked up on, is a really important one, and that confidence has to be central to problem-solving courts as we roll them out. Getting the right people involved and the right support functions is important. One of the important purposes—is it not?—of problem-solving courts is that you bring the right people into the discussions and keep them engaged.
I will just refer, for example, to community sentence treatment requirements. We know from our experience of what we have seen that engaging with the judiciary in that process has a really positive impact. That is one of the things we have seen and that we would like to see much more of in the roll-out of CSTRs, and I would say the same for problem-solving courts.
Sam Doohan: In addition to building interest and engagement in the judiciary, one of the other issues is also building interest and engagement among the local population. The courts need to be credible, both to offenders and to the local population. That is probably the biggest step that needs to be taken. If local people think that someone will effectively get just a slap on the wrist and that the problem-solving court does not solve the problem, they will not bother reporting minor crimes and, to some degree, neither will the police. It is very important that that credibility takes centre stage and that the whole process has some faith that its measures will actually be successful.
Chris Philp
Q
First of all, do you share that analysis, particularly where a CSTR might be an alternative to a short sentence? If you do share that analysis, what do you think we can do to encourage the wider use of CSTRs, in addition to the extra money for the actual treatment that is being provided at the moment? I ask that because I would like to see them being used a lot more.
Campbell Robb: Yes, we would too, and I think the evidence suggests that when they are used properly they can have a significant effect, on both the addiction or the mental health issues that people are suffering from, and ultimately—we think in previous studies, but not recently—potentially on reoffending. So we are very supportive of them.
I think that, as you would expect us to say, they need to be part of a wider network that is available, ranging from wider drug treatment services, through the NHS and other public health bodies, to job opportunities. They are part of a holistic approach—part of a whole series of interventions that can help people.
On their use as an alternative to sentencing, we could not agree more. That is the work that Nacro does every day, with hundreds of people across the country. If we can use them to help support people through their mental health issues, or drug and alcohol issues, and keep them out of the criminal justice system, then absolutely; we could not agree more. We are very supportive and would want to work alongside to get more of them up and running as soon as possible.
I agree that having the judiciary, as well as the public, see them as a viable alternative is something we all need to work on once the Bill becomes an Act, so that we really get that buy-in and momentum behind them so that they can be used more widely.
Helen Berresford: We have seen an increase in their usage in the test sites. The only point I would add, without repeating my earlier comment, is that building judicial confidence will be an important part of this. That is a really important thing to learn from. Continually evaluating and learning as we roll these out will be really important, learning where they have worked and where they have not. If we can build that in, I think there is a really positive role for community sentence treatment requirements.
Sam Doohan: There is also an issue with building faith with offenders and the people who will potentially receive treatment. One of the concerns that we hear with these kinds of disposals is that people are worried that their criminal record will show that they have been in drug treatment or mental health treatment. In general, although not in the absolute, that is not a problem, because it will not show up and they will not have to disclose it. But people do not know that and they do not necessarily have a great deal of faith that it will not show up three, four or five years later, when they have turned their life around.
I mention that in particular because a DWP study from 2010, I think, found that the only group who, in employment terms, were discriminated against on a par with people with convictions were alcoholics and drug users. Therefore, ensuring that people understand the full ramifications of co-operating with a drug treatment programme—that it will be private, to a large degree, and that it will give them the opportunity to move on positively afterwards—would go a long way.
Chris Philp
Q
Helen Berresford: Our preference—and yours too, I hear—is very much about looking at community sentences, where they are more effective. If there is an option of custody, I think we really need to build that in as an absolute last resort, and it is worth looking at how we can ensure that is the case. Certainly, on a broader point, in the past we have seen increases in recall to prison, and in some cases people have been recalled for very minor breaches of their conditions, and nothing to do with committing a crime. It is really important that we ensure that is not what we are doing. If there is a condition about prison as a last resort, we have to make sure that it is for a very significant reason and that it is truly a last resort.
Chris Philp
Q
Sam Doohan: Broadly speaking, statutory minimums cause problems. The reduction of judicial discretion means that cases cease to be individual and start to be set by central Government policy. Although it can be argued either way, depending on your taste, were we to follow an American model, where if you get three strikes and then a very long prison sentence for a relatively minor crime, under the current British criminal records system that would almost certainly be disclosed for life, and it would not just be a fairly stiff sentence for repeat offending; it would become a life sentence immediately. That is something always to be aware of when thinking about where we set not just sentencing guidelines, but sentencing minimums in particular. If the judge thinks that six months is appropriate, we should not be the ones to argue with that.
Campbell Robb: We agree that judicial discretion is paramount. We think that is a very, very important consideration. For any changes, it is important to be aware of that and to have an urgent space to see what impact those minimum sentences are having across the piece, in terms of numbers, time and then rehabilitation.
The Chair
I thank our three witnesses for a very strong performance and for answering the questions so fully—it is much appreciated.
Examination of witnesses
Dame Vera Baird, QC, gave evidence.
The Chair
We now move on to our second session. We have Dame Vera Baird, the Victims’ Commissioner. Dame Vera, could you introduce yourself for the record, please? Not that you need a great deal of introduction, as you were formerly of this parish, but just for the record.
Dame Vera Baird: Good morning. I am Vera Baird, the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales. I hope you are receiving me. Over.
The Chair
Excellent. We are receiving you—brilliant. I am not sure if you can see us yet, but we can certainly see you. I call Mr Goodwill.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Dame Vera Baird: Thank you very much, Mr Goodwill. It is very good to see you again—we were next-door neighbours at one time, constituency-wise.
I will focus on the digital download point, because it is extremely key. Clause 36 in the Bill is very problematic. We have done some considerable work on it, which I would like to mention. First, let me compliment the Home Office team who drafted it and who approached us to ask what we thought of it. Let me explain that I fully understand, as I guess the Committee does, that the purpose of clause 36 is different from the area Mr Goodwill has just rehearsed.
I understand from Mr De Meyer, who is the NPCC police officer I have mostly been talking to about this, that people say to the police, “Someone is harassing me” or “Someone sent me this. Look at my phone—there is the evidence.” The police are worried that if they take the phone, they might be in breach of the investigatory powers legislation, so they are seeking a statutory power to take a phone off somebody who is voluntarily giving it up. That was good to understand—that is fine—but the power as set out at the moment does not contain any protections for the complainants who are in the position that Mr Goodwill has mentioned.
If I may, I will briefly rehearse the position as it is seen from the victim’s point of view. If you look at a Rape Crisis survey 18 months ago, or if you talk daily to ISVAs, you will find that the view is that on the ground it is practically routine for rape and sexual assault complainants to be asked to hand over digital devices, and for most of the material on it to be trawled, so far as they are aware. Apparently, according to my network of stakeholders, the CPS frequently seeks a level of material straight away, before it charges, and if a complainant refuses, the case just does not get considered for charge. That is very, very troubling, and it has a chilling effect not only on current victims, but on reporting, and it could impact victim attrition.
We did an analysis of a data set showing that one in five victims withdrew their complaint of rape at least in part due to disclosure concerns. Home Office data shows an increase of rape complainants withdrawing pre-charge, and it is right to say that many senior police officers, including Mr De Meyer, accept that there has been a big blow to the confidence of the public in the police because of the whole issue of digital data.
In my own former area—I was the PCC in Northumbria until not quite two years ago—the Home Office funded a pilot of independent legal advice for rape complainants dealing with digital download. That pilot disclosed that about 50% of the requests for digital download of rape complainants’ devices were not necessary or proportionate. Of course, we must take some comfort from the fact that that means the other 50% were, and my understanding is that this pilot worked well. It was praised by 23 of the 25 professionals involved in it because it also speeded matters up: where there was a legitimate request for a particular section of the contents of the device, the independent legal advisor was able to get to grips with its reasonableness and advise if it was reasonable, and it was then very quickly accepted. None the less, 50% of requests were not in that category, and we do know that it influences people about reporting rape when they fear that not only their own personal data, but the data of everybody else who is on their phone—their little brother, their sister, their mother, anyone they may confide in—will also have to be disclosed.
The last three points that I really want to emphasise to let you appreciate the seriousness of this problem are that in 2020, the Information Commissioner published a report about exactly this, and outlined a series of ways in which the police were not complying in a number of respects with data protection legislation. The gateway for consent was one of the concerns, and there was an internal report by the CPS two years ago, which found that 60% of its requests for digital download were over-intrusive and not necessary. A little bit later, HMCPSI found about 40% were in the same category. The police have now done a lot of work to try to shift policy backwards, and this new power—which has no obvious nod, even, in the direction of the protection of complainants—came out of the blue from a different Department of the Home Office, and has absolutely none of the protections that, in policy terms, the police have been looking towards for quite some time.
We have the ICO, the Home Office and the National Police Chiefs’ Council all meeting with us, and we are very pleased with that. We asked whether we can draft some amendments to this that will safeguard the protection the police need, but will also offer protections for complainants when the power is used for this—as it will be, of course. In a very lightning run through them, there is no definition of agreement. What it says is that an authorised person can take information from a device if it has been voluntarily provided and there is agreement to give the stuff, but there is no definition of agreement, and we know very well—as I have just recited—that often, there is a sort of implicit threat that if you do not, that is the end of the story. We defined agreement in a fairly obvious way—fully informed and freely given. There is no requirement at all for the police to specify the nature of the material, let alone the actual material, that they want to look for. It is just all or nothing: you agree or you do not agree. A big concern is that although it is described as information that needs to be relevant if it is being sought, it does not make reference to the very important turn of phrase in the legislation, which is a “reasonable line of inquiry”. It is much broader.
We therefore drafted some amendments that dealt with all of those points and a number more, and we offered them to the Home Office team. I am very pleased to say that the National Police Chiefs’ Council accepted them, and felt that they fulfilled all the requirements that it had and offered some excellent protections. I am very pleased to say that the Information Commissioner’s Office, although it is happy with the code of practice going way beyond this legislation, also accepted them. The Home Office did not. When we tried to probe why, the answer came:
“While the NPCC indicated they were content with your drafted provisions, they have also said they were similarly supportive of the draft we prepared. We incorporated their operational perspective…with the views of our technical and legal experts”.
Mr Goodwill
I think we probably need to move on, because other colleagues want to get in.
The Chair
I think we have to move on now. It is not that this is not important. It is hugely important, but you have asked one question and there was a 10-minute response. We have three colleagues. We cannot do that again. I call Mr Dorans.
Allan Dorans
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I do not think that it does go far enough. Sentencing is not a territory that I want to get into particularly because victims’ views are very different about sentencing. It is by no means the case that everybody who is a victim of crime wants extremely heavy sentencing. There was a piece of research recently by RoadPeace that shows that they are not particularly strongly supportive of the increased sentences for driving offences, and would prefer driving bans rather than what they see as people who have driven dangerously but are not dangerous people being locked up in prison for a long time. They feel that long sentences may deter charging or jury verdicts.
Victims, just like everyone else, are a mixed bag, but what they want very much is to be treated decently by all the criminal justice agencies; to have adequate support and courteous engagement; to be kept up to date; to have all the entitlements when they come to court that will help them to give their evidence well; and to be supported right through, including after the sentence, going into the time when someone is serving their sentence—keeping them up to date about what is happening so that they might then more easily accept what happens when the individual comes out.
That whole procedural justice—what works for victims—is absolutely key. It does start to appear quite well in the new victims’ code of practice, but certainly that code of practice, which is about the sixth version of it that we have had, must be implemented, when the others have not been. There is nothing in the legislation here to help with that. The victims’ law is coming down the line and I hope that we can do more for victims in that.
Apologies for taking a long time about digital download. I meant simply to end by saying that all the problems that we have experienced can be solved by the drafts that we have prepared, which have been accepted by everyone but the Home Office. I urge the Minister in charge to look at that again.
Sarah Champion
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I agree. I wonder whether the problem starts with the victim contact scheme and whether we are not embracing enough people into it. We have done some really good work with HMPPS about that. They are moving to a much stronger invitation to join the victim contact scheme and are offering all sorts of ways to do it, even after the event. That would put people in a position where their statement would be taken, and it would be read.
In fact, during the course of the pandemic, a lot of victims have gone online and read their statement to the parole board. The number of victims who have done that has gone up, and we think the online provision—giving satisfactory remoteness to an individual from a prisoner, but none the less communicating what is good—is probably a good model for the future, but it is imperative that that opportunity is given to victims.
Sarah Champion
Q
Dame Vera Baird: In essence, yes, I do. We have just done a report about special measures, Ms Champion, and it would be good if you looked at it. The problem starts with the fact that the needs assessment is not done clearly by a single agency. It is all across the CPS, witness care units and the police. We have said that it should be in the witness care units. It should be done in a professional and thorough way with them co-ordinating it.
Then there is the real problem that the range of special measures, and the one that might suit you as a witness, are not always available and are not always offered even if they are available. There is a risk of some sort of court culture limiting the choice when the intention is that the best evidence should be given for the benefit both of the complainant, to cut the tension, and of the criminal justice system, to get evidence that it might not get otherwise.
Let me add that the roll-out of section 28 enables vulnerable and intimidated witnesses to pre-record their evidence weeks and weeks—probably, in reality, years—before a case can come to trial, and then be cross-examined on video too so that, many weeks before it comes to trial, they have finished their involvement in it. Obviously, it often just needs to be a choice, but that can be the default position to get a lot of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses out of the queue at the Crown court, put an end to their stress and record their evidence while their memory is fresh. I think that should be the default position available for all the categories that you mentioned.
Sarah Champion
Q
Dame Vera Baird: Yes.
Sarah Champion
Thank you.
Dame Vera Baird: We wrote last year and asked for exactly that.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I am not the lead for the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners; I am the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, and I do not know about that conversation.
There are two difficulties. One is that an unauthorised encampment often causes great discomfort to neighbours of it—that is probably a gross understatement. The other concern I have—very frankly—is that my experience is that the appropriate statutory provision is not always made to provide Gypsies and Travellers with an alternative place that is lawful and so they, too, are put in a very problematic position.
I saw what Martin Hewitt from the National Police Chiefs’ Council said the day before yesterday. He said that he did not think the police needed more powers; it would be much better if more lawful places were made available. And then there is no difficulty with getting Gypsies and Travellers out of places where they should not be, because there is a lawful place to put them. So I am afraid at the moment we have kind of two sets of victims.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
Dame Vera Baird: Yes, I do. It is very important that what victims want, which I have described—procedural justice, being treated with decency, being kept up to date and so on—is provided for in the process of delivering a caution. It looks as if victims are about as satisfied when the offender is given a caution as they are when the matter goes to court, so as long as they are consulted and they are treated as victims throughout, I think it is probably excellent to streamline the nature of this work.
There is one reservation: perhaps something needing a bit of looking at is the obligation to admit guilt in order to get an out-of-court disposal. Sometimes something like a deferred prosecution might be something that a person would be readier to accept, and it should be no more of a problem for a victim. But in principle, as long as victims are involved—we have a massive backlog in the courts, so if we can deal with justice for both sides in some other way, let us do it.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I am not an expert on sentencing and I do not think you particularly want my personal views. Do you want the perspective of victims on that?
Lee Anderson
Yes, please.
Dame Vera Baird: It is hard to say because we do not get a lot of victims coming to us and talking about sentencing; they are usually talking more about their own treatment by the justice system. But what I can tell you is that although they are broadly supportive of different sentencing, the briefing that you have probably had—and that we certainly have had from RoadPeace, Brake and British Cycling—suggests that they are worried about the difference between a sentence where someone has caused death and a sentence where someone has “only” caused what might be the very most serious of harms, and they wonder whether there ought to be some nearer proximity between the two.
But victims do say quite clearly that they have concerns about making causing death by dangerous driving and causing severe injury by dangerous driving have much higher penalties, because of the factor I mentioned before: it might deter prosecutions, or it might deter juries, who can pretty easily see themselves in a driving seat when something goes wrong, from convicting. So they have that reservation.
I think the telling line is that victims are not sure why there is such reliance on custodial sentencing for people who may have driven dangerously but are not dangerous people. Is it not better to use driving bans more effectively and not to allow such leeway about the unfairness of it but to make them pretty well automatic? That is their take on it, and I do not think I can second-guess them.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Q
To finish the conversation that we started at the beginning, it would be helpful if you could describe the impact that you think those amendments will have on the process and on the victims. Perhaps you could say a bit more about their sense of confidence in the system. What are we aiming for here?
Dame Vera Baird: We do have to protect the article 8 rights of complainants, and the open nature—the swingeing and unconditional nature—of these clauses does not do that. I have set out all the people who have commented on how commonplace it is for a victim to have their phone demanded and for it to be trawled, as it is called on the ground. I have set all that out.
The consequence, of course, is that complainants, who say they have been sexually assaulted—they are already injured, and we have already failed to protect them against crime. They are probably vulnerable. They are certainly very nervous. They have heard that it is not a nice thing to go to court. They probably know the conviction rate is very low. They have got together the courage to go and talk to the police and to discuss the case, and they seem to be met—my survey last year made this very clear—with police officers who are looking askance at them as genuine victims and saying, in effect, “Hand over everything there is for me to know about you, so that I can check whether you are a worthy person for me to get behind and prosecute this case.”
Other than sexual assaults, rapes and trafficking, and occasionally domestic abuse, I do not know of any other kind of case in which the download of phones is used in that way. It is not just the download of phones. Frequently the police ask for, and frequently the CPS requires, all health notes, psychiatric notes, school reports and social services reports, which obviously adds to the tendency to think that you are the one under investigation, and not the other. This is a massive deterrent and, not surprisingly, a good reason why people withdraw.
Following the pilot we did in Northumbria, which was highly successful, it is very important that there should be automatic legal advice. When someone’s article 8 human rights—we have an obligation to protect human rights—are put at stake by what the CPS has found are overly intrusive demands in 60% of cases, the only way to try to deal with it, given that there are a whole range of cases about it, is to get free, independent legal advice for the purpose of discussing and ordering with the police and the CPS what is appropriate to seek, what should be disclosed and what should not.
Our amendments say that, and we have sent those to the Government. I think we have also sent them to every member of this Committee. I hope that the Government will realise that although it has an end-to-end rape review—the purpose of which is to restore confidence and restore prosecutions—this piece of legislation is actually running in the opposite direction and is likely to make things worse.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Dame Vera Baird: What needs to happen is that section 28 needs to be the default option, so that rape complainants can finish with the trial while their memory is fresh and facilitate getting some trauma therapy, if that is what they need—section 28 and independent legal advice. I think it is fair to say to the CPS that if they require a level of data from phones and other places and they find something, however irrelevant, it may call the complainant’s credibility into question. There was a terrible case when I was a PCC in Newcastle, where it was put to a woman of 23 that she had always been a liar because she had lied by writing a letter to her school saying that she could not go to the swimming pool that day, and forging her mother’s signature. She was 12 when she did that. If something like that is found, the police probably think they have to disclose it to the other side, because they have a full duty to do so.
The point is not to look for ridiculously irrelevant material, or you are in pursuit of what I think victims think the police are looking for, which is the perfect victim. Of course, none of us would be a perfect victim in that sense, so that needs very much to be met by legal advice. It may be that once that material is found, there is no power in the CPS to do anything but disclose it. It is arguing at the beginning about what material should be sought.
It is absolutely clear that the Crown Prosecution Service has to start prosecuting rape. It now prosecutes around 1,700 cases a year, whereas for the best part of a decade, prior to a change in its approach to rape in 2016-17, it prosecuted 3,500 cases a year and got a corresponding number of convictions. Now it is prosecuting only half as many as that and getting convictions only in three figures, which is a terrific collapse. That approach, which changed, needs to be changed back.
There must also be good provision of independent sexual violence advisers. Anyone who comes to make a complaint, which is a very courageous thing to do given what they have gone through, the imbalance of power between them and the police and their complete lack of awareness of what the criminal justice system is like, needs a professional friend beside them to help them to cope. They may need to move house, if the rape was in the house, or move job, if the rape was connected with the job. At least a professional friend can help with those things, and you cannot expect a complainant to cope with that as well as with the criminal justice system. All that seems imperative. I am mindful of the Chair’s wish for brevity from me, so perhaps I will write to you with a longer list.
Alex Cunningham
Thank you very much for that. I think you have covered everything that I needed to cover.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
Q
On the point about digital divides, do you accept that there is a need to clarify the law on this? At the moment, we have the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and we have the Attorney General’s new guidelines, but presumably you accept that there is a need to set a framework in law in order to help and protect victims, and to protect the right of a free trial under article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998?
Dame Vera Baird: I think national legislation to clarify the law about this is imperative, but it is just not this national legislation.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Dame Vera Baird: Yes, of course we have to do so. I am not sure you will be doing that with this power. I think there is a real human rights challenge here already, and I am pretty satisfied that there will be data protection challenges too. Yes, of course data protection is the law and it is important. I do not think this fulfils all your obligations under that either.
Victoria Atkins
Q
“that information stored on the electronic device is relevant to a purpose within subsection (2)”.
That wording of course comes from the 1996 Act, doesn’t it?
Dame Vera Baird: I do not know which it comes from, but “relevant” is no good, Minister. “Relevant” is not a reasonable line of inquiry. Somebody who comes across the letter from the lady in Northumbria might think that is relevant. I do not think that finding it is a reasonable line of inquiry. A reasonable line of inquiry in the CPIA is the right test, and this is the wrong test.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Dame Vera Baird: There is a test of a reasonable line of inquiry under the CPIA. That is the test, and that is very much a narrower test than the one in the proposed clauses. I have to say, because we narrowed it from relevance down to a reasonable line of inquiry in our amendments, the police were happy to accept that, so I am not sure why the Home Office wants it to be wider than the police want it to be.
Victoria Atkins
Q
“satisfied that exercise of the power is necessary and proportionate”.
Again, that wording applies across the board in terms of criminal proceedings. Is that correct?
Dame Vera Baird: I have come across the terminology before, but it is highly subjective. Insufficient detail is gone into for it to have the meaning that it is important to have. I think it is a very good thing, if I may say so, Minister, that you have accepted that the backdrop against which we approach these clauses is a very, very undesirable one, where confidence has been lost by over-demands on vulnerable complainants’ personal data. It is hugely important therefore to put into the legislation every protection that can be put in, for fairness. Remember, there is a massive power imbalance in the relationship at the time of the requests—
Victoria Atkins
Q
The codes of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, for example, are vital codes of practice that are relied on in court. If a police officer does not meet the standards expected by that code when interviewing suspects, for example—if there is a significant breach—the entire prosecution can fall. Do you accept that although we are rightly looking at the wording of the clauses, just focusing on those would not give the full picture? We also need to consider the importance that the code of practice will have. It will deal with some of the practice points that you have raised.
Dame Vera Baird: I do not think it is the right analogy to compare any code of practice. Let me tell you, the code of practice under this is invisible or non-existent. Codes of practice are discussed though they are the answer to it all. The first thing to say is that they do not have the power of statute, and if the legislation goes through as it is now, that is what the police will likely rely on. Of course a statutory code of practice under PACE has the consequences that you described, Minister, but that is because if you break the code of practice under PACE, it impacts on the defendant. The defendant can say, “Oh, that’s been done unfairly and jeopardised my fair trial,” and a breach can even be the end of a prosecution. There is absolutely no power for a rape complainant to have a similar resolution of a breach of any code of practice in this legislation. They can breach the codes of practice until they are blue in the face, and it does not make any difference to the trial.
Victoria Atkins
But you accept—
Dame Vera Baird: That is a difference in power, is it not? That is an important point.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I am sure you accept the difference, though, Minister—
Victoria Atkins
No—
Dame Vera Baird: There is no possible remedy or solution for the complainant that is analogous to the outright acquittal that can be a consequence of breaching the PACE code of practice, because that is about a defendant. This is about a complainant. What do you suggest would be the solution if the code of practice were breached in my case of rape and too much documentation was taken and disclosed? What is my remedy?
Victoria Atkins
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I would like to answer that, if I can. They are the only thing, because there is no sign of a code of practice. There is no draft code of practice at all. When I ask what my remedy would be as a rape complainant, you say to me that the police will be accountable, but how will they be accountable? It is not a crime and it is not a tort to break this code of practice, so what is the remedy if it is broken? It is not an analogy with the PACE code of practice. Do not over-rely on this code of practice, Minister. You and I share the aim of protecting complainants. Do not over-rely on a code of practice no one has ever seen and that does not have statutory form.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Dame Vera Baird: If those routes really do exist, have they been working, Minister? I do not remember any complainant being able to come to me as a PCC and complain about an individual case. Let’s face it: the dire situation where the public, or at least this sector of them, have lost confidence in the police has occurred at the time when all of those bodies that can call them to account have been in play, and they have not called them to account.
Victoria Atkins
Q
I will move on to unauthorised encampments. You were asked about the impact and you fairly conceded that residents can be victims in the context of unauthorised encampments. Clause 61 sets out the offence. The conditions that are laid down for the alleged commission of an offence include factors such as “significant damage”, “significant disruption” and “significant distress”. With your focus on antisocial behaviour, presumably you welcome the focus on those unauthorised encampments that result in those sorts of distressing conditions?
Dame Vera Baird: I would not want anyone to suffer from any of those, but causing damage—I do not know what that is. If you are on an unauthorised encampment and you have not got a lavatory so you dig a latrine, is that causing damage to the field? I think it depends how it is defined. I really cannot go much further than saying that unless there is proper provision of authorised encampments, you have two sets of victims. I quite agree with you that the people who are distressed, damaged or whatever by an unauthorised encampment are victims of that. There is no doubt of it—you have made your point—but I want you to take into account the difficulty of finding somewhere to camp in a lot of places, which forces people into an unlawful place. Of course, damage is not justifiable, but that is a factor to consider. I was so pleased when the NPCC appreciated that as well.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank the witness again for her evidence.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 20th May 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 May 2021 - (20 May 2021)
The Chair
I will introduce our panel of witnesses. If they can see us and hear us, that is an improvement on this morning when they could only hear us. We will hear from Iryna Pona, policy and research manager at the Children’s Society, and Will Linden, deputy head of the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit at Community Justice Scotland.
Colleagues, we have until 2.45 pm for this section, so just under 45 minutes. Will our witnesses introduce themselves for the record, please?
Iryna Pona: My name is Iryna Pona, policy and research manager at the Children’s Society, which is a voluntary sector organisation. We work with young people who are criminally or sexually exploited, who have experienced abuse or who have gone missing from home or care. We do policy and research and also work directly with children and young people delivering one-to-one support group work as well as therapeutic support for children.
We also have national programmes such as the disrupting exploitation and prevention programme. These programmes, as well as working with young people, also work with professionals to help them improve their responses to children who are criminally or sexually exploited. Our prevention programme funded by the Home Office also runs campaigns. The #LookCloser campaign is about raising the awareness of the public and professionals of child exploitation with the aim of better identification and better and earlier support for these children.
The Chair
Thank you. Mr Linden next.
Will Linden: Good afternoon. I am Will Linden, deputy head of the violence reduction unit in Scotland. We are an independent unit as part of Police Scotland. We look at prevention in all of its guises in reducing violence from cradle to grave. We have been doing this since 2005. We adopted a public health model fairly early on.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Q
Iryna Pona: I think having a definition of child criminal exploitation would be very helpful. When we did research on child criminal exploitation, one of the messages that we had from loads of professionals, both working with the Children’s Society but also working with the local authority and police, was that different services—
Sarah Champion
Sorry, I am a bit deaf and your link is a bit iffy. Is there any chance you could speak a little slower, please?
Iryna Pona: Of course, yes—sorry. I was saying that the lack of shared understanding of what child criminal exploitation is prevents co-ordinated, joined-up responses to children who are criminally exploited, particularly responses that happen at earlier stages, when the children are groomed for child criminal exploitation.
Also, when children come into contact with police and law enforcement agencies, we know that they are still more likely to be treated as young offenders rather than being seen as victims of crime. So having a definition that all agencies—police, social care, the voluntary sector and others—can share and understand in the same way will really help to change attitudes and also help with how support is provided.
We also believe that the definition needs to be quite broad and not just focused on county lines. We have seen in recent years that there has been a huge focus on county lines, which is really welcome, but the county lines model of child criminal exploitation is just one type of criminal exploitation. We know that children may be exploited in a variety of other ways and that these models constantly evolve and develop.
Having a broad definition that would explain to everyone involved that child criminal exploitation is when someone manipulates a child into undertaking criminal activity would go a long way to improving the responses to children who are criminally exploited and it would improve early intervention as well.
Sarah Champion
Q
Will Linden: It is not necessarily my area of expertise, but I will just back up what Iryna said there. The challenge if you set a definition for child criminal exploitation is to make sure that the definition is wide and dynamic enough to cover things. The problem is that if we set definitions, we then work to them; we work to that bar—and if, for whatever reason, a young person does not qualify for or meet that definition, they can fall within the gaps in the system.
We have to be quite careful with the definition, to make sure that it is encompassing and that it is not fixed at any point in time; if we are writing it just now, the definition of “exploitation” and what happens to a young person who is being exploited will change. We have to be quite careful. It is important that we write a definition and have one, so that we understand what the services need to do, but we must not get absolutely fixated on it.
Sarah Champion
Q
Iryna Pona: From what we know about this issue, definitely not enough data is being collected. In relation to child criminal exploitation, some data is collected through the national referral mechanism when young people are referred to it. From October 2019, it started collecting data specifically on child criminal exploitation, because of the huge increase in the number of referrals. It is really helpful, but in our opinion it is only the tip of the iceberg.
No similar data is collected through social care. I know that social care will introduce this as one of the factors in assessment—from this year onwards, I think. However, at the moment we do not know the true scale of child criminal exploitation. There is some proxy data, which is about how many children have been arrested, but I believe that at that point it is too late. We need to start identifying child criminal exploitation much earlier, to offer help much earlier.
There are also gaps in relation to child sexual exploitation. Some data is collected by the police and is available from them, but police data often focuses on crime; it does not always include children aged 16 or 17 who are victims of sexual offences because of the way the data focuses on crime. It is acknowledged in the Government’s sexual abuse strategy that that is a gap.
We also do not necessarily understand the progression from identification to prosecution of these cases. There is no clear data in relation to that, which I think impacts on how agencies can see the bigger picture, gather information and plan a relevant response to these really serious crimes. Regarding prosecution, some data is available, but it is very limited.
Sarah Champion
Q
Will Linden: The Scottish perspective is very similar, but this comes down to the fact that we collect a lot of data on individuals and families—crime data, health data and social work data. The problem is that the data do not speak to each other.
We often hide behind GDPR and data protection rules. The datasets and the data holders need to be more aligned so that when we are trying to make some of the strategic decisions, we can interrogate the data better, understand the impacts on families and understand the impacts on young people. For me, this is not about collecting anything new; it is about using it smarter. From Scotland’s perspective, I do not think we are much further ahead than where we are in England and Wales now, because we need to get smarter at that too.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Q
Will Linden: I come from a background of looking at prevention and looking at what works, both from a public health perspective and from a criminal justice perspective—not any particular one lens.
Looking at the Bill and what it is trying to do with violent crime reduction orders and other aspects, the intent is there to try to reduce violence. Some of the challenges I have with it regard the unintended consequences of the Bill. If you are going to use some of the measures in it, such as what are essentially increased stop-and-search powers and increased powers over individuals connected to, and guilty of, violent crime and carrying knives, we have to be sure that those are the targets that we want to target with this, because we really need to be focusing on those who are the most at risk of committing the highest level of violence.
For the majority of young people—it will be young people who are caught up in some of the violent crime orders—they will probably be one-off offences. What we will be doing is further criminalising them, and the unintended consequence is that we might be pushing them further down a criminal justice pathway. Looking broadly at the Bill, it is a good idea in principle, but it is about who we point it towards and who we target it at. If we are targeting it at a wide spread—everyone who is caught with a knife, or everyone who has something to do with violent crime—and everyone becomes a part of the Bill or a part of this order, the consequences could far outstrip the outcomes that we are going to try to achieve.
Iryna Pona: From the Children’s Society perspective, we are supportive of the intention behind the duty to bring together different agencies to develop a strategy to reduce and prevent serious violence in their areas. However, we know that the success of such a duty would rest a lot on how it is implemented locally. It is really important that the duty is formulated in such a way as to encourage the greatest focus possible on the safeguarding of children and on the early intervention and support for children and families, as opposed to being seen as a crime reduction initiative.
We therefore believe that for the duty to have a significant impact on reducing the criminal exploitation of children when criminal exploitation is linked to violence or children’s involvement in violence, it is important that the safeguarding of children is recognised and included in the name of the duty, encouraging multi-agency action to address the underlying causes of violence, such as poverty, poor housing, exposure to domestic violence, and criminal and sexual exploitation.
All those are really important, because I agree with what Will said. Potentially, if it is just treated as a crime reduction initiative and prevention is focused on police action, it is very different from when it is safeguarding and focused on offering the best support possible to children.
Sarah Jones
Q
Iryna Pona: Yes. I believe it will help with interpretation of the duty locally, to enable it to be interpreted in a very similar way across the country and to focus attention on action that needs to be taken by different agencies locally on safeguarding children and taking action to provide support. It is not necessarily preventing escalation or further involvement in violence, but preventing as early as possible involvement in any violent activity. That would be really important.
I also think there are other simple ways in which the duty can be improved—for example, by making sure that when the strategy is produced, social care is part of the consultation, because it will have information about who the vulnerable children are, what the level of need is and how things can be improved locally.
There are different elements related to the duty—for example, about information sharing—that are also important. Information sharing is obviously a very important area. We agree that it is crucial that relevant information is shared to enable agencies working together to plan a better response to children. But there is also something in the duty and in the accompanying guidance that suggests that information may be shared or requested directly—for example, from schools—by the police about individual children. We would have concerns about that, because schools have such an important role to play; school is a place where children have trusting relationships with teachers and educators. It could undermine some of the trust that children have. We believe that there are already in place multi-agency structures—such as multi-agency safeguarding hubs or multi-agency risk assessment conferences—that are better placed for that information sharing about individual children.
So I think there are elements in this duty that are really important, but there are also ways to improve it.
Sarah Jones
Q
Iryna Pona: Plugging is when young people are exploited by criminal groups to deliver drugs across the country and—sometimes—they are delivering those drugs inserted in cavities in their bodies. It is a horrific experience for children—it is also a great risk to their health. Unfortunately, it is something that a lot of children we are working with are experiencing. It is experienced by a lot of children who are exploited by criminal groups for county lines drug trafficking.
Sarah Jones
Q
Iryna Pona: Yes. That definitely came up a lot when we were doing our research for the county lines report. Practitioners were—[Interruption.]
Sarah Jones
Q
Will Linden: A public health approach to tackling violence is quite simple. It is about using an evidence-based approach to address the causes of the violence in the first place—looking at the challenges, the underlying situation and the underlying evidence, and addressing them before they becomes a wider issue. The public approach is nothing to do with specific trauma or with criminology; it is solely about applying what works at the earliest possible stage. It is evidence-based, it is tried and tested, and it is there to try to deliver long-term, sustainable outcomes. Obviously, over the last year we have all become aware of the public health approach in terms of dealing with the covid situation. This is the same idea: it is looking at what works. How do you vaccinate a community? How do you try to reduce violence? In relation to young people and violence, it is not necessarily about crime, prison and stop-and-search; it is about why they got to that point in the first place and what we can do about it.
Sarah Jones
Q
Will Linden: There are a number of thoughts about that in terms of what has happened over the last few years. There are increasing levels of inequality and the reductions in the services that are available because of some of the decisions we have had to make; there are also issues such as social media and young people’s culture. What is interesting for me from a Scottish perspective is that although we have seen increasing levels of youth violence in England and Wales, we have not seen the same thing in Scotland. We have seen the level of violence change, go up and stabilise at a certain level, but not necessarily among young people. It is a different group and a different type of violence.
There is something particular happening within certain cultures in certain areas of the UK. We know that violence is not constant across the whole country; it is in pockets. For example, in Scotland, about 60% of the violence is attributable to less than 1% of the population at a very small geographic level. Although we talk about looking at a public health response to the whole country, it is sometimes about much more targeted interventions at a local level.
Sarah Jones
Q
Will Linden: I do not hold much stock in the comment that violence is just increasing anyway, because throughout the western world violence has been reducing for centuries. We are safer today than we were yesterday, despite what the crime figures, and sometimes the newspaper headlines, tell us.
In Scotland, we looked at policing to start with. Policing is incredibly important, because sometimes you have to stabilise the patient and deal with the problem before you can put in prevention measures and deal with the underlying causes. For us, that was heavily about education. It was about looking at schools and access to young people, who were our initial target, our biggest group and our biggest challenge, predominantly in Glasgow and the west coast of Scotland, not in the whole of Scotland. That is who we targeted.
We targeted young people with education, programmes and advertising campaigns. We looked at how we could get people into jobs and mentor and support them. It was not a one-fix thing. It was about trying to understand the local situation, so in specific areas of Glasgow we looked at the gangs problem, and in Lanarkshire we looked at unemployment. It was about looking at different problems and trying to apply the solutions locally. That took a great deal of partnership working and a great deal of intelligence and information.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Q
Will Linden: That is an important question, because they do have to fit in with existing structures. One of the successes we have had in Scotland in delivering on the strategy is because we are connected in. We are connected into policing. We are connected into the Government. We are connected into local government across the country. If you are introducing any new structures alongside that—VRUs; it does not matter what it is—how are they going to connect into local delivery and local services? More importantly, how is it going to connect into local communities?
If we are looking at strategies based on short-term turnaround—for example, we are going to provide x amount of money to provide a reduction in the next year—that is not going to work, because you are looking at how to build the building blocks, within these communities, areas and partnerships, that are going to deliver long-term, sustainable outcomes. That does not mean that the partnerships, in whatever area of the country they are, cannot get reductions just now, but what we want to do is to build upon those short-term wins in order to build long-term, sustainable reductions that are built into the system—that are not additionality.
Maria Eagle
Q
Will Linden: We do not have any experience in what you are looking to do down in Merseyside or any other areas, but you need to think beyond the traditional route of crime indicators because of the length of time involved.
You can look at trying to reduce the levels of crime and violence, but what we are dealing with just now is a post-pandemic situation. Over the last year, we have seen significant changes to communities’ environments, so you might actually face increasing levels of violence and there might be increasing problems over the next year or two as a result of the consequences of the last year, and post recovery. If you just tie yourselves down to simple crime figures and recorded crime figures, you could be challenged on that. What we will have to do is to look at some of the other figures around things like community wellbeing, trust in the services, trust in policing and education figures, and try to take in a broad spectrum of outcomes, particularly when we are looking at young people.
If our outcome is solely about reducing crime, that can be achieved quite simply with two things. Recorded crime can be reduced by changing the law and stopping recording it; that is easy. But if you want to reduce the harm that violence causes our communities, you have to look at all the various measurements that measure harm. Some of those are simple, like the crime surveys. Others are much more complex, in terms of mental health or wellbeing. I would look to try to include as wide a sweep as possible, to try to get an understanding of its wider impacts, not just the simple ones.
Maria Eagle
Q
Iryna, I am asking about the serious violence reduction units and how they are going to fit into other arrangements that are already there. From the perspective of the Children’s Society, do you have anything to say about how the new multi-agency collaborations are going to work alongside violence reduction units and existing structures that are supposed to promote collaboration between agencies?
Iryna Pona: First, apologies for being disconnected. There were some technical difficulties.
The violence reduction unit is obviously quite new, and they also work in very different areas. With the new duty to focus on serious violence, I think it is very important that in the way it works, it should be complementary and joined up with the work of the violence reduction unit. It is also important to understand that areas where there are violence reduction units receive additional funding to undertake violence reduction activity locally, but that is not available across the country. It is really important that the new duty is supported with appropriate resources and delivered locally.
The Children’s Services Funding Alliance, which the Children’s Society is part of, looked at the funding from 2010-11 to 2018-19 on early intervention and late intervention services. It showed that the funding for early intervention services reduced by 46% during that time, while the funding for late intervention services increased by 29%. That shows that there is not enough early intervention available. It is important that where there is activity that focuses specifically on diverting young persons from being involved in violence or violence-related activity, it comes together with funding to address the underlying causes of why young people may be in a situation where they may be exploited in a particular way or drawn into certain groups and activities.
It is really important to understand that local picture. In that respect, it is really important that violence reduction units and local safeguarding partnerships work together to understand those underlying causes and try to develop a strategy that will comprehensively address those local issues.
Sarah Champion
It is extraordinary. I have tinnitus, which is why I am deaf, so that ringing—
Sarah Champion
Q
Will Linden: The impact on a child receiving a criminal record is extraordinary. It sets you on a pathway for life that makes things much more challenging. It can be traumatic and it can hamper you having a job or a career in the future. It can take you further down the criminal justice pathway, where you can get further involved in criminality but you are actually more likely to be victimised and to be the victim of crime. Having young people involved in anything to do with the criminal justice system is not, under any circumstances, a thing we should ever aspire to. The criminal justice system is one of the necessary evils that we require in society at present and we should do our best to keep young people out of it as much as possible.
The Chair
Does anybody else have anything they would like to ask our excellent witnesses? No? Well, I thank the two of you for giving up your Thursday afternoon to join us. I am sorry that we lost you occasionally and that there was background noise, bells and banging, but we got there in the end, so thank you very much.
Examination of Witness
Hazel Williamson gave evidence.
The Chair
Good afternoon, Hazel, and thank you for being ready to join us early. Hazel Williamson is the chair of the Association of Youth Offending Team Managers. I have just introduced you, but I think we need to do you the courtesy of allowing you to introduce yourself very briefly.
Hazel Williamson: Thank you. I am very grateful, and I am delighted to be able to give some evidence today. Yes, I am Hazel Williamson, and I am chair of the Association of Youth Offending Team Managers. I have been chair since September last year, and for two years before that I was vice-chair. My day job is head of Staffordshire youth offending service.
The Chair
Thank you very much. We have a question straight away from Mr Robert Goodwill.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Q
Hazel Williamson: In terms of custodial remand, we have seen a significant reduction under the previous legislation and the current legislation. Under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, we have seen a reduction in remand. Some of the challenges that remain for remand are around those robust packages, and in particular suitable placements, for our children and young people. We know that placements is a national issue for children and young people, and finding the most suitable is really difficult. What we know about our cohort in the youth justice system now is that they have changed over the past 20 years. They are presenting with significant trauma and abuse, often as a result of exploitation. That makes it really difficult for our local authority colleagues to source an appropriate placement.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Hazel Williamson: With remand into custody, we would always try to offer suitable alternatives wherever possible, whether that is a robust bail package supported by our youth offending teams or remand into the care of the local authority with that additional support. We know that in the custodial population, there are high numbers of children who have been looked after or are currently being looked after, along with other needs, but wherever possible we would try to work with our local authority to seek that suitable alternative to remand.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Hazel Williamson: In particular, I would like us to record remand decisions more robustly in the courts. We need clear decision making; we need it to be clear why we have made those decisions. Also, we should take the opportunity to encourage regular reviews of remand and seek alternatives wherever possible.
I think on a national footing we need to be working closely with the Department for Education and our director of children’s services to develop a more robust placement process and improve the quality of the market for placements.
Mr Goodwill
Thank you very much indeed for those clear and concise answers.
Maria Eagle
Q
Hazel Williamson: We are obviously supportive of anything that improves youth custody. We know that outcomes for children who end up in youth custody are poor and have been for some considerable time. The recent inspection reports will detail that we do not yet have the significant improvements we need in youth custody.
As an association of YOT managers, we believe that children in custody—custody should be a last resort—should be placed in small, secure units close to their homes. We do not advocate large custodial establishments where children are placed far away from their home; we would advocate small custodial units. As for the academy trust, it remains to be seen what the detail is around the secure school and how children will manage as part of the routine within that environment.
Maria Eagle
Q
Hazel Williamson: If we look at the proposal for an extended intensive supervision and surveillance programme, it did not have great results when it was previously piloted, and it was not piloted on a scale to allow an effective evaluation. We as YOT managers are not convinced that the extended ISS is the way to go. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that custody is the last resort for children and young people.
The other proposal in the Bill that we as an association have been discussing is around intensive fostering. Staffordshire youth offending team—my service—was part of one of the pilots. That scheme was extremely expensive and did not necessarily get the expected results for those children and young people. So while we absolutely support robust alternatives to custody, I think we need to be consulting with our youth offending teams to try to examine what we think will work with the cohort of children we are dealing with.
Maria Eagle
Q
Hazel Williamson: There has always been a disparity for our girls in the system. I am concerned overall that the numbers of children going into custody will increase with some proposed mandatory sentencing, and I am concerned that it will impact in particular on our girls and our black and minority ethnic children—particularly our black and mixed heritage boys. I am also concerned that it may impact on our children who are looked after. There are some particular groups in the youth justice system who I believe will be adversely affected by some of the recommendations in the Bill.
Sarah Champion
Q
Hazel Williamson: I am not going to put a figure on it, but we know that we get better outcomes for children and young people who are placed in secure children’s homes that are generally run by people who are social work and social care-trained, and that provides a much more nurturing environment. It is a children’s home with security rather than a custodial environment overseen by prison rules.
Sarah Champion
Q
Hazel Williamson: I think there is a missed opportunity in the Bill to really strengthen the rights of children, whether that is in the community or in custody. There is a missed opportunity in that we are not strengthening our welfare-based approach to how we deal with children and young people. We know that children are different from adults, and we should take a stronger welfare-based approach with our children and young people. I definitely think that could be strengthened in the Bill.
Sarah Champion
Q
Hazel Williamson: Some things in the Bill mean that some of our children would receive mandatory sentences. I do not think it necessarily outlines for us how children’s welfare and the needs of children would be taken into consideration.
Sarah Champion
Q
Hazel Williamson: That is really a commissioning contract that we have not been party to. In the association’s view—I go back to my previous point—children should not be looked after where they are governed by prison rules, primarily.
Sarah Champion
Q
Hazel Williamson: It is slightly more. There is no doubt that paying for care for children where we want better results will inevitably cost us more. If we compare that with what it would cost for what is being proposed in the community, that also costs more. If we want better outcomes for our children and young people, we will have to invest, and invest a lot earlier.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
Q
Hazel Williamson: In terms of how we administer any community order, we work together with children and their families, or their corporate parent if they are a child in our care. We develop a holistic package that includes health. There is no doubt that health across England is patchy, in terms of provision for youth offending teams. However, health is a statutory member of all youth offending team partnerships. We would certainly advocate that the health offer is strengthened nationally, so that all children, whichever area they live in, get the right treatment at the right time.
We know that children who come into contact with our service have a significant range of unmet health needs, in particular speech, communication and language needs. We know that over 90% of the children we work with are often operating at an understanding age of between five and seven years old. So when we ask a teenager to navigate a very complex environment, their understanding is much lower than their chronological age.
The Chair
Well done, Mr Levy. Right, are there any more Back-Bench colleagues who would like to come in before I bring in the shadow Minister, who is champing at the bit? No? I call the shadow Minister.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Q
Earlier, I believe that I heard you correctly when you were expressing a view on the proposed changes to the test for custodial remand. Did you say that you were concerned that it could lead to more children being remanded in custody?
Hazel Williamson: No, that is not what I said. I believe that the Bill could lead to more children receiving custodial sentences. In terms of remand, we are pleased that the Bill strengthens the conditions for remand and that remand will be seen as the last alternative. However, in the courts arena we would like to see the reasons for remand being made really clearly recorded, and the decisions about it.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Hazel Williamson: In particular, we are looking at mandatory sentences for some offences. What we have to understand is that the children and young people who we currently work with in the youth offending service are different from those we were working with 20 years ago. Youth offending teams have worked really hard to reduce the number of children and young people in the statutory youth justice system, and we have much lower numbers now. However, what we have is an increasingly complex group of children and young people, who have often experienced exploitation, in particular criminal exploitation, and significant trauma.
For me, what is a missed opportunity within the Bill is that join-up regarding how we work with children who are exploited by our serious crime gangs, and we need to be thinking about a much more welfare-based approach to how we work with our children and young people.
We are also concerned about the differences proposed for some of our 17-year-olds. We believe that, in terms of youth justice, they are a child until they get to 18. There is also lots of evidence about brain development, showing that it can take children until they are into their early or mid-20s to fully develop.
We believe that there is opportunity within the Bill for more custodial sentences and we are particularly concerned about our black and minority ethnic children, including our Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children.
Alex Cunningham
Q
“In this Chapter…‘adult’ means a person aged 16 or over”.
Do you think that generally—you have already alluded to some of this—the Bill gives sufficient consideration to research on maturity?
Hazel Williamson: I know that there is mention of neurodiversity in the Bill, but it does not go far enough. We should treat children as children until they are 18 and they should be sentenced as a child until they reach the age of 18. In an ideal world, we would look beyond that, because many people do not develop fully, in terms of brain development, until they are in their mid-20s. The cohort of children and young people we are working with have suffered significant trauma. We know that affects what would be the brain of a teenager who had not experienced trauma; the brain develops differently, if you have experienced significant trauma and abuse. Virtually all the children we work with in our system have experienced abuse to some level or degree.
So no, the Bill does not go far enough, in my view. That links to our earlier conversation about being more welfare and rights-based. We need to think about the rights of children. They should be treated as children until they are 18.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Hazel Williamson: If they have committed the offence as a child, they should be sentenced as a child. During covid, there have been some delays in court processes, which has meant some children being sentenced as an 18-year-old when they committed the crime as a child. Going back to our earlier conversation, we know that brain development does not change just at age 18. For me, if you committed the offence as a child, you should be sentenced as a child.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Hazel Williamson: We have talked about this as an association. We have concerns when there are not opportunities to have terms reviewed. What we know is that there will be significant changes. For example, the brain of a child who was sentenced to a long term at 17 will have matured significantly by the time they reach their mid-20s, so we should be enabling that review to happen along and through their sentence.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Hazel Williamson: What YOT managers say to me is that the biggest challenge is around funding. Youth offending teams have absolutely reduced first-time entrants; we have reduced children and young people going into custody. We are also reducing the reoffending rates for many of our children and young people. The assumption, therefore, is that youth offending teams do not need to be funded as much as they were previously.
However, youth offending team managers have been saying for some time that just because the numbers have reduced does not mean that we are not working with a complex group of children and young people. For many youth offending teams, the numbers they are working with have not reduced; it is just that the children are in a different space and place. For example, we might not be working with as many children on statutory orders, but we will be offering some kind of prevention and diversion to keep them out of the criminal justice system.
It is not always the case that because first-time entrants are reducing and the numbers of children involved in the criminal justice system are reducing, youth offending teams are not doing the same amount of work they have always done. Funding is really an issue, as is understanding the context and the numbers of children that YOTs are trying to work with across the country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
Q
Hazel Williamson: Absolutely, and we know that, but children and young people who commit those offences as children should still be sentenced as children. We can use the strength in our youth offending teams, because we have seconded probation staff working with us, so we can have quite a balanced report for those children and young people, and support them with the transition from youth offending teams into probation. Age and maturity should absolutely be considered across the whole system, but our children and young people who commit offences when under 18 should be sentenced as children.
Chris Philp
Q
Hazel Williamson: What we know about sentencing is that people will make significant changes between the time they committed the offence and where they are at any given point in time. We have been working with children who have been awaiting sentence in the Crown court, and who are now past their 18th birthdays. They will have made significant changes up to the point where they are sentenced, and they were still children at the time they committed that offence.
Chris Philp
Q
Secondly, some new youth sentencing options, and sentencing options more widely, are made available in the Bill. Can you give us some commentary on how youth offending services and courts can make a success of those new sentencing options?
Hazel Williamson: I assume you are referring to the intensive supervision and surveillance, intensive fostering, and GPS monitoring?
Chris Philp
Yes, for example.
Hazel Williamson: Okay. In terms of ISS, I have already indicated that its extension will require some resourcing. Intensive supervision and surveillance is already in place across the country for youth offending teams, and it is utilised to prevent children from receiving custodial sentences. I think that is already in place. There are concerns that the pilot of an ISS extended to 12 months did not give the results it needed to.
In terms of the intensive foresting arrangements, again, I go back to the fact that it is really resource-intensive and expensive, and it will require very close join-up with our local authority colleagues, who will be required to provide the foster carers to support it. On GPS—some trials have been taking place for GPS monitoring for our children and young people—there is some thought that it will certainly prevent some of our children and young people from being involved in those more violent crimes, and will reduce the risk of them being exploited. That is not the case from what we are seeing with children and young people who are subject to GPS monitoring and tagging. We also know that those children really struggle with the equipment, in terms of practicalities and charging the equipment. We know that GPS does not work for a lot of our children and young people in areas where it has been piloted.
As youth offending teams, we want to look for suitable and robust alternatives to custody for our children and young people. There is no doubt that it has to be done in partnership, but it will require some significant resourcing.
The Chair
Hazel, thank you for that. When people ask—[Interruption.] Bloody hell, I am wrestling with my wretched mask—my mother-in-law made it and I wear it in honour and tribute to her. Hazel, when people ask me, “How should I prepare to give evidence to a Committee?”—be it a Select Committee or a Bill Committee like this—I shall say, “Watch Hazel Williamson.” That was crisp, concise and informative. It really was a masterclass, and it is appreciated by us all at the start of a very long afternoon. We are trying to find our next witness, who is being asked to appear 25 minutes early. If we cannot find our next witness, colleagues may go and have a cup of tea and stretch their legs. Thank you, Hazel.
Hazel Williamson: Thank you.
The Chair
I will call a 10-minute break. The sitting is suspended until a quarter past 3.
The Chair
Hello, Ellie Cumbo, Head of Public Law at the Law Society. Can you hear and see us?
Ellie Cumbo: I can.
The Chair
Excellent. We have until 4.15 pm for this session, but I think we are going to end early. Thank you for joining us early. We are ahead of schedule. Would you like to introduce yourself very briefly?
Ellie Cumbo: Certainly. My name is Ellie Cumbo. I am the Law Society’s Head of Public Law, and I have been in post for two years. My substantive responsibilities are, as my title suggests, largely to do with public law, and we include criminal law within that definition.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Ellie Cumbo: Certainly, there is nothing in there that sounds controversial to me. I should, however, flag that the Law Society at the moment does not take the view that it is right for us to comment on the public order provisions of the Bill. That is largely down to the fact that our role is to comment on how they will work in practice and whether it will be possible for them to be implemented by the police and understood by solicitors, clients and the general public. Much of that remains to be seen. It is, after all, the case that these are political decisions.
We of course take the point about fundamental rights. We want to point out that it has become extremely clear in the last year and a half that it is important not only that the law is clear and accessible in the ways that I just described, but that it is enforced in a way that is consistent and can be understood by the general public. That is something that we would call for. Beyond that, we have not seen fit to comment on these particular provisions.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Ellie Cumbo: I am saying that it is not within our remit. We have to judge our remit based on what we take to be in the interests of our members, which of course includes issues of principle such as the rule of law and access to justice. It may well be the case that there comes a point where, if great concern is expressed by those agencies and bodies with greater knowledge of how these provisions would be enforced in practice—policing bodies, voluntary sector bodies—we might see a need for us to add our voice to those concerns, but there are more appropriate bodies to comment on those at this point than us.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Ellie Cumbo: Again, clarity of the law is an issue of concern and interest to the Law Society and its members. We have not taken a view on that particular Law Commission proposal, but we certainly would not oppose it. Codification does not always come without disbenefits: in this case, we are not aware of any, but to reiterate, we have no strong view on that at present.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Ellie Cumbo: I am afraid so. I am sorry not to be able to assist the Committee on that, but we have taken a view that at the moment, that is not an area for our expertise.
Maria Eagle
Q
Ellie Cumbo: Certainly. The heading for all of our concerns is access to justice and the impact, or potential impact, of some of the provisions on access to justice. Now, in some of those areas, it is more that we have a question and we would like to see more detail about how this will look in practice—the open justice provisions would be in that category—but there are two particular areas where our concerns are already sufficient to put us in a position where we do not support what the Bill currently proposes. Those are in relation to video juries and the pre-charge bail provisions.
Maria Eagle
Q
Ellie Cumbo: I should say at the outset that we support the aim of those provisions, first to give clarity, and secondly to give the police a realistic opportunity to conduct investigations in hopes of preventing such measures as we have seen in recent years: the over-reliance on release under investigation, which the Committee may be aware that the Law Society has raised significant concerns about. At the moment, the risk is that a great many people—we do not know how many, and that is part of the problem—who are suspected of a crime but have not yet been charged with one are living in limbo for truly unacceptable lengths of time, as are all other potential parties to the case, including the complainants and potential witnesses. We understand that if the police have a little bit more time in which to put somebody on bail, that might reduce the need for them to feel that release under investigation is their only option.
However, at the other end of the scale, we do not want to return to the situation prior to 2017, where suspects could be on bail for indeterminate lengths of time. That too is a situation that places an unacceptable strain not only on defendants, as they are at that point, but on the other parties to the case, including complainants —potential victims. Our preference was for a middle way, so when this was consulted on in 2017, our preference was for an initial period of two months, followed by extensions up to four and up to six. That was what we felt was the appropriate middle ground. We feel that the potential to go to nine months before a court gets anywhere near the matter is excessive, but we do support the aim. We obviously want there to be greater certainty for all concerned.
I should just say, in closing, that ultimately what we really want, which I hope we could all agree on, is fewer delays, and investigations that conclude in a timely fashion. In our view, that is better achieved by greater investment of resources in the criminal justice system, rather than by what I might call a little bit of tinkering around bail time limits.
Maria Eagle
Q
Ellie Cumbo: The first thing to say is that of course that uncertainty, that living in limbo that I referred to previously, affects solicitors and legal practitioners, too. Ultimately, though, I think what my members would say is that it is their entire duty to act in the interests of their client, so it is the impact on their clients that they are quick to raise with us, and the potential injustice not only for, as I say, suspects and potential defendants, but all other parties to the case.
It is probably worth also developing the issue of what this might mean for access to legal advice. The longer a case is put off, the greater the risk of disengagement by the suspect or defendant and by all others. Memories fade. Justice outcomes are potentially damaged by the time that there actually is a hearing, and that is not good for anybody.
Maria Eagle
Q
Ellie Cumbo: I should say that we are in a middling position—again—on those provisions. We have not taken a stance against the provisions. Solicitors have adapted very well to remote hearings over the last year and a half, and they have been seen to have very great advantages, particularly in relation to administrative or interlocutory hearings where only the legal representatives are present. That has enhanced everyone’s convenience and the efficiency of proceedings in a very clear way, and our members are very clear about that.
However, we do have concerns about the fact that this is a very new development. It is foetal in terms of lifespan in the broader justice system. We would not be the first to raise concerns about the ability of vulnerable parties to participate in an effective way. In a survey that we recently conducted with our members, only 16% of them told us that they felt that vulnerable parties were able to participate effectively in remote hearings. We understand that the judiciary have taken notice of that. Guidance is available, in different jurisdictions, about the cases in which remote hearings are thought to be suitable. But it is still a developing agenda, and we are concerned that things should not move forward too quickly, because it is a substantive change and of course—as with so much in the criminal justice system—we know very little about the potential impact on justice outcomes and whether it is in fact in any way a risk to the right to a fair trial to conduct certain types of hearing in a remote way.
Maria Eagle
Q
Ellie Cumbo: We certainly welcome it, yes. Many people might be surprised that it is not already the case that a British Sign Language interpreter can be present in those circumstances. Obviously, that is a reflection of the fact that the whole system takes the importance of an independent jury very seriously—it is perhaps the most important safeguard we have for the fundamental rights of those who are charged with criminal offences. That is probably why it has taken the length of time it has to get here.
Our view is that, given where the public consensus can be judged to be and the fact that BSL interpreters participate in other types of confidential proceedings, we do not think that at this point it would be sustainable not to move forward with these provisions. Obviously, we are pleased to see that the Government are taking seriously the risk that the jury might in some way be influenced unduly by the presence of a 13th person, but as long as those safeguards are in place, we are entirely supportive of those provisions.
Sarah Champion
Q
Ellie, I am reeling from something that our Front-Bench spokesperson said in the last session. In chapter 3, on the extraction of information from electronic devices, in clause 36(10), the Government redefine an adult away from the definition in the convention on the rights of a child, which defines a child as a human under the age of 18, to
“ ‘adult’ means a person aged 16 or over”.
Could you comment on that extraordinary change?
Ellie Cumbo: I have not had the benefit of hearing that, so I think it would be unwise and unhelpful for me to do so. Could I come back to you on that?
Sarah Champion
Q
Within the Bill, there are changes regarding the availability of live links and when a vulnerable witness could call for special measures. What reasons would a judge have to refuse the use of a live link?
Ellie Cumbo: It is important that judges maintain that discretion. It is difficult to give an overview because the examples of a judgment that it is not in the interest of justice to use those live links will be so case-specific. It would be difficult for me to enlighten the Committee any further on that, other than to say that we place great trust in the discretion of judges and believe that they would not refuse vulnerable people the ability to use special measures without good reason.
Sarah Champion
Q
Ellie Cumbo: I think that would be difficult to assess in practice. I wonder if it would be helpful for me to consult some of our members who do defence work. It will sound to most people, including me, as though there is not an enormous difference between those two different situations, but I would not want to speak out of turn and be unhelpful. Is it acceptable for me to ask some of my defence practitioners who would be best able to give you an example of why that might or might not make a difference?
Sarah Champion
I would be extremely grateful for that. Thank you. I refer you back to one of your earlier answers. There are already huge backlogs in the justice system, for various reasons. Are there any measures in the Bill that cause you direct concern that it might increase that backlog?
Ellie Cumbo: I believe I would not be the first to note that anything that enhances the risk of a welter of contempt of court prosecutions is probably not desperately helpful. That is one of the reasons why we are keen to see the final detail around what I refer to as the open justice provisions of the Bill.
Of course, we support open justice and think it is of vital importance, but the reality is that there is a de facto limit in a physical courtroom of how many people can be observing trial proceedings at any given time and what they are getting up to while under the immediate eye of the judge. If any move towards the possibility of mass observation of court proceedings were possible as a result of the Bill, there would be a much enhanced risk of abuse and of people behaving in such a way that criminal proceedings against them ensue.
On a separate point, a concern that we have is that it puts a level of pressure on the parties that simply is not an issue in a physical courtroom, that something might go viral on social media.
Those are the concerns that we have about the open justice provisions. I am aware that I have gone slightly off topic, but certainly anything that puts further pressure on the criminal justice system in that way is not ideal in terms of dealing with the backlog. As I said with regard to the pre-charge bail provisions in particular, we would like to see significant further investment in the criminal justice system to clear that backlog, rather than changes that I think can be described as a bit of tweaking around the edges.
The Chair
Would any other colleagues from the Back Benches like to participate? No. I call the shadow Minister.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Ellie Cumbo: That is another area of the Bill where, for the time being, we have chosen not to make significant comments. We comment on sentencing guidelines, but we view whether sentences should be tougher or softer as a political decision, and are slow to presume that our members would all have the same view.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Ellie Cumbo: I think I can safely say that criminal defence practitioners in particular worry about sentence inflation as a political trend in the long term, but I do not think that I could responsibly comment on the specific provisions of the Bill. As I say, I do not think that members’ views would all necessarily align.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Ellie Cumbo: Absolutely not, no. We are very clear on that.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Ellie Cumbo: I think it is worth saying that the absence of public consultation on that point is a cause for concern. Anecdotally—I am sure this is true for many of you as well—nobody I have spoken to in a personal capacity feels comfortable that such a change might be made. They certainly find that they want to know more about it, and the safeguards that would underly it. This is an area where, to me, there is an obvious need for public consultation, given the importance that we all place on the way that juries work, and the ability to be tried by a jury of your peers.
In relation to whether we have been consulted as the Law Society, we have had informal conversations. We were aware that the possibility of remote juries was under consideration at one point during the pandemic, but of course it was not then introduced, so the timing of putting it on the statute book now struck us as rather odd.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Ellie Cumbo: I think what is important is that we do not know. The problem with any change to the way juries work is the relative difficulty of having a baseline against which to compare changes. We do not know to what extent changes to the way juries operate would have an impact on fair trial rights and the justice of the outcomes.
One could only speculate about which particular categories of defendants might be impacted—the vulnerable, those who already have communication difficulties, and so on. I do not know how helpful that speculation is. The point is that you do not experiment with a decades-old system that is so important to ensuring our fundamental rights and freedom without significant evidence, including that there is a need for it and that it would in fact deliver additional capacity to the system, which has not been done yet. The evidence has not been produced that there would be a significant increase in capacity from the proposals.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Ellie Cumbo: Our preferred safeguard is that we do not do it. We are very clear on that. We do not believe it is appropriate to introduce remote juries, particularly at a time when demand for them is surely in decline.
Chris Philp
Q
Ellie Cumbo: As I said earlier, it has been a story of great success in many ways, enhancing the convenience of all parties, including solicitors, particularly in relation to those types of hearings—administrative hearings— where it is only legal professionals talking to each other. Why on earth should you not use a remote hearing for that?
But it is not just an innate conservativism that prompts those concerns about whether it is working well for all types of hearings and all types of people appearing in those hearings. This is a significant change that is difficult to analyse—in fact, I believe the MOJ itself is still in the process of evaluating its success. We are keen participants in those discussions and are keen that our views are heard. Our views are that where such hearings enhance the interests of justice, we are in favour of them and, where they do not, we are not.
Chris Philp
Q
Ellie Cumbo: Obviously we and our members have implicit confidence in the judiciary. We are great believers in the importance of our independent and expert judiciary. That is not to suggest that it is not possible to make their lives a little bit easier than the current provisions do.
There is guidance, as I referred to earlier, about where remote hearings are and are not appropriate, and it differs slightly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. That is not a comment on the judiciary but it is arguably a reason for further attention to be paid to how clear those messages are and how possible it is, with the best will in the world, for the judiciary to interpret them in a way that promotes the interests of justice.
Sarah Champion
Q
Ellie Cumbo: No, I think I have had the opportunity to cover most of the things that the Law Society would want to. Perhaps I should have added into the conversation about pre-charge bail that we take the same view in relation to the removal of the presumption against bail: we understand the aim, but do not think this is the best way of achieving it. We would like to retain that presumption on the basis that it is still perfectly possible to use bail, but it can only be used where it is appropriate and proportionate to do so. We think that is an important safeguard.
The Chair
That brings this session to an end. Ellie, thank you very much for joining us and for the crispness of your answers.
Ellie Cumbo: Thank you.
The Chair
I say to the Committee that we are only going to run this panel for a maximum of 45 minutes. Our wonderful people in the Perspex booth doing the audio and visual will try to find the next panel so that we can end today at 5.30 pm. That is 15 minutes early, but we are running ahead of schedule.
We will now hear from Dr Kate Paradine, chief executive of Women in Prison; Nina Champion, director of the Criminal Justice Alliance; Dr Laura Janes, legal director of the Howard League for Penal Reform; and Dr Jonathan Bild, director of operations at the Sentencing Academy. Welcome, all.
May I ask for short and crisp answers? You will be asked lots of questions and there are four of you. I will not delay further. Will you introduce yourselves in no more than 10 seconds each, please? We will start with Dr Paradine.
Dr Paradine: Kate Paradine, chief executive of Women in Prison. We work with women in communities and prisons, and campaign for the rights of women in prison.
Nina Champion: I am Nina Champion, director of the Criminal Justice Alliance. We are an alliance of over 160 organisations working towards a fair and effective criminal justice system. In addition, since the Bill was published, we have helped to convene a coalition of criminal justice and race equality organisations to examine and highlight how the Bill risks deepening racial inequality in the criminal justice system.
Dr Janes: Good afternoon. I am the legal director of the Howard League for Penal Reform. We work for less crime and safe communities, and we run a discrete legal service representing children and young people in prison.
Dr Bild: I am Dr Jonathan Bild, director of operations at the Sentencing Academy, which is a charitable organisation that promotes the use of effective sentencing practices and also public understanding of and confidence in sentencing.
Mr Goodwill
Q
The Chair
Do it in the order you introduced yourselves.
Dr Paradine: In terms of improvement, we think that there has to be a focus on rehabilitation and not on sentence inflation and the ripple effect that that will have on the prison population, and particularly on the crisis in prisons. We welcome the focus on improving community sentences, but we feel that there needs to be a really close look at what that will mean in practice on the ground.
Certainly in terms of the impact on actually preventing rehabilitation rather than encouraging it, it is important that we consider what the knock-on effects are on the system. In terms of undermining improvements that are happening on the ground, whether it is diversion from custody or strengthening support services, the Bill does not address any of those issues as it currently stands. The ripple effect on sentence inflation is a real concern for us.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Dr Paradine: When we talk to probation officers, their concern is caseloads and the access to support services that help people to address the root causes of offending. We do not believe that probation officers need any more powers, and we do not think that they think that they need them, either.
The issue is access to a full, strong network of support services, particularly focused on the needs of women in the case of those that we address. For the purposes of enforcing sentences, there is not a problem with sentences not being harsh enough. Community support services that enable people to complete those sentences are what is really needed, not extra powers for probation officers.
The Chair
It is Nina Champion.
Nina Champion: We certainly welcome aspects of the Bill around reducing use of child remand, criminal records reform and the focus on diversion from custody, but overall we are very concerned about the sentencing and policing aspects of the Bill, and about the lack of evidence that it will improve public safety or reduce crime. It will put great pressure on an already stretched criminal justice and prison system. We are particularly concerned that the cumulative impact of many of the recommendations will result in increased racial inequality in our criminal justice system.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Nina Champion: For that period of time, but when you look at all the evidence, there is none to show that keeping people in prison for longer will have any impact on public safety or on their own rehabilitation. We are concerned, for example, about provisions that keep people in custody for longer and then reduce the amount of time that they spend on licence in the community, which is absolutely vital to enable people to resettle into the community and have that supervision by probation. Reducing that could have an adverse impact on public safety.
The Government have clearly committed to trying to reduce racial inequality in our criminal justice system, but that has to be by actions and not just by words. They have to be able to show evidence that this will have the impact that they want, and there just is not that evidence.
Dr Janes: We at the Howard League also really welcome the provisions in relation to remands for children, but we do think that not getting rid of the rather Dickensian ability to remand women and children for their own protection and welfare is a real missed opportunity, especially now that there will be a requirement to consider welfare before remanding a child. We also welcome the criminal records changes, which are very good, but more can be done to make sure that the rehabilitation period reflects the date at which the offence was committed.
We are incredibly concerned about the cost. The impact assessment shows that the increase in prison time will cost millions of pounds. We are also very concerned about the impact on our prison system. With these proposals, in the next five years the prison population will increase to 100,000, which is unprecedented in our country. Just to put that in context, in only the 1990s we were at 40,000, so that is an absolutely huge increase, and the impact assessment states that that will lead to instability, compound overcrowding, reduce access to rehabilitation, and increase self-harm and violence.
Although covid has absolutely been a challenge for everyone and a tragedy for many, it has given a brief pause in the uptick in the prison population. Not building on that, and putting further strain on the prison system, really is a bit of a missed opportunity.
Dr Bild: I echo a lot of what Nina said on the sentencing provisions. We have concerns that they do protect the public but in only the narrowest of senses—only for those additional months, or perhaps years, that someone spends in custody. If there is a plan to do something with those people while they are in custody for that extra time to make them less likely to reoffend when they come out, we suspect that that may only kick the problem down the road by a few months or years.
We are very keen on the issues around public confidence in the criminal justice system, but we do not necessarily think the Bill will make a great leap in that direction because of the technical nature of many of the changes. What the Bill does do is to make sentencing ever-more complex and complicated.
A pre-requisite for public confidence is public understanding. One of the results of some of these changes will be that it will perhaps be more difficult than ever to really understand what a custodial sentence will mean in practice. There is much more uncertainty about what a length of custody actually means. Overall, it is yet more piecemeal change in sentencing, which further complicates the framework.
Sarah Champion
Q
Dr Janes: Yes, the projections, as I just mentioned, show that it is set to go up to around 100,000. It is absolutely clear that many of the provisions in this Bill will see people spending a lot longer in prison. There is the increase in the minimum term. We know that with the DTO sentences we are likely to see up to 50 children at any one time in custody. The release provisions for the serious offences—four years or more—will go up to two thirds, rather than a half, which goes right back to the point that both Nina and Jonathan have made in terms of less time in the community under supervision, which is important for victims and confidence in the system.
Sarah Champion
Q
Dr Paradine: Most women in prison have experienced much worse crimes than those they are accused of committing and that end up meaning that they are in prison, particularly domestic abuse, child abuse and other forms of sexual exploitation, so this is a massive issue. We are really concerned about the impact on women, on families and, particularly, on children in terms of the imprisonment of primary carers.
We support the Joint Committee on Human Rights proposals for an amendment that would require judges to record and consider what they have taken into account in relation to sentencing primary carers, including to prison, and to collect data on that, so that finally we have the data, which it is really shocking that we do not have, about the number of children and families affected when the primary carer goes to prison.
When a mother is in prison, in 95% of cases her child will have to leave their own home to go into care or to live with relatives. It is completely unacceptable that the measures up until now have not resulted in the change needed. This is an opportunity to make that small change. It does not require anything different, but it will make sure, hopefully, that the things that should be happening in court do happen, that imprisonment is not having a disproportionate impact on children and that their best interests are safeguarded.
Sarah Champion
Q
Dr Paradine: That absolutely is the case. The majority of women are in prison for things like theft and non-violent offending, often linked to property, to mental ill health, to substance misuse and to multiple needs. The 5% of the prison population that is women is the most vulnerable of that already vulnerable population of people in prison. It is quite ridiculous that we plan to build 500 new women’s prison places, when what we should be doing is driving down the women’s prison population, which we can do if we invest in the right things and focus in the right direction.
Unfortunately, this Bill is a missed opportunity to turn the system around and to focus on rehabilitation, community intervention and making sure that prison is a last resort and not the first resort, which sadly it still often is, drawing people into a system that they find it difficult to escape from. We plead with you to make sure that we try and make sure that this Bill does not make a bad situation even worse.
Sarah Champion
Q
Dr Bild: Yes, when it comes to primary carers that is a relatively stable area of law and it is a relevant mitigating factor. I understand that there has been an amendment moved to go into statute, which is something that would be sensible, but sentencing will already refer to the guidelines on that. I would defer to Kate on all of these issues; it is very much her area of expertise.
The Chair
Dr Janes, you wanted to say something a moment ago and put your hand up.
Dr Janes: I would just add, on this point, that the really important aspect of sentencing is judicial discretion. That is essential if you want to really make sure we do not make women, children and disabled people—people from all sorts of backgrounds—suffer unduly. There is a real shift away from judicial discretion in this Bill.
Nina Champion: Some of the provisions will disproportionately impact women, and also black, Asian and minority ethnic women. For example, on the clause relating to assault on emergency workers, the equality impact assessment acknowledges that for that type of assault, which can often happen, for example, after a stop and search, it is more likely that women will be caught up by extending the maximum sentence in that provision. Of course, we want to protect our frontline workers, but these sentences have already been increased, even in 2018, and the deterrent effect just is not there. The proof is not there that it has any impact on protecting our frontline workers. What it does is catch more people up in the criminal justice system.
The other proposal relating to mandatory minimum sentences, particularly for issues around drug trafficking, will also capture more women and black, Asian and minority ethnic women. As Laura said, it removes judicial discretion to look at the individual circumstances of the case. We know that many women may have been coerced or exploited in drug trafficking cases. As Kate said, they are victims themselves. Introducing minimum sentences removes the opportunity for the judge to look at the individual circumstances of the case.
Maria Eagle
Q
Dr Paradine: Yes, absolutely. This is a Bill that does not recognise the nuances of individual cases, including those relating to women. We know that hard cases make bad law, and many of the provisions are an example of that. We absolutely think that the needs of women have been overlooked.
We know that sentence inflation has knock-on effects throughout the system. There are many unintended consequences to, for example, focusing on the enforcement of community orders and including more and more enforcement measures without addressing the real issue, which is about support to ensure that those who have community sentences can complete them with the support that they need. From our point of view, many of these measures are not looking at individual cases and enabling the discretion on the ground that is needed to make sure we meet each case as we find it. We know that the women’s prison population can be radically reduced, but not with some of these measures, which do not take into account the unintended consequences—particularly the impact on women who are primary carers and the best interests of their children.
Nina Champion: I just wanted to add a point about the lack of overall consultation with this Bill and these provisions. Because it was brought in as a White Paper, rather than a Green Paper, there has been no public official consultation. Groups that will be disproportionately impacted by these measures have not had the opportunity to be heard, including organisations and individuals representing those from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, women, or young adults. We really need to have much greater consultation before these measures are brought in to ensure that there are not the adverse impacts that Kate was talking about.
Maria Eagle
Q
Dr Paradine: Yes, absolutely. The problem-solving courts pilot is one small green shoot of hope in this Bill, in that those sorts of measures, which will enable court and multi-agency support across the system locally to tackle the root causes of what brings people into the system, are really the answer here. We would like to see much more focus on those innovative solutions, restorative justice and out-of-court disposals, of course, which are a really untapped resource in terms of what could turn our system around.
We are concerned not only about the lack of consultation with all sorts of groups representing the interests of those affected by this system but with professionals working within it. We know that there is real progress with out-of-court disposals and the use of simple cautions, conditional cautions and all those provisions available to the police, and we think that those measures must be looked at really, really closely, to make sure that the unintended consequence is not to undermine progress that is already being made in doing exactly what you say needs to be done, which is to focus on a wide range of community solutions that enable us to tailor sentences and responses to individual cases, and actually turn these situations around rather than driving people into a system—indeed, a revolving door—that they find it difficult to escape from.
Maria Eagle
I think that the Howard League wanted to come in there, if I can see properly.
Dr Janes: Thank you very much; I just want to make a brief point. I completely agree with what Kate just said, but I will add to it that the Howard League is concerned about this increased use of electronic monitoring, and particularly, as was raised earlier, the lack of scrutiny of it by the courts. There is a real concern that, instead of it being an alternative to custody, it can become a gateway to custody, and a real concern that that could disproportionately affect women. I just wanted to add that.
The Chair
Dr Bild wants to come in on this and then Nina Champion. Dr Bild.
Dr Bild: Sometimes there is a disconnect between what Parliament does with legislation and what happens in practice. Lots of relatively innovative and problem-solving options have been available, in theory, for a number of years. You can attach treatment orders—alcohol treatment orders, mental health orders or drug orders—to community orders and suspended sentence orders, but in practice it happens very, very rarely. Only a tiny proportion of community orders and suspended sentence orders will have what might be a rehabilitative order attached to them.
Part of this is a commitment to resourcing, as well. There does not need to be huge legislative change; this stuff is already on the statute book and it is already, in theory, available to sentencers. Anecdotally, sentencers are reluctant to impose an order that they are not entirely sure is available, and the defendant will not be able to benefit, through no fault of their own.
It is not necessarily only about finding new ideas, although new ideas are very welcome; it is also about properly resourcing, and showing some commitment to, what is already on the statute book.
Nina Champion: I just wanted to add that there are a couple of missed opportunities, in terms of a presumption against short sentences—there was a real missed opportunity here to divert people from custody—and to look at adult remand as well as child remand, as adult remand disproportionately affects women.
Also, just picking up on Kate’s point about restorative justice, the White Paper made some positive noises about the benefits of restorative justice, both for victims—in terms of coping and recovery—and for reducing reoffending, particularly for violent offences. However, the Bill does nothing to ensure that there will be more access to restorative justice. For example, the national action plan for restorative justice expired in March 2018 and has not yet been renewed. Those are the sorts of measures that really will make a difference for victims and reduce reoffending.
Maria Eagle
Q
Dr Paradine: I am sorry to say that, no, we do not think that the current Bill does that. There are all sorts of ways in which the intent to reduce the number of women in prison radically and to divert women, and others, from the system is not played out in its provisions. For all the reasons that have been covered by the various members of the panel, it does not do that. Sadly, unless the Bill’s direction of travel is redirected towards rehabilitation and communities rather than prison and creating harsher sentences, any progress that has been made will unravel really quickly. The 500 prison places will sadly be the focus, rather than our hope that we could really transform the system in the way that it affects women, families and communities, and beyond that men and young people also.
There needs to be a really strong rethink of what the Bill is trying to do, and a focus on the real problem, which is community support services and the ways that we tackle the root causes of offending. There is very little in the Bill that convinces us that that is the focus, so we need a really strong rethink to focus on communities and not on prison. We know that victims want sentences that work. They do not want to see harsh sentences that do not work. Their interest is in stopping crime and reducing reoffending. Sadly, we do not think that the Bill as it stands achieves that ultimate aim.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Dr Bild: Yes I do. Of all the clauses, that is the one that I have the most concern about. I saw some of the discussion on Tuesday with Jonathan Hall, QC in relation to terrorism, but this is broader than terrorism, of course. It takes in a large number of offences that are violent, and certain sexual offences.
The problem I think it creates is twofold. First, there is an issue with the power being given to the Secretary of State. As I say, I saw the debate on Tuesday. I think it engages slightly different considerations than the changes that took place last year in relation to terrorism did. On this occasion, we are talking about the Secretary of State intervening on the sentence of an individual prisoner, which engages a slightly different debate to the Secretary of State changing the arrangements for everyone convicted of a certain offence. I would draw an analogy to the Home Secretary’s old role to set the tariff for life-sentence prisoners. That power spent about 20 years in litigation before the Home Secretary lost it. It is slightly different, but there is an analogy, I think, and I am not sure that it is an appropriate power for the Secretary of State to have.
There is also a real concern that the most dangerous people will come out with no supervision, no licence conditions and no support. In some respects, the more dangerous you are, the less you will be managed in the community. In terms of managing that—
Alex Cunningham
Q
Dr Bild: I am not sure that that will be a high-visibility issue for confidence in sentencing, to be honest. One of the huge problems we have is that we do not really know what goes on in magistrates’ courts. Magistrates’ courts themselves are very low-visibility things, so I do not think we should overstate the impact that these reforms will have on confidence.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Dr Janes: Yes. These minimum term reviews are very little understood, because they are rare, but I have done a number of these cases in my own practice, and it is a very unusual situation where we get to see the criminal justice system actually incentivising people to make consistent and genuine change. The current proposal pins that opportunity on the arbitrary date when you happen to be sentenced. All of us want to see the consequences of crime actually fit what happened, and we know that in the current climate, cases are delayed for all sorts of reasons beyond a young person’s control. That might be because of delays due to covid, or because extremely vulnerable young people have to have their sentencing delayed while they have psychiatric and psychological reports, so this proposal does not seem to have any rational basis. It seems to deprive the most vulnerable people of something we would want for them, which is to be incentivised to really change their lives around.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Dr Janes: That, I really cannot answer. As you say, the entire sentence is galvanised around the date of commission. As was said by the House of Lords in the Maria Smith case, that is because it is recognised—and has been for decades, and internationally—that children are less culpable than fully grown adults. There seems to be no rational rhyme or reason as to why the date of sentence would be chosen.
Alex Cunningham
Does anybody else wish to comment on that? If not, I will pass to Sarah.
Sarah Jones
Q
Nina Champion: Thank you for that question. We responded to the consultation on serious violence reduction orders to oppose them—well, we tried to oppose those orders, but there was no question to enable us to oppose it. That option was not given as part of the consultation; it assumed that these were going ahead before the consultation had actually happened. What we do know is that many respondents to that consultation said that one of their key concerns was the disproportionate impact of this provision, particularly on young black men.
We do not believe that serious violence reduction orders are needed, or that there is evidence that they will reduce knife crime. Of course, we all want to reduce knife crime, but rather than additional surveillance, we would rather see additional support for people convicted of these offences. We worry about these very draconian and sweeping police powers to stop and search people for up to two years after their release without any reasonable grounds. Reasonable grounds are an absolutely vital safeguard on stop and search powers, and to be able to be stopped and searched at any point is a very draconian move that, again, risks adversely impacting on those with serious violence reduction orders. For young people who are trying to move away from crime, set up a new life and develop positive identities, to be repeatedly stopped and searched, labelled and stigmatised as someone still involved in that way of life could have adverse impacts. It could also have impacts on the potential exploitation of girlfriends or children carrying knives for people on those orders. There could be some real unintended consequences from these orders.
In relation to your point about what could be done, if these powers were to go ahead, we would like to see a very thorough evaluation of them before they are rolled out nationally. I do not have much confidence in that, given that section 60 powers, which also allow suspicion-less searches to happen, were rolled out following a pilot after several months without any evaluation being published or any consultation. It is therefore absolutely vital that these powers are thoroughly evaluated. That could involve things such as looking at the age and ethnicity of those who were stopped and searched, the number of people stopped in the belief they were someone who had an order but did not—we might see increased stop-and-account of people who have got nothing to do with an order, in cases of mistaken identity for someone who is under one—or the number of times individuals were stopped.
We would like to see scrutiny panels given access to body-worn video footage of every stop-and-search that is done under these powers or in belief of these powers. It is crucial that the evaluation speaks to people who are directly impacted by these powers, interviews them and understands what the impact is. It should also interview and speak to the organisations working with them. Ultimately, it should also look at whether this has achieved its aim. Has it reduced knife crime within an area compared to non-pilot areas? Much could be done to ensure that the evaluation is thorough to avoid the roll-out of these powers, which we believe are not necessary and could have disproportionately adverse impacts. They are just not needed.
Chris Philp
Q
Dr Bild: Yes.
Chris Philp
Q
Dr Bild: Yes, I agree with that. I think the concern is the ability of a Secretary of State to have the power to intervene in the automatic release of a prisoner. That is the question. I agree that the ultimate decision will be made by the Parole Board, which is an independent tribunal, but there should probably be a bit more of a firewall between the Secretary of State and an individual prisoner’s sentence.
Chris Philp
Q
Dr Bild: I do not know if it is going to be made by the Home Secretary or the Justice Secretary. Yes, I agree on the final decision for release, but the halting of the automatic release will presumably be done by the Secretary of State.
Chris Philp
Q
Dr Bild: I agree with you, but the issue you have here is that somebody who is dangerous could be released into the community under licence. If that person serves their entire sentence in custody, that same person, who may be even more dangerous by the end of their full sentence, will be released into the community with no licence conditions, no supervision and no support. So yes, I agree with you that it is safer for the extra time that someone is kept in custody, but it is less safe once they are released.
Chris Philp
Q
Dr Bild: The Parole Board only has discretion in the sense that it has to follow its own rules. Therefore, it can release someone only when it is satisfied that they do not pose a risk to the public. The Parole Board would not be able to decide that now is a nice time to release someone and have a little bit of licence period; I assume that it would have to follow its rules. If it was not fully satisfied that the person is safe to release, I imagine that the Parole Board’s hands would be tied by its own rules.
Chris Philp
Q
Dr Bild: I would agree that that was the case last year in relation to the terrorism legislation, as I said earlier. I am not saying that it is not lawful, but I think that a different issue is engaged when a Secretary of State is making a decision on an individual case and not a blanket, “You have committed a certain offence, therefore this is your release arrangement.” That is the issue.
Chris Philp
Q
Let me move on. I want to ask a question to all the panellists, so perhaps the answers could be relatively brief, given that I am sure we are under time pressure. We had some debate some time ago in this session about the appropriateness of imposing minimum sentences, whereby Parliament specifies in statute that if someone is convicted of a particular offence, there is a minimum period of time that they must be sentenced to in prison, regardless of the facts of the individual case, and regardless of any discretion that the judge may wish to exercise. Can each panel member give the Committee their views on the appropriateness, generally, of statutory minimum sentences?
Chris Philp
We have got three minutes.
Dr Janes: The problem with mandatory minimum sentences is that they do not allow the judge to take into account the specific characteristics, needs and circumstances of the person before them. We have already spoken about why those things are so important. [Interruption.]
The Chair
Do not all speak at once, but one of you please speak.
Dr Paradine: For us, it is the same as for Laura: minimum sentences, the lack of evidence of a deterrent effect, and the inflation of sentences across the board. We really do not believe that minimum sentences are the way forward, and there is so much evidence that that is not the way to go. It is misleading, and it will not do anything for public confidence. What will do so is sentences that actually work in preventing and reducing offending.
Chris Philp
Q
Dr Paradine: Yes, because judges should have the discretion to apply to the case the sentence that is required. That is why we have judges, and that is why our system is as it is. There is no need for constant interference in the way that is proposed in the Bill.
Nina Champion: I agree with both Kate and Laura about the importance of looking at the individual circumstances of the case. I would also like to add that, in terms of racial disparity, we know that black people are more likely than white people to be sent to prison at Crown court. We know that black women are more likely to be given a custodial sentence. We know that these disparities exist. Even taking into account other factors such as the lack of an early guilty plea, we know that black people are disproportionately represented in terms of sentencing and being sent to custody, so this would disproportionately impact those groups.
Chris Philp
Q
Nina Champion: Across the board.
The Chair
Dr Bild, last but not least.
Dr Bild: I agree with the other panellists. If there was any evidence whatsoever that mandatory sentences deterred people, there could be some justification for them, but in the complete absence of any such evidence, I see no reason to have mandatory minimum sentences. To pre-empt the question, that includes every single offence.
The Chair
Thank you very much, panel. Have a happy Thursday evening and a great Friday, working into the weekend.
Examination of witnesses
Professor Colin Clark, Oliver Feeley-Sprague and Gracie Bradley gave evidence.
The Chair
Colleagues, we now move on to our final panel. It is scheduled to end at 5.45 pm, but it is starting five minutes early. It is up to you when it ends, but it was scheduled for 45 minutes. If you want to take it to an hour, that is up to you, but it was scheduled for 45 minutes, and it could end earlier than that.
We will now hear from Professor Colin Clark from the University of the West of Scotland, Oliver Feeley-Sprague, programme director for military, security and police at Amnesty International UK, and Gracie Bradley, interim director of Liberty. In the order I have introduced you, could you each say hello and tell us who you are, in no longer than 10 seconds?
Professor Clark: Good afternoon, colleagues. As indicated, my name is Professor Colin Clark. I work at the University of the West of Scotland and am based here in Glasgow.
Oliver Feeley-Sprague: Good afternoon. Thank you for having me. My name is Oliver Feeley-Sprague. I head up Amnesty UK’s work on policing, military and security issues. Usually I am based in London, but I am currently sitting in Northamptonshire, in a very windy upstairs room—I hope we will not be disturbed.
Gracie Bradley: Hi, I am Gracie Bradley. I am interim director at Liberty and I am at home in London.
The Chair
Thank you all. I also thank you all for joining us early. It was really kind of you to give up part of your day to let us talk to you a few minutes before we had scheduled. Right, Mr Anderson would like to ask a question.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Q
I surveyed 1,000 people in my constituency earlier this year. I will run through a couple of the questions I asked. The first question was: do you think the Travelling community respect the rights of the local community when they set up camp in your area? Only 4% said yes. I asked: do you think the Home Secretary is right when she said that we need to give our police tougher measures to stop unauthorised camps? Only 3% said no. I am not going to run through all the questions, but the last one I will give you is this: do you think crime rises in the area when an illegal camp is set up? Some 92% of my residents said yes.
The Bill is great news, because what it will do is see a decrease in crime the four or five times a year when unauthorised camps are set up in my community. I would like to ask the witnesses whether they agree with me that crime will reduce in places such as Ashfield because of the new measures in the Bill to stop unauthorised camps. It is a yes or no answer.
Professor Clark: Well, I am speaking to you as someone who has been employed as a professor and a researcher for more than 25 years.
I suppose we need to begin with querying the methodology of the survey that was just mentioned and how robust that kind of response and the data are. In terms of a yes or no answer, the answer in a sense would be this. What is in place to ensure that we address the ripple effect of the issues and consequences of the lack of provision of Traveller sites at least since the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and up to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994? The concern is that if people have nowhere to go, if there are no legal sites in the area, these encampments will not go away, so unfortunately this new legislation, which I think is going to be just about as unpopular as the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, and we all remember how unpopular that was, will do nothing to solve this issue.
What needs to be in place is a national site strategy that to some extent addresses the wide-ranging social policy issues that arise when there are unauthorised camps, as they were referred to there; roadside sites is another way of talking about it, in terms of the terminology. The Government need to work with the organisations that represent the communities to plan an effective road map—quite literally—of UK sites and accommodation. I just do not see this legislation helping that by any means at all.
We are witnessing right now what is going on in Bristol —the really draconian eviction that is going on in Bristol. We are witnessing what has happened at the Wickham horse fair. This goes back many, many generations, and I think there has been an overreaction at the Wickham horse fair today as well. A really serious rethink is needed. I would hope that time and energy were spent addressing the shortfall issues with accommodation and the consequent social policy issues that arise, rather than trying to use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. It is a minority within a minority of the population. Bear in mind that 75% to 80% of the Gypsy and Traveller population in the United Kingdom are in bricks-and-mortar housing; this is a small percentage.
I absolutely sympathise with the speaker who mentioned the issues in the local area. What needs to be done is to address that issue in a more comprehensive, national strategy. That, not criminalising populations, is the answer.
Oliver Feeley-Sprague: I agree with a lot of what Colin said. The specific issue around Traveller legislation is not something that we prioritised in great detail in our submission on the Bill, but as a representative of Amnesty International I would say that Travelling communities, not just in the UK but widely across continental Europe, are among the most discriminated against and victimised of any minority group in existence. That is even reflected in things like the Lammy report on racial discrimination in the UK. You do not address the problem by criminalising an entire way of life, which is one of the potential outcomes of the measures in the Bill, especially when you are talking about groups that already have protected characteristics under other relevant law.
I point out that the list of things that anecdotally were reported as part of the survey are already criminal acts. There are already powers in place to prevent, detect and stop those things and to prosecute the offenders. A common feature of some of the measures in the Bill, in our view, around the necessity and proportionality test, is that many of the things that are addressed are already criminal, or can be made criminal in the right circumstances. Those measures are neither necessary nor proportionate.
Gracie Bradley: I would echo a lot of what Colin and Olly said. The real issue here is the chronic national shortage of site provision. Instead of criminalisation, what we want to see is local authorities and Government working together to improve site provision.
It is really important to recognise that we are talking about one of the most marginalised communities in the UK at the moment. These measures are a disproportionate and probably unlawful interference in Gypsy, Roma and Travellers’ nomadic way of life. Article 8 of the European convention on human rights protects people’s right to private and family life and their home. The Court of Appeal has set out that this community has an enshrined freedom to move from one place to another, and the state has a positive obligation to protect Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities’ traditional way of life. The new seizure powers in respect of vehicles in particular are very likely to mean that people end up facing homelessness.
As we have already discussed, some elements of these proposals are very subjective and invite stereotypes and profiling. The majority of police forces do not want greater powers. Research from Friends, Families and Travellers has shown that when police were consulted in 2018, 84% of the responses said that they did not support the criminalisation of unauthorised encampments, and 75% of responses said that their current powers were sufficient and/or proportionate. The issue is the chronic national shortage of site provision, and that should be the priority of Government and local authorities.
Maria Eagle
Q
The Chair
We will go in reverse order. Gracie first, then Oliver and Colin.
Gracie Bradley: Thanks. I would like to set the Bill in its wider context. What we are seeing is a shrinking space for people to speak up and hold power to account, the Human Rights Act potentially being watered down, and attacks on judicial review. Now we see this policing Bill that inevitably poses an existential threat to our right to protest. These aspects of the Bill are so significant and so serious that they cannot be mitigated by procedural amendments.
The right to protest is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy and it is protected by articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights. I recognise that it is not an absolute right, but the state has a duty to protect that right and has a positive obligation to facilitate it. We must not forget that protest is an essential social good. For people who do not have access to the courts or the media and so on, it might be the only way they have to make their voices heard.
In Liberty’s view, we have not seen a compelling case in favour of expanding existing powers in respect of protests. The existing powers are already broad and difficult to challenge, and they are weighted heavily in favour of the authorities. I know that there is some analysis to suggest that the protest provisions in the Bill are a direct response to Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter. I just remind the Committee that during the judicial review of the Met’s decision to ban Extinction Rebellion protests in 2019, the commissioner conceded that there were sufficient powers in the Public Order Act to deal with protests that were attempting to stretch policing to its limits. We are incredibly concerned by the existential threat to protest that the policing provisions in the Bill propose. We invite the Committee to say that they should not stand part of the Bill. I will leave it there for now because I am sure others have more to say.
Oliver Feeley-Sprague: Again, I agree wholeheartedly with what Gracie has said. Amnesty is part of a number of civil society organisations and academics who think that part 3, on protests, in its entirety should be removed from the Bill. It is neither proportionate nor necessary.
I have been working on policing issues for the best part of 25 years and I have never seen a roll-back of policing rights in all of that time. Often I think what is missing from these discussions is recognition that it is not necessarily about a lack of policing power. It is a tactical and operational decision made by commanders at the time to maintain and uphold public order, and they already have a variety of powers and laws. You have only to look at the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice on public order to see the enormous list of powers police have at their disposal.
From an international perspective—you would expect me to say this as someone from an international human rights organisation—these are international legal obligations under article 21 of the international covenant on civil and political rights. Interestingly, the Human Rights Committee issued a general commentary on this issue last year. It is quite normal in international legal circles for authoritative bodies to introduce guides and interpretation statements about how these things are supposed to be implemented. Importantly, the commentary on the right to peaceful protest issued by the Human Rights Committee last September said that states parties should avoid using
“overbroad restrictions on the right of peaceful assembly.”
It stated that peaceful assembly can be
“inherently or deliberately disruptive and require a significant degree of toleration.”
Lowering the thresholds and introducing vague terminology such as “noise”, “annoyance” and “unease” are the clear definition of overly broad restrictions on the right to peaceful protest. It puts the UK out of step with its international obligations.
That is also important in the foreign policy setting, because Britain—the UK—goes out of its way to say that it wants to be a champion of human rights around the world, especially on issues of civic space and freedom of assembly. It was a feature of the integrated review and it featured in the UK’s response to the G7 communiqué. It is awfully difficult for the UK to champion these issues on the world stage when domestically it is rolling them back. If any other regime in any other context were to introduce powers of the kind introduced in the UK by this Bill, the UK Government would be the first to criticise. It gives those regimes an easy excuse or get-out clause. They can point the finger and say, “Well, the UK is as guilty as all of us. The UK has no credibility to lead on these issues on the world stage.” That discussion is missing a bit from this Bill.
Professor Clark: There is little I can add to what has been said, but I will do my best.
The words that Olly quoted—“noise”, “annoyance” and “unease”—are replicated in other parts of the Bill, where there is talk of “disruption”, “damage” and “distress” of a significant nature. What strikes me is the imprecise language and terminology of the Bill, and the potential that it would introduce for discretion, the operation of prejudice and bad governance, in a sense. It leads to some fundamental questions about what kind of democracy we want to live in. Do we want to live in a democracy that protects human rights, protects peaceful assembly and guarantees both formal and substantive citizenship rights?
I am of an age where I remember being outside where you are right now back in 1993, peacefully assembling to protest the introduction of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 for the same reasons that we are here today. There is a real sense of déjà vu about this in terms of the rights to protest and to peaceful assembly. Then, of course, it was raves and the succession of repetitive beats, as the Act made it known. It was a section of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that effectively ripped up the obligation of the state and local authorities to provide Gypsy sites within local authority areas. There is a real sense that we have not made much progress here at all.
Again, I concur with what Gracie and Olly said. I hope this is taken on board.
Sarah Jones
Q
In terms of protests, it is completely reasonable for the police, particularly in London, to say, “We have these enormous protests that last for several days. They may well be peaceful, but the city grinds to a halt. Is the balance of power right in this setting?” That is a perfectly reasonable question to ask, and there are different views about what the answer is. You have all made your views clear on the Bill, and I agree, but do you think there is anything reasonable that should be done, perhaps not through the Bill but in other ways? There are lots of different practices that could be looked at. Does any of you have a response to the charge that there are protests that last for days and cause significant disruption, and what are we to do about that?
Gracie Bradley: That is as really interesting question. It is a good question, but the problem is that, in seeking to legislate for that kind of thing, we have ended up with something that is so broad and has the lowest threshold so far that essentially any protest may be targeted. That is just not really what is at hand here. The issue is that nearly any protest could be considered to cause serious annoyance. All kinds of protesters may fall foul of it, and nobody should face a sentence of up to a decade for exercising their fundamental rights. That is the problem that we have with this legislation.
I appreciate that you are asking what we should do with protests that go on for days, and are disruptive and so on. As I said, protest is a fundamental right, and it is the state’s obligation to facilitate it. The very essence of protest is that it will be disruptive to some degree. One person may say, “This has been going on for days,” or one public authority may say, “This has been going on for days and now it is causing a huge problem,” but other people will perceive the threshold as much lower, so it is a really dangerous road to try to go down. What we should really be looking at is how we uphold the right to protest.
Again, there is a perception that this is just about Extinction Rebellion or Black Lives Matter, but people have been out to protests for all kinds of reasons over the last year, be it either side of the Brexit debate, lockdown or BLM. The Court of Appeal said:
“Rights worth having are unruly things. Demonstrations and protests are liable to be a nuisance. They are liable to be inconvenient and tiresome”.
It is to approach the question from the wrong perspective to be saying, “How can we limit?” We really need to be looking at how we can facilitate, especially when we have had scenes like the ones at Clapham Common under existing powers, and when the Black Lives Matter protesters last year were subject to very heavy policing—kettling, horse charges and so on. We have seen a nurse fined £10,000 for organising a protest. Really, the question is, “What can we be doing to better protect and uphold protest rights?” rather than, “How can we clamp down?”
Professor Clark: I very much agree with what Gracie says. In a sense, this issue is back to front. It is ostensibly an issue of management and pragmatics, and how to better facilitate protest, as Gracie puts it. We recently had a situation here in Glasgow. It was two tales of the weekend, really: on the Saturday we had Rangers football fans in Glasgow city centre, and then on the Sunday we had a march in support of Palestine and against what was going on there.
I attended the Sunday event, not the football event, but it seemed to me that those were very much issues of management and pragmatics. The Sunday event was well planned and prepared for, and proportionately policed and managed. It had a clear start point and end point, and as far as I am aware there was no trouble whatsoever—there were stewards present and so on. The Saturday was a rather different matter. It was expected but not particularly well planned for, particularly by Police Scotland and other representatives.
Bearing in mind what happened there and in other instances of what this legislation could be used for, it strikes me that we need to come back to the idea of how we embrace and understand questions of formal and substantive citizenship, and manage the pragmatics of given protests and how we can better facilitate and prepare for them. That seems the right thing to do if you believe—to go back to what I said earlier—in human rights and want a better functioning democracy.
Oliver Feeley-Sprague: I repeat what I said earlier about the fact that the right to peaceful protest is a right, enshrined in international law, that everybody has, and for centuries those rights have been used, often in very noisy and productive ways, to deliver everything from votes for women to preventing serious wrongdoing, behaviours and things of that nature. Noisy and uneasy protest is often the way that we see very productive social change happen. I think that is recognised in the international commentary around how states should react.
The way the police manage public order is an enormous skill of tactical and operational consideration. I would just go back to the toolkit that they already have. Sometimes they make the right decision, and sometimes they make the wrong decision—everybody is human—but the answer here is a toleration, not a restriction, and a tactical and operational decision about how best to manage. The threshold needs to be set high to prevent serious threats to public order, not noise and unease.
I would like to bring in two other points so that we do not miss them. The Bill captures other people by using a very low threshold of “ought to know”, which basically means in this context that if you attend a protest, you should be aware of any restrictions that may have been imposed either by a Minister via regulation or by the police. You are then criminalised for that—criminalised for things that in any other context would be perfectly lawful. That is a very dangerous threshold for ordinary citizens to have to face going about their daily lives.
Allowing Ministers to further define these vague terms through secondary legislation, by issuing regulations, creates a space for the Executive branch of Government essentially to outlaw things it finds uncomfortable, rather than the general threshold of serious threats to the public health or order. By doing it via the regulatory framework, you are not allowing Parliament enough scrutiny and enough checks and balances on that.
The way that bystanders and people who participate may be criminalised, and the way that it gives Ministers disproportionate power, are two dangerous things that should not be there.
Sarah Jones
Q
The Chair
That question could elicit some very long answers, so could we please have really crisp answers? Let us start with you, Gracie.
Gracie Bradley: That is a great question. To put it bluntly, Liberty was founded in 1934 in response to oppressive policing of the hunger marches. As I am sure Committee members will know, we have taken significant action over the years, in court, in terms of policy, influencing legislation and so on, in respect of what we perceive to be heavy-handed or disproportionate policing of protest. To say that if we had not had the covid restrictions it would all have been better is unfortunately too optimistic and not borne out by the evidence. I referenced the injunction that unlawfully banned protest in 2019 brought by the Met. That was pre covid.
The pandemic has unfortunately given rise to confrontations that we perhaps would not have seen, because we have seen interventions that would not have had any basis in law had we not been in the context of the pandemic, but Liberty’s history of campaigning, policy and legal work tells us that some of the tactics that we saw at Black Lives Matter protests, such as kettling, horse charges, and people being stopped and searched rather than being supported when they were seeking support from the police, are not confined to the pandemic.
I think it is incredibly dangerous that we may be heading from a situation in which protest has been policed for the last year, in Liberty’s view wrongly, as if it were not lawful, straight into a situation, if the Bill becomes law, where effective protest can be shut down more or less at a public authority’s whim. We are seeing a continuity that we may not have seen had we not been subject to the pandemic restrictions that we have been subject to, but even there the police have overreached in their interpretation of the powers. We have seen protest treated as if it were banned, and it has never been under a blanket ban in the course of pandemic. That is why we have seen a lot of confrontation.
Oliver Feeley-Sprague: I want to be careful not to imply that I would ever think that there was a time when the powers in the Bill to restrict protest were proportionate or necessary. I do not think that they ever would be, but we are in unprecedent times in terms of overall restrictions on things that would normally be perfectly lawful. We are living in extraordinary times. I agree with Gracie that some of the policing decisions have clearly been wrong, but we have been living under unprecedented restrictions that have almost become normalised and entrenched on our views. We are all anxious about going outside, playing by the rules, doing the right thing and keeping everyone safe, as we all want to be during this pandemic. If ever there were a time not to be increasing policing powers in the way that is envisaged in the Bill, now is that time because this is not normal. But I want to be careful because Amnesty would say that the powers in the Bill would never be proportionate.
Professor Clark: I would underline that the key word, which Gracie used earlier, is overreaching. I think that is what we have seen. In a sense, the current context and public health situation because of the pandemic has allowed for that overreach to happen. That is not to say that it might not have happened in other, more normal times, but there has been evidence of overreaching. Olly was spot on when he said that this is absolutely not the time to be doing this. We need to be really cautious about the next steps.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
Q
Oliver Feeley-Sprague: I think in my answer, I said—if I didn’t, I should have—that it has the potential to criminalise a way of life. Some of the powers around returning to a site and seizing vehicles, when those vehicles might be your home, clearly do raise that prospect. I will repeat what I said about our experience as a human rights monitoring organisation: Gypsy and Traveller communities across this continent, across Europe, possibly even—
Victoria Atkins
Q
Oliver Feeley-Sprague: It depends on how you are defining that threshold of “serious”. I have seen little in the Bill that gives any indication of what threshold you are using to reach those determinations. It is true, as far as I am aware, that the Gypsy and Traveller community is one of the most persecuted groups in the UK, and they are persecuted across Europe.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Gracie Bradley: I just want to echo what Olly said in respect of the fact that the threshold is not clearly defined. These definitions are vague, and they could potentially include a very wide range of issues. I would also add that the way the clause is drafted, it is not simply where significant disruption, damage or distress is caused; it is where there is a likelihood or a perception that it is likely to be caused. The offence can be committed by someone who is said to be likely to cause damage or distress. This is highly subjective, and may invite stereotypes and profiling based on the mere existence of an unauthorised encampment. Again, the issue is really about the breadth of the drafting, the lack of definition, and the fact that the mere threshold of likelihood may invite judgments that are based on stereotyping and profiling. That is what is really concerning about this clause.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Gracie Bradley: That is a difficult question to answer. I do not have a firm answer to that, but I think that if you are taking into account the distress of local residents, you also have to take into account the fundamental right of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people to live a nomadic way of life. It is not an absolute in either direction, and when we are talking about a community that, as Olly has said, is one of the most persecuted in the country, we have to be really careful about introducing these really broad and vaguely defined measures that are likely to invite them to be stereotyped and discriminated against further.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Gracie Bradley: As I have already said, the issue is that we are talking about “likely to cause damage”. That is subjectively determined. There are some people who will be perceived as likely to cause damage; there are some people who, in another person’s mind, will not be. This is very subjective, and I do not think we can abstract it from the history of how people have been treated. I think Colin wants to come in.
Professor Clark: Yes, I can say something about this. In a sense, it is not even local residents; it is actually in the hands of the landowner or the licensee. That is one of the changes between, for example, the regulations in the law as contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the current Bill—this is where there is a significant change. In the 1994 Act, it was the police who had that decision to make about when the action should be forthcoming. In this Bill, that right is given over to the landowner or the licensee, and in a sense it is up to the people who—to answer your question, Minister—own the land on which the Travellers are camped. The landowner would make a decision: “I now feel that this is disruptive, damaging and distressing, so therefore I will call the police and then issue the actions.” That is the issue at stake here.
I will just remind the Minister about the lack of movement on a national site strategy, around both permanent and transit sites and around the right number of pitches on those sites. A lot of these issues would go away and it would be far less expensive than a constant cycle of evictions. The economics of this, as well as the human rights aspects, are quite important.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Professor Clark: What is the context? Without context that is an impossible question to answer.
Victoria Atkins
Fly-tipping. A field was taken over by an unauthorised encampment and it cost £50,000 to clear it. Is that acceptable?
Professor Clark: There is legislation in place already to deal with fly-tipping, I believe. I do not think that there needs to be an enhancement of that legislation to the current law as it stands. There is legislation to deal with fly-tipping, whoever may cause it.
When sites come into being in local areas, it is not uncommon for other people to notice that it is Travellers coming in and use that as an excuse to fly-tip their own business-related waste, and then blame it on the Travellers. That comes back to the points that my two colleagues made about the dangers of invoking racialised stereotypes here and apportioning blame, when it is not those individuals who are to blame. Again, this is where we need to be careful about the way in which we use language and how this Bill goes forward.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Oliver Feeley-Sprague: Anybody responsible for causing £50,000-worth of damage to somebody’s property is committing a crime and, absolutely, people should be protected from that. To echo what the other panellists have said, I think you need to be very careful about further minoritising the Gypsy and Traveller communities. To answer your question bluntly, any form of significant damage of that nature is a crime, whoever does it.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Gracie Bradley: I am not sure that I understand what the question is getting at.
Victoria Atkins
Does the Law Commission have a reputation for not understanding human rights law, or for somehow wanting to diminish people’s human rights?
Gracie Bradley: Not that I am aware of. I suppose what you are getting at is that codifying public nuisance in statute was a recommendation of the Law Commission, which is correct. In 2015, it did recommend that codifying public nuisance should be done, but it did not consider the application of public nuisance to protest.
The Law Commission noted that its proposed defence of reasonableness would increase cases where a person was exercising their right under article 10 or article 11 of the convention, but they also noted that it is somewhat difficult to imagine examples in which this point arises in connection with public nuisance. The Law Commission absolutely did not propose a maximum custodial sentence of a decade.
The Chair
Would any of the other witnesses like to respond to that question?
Oliver Feeley-Sprague: Just to say that I agree 100% with what Gracie said. That is my reading of what the Law Commission concluded in 2015. There are very specific qualifications about article 10 and article 11 rights needing to be protected under any changes of the law. By my reading, this Bill does exactly the opposite of that, so we should be extremely cautious.
Professor Clark: I think the Law Commission is fully cognisant of the rights and responsibilities of a healthy democracy. It understands questions of human rights and citizenship. I would not dare to suggest differently.
Victoria Atkins
Q
The Chair
One of you can respond to that, if you would like to kick off.
Professor Clark: I can. What was the question?
Victoria Atkins
“Serious annoyance” is a phrase that has caught attention. In the context of public nuisance, that is a phrase that has arisen over centuries—I think I am right in saying that—of legal development and does not necessarily have quite the flippant meaning that it may have in day-to-day life outside of a court of law.
Professor Clark: Okay. I understand now—sorry. I think this comes back to the point that all three of us have made on the issues around terminology and definitions, and the use of them, and the ability to exercise discretion. You would like to hope, and expect, that moving forwards such expressions would take on their proper meanings in a legal context, but applied fairly and applied justly.
Given the overall nature of the Bill and what I said earlier about the impreciseness of the language and terminology, certainly in the case of part 4 with regard to unauthorised encampments, I think that is why a lot of outside bodies and organisations and non-governmental organisations have question marks.
However, I will hand over to Gracie, who might be better informed than I am on this.
Gracie Bradley: I am happy to pick this up. We know the legal genesis of that definition of “serious annoyance”, but of course the provisions in the Bill do not confine themselves to “annoyance”. If we look at clause 54, we see that conditions may be imposed that appear
“necessary to prevent the disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation”—
Victoria Atkins
Q
Gracie Bradley: I was not saying that it was in clause 59; I was picking up on another clause in the Bill, which contains language that is vague and concerning. But I can leave it there, if you want to stick with clause 59; I do not have anything to add on that.
Chris Philp
Q
“public safety…the economic well being…the prevention of disorder or crime…or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
Of course, unauthorised encampments of this kind do infringe
“the rights and freedoms of others”.
Thereby, I would suggest, article 8 is not engaged. Moreover, the right to enjoy one’s property is made very clear, is it not, in article 1 of protocol 1, which says that people are
“entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of…possessions.”
So, given what I have just said about paragraph 2 of article 8, and about article 1 of protocol 1, would you care to reconsider your article 8 analysis in relation to this clause?
Gracie Bradley: No. I think that what I said was that under article 8 it would likely be an unlawful interference, and I would disagree with your analysis that if it is proportionate, article 8 is not engaged. If the right can still be engaged, and a limitation may or may not be proportionate—
Chris Philp
Q
Gracie Bradley: The point is that there is a balance to be struck; that is what happens with qualified rights. And I think the point is that the potential threshold at which these measures may be applied is so low, and the impact on Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people is potentially so distinct, that it would be disproportionate for the measure to be applied to them. What we are talking about, especially when we are talking about the potential seizure of vehicles in the context of nomadic Gypsy and Roma Traveller communities, is people potentially losing their homes entirely. If we are talking about people potentially facing a custodial sentence, that is a really significant interference with their article 8 rights, and it may have further implications—for example, what happens to their children if their caregivers are not available to them? Yes, I recognise that there may be interference in the life of the local community, but the point is that the threshold at which these measures may be invoked, and the impact on people who live in their homes and who have a nomadic way of life, is so significant that the way the Bill is drafted is disproportionate. In Liberty’s view, it also invites discrimination.
I recognise that the Committee is trying to get at the point about the wider community. It goes back to what Colin spoke about at the beginning and what numerous police forces have mentioned—that there is a lack of lawful stopping places, and that there is inadequate provision. I do not think we square this circle by getting into whose rights are more infringed on which side. The point is that what we need to get to is working constructively together to ensure that communities are provided for, and to make sure that there are enough stopping places and pitches. That is the way that we resolve this.
Chris Philp
Q
Gracie Bradley: Of course—Liberty is a human rights organisation. As I am aiming to demonstrate, I am not dismissing that this is a qualified right, and that there are other things that hang in the balance on the other side. I have said there is a balance to be struck but, at the same time, the way the Bill is drafted means that it poses a disproportionate and really significant threat to the rights of Gypsy and Roma Traveller communities. They are a persecuted and minoritised community, and I do not think it is defensible for them to be targeted in this way, especially when there is a non-punitive solution, which is to ensure that there are adequate stopping places.
Chris Philp
It is not targeting that community expressly; it is targeting people who engage in a particular kind of behaviour, regardless of their identity—but I think I have taken this far enough.
The Chair
I thank the witnesses on behalf of the Committee. Thank you for coming early and staying longer than your allotted 45 minutes, and I thank you for your evidence.
That brings us to the end of today’s sittings. The Committee will meet again at 9.25 am on Tuesday in Committee Room 14, in order to commence line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Tom Pursglove.)
Written Statements
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Government Consulting Hub
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)
My noble Friend, the Minister of State for Efficiency and Transformation, Lord Agnew of Oulton, has today made the following written statement.
I am pleased today to formally launch the new Government Consulting Hub, a centre of expertise for Her Majesty's Government on management consultancy. As the Minister for Efficiency and Transformation in the Cabinet Office and Her Majesty’s Treasury, I am aware of the enormous potential that the civil service has, and I am committed to ensuring that the work of the civil service offers public value and upholds the highest standards of performance. As our centre of excellence for consultancy, the Government Consulting Hub will establish new approaches to knowledge generation and sharing and to training in partnership with the Government Skills and Curriculum Unit. It will drive up capacity and the capacity to work jointly across Departments to reuse thinking and work, and to be our own experts where is it reasonable to do so. These core elements will provide the civil service with a powerful resource, helping to reduce the amount spent on consultancy, maximise value where consultants are needed, and support the growth and use of the civil service’s internal capability to deliver consultancy type work and to deploy consultancy type skills. This is not just a savings exercise. This is a real opportunity to invest in the future of the civil service, to build capability, skills and experience, and to have a much greater impact in the work that is delivered. An overview of the work of the Government Consulting Hub has been published today on gov.uk.
[HCWS43]
European Union (Withdrawal) Act and Common Frameworks Report
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
I am today laying before Parliament a report, “The European Union (Withdrawal) Act and Common Frameworks: 26 December 2020 to 25 March 2021”.
I am laying this report because it is a legal requirement under the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 for quarterly reports to be made to Parliament on the progress of the work to develop common frameworks.
The report is available on gov.uk and details the progress made between the UK Government and devolved Administrations regarding the development of common frameworks.
This report details progress made during the 11th three- month reporting period and sets out that no “freezing” regulations have been brought forward under section 12 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act.
A copy of “The European Union (Withdrawal) Act and Common Frameworks: 26 December 2020 to 25 March 2021” report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The publication of the report reflects the Government’s continued commitment to transparency.
[HCWS44]
Britain's Railways
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
Today, we are announcing our plan for the transformation of Britain’s railways. The Williams-Shapps plan for rail fully reflects the independent recommendations of Keith Williams, to whom the Government are grateful for his thorough work since 2018. Williams identified serious issues facing the railways before covid struck; the pandemic has exacerbated some of these and added more. The Government have provided unprecedented support to keep the railways running during the pandemic. Now, we look to the future—today we are setting out an ambitious plan to ensure that the system is ready to meet these challenges.
Today’s railway is fragmented—numerous bodies with different incentives lead to a lack of joined-up thinking. No single organisation is accountable for integration, planning and leadership across infrastructure, passenger services and freight operations.
Even before covid, the franchising model for passenger services had become unsustainable, with multiple failing franchises, delayed competitions and dwindling market confidence. East Coast and Northern had already failed and the Government had to step in.
To meet these challenges this Government are introducing the biggest reform to the railway in three decades. We are committed to delivering a rail system that is the backbone of a cleaner, greener public transport system, offering passengers a better deal and greater value for money for taxpayers. That means getting the trains to run on time, providing a better quality of service and having firm control of the sector’s costs.
To bring about change on the scale that is needed:
We will end three decades of fragmentation by bringing the railways back together under a new public body with a single, national leadership and a new brand and identity, built on the famous double arrow. Great British Railways (GBR) will run and plan the network, own the infrastructure, and collect most fare revenue. It will procure passenger services and set most fares and timetables.
We will make the railways easier to use by simplifying fares and ticketing, providing more convenient ways to pay with contactless, smartphone and online, and protecting affordable walk-on fares and season tickets. Rail services will be better co-ordinated with each other, and better integrated with other transport services such as trams, buses and bikes.
We will keep the best elements of the private sector that have helped to drive growth. GBR will contract private partners to operate the trains to the timetable it sets. These contracts will include strong incentives for operators to run high-quality services and increase passenger demand. The contracts are not one size fits all, so as demand recovers long-distance routes will have more commercial freedom to attract new passengers. Freight is already a nimble, largely private sector market and will remain so, while benefiting from the national co-ordination, new safeguards, and rules-based access system that will help it thrive.
We will grow, not shrink, the network, continuing to invest tens of billions of pounds in new lines, trains, services and electrification.
We will make the railways more efficient. Simpler structures and clear leadership will make decision making easier and more transparent, reduce costs and make it cheaper to invest in modern ways to pay, upgrade the network and deliver new lines. The adversarial blame culture will end, and everyone across the sector, including train operators, will be incentivised to work towards common goals, not least managing costs.
These changes will transform the railways for the better. They will also make the sector more accountable to taxpayers and the Government. Government Ministers will have strong levers to set direction, pursue Government policies and oversee delivery to ensure the railways are managed effectively and spend public money efficiently. Great British Railways will be empowered—a single, familiar brand with united, accountable leadership.
These reforms represent a bold new vision for passengers —of punctual and reliable services, simpler tickets and a modern, green and innovative railway that meets the needs of the nation. In summary our ambitious rail transformation programme will deliver 10 key outcomes:
A modern passenger experience
A retail revolution
New ways of working with the private sector
Economic recovery and financially sustainable railways
Greater control for local people and places
Cleaner, greener railways
Bold, new opportunities for rail freight
Increased speed of delivery and efficient enhancements
Skilled, innovative workforce, and
A simpler industry structure
This is not renationalisation, which failed the railways, rather it is simplification. While Great British Railways acts as the guiding mind to co-ordinate the whole network, our plan will see greater involvement of the private sector—private companies will be contracted to run the trains, with stronger competition to run services. Our reforms will also unleash huge new opportunities for the private sector to innovate in areas such as ticket retailing and data that can be used by passengers to better plan their journeys.
We look forward to building this new vision for Britain’s railways in collaboration with the sector. We are proud to set out plans to support our railways and serve our country with a system that is efficient, sustainable and run in the public interest.
Attachments can be viewed online at: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2021-05-20/HCWS42
[HCWS42]
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. In doing so, I also remind Members that today the capacity for Members to participate in proceedings in the Chamber, while maintaining social distancing in compliance with Public Health England advice, has increased from 30 to 53, plus the two seats on the Judges’ Woolsack and myself or a Deputy Speaker. Members are reminded that with the new reduced social distancing in the Chamber, face coverings should be worn unless speaking. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Oral Questions will now commence. Please will those asking supplementary questions keep them no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Biomass Electricity Subsidies: Deforestation
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of their biomass electricity subsidies on deforestation (1) in the United States of America, and (2) elsewhere.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the UK supports only biomass which complies with strict sustainability criteria, and electricity generators receive subsidies only for compliant biomass. The criteria ensure that the carbon stock and area of the forest is not decreased, irrespective of its location. The sustainability criteria require that biomass fuels are sourced from forest waste wood and residues from commercial forestry operations, and that the forest owner adheres to the relevant legal requirements to protect biodiversity and the environment.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply and congratulate the Government on their commitment to renewable energy. However, as he is probably aware, the UK is now the top subsidiser of bioenergy in Europe. It spent more than £1.9 billion in 2019 on bioenergy subsidies, primarily to burn wood imported from overseas forests at Drax power station. Despite what he said, I have serious concerns that the wood pellets supplied for burning come from primary forest in both the US and Europe. This has a potentially devastating effect on important bird species and biodiversity in general. Does he agree that we should be cutting carbon, not chopping down carbon-reducing forests?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I understand my noble friend’s concern about this and know he takes a close interest in birds and wildlife, but I emphasise once again that the UK supports only biomass that complies with strict sustainability criteria, which take into account impact on the biodiversity of the forests. I refer him back to the Answer I gave earlier: biodiversity is top of our list of priorities.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, Drax in the United States is subsidised by the Government until 2027 to supply biomass energy to the UK. In view of this, will the Minister confirm what discussions have taken place with Drax about its dependence on biomass, which puts some of the world’s ecologically valuable forests at risk and impacts on our environment through higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I really do not think the noble Baroness is correct about this. Let me make the point once again that our sustainability criteria, which are some of the most stringent in the world, also take into account the greenhouse gas emissions from collecting, transporting and turning the biomass, which predominantly comes from waste products from the forest, into a viable energy source to deliver a carbon saving compared to fossil fuels.
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Randall is absolutely right: virgin forests are being cut down. How is this being policed? Other countries are cutting down woodland, and what penalties are there on firms, such as Drax, which breach these conditions, if they are discovered to be in the wrong?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The sustainability criteria are policed by Ofgem and, if firms do not meet them, the subsidies are withdrawn.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as recorded in the register. This is a contested topic with opposing views. The devil is in the detail, and rigorous scientific analysis is crucial. In this context, is the Minister aware of the independent analysis published in March 2021 by Resources for the Future showing that, in the south-eastern United States, demand for forest products such as biomass is associated with an increase in the area of forest in the region, as well as with a 30% increase in carbon storage in those forests over the past few decades?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Indeed. The noble Lord is an expert on this topic and is of course correct. He is also correct to say that this is an area of ongoing debate among the scientific community, and it is one that my department is following very closely by gathering the evidence. The latest scientific data will form part of our forthcoming biomass strategy.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister has confirmed that the Government accept the principle that a scheme designed to reduce emissions needs to account fully for all emissions generated by it and must not cause environmental destruction, and therefore a loss of biodiversity. As there appears to be credible evidence to the contrary, and as he has assured your Lordships’ House that UK production of biomass meets that standard, will he publish the evidence, including the data that supports the assessment that he just made?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Many of these studies are published and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to a previous study that supports the assertion that forest is actually increasing in the area. But yes, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, is quite right—we need to act on the basis of proper, validated scientific evidence and our forthcoming biomass strategy will explore that further.
Lord Oates (LD)
Will the Minister publish information about the inspection, monitoring and enforcement of compliance with the criteria he set out in his initial Answer? Will he put that in the public domain and explain exactly how that enforcement takes place?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Provided that it is not commercially confidential, I will certainly share that with the noble Lord.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
Instead of razing American forests would it not be a better use of our subsidies to stimulate the development of a coppice harvesting service in the southern UK? Coppiced woodlands are rich ecologies that need regular felling but they are not getting it because there is currently no economic outlet for the timber.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes a good suggestion. We did try that, of course. Subsidies have been available for more than a decade but we have seen a lack of uptake because they cannot compete with the use of waste products in huge commercial forestries in the US.
Lord Grantchester (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we await a biomass strategy due in 2022 and the Minister can confirm that this will assess the link between biomass electricity subsidies and deforestation. The Drax plant is investing in carbon capture in order to be a “carbon-negative company” by 2030. Does he think that that is achievable? When will the Government decide on a development consent order for Drax?
Lord Callanan (Con)
In the biomass strategy, we will explore all the factors to which the noble Lord referred. I do not have a date for when a development consent order will be agreed but all this and the relevant factors will be explored in the strategy.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
Does the Minister agree that the only source of electricity for third-world villages is biomass?
Lord Callanan (Con)
No, I do not agree, because there is also the potential for PV—solar photovoltaic—generation.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, given the need to rapidly decarbonise and the impact of pellet production on forests, will the Government review the decision to class biomass as carbon-neutral under the UK ETS and stop subsidising new biomass projects? I should say here that I own a biomass boiler.
Lord Callanan (Con)
As I said, the biomass strategy will review all those factors. We want to continue subsidising biomass only if there are genuine carbon savings, if it does not contribute to deforestation and if it is produced in a sustainable way.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
I hate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, but my reading of the science is that it is uncertain. There is little science looking at the impact of biomass extraction in Europe, particularly in Estonia. In America and Estonia, we have clear evidence of declining numbers in protected species and biodiversity. Is the Minister aware that 500 scientists have written to protest to President Biden and the European Commission about those continued activities? Does he agree that the comparison between biomass electricity generation and other technologies should be made not with fossil fuels, which we know are poor in their performance, but with other green technologies?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The different contributions from noble Lords in this debate have illustrated that this is a contentious subject. There is much debate in the scientific community. The noble Baroness referred to the 500 scientists who have written to the US Administration. Other scientists take different points of view. That is part of the nature of the debate but it is our view that biomass, when compared to fossil fuels, is considered to be a renewable, low-carbon energy source. The carbon released from the organic material was sequestered recently from the atmosphere, compared to fossil fuels where the carbon was sequestered hundreds of millions of years ago. We will continue to follow this debate and explore the issues further in the biomass strategy. If we continue with policies supporting biomass—it is an if—we will take all these factors into account. We want to make sure that there are genuine carbon savings, that biomass is sustainable and that there is no long-term damage to the areas referred to.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Digital Identification Protocol
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce a distributed digital identification protocol for the United Kingdom.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my technology interests as set out in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, in 2020, the Government committed to creating a framework of standards, governance and legislation to enable a UK digital identity market. The DCMS published a draft trust framework in February this year setting out the Government’s vision for the rules governing the future use of digital identities. A next iteration is expected to be published this summer and we are expecting to consult on digital identity legislation during this year.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, which specific sectors do the Government believe are best to run proofs of concepts in when it comes to digital ID? Further, does my noble friend agree with the analysis from McKinsey that suggests an additional 13% in UK GDP if we get digital identity effectively deployed? That is a prize certainly worth prioritising.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend that this is a prize worth prioritising—although I cannot comment on the specific McKinsey data. On his question about areas for pilots, we are working with a number of sectors and are eager to look into pilots in healthcare, tourism, housing, conveyancing and insurance—but all of this is of course subject to spending review outcomes.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]
It is increasingly important for all of us as citizens to be able to simply and securely verify our identity to others and, likewise, that we can always have confidence that the person with whom we are engaged in a transaction is who they say they are. Yet there have been 11 wasted years since the Government scrapped the previous proposals for a secure identity system. Why has there been that waste of time? Can the Minister assure us, the public, that our personal identity data will be secure and not exploited for profit by these new private sector solutions?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I cannot comment on the delay to which the noble Lord refers. What I can say is that we are working at pace and have made considerable progress since our response to the call for evidence in September. As he is aware—the clue is in the name—a fundamental of the “trust framework” is that citizens can trust how their digital ID will be used.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, identity theft is a major, growing crime in this country and many people, particularly the elderly, are commonly relieved of their life savings. In the digital, financial and communications world, we all use fingerprint, facial and iris recognition applications to access our personal and financial information. They also safeguard travellers at airports. Unique DNA data has revolutionised crime investigation, resulting in serious historical crimes being detected. Does the noble Baroness agree that proof of identity brings welcome security to most people living in the modern world? However, for it to be trusted, we need to capture this biometric data, verify its authenticity and digitise it securely.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I absolutely agree that a secure and trusted digital ID framework can help reduce data breaches, identity fraud and some of the problems to which the noble Lord referred.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as chair of the Proof of Age Standards Scheme board. I congratulate my noble friend and welcome the moves that the Government are making in this direction. However, mindful of the fact that digital identity verification is fiendishly complicated, I urge the Government to consult as widely as they can, to embrace the consequences for rural as well as urban areas and to ensure that any such framework is fit for purpose and will, as my noble friend says, be used safely and appropriately.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend makes an important point on which I absolutely agree. That is why we have taken this very transparent approach with the publication of the trust framework alpha. A second iteration will be published this summer and then, as I mentioned, further work towards legislation later this year.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Government Digital Service is hiring a new head of design with the statement:
“Our vision is that citizens will be able to use one login for all government services.”
But we have already spent £200 million on Verify without notable success. Despite what seemed to be the intention in the call for evidence response of creating an open marketplace for verifiable credentials, are the Government really planning to reinvent Verify?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We are not planning to reinvent anything. We will continue to run the Verify system, plan for its retirement and the offboarding of services, while working closely with departments, including my own, to develop a viable long-term digital identity solution for all government, which will be called “One Login for Government”.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Holmes on his persistence on this important subject. Does the Minister agree that we have to introduce a unified digital ID protocol for many reasons, not least the IT benefits for people’s well-being, which will require building equal digital opportunities, widespread digital literacy and strong digital security? For this to succeed, the Government need to introduce their own digital ID protocol as soon as possible and use that opportunity to consider launching further widespread digital literacy education campaigns.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank my noble friend for highlighting another opportunity for digital ID. The Government are committed to realising the benefits of these technologies, albeit without creating ID cards. My honourable friend the Minister for Digital Infrastructure and the Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office are working closely together, as both the trust framework and the single sign-on system for government are needed, so that users can control their data in line with the principles that we published in our response to the 2019 call for evidence.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, anonymity online has encouraged people to say things that are rude, hurtful, untrue and, sometimes, murderous. This does huge damage to society and individuals, so could the Minister undertake that any move towards a distributed digital identity protocol would include an examination of how it might be used to prevent people hiding behind pseudonyms on social media?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness will know that issues around anonymity on social media are extremely complex. She rightly raises instances where anonymity is abused, but we also know that some people use anonymity and pseudonyms for their own protection. I will take her remarks back to the department.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, on pursuing this issue so doggedly, and I challenge the Minister’s assertion that the Government are moving at pace on this. But it is crucial that our economy and public services move with the times. Bodies such as the Financial Action Task Force acknowledge the existence of risks if digital ID is not properly implemented. So how do the Government intend to strike the right balance between risk and reward in this important area?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord raises an important question. It will be through the transparency that I mentioned earlier, with the publication of the trust framework alpha and a second iteration, a beta version, which will be tested before going live.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
The Minister rightly stresses the importance of building public trust in all this. Given increasing concerns about the partisan fashion of so many recent public appointments, what are the Government doing to build broad support for forthcoming key appointments in this field, such as the new Information Commissioner, the new chair of the board at the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, and others?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I absolutely do not accept the noble Lord’s assertion about the political complexion of recent appointments. All go through the public appointments process and are entirely transparent.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, live automated recognition technology is currently on trial by the police, under the supervision and care of the Surveillance Commissioner. Is it envisaged that digitised identity will similarly be subject to the remit of the commissioner, or will they be run as completely separate issues of digitisation?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I welcome the noble and learned Lord to his place and thank him for his question. My understanding is that there will be a need for co-operation between different regulatory authorities. As he will be aware, we have not yet established the governance structure for digital identity—but if there is further information to share, I will write to the noble and learned Lord.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed and we now come to the third Oral Question.
Rent Arrears: Covid-19
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Carrington
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further financial support they are considering to help private sector residential tenants clear rent arrears accrued since the introduction of restrictions to address the COVID-19 pandemic.
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interests as set out in the register.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
I declare my residential and commercial property interests as set out in the register. The Government have provided an unprecedented £352 billion support package, keeping millions in work and temporarily bolstering the welfare safety net by more than £1,000 a year for families most in need. Financial support from private rented sector tenants remains in place. The job retention scheme and universal credit uplift are available until the end of September. For renters who require additional support, £140 million of discretionary housing payments are available.
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
I thank the Minister for his response, but the recent housing resilience survey suggested that the proportion of private renters in arrears increased from 3% in 2019 to 9% in 2020. Will the Minister accept that allowing arrears to grow in this way is not sustainable for tenants or landlords? The Budget announced a pilot no-interest loan scheme to help vulnerable consumers who would benefit from affordable short-term credit to meet unexpected costs. Will the Minister consider a similar loan scheme to support tenants who are now in arrears but do not claim benefit support?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I point out that two-thirds of the tenants identified in the survey have two months or less of rent arrears. We have preferred to avoid encouraging further debt, instead providing non-repayable financial support through furlough and the welfare system.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, in the debate in Grand Committee on 22 April on poverty and mass evictions I asked my noble friend whether his department would do a quick review of the schemes in Wales and Scotland of grants and loans that prevent evictions to see whether any lessons might be learned for England. He replied:
“I will encourage my officials to look at what we can learn from the devolved Administrations”.—[Official Report, 22/4/21; col. GC 402.]
What was the outcome of that review?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My noble friend is quite right. I have asked my department to do that. My officials carefully studied the Scottish and Welsh schemes to support tenants with rent arrears. I understand that a relatively small number of loans have been made by these schemes. Indeed, the Government continue to believe that it is right to provide non-repayable financial support rather than encouraging further debt.
Lord Best (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my housing interests as on the register. Has the noble Lord’s ministry been able to study the outcomes of the tenant loan scheme operating in Spain? Has this enabled tenants to pay off Covid-related arrears successfully and avoid the traumas and cost of widespread evictions? If the scheme is working well in Spain, why not here?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we continue to review other examples of support, including that in Spain, as well as those in the devolved Administrations in the United Kingdom. We will consider what impact they might have, but we will continue with the policy we have about not encouraging further debt.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I refer the House to my interests as set out in the register. Right now, an estimated 353,000 private renters are in arrears. Rent arrears have doubled since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Government promised that no renter would lose their home due to the pandemic. Is it not time for the Government to accept the need for a Covid rent debt fund to clear Covid arrears for the most financially destitute renters, who are at severe risk of homelessness? If not, with the ban on evictions that has been in place during lockdown being lifted next month, how will the Government stop evictions because of Covid rent debt?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we are aware of the exhortations from many organisations, but we consider that the increase in rent arrears is not statistically significant between the two surveys. It went from 7% to 9%. We also recognise that we have provided a substantial package of support for renters during the pandemic, including legislative protections and unprecedented financial support.
Baroness Grender (LD)
Does the Minister accept that loosening restrictions when 353,000 private renters are in arrears risks making families homeless, particularly while no-fault evictions are still in use? Even at this late stage, will he agree to meet Generation Rent to discuss a Covid rent debt fund, enabling renters to clear their debts and landlords to claim up to 80% of income lost, all at a fraction of the current subsidies for home owners?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am always very happy to meet Generation Rent and hear its proposals. I point out that we continue to provide support even at this stage. We lifted the local housing allowance rates to the 30th percentile of local rents in April 2020. That has provided 1.5 million claimants with around £500 more housing support per year. We have announced that local housing rates will be maintained at the increased level in cash terms in 2021-22.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, financial assistance to renters finds its way straight into the pockets of landlords, but rents have fallen during the pandemic, not least in London. Does my noble friend agree that any scheme designed for this purpose should ensure that landlords do not receive returns greater than they would have received in market circumstances?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My noble friend is right that we have seen rents reduce as a result of the pandemic. All the schemes that we have designed cover rent at the level presented by the landlord. Obviously, schemes that we have provided to support renters will reduce as a consequence of reducing rents.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, although the excellent furlough scheme has helped to reduce some financial suffering during the pandemic, the reduced incomes of individuals and households have led to increased arrears for many tenants. If we are to avoid the hardships of a rise in homelessness with the ban on evictions due to end this summer, will the Minister consider loans to be used exclusively to clear rent arrears, as has been mentioned by many speakers?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I restate the Government’s position that we are not looking to encourage further debt. I also point to the statistics regarding homelessness. We have seen a 40% decrease in homelessness duty owed in the period between October 2020 and the same period in 2019. We are not seeing that massive spike in homelessness that has been alluded to.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, before the pandemic it was taking a median of 42 weeks for court cases to reach repossession. The mean length was nearer a year. Analysis suggests that the small number that are being processed now are taking nearly twice as long. The courts cannot cope with the likely flood, and the delays will greatly increase the stress, suffering and uncertainty for private tenants, and difficulty for landlords. Does the Minister agree that the pile-up of repossession cases in the courts is another argument for a grant scheme, ideally, or at least a loan scheme to rescue people from unpayable arrears, provide certainty and prevent delays?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am not aware of a pile-up in the courts. Indeed, we have actually seen a massive drop in the number of repossession cases. It decreased to 262 repossessions in January to March 2021—a reduction of some 96%—and 214 local authorities had no landlord repossessions at all.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
Given that the number of tenants in arrears on low incomes who have been impacted by Covid has more than doubled, have the Government conducted an impact assessment of the change to allow evictions once more? If so, will they make that available to Members of the House?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we continue to survey this very carefully indeed. As I pointed out, although we have seen an increase, according to the survey, in the number of renters in arrears, the vast majority of them—some two-thirds—have arrears of no greater than two months.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. Can the Minister comment on what plans the Government have to assist small and medium landlords who are unable to recover Covid-related rent arrears and face potential enforcement action by their mortgage providers? Might the Government persuade mortgage providers to extend their overall repayment period in these cases, instead of seeking to enforce the mortgage?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My noble friend will be pleased to know that, to support landlords, mortgage lenders have agreed to offer payment holidays of up to six months, including for buy-to-let mortgages. Although that is available only until July 2021, from 1 April 2021 there have been moves to enable forbearance options tailored to the individual landlord.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.
Nepal: Covid-19 Vaccine Request
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the request by the government of Nepal for two million doses of COVID-19 vaccine to tackle the spread of the disease in that country.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I declare my interest as deputy colonel commandant of the Brigade of Gurkhas.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear that equitable access is an integral part of the UK’s approach to vaccine distribution. The United Kingdom has provided £548 million to COVAX, which has already delivered over 59 million doses across three continents. This includes 348,000 doses to Nepal. In total, COVAX has allocated almost 2 million doses to Nepal, which will be delivered free of charge. We will share the majority of any future domestic vaccine surplus with COVAX.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, there can be no greater champion in the Government for Nepal than my noble friend the Minister, in part because he understands, as your Lordships’ House understands, the great bond that exists between our two countries. For over 200 years, through every conflict and crisis that our nation has faced, the brave men of Nepal have fought and died for the Crown. Now, as Covid spreads across the north Indian plain, Nepal faces a crisis of its own. Can my noble friend reassure us, as the air corridor opens this evening, that the enduring comradeship that has stretched across the centuries will result in us doing everything that we possibly can to support our ally?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I return the compliment by paying tribute to my noble friend for his work and his advocacy for Nepal. I can also further assure him that this morning I met with the Minister for the Armed Forces, and the MoD is standing up a military, medical and advisory team on the ground to assess. They will be leaving early next week to assess the requirements on the ground. I am directly engaging with the Government of Nepal. Indeed, I had a very constructive meeting with the Foreign Minister yesterday, establishing exactly what the key requirements are, and later this afternoon I will be meeting the Nepalese ambassador to the Court of St James to further discuss issues of logistics. We have already extended support, including funding an oxygen generation plant at the Nepal Police Hospital, and we are working on the ground through our embassy, and with officials within the FCDO and the MoD, to see what further support can be extended at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, despite the work of COVAX, is not the absence of an effective international vaccine manufacturing and distribution system that meets world demand perfectly illustrated by Nepal’s reported difficulties, particularly when the Serum Institute of India, the world’s largest manufacturer, is situated in Pune, in the state of Maharashtra in India, next door to Nepal? With an 8 billion world population at risk and potentially only a 4 billion worldwide double -dosage manufacturing capacity, as yet unrealised, how can world demand be met?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The challenges—the noble Lord mentioned the Serum Institute of India, which I know well as the Minister for India, and the challenges in India in terms of the current wave sweeping across the country—are well known. We have seen a stepping up in terms of manufacturing and collaboration, and the United Kingdom’s structured approach to the COVAX facility demonstrates the importance, as the noble Lord himself acknowledges, of a global supply chain which guarantees the distribution of Covid-19 vaccines across the world.
Baroness Northover (LD)
This disastrous surge in cases has now, unsurprisingly, spread to Nepal. We are likely to see this pattern replicated worldwide, yet it is reported that the UK stopped adding to the global vaccination efforts when we cut aid. How can we claim, as we have, that we will be leading the world at the G7 in recovery from the pandemic if we cannot even do that?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, that is just not the case. We are leading the efforts, along with other key partners, on vaccines, and again, as I said in my original Answer, any surplus vaccines in the United Kingdom will be distributed through the COVAX scheme.
Lord Popat (Con) [V]
My Lords, Nepal and the United Kingdom have one of the oldest diplomatic relationships within south Asia, a friendship represented by generations of Gurkha soldiers and mountaineers. Can my noble friend the Minister outline what other steps are being taken to engage with the Nepalese Government to better understand their needs and to ensure that human care and support are provided in the most effective way possible?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I have already alluded to the cross-government approach and the structured approach. We are engaging with the Nepalese Government directly, both in Kathmandu and in the UK. We are sending experts in technical support and assisting Nepal’s Ministry of Health in its responses. We will continue with a very active dialogue both in Kathmandu and in London.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
My Lords, this is an emergency on the scale of Nepal’s civil war or the 2015 earthquake. Is the UK responding adequately, especially to the local demand for vaccines and oxygen? The Minister will be aware of the current fragility of government and of rural health services, but there are also many experienced NGOs supporting clinics there—both Nepalese and international—with safe supply lines. Are we making full use of those?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Earl that we are looking at all key players to ensure that the response and the requirements of Nepal can be met in the best possible manner by the United Kingdom working with other international partners.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, yesterday in the Queen’s Speech debate, I argued for the utilisation and expansion of local manufacturing capacity in low and middle-income countries. Today, Labour has put forward a 10-point plan to transform the volume of vaccine production worldwide, including a global register of potential production facilities. Will the Government support this vital initiative?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I have not yet seen the 10-point plan, but I look forward to it. On this occasion, I must disappoint the noble Lord—I have not seen his tweet—but I will certainly reflect on the important points. In all seriousness, we need to co-operate globally to ensure the best and most effective response to meeting the challenges not only of the current pandemic but of future pandemics as well.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, while we have to await the outcome of the current census, the current estimate of the population of the United Kingdom with Nepalese roots is between 80,000 and 100,000. May I therefore urge the Minister to treat this request for support as not just a foreign policy issue but a domestic issue, and to ensure that we keep in close touch with the local communities to reassure them that we are supporting their families?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I can give the noble Baroness that assurance. Our experience of the support we have extended to India lends to the strength of our diaspora communities. I have asked my office to set up a meeting with private sector representatives to see what we can do in strengthening the diaspora’s response to the needs of Nepal.
Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare that I am the founder and chairman of the UK-Nepal Trade and Investment Forum and vice-chair of the APPG on Nepal. The situation in Nepal is dire: it needs our immediate help. I have received representations from the Nepalese diaspora and have had several discussions with His Excellency the Nepalese ambassador. The country needs ICU ventilators, oxygen cylinders and concentrators, oxygen plants, ICU beds, test kits and, of course, vaccines. I have written to the Minister on this matter and am waiting for an answer. Also, I am galvanising Muslim charities to provide aid in Nepal immediately.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I have received my noble friend’s letter and I will be responding to him. The list is well known to me, and I have already talked about engaging with the diaspora. I will be in touch with my noble friend to convene a meeting so we can address the direct needs.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I fully support the UK Government and indeed applaud them for providing vaccines to Nepal and other developing countries. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government yet know whether we will need booster jabs for our UK frail and elderly in the autumn and, if so, whether vaccines for developing countries will take priority over booster jabs for the frail and elderly in this country?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I defer to my excellent colleague and noble friend Lord Bethel, who can respond more effectively to the noble Baroness’s question. However, we are working with the developing world to ensure we meet its requirements as well.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Did the Minister note that when the Prime Minister of Nepal realised he had made a mistake, he resigned? Is it not indicative that he has more honour than the Prime Minister here?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I know our Prime Minister. I worked with our Prime Minister when he was Foreign Secretary. I have seen a side to our Prime Minister that perhaps other noble Lords have not seen. This is a Prime Minister who went through the challenge of Covid-19 himself and when he returned to the office—the noble Lord shakes his head, but it is important—we saw it, we heard it and we delivered on it. The first priority, the first thing he spearheaded, was the response to the Covid-19 challenge, not just in the UK but across the world. He was instrumental in setting up the COVAX facility, which is benefiting more than 92 developing countries around the world. That is the fact. I know our Prime Minister personally and well, and he has led from the front on this agenda.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Covid-19 Internal Review
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will publish their internal review of the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I start by welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, to the Bench; I am very much looking forward to working with her in the months ahead. The Prime Minister confirmed on 12 May that a public inquiry will be established on a statutory basis to consider the Covid-19 pandemic, including the Government’s handling of it. I can confirm that while DHSC officials carried out a routine internal ways-of-working review, this was absolutely for the purpose of providing advice to Ministers only.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the National Audit Office report published yesterday both highlighted the need for the Government to learn lessons at speed and advocated greater transparency. Publishing an already completed internal review of the Government’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis would support a plan to contain the threat of new variants, and I urge the Government to do so. I am interested to know whether the Minister can come to agree with me on this. With experts, including SAGE, warning that it is very much in the balance as to whether further restrictions will be lifted in June, given the dramatic rise in Indian Covid-19 variant cases, will the Government learn the lessons and urgently review travel and quarantine arrangements?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness that we are at a pivotal moment in the pandemic; matters are on a knife-edge. There is so much good news about the effect of the vaccine that we should celebrate, but there is enormous jeopardy in the threat posed by variants. That is why we are very much focused on dealing with the pandemic before us. The inquiry promised by the Prime Minister is for spring next year, and until then we will continue to be focused on today’s pandemic.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, Professor Andrew Hayward, a member of SAGE, this morning said that he thinks we are now at the start of the third wave and that more generalised measures will be needed. As an adviser to government is saying that we need to act and plan now, what generalised measures are the Government planning and when will they be announced, so that people and businesses do not have just 24 hours to plan?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we are enormously grateful for the advice of SAGE, which, as the noble Lord will know, is a very large collection of scientists, many of whom have many different views. The JBC takes their advice into account, and we are absolutely monitoring the situation as closely as we possibly can. We celebrate the transparency with which the very large amount of surveillance data is handled and published for public analysis. Measures are in place on testing, therapeutics and social distancing, but the number one measure is the vaccine. The rollout of the vaccine is what will give this country the protection it needs.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I reiterate my congratulations to the Government and all those involved in the fantastic success of the vaccine development and rollout programme. This inquiry does not need to be long and drawn out. Will my noble friend confirm that it will look into the accuracy of—and contradictory nature of some of—the scientific advice received over the last year, the appalling scaremongering of some of the media, the validity of political decisions such as lockdowns, and whether the government reaction to the pandemic, and the reaction overall, has been proportionate?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister promised on 12 May that there will be a statutory inquiry beginning in spring 2022, as my noble friend alluded to. Its chair and terms of reference will be announced before spring 2022, and it will be for the terms of reference and the chair to determine exactly what subjects are looked at.
Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I ask the Minister to return to the first Question asked by my noble friend—she asked two—which he overlooked. Does the Minister agree that publishing the internal review could strengthen the strategic plan to contain new variants? Does he agree with me that it would certainly raise public trust and that, because of the inordinate delay until next year in starting the public inquiry, it surely makes sense? Even if this is not a public-facing review, it is of such public interest that he should publish the internal review.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, as I said before, there was an internal ways-of-working review into the department’s early response to the pandemic, way before the threat of variants was on the horizon. None the less, it is our commitment to focus on the pandemic and the threat presented to us by its future evolution. That is why we are focused on today’s measures. We will leave reflection on the past to the inquiry.
Lord Balfe (Con)
Does the Minister see that we will keep on having variants of this virus and, to an extent, will have to learn to live with it? I am sure people would be much happier if we were to downscale the amount of advice that we get from a variety of often dubious sources. The sooner we can publish an inquiry into it, the better. We must recognise that the Government faced an enormous challenge. Overall, they have come out of it pretty well, and we should not carp.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful to my noble friend for his comments. I know he has been a vocal critic of some things, and I take his comments in very good measure. On his point on guidance, this is not how the public have presented things to us. They want clear, easy-to-understand guidance. We have learned the importance of publishing in many languages and now regularly publish in 10 spoken languages. The public are in fact hungry for detailed guidance, which is why we have published more than 400 pieces of guidance on GOV.UK, covering everything from funerals, care homes and schools right through to smokers, vapers, houseboat dwellers and singing with children. That is because the public would like to have this kind of advice and recommendation.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, on how professionally he handles his responsibilities in the Lords. I am sure he will support the Prime Minister’s announcement that a full inquiry will be held next year, beginning in the spring, which will place the state’s actions under the microscope. The existing internal lessons-learned review was an informal exercise, not a public-facing work, which I believe will not be published. It would be wrong to publish it. While there have inevitably been some mistakes, I congratulate the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, on having got Covid-19 vaccinations moving significantly faster than the EU. I hope he will exceed the speed limit even more.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am enormously grateful for my noble friend’s kind comments. On his point on vaccines, I emphasise the enormous contribution of the whole union behind the vaccine project. It has been a union project to deploy vaccines to every person in the UK at amazing speed and with consistency right across all parts of the union. For that we should be enormously grateful.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, while we all here respect that health is a devolved responsibility, does the Minister not agree with me that one of the problems that arose was the confusion arising from different rules in different parts of the United Kingdom and different messages throughout the United Kingdom? In the inquiry, will the United Kingdom Government talk with the devolved Administrations to make sure that, in future, there is a more co-ordinated response? The virus knows no boundaries.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister will define the terms of reference and the chair will define how the inquiry deports itself. On the noble Lord’s point about the rules and the suggestion of confusion, I agree that there was a lot of heat and smoke around differences but the truth is that 99% of everything that we did between the different parts of the union was exactly the same. There was a lot of focus on very small differences, but what I celebrate is how much common ground there was in our responses.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I echo the congratulations to my noble friend on his dedication to his role, and I welcome the noble Baroness opposite to her position. I join other colleagues in congratulating the Government on their successful rollout of the vaccine, which, from what we can see so far, deals with the variants that have arisen and allows us to open our country back up again after the extraordinary efforts that have been made in connection with the vaccine. In connection with any review, will there be an urgent announcement of an investigation into the way that social care was handled, particularly at the beginning of this, for those people who are so reliant on home care or care homes for their very survival?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I do not think I need to speculate on this matter; of course social care will form part of the inquiry. It has been an incredibly important part of our response, and we have come a long way in the last 14 or 15 months. I pay tribute to all the people who work in social care, and their leadership, who have done an enormous amount to protect those who live in social care or are supported by it. We as a country have learned a huge amount about how to protect those who are vulnerable and those who are elderly. I also pay enormous tribute to the public, who have made huge sacrifices to protect and save the lives of those who live in social care.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, to her position and look forward to hearing from her. I too pay tribute to the Minister and the Government, including my friend in the other place, Nadhim Zahawi, who has led this very effectively. It is so pleasing to see the uptake of vaccines in all parts of our countries and communities. While we are not privy to any internal findings of the report, does the Minister accept that any current or future review must address the detrimental economic impact on women, people with disabilities and those communities of minority heritage that suffered significant loss of life in the early days? Will such a report also therefore consider whether the lessons of the first wave were learned, and unnecessary deaths and infections subsequently prevented?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, it is not for me to define exactly what the scope of the inquiry will be but the noble Baroness’s points are extremely well made. I emphasise the importance of women. We are in the midst of consultation on the women’s health strategy. It is proving to be an incredibly impactful process and events are being held almost daily. I encourage all noble Lords to submit evidence to the health strategy on any issues that they feel strongly about. This could be a really impactful turning point in the way in which the health of women in this country is massively improved.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that publishing an internal review right now would do nothing less than risking a dodgy dossier, of the sort we have seen before which shed far more confusion than light? Does he not think that the most important use of time right now would be in getting to grips with the anti-vaxxers who are spreading vicious lies, so that we can get on with vaccinating as many people as possible and bringing this country together as quickly as possible?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for his comments. He is entirely right. The battle against anti-vaxxers has been very successful. We have used a spirit of dialogue with people who have very personal and legitimate questions about a vaccine that requires an injection of fluids into their body. People quite reasonably have detailed questions about its impact. I applaud officials and partners of the Government who have been so effective at conveying the message on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. It really has demonstrated the power of government and NHS communications at their best.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I join the chorus of welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, who referred, as have other Peers, to the National Audit Office report on the handling of the pandemic. Commenting on that, Gareth Davies, the head of the NAO, stressed the need to “learn lessons at speed”. The Minister has often expressed how useful and informative he has found the contributions in your Lordships’ House. Would those contributions not be better informed if Members could absorb and reflect on the findings of the internal review as the country and the world continue to deal with what is, certainly on the global level, a raging and deeply dangerous pandemic?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am enormously grateful to the NAO for the powerful report that it has published. It said many complimentary things about the Government’s handling of the pandemic. I am grateful to noble Lords for the counsel and challenge that they have given here in this Chamber. I point out the vast amount of data and information that we have published, which is at the disposal of the public and parliamentarians. However, confidential advice from officials to Ministers on a means-of-working review is not the kind of thing that I think adds to this sort of debate, and for that reason it is most appropriately kept confidential.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this morning on BBC News there has been a suggestion that the Indian variant has been due in large part to ineffective track and trace. Would the Minister like to comment on that?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I do not think that is correct. The noble Baroness is right to ask the question because we should always challenge our systems, but track and trace has really delivered for the country when it comes to the containment of the variants. We were extremely concerned about the Manaus variant. That was why we instigated Project Eagle, an intense application of testing in communities on a very large scale and forensic tracing, putting huge resources into tracking down the movements of those who tested positive with a VOC. We then had the South African variant, which has been successfully contained. We could not have imagined that an Indian VOC of this kind could make its way into this country with such high transmissibility, and I pay tribute to those working in track and trace who have bought us an enormous amount of time so that we can bring in surge testing and surge vaccination to contain and minimise the spread of this variant.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and answered.
Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill [HL]
Thursday 20th May 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill [HL] 2021-22 View all Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill [HL] 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
Office of the Whistleblower Bill [HL]
Thursday 20th May 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Office of the Whistleblower Bill [HL] 2021-22 View all Office of the Whistleblower Bill [HL] 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
Deputy Chairmen of Committees
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed as the panel of members to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this session:
Alderdice, L, Ashton of Hyde, L, Barker, B, Brougham and Vaux, L, Caine, L, Dear, L, Duncan of Springbank, L, Faulkner of Worcester, L, Finlay of Llandaff, B, Fookes, B, Garden of Frognal, B, Geddes, L, Haskel, L, Healy of Primrose Hill, B, Henig, B, Kinnoull, E, Lexden, L, McAvoy, L, McIntosh of Hudnall, B, McNicol of West Kilbride, L, Morris of Bolton, B, Newlove, B, Palmer of Childs Hill, L, Pitkeathley, B, Rogan, L, Russell of Liverpool, L, Simon, V, Stoneham of Droxford, L, Watkins of Tavistock, B.
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2021
The Earl of Courtown
That the Regulations laid before the House on 3, 18, 22, 23 and 24 March be approved.
Relevant documents: 49th and 51st Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2019-21. Considered in Grand Committee on 18 and 19 May.
Israel and Gaza
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, last week we called for concerted action at the United Nations Security Council to halt the violence, so it is welcome that France has put forward proposals, with the support of Egypt and Jordan, together with yesterday’s news that President Biden is encouraging the Israeli Government to facilitate a ceasefire. Such a move will not only allow moderate voices on all sides to be heard but will address the urgent need for humanitarian access to Gaza. Can the Minister detail what steps our representatives at the UN are taking to support the ceasefire initiative, and what steps the Government are taking to help facilitate urgent humanitarian support into Gaza?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s first point, I have been engaging directly with our ambassador to the United Nations and we are working with other key colleagues to ensure first and foremost that a ceasefire is guaranteed, both through the UN and bilaterally. We have taken other urgent steps as well. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has engaged directly with both the Israeli Foreign Minister and the Palestinian Prime Minister over the last few days to ensure that there is an immediate ceasefire, and on the important point the noble Lord made about guaranteeing access for humanitarian relief, particularly into Gaza.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the international community failed to address the underlying causes and grievances following earlier wars on Gaza, and this time a simple ceasefire—though absolutely necessary—is just not sufficient for the benefit of Israelis and Palestinians? I also point out that in the past a group of aid agencies working in Gaza, including Oxfam, Save the Children, and the Quakers, had regular meetings with his department. Can I ask him to make sure that these are reinstated?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, it is certainly my firm belief that, in the tragedy of this ongoing conflict, we all know what the ultimate sustainable solution is: a secure, safe Israel next door to a sustainable Palestinian state. I assure the noble Baroness of my good offices in ensuring that we do not lose the momentum behind this challenge. In response to her second point, if it is within scope to meet directly, I will—otherwise the appropriate Minister will engage directly.
Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, the longer this cycle of violence continues, the more challenging it will be to reach the objective of two states living side by side in peace. Does my noble friend the Minister not agree that, unless this conflict is soon brought to a close, it could result in increased radicalisation and extremism for the whole region? Therefore, could he tell me what steps the UK is taking to join the International Fund for Israeli-Palestinian Peace, alongside the United States?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we must engage directly with all initiatives which seek to bring peace to the region. This conflict has gone on for far too long. We know what the ultimate goal should be and should ensure we exercise all opportunities in achievement of that goal. We have taken immediate steps, as I have already indicated. On the issue of extremism and radicalisation, I agree with the noble Baroness; we have to ensure that the whole ideological base and the hijacking of the agenda by extremist and terrorist organisations are put to rest. The best way to do that is to bring together voices that want to see progress on this most important issue.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB) [V]
My Lords, perhaps I could press the Minister a little further on some of his earlier answers. Could he say whether, in the meetings of the Security Council between 16 and 19 May, our representative gave full support to the call by the UN Secretary-General for an early ceasefire? If the answer if not unambiguously “yes”, why not? Does he not agree that, as I think he has said, we have now seen beyond demonstrable doubt that the policy of neglecting the Palestine-Israel negotiations over recent years is neither producing security for Israel nor generating well-being for the Palestinians?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the second question the noble Lord raised, I think I have made the position clear. In reply to his first point, both at the Security Council and in the Statement yesterday we called for an immediate ceasefire.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
Some of your Lordships may be aware that I returned from Jerusalem yesterday evening, where I attended the very joyful installation of the new Anglican archbishop there. From an earlier answer given by the Minister, I take it he agrees that, until the underlying causes that gave rise to the clashes on Temple Mount, in the Al-Aqsa Mosque and in the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood where I was staying, and the conflict between Hamas and Israel, are addressed, Israelis and Palestinians will not enjoy security, experience justice or build a relationship of mutual respect and regard? Does the Minister agree that, for violence to permanently end, Israel’s occupation must also end?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the right reverend Prelate and have already indicated what the sustainable solution is, which is clear and in front of us. It goes back to the importance of a viable two-state solution, which the Government have repeatedly stated. On the points he made about the importance of Jerusalem and other holy places across the Holy Land, speaking as a Muslim who has visited Israel—Jerusalem and other holy sites—I say that we have been enriched by the essence of faith, the Abrahamic faiths, which bring people together. The faith community has had an important role to play in the healing, reconciliation and building through progressive steps towards the two-state solution.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con) [V]
My Lords, it looks like a ceasefire is imminent, but that is not the issue now. This conflict was completely unprovoked and started by Hamas terrorists for pure political expediency at a horrific and terrible cost, not least to their own people. Does my noble friend agree with me that the issue now is that we ensure that Hamas cannot and does not call this conflict a win in any way, and that it does not get access to more lethal and dangerous arms, as it will undoubtedly seek to, from countries such as Iran?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend: Hamas does not represent the Palestinian people. We have seen interview upon interview with innocent residents of Gaza who have been impacted by the actions of Hamas and the missiles and rockets that have been seen over Israel. Equally, it has also caused not only destruction to buildings but loss of life. The response has also caused a major loss of life in Gaza. We need an immediate ceasefire, but Hamas is an organisation that does not believe in peace. What we need is progressive voices on both sides to build to the ultimate sustainable solution of two viable states.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, beyond an immediate ceasefire, does the Minister agree that, until last week, there seemed to be no chance of reviving the Middle East peace process? However, now, in part because of concern in Israel about a possible civil war, there is at least the prospect of opening serious talks, brokered by the United States and Arab states, with our support. Of course, Iran is acting as a spoiler, still supplying rockets to Hamas in Gaza.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as I have already indicated, through the tragedy of the current conflict, there is ironically a sense of both attention and momentum, and therein lies an opportunity to revive the peace process, in the interests of not just the Palestinian people but Israel and, indeed, the wider region.
Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very concerned at the loss of life and violent activities on both sides. I have been to Gaza as well as Israel, and I ask that we actively pursue securing the ceasefire immediately. However, I will refer to a question that I raised in your Lordships’ House yesterday but did not get a reply to. Like many Muslims in the world, I was very disturbed by the Israeli attacks on the al-Aqsa mosque; to us Muslims, it is the third holiest place in the world. I have visited and prayed there three times. It is sacred, and I believe that what has happened is sacrilege. Can my noble friend the Minister comment on what has happened and perhaps try to ensure that it does not happen again?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my apologies; I was certainly writing to answer my noble friend’s question. I too have worshipped at the al-Aqsa mosque; it is a sacred site for Muslims. Equally, as we have heard from the right reverend Prelate, the whole essence of Jerusalem is important to all three Abrahamic faiths. Respect for the historic status quo in the holy sites in Jerusalem is also valid. Any violent action, particularly that which was taken on the eve of Laylat al-Qadr, is extremely tragic to see unfolding in a mosque, which is a place of peace. We need to ensure that the sanctity of places of worship is sustained.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. I apologise to the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Ramsay, that there was not time to hear their questions.
House of Lords: Remote Participation and Hybrid Sittings
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal. As we meet today, we are still in the grip of a global pandemic that has significantly impacted all our lives and the working of our Parliament. The first national lockdown began on 23 March 2020. Two days later, when our House adjourned early for the Easter Recess, it was far from clear to anybody how or when we would return. That we were able to return after Easter, as scheduled, on 21 April was thanks to the extraordinary efforts of the staff of the House.
Earl Howe (Con)
However, it was clear from the outset that those early virtual sittings would need to serve as a stepping-stone to a more sophisticated system.
A little over a month later our hybrid House, as we now know it, was up and running, and shortly after that we started voting remotely. These changes were developed and implemented in a matter of weeks. While they have worked well in their own terms, we all knew they were never going to be perfect or a proper substitute for our normal arrangements. There have been unintended consequences and opportunity costs as well as frustrations. Nevertheless, we have continued to meet and to scrutinise, revise and pass legislation, which is our primary duty, and—albeit not in an ideal fashion—your Lordships have continued to hold the Government to account.
The hybrid House arrangements have seen us through this unprecedented time, which has included two further nationwide lockdowns and all the social distancing and shielding measures in between. Notwithstanding that, we have always perceived these measures to be a temporary fix to a temporary problem; and that is the basis on which we proposed the changes to the commission and to the Procedure and Privileges Committee.
Before we get into the debate, I want to clarify what we mean when referring to the “hybrid House”. I suggest that there should be three separate and very distinct elements to it, which are often wrongly conflated. The first element is remote participation in business that would previously have required all participating Members to be present in person. The second element is remote voting. The third element, which can be separated from the other two, consists of all the procedural changes which have been made independently of, or are not dependent on, remote participation in the Chamber or Grand Committee or remote voting. This includes things like the increased time allocated for Oral Questions each day, the taking of evidence from witnesses remotely in Select Committee meetings, and the selection of Oral Questions by ballot rather than first come, first served.
The Leader, the Chief Whip and I have always been consistent in our position on remote participation and remote voting. We believe that, once the social distancing guidance allows it, the House should return to its full physical capacity, and remote participation in the Chamber and Grand Committee should cease, as should remote voting. A parliamentarian’s place is in Parliament. This is not just a sentimental view; it is a practical view of how the innumerable interactions between Ministers, Peers, officials and staff all contribute to the way that Parliament should work. That is what Zoom, for all its technical wizardry, cannot provide.
I do not intend to go into full detail about all the practical implications of retaining remote participation or remote voting, but certain considerations are important to mention to set the context of this debate. First, keeping any remote participation in the Chamber or Grand Committee, even if only in exceptional circumstances, would have significant implications for our ability to return to the House as we knew it before and would entail continued costs of just over £90,000 a month for the extensive broadcasting team. Even if we enabled only a small number of Members to contribute in this way, the bulk of this monthly cost would still be incurred.
Secondly, we are a House of Peers. An important element of the hybrid system has been the principle of maintaining general parity of treatment between physical and remote speakers. Unless in some way or to some degree we take steps to remove that parity and introduce procedural limitations for those noble Lords who are not physically present when speaking, the consequences would be an inability to return to interaction and interventions in the Chamber for all participants equally.
Remote participation, to however limited a degree, necessarily brings with it procedural millstones: advance notice and pre-planning of speakers’ lists; allowing time for Members to sign up; allowing further time for broadcasters to organise the necessary connectivity; and retaining time limits for items of business that did not have them before. Even if no virtual speakers sign up for a particular piece of business, we would still be left with wasted time because of the need to plan the order of business in advance, just in case. Let none of us think that just having a few people taking part in our debates remotely would allow us to return to the flexibility that this House once enjoyed and took for granted.
While the matter of remote voting may be more a matter of principle than practicality, it is significant to note that since we introduced remote voting more Members are voting and Divisions are more frequent. During the 2017-19 Session, there was an average of one Division every three days. Since remote voting, we have had an average of one Division every day—a threefold increase. This has had practical implications for the timing, scheduling and progress of business.
I make a plea for the Government. With no in-built government majority in the Lords, Ministers work hard to make their case and try to win the argument to win Divisions. Is it not right that Members are here to listen and give them a fair hearing before casting their votes? That aside, with the rest of the country coming back to work physically, how could we credibly defend parliamentarians doing something different?
Our present arrangements have allowed us to carry on to the best of our abilities within unprecedented limitations. However, they have added little or no value to our pre-existing procedures. From a ministerial viewpoint, we fully appreciate that the technical constraints have made the Opposition and Back-Benchers feel that their ability to scrutinise the Government effectively has been restricted. At the same time, the Government have found their ability to progress legislation more difficult and this House’s unique self-regulating nature has been curtailed. Indeed, at times it has felt as if the House has had one hand tied behind its back.
I have heard it said that, with remote participation, our debates are a shadow of what they once were. “Sensing the mood of the House” is a phrase that is now almost devoid of meaning. There is simply no way of determining who the House wants to hear from or for how long and, without the interaction that comes with a physical House, speeches are increasingly disconnected from one another and can often be tiresomely repetitive.
It is interesting that our hybrid arrangements have not increased average daily attendance. The difference that noble Lords may have noticed is that a great many more Members than before are speaking in our main items of business. As we are all painfully aware, the result of that has been to restrict speaking times to one or two minutes. I am the first to acknowledge that that renders any attempt at healthy debate and scrutiny almost impossible. Members with genuine expertise and experience, whom the House would benefit hearing from at greater length, are crowded out. There is frustration all round.
I do not believe that I am alone in holding the view that there is immeasurable value to be gained from noble Lords participating physically in Parliament. Virtual proceedings cannot replace or adequately substitute for the interactive dynamic of the Chamber, conversations in the corridors or face-to-face engagement on important legislation and matters of the day. When voting on legislation, Members benefit immensely from being in the House to follow the debate, listening to the responses and voting among colleagues in the Division Lobbies. This communication between Back-Benchers and Ministers, Government and Opposition, friends and colleagues, is, I believe, our bread and butter and vital to the proper functioning of this House. This building is our Parliament. It is where we all belong and it does not work as it should without us being here, in person, together.
As I said at the start, at the outset of the pandemic we viewed remote participation and voting as a temporary solution to a temporary problem. This House has evolved its procedures and practices over many years and it is not in our nature to permanently alter or curtail them as a result of decisions made very rapidly out of temporary necessity. Having said all that, where smaller changes do not impact on the practicalities or principles of our traditional ways of working or our ability to participate and vote physically, we perhaps need to be more open-minded. These are the procedural changes I mentioned a moment ago as the third element of our hybrid House. I am thinking of things such as the time allocated for Oral Questions, the elimination of reading out Statements and the way in which Select Committees decide to hear from witnesses. There may well be good arguments for holding on to these changes on a long-term basis.
These should perhaps be viewed as second-order issues because we think it important for the House to return to normality before considering whether any of these sorts of procedural changes should be retained in the long term. However, if there is a genuine and thought-through demand for one or more of them, the Leader, Chief Whip and I stand ready to take forward discussions, as appropriate.
My task today has been to make the Government’s position on remote participation and the Hybrid Sittings of the House clear, which I hope I have done. However, I do need to emphasise that this is not a matter for the Government to decide upon; it is a matter for the House. The Leader, the Chief Whip and I felt it was right to facilitate the debate today, so that all noble Lords would have the opportunity to air their views. While I am sure that my noble friend Lord Cormack will speak persuasively to his amending Motion, we also believe that the main aim of this debate should be for views to be expressed, and not for binding decisions to be made. Our intention was, and is, for the views of noble Lords as expressed today to be synthesised in a careful and nuanced way to enable your Lordships’ commission to make appropriate recommendations to the House. My noble friend the Leader, alongside other members of the commission, are here to listen. I beg to move.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Howe. He has spoken clearly and persuasively and there is hardly anything he said with which I would disagree. I tabled this resolution because a number of colleagues, particularly those who have been attending regularly, have spoken to me and discussed these things. We thought it might be a good idea to have a resolution before your Lordships to give a little more point and purpose to the debate. I reserve the right to divide the House, but I shall listen very carefully indeed—as will others. Whether there will be a Division at the end of this debate or not, I genuinely do not know, but I certainly accept that there is a great deal of good sense in what my noble friend Lord Howe said a few moments ago.
The period since 23 March last year has been one of the most remarkable in our long parliamentary history. To those who made possible first the virtual and then the hybrid House, we all owe a great deal, as my noble friend said. As someone new to the technology, I would like to add a very personal thank you to the digital support team, who have been truly remarkable in the 24/7 service that they have offered. It would be very easy to be seduced into the comfortable way forward: to continue to speak from our homes and even to vote from our beds, as I understand some have done. It would be easy, but it would be wrong—emphatically wrong—for the House we have at the moment is one dimensional. As the Constitution Committee has made plain in its latest valuable report, the first of this Session, there is no opportunity for spontaneity or intervention and no real opportunity for human contact between colleagues, without which no institution can work effectively.
Parliament, and that means both Houses, must be at the centre of any thriving democracy. Good governance means that the Government must be held effectively to account, both formally in the Chamber, in committee and, as my noble friend touched on, informally, in conversation and personal meetings. One of the great deficiencies of the present system is that statutory instruments pile up—the Constitution Committee referred to this in its report—leading to retrospective legislation and to confusing the public by blurring the difference between legislation and guidance. That is thoroughly undesirable. As my noble friend also touched on, debates without opportunity for challenge and intervention become a series of written statements, delivered without any reference to others. They are a series of personal utterances, not a debate; there is no cut and thrust. There is not even the opportunity to know how what one is saying is going down with one’s colleagues. As for the voting system, it is far too easy and remote in every way.
Our Constitution Committee is wise to say that we will need to assess our former normal working methods, but I agree emphatically with my noble friend: first of all, we need to get back to those methods. After all, a significant number of Peers have had little or no experience of our normal methods: those who have been ennobled in the last two years. Some have had no experience whatever of our normal working day. I believe that we need to get back to where we were in mid-March 2020 before assessing what, if any, changes should be made to the working of our self-regulating House. The only practice that we should maintain is that of allowing distant witnesses to appear remotely when giving evidence, but before a proper committee, assembled in a proper Committee Room.
The Commons, we are told, will return on 22 June. The longer after that that we delay the move, the more irrelevant this House will become. Ideally, the changes should be concurrent in both Houses, but I put 6 September as the latest possible date in case there is a general wish to take just a little longer in your Lordships’ House. I hope that there will not be, but it would have the added advantage of making sure that everyone was able to have a vaccination.
Before I finish, I want to give a warning. When we decamp during restoration and renewal, we must not look at the virtual and hybrid House as something we should return to. That would be totally wrong. We would merely deserve the riposte that, if that is the case, what point and purpose is there in a second Chamber? If those greybeards cannot transmit their wisdom other than via Zoom, would the nation not be better served by another television channel? We need to be here—or wherever Parliament is sitting—or we will become an irrelevance, tweeting and twittering into the twilight.
I have just been reading the diary of Alan Don, who was rector of St Margaret’s and subdean during the war years; I commend it to your Lordships. He talks about this House and the other place sitting in Church House, the Robing Room and the Royal Gallery, and the Commons moving here, but meeting all the time during the Second World War—never, never giving up. This has been a very difficult period, but it has been nowhere near as difficult as the Second World War, when the bombs were falling on both Houses. If they could do it then, we can and should do it now.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, during a long career in theatre, I supported many understudies. As they shook in their shoes waiting to go on, there were only ever two notes worth giving them: “Remember your lines” and “Try not to bump into the furniture”. So far, so good. I have been a Back-Bencher all my political life, so it is a huge and, frankly, unexpected privilege to be asked to understudy my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, who is unavoidably absent on personal business today. She is a star in your Lordships’ House and I know my place, but I hope that my recent membership of the House of Lords Commission, my current membership of the Procedure and Privileges Committee and my service as Deputy Speaker, as well as my experience on the Back Benches, will give me just enough credibility to take the edge off your Lordships’ disappointment that my noble friend is, as we say in the theatre, “off”.
I start by adding my thanks to those already given by the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, to our many staff colleagues who have worked so hard, first to invent the virtual House and then to create the hybrid House and keep it going. It is an extraordinary achievement and we owe them a huge debt of gratitude. As a result of their patient efforts—as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has already alluded to—lots of us have even become modestly competent users of technology that we had never heard of a year ago.
This is an important debate, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, have made clear. The noble Earl has set out the Government’s position very clearly and unambiguously. While I do not disagree with everything that he said, or indeed much of it, there may be some additional points to make. After a challenging year, the House is faced with some critical choices. Fortunately, last week’s excellent report from the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House, which has already been mentioned, sets out the issues very clearly and concisely—including, by the way, some trenchant comments on the current state of play with restoration and renewal. I do not propose to dwell on that but hope that someone else will. The whole House will be grateful to my noble friend Lady Taylor and her colleagues; they have certainly made our job today easier. I agree wholeheartedly with their conclusion that the House needs to reflect on its experiences before deciding next steps.
Today’s debate is the essential first stage in that process. Each Member’s experience of the hybrid House has been different and we shall hear a wide range of views this afternoon. Everyone with some part to play in considering what the House should do next must, first and foremost, as the noble Earl said, keep an open mind —and listen. That is why I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, to whom I listened closely and for whom I have a very high regard, as I think he knows, will not press his Motion to a vote. Today should be for considering, not for deciding.
For me, the key observation of the Constitution Committee’s report comes in its summary, where it says that
“changes to House of Lords procedures as a result of hybrid proceedings … has resulted in Parliament’s essential scrutiny role becoming less effective, including its capacity to hold the Government to account. This presents significant problems for both members and ministers.”
The University College London Constitution Unit recently warned that
“parliamentary accountability and control over decisions have diminished to a degree that would have been unthinkable before COVID-19”.
I think there are few who would disagree. The constraints that have particularly affected your Lordships’ House—including the lack of spontaneous intervention, the absence of informal contacts and the restrictions on speakers’ lists and speaking times—are discussed in detail. I am sure that we shall be hearing much more about these issues as the debate unfolds.
However, the Constitution Committee’s report also points out that there have been benefits to the hybrid model, especially for Members for whom, for example, coming regularly to Westminster presents difficulties. It reminds us that our pre-pandemic procedures had shortcomings and frustrations, too. For example, our traditions of self-regulation, to which reference has already been made and which are treasured and jealously guarded by many of us, can be quite intimidating for others. The introduction of speakers’ lists for most business and the calling of speakers from the Woolsack of course has been difficult, but it may have advantages which we must properly evaluate.
Our goal must be to make the House the most effective it can be in its role of scrutinising and revising legislation and holding the Government to account. That, in my view, does not necessarily mean going back to exactly how things were. We should bear in mind, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has already reminded us, that the House has welcomed many new Members in the past year. Most have become impressively active participants in our work, but they have only ever known the House as it is today. This is their normal. I am glad to see that several will be speaking later; their perspective will be particularly valuable.
I would like to highlight a couple of other points. The first concerns Select Committees, which have been operating very successfully in hybrid mode; the Constitution Committee recommends that they should be allowed to continue to do so. Having served on two Select Committees in the past year, I agree that this way of working has been particularly helpful, especially in the ability to attract a more diverse range of witnesses.
The second is electronic voting, to which reference has of course already been made. I believe that PeerHub is an excellent innovation that we should retain and develop. Personally, like the noble Earl and the Government, I would not be in favour of continuing with the remote element of the present voting arrangements once we are fully back in Westminster. But maintaining the electronic system for use on the Estate may have benefits, which I hope we will consider.
I note that the Constitution Committee report does not comment on the earlier start to business that we have become used to in the past year. While I think that, for some, there has been an upside to the current arrangements, it may be outweighed by the additional pressure created, particularly for Front-Bench colleagues, by reduced time available for preparation and for other business. Earlier starts are also less convenient, obviously, for Members who live at a distance from Westminster. None the less, it is a matter we should consider carefully to see if any adjustments to our previous arrangements would be helpful to the House.
Finally, a word on the social aspects—if I may put it that way—of life in the House of Lords. One might include chance meetings in the corridors, being able to invite guests in, or congenial conversations in the Bishops’ Bar. If we are honest, that is probably what many of us have missed the most, not least because these informal contacts, as has been said, help to oil the wheels of the political machine. Let us hope that we can enjoy them again soon. But, as we do, we should remember the many staff colleagues who we depend on and whose circumstances may be very different from our own. We have a responsibility to ensure that their needs are understood and respected.
However hard we try, we cannot erase the impact of the pandemic. It has affected all of us individually and profoundly changed how we live and work together, perhaps for ever. While the idea of reverting wholesale to the old normal is attractive, I am not sure that it is desirable, or even possible. The House has invested a lot of time and money in creating some genuinely innovative systems of which we can be proud, and we have adapted our procedures imaginatively. There have also been strikingly high levels of participation while we have been in hybrid mode. Although the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, have indicated that there are some downsides to that, it is something that we should note. It would be perverse—would it not?—to set all that experience aside.
We should especially heed the wise words of the Constitution Committee on the importance of applying what we have learned to strengthening the longer-term resilience and business continuity that we must expect to have. We must, I believe, embrace and value the capacity of the House to work differently, because there is no knowing when it may need to do so again. I look forward to the rest of the debate.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, 15 months ago, we could not have imagined that your Lordships’ House would be discussing the extent to which it retained—not introduced —a range of ways of working that, at the time, would have seemed impossible, both politically and technically. So I, like other noble Lords who have spoken, begin by expressing my thanks to the staff who have worked so hard to implement the very widespread changes that we are debating today. I also acknowledge that many Members of your Lordships’ House now have a proficiency in new technologies that, 15 months ago, they would have thought impossible.
I had Covid in March and I therefore decided that, as soon as the House started meeting again, I was at less risk than my colleagues and that I would come. I have attended virtually every day since the House resumed, probably more than any other Member of your Lordships’ House. I have therefore seen at first hand, from in here, what it has been like as we have changed our procedures. As members of various committees know, I have chafed at the restrictions—many of which I have thought to be petty and overdone—with which we have had to put up over the last year.
As the country returns to normal, we now face the challenge that many other organisations are facing: how far should we simply revert to the ways we have done things in the past, and how far should we make permanent the changes that have been introduced, in an emergency, during a crisis? In making the decision, we have to begin by acknowledging the particular characteristics of Parliament, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, have set out so eloquently. It is a place for debate, for weighing the strength of argument, for exerting influence over colleagues, and, particularly in your Lordships’ House, for working together across parties on a daily basis. The conventional wisdom, which I support, is that this is best done face to face. It is undoubtedly the case that it is impossible to adequately hold Ministers to account through the sanitised environment of Zoom.
Against this, hybrid working allows those who cannot be present physically, because of either health conditions, work commitments elsewhere or problematic travel arrangements, to participate in our deliberations where otherwise they would not have been able to do so. This obviously allows a greater number of participants and a broader range of views. In a parliament, that is a good thing. The easiest option would simply be to turn the clock back and do everything as we did it before. That obviously has the benefit of simplicity, but it implies that the way we did things before cannot be improved upon, or at least cannot be improved upon by any of the innovations of the last year. Surely nobody can really believe that.
As we have more fundamental reform of your Lordships’ House, there is a disparity of view on the desirability of retaining virtually every aspect of the changes we have already made. In order to get a sense of balance among those views, we circulated a questionnaire among Members of the Liberal Democrat group to see what people thought. I thought it might be helpful if, instead of simply expressing my own view, I set out the headline views of my group.
First, while there is unanimity on virtually nothing, there is strong majority support for the following: that participation in the amending stages of Bills be restricted to those who can attend in person; that electronic voting should be retained in some form; that committees should be able to operate in a hybrid manner; and that each committee should decide for itself what degree of hybridity it thinks is most appropriate.
There was also support, by smaller majorities, for retaining a degree of hybridity for Oral Questions, Statements, Second Reading debates, SI debates, and party and general debates, as well as for retaining our earlier starting times from Tuesday to Thursday but reverting to 2.30 pm on Monday to allow those travelling long distances to arrive for the start of business. There was also a recognition that because some people would not be able to easily attend the House in person for some time after 21 June, mainly for health reasons, there should be a transition to whatever final arrangements were made to a point in the autumn, when, all being well, all significant Covid-related barriers to attendance would have lifted.
The only two glosses I put on those general findings, from my personal perspective, are these. First, while I do believe electronic voting should be retained, I accept that very many believe it should be restricted to those on the precincts. There is a good argument for retaining the current system, albeit without voting continuing to qualify for an allowance. But if, as I suspect, this is not a majority view, I hope that at the very least we allow electronic voting on the premises. Spending many hours a year shuffling at glacial speed through the Lobbies should surely be a thing of the past.
I also believe there is a strong case for allowing those who have a disability that makes attending the House difficult to retain the option to participate virtually on a permanent basis. The truth is that the House will not be able to benefit fully from the wisdom and experience of all its Members unless such an approach is adopted, and we will all be poorer as a result. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, says this is not an acceptable way forward, not least because people who participate virtually would not do so on the same basis, so there would not be parity. I do not know how many disabled Members of your Lordships’ House he has spoken to, but I can tell him that, from those I have spoken to, that would be a very small price to pay to have a continued ability to participate in the work of the House.
There are many more detailed aspects of the way we do things—for example, whether we retain speakers’ lists for Questions, or whether we repeat ministerial Statements made in the Commons on the same day here—on which I know Members of your Lordships’ House have strong and differing views. We should proceed with the maximum degree of consensus. This argues for not necessarily deciding on all the changes by 21 June—assuming that the next phase of easing happens on 21 June.
My principal plea, as we return to normality, is not to discard anything that we have done for the first time in the past 15 months simply for the sake of returning to normal. No other organisation is doing that. The noble Earl says that everybody is going back to the office, but, in my experience, virtually no organisation that has a large number of staff is going back on the same terms. People are working part-time and different methods of operation are being undertaken. This is happening everywhere else. It would be bizarre if your Lordships’ House was the one place that did not look to see where it could improve its efficiency and effectiveness by continuing changes it is already undertaking. Surely we want a new normality to embed those changes that have helped your Lordships’ House to undertake its core functions of scrutinising legislation, holding Ministers to account and leading a public debate. The Government want the country to build back better. We should aim to do the same.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House and her colleagues around the House for arranging today’s debate. It is a privilege to be the first of around 80 Back-Bench speakers contributing to the debate on the Motions before the House. We can already hear that there will be strong and divergent views expressed today. I do not want in my contribution to set out my own personal prescription for the way forward for the House. What is important is that this is part of a process in which people listen to each other.
I very much support the recommendations by the Constitution Committee that any draft proposals that it or the Commission or the Procedure Committee make for change should go out to consultation before any firm recommendations are put to the House for decision. I would add my own prescription that provision should be made for review, so that we go step by step with the changes. In our considerations, I suggest that we follow the prescription from Albert Einstein, which we were reminded about in the House earlier this week. He said that if given an hour to solve a problem, he would spend 55 minutes looking at the problem and only five minutes looking at the solution.
I hope that we can find common ground—and it has emerged from speeches already today. The essential problem we have collectively to solve is how we ensure that the Lords functions at the highest standards and as effectively as it can in its essential tasks of scrutinising and improving legislation, utilising the expertise and experience of its Members through committee work, and, above all, and centrally, holding the Government to account.
That ability has been degraded and our capacity to fulfil our role has been downplayed. The ways in which this has happened have already been spoken about, and they are set out in the report of this House’s Constitution Committee and in the Government’s response to the House of Commons Procedure Committee report, which included the words
“the quality of debate and scrutiny has undoubtedly suffered … scrutiny of Government has been less effective with fewer opportunities for interventions; debates have been reduced to a succession of pre-prepared speeches read out one after the other; MPs have had fewer opportunities for collegiate cooperation to hold government to account … there has been less spontaneity and flexibility and backbenchers have had reduced access to ministers.”
All that is true and is of great concern. It is the problem we need to put right, but the challenge is to do so: to remedy the deficiencies, but not to assume that we can go back.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said that we should beware of “the comfortable way”—the comfort of working from home, the ease of contributing remotely. I agree with him about that, but there is a comfortable way of thinking that the status quo ante is what we need and that there are no challenges at all. As others have said, we were not doing our job perfectly before Covid, and we need to look very carefully to see whether there are things that we can learn, or imagine, from remote and digital working that could, in future, enhance the performance of the House as a whole. I have to say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that while I agreed with a great deal of what he said, I thought his list of possible things that might, perhaps, a little bit, be considered for doing things better in the future was slightly minimalist. I think there is real opportunity to do better and to talk about the sorts of things that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned, in terms of self-regulation.
I am unashamedly a sentimentalist about Parliament. I have been much happier this week, participating here, than remotely. Politics is a people business, but we live in a world that is ever more digital and changing and we need to find a way forward that understands both those truths.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham
My Lords, I share, from these Benches, our gratitude for all those who have worked so hard, with agility and rapidity, both the staff that serve the House and those who manage the business of the House, in a very challenging and, in fact, a unique time, as has been referred to several times already.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that every aspect of life has been affected by the coronavirus pandemic. Even churches have become hybrid. Families have been separated and have kept in touch by Zoom. Employers and employees are now negotiating home and back-to-work settings. Online parents’ evenings at schools have become more popular than ever. As has been said already, I join those who are at a moment of learning lessons from what has happened to us, unexpected and unprepared, over the past 15 months. This great disruption means that we will face further change, not just here but in society as a whole. The decisions we have to make are about what to keep that has been beneficial, or surprisingly new and advantageous, and what to go back to, as what works well for our purpose today. We do so in the context of an uncertain journey ahead, on the road map, and also with the priority to keep everyone safe and well in this terrible time of virus, as I believe we have tried to do in this House.
I have no doubt that your Lordships will want to do this learning on the basis of the principles of our primary purpose. As was said in Question Time on Tuesday, I think, structures follow purpose—it has been well articulated here, and I do not have to go through the details—but this, I believe, is best fulfilled in person. Yet, at the same time I agree with those who have said we should not simply stop and revert without attending to what we have experienced in some detail and to see what might be beneficial in the months and years ahead.
Let me just reflect for a moment on the experience of the Lords spiritual in our purpose of scrutiny. One of my colleagues has been quite clear that this has been stifled by the medium of Zoom. Then we come on to the whole business of accountability, our major passion in this House, to allow the Government—whatever kind of Government—to be held to account in the rush and tumble of our current way of doing things. Colleagues would say that it has been harder to press the Government to accountability, not least at this time when we have had to make lots of decisions by secondary legislation or, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, by statutory instruments.
Of course, there is the important matter of legislation itself: our role as part of the Parliament, the legislature in our organisation, especially at a time when there is tension and a contested power struggle between legislature, Executive and judiciary. This is much better done in person rather than remotely. The Lords spiritual is a distinctive group in your Lordships’ House—when writs are issued, it is done in the name of the Lords spiritual and temporal—bringing with us our regional experience and our responsibilities from all around the country. As has been mentioned, we have found it to be positive that committees, in the way they operate, have an advantage, in part, in their proceedings by having remote access, particularly when witnesses are being called. There is a much better reach, even internationally.
Electronic voting and the PeerHub have been mentioned. We love the PeerHub. Electronic voting has been used by the General Synod of the Church of England for several years, although some of my noble colleagues find it difficult to remember which of the three options, including abstaining, to press at the right time, which means that electronic life requires us to concentrate even more on the business of the day. Less easy, of course, has been the business of intervening when it comes to the very difficult task—I do not underestimate this—of forming the lists when ballots are involved. Colleagues on this Bench find that the custom of the House to allow an intervention in person is much more effective and easier than just being part of a ballot for which we cannot actually get in. I am sure that as we emerge from the next stage of the pandemic, decisions about rules and practices—comments have already been made about the detailed work that may need to be done in our lessons learned—will include the interests of everyone in the House.
In summary, we on this side of the House feel that it is preferable to be present in person. We express, as has been mentioned, our full humanity, our ability as this extraordinary part of the created order, when we engage with one another by sight—if we have sight—by hearing, by touch, by listening and getting the mood of what is happening. Of course, this is using all the advantages of politics as has been practised over the centuries and I hope will go on being practised in the centuries ahead—although not all of us may be here to experience that when it comes. The same applies in church: we may well go on with hybrid. I am getting a nod and I am going to sit down. Please, may we work together in order to make the lessons learned really important. My final word is a word from the streets of Birmingham to the elders of the city: “If you’re not on Instagram, you don’t exist.”
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, and I agree with much of what he says. I associate myself with the thanks so many people have already expressed to the staff who have made this remote Parliament possible. I also agree with the right reverend Prelate about the importance of being here in person.
I also congratulate the commission which has, in advance of this debate, anticipated what we were going to say by relaxing the rules today. I make that point partly as a criticism, because I would have thought it would be better to wait for the debate before deciding what relaxation should be considered—but then I am old-fashioned; I have this idea that we are a self-regulating Chamber.
Let us face it: the experience of this virtual Parliament has not made this House look particularly good in the eyes of the outside world. We have been subject to a degree of mockery. The clue really is in the name: Parliament—“parley”. It is about being able to parley and engage with each other, and remote operations have certainly not enabled us to do so. If this House thinks that the other Chamber can relax its rules and go back to normal and that we should do nothing, it is on the way to extinction, in my view. I will not repeat the points made by my noble friend Lord Howe in opening this debate, but I will say that, probably for the first time, I agree with every word that has come from the Front Bench today—except, perhaps, the last sentence, where my noble friend suggested that it was for the commission to come forward with its views. It is for this House to come forward with its views.
I think we should have a care for the Government, who have the duty to carry forward the legislative programme. My noble friend Lord Howe mentioned the sudden increase in the number of Divisions. I am a believer in markets and, therefore, I am not surprised that we have seen a large increase in the number of people participating in voting and in the proceedings of our House when the incentives are such—but perhaps I am rather cynical.
For those who say, “Well, actually, we have to make allowances for people who cannot come to this House”, I will give one little anecdote. In her latter years, when she was very frail, the late Baroness Thatcher would ring my office—I worked for JP Morgan at the time—to say, “I am thinking of going into the House this afternoon; would you come along and support me?” So I would cancel all my meetings and go. This was happening quite frequently, so I said, “You know, Margaret, you have been Prime Minister. You have saved our country—you don’t need to come as often as you do”—at which point there was an explosion. She said, “Michael, when we were appointed to this House, it was our duty to turn up and participate in these proceedings. And, by the way, how often do you come when I am not coming?” I think that is an important point: we do have a duty to participate, and if we feel that we are not able to do so, or do not want to do so, we should make way for those people who are.
In introducing this debate, my noble friend talked about the temporary nature of the changes made—and they were temporary. However, listening to some of the speakers opposite, I am beginning to think that they are about as temporary as the introduction of income tax. They were temporary because there was an emergency, so the starting point should be that we return to normal. Yes, if we want to make changes, fine—but let us not delude ourselves that what we had before worked perfectly well.
On the issue of committees, I chair the Economic Affairs Committee. In our current inquiry on quantitative easing, we have been able to talk to and have as witnesses central bankers from all over the world and some very distinguished people—who, incidentally, seem to be flattered to be asked to give evidence to our House. That is great, but we could always do that; we could always have witnesses remotely. Of course, we also have the committees sitting virtually. I do not know whether it works well for members of the committee. It is great if you are chairman, because you are in complete control—but you have no interaction. People can put their hands up, but you do not have the same degree of interaction. So I say to those who argue that we should continue our committees in this way that I think we would lose a very great deal.
Of course, we need to think about the staff, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, pointed out. I believe that the operation of Parliament is central to the future of our country. Therefore, those people who support us in carrying out our work, and those people in the other place, are essential workers. Why do we not have the courage to stand up and ensure that all of them are able to get vaccines if they wish to do so? That would completely change things. The answer is that we are afraid of the tabloids. Well, let us just take it on the chin from the tabloids, because many of them are no friends of this place.
On the issue of holding Ministers to account, what they say from that Dispatch Box is important. If a Minister says that travelling is dangerous, it affects hundreds of thousands of people throughout our country. We should be able to challenge those statements, and we are unable to do so. It is central to our entire purpose and, if we fail to do that, I am afraid that we will disappear.
Finally, on the impact of this virtual Parliament, we have people reading speeches to a computer screen, unable to interact. Reading speeches actually used to be banned—in the old days, people would start saying, “Reading!” We lose that interaction between us.
So I want us to go back to where we were. If people want to propose changes for improvement as a result of this experience, let them do so. But let us not delay making this Chamber—this Parliament—effective, because that is what the people of this country expect.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I start by offering my congratulations to my noble friend Lady McIntosh on her debut performance. I hope that she might get a taste for speaking from the Front Bench. I also join others in sincerely thanking those in the House who have made the changes to our proceedings work, despite all the difficulties.
The Queen’s Speech last week contained one phrase that is very relevant to this debate:
“My Government will … restore the balance … between the executive”
and the legislature. I am not sure that my version of that balance will be the same as Ministers’, but I mention this because we should not assume that everything—especially in respect of that balance—was right with our proceedings pre Covid. It was not. In looking ahead, we should absolutely consider first of all what procedures and practices this House needs to allow us to fulfil our obligations to properly scrutinise legislation and fully hold the Government to account, because we have not been able to do either of those things as we should in recent months. I do not think, as some others have suggested, that we can simply press a reset button and assume that all will be well. It is neither practical nor desirable to do that.
The Constitution Committee, which I chair, has produced a report. Some colleagues have referred to it, and I hope it has been of help to the House. We listened, we took evidence, and we had information from officeholders, Members, Back-Benchers, Front-Benchers and Cross-Benchers. In our report, we not only outline the narrative of what has happened over the last 15 months but set out the advantages and disadvantages of the changes introduced to our procedures. As has been mentioned, different individuals have different priorities and experiences of the Chamber and our proceedings.
I was hoping that we could agree that we should not rush to judgment, but I think some people want to do that. The reason we should not make any snap decisions or set a specific date is threefold. First, we do not know what the next turn of the pandemic might be. Noble Lords only have to look at my home town of Bolton to see that there is a need for caution, because we do not know what might hit us next or what the next challenge might be. There is also the fact that many of us—most of us—in the House have had second vaccinations, and many of us will be expecting boosters in the autumn. That is not the case for our staff, many of whom are so much younger and have not had their first jab. But there is also the issue that, if we make decisions now, we may have to go back on them because we may get them wrong. That is why the Constitution Committee recommended a staged approach: that we should have a debate of this kind and then the Procedure Committee should draw up draft proposals —we emphasise, “draft” proposals—that the House could look at again. The committee could then amend them in light of that debate, and we could have a full, proper debate before we accept any changes.
I turn to the specific issues raised. My personal view is that we are a Parliament, as others have said. In normal circumstances, we should rely primarily on being present in person. However, we must acknowledge that some Members have exceptional difficulties. We cannot just dismiss this. We have to look at further potential arrangements for helping in those circumstances.
Many Members feel that the battle to be heard at Question Time is intimidating. They prefer a list system. Not everybody agrees. Maybe we should look at some form of compromise; there could be scope for the first three Questions to be listed and then having a more open situation. We must be willing to consider tweaking or modifying our arrangements in some respects.
As has been mentioned before, the major problem with the current arrangements is the total lack of spontaneity. This is a real and serious cause for concern. It curtails the scope for the will of the House to be felt by Ministers, for which there is no substitute. One Minister has said to me privately that the current arrangements are much easier for Ministers. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, disagrees, but I thought that the noble Earl, in opening the debate, was hinting that this might be the case. The lack of atmosphere in the House helps Ministers and lets them off the hook too often. This is not just about having a lively Chamber or a lively debate. The loss of spontaneity is very significant, particularly when it comes to the Committee or Report stages of legislation. At that point, constructive dialogue across the Chamber between Members can lead to real improvements in legislation. This has to be in everyone’s interests, including those of Ministers. The tweaks that have been made to our virtual proceedings to try to improve the situation have not worked. Preparations for any future emergency will need to take this into account.
Time limits on speeches is a vexed question. We have seen some ridiculous situations where Members with vast, relevant experience have been limited to one minute. This is just not on. We need a system where we have no less than five minutes in major debates, and perhaps three minutes in others. If this limits the number of us who can speak on every occasion, I am afraid that we may have to live with it.
I do not think that we can retain the present system of remote voting in the long term. We have to keep it until everyone feels safe coming to Westminster in person. Having card reader facilities around the Chamber would help everybody.
Mention has been made of committees. They work well and should be allowed to develop hybrid proceedings. However, my committee thought that the business continuity plan of the House did not cover the circumstances of the pandemic. The House may well face other problems or emergencies—especially during restoration and renewal, if the Government get their way and delay this further. We need to ensure that we have a business continuity plan which covers every contingency. This would stand the House in good stead. We can thereby learn the lessons of our experiences during the last 15 months.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have it easy: I live in London and I do not have to look after anyone else, with travel and caring two of the issues that face many noble Lords. As well as appreciating the work that has gone on—and still goes on—into enabling the House to function, I appreciate how our current way of working has meant colleagues who had had to make considerable efforts to attend, given illness or disability, could continue to do so. I say “appreciate” because their contributions are valuable. I am sure that they would be the first to acknowledge that accepting a peerage involves a commitment to contribute which they wish to fulfil. I want to see those colleagues enabled to continue to do so. Having been forced to be creative, the House should continue to innovate—quite apart from the moral, if not legal, duty to make reasonable adjustments. I mean sensible innovation in any and every aspect.
We are able to make our views known. I should be interested to know how the House is actively consulting the staff about ways of working. Our considerations are not necessarily theirs. They may have views about the effectiveness of hybrid proceedings.
I want to focus on remote working for committees. I am chairing one of the House’s new Select Committees and confess that I have not consulted anyone about what I shall say, so this is personal. Until Easter, I was a member of two committees whose chairs and staff made them productive. My strong view is that fully remote working is second best. A lot is being written about the psychology and operation of groups in the light of recent experience, I am sure. I think that a committee develops a personality of its own; it is more than the sum of its parts. A sometimes disparate collection of individuals makes up a team—not necessarily with the same views or approach, but able to operate as an entity. This is particularly true of scrutiny—everyone is interested in the workability of a policy, if for different reasons.
Noble Lords are masters of impassivity. Reactions can be very subtle. A comment to that effect was made by David Natzler in evidence to the Constitution Committee in its excellent work. That subtlety and those non-verbal communications are lost when members are not in the same physical space. They are quite different from messages in a chat function. Sometimes it is about how members react to what witnesses are saying, or how witnesses themselves react to questions and to one another. Sometimes it is about a Minister’s reactions and how at ease they are. How are all witnesses —including Ministers who are in the same room as other people—responding or not responding to one another? One can best observe these things if they are all in the same space, not dependent on the clues available according to the broadcasters’ edit. Observation is one of our scrutiny tools. It supports spontaneity. The process itself is an important part of scrutiny. It is an outcome in itself, additional to a report. My analysis of personal interaction is similar to that of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, although it does not take me to the same conclusions. Let us not forget the water-cooler moments before a meeting—the discussion, chat and gossip that make for team-building and good, collaborative functioning.
Remote participation must have been very difficult for members—and sometimes for witnesses—who had to join by phone or had low bandwidth. Parity of treatment probably means different things to different people, but everyone being online does not necessarily produce parity. Committees could surely remain hybrid if that would enable everyone to take part.
We could not have functioned during the last few months had we not been able to take evidence remotely. With some witnesses—academics, for instance—I do not think that we have been disadvantaged. We have been able to hear from some who would have had to make a disproportionate effort to come to Westminster. I trust that, now that we have the gear and the experience, we can regard this as an additional facility, but we should not assume that online suits every witness or works on every occasion. Experts by experience of certain situations may be more relaxed if they are communicating with people they can see properly. I guess we all regard ourselves as experts by experience now. I hope there are common threads to be extracted from our debate today.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con) [V]
My Lords, the sole criterion for assessing the hybrid proceedings should not be whether they have proved popular or convenient to Members, but whether they have facilitated—indeed, enhanced—the capacity of the House to fulfil its functions, primarily those of scrutinising legislation and calling the Government to account for their actions and policies.
The fact that we have managed all-Hybrid Sittings is, as we have heard, a tribute to those responsible for the technical delivery of proceedings. Without their work, the bottle of parliamentary scrutiny would be near empty. As it is, it is a quarter or a half full. Some Members of the House have generalised on the basis of it being half full. The fact that the House has been able to achieve some changes to legislation and even prevent certain provisions being pursued does not make the case for a continuation of Hybrid Sittings. When one compares performance during the pandemic with the period before, we are falling short, and by a considerable margin.
The capacity of the House to engage in detailed scrutiny has diminished as the use of prerogative and order-making powers by Ministers has expanded massively. The UCL Constitution Unit, along with other bodies, has produced a damning analysis of the situation in the other place. We are in a not dissimilar position, as is clear from the report of the Constitution Committee published on 13 May. As the committee identified, the problem is not just the sheer number of statutory instruments laid before Parliament but the use of fast-track legislative procedures and inadequate explanatory material. Scrutinising Bills and ministerial actions is made difficult by procedural limitations, by the prohibition on interventions and by our inability not only to be present in numbers in the Chamber to challenge Ministers but to meet informally outside the Chamber—essential for lobbying and information exchange. We are operating, but at a sub-par level.
The way forward, as the Constitution Committee recommends, is to engage in lesson-drawing: are there features of the Hybrid Sittings that have enhanced the capacity of the House to fulfil its functions and that may therefore be worth utilising in future? I suggest that we undertake four lesson-drawing exercises rather than one. The first is to identify any features that merit being retained when we resume meeting physically. That is the most pressing inquiry. The second is to identify features that may be utilised when we decant the Palace in preparation for the restoration and renewal programme. The third is to identify features that may be utilised as part of the R&R programme and be integral when we return to the Palace. The fourth, as the Constitution Committee identifies, is to consider how we cope if there is a future crisis and we are unable to meet physically. How can we enhance current facilities, should we need ever again to have Hybrid, or purely Virtual, Sittings?
There are thus several lesson-drawing exercises. Committees may wish to continue to utilise the power they already have to take evidence online. The ability to take evidence virtually may be built into the R&R programme. Remote working by staff may be utilised more extensively, but temporarily, during the period of decant. In all our reflections, there must be one overriding consideration: the need to restore and, if possible, enhance our capacity to scrutinise legislation and call government to account. That is how we add value to the political process; that is how we complement the elected Chamber.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I start with some of the things which I believe have worked really well and should be on the list of things we should retain.
Number one on my list is the listing of speakers for Questions and Ministerial Statements and the calling of their names from the Woolsack. Casting my mind back to how things used to be, it fell to me when I was the Convenor to try to ensure that the Cross-Benchers got their fair share of the opportunities to come in within the time allowed. This was not easy under the free-for-all system we used to have. Those who had the loudest voices tended to outplay those who had real contributions to make but who were too hesitant, or whose voices were less easy to hear.
I could usually judge who it was among the Cross-Benchers who should be, and wanted to be, heard on each occasion. My job then was to try to make contact with the then Government Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who sat almost within arm’s length of where I was sitting as Convenor. This was because it was then generally understood among the usual channels that he should decide whose turn it was to come next, as the Lord Speaker did not yet have that function. It usually worked, although for obvious reasons it was controversial. But, if the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham will forgive me for saying so, there were occasions when the careful arrangements we had made broke down when a right reverend Prelate stood up, as the convention was that a Lord Spiritual should have always have priority over everyone else. Things were not much better when the Lord Speaker took over from the Government Chief Whip, and of course I was no longer within arm’s length of the controller.
The listing system we have developed has eliminated the disadvantages of the old system and produced real benefits in return. The opportunity to speak is being distributed in a fairer and more orderly manner among the groups, and among the members within each group and the non-aligned. Extending the time allowed from seven minutes to 10 has allowed more people to come in who might otherwise not have been able to. The list has tended to instil a greater awareness of the need to keep questions and answers short. I suggest that we should keep this system, including the timings, when normal sittings are resumed.
Number two on my list is the use of the virtual, or remote, system for meetings of Select Committees. I chaired the HS2 committee in the very early days when we were just starting to resume work after the lockdown. Our main task was to take evidence from petitioners. Some of our meetings were attended by everyone, including the petitioners, in person, but we also had to have hybrid meetings, with some of our Members and some witnesses participating remotely. The imbalance that this created between the various participants was noticeable and uncomfortable, and it did not work very well, so I am not much in favour of hybrid committee sittings.
On the other hand, it has been a pleasure to take part in the virtual meetings of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee and the Constitution Committee— thanks, of course, to the noble Baronesses, Lady Andrews and Lady Taylor of Bolton, who have been chairing our meetings with such great skill. My impression is that it has been easier for us to discuss our business among ourselves in the informal setting of Teams or Zoom than in the large Committee Rooms we have, where we are all so spaced out from each other and it is sometimes not easy to hear what everyone is saying. Taking evidence remotely from witnesses in all parts of the United Kingdom, as we have been doing frequently in the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, has been so much more convenient for them, at least. There will be occasions when Select Committees will want to meet in person, and of course I very much favour that, but I suggest that the facility to enable them to meet virtually if they wish should be retained. That would be a virtual meeting of everyone, not a hybrid meeting, which I found so unattractive.
There is time for me to mention only a few other points. I welcome the way in which each item of business is being announced and handled from the Woolsack for the better information of the public. That has been a great advance on which we can continue to build. As for remote voting, there is value in the PeerHub system because it saves so much time. If we can combine that with the need for Members to vote from within the premises, so much the better. But I hope very much, in sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has been saying, that we can go back to list-free discussion of legislation through all its stages.
Finally, perhaps I may add my own words of deep appreciation for the work of all those behind the scenes who have made remote participation possible and enabled it to work so well.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, the joy of this debate has been hearing my noble friend Lord Forsyth congratulating the Government. It is a rare event and I only wish that I could have seen the faces on the Front Bench—but there we are.
I hope that this House will give full support to returning to normal as soon as possible. We should resume our usual proceedings at the earliest possible opportunity. It is inconceivable that those who aspire to take part in the governing of this nation should not make the effort to attend Parliament, whatever the difficulties. Before the pandemic, facilities were made available so that those with disabilities could attend. There is no reason to suppose that this will not go on just as before.
There have been calls to continue with remote voting. I am sure that good reasons can be produced as to why it would be simpler and easier to have remote voting but, in the main, they are excuses for an easier life. I repeat that if one aspires to govern the nation, one should attend Parliament, and that includes voting and going through the Lobby.
There are those who think that the public considers that this House is too large and should be smaller. The size of the House is not of any interest to anyone outside the navel-gazing Westminster bubble. What the public finds of interest and a source of complete contempt is the idea of being paid to sit at home or on holiday drinking cocktails while receiving £163 for voting. The idea is shocking, embarrassing and demeaning, and the longer it goes on the more the media will focus on it. It should cease. I hope that this House will show some character, return to normal and end remote voting forthwith.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, the report from the Constitution Committee is helpful but the important paper of 21 April, headed “The marginalisation of the House of Commons under Covid has been shocking”, by the Hansard Society and others, is more worrying. I shall refer to it as the Hansard report.
So far as the Constitution Committee report is concerned, paragraphs 42, 54, 81 and 89 are references to the fact that all was not well in the House of Lords before the pandemic with regard to accountability, scrutiny and adherence to the Ministerial Code. The hybrid working of the House benefits those in poor health, which prevents them attending in person, but it only works if those Members are sworn in after a general election. To be sworn in, one has to do it in person. That is a statutory requirement and it needs to be looked at if the system is to be retained.
My experience during Covid covers Oral Questions, Statements, Second Reading, Committee and Report. For years, I have not been at all certain why we bother with Second Reading debates. We do not vote on Second Readings and would never reject a Bill sent from the Commons for scrutiny. Second Reading debates here add nothing to a Bill. However, the Committee stage is crucial in more ways than Report. There is the ability to speak more than once and interact with Ministers and departments to receive the mood of the House. I know that, having been on both sides of the House. Departments get the mood of the House back. Those interactions should be restored as soon as possible. Assuming a that degree of hybridity continues, there is no reason to continue with equal treatment. Those in the Chamber should be able to intervene and, indeed, do so on behalf of remote Members, according to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, who I received a message from.
As for secondary legislation, paragraph 48 of the committee’s report highlights obvious defects that should be addressed because some of them are pre-pandemic. Two aspects are of concern. As the Hansard report states, the use of the made-affirmative procedure can be addictive for the Government. The other aspect is their casual scheduling of debates, meaning that SIs are in force for weeks before MPs and Peers get to scrutinise them.
I like having the lists for Oral Questions. It stops the bullies shouting for a place. What would really help, though, would be to dilute the Front-Bench control of that list. The Lord Speaker should be able to choose four out of the 10 supplementaries. The conclusion in paragraph 85 is worth further work. I could agree to a limit on numbers of speakers and minimum times for business, but only if the Front Benches are not controlling the list.
I cannot speak about committees. Given that I was not sworn in until June last year due to illness, I could not participate and am, disappointingly, not currently a member of any committee.
On voting, we need to get back to as near normal as possible. I always defended the system in the Commons and Lords as being useful for back-benchers. Perhaps that day has gone, but votes should be limited to those in Parliament—I repeat, in Parliament—either remotely or using pass readers.
We are part of Parliament and not a legal symposium, which is what we will get from some of the lawyers later on. We need to be able to challenge Ministers and other speakers. Efficiency should not necessarily be the watchword in procedure; it is Parliament’s ability to be the inquest of the nation, scrutinise the Government of the day and watch how the money is spent.
The Hansard report concentrates on the House of Commons but creates questions for this House. We are here to revise the Commons’ work; it always has the last word. The Hansard report identifies five areas that lead to the erosion of parliamentary control: emergency legislation, regulations, money, the denial of MPs’ equal participation rights and the wholesale and unnecessary use of proxy votes. Individually, each of those five is shocking. Collectively, they amount to a fundamental undermining and exclusion of Parliament and its elected Members from crucial decisions on policy, spending and the management of the Commons itself, so my question is this. If the Commons does not reassert itself and prioritise the full restoration of parliamentary democracy and MPs’ rights to participation, what is the role of this House in helping the Commons achieve those ends?
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, there are two main reasons why I wish to speak in this debate. The first is that, due to some truly appalling experiences very early on during the teething problems of introducing the new system, I, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and Members from all Benches came together in a rather insurrectionary way to gather the experiences of Peers of the new virtual system and, subsequently, the hybrid system. Since then, we have continued to engage as a group, particularly with the technical staff of the House who are responsible for the digital systems. It has been extremely helpful for the staff and certainly for the Members. It is on that basis that I want to talk about some of the things that we have identified.
It is absolutely clear from the Constitution Committee report that the hybrid system is not as good as having an entirely real-life setting, but we can take some things from the experience of the past year. We should not mischaracterise what has happened during it. In the midst of a crisis, we worked with the tech companies on systems that were never designed for a Parliament but for a commercial setting. While I agree with those who talk about the distinctions of a Parliament, and of this Parliament and this House in particular, we are not the only democratic organisation in the world having to deal with the new reality. I would stress that we are pre-eminently placed to work with tech companies to develop what will, in future, have to become more participatory and democratic systems. In order to do that, we should continue to work with them.
Over the past few weeks, through the IPU, I have taken part in discussions with women parliamentarians all across the world in different circumstances. It is interesting that there were an awful lot of prejudicial views about how remote working might help women to be participants in parliaments. In some ways, remote working was good and beneficial—in some cases it made it physically safer for women to participate in politics—but there were other respects in which it was not, and women found themselves having to take on even more domestic duties while they tried to fulfil their professional duties.
My plea in all this—particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack—is that we proceed not on the basis of prejudice but on the basis of informed evidence about an evolving situation. I have taken part in several training courses which have been run by our digital staff. I am one of the very few Members of this House who has done so. I did it because when somebody offers me free training, I want to learn, and I go along. There is much about the new systems, and many benefits to them, that noble Lords simply do not know about. Take Zoom, for instance. We had a technical session provided to us by Zoom itself—that shows what ability we have as a House to call upon the providers of these services and to shape them. It is now possible for Members of the House of Commons, not for us, to convene meetings of up to 500 people in their constituency and ask Ministers to come along and be interrogated by them. That is opening up democracy. It may not be as satisfactory as having the poor Minister stand in front of constituents quaking as people call for their blood, but it none the less has a potential benefit.
My one point in this debate is that the staff, technical staff and Members of the House have done things with the best of intentions and to the best of their ability, but it has all been very piecemeal. There is no strategic body in place which has the job and the resources to make informed decisions about how we develop things in future in order to do the unique thing that we have to do, which is to scrutinise government. I hope noble Lords will have taken to heart what my noble friend Lord Newby said about dealing with different stages of legislation in different ways. I hope that noble Lords will also understand and appreciate that much of the work that many of us do in Parliament, while contingent upon us being Members of this House and on what we do in the Chamber, is done elsewhere. When we are building systems for our debates in this House, we have to take that into account.
This is probably the biggest transition this House has faced since the move from quills and parchment to pen and paper. All I am asking is that we approach it in a way that is informed, is not built upon prejudice, and sees change as something of which we do not have to be fearful and as necessary. The rest of the world out there is going through these changes too, and if we do not, we will be left behind.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, the facility to participate in the House of Lords remotely has proved invaluable during the pandemic and while its effects peter out, particularly the prescription to keep one’s distance. However, we cannot gloss over the considerable disadvantages of hybrid working in order to maintain the convenience and easy access it has facilitated.
Virtual or hybrid working makes it impossible to take the temperature of the House and almost kills spontaneity, as we have already heard, and the ability to interact informally and to comprehensively understand each other when we speak in proceedings. Non-verbal communication is disastrously dampened when someone contributes by Zoom. Put simply, 55% of communication is body language, 38% is tone of voice and 7% is the actual words spoken. If one’s camera is turned off and there are any bandwidth or other technical problems which distort tone of voice, sometimes all that is left is the attenuated influence of disembodied words. I profoundly disagree that the principle of equal participation should be fundamental or guiding when it so profoundly depletes the effectiveness of in-person interaction. It is another example of extending the logic of equality beyond reason.
Moreover, parliamentary process must serve not our convenience but the common good of the people affected by the laws we pass and the policies we influence through debate, committees and questions. In this chronically divided society, considered and courteous debate is more important than ever, and the House of Lords is one of the few places where it can happen. We hold the Government of the day to account through scrutiny, revision and amendment, and through interaction with each other and Members of the other place. The ability of the House of Lords to fulfil these criteria should fundamentally guide our course, not the self-serving principle that every Member must be able to contribute equally.
Processes were far from perfect pre-pandemic but, as the Constitution Committee’s report Covid-19 and Parliament, which was published last week, points out, hybrid proceedings may have actually aggravated their downsides. Oversubscribed debates, which are more likely when one can just dial in, mean Members with significant subject expertise have risibly short speaking times. Similarly, voting has become ridiculously easy. I am aware of one Peer who has voted from the seat of his lawn-mower. Our being turned into voting machines from home advantages the Whips, particularly those of the Opposition, who can easily organise rebellions. The privilege of voting should be the preserve of those who are willing to turn up. I welcome the benefits of remote proceedings for Members with disabilities, health concerns, caring responsibilities or long journeys to London, but such benefits belong to these unprecedented times and should not become business as usual.
The pandemic may not be fully behind us for a little while, especially in global terms, but once we have all had two doses of vaccine and society opens properly, we have to get back to the primacy of presence. If Members of the House of Commons are all coming back, then so should we. To be candid, for the sake of the public who are paying our way, personal infirmity should not provide grounds for exemption from normality. Parliamentary participation is for those able to bring vitality to proceedings. This is neither ageist nor dismissive of those with disabilities. It is my observation that many disabled Peers have actually been very good attenders during Covid, and we can all think of nonagenarians whose contributions in this place make us sit up and take note—I hope eventually perhaps to be one of them. But the public is already impatient with the high average age of this House, and if infirmities of mind or body make that vital contribution impossible, any permanently lowered bar to participation serves Peers’ interests, not those of the public. The previous norm should be reinstated: those of us who cannot come to the House cannot contribute.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall be upfront and confess that I am a fan of remote participation. The capacity to join in remotely has swept away many of the barriers that some of us encounter daily—and not just disabled people. Many colleagues adjusted to a hybrid House quickly, while others found it difficult, if not impossible. As we emerge from lockdown and look to the restoration of the parliamentary estate, it is important to learn from our virtual experience. We do not have to go back entirely to the old ways. I believe that we can fuse the best of both, to create a richer and more progressive democracy.
I have no doubt that remote working made it much harder to scrutinise and to hold the Government to account—without spontaneous interventions, as the Constitution Committee identified in its report. I also understand that some Members thrive on the cut and thrust of political debates, the hustle and bustle of the voting Lobby, and midnight sittings. They have felt isolated and detached. I understand that, but many struggle with those practices and find virtual working a lot easier.
Some of our parliamentary conventions can be inadvertently discriminatory. Having to be present at the start and end of a long debate in the Chamber can be an enormous challenge, especially if it ends at midnight. Asking the Chief Whip for permission to leave early is akin to a trip to the headmaster’s office. For me, it was a relief to watch debates at home on my night-time ventilator and to vote. It improved my focus, decision-making and health. As a result, I worked harder, longer and more effectively than ever I had done before the pandemic. Yes, I did my duty better. Surely remote working should at least be seen as a “reasonable adjustment” under the Equality Act.
I was bowled over by the speed at which Parliament set up virtual working, and great praise is due to everyone involved. It has helped not only those with a disability but others with short-term health conditions and those who live far away or have caring duties. But while I support the virtual world and have experienced its great benefits, it is not, on its own, the solution. Virtual working has discouraged those uncomfortable with technology from participating; Parliament must work for all its Members. Networking in the corridors or the tea rooms oils the wheels of parliamentary collaboration. Some of the most creative ideas spring from informal discussion with colleagues and are shaped into policy and legislation. I look forward to returning to play my part in that, but let us not throw the baby out with the bath-water. Some benefits of remote working should be retained; it is simply fairer.
Times are changing and we must respond to the demands of modern practices. We must not be left behind. Many businesses and public services now use hybrid ways of operating. Outside our Westminster bubble, members of the public have engaged virtually in all-party groups and given evidence to our committees. Only on Tuesday I held a webinar with 40 members of the public, many of whom would not have been able to attend Westminster. It has boosted our parliamentary democracy, relevance and inclusivity. Let us embrace the best aspects of our hybrid model as we look to the future. I stand ready to help at every step of the way.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I could not help but be very moved by that speech, as I think we probably all were.
I am a member of the House’s Covid-19 Committee, and on 21 April we published our first report, Beyond Digital: Planning for a Hybrid World. It shows that the pandemic massively accelerated a trend towards simultaneous actual and virtual, physical and online, living. The future of our society will be hybrid for working, shopping, learning, caring, receiving health advice, and social and family interaction—almost every part of our lives. We as a House have prefigured this new future over the past year with our own hybrid proceedings. We have been able to participate, to speak, to amend, to scrutinise, to revise, and to vote remarkably successfully, our staff performing amazingly.
According to figures from the Library, the average number of Members voting per Division, which had been pretty constant over the three preceding parliamentary Sessions 2015–16 to 2017–19 at 360, rose to 496 after the introduction of remote voting—a leap of nearly 40%. Surely it is healthy to have greater democratic involvement in amending and improving legislation, which, after all, along with scrutiny is our main function as a Chamber.
I desperately hope that we can return to what people call “normal” as much as anybody else does. The chemistry of debate, the palpable groans and “Hear, hears” greeting speeches bad or good, intervening, especially to hold Ministers to account, the informal face-to-face part of politics—all these are vital ingredients of a lively parliamentary democracy, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, so eloquently explained. Our legislative Chambers are nothing like as potent in the rather antiseptic culture of remote participation.
I will give an example. When I moved a manuscript amendment prior to the Dissolution of the House in 2019 to force the Government to complete the remaining stages of the Historical Institutional Abuse (Northern Ireland) Bill, the Government Whips resisted, initially with the help of our Whips. But the feeling of the packed House was absolutely unanimous. That amendment was carried without Division and the legislation completed its course. That would not have happened in a virtual or a hybrid House.
But is that at all possible in the foreseeable future, with new Covid variants and the pandemic spreading in other parts of the world such as India and directly impacting on us in Britain? Is it not the case that there will be no return to what we once knew as “normal”? The future is likely to be one of more or less effectively managing the Covid pandemic and whatever other pandemics or mutations follow it, because scientists warn that there will be more and different ones. In retrospect, maybe HIV/AIDS, SARS and Ebola were all dress rehearsals for a new and immensely more difficult future interaction with nature. If that is the case, then surely the future of parliamentary democracies, and therefore this House, will be hybrid—not necessarily everything we do all the time, but certainly part of what we do some of the time, and conceivably bits of what we do all of the time?
The first thing we need to do is to maintain and upgrade the technological, skills and physical infrastructure of the hybrid House. It would be unwise to dismantle it when the future is so uncertain, especially since many staff, who are generally younger, have not yet been vaccinated and may come a far second with booster jabs in future. Surely staff safety is imperative.
Secondly, we should maintain remote voting on our smartphones. Especially given the age profile of Members, is it really prudent to squeeze into poorly ventilated voting Lobbies? The noble Earl, Lord Howe, seemed to think that it was an offence that we were voting more often; I think that it is a sign of democracy.
Thirdly, we should enable the option of remote speaking for those who find it easier or safer, not least to avoid cramming into London underground trains or buses, but perhaps with new limits, particularly on Member numbers speaking to amendments, where debates have been far too long and Members have spoken to multiple amendments—sometimes consecutively—far too often. Debates have lasted long into the night, which they never would have done with the same frequency in the physical past.
Fourthly, we should keep the current 10-Member lists for Questions, which are an improvement on bobbing up and down, which favours muscular, loud males.
Fifthly, we should encourage committees to meet virtually, as has occurred very successfully when taking online evidence from all over the country and even the world.
The future is hybrid, and the question is how best to adapt our procedures to that, while retaining the essence of the physical parliamentary cut and thrust important to all democracies.
Baroness Seccombe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by making a small practical suggestion. Since the start of lockdown, payment for goods and services has been by card only and I believe that has been a great success. Peers and staff have not had to handle filthy coins and notes. There must be savings on accounting and banking. Accounts are paid instantly. The only downside I see is that my monthly bank statement has become lengthy, with every 49p et cetera itemised. That is not my problem, but may be one for the bank. I just hope that it becomes a permanent fixture here.
I add my tribute to the staff, who have made it possible for the House to operate—in a manner of speaking—for the past 14 months. Devising and producing a truly professional broadcasting unit has been brilliant and deserves the highest praise.
When each one of us was introduced to the House, we took the oath of allegiance, having listened to the clerk read the document signed by Her Majesty the Queen, so we knew what was expected of us. It is an enormous privilege to become a Peer and serve our country. We knew, on that day, that the work of Parliament took place in Parliament and that our contributions would be made in Parliament. It is essential that we all return to this place as soon as possible.
There have never been so many speeches as during lockdown and, I am afraid, one of the reasons for this expansion of contributions is about finance. Paying Members to vote and speak from home is not acceptable as we return to a more normal life. We often hear, “The noble Lord is on mute”, or “Please unmute yourself”. Speeches made virtually may seem to have conviction and feeling to the speaker at home but, with very few exceptions, come over on the 10 screens around the Chamber—with some sound distortion—as lacking in emotion and rather sterile. I believe that speakers need the atmosphere of the Chamber to arouse passion and fervour, and find that virtual speeches emphasise well-known quotes from lobbying material, which makes them difficult to listen to. We need the cut and thrust of the House to hold the Government to account. It may be more convenient for us to vote wherever we happen to be, but no institution can be organised in that manner. It is not a come-as-you-please operation.
I know that some Peers, including me, would find a return to the days before lockdown difficult, because of the long hours of the House. If we are unable to fulfil our commitment, we should not forget that legislation was passed in 2014 that enables us to retire with dignity and privileges, and to maintain our friendships in the House, when we visit from time to time. I know I will hate it when the time comes, but we owe it to the House we love. It is important that the House of Lords is not seen as a place full of elderly people but as an active, thriving institution, playing its right and proper role in the constitution.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I echo the thanks to all the staff who managed to adapt our proceedings, especially the technical team and clerks for making the actual proceedings run so smoothly, and all beyond that who have had to change the way they work over these last 15 months. I thank them, and the commission for doing its best to respond to the unprecedented circumstances of Covid-19 and the need to find alternative ways of working, and to change those as circumstances in the country changed too.
The Constitution Committee’s very helpful report and the contribution from my leader and noble friend Lord Newby set out the difficulties of the hybrid system, with which I agree, and possible routes back that do not set hard dates, way ahead of our knowledge of the spread of coronavirus. I also echo the comments of many speakers that a way of electronic voting in the future, even if on the parliamentary estate, seems sensible. We waste hours of our time in Divisions, queuing in the Lobbies.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, spoke of Parliament being to “parley”, to come together. He is half-right. The word “parliament” comes from the Old French verb “parler”, in its indicative form: “parlement”, or speaking. I assert that the one achievement of the last year is that we have all been speaking, but using the technology of the 21st century. All the other details of how we work, spoken of by many so far, especially the Constitution Committee, have suffered. Despite what I will say next, I welcome the return, in due course, of the entire business of the House being physically in the Chamber. Stronger than that, I long to be there and part of it.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, that we have achieved real progress with Bills during this year. Things may not have been perfect, but the contributions, scrutiny and challenge during the Domestic Abuse Bill have shown that it can work. It is not perfect, but it can work.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, talked about “a temporary solution to a temporary problem”, but are the Government, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and his supporters, confident that that temporary problem is at an end? The Prime Minister, Ministers and SAGE do not yet agree. We have all been told to expect more different variants that will get round large numbers of people having been vaccinated. The World Health Organization and Ministers say that we are not safe until everyone is safe and we are reaping the lessons, at the moment, of moving India to the red list too late. Although there are hopes that it will not affect those already vaccinated, it is certainly infecting younger people. With the higher level of transmissibility, cases are increasing in more than 100 different areas. We have been warned to expect more variants to do this in the next few months.
I declare my interest in this matter. I am one of those irritating people who are classified as clinically extremely vulnerable; there are a number in your Lordships’ House. That is not because I am sick at the moment, but because of the immunosuppressant drugs that I need to take to manage the autoimmune disease that has left me disabled. On 1 May this year, the Government reiterated their advice to the clinically vulnerable: always socially distance; remove yourself from any environment where social distancing is breached by others; work from home, if at all possible and, if not, ensure that your employer makes your workplace safe for you. I am not one of those lucky grandparents who have been able to hug their grandchildren or children, for 15 months now.
We do not yet know how quickly Covid antibodies will dissipate after two vaccinations other than for the clinically vulnerable, for whom they believe that protection will not be reliable. Yesterday, the Government invested £90 million in booster vaccine research, ready to go again with more doses in the autumn, hence the advice of caution, caution, caution. This is a warning word, as caution must be everything to all of us, not just those who think they are covered because they have had two doses of the vaccine.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, spoke of remote working as a “comfortable way forward”. It is not comfortable for those of us who are ordered not to be with noble Lords. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman: I too am unashamedly sentimentalist about Parliament and want us to return to as much in-person contribution as possible. I am not alone in being desperate to rejoin a physical Lordships’ House, but I cannot.
The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, made an important point about the duties of an organisation in regard to disability discrimination, which I am sure that the commission and House authorities have heard, even if the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, dismisses us for being of unsound body or mind and, therefore, not worthy of a place in your Lordships’ House. I am grateful to those who seek to enable some way for us to contribute. Without it, the words of the Queen at the introduction of a Peer become somewhat meaningless.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I find myself trying to rediscover my voice in this place. I hope I will be forgiven. I am using some notes; in the past I used rather to wing it, which I prefer. The dialogue that this House engenders is really what this place is about. I find myself very much in agreement with the introduction made by my noble friend the Deputy Leader of the House, the noble Earl, Lord Howe. They say that timing is everything in politics, and this debate—in government time—is very timely and very much to the benefit of this House.
Despite the chill and gloom of the weather we have had during this past month or so, with others I have a sense of optimism that we are getting out of some of the temporary measures we have had to live with over the past few months. There is a feeling that we will be able to return, with some care—that will be necessary—but with confidence to a House in which we should and will be able to debate in the Chamber and vote in the Lobbies.
Before I go on, I join others in thanking those who made it possible to alter this House, giving us continuity of constitutional practice by creating the virtual House and the hybrid House. I particularly thank those usual channels I abandoned, unknowingly lumbering those I left behind and my successor with the task of trying to make this place work in this difficult time. The House owes them a great debt of gratitude.
I hope it is understood that when we eventually turn our backs on this time, we do so with thanks for everything we have to enable us to maintain our constitutional role. But good government needs a strong and robust Parliament. Some noble Lords will be surprised that, as a former Government Chief Whip, I should say such a thing—but I do. I love this place. I love my home, but I love what this House can be and should be. It has been but a shadow of its former self during this difficult time.
I believe that, although we quite rightly spend much time worrying about the building we work in, this House is about people, not the building. This House is about debate, not speeches. It is about assertion and dissent, disagreement and accord, give and take, argument, dialogue, emotion, humour and wit. It is about mood and atmosphere. Noble Lords will know that this interaction and intervention have been impossible to express in a virtual world.
This has been reinforced for the increased number of us who have been here for the few days since the gracious Speech and have experienced the remarkable change in the mood of the House. It is no longer a morgue. There are people about. Already today this Chamber has nearly doubled the number of Peers able to be seated here. What a difference a modest change such as this has made. The Dining Room, the Long Room and the Bishops’ Bar have become alive again. There is chatter, conversation and—I do not exaggerate—a sense of a new beginning. I hope my noble friend the Leader of the House will give us her views on passholders, spouses, partners and visitors in general soon being able to be admitted to this building.
I understand the caution, hesitation and uncertainty but, as I said before, our Parliament is about people. There is a real need and a real impatience to have our Parliament back.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I first add my thanks to the staff and clerks, who have provided such an amazing technical solution to the problems of the pandemic. We ought to praise ourselves; we in this House have been among the leading legislatures across the world in showing that you can carry on in these difficult times. That is because the staff and clerks have seized upon the huge advances in technology driven by the pandemic. Real congratulations and praise are due to them. We ought to sing of our success in this respect.
Having said that, it is important that we test what we should do next by one criterion alone: what makes this House most effective in carrying out its constitutional duties? I think the answer is clear. In the vast bulk of the work the House does—holding Ministers to account by asking questions; debates; the scrutiny of legislation—there can be no doubt that being present in the Chamber must be the right solution. I say that for three reasons.
First, on occasions you need the pressure of the room. I use that phrase because you get the pressure of support if people are for you—you do not get that when you speak remotely—and you get the pressure of people laughing at you if you say something idiotic, fail to answer a question or try to emulate Sir Humphrey. That is critical. Secondly, there is spontaneity: the ability then and there to make a point that can be devastating either in support or to the contrary. Thirdly, there is what people outside this place call “work in the margins of the House”—in other words, all the rooms and the chats. In my view, those three reasons all make it absolutely essential that we return to a House that does the bulk of its legislative business and holding to account in the Chamber.
However, there are three other matters that we ought at least to consider. The first is the work of the committees. I could not add a single word to the description given by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead. He is absolutely right, for two reasons. First, although we have always had the power to hear witnesses remotely, the technology was awful. It has changed, and we really ought to seize that and do much more. Secondly, as I have found when hearing litigation, you can get good answers out of a witness much more easily in a question-and-answer session on a video link than you can when unable to follow up on something a Minister might or might not say. It is effective, and that has been shown in the courts. You can also have good dialogue—that works as well—so I hope we will look at committees in a new light and not merely say, “We have always been able to do that.” It is not so; technology has made a difference.
Secondly, I very much hope that we can look at some of the things that have happened in the modern world—for example, the ability to put on screen the clause or amendment you are debating. This works in the real world and is something on which huge progress has been made.
Thirdly and finally, there is the very real issue of disability. We must do something to address that as well.
Earl Attlee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate these matters and I fully agree with the approach of my noble friend Lord Howe. I join noble Lords in expressing gratitude to the staff and the administration for making remote working possible and so effective.
Recently, I was looking at my old prep school reports. I was not surprised to read that I was an academic disaster area—I was a very late developer and suffered badly with what we now know as dyslexia. The surprise was when the headmaster started regularly observing my citizenship and desire to help others for no direct reward. This may explain why I am not a very good businessman. Most of us agree that our role in the House of Lords is to revise legislation, to be an additional check on the Executive and, most importantly, to be a source of expertise. My expertise is broadly as a logistician, combined with practical engineering knowledge. I venture to suggest that very few Members of either House can match my practical experience of road transport operations or military logistics. Many other noble Lords have deep expertise in their own fields. We combine our own knowledge with our interpersonal skills to be effective parliamentarians.
The system of allowances has allowed me to undertake my parliamentary duties since 1992, albeit with a modest standard of living, and I have been content. There is of course, as the late Earl Onslow delicately put it, an element of hypocrisy with the system, but it works. Apart from my pay as a reserve officer, I have not been renumerated or otherwise influenced by anyone. My personal finances were at one point predicated on sitting for about 140 days per year, for about £300 per day. I have acted on my personal honour and addressed issues on which I have expertise. Of course, I ranged more widely when on the Front Bench
However, since 2010, Conservative Prime Ministers have been stuffing this House with as many Peers as possible, largely from London and the Home Counties, ostensibly to refresh the Benches but, I believe, to make full reform unavoidable. We all know that it is hard to devise something that will work better which is not accompanied by unacceptable risks. As a result, the House is becoming increasingly subject to adverse comments, which the leadership appears to do nothing to rebut. Worse still, our system of allowance has been altered, so that only Select Committee attendance, voting or speaking in debate is recognised. All the other, and arguably more important, work that we do is not recognised, whether it takes place on a sitting day or on other days.
Most of my parliamentary work is done driving a desk or attending meetings, whether formal or informal. I am not so foolish as to claim £162 for pressing a button to vote or for making a short speech. As a result of this bizarre system, I have not made any claims since 10 March last year, and I do not undertake much parliamentary work unless there is an overriding public interest in doing so. Nevertheless, I have had parliamentary effect, including in persuading DfT Ministers to undertake a policy review which they had not originally intended to do.
There are numerous serious adverse effects of this system of allowances. Noble Lords are putting their names down to speak in debates where they are not known to have any particular expertise, thus crowding out the genuine experts, as observed by my noble friend Lord Howe. He also drew attention to the increased number of Divisions. Despite my considerable relevant experience, including in both the military and overseas aid operations, I made no contribution to the overseas operations Bill, because I would not have been rewarded for doing so. Altruism goes only so far. Instead, since March last year, I have been engaged in other highly commendable pro bono activities, some of which, directly or indirectly, support the defence of the United Kingdom.
My plan to glide past retirement is going well, although I might advance it a bit. However, we should spare a thought for those who are subject to the moral outrage of being unpaid Ministers but who are not known to be fabulously wealthy. Even more serious is the position of some newer Members of the House who have altered their personal arrangements in accordance with the modest income stream that I have referred to but now find it largely cut off through no fault of their own. In this regard, I look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lord Shinkwin.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the chance to participate in today’s debate and to add my views on the way that the House has adapted to the challenges of Covid. In addition, as a recently appointed Back-Bench Member of the Procedure and Privileges Committee, which will be considering the outcome of today’s debate, I am keen to listen and to learn from all the views that are being expressed. Like others, I give thanks for how our staff have responded to the new and unforeseen circumstances in which they have had to work. They cannot be praised enough. If we as Members have had to acquire new skills, many of our staff have had to not only acquire them but to do so faster than us in order to assist us in carrying out our roles.
I was somewhat puzzled by the words of the Minister in his introductory speech, when he talked about many places now getting back to work and how it would somehow be a bad example if we did not follow the path that we had previously trod and pick up our old ways of doing things. But it seems to me that workplaces across the whole country are doing exactly as many of us are today: evaluating the new ways of working and seeing what lessons can be learned, with working practices changed for the long term in a beneficial way. For that reason, we must reflect, and I do not support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that we should simply go back to where we were before. I hope that he does not press his Motion to a vote at this stage.
I very much welcome the report of the Constitution Committee, which I feel strikes the right balance in recognising both the strengths and the weaknesses of remote and virtual working. Paragraph 86 of the report makes clear that remote proceedings have brought benefits for Members with disabilities, health concerns or caring responsibilities, and those who are geographically distant. I very much agreed with, and was impressed by, the contributions on this from the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell of Surbiton and Lady Brinton. The issue of geographical distance resonates with me, perhaps because, over a long parliamentary career, I have travelled, week-in, week-out, from the north-east of England to London. I own up that I have benefitted from being at home while continuing to be active in your Lordships’ House, but I reject the idea that somehow working at home is not really working—which seemed implicit in some of the comments. You have to do your preparation and your background reading, and virtually everything else that you must do if you are present physically. Working from home is exactly that: working from home.
We also have a duty to evaluate the environmental effect of everything that we do these days, which can include such things as cutting down on non-essential journeys, which the hybrid House has allowed many of us to take advantage of.
Our House has huge strengths, but one of its weaknesses is that London and the south-east is overrepresented, as the studies have shown, and yet most of us want to see a second Chamber that contains the voices of all regions and nations, as well as more closely representing the diverse nation that is the UK today.
The big loss in the hybrid House has been spontaneity, and on this I recognise many of the concerns that have been articulated today. That spontaneity is particularly lost in interventions—not being able to intervene on colleagues to insert one’s comments and views on what they have said, and in particular, not being able to intervene on Ministers during their Statements and concluding remarks on Bills.
However, I do not think that spontaneity has been lost at Question Time in the same way. I am certainly not keen on us simply returning to the old way of conducting Question Time. As others have said, there are failures under the old system, particularly when there is noisy competition between members of the same group to ask a supplementary. Many people have made the point to me that they have felt that if they do not have a big physical presence or a booming voice then they simply lose out, to the point where they are dissuaded from asking supplementaries at all.
This issue could be tackled by retaining a list or part-list system. I hope we will continue with the number of 10 Members asking a question, for example; I think that is beneficial. Or it could also be tackled by the Lord Speaker having the power to call the names of supplementary questioners, as happens in the House of Commons. That is one good example of Commons procedure. Spontaneity is still possible under the list system. If you are lower down in the list then there is nothing to stop you raising a matter that has not been properly dealt with in earlier questions. You certainly do not have to stick to a particular script.
I see that I am now running out of time so, with those comments, I want to say how much I am looking forward to listening to the rest of the debate.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I add my thanks to those who have made hybrid proceedings possible.
I am supportive of a return to business as usual as soon as possible, but some noble Lords whose contributions are valued by this House may decide not to participate if virtual contributions are no longer permitted, for genuine and understandable reasons. Some, like me, are being hindered from attending physically because of Covid restrictions, as my noble friend Lady Brinton has said. We should not be deciding to return to normal until Covid restrictions are lifted to enable us all to return to normal. In light of the uncertainty surrounding the variant first identified in India, I believe that setting a target date for the end of virtual proceedings today would be premature, despite noble Lords’ earnest desire to return to normality.
I want to challenge and refute one of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. There is no evidence that I can see that statutory instruments are being delayed as a result of hybrid proceedings. It is the sheer quantity of them as a result of the pandemic and EU exit that is the main problem. Indeed, I have just received an email from a government Minister citing these as reasons for the pressures on Parliament. So, no, this is not just a series of speeches with no account taken of what others have said.
I am married to a Norwegian who lives in Oslo, and he cannot work remotely for reasons of national security. In normal times when the House is sitting, I commute between Oslo and London every other weekend, spending most of my time in London and rarely missing a sitting day. Currently, Norway is on the amber list for foreign travel. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, has mentioned, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, told this House earlier this week that foreign travel is dangerous; the Prime Minister said yesterday that travel to amber-list countries should be only for extreme reasons; and the Transport Secretary said this morning that people should go to countries on the amber list only in exceptional circumstances. If we ignore what the Environment Secretary said, the message is clear: I should not be travelling between the UK and Norway. I very much regret having to choose between being with my family and being physically present in this House but, after almost 37 years of public service in the police and in this House, despite my love for all your Lordships, I am choosing to be with my husband at this time. In short, I would love to return to normal working but, if virtual proceedings end before restrictions on foreign travel are lifted, I may be forced to take a leave of absence, and I am sure that I am not alone, not because we want to but because we have little choice in the current circumstances.
Other noble Lords who have far more valuable contributions to make than I may be considering their future in the House, having experienced virtual proceedings unrelated to Covid restrictions. The House needs to consider how valuable these contributions are and whether those who would find it very difficult or impossible to attend in person, for genuine and understandable reasons, should be allowed to continue to make their highly valued contributions virtually. I accept that some additional costs would be incurred were this to continue, but I am not convinced that they would be as high as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has estimated.
This pandemic has introduced us to what is possible with modern technology. The House should carefully consider how the use of technology can enhance the working of this House, and how the use of technology might in other ways detract from it. Still, as the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, has said, this House should not throw the baby out with the bath-water.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, what this House and its staff achieved in March and April 2020 was truly remarkable and utterly brilliant in that this House in essence was able to continue its work, although it missed out a lot of what we had before. My noble friend Lord Howe said in his opening address that these were temporary measures. I very much support that view and the one that has been expressed throughout the House during this debate: that we should go back to where we were as soon as possible.
It is especially remarkable that the Government should take the view that they have because noble Lords have also commented on how many of these measures have actually suited the Government extremely well by reducing the level of scrutiny that we give them and letting them introduce all sorts of measures that have not been properly debated. So I very much thank and congratulate my noble friend—and, no doubt, the Leader of the House later on—when they say they want to get back to normal as quickly as possible.
There are some key issues that need to be considered. First, the time allowed for Questions should go back to half an hour, and we should scrap lists for Questions. Secondly, PNQs have become a sort of ungovernable monster every afternoon. We have starred questions, Topical Questions, Urgent Questions and PNQs, and we have to leave the Chamber between most of them. That really is not what this House is for, which is to look at legislation in detail. If we return to sitting at 2.30 pm, which I hope we do, then the House will sit later and later. PNQs really are very precious things. In the hands of the Lord Speaker to decide, they should be the most urgent type of questions, largely to do with this House rather than more generally. I understand why they have been put to such use during this emergency period, but as we come out of it I hope we can go back to where we were.
There is another reason why we need spontaneity. I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, said earlier, but it is about not just spontaneity but intervention. It is about cross-examining and making whoever has said whatever they have said more accountable.
There is another reason, which is ministerial time. Ministers have been able to devote time to this House at a level that they were unable to do so prior to the emergency. When we go back, they will be undertaking visits and real meetings, which they have been unable to do. It would be quite wrong to expect Ministers to turn up to your Lordships’ House the whole time.
My last point is about voting, particularly remote voting. Similarly to some who have spoken, including the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, I live in the south-west of Scotland, and on many occasions it has been extremely convenient to whip out my phone and support the Government in the way that I so loyally do. However, Parliament should not exist for my convenience or for anyone else’s. We need to come here to listen to the debate and be part of the collective argument that takes place. I understand that there may be some special cases where voting off-site, virtually or remotely, is required, and I hope that those are fully debated in the committees before they are brought to this House for its decision. However, for the overwhelming generality you need to be in the House to vote in order for it to count.
I very much hope my noble friend Lord Cormack will not push his Motion to a vote, but I think this has been an extremely valuable debate that shows just how many noble Lords care very deeply about how this House is managed.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
Technically, the hybrid House has been terrific, and the technical staff warmly deserve the thanks they are getting from all around the House. Professionally, it has been acutely frustrating. The nadir for me was when we all had two minutes each to give our verdict on the treaty which now governs relations with our nearest neighbours, although I guess that the limitation may have suited the Government rather well.
That is the trouble. Like the Constitution Committee in its important report, I do not believe that we have been holding the Executive to account as well as we should and as well as we normally do. Hearing the arguments tested in debate really matters for a Cross-Bencher such as me, by definition knowledgeable on only a small minority of the issues that the House has to tackle and not helped by the kindly tutelage of any Whip. The constraints of the hybrid House preclude the spontaneous to and fro, interventions and give and take of genuine debate. Set-piece speeches help me a bit, but not much, in making up my mind; it is the real debate that counts, so the sooner we can all get back, the better for me and, I think, for the effectiveness of the House.
I would retain two innovations. First, electronic voting works well, and it is astonishing that the Leader in the other place spurns it, insisting instead on proxy voting. The UCL Constitution Unit in its admirable recent report revealed the astonishing fact that, on the last sitting day before Easter, the Government Whip in the other place cast 329 votes. That is, as the chair of the Procedure Committee in the other place delicately put it, “open to abuse”. I am with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for the reasons they gave. Instantaneous electronic voting is now common in legislatures. Ambulant voting, as in our Lobbies, is beginning to look a little archaic. I would phase in the change, permitting those who want to stretch their legs still to do so—I do not believe many would. It think that it would rapidly be possible to reduce the time Divisions take, perhaps to three or four minutes.
Secondly, I would retain remote participation, but only in a severely limited form. Yesterday, I took part in a hugely valuable committee hearing with witnesses in New York, Sydney and Singapore. I agree with the Constitution Committee that that should go on being possible.
However, for the business in the Chamber, participating and voting remotely should be permitted only exceptionally for those unable, for reasons of distance or disability, to get here. It should not be permitted for those who could get here but choose not to do so. We signed up to be here; that is our job, and I think we do it better when we are here. I therefore warmly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said today—I would add that I greatly admired the way he supported Lady Thatcher in the House in her latter days; it did him enormous credit.
Finally, I would make any decision to participate remotely irrevocable for a Session and not changeable from day to day, whereas we should all be free to choose, Division by Division, whether to cast an archaic ambulant vote or a daringly 21st-century electronic one.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who is next on the list, has withdrawn. I therefore call the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, this is proving to be an elegant and most useful debate—the sort of debate, frankly, that I have missed. We have been kept apart too long. Like my noble friend, and roommate, Lord Forsyth, I believe that Parliament is an essential service, but we are told that we could not come back earlier because we were too old. Now it seems that we cannot come back fully because our staff are too young. It is about time that we sorted ourselves out.
I do not accept all the statistics thrown at us about how many votes we have had and how well they show we have done. Virtual participation and voting have become largely meaningless and they have left us open to lots of abuse. I quote:
“Peers vote in droves … Peers claimed almost £1m in taxpayer-funded ‘attendance’ allowances while working from home.”
So says the Times. It continues:
“Since the rules were changed … participation has soared to record levels.”
The Times does not like us, nor does the Daily Mail. It says:
“Lords a-leaping to vote from home after being allowed to claim £162-per day.”
Not even the Telegraph likes us, one headline stating:
“Lords up their voting as they claim virtual attendance rates.”
These accusations are incredibly damaging. We do not have many friends left, and we need friends. I cannot think that Downing Street looks on us with much favour, not after the House’s extravagant show of belligerence over Brexit. We have lost many former friends in the House of Commons too. Where shall we find the friends whom in these turbulent times we desperately need?
The press attack us constantly:
“Drunk as Lords. House of Lords spend nearly £2million on booze in the past five years”
screamed the Sun recently. There have been references to
“the same old snouts in the trough”
and:
“The unelected House of Lords is a corrupting influence at the heart of Westminster”—
that is what people have read in the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, and I have not even got close to the Guardian and the Mirror.
We have become a laughing stock in many eyes, and perhaps deservedly so when it comes to the wretched “Valuing Everyone” training. Is it not about time we started valuing ourselves? When are we going to stand up and say that we believe we do an incredibly important job and do it well? If we lurk in the shadows, as we have been doing, we will simply wither away.
As my noble friend Lord Howe and many others have said, we need to return to full physical debate and physical voting. We keep hearing that this is a business. It is not a business. We are not employed. This place is unique, and it is important.
I know that there will be many claims for exemption on the grounds of individual hardship. I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, as I always do, and we need to consider very carefully what she has said, but I still have ringing in my ears the accusations that we are being paid for voting from the comfort of our own homes and gardens. Whatever else we do, we must bring an end to these accusations of “deckchair Divisions”.
Being a Peer is a huge privilege. It carries with it some pretty unselfish responsibilities. We are here to serve this House—not the other way around. It is on that basis that I believe we should move forward.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the staff on supporting the functioning of the House throughout the pandemic.
I was hoping to take part in this debate physically. However, having been present for the adjourned gracious Speech debate until 9.30 pm on Monday, and with briefings and statutory instruments on Tuesday and Wednesday, I knew that I would not be able to sit in the Chamber until 10 pm today, for a fourth day. The Benches, which were designed and built for men, do my arthritis no favours at all.
I have found the hybrid arrangements during lockdown and working from home to be a mixed blessing. I have been able to participate in Questions without being shouted down—nearly always by male Peers—and managed to contain my contributions to roughly 70 words and 30 seconds 90% of the time. Participation in statutory instruments has been extensive, but most have managed contributions within the timeframe. I have used the mornings for research and speech writing, as I am sure have other Peers. The Agriculture Bill was managed reasonably well, although, on the days when we finished at 11 pm or midnight, I had great difficulty getting up from my desk, having become extremely stiff.
Many of your Lordships have felt the time constraints on speeches to have been too short. However, they do help to focus the mind considerably, with unnecessary verbiage cut out. This also assists the listeners not to lose the plot. I fear that some in the House have come to expect that everyone who wants to can take part in any debate. I fear that today’s debate may fall into the category where everything will be said early on but not everyone will have said it by the end.
What I did miss during lockdown was the chance to chat with colleagues over coffee or a glass of wine—but the whole country was similarly restricted and missing social interaction with family, friends and colleagues. When I returned, I was shocked to find just how few spaces for Peers there were in the Chamber. On the Tube, on the bus, in the supermarket, on pavements et cetera, we were all much closer to one another, even while wearing masks and keeping two metres apart. However, the layout of the Chamber gave what seemed like an excess of space.
If there were no seats in the Chamber, we were invited to go up to the Gallery. I did this twice—it took quite a while. We are not a House of young, agile Members—quite the opposite. I cannot be the only Peer with arthritis and mobility problems that mean that steps and stairs are becoming completely impossible. Unless we were on one of the sparse seats on the Benches or in the Gallery at the start of debates, we could not speak. “Rules are rules”, I hear many of you say; however, the pandemic has given us a golden opportunity to modernise some of our practices and bring the Chamber into the 21st century.
I urge your Lordships to think very carefully about the way forward. Rushing back to the old ways is somewhat like donning an old favourite suit. When it was first made, of finest-quality worsted wool, it looked amazing. It is still comfortable but is now very misshapen, baggy and shiny, and has seen better days. It no longer fits, has moth holes and needs replacing. This is the upper Chamber of a world-famous parliamentary system. There is no room for sentimentality in clinging to outdated practices. I recommend that we review and move forward with courage.
I read with interest the report of the Select Committee on the Constitution and agreed with many of the comments. Electronic voting has been a godsend: struggling over from the fifth floor of Millbank House in the pouring rain, negotiating cyclists who ignore both crossings and traffic lights, fighting with the door at Chancellor’s Gate and then waiting for the lift to take me up to the Principal Floor to vote was never a great experience. No doubt those Peers whose offices are above the Chamber cannot wait to get back to queueing up in the Lobbies. I suggest that remote voting is so easy that reducing the time allowed for it to take place would not be out of the way and would assist in speeding up the business of the House.
I have one negative comment to make about what is contained in paragraph 94 of the report. In the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, Members have
“a moral obligation to contribute to the work of the House”.
I agree with this. However, he and others feel that being present in the Palace is everything. I have been here for seven and a half years and have seen Peers in the Palace having coffee, tea, wine, lunch and dinner—oh, and popping into the Chamber for five minutes during Questions, but rarely speaking. It is insulting in the extreme to imply that Peers who are not in the Palace are not contributing to the work of the House; this is quite clearly not the case, as this debate demonstrates.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, pace the noble Earl the Deputy Leader, I hope that I will not be thought too tiresomely repetitive if I start by adding my thanks to the staff of the House, who have worked so hard and to such good effect, putting in place, maintaining and operating the systems and processes that have enabled us to continue to function over the past year. Their ingenuity and perseverance have been remarkable.
However, for all their efforts, we should not imagine that our current modus operandi is anything other than a necessary but uncomfortably restrictive contingency. “Why should this be so?”, some ask. “Surely, in the second decade of the 21st century, we should be updating our processes to take account of new technology. Is this not what is happening in other fields?” Well, to some degree.
Many enterprises are indeed allowing, and will continue to allow, a degree of remote working—but this is not the same as holding virtual meetings. These do of course take place; I have had experience of them over many years. They can bring considerable benefits: most importantly, the ability to annihilate space and bring people together virtually when they cannot be present physically is particularly useful.
Nevertheless, it has also been my experience that, even in the wider world, virtual meetings have significant drawbacks. They are very good for the passing of information—for delivering reports and briefings—but, when it comes to the consideration and debate of difficult issues, their utility tends to decline significantly. They do not permit the to and fro of discussion that is crucial to a thorough examination of issues and views, and they tend to mute, if not eliminate, body language. Watching the reactions of listeners can be most instructive—if any noble Lords doubt that, I recommend looking around this Chamber some time.
Nor should we underestimate the impact of personal presence. I see many instances where the benefits of virtual proceedings have had to be abandoned because personal contact has been necessary to resolve difficult issues. Human interactions go beyond things that can be transmitted electronically—so technology can be a boon, but it can also severely hamper communication.
I formed these conclusions several years ago, but they have only been strengthened by my experience of the past 12 months. Yes, we have been able to sustain wide involvement in the proceedings of the House—but those proceedings have lost the spark of spontaneity. Yes, we have been able to make our views heard—but we have not debated. Yes, we have been able to follow pre-planned paths of discussion—but we have not been able to challenge assertions or explore newly opened vistas, and this has been true in Questions as well as in debate.
The noble Earl the Deputy Leader mentioned another unfortunate consequence: it has become harder for the Government Front Bench to assess the mood of the House. This is not just about numbers: there is something a little remote about dissenting views expressed on screen, no matter how strongly they are put. But a Minister facing a Chamber well peopled with noble Lords expressing their opposition, not just in individual speeches but in the atmosphere they generate, is left in no doubt of the position—as indeed many have acknowledged in the past.
Committee work too has become more difficult. The lack of agility that online hearings have imposed on us has, in my view, made it harder to interrogate witnesses satisfactorily or discuss their evidence in a properly dialectic way. However, I acknowledge the benefit of hearing from witnesses who are too distant to be able to participate in person—not least those from overseas.
Like other noble Lords, I believe that remote participation has led to a diminution in the power of Parliament as against that of the Executive. The demands of the current crisis have of course been the main driver behind this trend, but remote participation has made the problem worse. If we are to slow, let alone reverse, this unwelcome process, we need to return as quickly as possible to more normal proceedings.
There is still the question of whether some aspects of the present system might be retained in the longer term in order to improve efficiency. Well, it is difficult to see much scope for this if we are to adhere to the principle that all participants are to be treated equally. For my part, I rather like the system of electronic, as opposed to remote, voting, although I understand that many noble Lords are opposed to continuing with it. However, this is one innovation that would fit neatly into our previous practices.
We should be grateful for hybrid proceedings and for the way that they have allowed us to continue our work—after a fashion. But I strongly believe that the health of our parliamentary system requires a return to physical presence in your Lordships’ Chamber and in committees as soon as possible.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con) [V]
My Lords, nothing that has been said or will be said today detracts from brilliant work of all those who have helped to make hybrid and virtual proceedings work in this House and have enabled us to continue working through the emergency. We are immensely grateful. However, in considering whether we continue with what were temporary measures, it is about one question and one question alone: “Is Parliament sufficiently holding the Government to account?” I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that we must move as the world moves—but I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that we are not just a business and it cannot be simply a question of efficiency.
There are some aspects of the new procedures that we may wish to continue: submitting questions by email rather than queueing in a draughty corridor seems long overdue. Improvement may also come from more time for Questions. Many will also favour keeping lists for Questions, rather than the bear garden that we dignify with the term “self-regulation”. However, the main questions cannot be divorced from social distancing, and until that has resolved it will be difficult to return to full normality. A House of Lords with social distancing cannot operate as a House of Lords.
Paradoxically, I am speaking remotely but I wish to argue against both remote participation and remote voting. I am speaking remotely because I cannot be present physically in the Chamber for the Leader’s wind-up tonight, and so the convention is that I should not participate in the House. I am sure that remote participation is not a satisfactory mode and it will be illustrated, I am sure, by my speech. Our Writ of Summons commands us to attend at Westminster. A Parliament where people are not physically present is not a Parliament at all. A lot of talking heads on screens suspended from the ceiling may make a good TV programme, but it is no substitute for a lively debate where people argue face to face with each other. What sort of debate is it where people cannot interrupt the wind-up of a Minister who has failed to answer the questions raised in the debate?
As has been said many times in this debate, and I apologise for repeating it, it is necessary to judge the mood of the House to decide whether to force a Division, as my noble friend Lord Cormack is going to have to decide later. But where there is no coughing with boredom, no muttering and no quiet laughter, there is no mood of the House to judge. The House of Lords is very polite House, possibly too polite, but with remote proceedings the politeness has become the stillness of the graveyard. We may not yet have bored ourselves rigid, but we are beginning to bore the public. The number of viewers of House of Lords proceedings on Parliamentlive.tv declined in 2020 compared with the previous year.
How we vote should not be a matter of convenience; it is a question of commitment. Remote voting requires hardly any interruption to whatever a person is doing. Mind you, I suppose in theory that remote voting could be the answer to the numbers problem in the House of Lords. We could have a House of 2,000, with no pressure on the facilities of the Chamber. Of course, that would be ridiculous, but remote voting and being paid for it is going to seem a lot more than ridiculous to the general public. The public will be outraged if life returns to normal and we continue to be paid to vote from the comfort of our own homes.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, thought that the increase in voting was a sign of democracy that should be welcomed. I fear it may have other causes. Our temporary procedures have distorted behaviour. Speaking lists have become longer, requiring speeches to be ludicrously short. Sometimes the most distinguished people with the most to contribute have not been able to contribute very much. To squeeze more people in for Questions, Ministers are asked to be very brief with replies. Some of the replies would be recognised by Lloyd George, who used to tell the story of how once he got lost in his car when driving in Snowdonia. He stopped and asked a passer-by where he was. The passer-by replied, “You are in Wales”. Lloyd George always said that this was the perfect parliamentary answer: it was brief, it was true, and it told no one anything of any use. That is true of too many of the ministerial replies that we have had under our new procedures.
We agreed our procedures as temporary to cope with an emergency. As the country returns to normality, without doubt we must return to the procedures that were before. Parliament is not holding the Government to account and that is what the public expect us to do.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow that fine speech from the noble Lord, Lord Lamont—which, of course, was delivered remotely. It has been a very strong debate and I have enjoyed listening to the speeches. I join everyone else in thanking the staff for having made the hybrid proceedings possible and effective.
I guess it is possible to characterise this debate as having something of a false dichotomy between those who want to keep things exactly as they are now and those who want them to go back to exactly how they were before the pandemic. I detect in pretty much every speaker that they are somewhere on the spectrum between a little bit of change and quite a lot of change —but no one is going to either of the extremes. I am more towards the end of the spectrum of my noble friends Lord Hain and Lady Quin, rather than the end preferred by the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Dobbs—respectful though I was of their contributions.
Of course, I had a bit of quandary. Where was I going to speak? Should I come in? Should I make a non-essential journey? I am doing the rest of my work from this room, which I am very pleased to welcome noble Lords into. Or should I come into the Chamber where, of course, I am going to be so much more engaging and will be able to benefit from all the interaction? I may not be able to make anywhere near as good a speech, but I have childcare responsibilities today, so I am not able to come in.
There is so much that I have missed about the way that we used to do things. Like everybody else, I miss the social interaction. The Lords is at its strongest when we are working together, across party in many cases. It has been impossible to have those relationships across party during this period of the pandemic, and it has been impossible also to get to know new Members. I hugely miss that. Of course, like everybody else, I miss the scrutiny, principally brought about by the spontaneity of being there face to face. So, of course, as soon as we are safely able to, we have to get back to those arrangements.
However, I have also really enjoyed the flexibility. I used to think I was one of the younger Members. I certainly was when I joined 11 years ago. I have to do other work and I now do all of that from this room. To have been able to do that alongside being able to contribute in the House has been really helpful. On occasions, I have enjoyed looking inside other people’s houses—but not so much looking up their noses if they have got the camera angle wrong.
I think the PeerHub has worked really well, as my noble friend Lady McIntosh said in her wonderful opening. I have enjoyed the equity of balloted lists for Oral Questions. I have really enjoyed the way we have been able to be more inclusive of a wider range of witnesses, geographically, through Select Committees—again, as other noble Lords have said.
So I am a strong advocate of reflecting and hanging on to the changes. Pretty much everyone has said that longer Oral Questions should be retained. I am certainly one who advocates keeping the list generated by ballot and the fairness of that. I, too, support retaining remote voting, but only on the Parliamentary Estate. I am one of those with an office in Millbank House. I am perfectly agile and able to come over—I am not yet at the point where I am struggling, like the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. But I would like to be able to carry on working in my office at times, rather than schlepping all the way over to vote.
We had a great meeting yesterday of the National Plan for Sport and Recreation Committee, and I am absolutely sure that the witnesses were more comfortable sat in their own settings than the intimidating scenario of coming into a committee. If we want to hear from diverse and disadvantaged voices, we need to be able to hang on to that practice. When we do so, it is worth noting that you get better equity when everybody is joining remotely rather than the committee being in a room looking at three or four witnesses on screens and trying to interact that way.
I agree that we should have speeches in the Chamber, but if the reason for that is so we can have more interventions, then can we have more interventions? Can we move on from a culture of not really intervening in Second Reading debates and QSDs, because then we can have real debates? That is a really good reason to carry on and return to the Chamber; otherwise, I would not rule out returning to hybrid debates.
The world of work has changed. We are not a business, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has said, but everyone is reflecting on how we are going to have to change as a result of what we have learned from the pandemic. I see today, with the modestly titled Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail, that we are having flexible season tickets, so even the Department for Transport is reflecting. We should do the same and we should have some version of a hybrid model in future.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, who was next on the list, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
I have listened with great interest to many of the speeches and nobody has mentioned how it has affected the attendance of Peers. Have the pandemic and the virtual or hybrid proceedings reduced the presence of Peers? I went through some of the records. In 2016 there were 484 Peers on most days, in 2019 there were 458, and all could claim the full allowance. Then we come to the hybrid House—this is not the physical presence, but the voting presence—where we have on average 474 Peers voting. The figure is always in the upper 400s and sometimes, rarely, it goes into the 500s. However, we always have about 300 Peers who do not engage in any way in the activities of the House. Can we have the official figures for this, please? That would be interesting in case I have misled or been misled.
The other point I want to raise is on voting. Mr Rees-Mogg, leading the Commons, wants to return to traditional voting arrangements and, yes, that is okay—some want us to follow. But people are forgetting that the older you get, the less able and mobile you are. In the Commons they are on average about 30 years younger than us in the House of Lords. In the Lords, 306 Peers are in the 70-79 age range and 122 Peers are over 80, so we can see that it is much more likely that Members of the Lords will have greater difficulty attending in person than Members of the Commons. These things demand a great deal of thought and I am delighted to give some figures to bear out some of the recommendations.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and I welcome the opportunity to participate in this important debate. It is not only reviewing the operation of hybrid proceedings in the House of Lords but pinpointing a way forward for now and into the future about how we conduct our business, and informing the Procedure and Privileges Committee in designing how we do our business in this pandemic and the post-pandemic phase.
Listening today to some noble Lords, you would think that most of us are occupying a parallel universe, because there is a dichotomy. Noble Lords, quite rightly, feel aggrieved that they are no longer able to participate in what they once were able to participate in. Then there are others who characterise the situation as per the pandemic; namely, supporting hybrid proceedings or a variation of them.
I come to this debate as a former Member of the other place, where debate was always present, but we did not have a pandemic. I came into your Lordships’ House in November 2019. There was then a general election and we took our seats again in December 2019. I have been unable to come from Northern Ireland since the middle of March last year because of travel restrictions. However, that has not prevented me participating in the proceedings of the House in the Chamber, in Grand Committee and on two select or scrutiny committees. I firmly believe that the constitutional purpose of the House is to scrutinise, legislate and debate. We have been able to do those things, albeit in a very straitened way.
I agree with Members that we have probably lost the physical presence of the House because of the nature of this pandemic—that necessary spontaneity and nuance, the nod and the body language of Members, which are always important in fuelling the direction of the debate and informing the Government and the Opposition of the way things are going. Notwithstanding that, we have been in the middle of a pandemic in which many thousands of people have lost their lives. We have to reflect that. We also have to reflect that, outside our Parliament, many businesses will be adopting some of the methods of at-home working, remote working and office working. We have to reflect that as well.
I am very much in agreement with the first report of the Constitution Committee into Covid-19 and Parliament, which I believe has contributed to understanding not only the challenges faced by Members and staff but the needs of the new normal as we continue our work of investigation, scrutiny and holding the Government to account. In this new normal, and this review, we should retain the PeerHub and that measure of remote voting—albeit on the parliamentary estate. We should retain virtual proceedings on Microsoft Teams for scrutiny committees because it has enabled witnesses from near and far to provide very detailed evidence, thus enabling us to carry out our scrutiny and investigative function.
I cannot support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I fully respect that he comes to this with a high degree of knowledge and experience from both Houses, but we have to be cognisant of the fact that we have been through a pandemic and that dictates that we must keep our staff, ourselves and the wider community safe on the parliamentary estate.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the Minister for the very thoughtful way in which he introduced this debate and in thanking members of staff and the staff authorities for the rapid response to the unprecedented situation last year, when our nation recognised that it was in a pandemic, and the way that this House discharged its responsibilities had to be modified. There is no doubt whatever that we have to recognise that the procedures, processes and indeed the adoption of technology platforms that were necessary at that time were undertaken under considerable pressure. In particular, the technology platforms have a number of important limitations that we need to consider in determining how we should move forward as we come out of the pandemic period.
Noble Lords have rightly recognised our principal constitutional obligations, which are to revise and scrutinise legislation and to hold the Government to account. They have rightly identified the need to weigh the opportunity provided by the processes, procedures and technology platforms we have adopted in this unprecedented period in determining whether those obligations are being properly discharged. We have heard, of course, about the important report of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee and many noble Lords have identified that, regrettably, much of the discharge of those important responsibilities and obligations is less than satisfactory in the way we are currently having to conduct our responsibilities.
That is not to say that there may not be opportunities in the future, as technology advances. Technology may be developed that is bespoke for a parliamentary Chamber rather than adopting platforms that have been developed primarily, as we have heard, for use in other businesses. We may be able to return to this question. As things currently stand, it is clear that the subtlety and nuances afforded by physical presence in parliamentary debate—the capacity to intervene; in particular, to hold Ministers to account; and to ensure the expertise and experience that this remarkable Chamber is able to bring to bear to a specific and often detailed question, sometimes not properly considered in the other place—has been undermined as a result of the current circumstances and our current working practices.
When the Lord Privy Seal comes to wind up this debate, can she say whether there might be opportunities for your Lordships’ House, in returning to practice as prior to the pandemic, to continue to explore technology —with the potential development of bespoke technology —that might help the House overcome some of the limitations we have heard about today? Might we continue to explore processes and procedures, but, as we have heard, in the context of actually returning and functioning as the House should and rightly must expect to do, rather than adopting measures that were applied as a matter of urgency? We have had the opportunity of an impressive experiment; might we look at some of the advantages and disadvantages of those technologies, but not adopt them without proper and due consideration beyond the period of the pandemic?
We have been very fortunate in our own country to benefit from the remarkable vaccination programme. It will soon allow us to take these decisions and return to what we would consider the normal working of your Lordships’ House, but we should not dismiss the opportunity to learn from the experience of the past 15 months. Noble Lords will be well aware of the words of the Writ of Summons, demanding that,
“(waiving all excuses) you be at the said day and place personally present”.
Those words are a very powerful reminder of our individual obligations, as Members of your Lordships’ House, and I very much hope that, in reaching a conclusion about future working, we are cognisant of those important obligations and responsibilities.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Howe for introducing this debate with his customary charm, and I agree with everything he said. I too congratulate all those who have worked hard to ensure that we could operate, after a fashion, through the pandemic.
I wholly agree with what many noble Lords have said about the loss of spontaneity and decline in quality of debate and scrutiny. Under hybrid conditions, advisory speaking times are now risibly short and strictly enforced. This means that noble Lords are unable to add to their prepared speeches to refer to others’ contributions. In debates on Bill stages, since the order of speakers is predetermined and contributions are prepared in advance, many noble Lords speak when they would previously have remained silent because another has already made exactly the same point.
The briefing prepared by the Library in February on the impact of hybrid proceedings on participation makes interesting reading but, strangely, did not include any statistics on voting patterns. However, the Constitution Committee did cover this and the Minister confirmed that noble Lords have, on average, participated in a much higher proportion of Divisions than was the case before the introduction of remote voting. It is, of course, very much easier to vote, wherever you may be and whatever else you may be engaged in at the time a Division is called. I believe that remote voting should be abandoned completely as soon as possible. It seems to me unsustainable for legislators to be permitted to vote remotely, even if they may attend the House for a short time on the same day.
Voting in person makes it likely, or at least plausible, that noble Lords might have participated in discussing the subject of the vote with others, even if they have not participated in the debate in the Chamber. The informal chance meetings and discussions between noble Lords in the corridors, restaurants and Division Lobbies are also an invaluable part of the functioning of the House as a legislature. Physical voting also provides useful opportunities to buttonhole Ministers. Some have argued that it is good and should be made permanent that those with disabilities, in poor health or pregnant should be allowed to continue to participate remotely. However, it remains an unfortunate fact that if a noble Lord’s condition or circumstances prevent his or her attendance and ability to participate fully, it is hard to argue that that Member is fully capable of exercising his or her functions as a legislator. I welcome the fact that it has become easier for those with disabilities to participate fully, but exceptions to physical attendance requirements should be minimised.
Unlike another place, we are a self-regulating House and should reverse the accretion of authority to the chair that has taken place. It is no longer clear whether it remains the role of the Government Front Bench to call the House to order. In the hybrid House, it is often the Lord Speaker or the sitting Deputy Speaker who exercises this function. The time-wasting practice of the Lord Speaker calling on noble Lords to speak should also be discontinued.
The earlier sitting times adopted by the hybrid House make it difficult for those with interests outside the House to participate as they would wish. Of course, noble Lords’ improved technical skills will lead to an increase in job offers. Lastly, I ask whether it is intended to reverse the simplification of the clerks’ dress, which the previous Clerk of the Parliaments told me was a response to the need for a larger pool of Clerks at the Table during the pandemic. I am sure that Messrs Ede & Ravenscroft would have no difficulty in supplying the proper uniforms to all clerks who do not have it. I am keen that we should revert 100% to where we were before the pandemic—tellers, wands, wigs and all. They are all part of the panoply of this great Parliament. From that point, we can reflect on whether we should make any permanent changes.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the House authorities and, in particular, to the officials of the usual channels on establishing and operating an acceptable method for the House to carry out its duties during the pandemic. To have contributions during major debates on subjects such as Brexit limited to a few minutes is a gross undermining of the role of Parliament. This House is a gathering of many distinguished persons who should have a proper opportunity to enhance our debates on fundamental issues. If necessary, we should consider sitting for longer hours.
I will make the following points. First, the appropriate committees of your Lordships’ House should take the opportunity to learn lessons from the way that we have been operating, and not merely return to our former practices without question.
Secondly, account should be taken of the disadvantages of noble Lords who do not live in London.
Thirdly, some things can be done equally well virtually. Until now, like many noble Lords, I have kept to the recommendations and stayed away from our premises for over a year, except on two occasions. I hope that I have, nevertheless, played my part in debates and Questions in this House. I see no reason why we should not continue to vote virtually. The high number of votes, particularly at a late hour, for whatever reason, is proof of its popularity. So long as the danger exists, we should avoid crowded Lobbies. When the danger has passed, we should perhaps revert to what we were doing in the past. At least we have not followed the other place by putting our votes, by the hundred, into the back pockets of the Whips who can vote on behalf of Members. Cromwell would have been very proud; Hitler failed to close down Parliament.
Fourthly, I am a member of the International Agreements Committee, which sits virtually most weeks. I am convinced that, with good chairmanship and the tolerance and co-operation of members, the work of such a committee can be carried out equally well virtually if we wish. This week, we had witnesses from as far away as Singapore and other parts of the world, who were able to make a major contribution.
Fifthly, we are losing out on calling the Government to account at Question Time and when they make Statements to the House. The absence of spontaneity and putting pressure on Ministers has been dealt with by many speakers. I served as a Minister for 13 years, in three different Governments. I know what it is to be under extreme pressure from all parts of the House, including, possibly from behind, particularly when one is introducing controversial Bills. I feel less strongly about committees of the House, but I lean towards returning to normality.
Although this is not the main issue of this debate, we should take the opportunity to revisit the issue of Members’ allowances. What I like to call country Members—those whose main homes are not in London —have to pay for accommodation in London and I suspect that some of those arrangements had to continue during the pandemic. They have been very badly treated. I no longer have an interest to declare, after a lifetime of commuting between west Wales and London. The last committee which looked at this took fright at the definition of “main home”.
Seventhly, if virtual proceedings are to continue, it makes no sense to pay a full day’s allowance for presence on the premises to attend a virtual Select Committee, while paying the half rate for Committee sittings such as on the Agriculture Bill—as other noble Lords have mentioned—which go well into the night, where the amendment that you are particularly interested in is not reached until 10 pm or even 11 pm.
Lastly, the Bingham Centre, in its letter to the Times, has made a powerful case that Parliament has been marginalised under the pandemic, with over 400 pandemic-related statutory instruments introduced in the Commons making sweeping changes with limited debate. I hope that we can return to normality when the danger is over.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his comprehensive introduction, which covered all the points that the House needs to consider.
The main point, to my mind, is that we need to get back to being a functioning House of Lords, with Members here, and to wind down the so-called special measures. We are moving dreadfully slowly. I had a talk with one of the senior officials in the Library yesterday. They said that, yes, they are definitely moving forward: they are going to be open for an extra hour a day from Monday to Thursday, starting on 20 June. They will then be open for four whole hours a day. This is a snail’s pace.
I am going to say it: I am afraid that working from home has been a great boon to many people. Many of our staff probably quite like not having to commute; they quite like having to provide their own lunch and to work at their own pace. We have got to put some effort into getting people back, and if that involves lobbying the Department of Health for vaccinations—the latest of a series of excuses that I have heard—then so be it, but we have got to get people back. Here is one good indicator: I have an office on the fifth floor of Millbank House and we share a kitchen with staff. You can tell how many are here because the fridge in the kitchen is absolutely empty; usually it is packed full of sandwiches and lunch. The staff are just not here; they have got to be got back.
I differ from my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, on one issue. The Question Time list has actually been a great move forward. For those of us who do not have a background in the other place, the bear pit of people jumping up and down at Question Time put a lot of people off. I would like whoever responds to look at having some sort of list and order for Question Time, but it should come back and we need to have this House in charge again.
I will also make a point about interventions in debate. I spoke in the Queen’s Speech debate on Monday and asked the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith:
“so all I am going to ask him to do is to say that he will pass my comments on to the Transport Minister and ask her to respond to me in writing.”—[Official Report, 17/5/21, col. 390.]
When he came to wind up, he did not mention it. Even though I had spoken to him privately and asked him to just give me that assurance, there was no assurance. Even though I was sitting here, and he was sitting just in front of me, I could not get up and intervene, even to say: “Will the Minister kindly agree to the question I put to him during my speech?” This has led to a situation in which, to my mind, Ministers frequently do not answer the questions that are put to them, because they know that there is no feedback. We do need to get back to people being accountable to this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton, spoke about our moral obligation to arrange our lives in order to contribute to the House. As I have said before, when I came into the House in 2013, the only question David Cameron was interested in was, “Will you attend and vote?” He forgot to ask me which way I would vote. He was very keen to say, “Richard, we really need people who will attend and vote. Will you do that?” It is important that we do organise our lives. Frankly, if people are too ill, we have sympathy for them. My good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, has just had another year’s leave of absence from the House and that is the way to deal with it. You cannot cast the House around this sort of thing.
I hope that we will get back to a functioning House. I hope that we will end our remote voting, because that is not the way to run a democratic institution. Even though I am not sure whether I support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, I certainly support the date and the sentiment within it. I hope that we will move to get back to the House so that, when we come back in September, we are recognisably in a democratic assembly.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, in considering whether to keep hybrid proceedings, I have viewed this from external perspectives in addition to my own experience: how is working from home regarded in the business world, and what are the outside impressions about how we work?
Permitting virtual attendance makes us more normal, more diverse and less London-centric. It enables valuable contributions that might otherwise be lost because of ill health, disability, immobility, location or caring responsibilities. We would not think much of businesses that did not make such efforts regarding their employees and we would not reflect society’s interests if we shut out remote participants now that we have the technology. It is a vehicle for greater diversity.
That basic premise extends to every activity, be it Questions, general debates, legislation, committees or voting. To my mind, the question is not whether to keep elements of remote participation but to determine the guidance on how often or why remote participation is requested. Why not be like businesses, with two days a week working from home as the new normal option, with extra days allowed if it is for health, caring or other personal circumstances? It might also help remove the “dinner club” perception of our House.
The hybrid procedures that we have experienced during the pandemic are not a fair sample of what hybrid working in normal times would be like. The social distancing restrictions in the Chamber and elsewhere, travel and the “pay for speaking” virtual allowances have all incentivised virtual contributions, while Covid business has simultaneously pressurised the schedules.
Schedule crowding seems to have eased a little as more have returned to in-person attendance, and there will be further changes, especially to atmosphere, once normal attendance in the Chamber is allowed. The murmurs, groans and spontaneous interventions from the Benches are important—not least when the House thinks it has been short-changed by a Minister on a Question—but that happens when we sit in numbers, not in rationed social distancing. The appetite for numbers will draw us back. If a few noble Lords were also contributing in a virtual way, it would not change the dynamic and take it back to the sterile atmosphere of the fully virtual or socially distanced hybrid arrangements.
When it comes to Select Committees—I have served on three during recent times—it has been a huge benefit to have a wider range of witnesses than the predominant usual suspects who can service London. I have not found remote participation worse; if anything, it has made Members more disciplined and stopped some hogging proceedings, as can happen at Question Time. Proceedings have also been a lot more audible. Some of our committee rooms have terrible acoustics—I went to get a hearing test a while back to make sure it was not just me. Face-to-face togetherness has benefits and will predominate because it wields greater presence, but I would rather a Member contributed virtually than missed a meeting, even if the reason is that the plumber or electrician is coming or the grandchildren need collecting that day. They have still worked on the papers, and what you notice in real time is always a little different from reading or watching it back later.
I have also contributed to all stages of a fair number of Bills in virtual and hybrid format. It has in fact been more exhausting than contributing in person and I expect that we can learn—as businesses are—about the effects of too much video. Going forward, the notion of treating virtual and in-person participation equally, and therefore not allowing in-person interventions, would need revising. I wish we had never had it—we are not being treated equally with half pay for virtual attendance, so it was always untrue anyway. In-person interventions and spontaneity could resume as normal, alongside a system of slot-booking for virtual participants. There might also be scope for expanding the Question Diary approach for remote participants. In some cases, that has already been used quite extensively.
Overall, hybrid working, as in the country generally, is part of the future—of modernising, being greener and spreading opportunity. We will be dinosaurs if we do not reflect that.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, to whose thoughtful words I say, “Hear, hear”. Our thanks must go particularly to all those working tirelessly across the House to enable us to function for a year. As a pilot group of Deputy Speakers, we rehearsed with Andrew Makower and Simon Burton how virtual proceedings would work. Then we moved on to a hybrid House. Form aimed to follow desired function to work as best it could—and work it has. We have shown legislatures worldwide what can be done by working differently, which is why I decided to speak remotely today.
The excellent opening remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, summarised a balanced perspective. We should not fool ourselves: Covid-19 in the Chamber would have brought a high mortality and morbidity rate. As we come back together, the worst scenario would be a highly infectious variant that escaped vaccine immunity and ripped through our number and the staff.
This House needs diversity and has shown inclusiveness this year, in the Chamber and beyond. We have used technology to outreach in new ways. To have true parity, we must work in a way that enables everyone to contribute their expertise, as my noble friend Lady Campbell of Surbiton demonstrated so clearly. That means changing our approach, not putting the old barriers and hurdles back in place.
Remote voting avoided crowded voting Lobbies. Voting by whipping does not apply to Cross-Benchers, and I believe that my colleagues on these Benches have taken great care to listen and decide how they vote. We should maintain electronic voting and thereby maintain social distance as we vote.
PeerHub has proven itself to be a valuable resource with much background information; it has been well designed. By contrast, the new parliamentary website introduced in recent months is not easy to use.
There have been procedural changes of benefit. My noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead referred to having longer for Oral Questions, fairer allocation of speaking slots and concise questions. For those of us with longer travelling time, the earlier start is very welcome—the day away means one cannot go into work locally. We should not be taking decisions late at night; we have all seen Peers flagging, the later the hour. Also, I recall having one or two-minute speaking times long before the pandemic. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, encapsulated the wish to retain the best aspects of the rapid learning and the changes imposed on us by the pandemic for those of us who do not want to go backwards.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, wisely cautioned against rushing. Our work sets an example to the country—how we worked before is a bygone era. In risk-planning, we should consider the previously unthinkable and not throw away the lessons learned. In the face of an emergency, we adapted and used technology; it may not have been perfect, but neither was what went before.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who rightly reminded us of just why we had a virtual House and a hybrid House. It is in those terms that we should look at the last 15 months. I thank my noble friend Lord Howe for introducing this debate and I agree with his approach of looking at three separate areas: the virtual proceedings in the House; online voting; and whether we retain some of the improvements—to my way of thinking—we have seen during the pandemic in the hybrid House procedures.
Like others, I thank our staff, who have been remarkable, the House authorities, the broadcasters, the Procedure Committee, and the Government and the usual channels for helping us function and operate in these difficult times. Again, it is in the light of those difficult times that we should look at the last 15 months. They have not been ideal, and they have not been perfect, but they have certainly been better than having no House at all. That is the way we should look at it, and I do so with admiration, respect and thanks. Like others, I welcome the report of the Constitution Committee, which, while recognising the shortcomings of the hybrid House, points out its very real benefits for those who are disabled and those who are geographically remote. They should not be lightly dismissed.
As we emerge from the shadow of the pandemic—and I acknowledge the massive success of the Government’s vaccination programme—it is right for physical proceedings to resume. But they should resume while recognising the health needs of our staff, and, frankly, I cannot associate myself with some of the comments that have been made about the health needs of our staff, as if they are some excuse being used. That is not the case. It is easy for us, who have mostly been double-jabbed, to regard these as lacking significance, but, particularly if we open up to visitors and others who are not parliamentarians coming in as guests, there is a danger for those who have not been vaccinated. That should be considered.
I support, as I have said, a return to a physical presence. I also agree with others that online voting needs to be looked at, but it should be subject to detailed consideration. It does have some benefits. While hybrid proceedings make it easier for the Government, no doubt online voting makes life much more difficult. I can understand those challenges and sympathise with them.
Lastly, I come to the third category that the noble Earl set out: the considerable benefits we have seen, to my view, from operating the hybrid House. I refer particularly to a better-ordered Question Time and the ability for those who do not necessarily have the loudest voices to participate. I hope that we do not turn away from that very real benefit. This could be seen in other activities in the House, too.
We should not, as has been said, grab the comfort blanket of operating from home—I can quite see that, as the pandemic comes to an end—but nor should we either turn our face against change and seek to turn the clock back to the day before the pandemic struck, preserving the House in aspic. I fear there are a few parliamentarians who participated in this debate who are really parliamentary Miss Havishams, intent to hold out against any changes and to reside in a parliamentary Satis House. Such a course of action would, in my opinion, be a great mistake. The noble Earl is certainly not in that category; he is no Miss Havisham. As I have indicated, a longer Question Time with pre-allotted questions is, I think, desirable. Clearer announcements of business are helpful to members of the public and Members alike. I also support an earlier start to proceedings than our traditional one—and indeed an earlier end; that is desirable too.
Lastly, on Select Committees, I have seen the very real benefits from the participation of witnesses from overseas—recently, at the Public Services Committee, there were witnesses from Taiwan and New Zealand. Let us not throw away these sensible changes in a desire to get back to so-called normal.
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is good to see the House fuller than it has been for some months; that is a substantial improvement. I too thank the staff and everybody who has made the last 15 months possible. It has been an incredible achievement and, as has been said, something many of us would have predicted could not possibly have happened. There are a lot of lessons to be learned.
Like my noble friend Lord Bourne, I am going to follow the lead set by my noble friend Lord Howe and divide my speech into three parts. There is the remote participation. I have found it harder participating remotely than 15 months ago, when one was in the House and able to access papers quickly and easily, with the Printed Paper Office open and the Library working full-time. It has required a great deal more work at the weekends and during the week.
One advantage of remote working has been that the acoustics are better than in the committee rooms. For those of us who sometimes find it difficult to hear, it has been a joy to hear every word, rather than one in four. But there are downsides. One is the lack of spontaneity, as has been mentioned, and I believe that we have not held the Government to account in the way that we should have done and used to be able to do. I note that it was highly frustrating when the Agriculture Bill was going through that one was not able to intervene and hold the Minister to account. I am deeply concerned that, with the Environment Bill ahead of us, we are going to have Committee stage under these strict rules. That is a Bill we need to get right, and we are not going to be able to properly do the job that we should do.
One other thing on remote participation is that I smiled ruefully when the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said he wanted an opening time of 2.30 pm on Monday for those who lived far away. When I lived in Caithness, I had to leave on Sunday to get to the House at 2.30 pm on a Monday.
Some Peers have said remote voting has been abused. I think that is down to the expenses system. Whatever expenses system you have, it will be abused. I throw in the idea that, if we are going to continue with remote voting, those who vote remotely should not be paid. I also think that physical voting has an advantage, in that it gives one the chance to collar a Minister. Ministers can be highly elusive; they like sticking to their departments and their civil servants keep them there. But if they have to vote physically, there is at least an opportunity to collar him or her for an urgent word at that time.
Moving on to procedural changes, I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said about Oral Questions, and that was picked up by my noble friends Lord Balfe and Lord Bourne. I thoroughly approve of 10 minutes for Oral Questions, and I approve of the list system. I did not like Oral Questions before the pandemic hit us: the House was thoroughly overcrowded and it was impossible to get up to ask a question. I shunned Question Time completely; I read it in Hansard, but it was easier and nicer to come into the Chamber when Question Time was over.
I talked about holding the Government to account. One of the things we have learned in the last 15 months is how important it is to hold the Lord Speaker, the Commission, the Senior Deputy Speaker and the Conduct Committee to account. They have got away with an awful lot of things, such as debates being scheduled at very short notice, and noble Lords having to be physically in the Chamber to comment on those issues. We ought to have a debate, and I hope my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal will give us time for one, on what we think the role of the Lord Speaker should be. The last Lord Speaker, my noble friend Lord Fowler, seemed to attract additional work with Velcro hands. That has left us with a difficulty. My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal is the Leader of the House, but in fact she does not have control over the House; the control is by the Commission, which has got things through that we have not been able to investigate. So at the moment, our Leader is rather like an empress with very few clothes, having to account for a House over which she has no control. I hope that there will be time to discuss many of the procedural issues that have been thrown up as a result of this pandemic.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I welcome this debate and the work of the Constitution Committee that lies behind it. I am speaking from my office in rural Cumbria, which is just further away from London than Paris. In my remarks I will focus on remote participation and voting.
First, however, I think that it is a mistake to assume that the hybrid proceedings, which, as so many of your Lordships have said, have been so skilfully arranged by the House’s staff—I pay tribute to them—are a consequence of Covid. Covid has of course played a part, but so has the development of the technology, which until recently did not exist. If the pandemic had happened a few years ago, things would have been very different. I hope, pray and believe that the pandemic will come to an end, but the technology will endure and will get better.
At the risk of oversimplifying, it seems to me that during my period of membership of your Lordships’ House there have been basically two types of Member participation. First, there is full-time, which is Front-Benchers, Officers of the House et cetera; then there is a group of other Members, who are also engaged in outside activities that inform membership and contributions and are set within the framework of the rules relating to declarations and conflicts of interest.
In my own case, I live 300 miles away in northern England, where I work on my own account and play a part in public life that is really quite relevant to what we are doing here in the Chamber. Travelling to London and spending time there involves an enormous amount of wasted time that is dead time away from home. I believe that it is no incentive for those from the further-flung parts of Britain to come to play a full role in the House’s activities if the banks of the Thames are a ball and chain around their ankles. It is a form of London capture. It can, of course, be argued that those like me should, quite simply, retire or take a leave of absence and go away. It might seem a fair point, but it is very “southist”, especially in the days when voices outside London are particularly important.
Obviously, Parliaments cannot work exclusively remotely. Human interaction is extremely important, as numerous noble Lords, following the lead of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, have repeatedly pointed out. It is important and central to political discourse and parliamentary activity that people interact with each other. Whatever is done in the future, there has to be at least some real human contact and involvement between Members—all of them—as part of the whole.
However, what I believe is needed—I am the first to concede that I do not have the answers—is some way to marry two apparently conflicting aspects. For what it is worth, as well as thinking about the use of technology, we ought to think about procedures, timetables and the whole way we work. It is legitimate to think about how changes in technology might affect the way we do our business, which, after all, has been continuously evolving since the Middle Ages. We are now in the 21st century; technology has transformed everything else in life today and it would be rather odd if it did not have the same potential in this context.
I suspect that the implications of some of the points I have touched on may be thought quite radical—possibly far too radical for some—but when we are trying to reduce a London-centric bias in the way this country is organised, I do not think that an excessive metropolitan bias in the character of its Parliament is necessary or, nowadays, desirable, not least when novel approaches for dealing with it are becoming ever more possible day by day. While the purpose of and rationale for Parliament is unchanging, the way we do it can and should change if appropriate.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Non-Afl)
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I thought long and hard about participating in this debate. I have been here for only five minutes. There is a weight of experience all around me that I am conscious of. I am one of those new Peers mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cormack in his introduction. I have known nothing except empty Benches, taped-off entrances and sterile corridors. None the less, I have been in politics for long enough to be aware of one iron rule: whenever anything is proposed, the opponents are very vocal and the supporters tend to sit back and take it for granted.
So I wanted to come here to lend my enthusiastic support to my noble friend Lord Howe and a number of my noble friends who spoke previously: my noble friends Lord Farmer, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, Lord Howard of Rising, Lord Dobbs, Lord Trenchard and Lord Taylor of Holbeach, and others. I agree with everything they said, but the intervention on which I really want to focus came from the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, who quoted the Writ of Summons all of us receive when we are called here. Some of your Lordships have been around for a while and might have become a bit blasé, but I, being new, was terrifically excited to get a Writ of Summons from my sovereign, demanding my presence at this Parliament to be holden here in “our city of Westminster”. It is worth just for a second dwelling on the words that she used:
“We strictly enjoining Command you upon the faith and allegiance by which you are bound to Us that … waiving all excuses, you be at the said day and place personally present”.
Parliament has a peculiar centrality in the annals of this country. The biggest events in our history were experienced as parliamentary moments: the Reformation; the arrest of the five Members and the civil war; the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights; the rise of Churchill and the formation of the wartime coalition; the entry into and then the withdrawal from the European Union. Take Parliament out of the equation and our national story becomes meaningless. That is why we must reverse changes brought in on a contingent basis to deal with a specific emergency when that emergency passes. Our meeting again here physically will be the supreme sign that the nightmare has passed, that the sun is in the sky again and that our national story can resume its course.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Non-Afl)
The noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst.
Lord Haselhurst (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the report from the Select Committee on the Constitution about Covid-19 and Parliament. It presents us with a very balanced summary, offering a clear exposition of the questions we face. I believe that time is needed to give them the fullest consideration.
With all respect to my noble friend Lord Cormack, I suggest that 21 June is too soon a target date to reach conclusions on the very many serious matters raised in the course of this debate. He and I are of similar parliamentary antiquity and I know share a deep attachment to this institution. We know that, whatever technical advances our staff almost miraculously have achieved for us, the essential purpose of a Parliament is missing at the moment: the gathering together of Members to listen, discuss and ultimately advise. The same point was made by my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lord Taylor of Holbeach, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
I prefer a step-by-step approach. We cannot say with total assurance that we know all that we need to about the Covid-19 virus. We are getting some quite serious figures; another spike has been revealed within the last few minutes. I believe that some 15,000 people have passes to access the parliamentary estate. As my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach said, many of them might not have been reached by the office’s offer of a vaccine by 21 June. We ought, therefore, to face the reality that there is no iron curtain between our House and the other place. There is a constant flow of people between the two Houses of Parliament, at many levels and for many purposes. There are several parts of the Palace where it is physically impossible to have effective social distancing. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hain, was the first to point that out.
Is the new normal for which we strive to be just like the old normal in every respect? I think and hope not. Should we not allow staff the option of part-time home-working in future? Must we require all visitors to the Estate to be tested, let alone vaccinated? Should we repel the new technology in all respects? We have had one or two poignant speeches pointing out that it has been a great help in facilitating some of our Members to participate fully in our deliberations. Dare I suggest that, as we move forward, we should be governed by data, not dates? Safety must surely remain at the forefront of our minds in all the decisions which we now must take.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, earlier in the debate it was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, that we are all on a spectrum of some sort. Nobody has quite said that we should go back overnight to exactly the way Parliament was before March 2020, although the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, came close to it. Nobody has entirely said that we should be wholly hybrid and, as far as possible, not be present in person in your Lordships’ House. I fall quite a long way along the spectrum towards the speech and Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. In an ideal world, we should all be back in person on 21 June, without social distancing and without hybridity; this is my personal view. It is noticeable that the Whips on the Liberal Democrat side decided to put me in a graveyard slot this afternoon. Presumably, they thought that I would say something dangerous and controversial.
However much I should like to say that we must get back to being here in person, it is also important to bear in mind that some Members are not able to do so at present, as my noble friend Lady Brinton pointed out. This does not mean that they are not working, nor that they have no value. It does not mean that they should take leave of absence. We need to find a mechanism that allows those Members who physically cannot be here at present to participate, but this must be the exception. Those of us for whom it is simply more comfortable and convenient to stay at, and work from, home need to stop and think again about the purpose of this Chamber.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out that form followed function in the hybrid proceedings. That was all very well but, at various times, it has felt as if the broadcasters have been in control. We have been told that things cannot happen because it does not suit or is not possible for the broadcasters. We should not make rules that are for the convenience of us as Members. We should make rules that are for the good governance of this country, to enable Parliament to do its duty and for us all to hold the Government to account and scrutinise.
Like many noble Lords, I do not feel that this Chamber has been able to do its job adequately during the last year. The staff and Members have all done a great job, as have the Zoom people who emailed to remind me what a great job they have been doing. That flexibility has been important but to hold Ministers to account, we need to be able to see and make eye contact with them across the Chamber. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has just looked up at me; had I been speaking remotely, I would have had no idea if he had looked up or not.
To do our jobs, it is crucial that we are able to interact and we cannot do this effectively via a Zoom screen. We should move back to in-person meetings of the Chamber as soon as possible, with the caveat that those who are unable to attend will have some sort of mechanism to enable them to participate, but this should be the exception. The noble Lords, Lord Kakkar and Lord Hannan, pointed out that the Writ of Summons requires us to be here. It was noticeable that Her Majesty the Queen was herself here present last week. If she, at 95, can be here, so can we—and we should be.
My call would be that this House needs to take back control. We should not let the Procedure Committee decide on interventions. We should be able to decide when we intervene on Ministers or in debate. We need to return to ensuring that we are scrutinising and doing our duty. In doing so, I hope we can ensure that the Government do their job effectively as well.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McFall, on his election as Lord Speaker. I hope the House noted that when it was announced, he stated that one of his aims was that the Lords should be taken to the people so that they might better understand what we do, to try to meet some of the criticisms of us which have been made of late.
Secondly, I congratulate the chief clerk, Simon Burton, on his appointment, and his staff on their amazing response and the steps they have taken to ensure that we have continued to do business—perhaps not as well as before, but it has improved as it has gone along. If we continued with the technology, it would get even better. We could facilitate interventions tomorrow if we wished, by simply appointing a chair who intervened and called speakers. We could decide this ourselves.
Thirdly, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, on his thoughtful article he wrote for this week’s House magazine. His was a gentle move to retain much of what we have and try to build on it. Similarly, we had a wise contribution from my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth. As the previous speaker said, he talked about the spectrum on which we might all fall.
Fourthly, I thank our good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who set up the user group to which the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, referred earlier. It has been very helpful for those of us who have maintained a continuing interest in how this might develop.
I was rather disappointed with the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I agreed with much of it but there was little reflection on the lessons which we should have learned from Covid. It may still be around and we may have even bigger problems facing us in future, with climate change. There was little recognition of the way in which the public out there perceive us as a House. His colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, recounted at great length the different ways in which we are seen and how we need to change.
The truth is that this House has been in decline since the referendum in 2016. While we might have the intelligence, experience, wisdom and stability that we so frequently show, we are increasingly seen as unrepresentative and out of touch with the flow of mainstream society and the changes taking place around us. My party is very much in the same position. We might all benefit from looking at the article written by the previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, on this topic; he was writing about the Labour Party, but it could equally be applied to the House of Lords.
We have had some brilliant speeches today from people we love who come from Scotland but, with respect, no view is being expressed about what a majority—or near majority—in Scotland feel about the way forward and there are no representatives from the SNP. As for Northern Ireland, we have little representation from Catholics and little talk about those pressing for the unity of the whole of Ireland. To be a representative House, we need those people here with us. How many Brexiteers do we have? I hope that the issue of democracy, representation and wider participation will also be on the agenda when we come to review where we have got to.
I suggest to my noble friend the Lord Speaker that, instead of thinking of taking us around the country, he might start thinking of a means whereby we might forge stronger links with people around the country—for example, by creating a citizens’ assembly or jury, or whatever you might prefer to call it, and running an experiment. Why not try one in Glasgow or Edinburgh, to see how we can have a new relationship with people in Scotland and to see how they, the SNP and others might respond to it? We can have Parliament—parley—and we can do it online. We can use the technology that we have for the moment. That might be the biggest contribution that the new Lord Speaker can make towards saving the union, if we ourselves—the Lords—are to take the lead and try something different that involves people over a wider front.
We have the technology, which can be developed, and it would be a crying shame to throw it away and not use it. Yes, we could go back to what we were like before, but we must build on it and extend it. We can have greater democracy linked into this Chamber, which would be all for the better of the House of Lords.
Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]
My Lords, when asked what the House of Lords is for, I explain that we are a diverse group with an amalgam of knowledge, skill, experience, achievement, imagination, altruism and compassion, which can—with the support of our brilliant staff—come together to contribute wise judgment in the analysis and discussion of public policy and legislation.
One of the most ill-conceived changes during the Covid period slipped through with barely 30 minutes of discussion on 3 November last year. It was to make it compulsory for all Peers to attend two-hour Valuing Everyone training. After talking to many colleagues, I believe that it has been a humiliating and expensive failure. To ask the taxpayer to pay over £1,000 for each of us to be subjected to a syllabus more suited to a secondary school is a rip-off. For example, to try to teach a former Foreign Secretary or Cabinet Secretary how to draft an email is a bad joke. The decree that the failure of any Peer to take the course by 1 April this year would be a breach of conduct, with the threat of expulsion from the House of Lords as a penalty for non-compliance, is a presumptuous absurdity, comparable to Prince Harry telling the Americans that their constitution is “bonkers”. The House was brought into public ridicule, and indeed contempt, when it was revealed that the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd—perhaps our most widely revered colleague—was being investigated for not having taken the course. She had in fact been recovering from heart surgery.
My main concern is the composition of the Conduct Committee that produces this nonsense. Our Select Committees are one of the most valuable features of the House—many people have referred to them today. Their reports are highly respected. Thirty of the 31 committees are composed only of Members of Parliament. Committees are brilliantly serviced by our very able clerks and, where necessary, they will employ specialist advisers to provide expertise. The Conduct Committee has nine members, of whom only five are Members of the House; four are outsiders. I understand that the committee advertised for candidates to fill this role of supervising the personal behaviour of your Lordships. I see little that qualifies those four to be advisers in such a role and nothing that justifies their having the great privilege of membership of a Select Committee. I hope that the Commission, or whoever it may be, will review and reverse that innovation. I fear that, along with Covid, the virus of woke has infiltrated Westminster. I call its arrogant intolerance social fascism.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is hard for me to disagree with so many eminent noble Lords here today, but I shall do it, because I think that we have heard an awful lot of nonsense. I, too, resent being in a graveyard slot. I guess that I have the Chief Whip to blame for that, so that is something to pick up with him next time.
When people have been talking about “back to normal”, it is almost as if this House were preserved sometime in the past century and that is “normal”. They have all been judging it on an existence that was appropriate then, but possibly is not anymore. Life is not going to go back to what we call “normal” any time soon and offices and workplaces have accepted that. The outside world knows that people do not necessarily want to spend lots of time in crowded, unhealthy Tube trains; they do not want that long and boring commute to work. That normal may not return. When historians look back, I think that they will see that we skipped about 10 years of technological learning and adaption to get to the point that we are at now. Nowhere is that more apparent than here in your Lordships’ House: we adapted very fast, which is to our credit and that of the team who managed it.
The Minister and others suggested that we are not holding the Government to account in the same way. I would argue that we absolutely are. Because we are winning more votes, they are having to negotiate with the Opposition, which I think is incredibly healthy. Where that has happened on Bills, they are better. Even the Government accept that.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, of whom I am very fond, and others, talked about the lack of spontaneity and cut and thrust. I point out that that sort of rude behaviour benefits men but disadvantages women—not necessarily women like me, because I am prepared to indulge in cut and thrust as well, but many women just are not. Therefore, it is against the interests of women Peers to go ahead with bringing back that sort of spontaneity, which is actually incredible rudeness and aggression. I give notice here that in future I will never give way to an intervention when I am speaking. I will refuse, because I think of it simply as rudeness.
The pile-up of statutory instruments that we heard about is not due to the hybrid House; it is because the Government keep pushing through legislation in a sneaky way. That is why we have those pile-ups. It blurs the difference between legislation and guidance, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, which causes confusion everywhere—among the public and among the police.
In the past, starting times were for the benefit of people who had outside interests and jobs. I would argue that if we are going to take the House seriously, we should start at a reasonable time—10 o’clock in the morning, Tuesday to Thursday—and perhaps finish at a reasonable time, so that some of us can go home and have a life.
I had to scrap my speech today because I disagreed with so many people and did not want to say what I had been planning to say, which was much more emollient. As for the fiction that all Peers should listen to the debate before voting, what about those texts that go round instructing people how to vote? Most Peers do not listen to the debates. I do—I have to make up my own mind—but most do not.
On voting, why do we not register abstentions? The public have a right to know whether we are abstaining, rather than—I fell asleep recently before a vote, so I was not able to get in on it. We should register abstentions.
Personally, I was eager to return to the physical Chamber because I found that my venom did not come down the wires sufficiently. It was much easier for me to be here in the House and say, “Tut” and “Nonsense!” and so on. But I would hate us to throw away elements of the hybrid House, which have been so innovative and inclusive. Parliament should set an example to the country. We talk about how we should set an example: more of our business can be conducted, and conducted well, digitally. It is a very Green policy to encourage or enable people not to have to travel more: not to have to get their cars out of the garage, to fly, or even to get a train. We would not need as many roads and planes if people, not necessarily stayed at home more but could work from home more.
I accept that personal interactions are very useful but I cannot help but feel that, for all that we have lost in being largely remote, we have gained in flexibility so that more Peers can take part. If this unelected House is justified by its depth of experience, surely that is an argument for us to keep these hybrid ways of working.
On the question of voting, times have changed and we have to change as well. For example, when we do decant, if we do not have remote voting and our offices are in Millbank and we have to vote in QE2, I might be able to do that sprint, but many noble Lords will not. We have to make sure that our processes are suitable for every occasion. I feel that the digital tide has turned, and I hope that we do not try to roll back all the progress we have made.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. She made a number of important points, although I would not agree with all of them. A very wide range of views has been expressed in the debate, which is helpful to our deliberations. If we take the opportunity, this extremely valuable debate can improve the way the House works. The crisis of the last 14 months has been particularly well managed and has reflected some outstanding work by staff of the House.
Since March last year, when I last spoke in the Chamber, I have spoken remotely many times. I have been a group Whip, helping to manage the flow of business, and the processes we have followed as Whips to ensure effective working in the Chamber and in Grand Committee should be continued when we return. I have been a member of Select Committees using Zoom and Teams and I have seen many benefits in remote attendance for witnesses. It is a far more effective use of their time, as travel becomes unnecessary.
I therefore hope that the several benefits acknowledged today in virtual working will not be forgotten. It can increase participation and help attendance at briefings, all-party parliamentary groups and meetings with colleagues. However, there are disadvantages, as we have heard. There is a lack of spontaneity and challenge in our daily business. There is an absence of informal discussion across party groups. I agree entirely with several contributors today that many aspects of House business are far better conducted in person, notably the Committee and Report stages of Bills.
However, perhaps I may suggest that when decisions are made about our return, we bear in mind some principles. First, our primary function is to scrutinise legislation effectively and to hold the Government to account. Secondly, as a House, we have a commitment to equal opportunities and to upholding them. That should apply to Members of the House for whom virtual attendance may need to be an option. Thirdly, we should remember our commitment to the environment. We regularly require environmental impact assessments in legislation. Should we not take account of our own environmental footprint and consider it in every aspect of our work, not least in our travel, and assess how we can reduce that footprint? Fourthly, we should ensure that all the improvements we have seen in our systems can remain in place if Members want them to. I am talking about PeerHub, the length of time allowed for Questions, minimising queues for voting and the earlier daily start time, other than on Mondays.
A number of speakers have reminded us that many other organisations are permanently adapting their ways of working. We can do likewise. The key word is “adapt”. We can preserve all that is best about the House and adapt at the same time. That, I hope we will do.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have been lucky enough to serve on two Select Committees, one in the year before April 2020 and one in the year afterwards. Entirely to my surprise, the virtual committee worked better than the physical one. Witnesses could be selected and called without a thought for where they were based. Ministers could be questioned if anything more effectively, their reactions more revealing in close-up than they used to be at the far end of a horseshoe. A Teams chat running in the background allowed supplementary questions to be proposed, refined and allocated by the chair. Peers who had never physically met developed a real esprit de corps; and when we reported in March, we most certainly held the Government to account. So I welcome the Constitution Committee’s recommendation on the future functioning of committees, and I share the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead that a wholly virtual committee works much better than a hybrid one.
How effective have we been as a revising Chamber? Judging from the changes made recently to Bills on subjects as diverse as the internal market, overseas operations and domestic abuse, I would say that we have done pretty well. New ways have been found of making Ministers available to us—credit to them for that—and of making possible the “innumerable interactions” that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, rightly said are required for the work of the House behind the scenes. What we have not found are ways to replicate the more subtle pleasures of human contact; and here, I turn to the future.
I have heard nobody suggest that our debates, as opposed to our committees, should become wholly virtual. The issue here is whether the possibility of virtual participation should remain once the pandemic is over, whenever that might be. The Minister said that this would cost £90,000 a month but when the impact of reduced or nil allowances for those not physically present is factored in, I suspect that the net figure may be rather different. Having heard the compelling speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell of Surbiton and Lady Brinton, I can only say that this facility at that cost, or anything like it, is surely a reasonable adjustment for those experiencing chronic ill health or disability. If the same facility enables, at no materially greater cost, the useful participation of people with current work that is relevant to the business of the House, people with caring responsibilities or people who live a long way from London—points powerfully made by the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and others—then surely that is a good thing.
From what we have heard so far, it seems unlikely that in normal times the numbers choosing to attend virtually will be anything like as large as they are now. For most of us, the Chamber will remain the place to be if you possibly can. So I doubt that the option of virtual participation will much affect the traditional mood of the Chamber, which some have described as spontaneous, save in desirable respects such as, I hope, the end of the open outcry system at Oral Questions.
However, we can weigh up the pros and cons—this is my key point—only by giving ourselves experience of hybrid proceedings in non-pandemic conditions. For that reason, I agree with those who suggest that we give it to the end of the year, and I will oppose the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, if he puts it to a vote—which I rather hope he does not, because it simplifies and rushes a decision which this debate has shown to have many complex components and because I think that, given time, we may well find that something of a consensus develops.
Being awarded a peerage—and I have this in common with the noble Lord, Lord Hannan—was the honour of my life. This has been the year in which I have been able to contribute most intensively to our work, for which I am grateful to our hybrid proceedings and the staff who devised and implemented them. But I love the work of the House, feel a duty to participate in it and will continue to do so to the best of my ability under whatever arrangements this House may decide upon.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
My Lords, on Tuesday 9 February 1988, the House of Commons agreed to set up a Select Committee and an experiment to allow the televising of its proceedings. As a fairly new MP, I voted against it. I have regretted that vote ever since. Many past and present Members of this House participated in the debate, and most voted to support the Motion. Meanwhile, this House had allowed TV cameras to cover its proceedings since 1985—demonstrating even then an independent and progressive approach to reform and innovation, which has been so clearly replicated during the Covid crisis.
Like most other noble Lords, I congratulate all those on our committees and our staff, old and new, on the way they have found new ways to maintain the House’s reputation and function during this difficult time. This House must again make up its own mind about the use of the new technology that has been so effectively deployed during this crisis. It should not and must not be led by our friends in the other place, whose approach to the recent pressures has been sometimes misplaced and even unhelpful in the delivery of their role as the elected Chamber of Parliament.
We have been lucky not only in those who serve us but in the 21st century technology that has been available to us. In 1985, or even 1988, we could not have carried out our functions in the situation we have experienced lately. For technology to be of use it must be applied in ways that enhance the functions to which it is attached, and I believe we have achieved that. I have argued for some time that the proceedings of this House and its committees should be fully available to the public not only on our own TV website but on a designated parliamentary channel. The broadcasting authorities have not yet conceded this. My reasoning is that, as was stated in those 1980s debates on televising parliamentary proceedings, the primary emphasis of our work must be on ensuring that the public can see and hear us, rather than on whether this always serves our internal arrangements.
The use of Zoom and Teams has permitted us to keep faith with the public, and to appear before them in debate with our contributions throughout the crisis. The use of electronic voting has been a great and successful innovation which, when it was rightly enhanced by full explanations of the effect of particular votes, led to more Members knowing more about the subject being voted on that night than sometimes might be the case with physical presence.
A number of international legislatures have been interested in our innovations. I believe that our PeerHub may be copied on a permanent basis elsewhere. The virtual proceedings have reached a level of refinement where I believe any ideas of permanent removal would lose us a most valuable tool. These changes have not diminished the public’s respect for this House, but they have permitted many Peers to continue to participate in our proceedings who could not otherwise be present. If we are to retain these advances, they may need adjustment as normality returns, but I hope that all the hard work and achievements that we have brought forward are not lost.
Covid has forced work practice changes on many people. Leading companies, professions, and infrastructure and care providers in the UK are maintaining useful and positive advances. Working from home for at least a proportion of time is not only respectable but a positive benefit to all those involved.
We are a diverse House, more so than the other place, in age, gender, geography, disabilities and our responsibilities for others. Some Peers live nearby, but many live hundreds of miles away. Over more than a year these Covid restrictions, including specific and strong requests to stay away, have forced many Peers to give up their London accommodation or ongoing arrangements with hotels. To re-establish such arrangements would be expensive and complicated for some. Many Peers have invested in the technology needed in their homes, so that they can participate fully in our proceedings. These investments, often from private finance, should not be wasted. Some of the finest speeches in the last year have been from Members’ homes—even if the bookcase backdrops have not always displayed a catholic choice of literature.
I regret that I will not be supporting the Motion of my noble friend Lord Cormack. May I gently remind him of his remarks as an MP, in a debate in 1988 in the other place? He said, inter alia:
“Our constituents have a right to see us through the medium of the day”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/2/1988; col 270.]
Well, the public may not be our constituents in this House but, if the latest means of communication to the public are in our hands, we should be reluctant to give them up altogether.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
On 26 January last year, I was surprisingly granted a PNQ to ask the Government about their plans for dealing with a virus that was spreading in China. I did not know at that stage that we would have a pandemic still raging in our country today, with the new variants. I have not been in the Chamber since 11 March last year and I yearn to get back. Physical presence, with all the procedures and business that we run in the Chamber, has a different atmosphere and the ability to scrutinise the Government and hold them to account.
Before I say more, I thank, most enormously, all the staff, both in the offices and the digital services, who have helped establish our ability to work virtually and in hybrid. I was chosen to be one of the early adopters, so I was a sort of guinea pig to test the system. Therefore, I learned a lot at the beginning and I thank enormously the staff who work in digital services, particularly —I would like to name him—Mr Avi Dussaram who, not surprisingly, was awarded an honour in the last Birthday Honours List. He was brilliant at explaining to us early adopters how the system would work and at developing it so that we could use it. So I thank all the staff.
This has already been a long debate and I see that the Chamber is emptier than it was. At this stage, I cannot tell how many might be listening virtually, so I will be brief. First, I will comment on the working of committees virtually. It is obvious that many noble Lords feel that the committees work well virtually and that it is easier to get witnesses. My experience as the chairman of the Science and Technology Committee is not the same; we have always managed to get witnesses and the interaction physically of the committee with witnesses has been more helpful than doing it virtually. When a witness does not agree with the evidence being given by another witness, you can tell from the body language and are then able to ask a supplementary and get better evidence. I agree that it is easier to get witnesses from overseas and, when we return after Whitsun, my committee will be listening to witnesses from the west coast of America, Germany and the United Kingdom at the same time. So I have a slightly different view of how the committees work, but I accept that the House will have to decide. It may be that a flexible way of working that the committees design will be better.
The list for Questions, and I have taken part in many Questions, does work, except when the Minister gives a 30-second answer to avoid a question being asked. They do that many times. There are times when numbers nine and 10 on the list miss out, and the Leader of the House may well remember when I had to ask a question in 10 seconds, otherwise number 10 would have missed out.
I will comment on the workings of a Grand Committee in which I took part. It worked better due to the Ministers —the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe—having several meetings outside the Committee at the time. As a result, not many votes were called on Report. Otherwise, it is very difficult to hold government to account in the way we used to in Grand Committees and at the Committee stage of Bills.
In conclusion, the digital voting system works and I hope we can retain it in some form, but it will have to be for people who are present on the estate. For Questions, having listed questioners works, and I hope we will keep this form.
Lastly, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Cormack—I agree with what he had to say—will not call a vote. Today is a day for discussion and getting opinions, but I agree with him that it should be the House that makes the final decision.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, has withdrawn from the list, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys.
Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too put on record my thanks to our parliamentary information technology and broadcasting teams for the extraordinary amount of work that has gone into enabling this House to operate remote voting, virtual participation and hybrid proceedings. As one of my party’s Whips, I also thank the Government Whips and the clerks for the information provided to us via Chamber Chat and Grand Committee Chat. Both have enabled us to keep our Members informed with updates during debates and have been a vital and useful point of contact. I hope a similar way of communicating with all duty Whips can be taken forward once the Covid restrictions have been lifted.
I know that for many Members of your Lordships’ House, this way of working has been at times an unfamiliar and uncomfortable experience. Many obviously feel the need to get back to the way we used to do things, but for many others the hybrid working has been the great equaliser. Throughout the pandemic, those of us in the most vulnerable categories, those with disabilities and those with caring responsibilities have been able to continue with our duties, make speeches, contribute to legislation, take part in debates and vote remotely. In short, we have been able to contribute as fully as possible to the working of this House.
It has often been said that this House is too London-centric. Returning to the way we used to do things has the potential to discriminate against those from outside London who have caring responsibilities or other concerns. Let me examine a couple of practical scenarios. Caring for someone is almost always fraught with difficulties, both emotional and physical, but the most difficult of emotions is that of guilt as we try to balance the demands of work and caring. I know it is felt equally by those in and outside London. For London-based Peers it is possible to arrange cover for a few hours during the day, but for those such as me who live at least four hours away from London and are faced with the prospect of caring responsibilities in the future—which I never expected to have—the situation will be far more difficult if there is no longer a hybrid Parliament.
If we were to dispense with the hybrid House, we would also need to give consideration to those, like me, who house-share in London. I am likely to be sharing with three others in June or July, and I share their concerns over the rules on household mixing. If four households mixing contravened the rules at the time, how would my desire to contribute to debates be accommodated without the hybrid Parliament?
With the permission of my noble friend Lady Pinnock, I cite her concerns. She lives in an area of consistently high incidence of Covid-19 that is now undergoing surge testing for the Indian variant. If she were to be told that movement out of her area was prohibited at some point, how would she and others in a similar situation fulfil their responsibilities to this House if hybrid proceedings were terminated?
Earlier this month the Senedd passed the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021, which governs the new permanent arrangements for the holding of local authority meetings in Wales. In effect, the Act retains the minimum standards for meetings established under regulations last year at the height of the pandemic. It requires that participants—that is, council members and members of the public and press—are able to join meetings remotely, even if physical meetings are the preferred mode. Councils in Wales are not allowed to resolve that all meetings will be held entirely physically. This ensures that no one is discriminated against because of their circumstances. Their health, distance from the meeting, responsibilities and—dare I say?—age do not bar them from participating in carrying out their democratic duties.
In my case, I now have the flexibility of attending my town council meetings and chairing its planning committee meetings; I refer Members to my register of interests. I can do that from London or anywhere else in the country. It is a flexibility that this House should surely be able to afford its Members too.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, there are so many great and wonderful things about this House that it is hard to identify the changes that have taken place in the last year and their effects. It is a fundamental feature of an engineering project that you should make only one change at a time because otherwise you cannot tell which change caused which effect. We have been forced by this evil virus to change hundreds of things about this great House at the same time. We have expressed our thanks to all those people who have put so much work into achieving those changes, but it is important that when we go back we revert to the last working model rather than developing a brand new type of less than perfect hybrid.
The House has lost many of the great things that make working here such a privilege. Speeches have become assertions rather than arguments. There is no “mood of the House”. There is virtually no gossip, and it seems to me that friendships across the Chamber have become more fragile. We are being watched the whole time by the public whom we serve, as before, but having absolutely none of them present makes all of them more remote. I advocate that we return to the previous way of working in this House of Lords as fast as we reasonably can. We should change back to a self-regulating House from one that follows orders from Public Health England and is then unable to explain or debate those orders.
I feel that there are certain people in the country who have quite enjoyed the lockdown, or perhaps they would say that they disliked it less. We must be careful not to give them the excuse to stay at home if we want the economy to grow and thrive. Certainly, let us learn whatever lessons are available from this extremely expensive virus, but the only way for us to pay off our vast loans is for us to work as hard as possible in our everyday lives.
The country is emerging, perhaps blinking, from these Covid rules, and we should lead it out. The Government have achieved wonderful things, in that there is still an economy to emerge. Some great companies have been forced to close, and we should not forget that it is often the cash-flow stresses of recovery, not shutdown, that cause enterprises to fail. Certainly, we should watch the other place carefully, as I believe that it is hard for us to justify restrictions that have been released there. It is only when Peers are paid to be present here, not paid for work outside, however worthy, that we can approach normality.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Both the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, have withdrawn so I call the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I unstintingly join in the thanks that this House has given to the staff who have looked after us so well during this pandemic, producing a system that has enabled us to continue in business to great effect.
This debate is an interesting and involving demonstration of how successful a hybrid House can be. To my noble friend Lord Borwick, I say, “Yes, change is best made gradually, but sometimes you need a crisis.” Transitioning a black taxi from a petrol to an electric engine is a substantial change, bringing a lot of other changes in its wake. Sometimes, you need to make that sort of change, and a crisis gives you the opportunity to do so because it forces you to change a lot. The right test that we should apply to all the changes that we are looking at is that advocated by my noble friend Lord Norton: does this make us better at our job?
My feeling about Committee stages of Bills is that it does not work. When we get the chance to come in for Committee, most of us will come in because it works much better if you have large-scale public personal interaction. However, I cannot see the problem with some minimal hybrid participation; I do not follow my noble friend Lord Howe down that path. It may be that some future technology will enable a truly hybrid Committee to work, but, for the rest, I find myself alongside the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and others in thinking that many people who ought to be part of this House have real lives and careers, have caring responsibilities and live long distances away from London. We need those people to be part of this House.
To answer my noble friend Lord Dobbs, the public perception of this House should not be of capital-bound has-beens; we want people who are living in the world and learning from it as well as those with accumulated experience. All of us owe it to this country to do our bit for climate change, which means not requiring travelling when we can avoid it. Travel is one of the really big generators of unnecessary carbon dioxide.
I turn to some of the issues that have been covered. I also like lists for Questions, but I think that it might be an idea to add a golden ticket so that, once or twice a year, Peers can say, “This is my subject—I do not want to miss out.” There has been a suggestion that the hybrid House has reduced access to Ministers. There never was much: you had to hang around in the hope of catching them at the back end of a voting Lobby. If access to Ministers in an informal way is really an important part of what we do, we should take steps to make that true.
Others have said that they object to prepared speeches being read out, one after another. That was true before Covid: the House had been heading in that direction for a long time. If that is something that we care about, that is change that we need to make; we need to do something to reverse that.
My noble friend Lord Howe said that, with remote voting, Ministers do not get a “fair hearing”. As others have said, that was the same before as well: there has been a lot of voting in accordance with Whips’ wishes. Very rarely have we all sat down to listen to what the Minister and the proposer are saying before we vote; most of us make our minds up beforehand.
If we want to change that, we need to change our old ways—we should be holding the Government to account—but how useful were the old ways? I remember a Starred Question in 1992, when the House was still full of World War II warriors, asking:
“What preparations are being made to commemorate the battle of El Alamein”—[Official Report, 11/5/1992; col. 142.]
on its 50th anniversary. The reply was that there were none:
“It falls to the Germans to lead this year’s ceremonies.”—[Official Report, 11/5/1992; col. 144.]
That was a point when you could feel the mood of the House; when has that happened since?
We need to do a lot of thinking about how we can do better, and we should not just turn back to the old ways because they were comfortable.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this vital debate. We are having it at a time when many companies are giving their workers greater flexibility in terms of working from home or other location. It seems that remote working and meetings are now the future. This House cannot call itself progressive if it continues to hark back to the old, archaic ways of operating, which disabled many from discharging their public duty.
A number of noble Lords today have referred to the pre-Covid era and claimed that a physical Parliament was better able to hold the Government to account. Was there really ever such a golden age? In September 2019, the Government prorogued Parliament. Was the House able to hold them to account? Was that better than what might have been done if the House was meeting in a hybrid form? There probably never was a golden age when Ministers always answered the questions actually asked. Holding Governments to account is a vital matter, and failures are connected more to ethics and morality of Ministers and weaknesses in constitution than to the mode of this House’s sitting per se.
The hybrid arrangements give Members flexibility. Those who wish physically to attend can do so; those who are unable to be physically present can still participate in debates. They can network and make informal contacts with others physically and/or virtually, as I have done. Reducing the need to travel from far-flung parts of the country also cuts Parliament’s carbon footprint.
Since joining this House, I have participated in Oral Questions, Private Notice Questions, short debates, debates on statutory instruments and Committee and Report stages of Bills. My observation is that hybrid proceedings have enabled more noble Lords to speak and provide a diversity of views. That is surely a positive thing.
Some noble Lords have assumed that, just because Members are not present in the House, maybe they are just skiving or loitering around, but of course that does not mean that they are not carrying out their public duties. Unlike the Front-Benchers, we Back-Benchers do not really have any staff support. We have to carry out our own research in order to intervene and speak, and that keeps us busy. Many of us have online meetings with a variety of stakeholders who have an interest in matters being discussed in the House. Insistence on physical presence would severely reduce that interaction, impoverish debates and alienate stakeholders.
I like the advance notice of Questions and listing of speakers. This is far better than just hoping to catch the Lord Speaker’s eye in a crowded House. In any case, the physical space of the House is such that it can accommodate only a limited number of Members. Those unable to find a good seat, or any seat, will never be able to catch the Lord Speaker’s eye and therefore probably not get many opportunities to make a contribution. The remote submission of Questions and remote voting are far better than wasting time in long queues and should be retained.
Some earlier speakers gave the impression that the pandemic, or the worst of it, may soon be over. I would urge caution. New variants are constantly emerging, and the virus will continue to mutate for some time, just like the flu virus continues to mutate. Yesterday, the Health Secretary urged the public to take part in trials to find out whether a third dose of Covid vaccine could protect against new variants. Many experts think that large sections of the population will need an annual booster jab. This is likely particularly for senior and vulnerable citizens, and this House has more than a fair share of that part of our society. Insistence on returning to the pre-Covid arrangements will expose many Members to avoidable risks, especially as they will need to travel on crowded trains and buses. I urge the House to consider all aspects of the debate today.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this important opportunity to reflect on the lessons of the extraordinary experience of the last 14 months. I sympathise with the sentiment of the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Cormack. Like other noble Lords, though, I do wonder whether the House’s normal working practices, in the broadest sense, enable it to be as effective as it could be. Do they protect it from its many critics, or do they simply brush under the carpet an aspect of your Lordships’ House which I fear could yet prove to be its undoing?
Others have made a strong case for reasonable adjustments to be made on grounds of disability. I make an additional suggestion. While some may argue that your Lordships’ House’s Achilles heel is its size, I suggest, as others have in this debate, that it is not so much the number of noble Lords that concerns the public, but the perception that its membership is unrepresentative. I should make it clear that I infer no criticism of any individual Member, but when we talk about remote proceedings as a technical term, I fear that, as far as the public are concerned, we are remote because we are seen as unrepresentative of those on whose behalf we make the law.
I therefore suggest that we urgently look at how your Lordships’ House can become more representative and supportive of its disabled Members, particularly in one specific respect. Each maiden speech is unique and personal, yet every one of us begins our journey in this House with an expression of gratitude and a sense of how privileged we feel to be Members of it, as my noble friend Lady Seccombe reminded us. Sadly, my experience of the last 14 months has taught me that we are also a House of privilege, where it is the presumption that each noble Lord will have independent means, in that they will not have to rely on the Lords’ attendance allowance, and that they will not have a disability which makes them, on occasion and sometimes without warning, unable to attend your Lordships’ House and therefore claim the attendance allowance. In my own case, I gave up a well-paid career in public affairs to serve in your Lordships’ House. Quite rightly, a conflict of interest prevents me from continuing that career.
I also have a disability, which in my case means that I could have a fracture later today and be unable to attend your Lordships’ House for perhaps several months. In the meantime, I would have nothing with which to pay my mortgage or my bills—in short, to live on. The fact is that some of us could not be here, could not contribute, without the attendance allowance, yet the House of Lords Commission’s decision in the first lockdown, about which I have spoken in the past, took no account of either a Member’s means or whether they had a disability. Instead, I regret to say that the message was, “I’m all right, Jack; all noble Lords are rich and non-disabled, and we do not need the money.” I am afraid that it does not take a genius to realise that, while that may have been acceptable in 1821, it is not a good look in 2021.
In conclusion, if we want this amazing institution to survive and flourish, as I do, we need urgently to look at ways to strengthen it. A key lesson of the last 14 months is that the current attendance allowance system is not fit for purpose. Until it is reformed, whatever our proceedings, your Lordships’ House will remain remote and therefore vulnerable to those who will call for its abolition.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, in her very fine introduction from the Opposition Front Bench, mentioned efficiency, effectiveness and the duty to participate. During lockdown, I have been working from home and have worked very hard. I usually get to my desk at 8.30 or 9 am, and I am rarely away from it until the evening. I have to keep in contact with a number of people in the transport industries in order that I can contribute properly to the work of the House and be up to date, so that when questions are asked about, for example, hydrogen buses or where on the railway we should electrify next, I have satisfactory and good answers. Those are not the sort of things you can make up on the hoof.
People talk about not “catching the Minister’s eye”. If the Ministers I deal with do not answer my questions, I immediately email them, and I do so continuously until I get an answer to the question. It is too feeble to say that you cannot get an answer: you get an answer if you try.
I have listened to debates about diversity and people who are disabled in some way. I have an issue, in that my wife is disabled and therefore it is more difficult to leave home. Remote voting is actually a godsend to me because it enables me to carry out caring duties. I welcome the better arrangements at Question Time: the ballot system is much better than the old queuing-up system, whereby you had to get there early and sit in a queue. The early starts are a bonus because most people can be ready to start at midday. I pay particular tribute not just to the efforts of staff but to their sheer professionalism and courtesy. I am not very good at modern technology and I am probably slow to learn, but I find they are always very helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was absolutely right to say that we should resist the pressure to give up virtual technology. We should be trying to make the best of it and to make it work properly. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who said the same thing: that this is too valuable a tool just to throw away. We should be continuously making it better, because I rather agree with those who say that this pandemic is more than likely to return. Also, when, for one reason or another, we move out of the present premises, remote working will prove to be a great asset. So, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, will not put his Motion to a vote but that a lot of time will be spent on reflection and making the system better.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, I add my voice to the choir lauding the achievements of the House in turning our procedures first virtual and then hybrid in such challenging circumstances. I thank all the staff and contractors who contributed, particularly the tireless broadcast team and the procedural gurus directing them. In 15 months, I have had barely a glitch. My thanks go also to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the IT user group that he has championed. It has been an incredibly helpful forum for providing real-time feedback to the digital team and is one that I recommended to my own employer.
I also applaud your Lordships’ own achievements. As we have heard, many were unfamiliar with digital conferencing before last March. The speed and enthusiasm with which we have adapted belies this House’s popular reputation. I disagree with those who suggest that we are backward-looking and am proud that we have embraced change with more enthusiasm than the other place.
Many have spoken of the importance of parley in Parliament, of speaking and listening to each other across the Chamber. I agree that nothing can match the cut, thrust and spontaneity of real-time, live debate but if the voices speaking are not truly diverse and representative of the views of the nation we serve, we are not doing our duty. Requiring presence in the Chamber as a precondition of being heard limits the breadth of debate. Those with young families, those with day jobs, those with sick relatives and those who live and work in the further-flung regions of the British Isles—or even overseas at times—were discriminated against by the status quo ante. I note my interest in all those categories, speaking as I am from a garage in California.
As a champion of Devon, I am particularly keen that regional voices be heard. The south-east and those able easily to access Westminster are overrepresented in live debates and we need to do all we can to ensure a broader representation from across the United Kingdom, particularly at this time of such strain on our union. Holding a seat first gained by attending the King in Shrewsbury before St Stephen’s Chapel was even built, I am well aware that our practices and procedures can move with the times. We must not be precious about tradition. Just as our nation’s administration centralised to Westminster some 700 years ago, so we should use the technological advances engendered by this pandemic to move Parliament back to the regions and those we serve. Remote participation is key to that.
I agree that pure legislative scrutiny should take place in person. The Agriculture Bill was hard work without the ability to see the whites of the Ministers’ eyes and the sweat on their brows; I look forward to long hours on the Environment Bill in person. However, remote participation for set-piece debates, such as this and those on the gracious Speech, seems entirely appropriate, particularly if limits keep speeches short and to the point.
PeerHub is excellent. Remote voting must remain and Select Committees are perfectly suited to a hybrid structure, allowing witnesses to attend from far and wide. A properly hybrid House would also make the cost of decamp for restoration and renewal considerably less and for that reason alone should be seriously considered.
Finally, in this year of the environment, we need to consider our impact on the climate, a matter on which surprisingly little has been said, save the notable words of the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Lucas. The Constitution Committee report makes no mention of the environment, our carbon footprint or the pollution caused by our attendance. It makes only oblique references to hot air. It strikes me as a mistake to make any decision on our future without fully understanding the environmental impact of the various options. I am sure that it is relatively easy to calculate the carbon footprint of an in-person versus a hybrid House and ask that we are provided with that information promptly and before any final decision is taken.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, on 16 November the Leader of the House of Commons announced in response to an Urgent Question that the Government
“should seek to do more to support additional virtual participation in the Commons Chamber.”
He said that the Government
“should work with the House authorities to find a solution”—[Official Report, Commons, 16/11/20; col. 24.]
to the issues. He announced that he planned to bring a Motion before the House to facilitate additional virtual participation. According to the Procedure Committee:
“Virtual participation in House proceedings, as a means to facilitate participation despite the restrictions imposed by the pandemic, was first authorised by the House on 21 April this year, when it passed a resolution providing for parity of treatment between physical and virtual participation and made a temporary order applying these ‘hybrid’ arrangements to scrutiny proceedings (oral questions, urgent questions and Ministerial statements). The following day the House made a further temporary order applying the arrangements to proceedings on motions and legislation.”
While these resolutions were being made in the Commons, the House of Lords also resolved to be the same, and it has to be used until mid-2021. Having listened to the previous speakers, I have to say that virtual debate and voting should continue to enable those Peers who have physical disabilities to continue to speak and work online.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, last night was the first time I have been back in this House for well over a year. I said that I thought the huge help we have had, particularly from the IT group, was special. I learned two things, which I have not forgotten: first, unmute; and, secondly, remember that it is much more dangerous to leave yourself unmuted. I took that to heart. I support the address made by my noble friend Lord Howe, which he gave in his usual inimitable style.
This House, which I have had the honour to be in for some 31 years, is to serve the people. In practice, one of the main jobs we are going to have when the pandemic is over is for the whole of Parliament to regain the trust of our people. We must regain that trust. This House, as I said last night, is a wonderful “huge reservoir”, both of experience outside the House and parliamentary experience, and most of all—something that we acquire with age, one hopes—judgment.
I think we should remember, and it has not been commented on, that one of the key factors for the future is to make sure that we get to know and help the young Members in the other place, because on many occasions they have no idea what this place is about. I was at an APPG the other day for defence and there was a young MP sat next to me. He said to me, “You know, until I became an MP, I’d never seen the Houses of Parliament.” He had never been here, ever. He said, “Since I’ve been here I’ve never been to see the House of Lords and I wonder whether you might care, when you can, to show me and tell me what it’s all about.” I said to him, “After 30-odd years I still get lost on that front.”
I was on to Washington just before, about 1 pm, speaking to an old friend of mine who used to be the senior partner in one of the biggest law firms. When I asked what happens in the Senate, he said that there was a move at one stage for using the hybrid system, but they very rapidly squashed it. In no way whatsoever can anybody vote in the Senate without being there personally. It does not matter about illness, disability or otherwise. He said that his son-in-law is a member of the Senate and his family interests are in Anchorage, but he still makes certain that he is at the Senate in person.
I would also like to say that, when I came into this House, one of the things you were taught was—in a sense—that you can be as rude as you want, but you must be polite. I beg of those who will be in charge in the time to come that we must get back to a form of politeness, which I think we all respect.
I finish by saying that I give my total support to my noble friend Lord Cormack, and that when it comes to using new technology, the world has been doing that for years.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, that the House was able to continue doing its work almost from the start of the pandemic is nothing short of miraculous and is a real tribute to the commitment of a lot of people, including Members, who found themselves having to get comfortable—or at least able—to operate in a way that they would never have dreamt.
As a member of the sponsor body for restoration and renewal, I am well aware of the parlous state of the building and the possibility of some sort of catastrophic failure. If there is a silver lining from the last year, it is that at least we can feel that the Houses could keep going should the worst happen. As the Constitution Committee reported, there is potentially a link between restoration and renewal and new ways of working. The sponsor body is well aware of that, but I assure noble Lords that it believes that these are matters for both Houses, and it is certainly not for the sponsor body to tell the Houses how they should carry out their business.
But we have been genuinely innovative, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, set that out very well. We need to think carefully before we go straight back to the old ways of working because, first, the pandemic is not over, as the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, set out. The Indian variant shows that we are not out of the woods, so we need to take the time to make sure that we and our staff are kept safe.
It strikes me that many of the downsides which noble Lords have reported today and previously are down to the pandemic and not hybrid working per se. It is about the distancing and all the paraphernalia that comes with that. We need mentally to try to sort some of that out, because it is very difficult from this perspective to judge what hybrid working might look like if we were in a House that was operating more normally.
I hope that, for both those reasons, the House will decide soon to remain hybrid until well into the autumn. That would give time for the whole population to be vaccinated and for us to be assured that there was not to be a further wave. Crucially, it could offer a period where Members could make a genuine choice about whether to come in or to work from home. I think many people will come in; a lot of us miss the place. It would give us a chance to feel what hybrid working would look like in a more normal environment, so we could use it as a transitional period. We could choose certain functions, such as legislation, which would be done in the Chamber only, while others, such as committees, could be done virtually or hybrid.
For people like me, who have always believed in an elected House, the argument for the Lords as it is currently configured is that it is a House of experts: people are drawn from all walks of life and bring their expertise and professional backgrounds. Yet, once Members are appointed, everything about the way we do our business draws us into becoming full-time parliamentarians. For people outside London and the Home Counties, this is a particular issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, set out. Someone coming from Cornwall or Cumbria for a vote on a Monday and who perhaps has a Question or a committee on a Wednesday will end up spending the whole week in London for a relatively short period of active contribution.
In a system that awards peerages for life, we do need to think very hard about how the expertise that brings the Members to the House can be kept up to date, because it is difficult, if you are in Westminster all the time. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, made that point really well, that like many noble Lords, he is assiduous in building up these relationships outside. That is what keeps him current, but it is very difficult to do if you are tied up in the Lords. This is not just a matter of hybrid or virtual working; it is about a whole raft of procedures and practices we have established for ourselves that somehow mean you can only be a proper parliamentarian if you are based in Westminster.
The last year has given us a chance to think afresh about that—to have a look at whether or not this is the right way to do things. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, was entirely right: every large organisation is now looking at what it does and how it does it to see whether things should be changed. We will get much more respect for taking a step back and looking at that than we will for going straight back to the old ways we have always done things.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I understand the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is no longer online, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Lilley.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the staff and everyone who has made it possible for us to continue to meet, hold Government to account and consider legislation. Whatever the shortcomings of the technology, it is infinitely better than not being able to do anything at all.
But what do we do? What is our function? As a Member of the other place, I used to invite my constituents, street by street, in coach-loads, down to the House and show them around, so that over the years I had literally thousands who came here. Quite frequently, someone would say, “Mr Lilley, wonderful building, but isn’t it just a talking shop and a waste of time?” To which my reply was, “You’re right, it’s a talking shop; you’re wrong it’s a waste of time.” There are only two ways to govern a country. One is for the Government to say, “These are the laws, these are the taxes; obey the laws, pay the taxes. You’ve got no say in the matter and we’ll brook no argument.” The other is the way we have developed in this place over 1,000 years, where no law can be passed, no tax can be imposed, without it first being debated in principle, then line by line, by the elected representatives of the people in that House, which has the ultimate say through its vote, and in this House, where a wider range of expertise can be brought to bear.
In this House, the importance of words and debate is even greater than down there, because our only power, ultimately, is to persuade or to send legislation back down to the other end and ask them to think again so we prolong the debate and have further discussion and debate here. Over the years, we have developed ways of doing that which have been thought effective. But we have, as the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, said, now carried out a controlled experiment of operating in a different fashion, and we have to consider what the results of that experiment are.
Two things have struck me. The first is that debate via Zoom is far less effective than debate in person. I am not against the use of modern technology; I think I was the first Secretary of State who insisted on using Zoom—well, some primitive system of video conferencing —to talk with my officials in further-flung parts of the United Kingdom. It is good for many things. It is good for presentations; it is quite good for simple questions and answers; it is not much use for interrogation. We have seen that reading speeches to the screen is a travesty. Interventions are almost impossible, which makes holding Ministers to account far more difficult. The palpable sense of the mood of the House cannot be expressed if people are dispersed in their drawing rooms or driving their cars or whatever while considering what is going on. We cannot let a hybrid House become the norm in future.
The second thing I learnt is that it is not just words in the Chamber that are important. I have missed, almost equally, words about the place. I decided that, from 1 September, I was going to come back here every day that I could—a decision reinforced by the fact that the builders working in the basement below me were making so much noise that I had to come in. However, I have found that the words I used to be able to exchange with someone next to me on the Benches are impossible to exchange when we are sitting two metres apart. The words in the Corridor, on the way to, or in, the voting Lobbies, not least in the refreshment establishments in this place, were important. We should not be ashamed of that. Just as armies march on their stomachs, legislatures ruminate over their victuals; that rumination is important.
Another my constituents would ask me was, “Mr Lilley, how do you possibly read all the laws, statutory instruments and Select Committee reports before you take part in debates?” I said, “I don’t, always; I read the ones that I know are of specific interest to me.” But then, as I was having tea in the Tea Room, a drink in the Bishops’ Bar or lunch in the Dining Room, someone would say to me, “Hey, Lilley, you’re very keen on public expenditure. Have you seen that statutory instrument? It could cost a fortune.” Or they would say to someone else, “Look, Baroness, here is something which I think is really damaging to women’s rights. Have you looked at it?” That is the way we harness the research and reading of the whole House to direct our efforts and make it more effective. That is impossible if we are not all here, or here in large numbers, to participate in the debate.
I am sure that there will be positive lessons to be learnt. The question is whether we should try to take decisions about what lessons to learn from a mode of operation which is less effective. Or, should we wait until we are largely all back here and can take decisions effectively, and then decide, from the base of how we used to work before 23 March last year, what changes we should add to it? That is a far better way of doing it and that is why I shall support the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Cormack—even if he does not move it.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the forthright noble Lord, Lord Lilley. I add my thanks to the staff of the House, who made virtual happen. I will speak only about virtual committees this evening, giving a little bit of quantitative analysis, some qualitative analysis and one or two conclusions. For the quantitative analysis, I am grateful to the Committee Office, which has supplied me with a considerable amount of statistics and chatted to me about them.
Attendance for regular committees in the 2017-19 Session was 9.67 Members per meeting. In the virtual world, this has risen to 11.57, an increase of 19.6%. The number of committee meetings has also risen. This is quite difficult to analyse because there were general elections et cetera, but we were agreed that a good way of expressing it was to say that they have risen by about 20%. The number of witnesses who have appeared before committees has risen as well, by about 25%, and the number of reports the committees have prepared for the House has risen commensurately with those numbers. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the committees of the House have been 20% more active in the virtual world.
I turn to some qualitative remarks, speaking as the chair of the European Affairs Committee and having been intimately involved with the many members of the family of European Union committees before. In private meetings, the increase in attendance that I have just referred to was immensely helpful to the quality of the debate. Committees have adapted to a new rhythm and I pay tribute to all Members who have contributed to that, because it is different from holding a conversation face to face. Meetings take longer; it is simply not as efficient to be on a telephone. Things are slower and conversations do not quite flow in the same way. I find that discussions of difficult areas take significantly longer and that has a significant impact on the effectiveness of committees, although I am not aware of any discussion that did not get there in the end, and with the right answer. Agreement of reports is, of course, a subset of this and that too has been significantly impacted and takes quite a lot longer.
Public evidence sessions have been greatly improved by the extent of witness availability. I was much taken by what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, said in his very good speech about being able to take evidence today from witnesses from Sydney and New York at the same time. This is tremendous. However, I think all would feel that the quality of ministerial sessions has gone down. It is simply not possible to put the Minister under the same scrutiny pressure remotely as when he is physically sitting in front of you. It is a less flexible format, and this too can make a difference.
That brings me to my conclusions, the first of which is how very hard the staff of the Committee Office have worked during this period and how they deserve our thanks. The numbers show it: the same number of people have produced 20% more work. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and others said, we must have regard as we open up to the interests of our staff. Many of our staff are sufficiently young; they have had no jabs so far, so there are also health interests for them. We must have regard to them in deciding how we open up for committees. Thirdly, I very much support the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, in saying that the virtual format is a very useful tool for any committee to have. I therefore feel that we must retain this option in the way that it is developed today. Fourthly, just for my part, I say that ministerial evidence sessions should be physical, as should those meetings where committee reports are agreed.
There is a general principle in life that an organisation that does not continuously change and adapt is a dinosaur and will become extinct. For that reason and those I have given about committees, I fear that I cannot support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. But I very much welcome the words at the start of this debate from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, which I thought showed great intention to bring the House back to some semblance of normality, albeit improved and adapted.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the richly evidenced contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for his contribution to it, which has given me something to react against.
I do agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, however, that perspectives on the issues of the functioning of the House may be influenced by our personal experience. To declare mine, I spent about five months in what the noble Lord calls “normal” and have subsequently been a very regular—I know the Government sometimes think too regular—contributor remotely. I admit that I have found it easier than many; I am not quite a digital native, but I did learn to programme in BASIC in 1987. That gives me a particular perspective on the tremendous innovation and patience of all the staff who have transformed this House; I thank them all. This House has done brilliantly in adapting to circumstances, to general acclaim—and to the envy of MPs; we have done considerably better than the other place, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, noted.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, suggested that there was a risk of the continuation of the current arrangements making the House increasingly irrelevant. My conclusion is the opposite. If we continue to vote more efficiently and allow more open participation for Members than the other place, it highlights the fact that this House is, under our undemocratic electoral system, more representative of the views of voters than the other place. My five months of so-called normal is, I believe, sufficient experience to make a critical judgment on the perspective of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, regarding the suggestion that repetition in speeches and reading out contributions that make no reference to what came before them is more common now. I strongly disagree with any suggestion that Ministers more often provided effective answers to questions in 2019 than they do now. Like the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, I do not believe in some past golden age.
My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb has already addressed the issue of equality, particularly for our disabled Members and those with caring responsibilities, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, provided personal testimony. To exclude those Members from contributing to the full as we go back to a “normal” that forces them to experience extraordinary practical difficulties getting into and around the House would be unconscionable. In an age of the expectation of equality, it would be damaging to the reputation of the House, as would be not considering the environmental impacts of our decision, as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said.
It is the same with voting. To insist that Members be in the House is to exclude the views of many—and not just those affected by personal circumstances. Those who seek to maintain the union might like to consider how excluding Members based in nations other than England from exercising their vote appears.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, spoke slightingly of the “ease of contributing remotely”. I call that “efficiency”. I nipped out of this debate for a meeting on animal sentience with the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, joining a Teams meeting in seconds. That might not be great for my step count, but it was a lot more efficient than a forced speed-walk through the winding corridors of Westminster. Of course, that is of considerable importance to our small Green group—the two of us trying to represent the 1.25 million people who have just voted for our party in the local elections alone—but it is surely of great relevance too to the many in your Lordships’ House who combine membership with continuing professional or voluntary activities to, sometimes at least, the benefit of the nation.
There is efficiency too in being able to fully share the work of your Lordships’ House through social media. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham commented that, for many:
“If you’re not on Instagram, you don’t exist.”
That is something that Members of your Lordships’ House might want to contemplate in considering their social media presence and how the rest of the nation views us.
Which brings me to the word “normal”. There was little in the procedures of your Lordships’ House of October 2019 that looked normal to the outside world—and I am not talking just about mink and maces. Standing up and seeing who can shout loudest, muscling out others in Oral Questions, is behaviour that is not regarded as normal in preschool, and is clearly discriminatory. Having opaque procedures controlled by the usual channels meets no definition of a democratic normal. That those usual channels exclude several hundred Members of the Chamber is clearly not normal. The phrase “usual channels” is so normalised as to be part of the furniture but, I suggest that, in thinking about further changes, that furniture should go.
Finally, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, spoke about
“a temporary solution to a temporary problem”.
But we are in an age of shocks. We have had massive pandemic threats once every 10 years over the past few decades and, as many Peers have noted, SARS-CoV-2 is far from under control. We have a climate emergency, a dangerously unstable financial system, and a building in the same condition, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, said.
In the always useful Cross-Bench meeting, our new Clerk of the Parliaments spoke of the need, whatever decisions we arrive at after this debate, to maintain the ability to return in an emergency to arrangements such as those we have now. How much easier it will be to do that if the systems are kept functioning rather than being mothballed. We have to think about resilience in everything that we do in the future, in this House and in this country.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the Deputy Leader and also support the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Cormack: we must get back to normal as soon as possible. I am glad that we were able to continue to operate, after a fashion, during the pandemic, but the various working practices have made us less efficient and effective. And let us be honest: we have become dull, bordering on robotic, at times. I want the vibrancy of our House back.
In general, Ministers have had an easy time of it in the last year, with interventions and challenges being squeezed out by the hybrid working procedures. We need to get back to being a dynamic place, where weak answers are exposed and evasion is punished.
For understandable reasons, when the hybrid working changes were made, we had little or no opportunity to debate them. That is why we must start from where we left off before the pandemic, rather than regard any of the changes that we made in the last year or so as the starting point for our considerations. I am not against changes being made—this House has made many changes to the way in which it works in the 20 or so years that I have been a Member—but each change must be justified on its own merits and set in the context of the role of our House, and not be for the convenience of Members or staff. My firm view is that we should be a physical-only House. Hybrid proceedings have destroyed the ability of the House to self-regulate through demonstrating the mood or will of the House, and that is a great regret.
We have always sought to make possible the active membership of our disabled Members in the way in which we carry out our operations. But those who are ill or otherwise unable to attend for periods of time can take leave of absence, and our retirement arrangements cater for those who cannot or will not, for whatever reason, comply with the Writ of Summons—which, as we have heard, requires our physical presence. There are no good reasons for hybridity in future.
We are in fact very lucky that there has been little media coverage of the fact that some noble Lords have been paid for taking part from exotic locations abroad, or who have voted from their beds. Remote attendance and voting do nothing to enhance the status of our House.
I do not believe that a compelling case has been made for members of committees to take part remotely. Several noble Lords made some important points about the value of physical interactions. While I support a common-sense approach to allowing some witnesses to be Zoomed in, we must insist on Ministers attending in person. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, pointed out, there is nothing to beat looking a ministerial witness in the eye.
On other matters, I hope we will see an end to scripts read out from the Woolsack, including the calling of speakers. We do not need speakers’ lists for Questions and Statements, and all the new rules around Bills and how they are handled—including speakers’ lists and timetabling—should go. Lists for Oral Questions may well have made them more accessible for some, but the price has been a loss of vitality at Question Time.
Lastly, I am completely with my noble friend Lord Trenchard in hoping that the clerks will return to their traditional dress. This is an august House, with centuries of tradition. The pandemic should not be used as an excuse to abandon those traditions permanently.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I have listened to most of this debate, all bar a few speakers, and what has struck me is that most of us think that personal interaction is very important. Most of us are concentrating on what we are saying, but it is what is listened to that is important.
Ministers give out a great deal of information without saying anything. How many times has a noble Lord here realised that they have made a good point as the Minister shrinks slightly into the Front Bench and those around them start to look slightly embarrassed? That is when you know you have a point. There are minor victories, such as the Minister sprinting to the Box for information and then coming back. That always helps if you are sitting down keeping score during a long Committee stage. We must keep this interaction—the sudden realisation that there is a point that matters, and which has some weight behind it.
How we get to that is fairly irrelevant. Do we have Question Time with a list or do we jump up and down? It depends on who you are and what your experience has been. I have been here a long time. I do not know how many supplementary questions I have asked—it may well be in the thousands. But it was the last thing I learned and got comfortable doing. It is not an easy skill. Is it a skill we need? On occasion, I have even provoked a reaction from the Minister, especially if I have been wise enough to gather information to back up my question. Everything is about getting that reaction.
Can the new technology help us? The answer is yes, if we use it correctly and we adapt it. We are taking our first steps in using this virtual world. It has already been reasonably successful for committees, particularly for getting witnesses in. Occasionally we can get too many witnesses in and we do not have enough time to examine them correctly or, more importantly, have the committee discuss what it has heard. We will have to develop how we work with this.
Also, as my noble friend Lady Barker said, we have not made the technology work for us in the way we want to use it. Is that possible? Of course it is. I remind the House of some of my interests in assistive technology: voice-to-text and text-to-voice technology, used in different formats for various disability groups, such as the blind, dyslexics and even the deaf. Most of the technology is fairly similar at heart, whether you turn it round to interpret a written or a verbal input. You can change it around and get better stuff out of it, but we have to learn to use it better. I hope that the House will make sure we take it on and integrate it into what we are doing. If it gets good enough to make a Minister cringe then maybe we can use it, but not until then—not until you can get the idea that you are carrying people with you and making those against you occasionally say, “Yes, there is a real point here”, because that is what we are about. We are trying to make sure that we interact.
Everybody else has said something about voting, so I might as well. The Chief Whip will know that I have an occasionally unsuccessful relationship with technology when I have left my phone on silent and put it down, or something. I apologise, but not with any great sincerity. It is convenient, but we have had more votes that we normally would because we have missed out on what I have just talked about: Ministers are not picking up the vibe and do not know what is going on. We do not have a chance to make a serious change. I am absolutely convinced that we are leading to slightly more formalised conflict because we have a more formalised process that does not have the brakes and the ability to interact outside of it.
There is also the social interaction around voting: the conversations that have already been referred to matter. If anybody tells you that they do not, they probably have not been in a situation where they can use them. Everybody else does. Also, something can happen if you actually speak to somebody who knows something about an issue beforehand. We have to try to get the best out of the new technology and be brave enough to work it in with the old idea that we are actually talking to people and changing their minds. It is difficult to change your mind and to listen to what is said to you. Saying yes or no and pressing a button is easy. Until we learn to make that technology serve us well, we will be wasting opportunities.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Addington. It is quite hard to have completely new insights at this point in a debate, so I will focus on those things I feel most strongly about. I have listened very carefully to the debate and there are essentially two camps. I have a very clear and simple view on this issue: the ability to participate remotely through our hybrid proceedings, although developed to deal with the pandemic, should continue in certain specific forms to give everyone in your Lordships’ House an equal chance to participate.
As we have heard, virtual participation has had some important benefits, including enabling Members to participate who might otherwise find it difficult to attend the House in person. This includes Members with disabilities, long-term and sometimes fluctuating health conditions or caring responsibilities, as well as those who are geographically distant from Westminster. It was deeply moving and humbling to hear the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. I totally support her view that remote participation should be classed as a reasonable adjustment—something any decent employer would do and, frankly, is obliged to do. We make the laws of this country; how can we possibly say that they do not apply to us?
The needs of Members with caring responsibilities are something we very rarely talk about, but they are a real constraint for some of them. We heard powerful contributions on this from my noble friends Lady Humphreys and Lord Bradshaw. At a time when we are rightly promoting better support for this in the workplace more generally, we should also apply these considerations to ourselves. Remote participation has contributed to levelling the playing field for parliamentarians with caring responsibilities, many of whom are women.
Unlike other noble Lords, I do not see that retaining some hybridity for those who need it as being in opposition to doing a good job of exercising our scrutiny function and holding the Government to account. As most Members happily return to the House physically over the coming months—and I look forward to doing so when it is safe—the two can happily coexist if there is a will to make it part of a broader modernisation agenda. It will make our representations more representative of the overall population and, frankly, make us seem more relevant to the world at large. As many noble Lords have said—the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, was particularly eloquent on this point—at the moment virtually every organisation is fundamentally reviewing its working practices to retain the benefits of flexible and remote working and we should too; otherwise we will, in the memorable words of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, simply be preserved in aspic.
Speaking personally for a moment, remote participation has been a godsend for me following knee surgery last autumn and a very long recovery period when I simply would not have been able to come in physically because of my restricted mobility. Participating remotely has been my only realistic opportunity to make a contribution to proceedings. I would be very unhappy if that opportunity was not available in future, so I agree with Professor Meg Russell of University College London’s Constitution Unit that decisions about the workings of Parliament need to be underpinned by the fundamental principle of equal participation. That fundamental principle should extend beyond the pandemic and become enshrined in our ways of working.
It is quite wrong for us simply to ape the arrangements in the other place. We have heard the charge many times today that as it is going back to the old normal so we must too, but such an approach fundamentally fails to respect the fact that we are meant to be a different type of House with part-time Members as well as full-time Members. We should take seriously the real benefits of having Members who are still actively engaged in external work, be it paid or voluntary, who are able to bring up-to-date expertise into the Chamber. Part-time Members need to be able to plan their work commitments on a sensible basis, and that requires some flexibility. It is quite different from the Commons and requires a different set of working arrangements, so I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on that point.
There is one point I would like us to learn from the Commons. We should review our working hours and try to bring them into at least the 20th century, if not the 21st. The Commons has managed to do this to provide greater certainty about hours and the timing of votes to allow more predictable planning more in line with modern expectations and caring commitments.
On Oral Questions, I strongly support the line that many noble Lords have taken in support of a list. Our old habit of shouting and baying and the bear pit at Question Time frankly often brought this House into disrepute, and the loudest voices too often drowned out those with the most to contribute.
To summarise, I strongly support the views of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Bennett, my noble friends Lady Bowles and Lady Bakewell, and many others—they do not all begin with “B”—that this is a great opportunity for us to embrace a long-overdue modernisation of our working practices, to get rid of some of our more anachronistic ways, which were designed for a very different age, and to adopt a new normal which appears far more relevant to the outside world.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, what an interesting, valuable and enjoyable debate this has been. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, warned us right at the start, we have heard many strong and divergent views, but the overwhelming majority want to restore the normal working practices of the House at the earliest opportunity. I say to my noble friend Lord Cormack that I do not think he is ambitious enough. Many of us would like to see us restore those practices on 21 June. I pay tribute to my noble friend for sitting for over six hours through every one of the 80 or so speeches. That is the hallmark of a true parliamentarian, and we respect him for it.
Like others, I begin by warmly thanking and commending everyone who has risen to the not inconsiderable challenge of enabling this House to carry on with its business in the past 15 months. It has been a herculean task, achieved with the minimum of fuss and the maximum of inventiveness.
However, it was always intended to be a temporary measure for the duration of the pandemic. I am sure that, in advance of this debate, others in the House received a persuasive briefing from Zoom, the designers and providers of a system that has facilitated not only our debates but a great deal of business and artistic endeavour in the world outside during the lockdowns. The briefing is persuasive because it makes the very valid point, as highlighted by a number of speakers, in particular recently the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that witnesses to Select Committees have been able to give evidence remotely throughout the pandemic—a practice that makes sense and, I agree, should be allowed to continue. It makes sense from the health perspective and for the environment, by reducing unnecessary travel.
However, the business of this House is a very different matter. As some of us have trickled back into physical attendance, we have quite rightly been subject to strict provisions for the prevention of infection. These have been relaxed further, as noble Lords will be aware, but some requirements very sensibly remain in place. No one seriously disputes the need for that common sense and caution. Like regulation, though, such measures must be proportionate to the scale of the danger, risk and need.
When I first entered the House of Commons, 45 years ago, the wartime generation was still a significant presence. That generation may have gone now, even from this House, but surely we can show a tiny fraction of its courage and resolve by leading the way in returning to normality.
I suppose I am in a special position, if not an entirely privileged one, in that I have been doubly vaccinated and have also been infected by Covid-19, with mercifully light and fleeting symptoms. I am well aware that there are others whose immune systems have not had quite so thorough a workout, particularly among our staff here, and their interests are vital.
We have already reached a point—and with fortune at our backs we shall go further on 21 June—at which increasing numbers of our fellow citizens are going back to work. If we expect that of them, they will increasingly expect it of us. It is a long-cherished principle that before voting in this House we should be present to take full account of the arguments presented, so let us at least lead the way. When my noble friend Lord Wakeham and I led the Select Committee on televising the House of Commons, we were playing catch-up because the House of Lords had led the way. Let us do so again.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Government for making time, in government time, for this debate, which is obviously a very important one. I also personally say thank you to those who have made it possible for us to work during this pandemic. However, I cannot help reflecting that that means that, after six hours, everything has already been said, and I cannot think of anything very new to say. I shall therefore ask myself this question. Have I detected during the course of the hybrid House that too many of us—I had better be careful how I put this—are speaking for far too long and that too many of us are being far too repetitious? I am afraid that the answer to my question is yes. I will give your Lordships this trivial example; it is not meant to be a discourtesy to those who have made maiden speeches in the House in the last few months.
When I was introduced and I made my maiden speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, made a lovely, charming, welcoming response and said it was terrific and that the House wanted to hear me for ever and ever—but nobody else did. I was very hurt. At least, I was not hurt until recently. We have suddenly developed the habit that just about everybody who follows a maiden speech congratulates the maiden speaker on his or her speech. We have even reached the stage where people anticipate a maiden speech and say how good it is going to be. That is a misuse of our time, and we have had a misuse of time.
All that said, being present in the House rather than speaking remotely undoubtedly has its own disciplinary impact. We are aware of the mood of the House, as it has been described hundreds of times. I am not worried about Ministers; I am now talking about us. I know when your Lordships have had enough of me—I am sorry; I will not sit down yet. I am a member of the commission and a member of the Procedure Committee. If your Lordships want to know, I am a member of the Liaison Committee; name the committee, I am on it. But the reason I am here and put my name down is that I came to listen, to learn and to reflect, because there are significant opposing views throughout the House.
I want to make two points. One is a commendation of something that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Hain, mention. He was a member of our Covid-19 Committee. We should all read the report produced by that committee, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. It introduces me and, I suspect, most of us to a future world with which we are totally unfamiliar. If your Lordships have read the report, you will see the arguments for and against this or that possible proposal in a much better perspective.
My second point is—I will use words very carefully—that we must return to a fully functioning House. How do we best perform our function? Not, “It was all wonderful before and we must return to it”; there are aspects of the way things ran before that could also usefully be attended to. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, mentioned Second Readings—do we need them? That question needs to be answered. Do we have to allow speeches to go on for ever if somebody has their name down on an amendment, somebody supports it, somebody else supports it, or four people support it? Do numbers 5, 6, 7 and 8 have to be able to speak for as long as they like? Questions arise from the House as it ran. We have to look at voting, and at committees. I cannot imagine we will ever go back to the possibility that a witness from the United States of America has to fly here. Even in the law courts we had actual meetings on digital machines that enabled us to get expert evidence 20 years ago.
All these need to be subject to something that I feel very strongly about, and it is the only thing I feel very strongly about in my responsibility as a member of the commission. I do not believe that technology is not available that would meet the needs of those who have spoken in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, spoke. I simply do not believe that the technology is not there for it to work, not as it does now to create a hybrid House, but to enable her and those like her, with her problems, to be able to make a contribution to the House. I add as a PS that that is not for those of us as we get old. I am on the threshold of my old age. I do not want to be able to use that—that is, the disability problem—as a way of staying on in the House. When we get too old, we should go. Let us look at all this as a whole and think about it.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, it has been a long debate, which, I have to say, I have enjoyed more than I expected. I too thank all the staff for the work they have done in enabling the amazing facilities that we have used over the past 18 months.
I shall start by making several general observations and conclude by talking about areas where I think there is a broad consensus that we need to look at change. I think that everybody accepts that a “functioning”—the word used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—Chamber and committees is what we want to get back to; it is not necessarily getting back to how we were, but getting back to where we can have the Chamber and the committees as the focus of our activities. We need to get back to being able to have more personal contacts and meetings—those are all essential characteristics of politics. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, talked about the “pressure of the room”. That sums up why we need to have more of us back in the Chamber.
It was slightly ironic that one of our new Members quoted from our oath, as did several others, as a reason why we had to be here. It is an oath which I presume has origins in the 13th century, when a boat or a horse were the main means of transport and of facilitating being present, and burning beacons were the main means of mass communication. Incidentally, Parliament met around the country, and there has been lots of change since then, including in how we can be present. The real question—this is my second observation —is how we can use the crisis and experience we have been through to learn anything that can help us improve the work of the House. Every single organisation in the country is doing this. Are we not going to be part of that process, just looking at things we can learn from the experience we have had over the past 18 months?
Looking around this House—I say this it with no disrespect to those who have taken part in the debate—I think the majority of us rather enjoy the old processes. We like the give-and-take, the late nights, the Lobbies, the dining and the gossip. But a lot of people who come into this House, whose experience and skills we want to use, are put off by the “in group” who enjoy these sorts of things and want to see more modern practices. We have to look outwards, to consult widely and to learn from that consultation. In the 21st century, we have to be conscious of our lack of diversity and how we can improve facilities for the disabled. We should always try to improve, as a number of speakers said, how we work and how we make sure we are fully representative of the four nations.
Let us not be sidetracked by the unintended consequences of what we have experienced over the past 18 months. The hurried changes in allowances have led to the pressure on speaking slots and votes. It is not necessarily the processes or the technology that have done this; it was predictable. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, the market works and the consequences were warned against—and actually it has saved us 10 million quid. That needs to be set against the £90,000 a month that the noble Earl said we would have to spend to continue some form of hybrid arrangements.
What changes could we investigate and consult on to get some sort of consensus in the House? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, spoke of the value of the virtual facilities for committee work, so we should not rule it out—we should look at that and decide how we can use it to improve our work. Incidentally, we should continue to invest in virtual facilities, not least for our outreach programme in schools.
We have to recognise that the facilities that we have used in the last 18 months are just the beginning of a huge revolution. Let us remember that television started with black and white, so the facilities will improve, and we should keep a hand in there and watch and develop, using them to our advantage and to improve our work. We will have to keep them for contingencies going forward—they will have to be part of our contingency planning.
As I have said, there remains also the huge issue of inclusion and diversity, and we need to counter the London focus of the House. We want more people with experience of disability in the House. We have discovered a way of encouraging and supporting them; we cannot simply take it away again without seeing how we can use it and experiment with it to help those Members of our existing House and those whom we can encourage in the future.
In my view, the hub is a great reform of wartime. I pressed for it in various committees before the pandemic, because I thought that we should have the annunciator on our phones. Lo and behold, it suddenly emerged in wartime, and we should keep it, as we in this country have done before when we have had the experience of necessary reforms created due to a crisis. We should keep it and continue to develop it. We are already using virtual voting for all our elections now, and we should look at ways that we can help to save time and move us on from the old-fashioned Lobbies. We shall probably—certainly, in fact—need it for R&R. If it has to start with having virtual voting in the House, so be it—we should experiment.
There is another possible reform that we should look at, which we had an example of when the system broke down: deferred voting. It worked rather well, actually, so why do we not look at having a system where we vote at an appropriate, convenient time? We do not have to have votes that are ignored or late at night; we could do them the following day if we agreed that. That would be a more appropriate way of proceeding. We should look at this—we experienced it on a couple of occasions during the breakdown of the systems in the House.
The experience of the last 18 months means that we have looked at a number of things. We have looked at and experienced procedure list issues, but we should look at things such as queueing for Questions and the lists for them. Some of those reforms have been great improvements, and we should seek to experiment with them once we are back to normal, rather than discarding them to go back to misguided norms.
Finally, a number of noble Lords have said that we must be cautious for health reasons and not be too hasty in going back to the old practices. People are coming back, and that is an improvement, but we do not want to abandon the hybrid arrangements totally until we can ensure that all can come back. The transition therefore gives us an opportunity for proper, detailed consultation over the summer, so that we can then return to a functioning House and incorporate some of the changes and improvements that we have used and practiced over the last few months. We should do this by having a wide consultation, encouraging participation in that and fulfilling a number of diversity objectives.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, this has been an excellent and necessary debate. I congratulate all noble Lords who have spoken today. I thank my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton and the whole of the Constitution Committee for their excellent report; it was timely, clear, knowledgeable, evidence-based and forward-looking. It really helps our debate as we look forward to returning to some form of the House that we knew before.
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, who clearly demonstrated that she is no one’s understudy. She has done excellent work for us as a member of the House of Lords Commission and as a Deputy Speaker. Perhaps she would be tempted to join the Opposition Front Bench; she would be warmly welcomed. I join her in paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, the Leader of the Opposition, who undertakes her role effectively and is respected on all sides of the House. She cannot be here today due to a family event.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that while there have been strong views expressed on all sides of the House, we would all benefit from listening to positions we might not agree with. We need to ensure that when we move forward, we create the House that we and the country need. We must be honest with ourselves and take the House forward on that basis.
As other noble Lords have done, I pay tribute to all the staff of the House. They have always stepped up and delivered magnificently in every department. I pay tribute also to the police, who have kept us safe during this time. The team that created the virtual House, and then the hybrid House, deserves our praise. We have managed to keep Parliament working in the most challenging circumstances. PeerHub is a fantastic success and its application has proved to be a great advantage since we first went into lockdown in March 2020. We should look at these things carefully.
I contrast that with what is going on in the other place. I remember seeing what became known as the Rees-Mogg conga, with Members of Parliament wandering along all through the Palace. That did not look particularly good, nor did the compromise whereby Whips could vote for hundreds of Members by walking through the Lobbies. I note that, through the electoral integrity Bill, the Government are going to ensure that people cannot cast lots of proxy votes for our citizens—but it is okay to do that in the other place. I think PeerHub is the solution until it is safe to do otherwise. We should retain PeerHub for voting by moving to a position, when it is safe to do so, that Peers should be present on the estate to vote. I accept that entirely but we should not be crushing into Lobbies any time soon. We need to look at those things carefully.
I am so pleased that, generally, this House is more collegiate, more sensible and more pragmatic in its approach to dealing with the challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, expressed the desire to return the House to sitting in Parliament as soon as practical, and I agree with him on that point. My only caveat is that we must take those decisions only when it is medically and professionally agreed that it is safe to do so.
I have huge respect for the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. He is my friend and I always enjoy our conversations outside the House, but I hope he does not press his Motion to a vote today. The debate today is the start of our discussion about returning to a more normal House. In that sense, his Motion is useful but I do not think he would be wise to divide the House. If he did, I would vote against it and I do not want to do that, but I hope he will not.
I confess to the House that, before March 2020, I had never heard of MS Teams or Zoom. I had no idea what their functions were. I had never spoken to anybody on a computer by using a camera to see them. I now use this technology most days; I have even managed to arrange a few meetings myself. I had a sense of achievement when I actually shared my screen recently and made a presentation—it still makes me feel good. I have enjoyed and agreed with many of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, who I do not believe is in his place. My only concern is that we have a clear road map for the points he raised. We have to make sure that we get that staging point right.
We have, as a House, continued to deliver on our important work and Members should be congratulated on doing that. I have personally been delighted to speak to children and young people; the work of the education centre still goes on and it has been a real privilege to do that. There has undoubtedly been an impact on scrutiny by your Lordships, and I mean no criticism of anyone in saying that. We have done well to come as far as we have in such a short space of time, but the Government must keep at the forefront of their minds their obligation to Parliament and to our democracy, and Ministers’ specific obligations under the Ministerial Code. There can be no reason for neglecting this: it may be awkward, but it ensures the Executive are properly scrutinised by Parliament.
I agreed with all the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Lord Haselhurst. As I said before, we should be governed by data, not dates. That is the right approach and I very much support it as the way forward. Again, I agreed entirely with the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate: we must have respect for our fellow Members on all Benches as we return to a more normal House. The pace of change should not disadvantage any Member or particular groups of Members.
The Chamber chat on MS Teams is used by the Front Benches, the people on the Woolsack and the clerks. I think that should stay; it is much better than bits of paper flying around the House or people speaking to each other by the Throne or at the Bar of the House. I hope there is agreement that it should stay.
My noble friend Lady Quin and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, made the powerful point that all the organisations outside this House are looking at how they are going to work in future. The House must do that as well.
The point about Ministers coming to the House and respecting the Ministerial Code is very important. I sometimes get irritated when we have off-the-record briefings to various newspapers; I read them on a Saturday or Sunday and think, “Oh, it’s nice that I found it out there”. Legislation and statutory instruments are not always clear. I have found myself saying, “I’m actually not sure what the Government’s position is on any particular regulations”. If I do not know, then how are citizens outside going to know? We should have things mentioned here clearly and accurately for all to understand.
The replies to Written Questions are not always of an acceptable standard. If a department finds itself struggling then more resources should be identified. I entirely accept that the Department of Health in particular had a huge number of questions, but I must say that I was not happy when we got a general three-page note covering hundreds of questions. That was not the way to do it at all. We need to ensure that responses from Ministers in this House to Parliamentary Questions are of a proper standard and what we expect, otherwise it is disrespectful to the House and to Parliament.
There have been challenges along the way but generally I think the House has responded well. Yes, we have lost spontaneity. I have not been able to have conversations with Ministers to make points to them in Committee; we need to go back to that as soon as possible. There have been problems with the numbers of people who have wanted to speak. I agree that being allowed one minute to speak in a debate is not an effective way to proceed. I am always open to discussions about how we can improve that because it is not a good way of working.
In conclusion, what has been achieved is outstanding and deserves our thanks from the whole House to everyone involved. We need to change again, moving safely and carefully to a physical House only when it is safe to do so. Innovations should be looked at carefully and some should be retained, but our constitutional role as a revising Chamber in our bicameral Parliament must be reasserted and enhanced in the road map to our physical House returning. We must ensure that that is done properly in future.
As a member of the Opposition, I have been involved in many defeats of the Government—I have defeated them a few times myself from this Dispatch Box—and it is my job to do that. I do not accept that that is not the right thing to do. What we have lost, more importantly, is the conversation in the Prince’s Chamber, the meeting in the Minister’s office, the engagement with the campaigners and the interaction with the Civil Service that lead to a government concession because you have made your point. As we all know, a government concession is better because you do not then have the problem of it being overturned at the other end and going through ping-pong. I very much want to ensure that that happens as well.
I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, that voting is some sort of rebellion by the Opposition. Sorry; sometimes it is our job, if all else fails, to divide the House and even to defeat it. Sometimes the Government are right but sometimes they get it wrong, and then it is our job to ask the other place to think again. I know that is in the context that the other House is elected, and at the end of the day it will get his way, but still it is our job to do that and I will continue do it, again and again if necessary.
As I said, this has been a good-quality debate. Clearly there is lots that we agree on. I hope the Leader of the House, the party leaders and the Commission will take this debate away and look carefully at what we agree on and what we can move forward on quickly and effectively, while ensuring that we do so only on the basis of data, science and safety, not just dates.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, this has been an extremely useful debate that has given us all a great deal to think about because, ultimately, it will be for the House as a whole to decide the way forward.
I, too, add my thanks to the staff of the House both for their incredible work developing and then facilitating our hybrid proceedings over the last 13 months and for their quick response this week that has allowed us to further increase the capacity in the Chamber today. While it still does not compare to a bustling Chamber in normal times, our debate has benefited from a greater physical presence. I also add my thanks to the Constitution Committee for its excellent and timely report, one of the main conclusions of which was that our hybrid proceedings have
“resulted in Parliament’s essential scrutiny role becoming less effective”.
I urge any noble Lord who has yet to do so to read the report.
As I think all contributors have recognised, the Hybrid Sittings were a necessary consequence of the pandemic. Decisions had to be made very quickly and often, as my noble friend Lady Noakes said, without perhaps the consultation that we would normally expect, because of the necessity of the situation. We certainly would not have been able to function without them but in no significant way have they been better than what they replaced.
We have heard from noble Lords across the House what our proceedings have lost. The spontaneity and cut and thrust in debate were mentioned by my noble friends Lady Seccombe and Lord Trenchard, the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, among many others. The face-to-face interaction between Members was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. Effective cross-party working and the ability to get a sense of the mood of the House were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. Many other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, and my noble friends Lord Lamont and Lord Caithness, have clearly expressed the view that the scrutiny of legislation and the House’s ability to hold Ministers to account have suffered significantly.
As my noble friend Lord Howe said in his opening remarks, it has also been much harder for Ministers to get a hearing in a relatively empty Chamber and for them to gauge the strength of feeling and mood of the House. I share that view.
In the round, the hybrid system is a pale imitation of what we had before. Noble Lords have raised other frustrations such as the need for speakers’ lists for practically every item of business, a lack of flexibility, and short speaking times in too many of our recent debates. Short speaking times have been a direct consequence of remote participation. Before our switch to hybrid, limits of one to two minutes were very rare. Across the three Sessions before the last one, only 2% of our debates had speaking limits of one or two minutes; in our first hybrid Session, that had risen to more than 30% of debates. Noble Lords have also said that our debates have at times felt stifled and that Members with expertise and experience who we would all want to have heard from have been crowded out.
While we have had near-unanimous agreement on what we have lost under the hybrid arrangements, there has been a range of opinions on what, if anything, we should keep. There does not seem to be a consensus on even some the fundamentals such as parity of treatment for all Members. Many of your Lordships have put forward different suggestions for the elements of hybrid that they would like to keep, while a few speeches later we have heard other Members say how much they dislike those elements. Of course, that is to be expected but I think this debate has shown that reality. Some things—for instance, remote witnesses at Select Committees and the information available on PeerHub—seem to have near-universal support, but many other things have divided opinion. I think we can all agree—and, indeed, many noble Lords have said—that there is still much debate for us all to have.
One thing that we have all learned, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, mentioned, is the importance of business continuity plans. We must never lose the ability of this House to continue to meet, whatever the circumstances. This is certainly an issue that we will take forward and focus on in the coming weeks and months. We will continually revisit it and ensure that we can react to events that may hit us going forward.
As such, it seems to me that the real question is not whether we should return but how we should move forward. The political leadership in the House, members of the commission and the Privileges and Procedure Committee have much to reflect on. As I and noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Forsyth and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, have said, such decisions ultimately lie with your Lordships’ House.
To get to where we are today, there have been 11 iterations of the hybrid House guidance. Each time, we have made piecemeal changes, tweaks and updates, all on the basis of emulating our own processes in a way that was compatible with the public health situation, which I think we all accept fall short.
Any long-term permanent changes need to be carefully thought through and considered in the round, as many noble Lords said. It has taken us 13 months to get to where we are, but it should not take another 13 months to work out what and how to move from here. As my noble friend Lord Howe has said, it is the Government’s belief that we should return to normal on all fronts, once, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, rightly said, social distancing rules and national restrictions allow.
While many noble Lords have observed that the world we had before was not perfect, there seems to be agreement that it was better than where we are now. As my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Lilley said, we should return to our normal ways of working and use them as the foundation on which to consider permanent changes. If we do not, then it is not clear to me, with so many issues to resolve and so many differing views around the House, what timescale we would actually have for moving back to some sense of normality.
We should not let our primary functions—scrutiny of legislation and holding the Government to account—suffer for any longer than is necessary. The way forward needs serious consideration—this debate has shown that—and the House as a whole needs to engage with that process. There may be some innovations we could make relatively rapidly where there is clear consensus, but others will need time for us to consider fully the implications and opportunity costs that keeping them may result in. Noble Lords should please remember that, if we have learned anything from the past 13 months, it is this: if we have agreement between us, we can move quickly.
A return to normality would also allow those new Members who have only known the hybrid House to compare the old and new ways of working, so that they too can contribute to these debates and perhaps add a new perspective. Of course, any return will not be before social distancing guidelines and national restrictions have been lifted. As so many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, have said, safety is imperative, for both Members and staff. This has always been at the forefront of our minds throughout the pandemic. We will, obviously, continue to follow advice, as we have done up to this point.
Other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, spoke about the accessibility of Parliament. Once we are able to come back to normal, we must of course consider how to address concerns such as those she raised, because this House should be able to accommodate all noble Lords in person.
I share the sentiments of my noble friend Lord Cormack that are behind his Motion, and I recognise his strength of feeling. I hope that what he has heard from this debate is what he wanted—a range of opinions being expressed on the Floor of the House—and, on the basis of this, he will not feel the need to test the opinion of the House. As I have said, and as my noble friend said, we believe we should return to normality and begin any changes from that baseline. But the political leadership, Members of the commission, and the Procedure and Privileges Committee have been given much food for thought today. We all, I assure noble Lords, take our responsibilities to this House extremely seriously. As Leader of the House and a Member of the commission, I will play my full part in taking this forward.
House of Lords: Normal Working Practices
Lord Cormack
To resolve that, subject to the lifting of the remaining COVID-19 related restrictions on 21 June, the normal working practices of the House shall be restored by 6 September at the latest.
Lord Cormack (Con)
As my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral said, I have listened to every single speech in this debate, and it has been a very instructive one. It is quite clear to me that to divide the House tonight would be premature. We have heard a great deal, and there is a strong feeling throughout the House that we should get back to what has been called “normality” as soon as is safely possible. The resolution that I put before the House made that very point and has just been read to Members.
Although it says on our paper today that the debate is expected to end at 10 pm, I will not test your Lordships’ patience. But I would like to make one point. I think we would be unanimous on, among other things, the very moving speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton. She is someone I am very proud to call a friend. We should remind ourselves that she was very assiduous in her attendance in this House. The House gave her special permission to have a reader to assist her with her speeches. She loves this place, and she does not want to be absent from it any more than is necessary. Of course, we should take account of her special position and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. But it is the job of a parliamentarian to be in Parliament. That is particularly recognised by my noble friend Lord Shinkwin, who is severely disabled himself but made a very passionate speech tonight.
We should remember those two colleagues—the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, and my noble friend Lord Hannan—who quoted the Writ of Summons that we all receive. Although it may be couched in somewhat archaic language, it is clear that it is our job to be in this place. I am glad that improvements have been made to the seating arrangements for this debate; so long as it is safe to do so, we need to be here, together, so that the Government are held properly to account, so that we can debate the affairs of the nation and so that we are not sidelined and made to appear obsolete or obsolescent by what happens in the other place.
I am not going to move my Motion to Resolve. We have had a good debate, and I hope we can all go forward in a spirit of some unity to put this House back where it really should be.