House of Commons
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
1. In which regions the national citizen service will operate in the summer of 2011.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)
The pilots will be based in 190 different locations this summer and have a good geographical spread in regions across England. I am delighted to say that more than 11,000 16-year-olds will have the opportunity to take part.
Amber Rudd
My constituents and I are very much looking forward to the service arriving in Hastings and its environment. What are the arrangements for rolling the service out further; who will be in charge of fulfilment; and how can MPs get involved with it?
Mr Hurd
This year’s pilots involve areas represented by 400 MPs, so there are plenty of opportunities to get involved. I am delighted to say that Catch 22 and the Prince’s Trust are leading the pilots in East Sussex this year, and I very much hope that my hon. Friend will get involved because this provides a fantastic opportunity for young people in her area to participate in a very positive experience.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
Anything that taps the idealism of young people in the wider society is clearly to be welcomed; it is a good thing. These pilots, however, seem to be an inadequate response to the needs of 965,000 young people who are now out of work. The scheme itself was criticised, as the Minister will know, by the university of Strathclyde, so will he at least indicate the date by which the scheme will be made universal for all young people, as the Prime Minister promised before the election?
Mr Hurd
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman appears to have such a downer on the scheme, which provides a hugely positive opportunity for young people in this country. We are testing it thoroughly on behalf of the taxpayer—there are 11,000 places this year and 30,000 next year—with a view to rolling it out, as he suggested, to make it more widely available and so compelling for all 16-year-olds that they will want to get involved in the future.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
2. What steps he plans to take to ensure that the big society bank has a social mission as part of its statutory remit.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
In our social investment strategy, announced on 14 February, we set out that the big society bank will be an independent institution with a locked-in social mission and initial capital provided by the banks. Sir Ronald Cohen and Nick O’Donohoe are working with us and the banks to put forward a proposal on how best and most speedily to achieve that.
Tom Blenkinsop
As how the big society bank will be set up and the terms on which it will receive capital from UK banks are still unclear, will the Minister explain how he will guarantee the bank’s social mission and ensure that it does not become like other mainstream lenders?
Mr Maude
As I said, the social remit will be absolutely built into its mission; it is a crucial part of it, so it will be locked in. I have to say that criticism comes poorly from Labour Members who have talked about creating a social investment bank for many years. Frankly, on taking office last May, I expected to find well-prepared plans, but when I opened the file, I found it pretty much empty.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
The Minister will know that I welcome the bank. What priorities will it have to fund projects associated with, and supporting, young people?
Mr Maude
That will be one of the bank’s priorities. The legislation allowing the money from dormant bank and building society accounts to be put into a social investment bank provides a priority for youth projects. As I say, this will be a serious priority. The bank will be able to provide wholesale funds into the already growing social investment market, for which there is a huge demand. We want to see much more money—including, over time, mainstream finance from the mainstream banks—being made available for this market.
Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
We welcome the progress the Government have made in setting up the big society bank, and we note that it will be launched with £300 million-worth of capital at the end of this year. However, community projects also rely on revenue funding to support capital investment and according to estimates from the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, the total loss of revenue faced by civil society organisations will be at least £1.14 billion in the next financial year, rising to £3.1 billion a year by 2014-15. Does the Minister accept these figures and, if not, will he undertake to provide the Government’s own estimates of the revenue losses faced by community organisations over that period?
Mr Maude
The social investment bank planned by the last Government would have received a meagre £75 million of investment at best, and probably a great deal less than that.
I do not know whether the right hon. Lady noted what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government told the conference of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations yesterday. He said that the Government had “reasonable expectations” that local authorities would not impose greater cuts in their funding for community, social and voluntary organisations than they imposed on their in-house services, and that if authorities did not follow those “reasonable expectations”, he would contemplate making them statutory.
The fact is that we face the biggest budget deficit in the developed world. As a result of the legacy of the Government of whom the right hon. Lady was a prominent member, we are spending £4 for every £3 in revenue, and we cannot carry on like that. The necessity—and it is a necessity—to eradicate the structural deficit is something for which the right hon. Lady should bear her full share of responsibility.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
3. What assessment his Department has made of the potential efficiency savings from the use of teleconferencing.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
Teleconferencing and video conferencing are a key part of our strategy to minimise travel in the civil service. Officials have been encouraged, indeed instructed, to use alternatives. Telephone calls can be quite helpful in that regard, when possible. So far, Departments have saved £50 million in the current financial year by avoiding travel, but by the better buying of travel services we have saved an additional £50 million. We are also reducing the cost of teleconferencing itself. We have opened up fresh discussions with major suppliers, and as a result of the Crown renegotiations that I have been overseeing, one of our suppliers has already offered a significant reduction in its audio conferencing tariffs.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
Teleconferencing provides a key opportunity for digital policy. The head of that policy in the Minister’s Department was appointed without a fair and open competition, as a former party staffer. That was one of 30 appointments revealed by freedom of information releases this week. Can the Minister tell me who those 30 people are and what they do?
Mr Maude
Of course I understand why the hon. Gentleman is so outraged by the idea of people with party affiliations fulfilling a public service vocation, because of course none of that ever happened under his party’s Government—a Government who, with the hon. Gentleman as one of the principal operators, distinguished themselves by their approach to cronyism.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that anyone who has been appointed to a civil service role has passed all the appropriate tests, which, as he will know from his experience as a Minister in my Department, are extremely rigorous.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
4. What progress his Department has made in establishing a big society bank.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
5. What recent representations he has received on the big society bank; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
Sir Ronald Cohen and Nick O’Donohoe are working with us and with the banks to develop a proposal for the big society bank. As I have said, it will initially be capitalised by an investment from the mainstream banks. We are currently seeking to secure state aid approvals from the European Commission so that money from dormant bank and building society accounts can be directed towards the big society bank. Nothing along those lines had been done when the Government took office. In the meantime, we are working with the Big Lottery Fund to ensure that interim arrangements are in place by April, so that we can make early investments as soon as the first round of dormant bank account money becomes available in the summer.
Peter Aldous
Youth clubs such as the Metro, Boston Lodge and Colville House play an important role in my constituency. What guidance and financial assistance will be given to them, and to those operating new voluntary sector schemes whose aim is to take over the running of other local services such as crossing patrols and libraries, and when will that guidance and assistance be available?
Mr Maude
As my hon. Friend will know, a key part of our approach to public service reform will be encouraging voluntary and social enterprises to bid for the delivery of public services. They are being given a massive opportunity to develop different revenue streams and deliver public services in a responsive and agile way. The big society bank will deliver extra wholesale funding to the social investment market for start-up and development capital for such organisations. In the meantime, for some organisations the transition fund will provide bridging finance until those revenue streams become available.
Miss McIntosh
My question was about representations received, because there is a lot of interest in the big society bank in Thirsk, Malton and Filey, but there is also concern that if match funding is required, it will trigger the 2.5% referendum call on local government spending under the Localism Bill. Will this issue be addressed?
Mr Maude
I will look into that. The big society bank will provide private investment to bulk up the important social investment market. We have had numerous representations on this matter, most of them saying, “Please get on with it because we were very disappointed about waiting for so long for the last Government to do anything at all.”
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Will the big society bank give grants as well as loans, and will the loans be set at commercial or preferential rates?
Mr Maude
The big society bank will not make grants. It is a bank, so it will make loans and provide investment capital for this important and growing sector. One of the problems in the social investment market has been that Futurebuilders was able to give both grants and loans, which was very distorting for the large and growing number of intermediaries in that market. The bank should be an investment organisation, not a giver of grants.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
What steps have been taken to ensure that the big society bank will be relevant and accessible in all regions? Also, is it being impressed upon the banks that the coming arrival of the big society bank will not obviate their duty to show consideration and support for the third sector in the current challenging funding environment?
Mr Maude
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that relevant question. The introduction of the big society bank certainly does not obviate the broader need to support voluntary and social enterprises, in the interests of local residents. The bank’s remit will be UK-wide. The money put in by the banks will be for UK purposes, but the money coming into the big society bank in due course from dormant bank accounts will be for England only, unless the devolved Administrations decide to put their share of that money into the big society bank, which I hope they will be encouraged to do.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
6. What estimate he has made of the likely change in the number of jobs in the voluntary sector in the next three years.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)
Unfortunately, the sector cannot be immune from the cuts that are forced upon us, so of course there is concern about short-term job losses, but we firmly believe that there will be opportunities for the sector in the future, not least in delivering public services, and we are working very hard to make those opportunities real.
Rosie Cooper
I thank the Minister for that answer, but the National Association for Voluntary and Community Action estimates that 26,000 charity workers will lose their jobs in the face of the Government’s accelerated cuts to services. Does he agree with that estimate, and if not, will publish his own estimate of the job losses in the sector?
Mr Hurd
I do not recognise the basis of that estimate, but of course there is a challenge in the short term, and this Government are working very hard to try to help the sector manage through this period of transition. There is a very significant long-term opportunity for the sector to deliver more public services, to help people find more of a voice at the local level, and to benefit from the additional time and money we hope to encourage people to give as well as the social investment we are trying to encourage through the big society bank.
Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I welcome the progress my hon. Friend is making in promoting and advancing the voluntary sector. [Interruption.] Will he compare that with the lacklustre performance of the last Labour Government?
Mr Hurd
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and it was interesting to hear the chortles from those on the Opposition Benches. Of course there is absolutely no recognition among Labour Members of the necessity for these cuts after their Government’s absolutely shambolic stewardship of the economy over the past 13 years.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Many in the voluntary and community sector are describing the transition fund, which was heavily over-subscribed and I believe is now closed, as a drop in the ocean compared with the tsunami of cuts facing the sector. Does the Minister not agree that he needs to do more to protect the voluntary sector from job cuts, especially at a time when he is asking it to do more?
Mr Hurd
I do not think any of my constituents would consider £100 million of taxpayers’ money to be a drop in the ocean. As the outgoing Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, “There is no money,” yet we have found £100 million to try to help the most vulnerable organisations through a very difficult transition period. We wanted to get that assistance up and running as quickly as possible so the money could get out in as unbureaucratic way as possible, and I am very proud of what we have managed to achieve.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
7. What steps he is taking to make Government procurement simpler for small and medium-sized enterprises.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
9. What steps he is taking to make Government procurement simpler for small and medium-sized enterprises.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
11. What steps he is taking to make Government procurement simpler for small and medium-sized enterprises.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
12. What steps he is taking to make Government procurement simpler for small and medium-sized enterprises.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr Oliver Letwin)
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) is right to ask this question. We attach a huge amount—
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but I think he seeks to group the question with a number of others: Nos. 9, 11 and 12.
Mr Letwin
I do indeed, Mr Speaker; I am very grateful to you.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to ask this question because we attach a huge amount of importance to trying to open up contracts to small and medium-sized enterprises. We have launched the Contracts Finder website, which is of enormous advantage to them, and we are getting rid of vastly burdensome pre-qualification materials. Opposition Members may be interested to know that a document such as the one I am holding is what small and medium-sized enterprises had to fill out over and over again in pre-qualification. We are now reducing that and eliminating it in many cases.
John Glen
I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. A business in my constituency offers a proven low-cost solution to helping individuals back to work, but it is finding it impossible to get access to Government. Can my right hon. Friend advise Gary Roberts of Cavendish Films how he can open a dialogue and ensure that these potential huge savings are given a fair hearing?
Mr Letwin
I would be delighted to welcome my hon. Friend and his constituents from Cavendish Films to discuss that very issue. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), has constructed the Work programme in a way that enables the main contractors to deal with the vast range of subcontractors on a payment-by-results basis, and I am sure there is plenty of opportunity for my hon. Friend’s constituents to be introduced to the participants in that programme.
Alec Shelbrooke
My constituency of Elmet and Rothwell has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, which is due mainly to a very successful SME base. Is the drive to procure from SMEs intended as a way of subsidising them, or is it the most efficient way for the Government to procure?
Mr Letwin
My hon. Friend raises another extremely important question. It is emphatically not the Government’s intention to subsidise small and medium-sized enterprises through the contracting process, but rather to enable Government to be more efficient by promoting the kind of innovation that SMEs so frequently bring to the work they do. Our feeling is that if we get locked into contracts merely with very large suppliers, we often lose that innovation, and we are determined to avoid that result.
James Morris
SMEs are vital to the black country economy. What is the Minister doing to ensure that small and medium-sized companies in places such as the black country can compete for Government contracts on a level playing field?
Mr Letwin
Again, that is an enormously important question. One of the purposes behind our move to spread contracting to SMEs is precisely to ensure that we do not get such an unbalanced economy. We want to reach out to firms that have the best propositions—often, small and medium-sized firms—in parts of the country where there are not major contractors who do much business with Government. We believe that that is a good way of helping to build the economies, and enterprise and innovation, in those areas of our country.
Margot James
Government procurement officers have been very risk-averse in the past and associate large companies with security. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a change in culture is required, as well as these excellent new policies?
Mr Letwin
In a word, yes. We are determined to achieve a change in culture, and the dictum that nobody ever got sacked for hiring IBM is one that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office is putting to the test. We are determined to go for innovation and excellence, and we will do that on a wide scale. Looking at the figures for contracting, I see that we have already achieved an enormously wide spread in the past few months.
Mr Speaker
Order. There are really far too many noisy private conversations taking place in the Chamber. I want to hear the questions and, indeed, the good doctor’s answers.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
What proportion of Government contracts were won by small and medium-sized enterprises in Yorkshire, and what are the Government doing to ensure that small companies in the north of England get a proportionate share of Government contracts?
Mr Letwin
I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the figures for Yorkshire. I can tell him that we have set a presumption that all Government Departments will be moving towards 25% of contracts being in the hands of small and medium-sized enterprises, giving a vast range of opportunity not just in one part of the country but all parts of the country. Indeed, we intend to ensure that people throughout the country have ample opportunity to get into this market, which is why we are making it so much easier to participate.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
8. What assessment he has made of the progress of the work of the big society ministerial group.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
The informal ministerial group on the big society and decentralisation supports progress across government on cross-cutting issues, such as the role of the voluntary community and social enterprise sector in public service delivery, the progress made in vanguard areas and the compact between the voluntary sector and the state.
Mr Speaker
Order. The House must come to order. This is very unfair on the Minister. He is offering the House an informative answer and it must be heard.
Anas Sarwar
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also thank the Minister for his answer. Given that opinion polls show that the majority of the British people have not even heard of the big society and that the majority of those who have think it is just a cover-up for the cuts, does the Minister believe that the work of the ministerial group has been a resounding success? Does he not believe that Ministers’ time would be better spent doing credible work in their own Departments?
Mr Maude
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not think that building a bigger, stronger and more cohesive society is worth while, particularly given that the role of the state is having to retrench severely as a result of the financial incontinence of the previous Government of the party that he supports. I am sorry to have to remind him that when the coalition Government took office his Government were spending £4 for every £3 in revenue and had the biggest budget deficit in the developed world. So less money is available and building a bigger, stronger society, which I would have thought he would support, is a very worthwhile exercise for not only the whole Government, but the whole of Parliament.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Will the ministerial group examine the role of the big society bank to see whether it can be run on national credit union lines, so that it can link up with local credit unions and ensure that the money cascades down to community groups at the grass-roots level?
Mr Maude
The social investment market has been growing in recent years but it needs additional wholesale funds, both from the big society bank and from freeing up the guidelines on investment by trustees of big philanthropic foundations. That will grow the social investment market significantly, and the credit union movement, which is extraordinarily important and has a very important social mission, can be an important partner in that progress.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Will the Minister or the “Secretary of State for the big society” have a quiet word with Wirral borough council, which has closed important care and respite homes too quickly in order to let the non-government sector fill the gap? That is giving the big society a bad name.
Mr Maude
I refer the hon. Lady to the remarks made by the Communities Secretary yesterday. We do believe in localism; we believe in local authorities being accountable, not to Whitehall, but to their own local residents. Each local authority has to justify its decisions but, as my right hon. Friend said yesterday, we have expectations that local authorities will not impose greater cuts on their funding for voluntary organisations than they do on their own costs. We would expect them to have regard to that.
Mr Speaker
Order. The House must come to order. We want to hear Joseph Johnson.
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
10. What steps he is taking to reduce the risk of fraud in public sector procurement.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
The National Fraud Authority estimates that £21 billion is lost to fraud in the public sector each year, on top of which there is a so far unquantified loss from error and from uncollected debt. It is estimated that £2.4 billion of that £21 billion is lost to procurement fraud, and that is unacceptable. The Prime Minister has asked me to chair a counter-fraud taskforce comprising members from government and private sector experts to tackle the issue. We are overseeing a series of pilots, including one on procurement, to drive forward ways to tackle public sector fraud, and we will report our findings in due course.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the Minister for that answer. That figure of £21 billion is truly shocking. Will the Minister update the House on progress towards developing a more robust methodology for quantifying how much taxpayers’ money is being wasted in this way?
Mr Maude
It is actually difficult to know exactly how much is being lost. The numbers are increasing each year, but that is largely because there is a better handle on the data. The quality of much Government data is lamentably poor and it is particularly difficult to obtain accurate figures on some procurement fraud, such as collusion or bid rigging. However, in one of the taskforce pilots, the Department for Transport is using data analytics to detect overpayments from the Department’s accounts payable systems. A similar exercise undertaken by the Home Office detected and recovered no less than £4 million in overpayments as a result of fraud or error.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
13. How many valid bids the transition fund received.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)
There were just over 1,700 applications to the transition fund, which are currently being assessed by our delivery partner the BIG Fund. The first transition fund awards, totalling £1.7 million, were made on 15 February to 18 organisations and there will be hundreds more awards over the coming months.
Anne Marie Morris
Given the appetite for the transition fund, will the Prime Minister consider a new fund to enable even more civic societies that undertake such valuable work, such as Home-Start in Teignbridge, to continue to operate? Will he consider including smaller organisations in such a new fund?
Mr Hurd
I understand the question, but unfortunately we have no money to consider such an initiative. We had to take some very tough decisions on eligibility criteria for the first round and we are actively looking at ways to top that up, but we have no current plans for a second round.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 2 March.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Private Dean Hutchinson from 9 Regiment the Royal Logistic Corps and Private Robert Wood from 17 Port and Maritime Regiment the Royal Logistic Corps. They were killed in a fire at Camp Bastion on Monday 14 February. Their service for the safety of the British people will not be forgotten and we send our deepest condolences to their families, friends and colleagues.
I am sure that the whole House will also wish to join me in sending our deepest sympathies to the people of New Zealand and to all those who lost loved ones, including, sadly, at least four British citizens, in the earthquake last week. We have sent two teams of experts to provide whatever assistance they can.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House I shall have further such meetings later today.
Gavin Barwell
I am sure that the whole House will, indeed, wish to associate itself with the Prime Minister’s remarks in relation both to our brave servicemen and to the people of New Zealand.
Despite the urgent need to reduce the deficit, the Government took the right decision not just to protect but to increase the overseas aid budget. What capacity does that give us to respond to the urgent humanitarian situation on the Libyan border?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is that in spite of the difficult decisions we have to take, it is right to keep increasing the aid budget. Sadly, what is happening on the Egyptian and Tunisian borders with Libya shows how important that decision is. As the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, said last night, there are serious implications of a growing humanitarian crisis. The information is that some 162,000 people have crossed the land border so far. We have sent technical Department for International Development teams to both the borders and yesterday we flew in tents for 1,500 people and blankets for 36,000 people. I can tell the House that today we are launching a UK operation to airlift several thousand people back to Egypt from the Libyan-Tunisian border, with the first flight scheduled to leave the UK later today. It is vital to do this; those people should not be kept in transit camps if it is possible to take them back to their home. I am glad that Britain can play such an important part in doing that.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Private Dean Hutchinson from 9 Regiment the Royal Logistic Corps and Private Robert Wood from 17 Port and Maritime Regiment the Royal Logistic Corps? They both showed enormous heroism and courage in their service in Afghanistan and our thoughts are with their family and friends.
I also join the Prime Minister in passing on condolences and deepest sympathy to the victims of the New Zealand earthquake.
May I ask the Prime Minister about the situation in Libya, starting with the humanitarian crisis? I welcome the bilateral action being taken by the Government, including the steps that he has announced today and the visit of the International Development Secretary. May I ask what support the Prime Minister is also offering to multilateral organisations such as the World Food Programme and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in dealing with what is, as the Prime Minister says, a growing refugee emergency on the Libyan border?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. In addition to the steps I announced about the airlift from the Tunisian border back to Egypt, there is also HMS York, which has now docked in Benghazi carrying a lot of medical and other supplies and will be able to help with the humanitarian mission. He asked specifically about helping the multilateral organisations. Obviously, we are in very close touch with them, particularly with OCHA—the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs—and Valerie Amos. We are delighted that it is John Ging, whom many in the House will know from the UN and his excellent work in Palestine for UNRWA—the United Nations Relief and Works Agency—who will be co-ordinating that effort. We will remain in close contact with them as one of their lead partners and will do everything we can to help to co-ordinate this effort. We have the forward-basing of a lot of tents and other equipment in Dubai, which means that it is relatively close to the area. We will go on doing everything we can to ease the problems at the border and to make sure that this emergency does not turn into a crisis.
Edward Miliband
I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. I am sure he will keep the House updated. We both agreed on Monday that the international community must take all practical steps for a democratic outcome in Libya. On Monday, the Prime Minister floated the idea of a no-fly zone. On Tuesday, however, a number of foreign Governments distanced themselves from the idea. Can he clarify where that proposal now stands?
The Prime Minister
Our first priority as a country should, of course, be to evacuate our fellow countrymen from Libya. That process has gone well and there are very few who want to leave who are still in Libya. The second thing that we should do is put every available pressure on the Libyan regime. We have done that through travel bans, asset freezes and arms embargos, and we should keep on looking for other ways in which we can pressurise the regime.
We have just spoken about the humanitarian crisis, and the next steps that we must take to ease it. What I was saying on Monday and say again today is that I think it is the job of leaders in the western world in particular to prepare for all eventualities and all the things that might happen, particularly if Colonel Gaddafi unleashes more things on his own people. On those grounds, we should be and we are looking at plans for a no-fly zone. I was particularly heartened by what Secretary of State Clinton said—that a
“ no-fly zone is an option we are actively considering.”
These matters are being discussed in the North Atlantic Council this morning, and it is right that they are.
Edward Miliband
I emphasise to the Prime Minister, as I am sure he will agree, that there was a clear sense of unity in the international community over sanctions. Clearly, that is what we must strive for in any future decisions that we make. He will understand the concern in the country and the armed forces that after he spoke about the no-fly zone, the Government issued redundancy notices to thousands of Royal Air Force personnel. Can he reassure the House and the country that any increase in our military commitments that he is talking about, including in north Africa, can be met at a time when we are reducing capability?
The Prime Minister
I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. Let me be clear. Of course, it is never easy to reduce the numbers in our armed forces, but this Government decided, quite rightly, to hold a strategic defence review because we had not had one for 12 years and we inherited a defence budget that was in a state of complete chaos. The background to the defence review is the enormous black hole in our nation’s finances, but the aim of the defence review is to make sure that we have flexible, well-equipped armed forces that are able to serve our national interests around the world. That is exactly what I believe they will be able to do.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
Q2. After Romford hospital, next on the waiting list for private finance initiative surgery should be Portsmouth’s Queen Alexandra hospital. Does my right hon. Friend agree that massive annual repayments and restrictive procurement practices are preventing best care from being delivered, and that the contract should go under the knife and the savings given to Portsmouth’s health economy, not Treasury coffers?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a good point, which is that next to the Ministry of Defence budget, the other shambles that we inherited was the PFI programme. The public sector is going to be spending about £8 billion on PFI contracts just this year, so we must examine all those contracts for savings. Let me give my hon. Friend a couple of examples of the nonsense that we inherited under those contracts—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may not want to hear it: £333 to change a hospital light switch; £963 for a new TV aerial in a hospital. Some of the terms of the contracts are disgraceful and it is right that we look at them.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Q3. On the “Politics Show” of 13 February, Boris Johnson’s deputy mayor with responsibility for policing, Kit Malthouse, boasted that he would ensure that every safer neighbourhood team in every ward in London would keep its two police constables and three police community support officers, and that he had the power to guarantee that. However, police officers in Mitcham have already told my constituents that those teams have been merged and that every safer neighbourhood team has been reduced to one police officer. Who does the Prime Minister believe—the London Mayor or serving police officers?
The Prime Minister
It is worth listening to both serving and retired police officers. The hon. Lady might want to listen to Jan Berry, who for years led the Police Federation, who said:
“With unnecessary bureaucracy being added at every tier of policing from the local to the national . . . I estimate one third of effort”—
one third—
“is either over-engineered, duplicated or adds no additional value. This is unaffordable in the current climate and”
we need to give consideration to how we can realise savings in time and energy. As in so many areas, we inherited a police service completely inefficient and not properly managed by Labour.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Q4. There is an independent committee that ensures that once they have left office, former Ministers act appropriately in their subsequent employment. It is reported that Lord Mandelson, Baroness Symons and Adam Ingram have worked for the Gaddafi regime. Will the Prime Minister ensure that these reports are thoroughly investigated?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I am sure that those ex-Ministers will want to refer themselves immediately to that committee so that their links can be looked into.
Edward Miliband
The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government are adamant that there is no need for cuts in local authority front-line services. Can he therefore explain why Conservative-run Bromley council is shutting 13 of its 16 children’s centres?
The Prime Minister
Yes, we have made reductions in local government grant, because frankly we inherited a complete mess in the nation’s finances. What we have done is ask every single local authority to make public every single bit of spending they do so that members of the public can make sure that they are cutting bureaucracy, cutting councillor allowances and cutting pay, rather than cutting services. When the right hon. Gentleman gets to his feet, perhaps he can tell us why only one authority in the entire country, Labour-run Nottingham, refuses to do so.
Edward Miliband
You know he is losing the argument when he starts asking me the questions, Mr Speaker. Why are the cuts being made in Sure Start children’s centres? It is because the right hon. Gentleman is cutting the early years budget. The Department for Education’s own figures show an 11% cut between this year and next; and he is not just cutting the budget—he has removed the ring fence that protected it and kept those Sure Start centres open. We are getting used to the Prime Minister’s Question Time U-turn. We have seen it on school sport, housing benefit and, most recently, on forests. He has the capacity to ditch a policy and dump a colleague in it, so when he returns to the Dispatch Box, why does he not dump this policy too and reinstate the Sure Start ring fence?
The Prime Minister
In a minute, he is going to give me a lesson on family loyalty. Let me say this to the right hon. Gentleman: he comes here every week and says that he opposes the defence cuts, opposes changes in the Home Office and opposes any changes to local government, yet in four weeks’ time his own cuts programme, the Darling programme, comes into place, with £14 billion of cuts, which is only £2 billion less than we propose. It is about time he got off his opportunistic bandwagon and started producing some policies of his own.
Edward Miliband
This is a guy who has made his career out of opportunism knocks. Remember what he said at the election: he was strongly committed to Sure Start; he would improve Sure Start; and if anyone suggested otherwise, it was an absolute disgrace. As children’s centres face closure, people know that he has got it in his power to stop it happening by reinforcing that Sure Start ring fence. He is the Prime Minister; it might not have looked like it last week, but why does he not get a grip?
The Prime Minister
What we are doing for children in this country is funding education for two-year-olds for the first time, putting money into the pupil premium—something the right hon. Gentleman did not do for 13 years—and making sure that money is focused on the most disadvantaged. That is what is actually happening. When the party opposite looks at his performance—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Let us have a bit of order in the House. I want to get to the bottom of the Order Paper and the House needs to help in that process.
The Prime Minister
The money for Sure Start is there, so centres do not have to close. [Interruption.] Yes, and I think that when the Opposition consider the right hon. Gentleman’s performance it could be time for a bit of “Brother, where art thou?”
Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
Recently, eight Members from both Houses of Parliament met, in Islamabad, Mr Shahbaz Bhatti. This morning, we learned that Mr Bhatti, on his way to work, was murdered. Mr Bhatti was a man committed to peace and multi-faith reconciliation. Will my right hon. Friend send through the high commission our condolences to the Pakistani Government and to his family, and will he restate our belief that there is no place for that kind of action anywhere in a democratic world?
The Prime Minister
I think my hon. Friend speaks for the whole House and, I am sure, the whole country. It was absolutely shocking to hear the news this morning about that Minister, who was a Christian minister in Pakistan, being killed in that way—absolutely brutal and unacceptable. It shows what a huge problem we have in our world with intolerance, and what my hon. Friend says is absolutely right. I will send not only our condolences, but our clearest possible message to the Government and people of Pakistan that that is simply unacceptable.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Q5. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister gave the House some figures to criticise the flexible new deal. I thought they sounded a bit odd, so I asked the Library to check, and its response states: “This is a misleading interpretation of the statistics.”The Library points out that the Department for Work and Pensions website warns directly against interpreting the figures in the way the Prime Minister interpreted them. In future, can he get someone to check his figures before he gives them to the House?
The Prime Minister
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the figures were properly checked, and I shall write him a letter outlining not only the figures for the flexible new deal, which so many people know was just a revolving door for young people who needed employment, but the figures for the future jobs fund, which cost five times as much as many other programmes.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Q6. With the police using 2,000 different IT systems employing 5,000 staff, is it not time for this Government to start reforming police practices, so that more resources can be devoted to fighting crime on the front line?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The British police are incredibly brave and professional, and all of us see how hard they work in our communities, but they are let down by a system that has far too many officers in back-office roles, in HR and in IT, and not on the streets. That is what needs to change, along with some of the working practices that, frankly, are not actually modern and up to date. We need to make sure that that happens so that we keep the maximum number of police on the front line in our communities.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Q7. The armed forces have our total support and admiration, and traditionally they would have looked to a Conservative Government, whether in good economic times or bad, to defend them as they defend us. Given the deplorable treatment that they are currently receiving, whether by e-mail or hard copy, what plans does the Prime Minister have to restore faith in government?
The Prime Minister
Everyone in the House appreciates that our armed forces are among the most brave and professional anywhere in the world, and we can be incredibly proud of what they do. In terms of making sure that we look after them, the Government have introduced a doubling of the operational allowance for all those serving in Afghanistan; we are the first Government in history to introduce a pupil premium so that the children of service personnel get extra money when they go to school; we are making sure that rest and recuperation leave is properly formed; and we are writing out the military covenant and properly referencing it in law. The most important thing of all is to have a defence review and to make sure that our forces are fit for the future.
To all those who express concern, I make this point: at the end of that defence review, we will have the fourth largest military budget in the world; some of the most capable weapons that any air force in the world could have; the new Type 45 destroyers; our nuclear deterrent; and a superbly professional Army. That is what we want in this country, and that is what this Government will support.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Q8. Will the Prime Minister join me in encouraging schools in my constituency and right across the country to get involved in the Tenner Tycoon school business competition, which encourages enterprise and is running this month?
The Prime Minister
Yes, it sounds like an excellent scheme. There is a lot that we should do to encourage business and enterprise to go into our schools to encourage young people to think about a career in starting up a business, in small business and in enterprise. That is a very important part of a rounded education.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Q9. On Sunday, a woman asked me what politicians were going to do for people like her, as she had been waiting for a disability living allowance appeal for 11 months. Given the roll-out of the employment support allowance and the proposals for more reviews and more assessments in DLA, what plans does the Prime Minister have for expanding the Tribunals Service, and has this been fully costed in his welfare reforms?
The Prime Minister
This House will obviously have a lot of opportunity to debate the Welfare Reform Bill, which is one of the most complex and detailed pieces of legislation on reforming our welfare system. On DLA specifically, what we are looking for, in terms of the gateway, is to make sure that people have a proper assessment for DLA, because there are too many cases where people need it and do not get it and, regrettably, some cases where people do not need it and do get it, and we need to put that right.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
While we must clearly do everything that we can to help the non-Libyans who are seeking to get out of that country, may we hope that the Libyans will be allowed to determine the fate of Colonel Gaddafi?
The Prime Minister
I very much hope that they do. We should support and say how much we admire those brave people who are standing up in their own country asking for greater freedoms and greater democracy—for things that we take for granted in our own country. What has been striking is that although many said that any sort of rebellion like this would be extremist, or Islamist, or tribal, it is none of those things; it is a revolt by the people, who want to have greater democracy in their country.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
Q10. Last week, Save the Children published research showing that 1.6 million children are living in severe poverty in the United Kingdom, yet this week the Government have failed to include low-income families in the warm home discount scheme for rebates on their energy bills. Will the Prime Minister meet Save the Children on this critical issue and ask the Chancellor to publish an emergency plan to tackle severe child poverty in the Budget and the child poverty strategy later this month?
The Prime Minister
I do see Save the Children regularly. It is an excellent organisation in terms of the work that it does overseas and the pressure that it rightly brings to bear here in this country. What we have done in trying to help with child poverty is to make sure that we massively increase the child tax credit. That is what we have done in the Budget and in the spending round to make sure that while we are making difficult decisions, child poverty has not increased.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
Q11. The Prime Minister will know that for years the welfare state has been too easily abused. Can he therefore assure this House that in future the welfare state will act as a safety net for the unfortunate and not as a way of life for the workshy?
The Prime Minister
What this Government are doing—and it is a historic reform—is making sure that the welfare state always means that it is worth while someone being in work and worth while someone working more. That is what universal credit is all about, and it will make a huge difference to welfare in this country.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Q12. Many of the poorest and most disadvantaged children in my constituency will not be included in the pupil premium because their parents are still waiting for their immigration status to be settled and therefore have no access to funds and are not eligible for free school meals. Will the Prime Minister ask his Ministers to meet me and other Members in constituencies like mine to discuss a way to capture these children to ensure that our schools are not underfunded?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady makes an important point. When we established the pupil premium, we had a number of discussions to try to work out the best basis to put it on. In the short term, the free school meals indicator was the best basis. However, I am very happy to arrange a meeting between her and my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary to see what we can do to make sure that we really are targeting those most in need. There may be opportunities, perhaps not this year but in the future, to make sure that the pupil premium is helping those who most need it.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Transport made a most welcome announcement on the electrification of the Great Western main line to Bristol, Cardiff and the south Wales valleys, including the fact that the jobs producing those trains will be in the north-east of England. Does not this show that the coalition Government not only have a strategy for growth but that that vision for growth is both high-tech and green?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. In 13 years, the previous Government never electrified the west coast main line out to Cardiff. We have managed to announce it within nine months. He is absolutely right. The good news is not just the electrification of the line to Cardiff, but the new factory in Newton Aycliffe that will build the trains and that we are pressing ahead with High Speed 2.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Q13. Does the Prime Minister think he was right to tell journalists on a plane that the United Kingdom is paying bribes to Libya, and does he agree with the Foreign Office’s assessment that he was “loose-tongued and reckless”?
The Prime Minister
I am, of course, very grateful for that question. The point I would make is that in getting people out of Libya, we did have to pay some facilitation payments for the services in the airport. As the hon. Gentleman says, I am sure that those were entirely proper.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Q14. The Royal British Legion has welcomed the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to a new military covenant being enshrined in the law of the land, but it has made it clear that it does not accept that the Government’s proposals for an annual armed forces covenant report honour that promise. Will he work constructively with the Royal British Legion to agree a definition of the military covenant that can be enshrined in legislation?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to work with the Royal British Legion. It is one of the most important and hard-working organisations in our country. Not only does it do a great job in lobbying for the armed forces, it does a brilliant job in looking after former service personnel in all our constituencies. I am happy to have that conversation. However, I want to ensure not only that we reference the covenant properly in law, but that we regularly debate, improve and enhance it, partly through debates in this House.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for their work in securing an extra £200 million for the Police Service of Northern Ireland to combat the dissident terrorist threat. That will undoubtedly save lives and prevent the creation of further victims. On victims, given our campaign for compensation for the victims of Libyan state-sponsored IRA terrorism, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that before the normalisation of relations with Libya under any new regime, the outstanding matter of compensation will be addressed by the Government, not least through the use of Gaddafi assets seized in Britain?
The Prime Minister
First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the additional funding for the police in Northern Ireland. It is absolutely vital that we work hard with its Administration to ensure that the security situation there is as good as it can be. On what he said about compensation from the Libyans to victims of IRA terror, an FCO-led unit is still working on that issue and it is vital that it continues to go on doing that. It is an ingenious idea to use the frozen assets in that way. Having sought advice, those assets really belong to the Libyan people. The whole problem with Libya is that it is a rich country with poor people. We can see that in the extensive assets that have been frozen. Those assets belong to the Libyan people first and foremost.
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Q15. Milton Keynes council has been praised for its commitment to publishing all expenditure of more than £500, ensuring that local residents can see exactly how their council tax money is being spent. What message will the Prime Minister give to other local authorities that seem determined to keep their residents firmly in the dark?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I know that the Labour party is embarrassed about this, because we now have transparency from every single council in the country apart from one that is controlled by the Labour party—Nottingham—which will not tell us where it is spending its money. I want every single person in our country, every single Member of Parliament and all councillors to be able to ensure that the money is going on services and not on salaries, bureaucracy and allowances. That is the pressure at a time of austerity and of difficult national decisions. How typical it is of Labour just to try to cover it all up.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
In response to a question from me in December, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government expressed himself as “delighted” with the level of cuts faced by Birmingham. Yesterday, Birmingham city council cut £212 million from its budget, hitting care for the elderly and the disabled, and youth services. Does the Prime Minister share his Communities Secretary’s delight or does he think that Birmingham is going too far, too fast?
The Prime Minister
Every council in the country is having to make difficult decisions about reducing their spending. When we look at what is actually happening to Government grants, we see that in most cases, they are going back to the levels that we had in 2007, 2006 or, in some cases, even 2009. Everyone has to take part in this, and I would just remind the hon. Gentleman that the reason this is being done is because his party made a complete mess of the economy.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
At a time when prices at the petrol pumps are going up and up, will the Government do all that they can to ease the pressure on hard-pressed motorists?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I know how difficult it is for motorists, and particularly for small businesses and families, when they are filling up at the pumps and paying more than £1.30 a litre. As we have said, we will look at the fact that extra revenue comes to the Treasury when there is a higher oil price, and will see whether we can share some of the benefit of that with the motorist. That is something that Labour never did in all its time in government, and it ought to be reminded of the fact that it announced four increases in fuel duty last year, three of which were due to come in after the election.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
The £90 million of cuts to the budget of Leeds city council means that Bramley baths in my constituency will have its hours cut so that school children will not be able to swim there any more. How does that fit with the Government’s ambition for school sports and for the Olympic legacy for Leeds?
The Prime Minister
We do want to see a proper legacy come out of the Olympics. That is why we are funding the Olympics properly and why we have made it very clear that the extra money will be made available for school sport. But, if we look at education funding, we can see that funding per pupil is not being reduced. Because of difficult decisions being made elsewhere, which Labour has never supported, we are maintaining per-pupil funding for students throughout our country. That is the right decision, and it is one that the hon. Lady should get behind.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
When Colonel Gaddafi is finally removed, is the Prime Minister confident—[Interruption]—that an interim Government can be found to prevent the country from falling into anarchy?
The Prime Minister
I would advise my hon. Friend to ignore the voices from the Opposition. They are just furious at the fact that he liberated a long-held Labour seat. He makes a very good point. One of the things that we are doing, currently and in the coming days, is making contact with the opposition in Benghazi to ensure that we have good contacts with them so that we can help to bring about a peaceful transition in Libya.
Mr Speaker
Order. We come to the urgent question. Will right hon. and hon. Members who are not staying for this business but are leaving do so quickly and quietly so that the exchanges on the urgent question can take place properly?
Petition
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
This petition was presented to me after a visit to the Catch 22 project in the Barton Hill area of my constituency, which is the most deprived ward in the city of Bristol, and one of the most deprived wards in the south of England.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Bristol,
Declares that, after nine years of working with the families and young people of East Central Bristol, there is now a real risk that the East Bristol Youth Inclusion Programme will not have its funding renewed; and notes that the Petitioners believe that this cut will have a negative impact, not just on local young people, but also on the wider community.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure that money for preventative work remains ring-fenced, so that young people can be given the necessary support to remain out of the youth justice system, and live fulfilling and empowered lives.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000891]
Armed Forces (Redundancies)
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on redundancies in the armed forces.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
On 19 October last year, in the strategic defence and security review, the Government announced reductions in the size of the armed forces, reducing the Army by 7,000, the RAF by 5,000 and the Navy by 5,000. This was to reshape the armed forces for Future Force 2020 and also to respond to the budgetary pressures resulting from the need to reduce the inherited deficit and deal with the black hole in the Ministry of Defence’s finances.
Following the announcement, normal procedure for proceeding with the redundancies was followed. Let me briefly describe this. The armed forces modelled the manpower that they needed for Future Force 2020 and consulted their own people on the best methods and time scales for achieving that. The families federations have been kept fully informed. Yesterday’s announcements were simply part of that process. Following yesterday’s announcement of the RAF programme, the Army and Navy will follow on 4 April with their programmes. The Army and RAF will give individuals notice that they will be made redundant on 1 September, followed by the Navy on 30 September. The exact timing of further tranches has not yet been decided.
Afghanistan is the Government’s defence main effort. Decisions in the SDSR were therefore weighted towards the protection of capability for the mission in Afghanistan, which, as the Prime Minister has said, will see us transition to full Afghan lead in 2014.
Redundancy is never a painless process, whether in the armed forces or elsewhere, and it is sad to see committed and patriotic men and women lose their jobs. But in that process, it is essential that they are made fully aware of the options available and the time scales involved, which means that a timetable needs to be adhered to, for the sake of themselves and their families. It would simply be wrong to alter that timetable for the convenience of the Government. Personnel were expecting the announcement this week, and to delay it for political expediency would have been to betray their trust. Difficult though it may be, under this Government political convenience will not be the final arbiter of our decisions.
Mr Murphy
I start by associating myself with the Prime Minister’s condolences regarding Private Dean Hutchinson and Private Robert Wood.
This is the second time in recent weeks that the Secretary of State has had to come to Parliament in this way. Surely it is not too much to ask that when he is making announcements about 11,000 armed forces redundancies he should volunteer to come here, and not have to be summoned to appear.
Yesterday there was a written ministerial statement, which contained a fraction of the information that was briefed to the media. Some will think that that was because, on the day when the Government were discussing a no-fly zone over Libya, they did not want to defend in the Commons the 2,700 redundancies in the RAF—but I think it is more serious than that. In November the Secretary of State said at the Dispatch Box:
“no one currently serving in Afghanistan, or on notice to deploy, will face compulsory redundancy.”—[Official Report, 8 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 13.]
I always try to give the Secretary of State the benefit of the doubt, as he knows, so I believed him. More importantly, the armed forces and their families believed him. In making that promise he gave his word, and in breaking his pledge he is playing with words.
Why did the Ministry of Defence brief the media yet keep Parliament in the dark? How many people who have served in Afghanistan will be made redundant, and will the Secretary of State repeat his guarantee that no one currently serving in Afghanistan will be sacked on their return? Unless he can answer those questions and give that guarantee, it is disgraceful that some of our forces taking on the Taliban today will be welcomed home as heroes by the public, and sacked by their Government.
Dr Fox
First, as I have just explained to the House, this is not a new announcement but simply procedure following on from the announcements made in the SDSR. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that this is the second time that we have had an urgent question on this subject, and I noticed that when the Opposition last had the opportunity to ask a question, they were not asking for details about these particular schemes but wanted to talk about e-mails and other peripheral issues. For them suddenly to come forward with a new-found interest in this particular issue strikes me as the most sad and cynical opportunism.
I have repeatedly made it clear that we have compulsory redundancy schemes in the armed forces because we need to maintain the rank structure and skills base required. When compulsory redundancies are announced, they will not affect those in receipt of the operational allowance, those within six months of deploying or those on post-operational tour leave, as I made clear in the House.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Sadly, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have to refer to the fallen on occasions. As we speak, a military funeral is taking place at St Peter’s church in Colchester, so the statement that we have been given is very important.
The Secretary of State has twice now given the House assurances that members of 16 Air Assault Brigade from my constituency serving in Afghanistan will not be made compulsorily redundant. Does he agree, however, that the manner in which the Ministry of Defence is handling matters causes concern not only to serving personnel in Afghanistan but to their families back home?
Dr Fox
The processes being followed are those that the armed forces would normally follow when setting out redundancies. There is never a good time to announce redundancies. It is particularly politically difficult when our armed forces are in combat in Afghanistan. However, if we are to keep faith with our personnel, we must follow the timetables that we have set out for them. It would be easy to delay announcements at the inconvenience of our service personnel simply for the convenience for politicians. That is entirely the wrong way to proceed.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
The Secretary of State knows that Moray is the most defence-dependent constituency in the UK, that a great many people at RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Kinloss have just learned that they are to be made redundant, and that 14 Squadron has just returned from Afghanistan, had a homecoming parade, and is now being disbanded early. Does he understand that that bad news is compounded by the delayed decision and announcement about the future of RAF Lossiemouth?
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
What impact will the reviews have on the current terms of reference for the review of the reserves?
Dr Fox
The review of reserves continues, looking at the financial and capability implications and the wider footprint. It is not directly affected by the results, but on implementation, we would of course have to take into account the shape of the armed forces resulting from the SDSR decisions.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is trying to tell us that all the decisions spring from his strategic defence review—but is that true? He did not tell us about the cuts to the Tornado when he cut the Harrier. When the Prime Minister told us that he would protect the infantry, he did not tell us that he would cut the Royal Marines. The Secretary of State, many other Members and I know that decisions are still being made on further cuts in the Ministry of Defence. He criticised us for not having a strategic defence review, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that we still have not had one. He must open up the decision and take some proper, publicly accountable strategic decisions about the shape of our armed forces.
Dr Fox
If I may correct one minor inaccuracy, I said that we had decided to cut 17,000 jobs in the armed forces. In fact, the work that the armed forces carried out means that the figure is considerably smaller. Instead of 7,000, it is 5,000 for the Army; instead of 5,000, it is 3,300 for the Navy.
Of course, the budgetary pressures continue. As any Labour politician knows, the previous Government left Ministry of Defence finances in an absolute shambles. The problem will not be tackled overnight.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
No one should doubt my right hon. Friend’s commitment to the welfare of our armed services, but there is a concern that the resources devoted to the Ministry of Defence are top-heavy relative to our troops on the ground. Will he remind the House of the measures that he is taking to ensure that the Ministry of Defence is streamlined?
Dr Fox
It is worth remembering when we discuss those matters that although we have had reductions of some 11,000 in the armed forces, we are looking at reductions of 25,000 in the civil service to bring the MOD into a much better and more efficient shape and to help control the budget. My hon. Friend is correct that we will also look at rank structure to ensure that we are not making reductions in the more junior ranks while maintaining those at a higher level in the armed forces.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State tell the House what the cost to the Department of the redundancy payments in his announcement will be?
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)
I know how angry the nonsense in the Army a couple of weeks ago, when sergeant-majors and warrant officers were sacked by e-mail, made the Secretary of State. Newark, my constituency, will feel the effect of the RAF redundancies, in particular. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that there will be no further such nonsense when the next announcements are made?
Dr Fox
What I set out today is the correct procedure that should be followed. What we discussed on a previous occasion is what happens when it is not followed. It would have been easy for the Government to say, “We will not go ahead with this programme this week; we will not have those face-to-face interviews with the personnel concerned because it is politically inconvenient for us at this time.” That would be the wrong way to proceed. We have a duty of care to those who are being made redundant to ensure that processes and timetables are followed, and that they and their families get the maximum certainty in the circumstances.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I am sure that the Secretary of State draws no pleasure from this painful process, but further to the point made by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), I and many others struggle to understand why the redundancies are not included in a single package with the base closure programme in July. Would it not have made more sense to do this in a more joined-up way?
Dr Fox
Work will always be ongoing. As well as the basing review, we have the Army returning from Germany and reform of the procurement process, on which I last week set out some additional measures. This is an ongoing process and there will be second and third order changes as a result of the SDSR for some time to come. The Department requires huge downsizing—it has an inherited budgetary deficit of £38 billion—and we cannot expect to do that overnight. Had we done things more quickly, I would no doubt have been accused of rushing the base review as well.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
In the past when we have managed headcount through redundancies, we have also turned off the tap on recruitment and training, with disastrous long-standing consequences. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that we will continue to try to attract the highest-quality young people to our armed forces and to train them properly?
Dr Fox
We will continue to recruit the highest calibre possible. Some reductions in redundancies have been achieved by slowing down the number of those coming into the armed forces, but we cannot avoid redundancies through that process, because we need to continue to recruit, not least for the campaign in Afghanistan.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
In the light of the Secretary of State’s announcement that 170 trainee pilots will not be retained by the RAF, will he say how much it costs to train such a pilot in the first place?
Dr Fox
I am not sure that that figure is available, but I will try to find out. It is important that when we are unable to continue training, we will offer those concerned alternative careers inside the RAF where possible. However, it is inevitable that if we reduce the number of aircraft, we will have a reduced requirement for pilots. Those trainees will not continue to the end of their traineeship because there has been a reduction in the size of the aircraft fleet, which, as I said, is a necessary part of the spending reductions required to bring the budget into balance. We did not create that budget; we inherited it.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
My constituency is home to most of the Salisbury plain garrison towns. We will wait with eager anticipation to see the final numbers in September, but can the Secretary of State assure the House, first, that those who are injured in the line of duty will not be in the first line for redundancies, and secondly, that we will do all we can to support those who leave the armed forces in moving into other roles, particularly in teaching and in mentoring young children?
Dr Fox
My hon. Friend makes two very important points. First, clearly, when those who have been injured are still recovering, there will be no question of redundancy. Secondly, it makes a great deal of sense to encourage such mentoring programmes. We often hear that young people do not have sufficient role models, and getting people from the armed forces into our schools will provide young people with the sort of role models that will be of real value to them.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State repeat his previous pledge that no member of the armed forces who is currently serving in Afghanistan will be made redundant?
Dr Fox
When we finally get to the point when redundancies are announced—that is some way off yet—nobody who is in pre-deployment training, or deployed and in receipt of the operational allowance, or recovering from injuries sustained on operations, or on post-operational leave, will be made compulsorily redundant.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
It is sad news that 13 Squadron at RAF Marham is to be disbanded, although I understand that this will not lead to automatic redundancies. Further to earlier questions about the basing review, which the Secretary of State has said will be announced in the spring or summer, can he confirm that it will not only cover the short term and the Tornado, but look at where the joint strike fighter will be based, to provide long-term security for the armed forces personnel in my constituency?
Dr Fox
The basing review, when it is announced, will examine what we require in line with Future Force 2020 and the strategy set out in the SDSR, and it is only appropriate that it should do so. It is much better that we should have a clearly set out aim-point of 2020 and be working towards that. Given the shambolic budget and the deficit that we inherited, we all recognised that we would not be able to make changes overnight. In 10 months we have gone quite far in returning that budgetary imbalance to a more sustainable position, and we intend to do the same with the basing review.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The scale and pace of the cuts that the coalition has decided to implement go far deeper and faster than is necessary to deal with the deficit. Can the Secretary of State say whether those cuts are permanent?
Dr Fox
The fact is that there has not been even a hint of an apology from the Opposition about the appalling situation that they left behind. Nobody on the Government Benches came into politics to see cuts in our armed forces; they were forced on us by the utter incompetence of the Government who went before us. I also noticed that in the question asked earlier by the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), there was no hint of what Labour policy is, or what the Opposition might do to reverse any of the cuts.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Will any of the changes affect our ability to assist in any potential no-fly agreement over Libya?
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
At a time of enormous uncertainty—not just about Libya, but about the middle east and northern Africa—does the Secretary of State agree that making long-term strategic reductions in our capabilities for short-term cost reasons will hearten the Taliban and encourage their resurgence in future years, in the knowledge that we are in disarray over piecemeal successive cuts to our strategic capability?
Dr Fox
The idea that these are short-term cuts for short-term reasons beggars belief. Next year we will spend more on debt interest than on defence, the Foreign Office and aid put together. Even if we eliminate the deficit in this Parliament, the debt interest will still go up, so future generations will still be living with the legacy of Labour’s economic incompetence. This is not something short term; this is long-term pain imposed on the British people by the economic incompetence of another socialist Government.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware that Defence Medical Services have for some time struggled to maintain the correct numbers of certain clinical specialists. Can he assure the House that any potential reduction in size of Defence Medical Services will not jeopardise its ability to grow and retain those key clinical personnel?
Dr Fox
It is a key point that we have those appropriate personnel. Indeed, in the review of the reserves, which has already been mentioned, I am particularly concerned to ensure that we retain full access to medical specialties. However, although we may be saturated in terms of secondary care, there is still scope to improve the primary care offered in the armed forces through the reserves.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
What assurances can the Secretary of State give senior military personnel who have expressed their opinion on this matter that, following the announcement of the decisions, we will have the capability to deal with the potential threat in the near future?
Dr Fox
The hon. Gentleman asks a good question—and as I have explained, that is why we have compulsory redundancies in the armed forces. We cannot simply accept the people who volunteer for redundancy, because we have a duty to maintain the rank structure and the appropriate skills. That is why we will allow people to volunteer for the scheme, but ultimately we may not be able to accept all who volunteer, and may have compulsory redundancies elsewhere instead. It is for the very reason that the hon. Gentleman raises—because we have to maintain the skills and structures involved—that we have a compulsory scheme in statute in this country.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
As a former RAF officer who took advantage of a previous redundancy scheme, I was pleased to visit 1466 Air Cadet Squadron in Holmfirth recently. Many of the young people there aspire to serve in the Royal Air Force. They are the potential brave servicemen and women of the future, so will the Secretary of State confirm that we will keep their morale up?
Dr Fox
It is always worth pointing out to those who wish to have a career in the armed forces that there is a bright future for them. Under Future Force 2020, not only will Britain have the fourth biggest defence budget in the world, but the RAF will see the number of Typhoons grow and the introduction of the new joint strike fighter, and we will also upgrade our lift capability through the introduction of the A400M. I would certainly encourage anyone who wants to continue with their careers to do so, but I also warn Opposition Members that playing politics with redundancies or other issues that have a clear impact on morale is extremely dangerous.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Yesterday the Secretary of State tabled a statement outlining his plans for members of the armed forces and their redundancies. He told the House that nobody preparing to deploy in Afghanistan, serving in Afghanistan or recently returned from Afghanistan would be made redundant. Within minutes the media were reporting that this was not the case. He seems to be dodging the issue today, so will he now repeat that exact pledge on the Floor of the House?
Dr Fox
I will say it for the third time in the House, although I should say to the hon. Gentleman that I can only explain it to him; I cannot understand it for him. At the point where any compulsory redundancies are made—that will be some time later in the year, as I have made clear in the timetable already set out by the armed forces—no one serving in Afghanistan in receipt of the operational allowance, no one preparing to go there, nobody on post-deployment leave and nobody who is recovering will be made compulsorily redundant.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend explain why 2 Tornado Squadron was earmarked for removal from service this week?
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
We must not forget that 11,000 of our bravest men and women have lost their jobs because of the Secretary of State’s decision. Many of them, and their families, watching or listening will find his tone rather distasteful and smug at this time. We must remember that they are men and women who risk their lives every day in defence of this great country. They deserve a lot more respect than they are being shown in the Secretary of State’s answers.
Dr Fox
Clearly we are going to disagree on our approach, because what the hon. Gentleman calls smug, I would call angry. We are very angry indeed that we were left with a £38 billion hole in the Ministry of Defence and a massive national deficit, the interest payments on which are bigger than our defence budget. We are angry, but we are absolutely determined to get the situation under control, and then we will urge the British people never again to elect such an economically incompetent Government as the previous one.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend was kind enough to write to me yesterday following his statement, knowing that RAF Cranwell is in my constituency. All serving RAF personnel in my constituency well understand the £38 billion hole that we were left with by the last Government. However, RAF Cranwell is considered the home of the Royal Air Force. Can he give me an assurance today that it will always be considered the home of the Royal Air Force?
Dr Fox
That is the tide of history, and nothing I could say or do would change it. However, I reiterate to my hon. and learned Friend that we must go through the proper processes where redundancies are concerned. We must stick to the timetables concerned, because that is part of our duty of care to the men and women who serve in our armed forces. We cannot have arbitrary dates set to suit a political timetable, at the expense of our armed forces. That would be quite wrong.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
I understood from yesterday’s statement that 170 RAF trainee pilots would not be retained. In his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), the Secretary of State seemed to imply that they would be redeployed in the RAF. Can he confirm whether we are talking about cuts, with those pilots leaving the RAF, or whether they will be used for something else?
Dr Fox
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. The reductions are a consequence of reducing the number of aircraft in the RAF, so there is also a reduction in the number of pilots needed, and therefore a reduction in the number of pilots in training. If alternative employment within the RAF can be found for those individuals, we will attempt to provide it.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State be kind enough to outline the terms of a typical redundancy package? What is the reserve liability for those unfortunate enough to be made redundant?
Dr Fox
Because there is such a wide range of individuals who might be leaving the armed forces, it is difficult to say what a typical package would be. It will also range across the three services, as well as depending on seniority. I will attempt to get for my hon. Friend an indication of what the numbers might look like, although I cannot guarantee that will be able to do so with any great accuracy.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Secretary of State’s commitment to armed services personnel who will be deployed in the future is welcome. However, does that commitment extend to armed service personnel currently deployed in Afghanistan, such as the Royal Irish Regiment, and what consultation will the right hon. Gentleman carry out with the regional representatives of those armed forces personnel?
Dr Fox
In looking at their personnel, the armed forces will want to consider a range of issues, not least which personnel they want to retain and which personnel they might accept for compulsory redundancy. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise any specific issues with any of the service chiefs, I am sure that they would be happy to listen to his representations.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend given any consideration to providing extra support for personnel made redundant, to help them move out of the military and secure jobs in alternative employment?
Dr Fox
As I said some time ago in the House, it takes time to transform a civilian into a member of the armed forces, and it takes time to transform a member of the armed forces back into a civilian. It is absolutely necessary to give our full support to all individuals who are leaving. We have set out some particular programmes relating, for example, to those who could move into teaching or mentoring, and we will continue to look at how many programmes we can bring in to ensure that the transition back to civilian life is as smooth and productive as possible.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I am staggered by the short memories of Labour Members about the scale of the economic challenges facing the country and the Department as a result of the incompetence of the last Government. Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether other trusted allies are also realigning their military forces in the light of economic challenges and changing strategic priorities?
Dr Fox
All countries need to continue to do so. The fact that the United Kingdom, with the world’s fourth biggest defence budget—still above 2% of GDP spend, which is our NATO commitment—has been able to do so, and to announce investment in programmes ranging from our submarine programme, our lift capability and our fast jets while making changes to Army structure, is a testament to the skills in our armed forces. Notwithstanding the horrendous financial situation that we inherited from the previous Government, the skills of our armed forces are contributing hugely to our ability to reach a path in 2020 whereby this country can hold its head high on defence.
Mr Speaker
I must thank the Secretary of State and all right hon. and hon. Members for their succinctness, which enabled every colleague who wanted to take part in these exchanges to do so.
bill presented
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Medical Insurance (Pensioner Tax Relief)
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for tax relief on medical insurance premiums for people above a certain age; and for connected purposes.
As a very part-time dentist, I must declare a possible interest, although I cannot quite see the link, and I had better also put in for a prospective interest, given that I age day by day and pension age might come upon me.
As in much of the south-east, life expectancy in Surrey is somewhat higher than the England mean. The average male life expectancy in England is about 78 and it is 82 for females. In Surrey, it is about 82 and 86 respectively. Additionally, the proportion of people aged 65 and over in my Mole Valley constituency is about 20% or slightly more—one in five.
Speaking as someone with a professional interest in health and as an MP observing my constituents’ health, it is obvious to me that longevity brings with it a high demand for health care and large demands on the health services, especially cardiac, carcinoma and orthopaedic services. A plane load of Surrey Saga tourists would really set the airport metal detectors buzzing as they passed through with their hip and knee replacements.
The Mole Valley constituency is served by three good NHS hospitals: the East Surrey, the Royal, and the Epsom. These hospitals have expanded in certain health areas to meet the increasing demand for elderly health treatment. The best example is the Epsom hospital special orthopaedic unit that carries out more than 3,000 hip and knee replacements annually—and the number is increasing. Almost all those 3,000-plus are elderly people from surrounding areas, including my constituency. Local medical problems have been looked at, but there has also been a call for an enhanced and enlarged cardiac unit at Epsom as part of the retention and refurbishment of the NHS hospital.
I provide those two examples as they represent a sample of the increased health demands for NHS health care that come predominantly from the over-65s. This is not special or specific to Mole Valley or to Surrey, but to a greater or lesser degree is nationwide for the 65-plus age group. In addition to being served by those three hospitals, my elderly constituents are served by private hospital services. Some are relatively local, but others demand travel to London and beyond.
Approximately 12.5% of the UK population are covered by private health insurance. Approximately 70% of that cover is corporate, leaving about 30% of it individual. At retirement, many people may wish to take over their corporate private health insurance, but the personal cost of course becomes a factor. Additionally, many who have personally funded their health insurance might not feel able to do so when a regular personal income is merely pension or savings. This means that, as the over-65s’ need for health care increases, individuals will increasingly turn to the NHS and absorb the facilities they would not have taken if they had been covered by their health insurance at a private hospital.
Before March 1997 when tax relief was available to the over-60s, it was estimated that tax relief was paid in respect of 400,000 contracts to cover 600,000 individuals. Over a seven-year period from 1990, tax relief for the over-60s cost £560 million. However, that included a period when the relief applied across all taxpayer rates. In 1994, this was reduced to apply to the basic rate tax only. Unlike my proposal, the relief started at 60, not 65, which affected the call on the taxpayer. The Western Provident Association estimated that 40% of pensioners would discontinue their private health insurance when the cut came into force in 1997. Which? reported in 2002 that private health insurance coverage was lowest for the high-demand 65-plus age group.
Those who choose to have personally funded private health insurance pay twice for their health—in premiums and tax. As I have already stated, this applies to 30% of those insured, as corporate payments cover 70%. However, it would be safe to assume that nigh on 100% of those aged 65 or more are personally funding their health insurance. It is their choice and, for many, it might mean sacrificing other things that affect their lifestyle.
My Bill would allow basic rate tax relief for pensioners at 65 and above, with the age rising as and when the pensionable age increases. It would encourage people either to keep their health insurance or to take out health insurance just as they reach the period in their life when demand can be expected to increase. If they did not have or ceased their insurance, they would add to the call on the national health service. The Bill in no way degrades my or their respect for the NHS, but is intended to take some of the load, in numbers and cost, off our tax-paid national health service. As the UK population’s life expectancy increases and as the wonders of medical research improve our pensioners’ life expectancy and well-being, this would provide an incentive for more people to choose not only to pay their taxes to support the NHS, but to use health insurance to take an increasing load off our NHS to the benefit of others.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sir Paul Beresford, Gavin Barwell, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr Geoffrey Cox, Mr Oliver Heald and Mr Gary Streeter present the Bill.
Sir Paul Beresford accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March, and to be printed (Bill 157).
Estimates Day
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
suppmentary estimates 2010-11
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
department for education
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sure Start Children’s Centres
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
The debate will be initiated, or led—opened: I will use a neutral term—by the Chair of the Select Committee on Education, Mr Graham Stuart.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to take part in a debate which will, I hope, rise above semantics. I do not know whether “initiation” is a partial word or not; I suppose it depends very much on what ceremonies one has undergone earlier in life.
This debate takes place in the context of a crisis of confidence in our education system and, more broadly—if I may pick a few headings at random—in our society’s ability to raise children so that they achieve, enjoy life, are safe and healthy, make a contribution, and go on to prosper. The PISA—programme for international student assessment—tables to which the Government frequently refer indicate that, on a comparative basis, this country’s performance has declined.
The first 10 years of the last Government, between 1997 and 2007, preceded the credit crunch. I should it put on record, in my party’s interests, that the period of solid economic growth between those years had begun in 1992. During that period, the number of young people aged 16 to 24—pick your age range—who were not in employment, education or training remained about level, but once the credit crunch arrived it spiralled up, and now as many as 1 million young people may not be in apprenticeships, at college, at school or in a job. That is a pretty tragic situation.
I have always believed that those who seek a crude proxy to measure the effectiveness of an education system should consider not so much the outcomes of those who go to Oxbridge—important though that is—or those who go to universities in general as the number of young people who end up as NEETs. We engage in an annual argument about whether exams are becoming easier, and how we are placed in comparative terms. I used to point out to Labour Ministers in the Select Committee that existed under the last Government that the system of which education forms a part was intended to deliver Every Child Matters outcomes, and to ensure that young people were able to go on to prosper in life. They cannot do that—and, indeed, they are signally failing to do it—if they end up as NEETs.
As I have said, those who seek the best proxy to measure the effectiveness of society’s systems for bringing up children—which, I suppose, include families—should consider the number of NEETs. That number is at a record high, and we need to tackle it. However, we are also concerned about social mobility, and the fact that our record on teenage pregnancy, fatherless households, drug use and other issues connected with social breakdown and social failure is not good in comparison with the records of other European countries.
The intellectual running under the new Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government seems, ironically enough, to be being made largely by current and former Labour Members of Parliament. I am pleased to see that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) is present. Whether we cite the Field report, the Allen report on early intervention or Alan Milburn’s report on social mobility, it is clear that a huge amount of work is being done, which indicates a general consensus in the House that we should try to become more effective.
The Select Committee produced its report as the Labour Government moved towards their target for full service delivery, which was at least 3,500 centres. I believe that there are now more than 3,600. Having initially established children’s centres in the most deprived parts of the country, the Government wanted to ensure that they existed in every part of the country. While it is fair to say that they wanted to provide a universal service, their rationale for taking Sure Start everywhere was the need to reach the poorest and most disadvantaged children in areas that were not themselves generally disadvantaged. They recognised that if they focused only on the most disadvantaged areas, many children elsewhere would be missed out.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Sheerman
May I ask the hon. Gentleman to think again about what he has said? According to evidence given to the Select Committee, most children from deprived backgrounds lived outside the 500 most challenging wards in the country. That was the point: more young people with deprived backgrounds lived outside than inside the targeted areas.
Mr Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is, of course, right, and if I suggested otherwise I did not mean to. I meant to say that the main driver was not the need to provide a universal service, but the need to reach poor children wherever they were. In rural constituencies such as mine, which may in general contain high levels of wealth, there are still many people from poorer families. The aim was to provide a universal service that would reach those people, but the Committee concluded that the policy had not been as effective as we should have liked it to be.
I hope that we shall learn from Ministers today about their vision of the future of children’s centres. We know that the Government agree on the importance of early intervention, and we know that they see an important role for children’s centres within that. We also know that they have rolled funding for children’s centres into the early intervention grant. They say that they are providing enough funds to keep all the existing children’s centres open, but they have not insisted that local authorities do so. Moreover, the larger fund in which they have included the funds for children’s centres has itself been reduced this year from about £2.7 billion to £2.4 billion, and from 1 April it will be 10.9% lower than the 2010-11 notional figure.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend congratulate authorities such as Medway, which has 19 Sure Start centres—seven of which are in my constituency—and has agreed to keep all of them open? That clearly demonstrates that it is not inevitable that Sure Start centres will close. I should declare an interest: I am a sitting Medway councillor.
Mr Stuart
I am happy to congratulate my hon. Friend’s council on adopting what it considers to be the most effective way of delivering the improvements that we so desperately want for young people. However, the number of NEETs has been rising, and research suggests that the outcomes from children’s centres so far are not what we would wish them to be.
We have heard about the bundling of funds and the relaxation of ring-fencing. Ministers are still saying that every Sure Start or other children’s centre should be able to stay open, but “should be able to stay open” and “will stay open” are two separate concepts. I should like to know from Ministers, and indeed from Opposition spokesmen, whether they are fixated on the importance of maintaining buildings from which services of varying quality emanate. Is that the be-all and end-all, or are we prepared to give local authorities the power to decide how best to provide early intervention, which may well be through a rationalisation of children’s centres? I do not know whether the Front-Bench teams think that the buildings are the be-all and end-all and that any reduction from 3,600 will be a disaster for our young people, or that local authorities should be allowed to think for themselves and tailor local solutions to local needs. I would like a clearer steer from both Front-Bench teams so that we have a better idea of where we are going.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
In the last Parliament, the hon. Gentleman and I served together on the Select Committee and I respect his opinion. He has touched on the key question. The Government are cutting the funding to my local authority by about 13% and they say that leaves enough money to keep the network open, but the local authority is cutting by 45%, which clearly will not leave enough, so the majority of centres will close. In such a situation should the Government intervene or should there be localism at its purest, and if the local authority wants to close down most of the centres should it be allowed to do so?
Mr Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is right to pose this question about the right response, and we need a clearer steer. While making claims about localism, will the Government in fact quietly put pressure on councils and say, “You must keep these centres open”? I recognise why the hon. Gentleman says the last Government put all these things in place and the new Government are threatening to dismantle them while denying doing so, as that is an understandable line to take in opposition, but rationalising these centres could be the right thing to do. It could be that, after sober analysis and assessment of the needs of its local community, a local authority decides that its children’s centre buildings are not working well enough and it cannot get the teams to deliver in the right way but thinks it will be able to find a better way of providing these services. I would like to know how fixated we are going to be on children’s centres per se, rather than on delivering the outcomes for young people.
Mrs Hodgson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I too served on the Select Committee with him in the last Parliament, and I think he is doing a sterling job as Chair of the new Select Committee. I am also pleased that we are having this debate today.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Opposition are not fixated on the buildings. Our priority is that the provision should still exist. We still believe it should be a universal provision targeted on those most in need. It is not about the buildings; it is about ensuring that there is a service within them. When the Sure Start children’s centres were first introduced the aim was that everybody would be within a pushchair push of one of them. If a local authority decides to have just one or two such centres, people are not going to be within a pushchair push of their nearest one, and they will therefore not be used by those who need them most.
Mr Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She makes a fair point, but service delivery is the key and there is enormous variation in that between children’s centres across the country. In the last Parliament, the National Audit Office investigated the cost-effectiveness of centres at our behest, and it concluded that
“it remains very difficult to examine and compare centres’ cost effectiveness.”
It also said:
“Where we have been able to calculate unit costs we found wide variations. Together with other evidence this suggests that there is still scope for improving cost effectiveness.”
That suggests that there could be savings. The Government reasonably say that reductions in budget should not necessarily lead to closures. Children’s centres could, perhaps, be improved and operate on a lower budget.
The NAO also said:
“There is qualitative evidence of improvement; for example, some local authorities and centres are developing and implementing means of managing children’s centres to make more effective use of skills and resources. And most centres and local authorities have made substantial improvements in their monitoring of performance since our 2006 report.”
There is progress, therefore.
I ask the Minister to set out the Government’s vision, and explain to what extent they wish the existing infrastructure to be maintained, or whether, in the spirit of localism and the tailoring of services to meet local needs, they want local authorities to make up their own minds, which might lead to great discrepancies. It could certainly lead to the loss of a national entitlement to children’s centres, but that might be an improvement. A true localist looking at the analysis of the results so far may conclude that a more localised and differentiated approach would be better.
I went on a Select Committee trip to Finland two weeks ago. Learning lessons from Finland is hard, and I know my predecessor as Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), hated any mention of Finland. I do not think he ever explained why, but I guess it was because of the difficulty of applying its experiences and contexts to our experiences and contexts. There was one thing I did learn from Finland, however. Someone in its central department of education said, “We’ve been trying to achieve a particular outcome, but although we’ve been working at it for 10 years, we haven’t really made as much progress as we want, so we’re going to work harder and carry on trying to make it happen.” That is very different from the way things are done in our country, where, typically, 18 months into a new initiative new Ministers arrive and throw it overboard because they decide it does not work, and they stop doing the long, hard, grinding work that leads to the improvement of existing services.
I would hate the groundwork that has been done by children’s centres across the country to be dismantled, not because they are universally successful but because it takes a long, hard slog to improve performance and management, to bring on more leaders, and to learn what certificates they should sit for so that we have higher quality staff who can identify the areas that are brilliant and share that practice, and identify the areas that are poor and need to be challenged. I would rather we did that than what this country seems to do, which is just throw everything up in the air again when a new set of Ministers come into office.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case. One of the Select Committee conclusions is:
“Children’s centres are a substantial investment with a sound rationale, and it is vital that this investment is allowed to bear fruit over the long term.”
The hon. Gentleman is reminding us of the necessity to consider the long term. The long term is even longer than 10 years, as he rightly points out, so now is not the time to fiddle with this provision.
Mr Stuart
It is certainly a time to fiddle with it. There is ample room for improvement, but it would be a shame if these centres were inadvertently dismantled before what they could deliver had been properly thought through. I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman about that.
I also want the Minister to say whether there are any incentives in place for local authorities to ensure that they focus on changing the life chances of young children, because all too often people will pay lip service and say, “Of course we’re on board with this.” I am reminded of another Select Committee trip, this time to the Netherlands in the last Parliament. The Dutch changed the way local authorities were financed in respect of young people’s services. I think they froze the money from central Government so that if there was a spike in youth unemployment and so forth, local authorities would be at serious financial risk, but if they addressed such matters, they would be much better off. As a result, local authorities stopped just processing young people and putting the financial claim for that into the centre. Instead they became locally responsible for the financial consequences of young people remaining as NEETs. I believe—the previous Select Committee Chairman will put me right if I am wrong—that they more than halved the number of NEETs over the years.
If there are incentives for local authorities that are real and that bite and that mean they take this issue incredibly seriously and focus on it, that would give me more confidence than even the maintenance of the centres. If I felt that local authorities were driven by a desire to grasp this agenda and make a difference to their young people’s lives and one of them told me it was closing some of its children’s centres, I would find that more encouraging than watching, in this time of fiscal retrenchment, centres close apparently because they were especially local and apparently because things would then get better.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful case, as always. On local authorities and incentives, I wonder whether he shares my concern that some authorities may do what it looks as though my local authority is doing. Westminster city council is trying to keep the children’s centres open so it can avoid the controversy attached to closing a building, but it is slashing outreach and drop-in services and other services that actually work and that are provided from within the bricks and mortar of those buildings. That is likely to have an even worse impact on children’s outcomes.
Mr Speaker
Order. Just before the Chairman of the Select Committee responds to that intervention, I want to make the point that, although there is no time limit on Back-Bench speeches and the House is listening attentively and with respect to the Chairman of the Select Committee, I know that he will want to take account of the substantial interest in making contributions to the debate, and I am keen that everyone who wishes to speak should have the chance to do so. I know that the hon. Gentleman will tactfully take account of my gentle ministration.
Mr Stuart
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for that gentle and quite proper intervention—and those who wish to speak will be even more grateful.
The hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) is right. We need to ensure that the resources are used for the best purposes, not political purposes—not in order to make it look as though something has been protected, or to avoid embarrassment, but to help to look after the most vulnerable children for the long term. That is what we must all hope for.
Mr Sheerman
I intervene only because the hon. Gentleman, who is a good friend of mine, mentioned Finland and has now moved on to Holland. It is true that, although I like the Finns, I do not think that many lessons can be learned from their experience. However, he did not give the full picture of the core of the Dutch answer to NEETS, which is very successful: in Holland people cannot draw benefit until they are 27 unless they are training and learning the Dutch language.
Mr Stuart
I believe that that measure was originally introduced by the mayor of Rotterdam, who picked the 27 threshold. It was about creating incentives at a local level in order to tackle the root of the problem. The hon. Gentleman, as befits a previous Select Committee Chairman, tries again to correct me by pointing out that I did not necessarily give the full story.
Will Ministers explain the rationale for the things included in the early intervention grant? I should like to understand how they hold together. Will they take us through the finances of the grant in some detail, and tell the House whether the Government have acted on the Select Committee report recommendation that they pull together all the funding that goes into Sure Start children’s centres? How much will come through health visitors? Also, can Ministers tell us more about health visitors? One of the most important things that children’s centres can do is be more effective in outreach. The National Audit Office and the Durham university study found that, in fact, children’s centres were not as effective in that respect as they could be. The growth in health visitors could play a major part in creating a more effective outreach service that identifies such children earlier and gets them the services and support they need, so that they are school-ready.
Mindful, as ever, of your ministrations, Mr Speaker, I shall sit down.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I wish to make three short points in this debate, so that my colleagues can get in. I am sure that many of them will register their worries about the future of the Sure Start networks. I am fortunate, as our local authority clearly is not going to make any decisions until after the local elections, so I speak as one of those whose Sure Start network is currently intact.
Although it is very important that such concerns are registered, I should like to contribute to raising the spirit of the debate and our hopes for what foundation years can achieve. Indeed, some of my hon. Friends will make the point that that makes the closure of Sure Starts an even more important issue, not less important. We now have enough information to know that, if we want to make a major difference to the life chances of children, particularly poorer children, we need to do it very early on and not think that that will happen automatically in primary, secondary, further or higher education. These are the most crucial years if we are to make a difference.
Two pieces of information that I gathered together when writing the report on foundation years staggered me and knocked me sideways. One was the longitudinal study that looked at outcomes for young children, thanks to which we now know where such children end up in their late twenties. It showed that, probably at the age of three but certainly by five, the die of life is set for most children. Of course, after that age, the most brilliant parents, schools and teachers can make some difference for individuals, but it is very difficult to make a class difference for whole groups of our constituents. So if we are to be serious about whatever we spend, we need, over time, to redistribute resources from further education and from secondary and primary schools into the foundation years, not in a gigantic or absurd way, but in a way that recognises that building up this budget requires knowledge and expertise. We should note the Select Committee Chairman’s plea that we learn from what we are currently doing and add to our success, rather than knocking that sideways and jumping into the latest obscure way to extend life chances.
The second piece of information concerns an area in Birkenhead that has had Sure Start for 10 years. I asked the head of a really good school what 10 things he wanted from children attending school on their first day. What skills did he need? He shared this exercise with his teachers and with other schools, and not only in the Birkenhead area. There were some stunning replies. The schools would like the children to know their own names; to know the word “stop”, because that can hint at danger for them. They would like them to learn to sit still, so they can begin playing properly and by that learn; to learn how to take off certain items of clothing; to learn how to hold a crayon; to know what a book is and how to open it the right way.
This is not a school in Birkenhead that is one the most “challenged”, as we must euphemistically call it. It is a school where, 20 years ago, I first learned that mums would lie about their addresses to get their children into a better school than they would otherwise be allocated. While lying is of course wrong, I could not but have a sneaking admiration for those mothers who were acting in this way, and who knew in a ration-book economy what little chance they had to choose the best services for their children. So although this is not the most challenged school, even after Sure Start—in fact, it was one of the first Sure Starts in the country and has been operating for 10 years—we were still finding children who were highly unprepared for school.
In the light of those two pieces of information from the report, we know that the die is cast for all too many children by the age of five, and that something quite troubling is going on in many areas in our constituencies, where children are nurtured in an arbitrary and random way. I see young people in Birkenhead who are so un-nurtured by their parents that I wonder whether I would survive if I were subjected to the things they are exposed to.
That information underscores the importance of this debate, and in that context I want to make a plea for Sure Start, but not because I disagree with the view that it should be radically reformed, which is an issue I will deal with in a moment. Sure Start already has some extraordinary advantages. It is a brand name. None of the parents whom I spoke to in the various areas I visited throughout the country in undertaking this inquiry told me that this is a service for poor people that stigmatises them. If anything, some of the more bushy-tailed parents who might well not have used the centres were actually there, knowing what a good service Sure Start was providing for children and wanting it for their own. It would be appalling if that brand name were destroyed or damaged in any way.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making an incredibly important point about the lack of stigma attached to Sure Start, and about access for families from many different backgrounds. At the Thornton children’s centre in Crosby, families from a deprived estate and from a less deprived estate all come together. In fact, more than 700 families use that centre, and one of its many huge benefits has been families getting together, mixing, meeting new friends and building relationships that would be severely damaged if the centre closed.
Mr Field
I agree with that. As my hon. Friend says, this is partly about the brand image and about people thinking that going to Sure Start centres is almost a right of citizenship that we do not want to destroy. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) has momentarily left the Chamber because I would have argued with her about the balance between limiting what Sure Start centres do so that we can keep the structure going and cutting the number of centres so that we can maintain the whole range of services that they provide. My judgment is that the balance ought to favour keeping the structure. However, as the Minister knows from the report, I am very anxious about how we reform Sure Start, and I now wish to discuss that.
In reforming Sure Start, it is crucial to keep its universal provision; it does not have to be the most expensive or the most upmarket, but the report on the foundation years suggests that it is important that all parents use Sure Start centres at some stage. We suggested that such a centre would be the place where someone picks up their child benefit form—they would not be able to get it from anywhere else—and where they can register the birth of their child. It might be the place where people who are not of any faith take their child for an initiation ceremony to welcome them into the wider community. It is possible to maintain universal services without adding greatly to the costs, and a universal service has a chance of reaching the parents who need most support to make them even more successful as parents.
The Sure Start centres should be taken back to what my right hon. Friends the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) originally envisaged, which was that there would, of course, be a universal approach, but the vast majority of the expenditure, time, effort and love of Sure Start should go to those families who need most help, not to the parents with sharp elbows that get them to the front of every queue. The Minister and I spoke at a conference for children earlier today, and I was pleased to hear her say that the Government will examine payment by results seriously, as that would help to achieve that objective.
One of the results we want is children to be ready for school. We do not want primary schools trying to make up for what has not taken place in the first four to five years of life and secondary schools trying to make up for what primary schools have not been able to achieve because they themselves have been doing a rescue operation. I hope that the Government will carefully consider the objectives for Sure Start children’s centres or whatever we call them. I also hope that the Government will build up payment by results around those outcomes.
The last point I wish to make is that I hope that the Government will encourage people to think outside the box about who should run Sure Start centres. A couple of weeks ago, I asked the heads of primary and secondary schools in Birkenhead and the chairs of governors to meet so that we could discuss whether we should bid to run our Sure Start centres. Although we hope that the Government’s payment-by-results approach will bear fruit, we need to think much more imaginatively about incorporating the Sure Start children’s centres into what will be a much more seamless operation to ensure that we break down inequalities for the poorest children. Although it is right to emphasise the worries of those on both sides of the House about the future of Sure Start centres, both in terms of buildings and the services that they provide, I hope that we will get a clear steer from the Government about the reforms that they will be announcing by the end of this month. I hope that those will cover the points about keeping this service universal and about doing so while targeting that service, and that one way of doing so is to experiment with payment by results.
Finally, I wish to commend to the Government that outside providers wanting to take a collective but non-state view about these services should be encouraged to bid for them, so that every child in the country is ready to start their first day at primary school and is ready for that great experience.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is a huge pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). I feel at least as passionately as he does about the need for early intervention and about the need to support the youngest in our society, and I wish to use this speech to press for far more evaluation of what works. I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who I am pleased to call a friend, on the need for children’s centres to be far more at the heart of children’s services generally. I absolutely agree with his suggestion that people should go to such a centre to register for child benefit and for initiation ceremonies to welcome their child into the world. Such things are all crucial to ensuring that Sure Start children’s centres are at the heart of everything to do with infants and their families—that is incredibly important. I welcome the Government’s intention to introduce far more health visitors, because that will strengthen the ability of children’s centres to meet local needs.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) on his words and on his recommendation that the Government think carefully about whether we want this to be a purely localist agenda or whether there needs to be some universal, centrally driven remedy on children’s centres. I believe that localism is key, because local communities know best how to deal with the issues in their area, and I wish to talk a little about my experience of Sure Start.
Mr Frank Field
The hon. Lady talks about the importance of localism, but one of the report’s recommendations is that central Government ought to say that Sure Start ought to buy in more services from outside organisations. There is a balance to be struck between allowing local bodies to do anything, which might just be to keep things as they are, and an approach that engages some of the best organisations, which so far have not got much of a look in from Sure Start funding.
Andrea Leadsom
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As I said at the outset, I wish to make a plea for better evaluation of what works. My hope, although not my direction, is that more Sure Start children’s centres would therefore follow best practice.
From 2001 to 2009, I was chairman of the Oxford Parent Infant Project—OXPIP—which is a children’s charity operating around Oxfordshire. In the past year, it has become co-located with the Rose Hill Sure Start children’s centre. When I first became its chairman, OXPIP helped families who were struggling to bond with their newborn babies and provided psychotherapeutic support for families who were simply desperate. I am talking about people who are perhaps suicidal or about to harm their baby, who are desperately depressed and who simply cannot cope. OXPIP helps those parents to get over that, to build a secure attachment with their babies and to move on confident of being loving parents as part of a loving family. OXPIP’s results have been truly astonishing and there is a desperate need to evaluate quantitatively the work of such organisations, so that such best practice can become widespread in children’s centres.
In 2001, the Rose Hill Sure Start children’s centre was just starting out, as was OXPIP, and in those days it was all about creating a large building and it had a large budget. It was focused on outreach and putting lots of resources into play. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness made the good point that it has taken a lot of time to get children’s centres to the point where they are really effective, they know what works and they know where the best value for money lies, so it would be a great shame now to try to form any sort of revolution in children’s centres and end up throwing away all the good stuff that has come out of that long term of experience.
In those early days, OXPIP was a charity with very little funding, no statutory money whatever and only the money it could raise through its own efforts. We were successful in getting a significant and ballooning lottery grant, so we had three years of ever-rising income from which we could build on our platform. The sad fact was that the Sure Start children’s centre would not even cover the cost of providing a service. It wanted to engage OXPIP’s services, but only at a flat rate that did not reflect the true cost of providing it. We therefore had a ridiculous scenario in which a charity that was living hand to mouth and was totally dependent, in the early days, on the good will of volunteers was subsidising a Sure Start children’s centre that had a huge budget and that did not seem to understand that OXPIP’s work really defined what Sure Start was all about—providing children with a sure start in life.
From that day to this, 10 years on, we have gone from strength to strength. As I have said, in the last year OXPIP has co-located with the Sure Start children’s centre, and that has been a complete success story. They have many different approaches regarding the different backgrounds of the many diverse nationalities and cultures found in Oxford. They provide support to fathers, mothers, grandparents, foster parents and adoptive parents, and many different services. Now that OXPIP, of which I remain a trustee, is co-located with Sure Start, we can focus on providing psychotherapeutic support for families who are really in difficulty. That has worked very well. I wanted to share that experience with hon. Members because I feel that Sure Start children’s centres have come a very long way and it is terribly important that the Government seek to improve on that and to provide more evidence about what works best, rather than interfering with and possibly damaging it.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
I concur with much of what my hon. Friend and other hon. Members on both sides have said about Sure Start being a tremendous success. It is now bedding down and although I have some anxieties about local authority flexibility, I think it is broadly going in the right direction. One thing I am particularly pleased about is the increased entitlement to 15 hours a week for all three and four-year-olds. My view—I think that everyone who has spoken so far has said this—is that the more children from disadvantaged areas we catch early the better and that the entitlement for all three and four-year-olds will make a real difference. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Andrea Leadsom
I thank my hon. Friend for that timely remark. I was going to resist the temptation to talk about early infant brain development, but I shall just spend 30 seconds on it now. I absolutely agree with him, but I feel that the money should be focused on nought to two-year-olds for the simple reason that a baby’s brain development is at its peak rate at between six and 18 months. That is when the frontal cortex grows as a result of a secure attachment to a loving carer. That loving attachment enables that part of the brain to put on a healthy growth spurt, giving the child the capacity for lifelong mental health even before they are a toddler. In the absence of such an attachment, intervention when the child is three or four is too late, so I absolutely agree that the extra money for the early years is important, but I think it is coming in too late and I would rather it was focused on the nought to two-year-olds to support families at a time when the outcomes for their baby matters so desperately. Once a baby reaches two years old, that opportunity is significantly reduced, so anything we do after that is already too late.
Bill Esterson
The hon. Lady makes a very good point about the brain development of young children, which is made very strongly in the report of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), as I am sure she is aware. Given the point that she and others are making about the importance of Sure Start and early intervention generally, will she comment on the impact of removing ring-fencing? In Sefton, there is a 12.9% cut, as there is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) in the borough of Hammersmith. The impact of that, along with all the other huge cuts, particularly in inner cities, has made it very difficult for councils to protect these services. Will she comment on the link between that and the need to protect services centrally if we are seriously to have a national strategy on protecting Sure Start and on early intervention?
Andrea Leadsom
Yes, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I am a firm believer in localism. My experience of Sure Start centres is that they evolve in a way that suits their community, and it is for county councils to support that need as necessary in their community. I am not a big fan of centralism or, indeed, of ring-fencing for that very reason, so I share his concern about the decisions that councils may be taking to cut those services, which I very much regret. Having said that, there is enormous room for improvement in Sure Start children’s centres, which could become more effective. Those centres need to focus strongly on that because otherwise the incentive for councils to continue to fund them at current levels simply will not be there.
That brings me to my final point, which is about the call for better evaluation. OXPIP, the charity that I have been closely associated with for many years, has always had rave reviews from social services, health visitors, GPs and families in Oxfordshire, where it operates, but we have not been able to have a random control trial, which is the gold standard in quantitative evaluation because of the ethics of intervening with one group but not another. What about the outcomes for the group of families whom we know are in difficulty but do not help? The ethics around this issue mean that quantitative evaluation is a problem. If the Government are to do anything to help Sure Start children’s centres to make the right decisions and to make progress in the most effective areas, they need to put resources into serious studies about how effective different early intervention programmes are. I strongly support the work of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) in looking into those issues and in trying to evaluate which programmes are more helpful than others.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I have been spending a lot of time in primary schools in my constituency in the past 10 months and reception teachers have told me time and again that they can almost tell which Sure Start centres are doing good work and which are not really adding much value. However, that is the extent of their knowledge because the evidence is anecdotal. We really need some proper evidence so that Sure Start centres can be evaluated and best practice can be spread.
Andrea Leadsom
That is exactly right. County councils and directors of children’s services are very aware of the potential value of Sure Start children’s centres. My director of children’s services in Northamptonshire would love to get even more value out of them and would welcome better research showing what would work better, rather than having to go it alone in those areas.
Let me conclude with a small plug. I plan to launch a pilot scheme in 2011 for a Northamptonshire parent infant project that will mirror what OXPIP has been doing so successfully for 13 years in Oxfordshire. Working closely with children’s centres in Northamptonshire, I hope to show, prove, demonstrate, document and evaluate the value of really early intervention services in making a real difference to the quality of families’ lives.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the excellent speech of the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). I was strongly tempted to intervene at the critical point near the end of her speech when she put her finger on the real problem of localism—when she talked about the pilot that did not go ahead because of the ethics of intervening with one group but not another. The issue we are debating directly concerns children’s centres and the information that flowed from an inquiry of the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families when I chaired it. That inquiry went back to March 2010 and I think that you might even have given evidence to it, Madam Deputy Speaker, wearing a different hat. Central to today’s discussion is whether we should have a service that guarantees certain things for every poor child in the country or whether we should leave it up to the randomness that comes when different councils with different majorities or no majority, which may lack funding and which may be urban, suburban or rural, are left to take those decisions. I come from an old-fashioned school of thought, which I hope will come back into fashion, that believes in giving guarantees to every child in the country.
Let me take the House back briefly to when I became the Chair of the Select Committee, 10 years ago. The very first inquiry was into early years. We were the first Select Committee ever to hire a psychologist, because we wanted to understand the development of a child’s brain. Everything that has been said in the debate touches exactly on that.
We were lucky enough to engage three special advisers to the Committee, led by Kathy Sylva, the wonderful former head of children’s services in Oxfordshire. Kathy Sylva did that original research showing that by 22 months a child’s brain has developed to such an extent that it is extremely difficult to compensate later for lack of stimulation during those 22 months. Members in all parts of the House—no party political points here—understand that early years intervention is critical. We must also agree that there have been some difficulties since we produced our report last March. Such a time lapse is a great advantage, because we are able to see what has happened.
Many of the 3,500 Sure Start children’s centres are new and had only just been completed when we finished our report, just before the general election. Some were older, but all centres need time to put down roots. When we are experimenting with social policy, especially in such an important area, we must bear it in mind that children’s centres need time to respond to the local community and to change their shape and nature as demands on them are made and they become better known by good professionals working in the community. There is no doubt that the maturation process is important. As all of us in the educational world know, with the best intentions, it is difficult when national policies are rolled out.
Pilots may show that something works excellently on a small scale. I have been reflecting on that. One of the few times that I failed to get a witness to come before the Select Committee was when we asked Jamie Oliver. By the time we got through his press and publicity machine, his managers and his agents, we gave up trying to get him, even to speak about school meals. We did a school meals investigation before Jamie Oliver had made his programme. Tonight there will be a Jamie Oliver programme on television about his ideal school.
I learned a lesson last summer. I took my daughter, who at that time was heavily pregnant with twin boys, and my wife to a Jamie Oliver restaurant in Kingston, and it was one of the most disappointing meals that I have ever had. I had eaten in his restaurant Fifteen and I would recommend it to anyone. It is a flagship restaurant and was a wonderful experience, but when the Jamie Oliver offer is rolled out around the country, we see the difficulties that I found in Kingston upon Thames in the summer, as we have in education when we roll out children’s centres. The pilot looks wonderful and we think we can roll it out in 100 or even 500 centres. The reason our Government moved from 500 Sure Start centres to 3,500 was that most of the poor families in our country live outside the 500 poorest wards.
Andrea Leadsom
Surely that is an argument for localism in the case of children’s centres.
Mr Sheerman
Sorry, I disagree. It is a call for greater management. When an idea is rolled out and franchised, it is essential to ensure that there is a set of standards, that people know that they are expected to reach those standards, and that those standards are delivered. May I point the hon. Lady to the remarkable work of Lord Baker when he was Secretary of State? He picked up the challenge of Jim Callaghan’s Oxford speech to Ruskin, in which Callaghan said that we needed an inspectorate to check on quality, testing and assessment to find out how children were progressing, and a national curriculum. Jim Callaghan never did anything about it, because he did not have a majority or any money. Ten years later Ken Baker did it. He knew that we had to be able to deliver nationally to a national standard.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a case for a franchised system like McDonald’s or any other burger chain, not for Sure Start centres. I have some excellent Sure Start centres in my constituency in the most deprived areas, precisely where they should be, but the programmes offered there would not work in other parts of my constituency.
Mr Sheerman
I take the hon. Lady’s point. We can disagree on that.
Let me get down to what worries me. Our report—which, if my memory serves me right, the present Chairman of the Education Committee voted against—suggested that children’s centres should be maintained. We made some helpful comments. I want to spend a little time on the Government’s response. Paragraph after paragraph, they keep saying how wonderful our report is, but when I look at their response in detail, I am worried about some of their reasons for agreeing with it.
We can all agree that evidence-based policy is good policy, and this policy of ours was the purest example of that. In all my 10 years as Chair of the Select Committee, with some wonderful colleagues—many of us turn up at debates such as this—the best policies that we saw were those based on evidence, and of all the policies in those 10 years, the clearest evidence was on early years intervention and redirecting expenditure to the early years. People carelessly think that we spend a lot of money on early years, but that is not the case. How much we spend increases as a child gets older. All the evidence shows that we have got it the wrong way round. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) often made that case, and made it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The money should be piled in during the early years, for the reasons that the House has heard this afternoon.
What worries me about the Government’s response to our report is whether the commitment is still there. It is all very well having the commitment, but without the money and the resources, children’s centres will start to go. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) said that his council had not yet made up its mind. I have it on good authority that my local authority, Kirklees, in which Huddersfield sits as the jewel in the crown, is reducing the number of children’s centres from 35 to 17.
Bill Esterson
Sefton council proposed reducing the number of children’s centres from 19 to seven, but I am pleased to say that, in the face of huge opposition from the hundreds of families who use the centres, it is reconsidering. My hon. Friend makes his point about the link between policy and the money made available. We could comment on manifesto pledges. I am sure he would agree that it is only by Government guaranteeing that the money is available and that it will be spent on children’s centres that there is any hope of achieving the aims set out in the Select Committee report.
Mr Sheerman
Indeed. I hope my own local authority will change its mind under pressure from those who use the excellent children’s centres in my patch. I am sure that throughout the country there will be a large number of closures of children’s centres. That will be a disgrace, because I know what good work children’s centres are doing.
May I take up a remark made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead? He visits schools and sees how important the first two years are. I used to boast that I visited more schools than any other MP, and I am trying to keep up that track record. When I visit urban schools I see the difficulties that he has identified, measured against the 10 things that children should be able to do. I visit schools with fantastic heads and children’s centres with fantastic leaders who improve children’s behaviour and performance enormously, but 40% of the children will not be in those primary schools in a year because of the churn in our schools. We do not discuss that enough.
How can children be stimulated when in many of our major towns and cities they live in totally mobile populations? It is not the old-style poverty of the coalfields and shipyards, but the poverty of churn and change. In so many of our constituencies, heads and Sure Start leaders do not know which children will come through their doors in just a few weeks, which is a real problem. However, they do know that children will often have no one at home who speaks English to support them in learning our language. When those children go home, the television will not be in English. Sometimes, because of political correctness, we turn away from the reality of what is happening in our schools.
I fear that, as the world changes and the middle east turns itself upside down, for example, even higher rates of migration will result in even higher rates of change in our schools. I am not against migration and hold no extreme views on the matter, as everyone who knows me would acknowledge, but I know that our children’s centres and primary schools in urban areas are at the front line of that change. We cannot carry on asking teachers, heads and Sure Start leaders to cope with the increasing churn and turmoil resulting from the number of new children, so few of whom have a command of English, or indeed of many of the standard requirements that we expect in schools and children’s centres. We all pick up on that point but sometimes ignore it. We ask professionals to do a job, but not all children live in the leafy suburbs or the countryside.
Stephen Lloyd
That is an important and well-made point, but does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the additional investment for increasing the number of health visitors to 4,200 is surely a good thing for a number of reasons, not least the important issue that he has addressed?
Mr Sheerman
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman made that intervention, because I was moving on to the funding of health visitors. I am not entirely sure or comfortable about when that money will come in, because I had heard that it is not yet and that it might be in 2012; there is nothing in black and white. I would be pleased if a member of the ministerial team would let us know during the debate whether the funding is coming and whether it is from the health budget, as one Minister has told me. If that is true, it will be a real plus for the overall budget and to be welcomed.
Where the health visitors are based is also important, and I hope that they will be concentrated in children’s centres. Some of us will remember hearing the head of the Royal College of General Practitioners say in evidence to the Select Committee that half its members did not know what a children’s centre was and that the other half thought that it was just competition for health visitors. Integration and working together are important.
It is also important to consider the revolutionary step at the heart of children’s centres, which has been missed out of the debate so far. The revolutionary step is that they view a child holistically. A child is not a child with a bit of educational difficulty here and a bit of early stimulation there, or with a little health problem here and language difficulties there. The beauty of children’s centres is that a child gets all that support and evaluation in one place. Parents do not have to push a pram all over town to go to one clinic for a certain service and somewhere else for another, as my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) said. The fact is that providing a holistic service for a child delivers the best chance of giving that child the environment in which they can thrive.
While the Committee was conducting that inquiry, we were looking at young people who were not in education, employment or training. When we went to Holland, we found the Dutch experience particularly interesting, because they also looked at young people holistically. They have centres where young people can have a health evaluation and an aptitude evaluation, where employers and colleges are represented and there are seminar rooms for people who had been NEETs before gaining employment. Those centres provide an all-purpose focus for young people. When we are talking about people’s lives, it is that holistic approach that seems to work, and I recommend that what we do in children’s centres should be transferred to that older age group, as stated in our report on NEETs. Local authorities have moved in that direction, and some examples in the UK have been extremely successful.
Mr Sheerman
Not for the moment.
Many of the responses to the Committee’s report have made much play of the big society. I must confess that I actually like the idea of a big society, but I am slightly resentful of it, because I think that the Conservatives stole it from Labour—[Interruption.] I say that in a good-natured way to ensure that Conservative Members are still awake. In fact, we all believe in the big society. I believed in it even when Mrs Thatcher said that there was no such thing as society, so I have a long-term commitment to it. Throughout my whole political life I have involved myself in starting social enterprises as part of that big society, because I think that that is how our society should develop.
My worry about the big society is that it is often linked to the idea that everything should be done by volunteers. I am a little suspicious when people argue that things can be done by volunteers, because the best analysis and professional research suggests some problems with that. I refer the Minister to an interesting article—she might already know it—published in 2006 by Professor Alison Wolf, who is about to publish a report produced for the Government on 14 to 19-year-olds. As the Minister will know, Professor Wolf’s daughter, Rachel Wolf, is in charge of the free schools movement and her son, Martin Wolf, is a senior influence at the Financial Times. I listen carefully to Alison Wolf, and her 2006 article stated that the real problem with volunteering in this country is that it has been dying—first, because of the decline of organised religion, and secondly, because women now work in demanding jobs. Both men and women work in our country.
Professor Wolf also noted that the research suggesting that there is a lot of volunteering left in our communities is poor because it is based on opinion polls, and people tell fibs about how much they put back into the community when they are asked in such polls. If members of a pilot group are asked to keep a diary, the results show that the average time a person gives to volunteering is four minutes a day. If we are to base children’s centres and the big society on all of us volunteering for four minutes a day, we will still need a hell of a lot of good professionals to provide quality health and children’s care.
I shall also briefly touch on something that was central to the Government’s critique of our inquiry—the idea that we would no longer need so many hours. One absolutely fantastic thing about children’s centres in the most deprived areas was that they had to stay open 10 hours a day, 48 weeks a year. The document before me clearly states that that is now finished as an obligation and does not need to delivered. We all know that that is true, because it is in the response to the Select Committee’s report, and, in the hard-pressed and most deprived communities throughout our land, it represents the withdrawal of a guarantee that really meant something and will be sorely missed.
I do not know what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, who wrote his own report, would say about that withdrawal. I do not remember hearing whether he was conscious of it when he wrote his report, and I do not know whether he thinks that the fairness premium will counter-balance it, but nobody knows how the premium will work, when people will receive it or who will benefit from it.
At the heart of my concerns about the response to the Select Committee’s report is the fact that localism has become an excuse for saying, “We don’t have the confidence or the courage to say that we believe that there must be a reduction in the number of children’s centres or the services they provide, so we are going to pass it on to local authorities.” The Government must know, however, that local authorities, in straitened times with much smaller budgets, are going to cut back on children’s centres.
This Government—any Government—have a responsibility for knowing that some policies are so fundamental to the welfare of our people that we and they cannot afford to give up the guarantee and say, “Oh, I’m terribly sorry. We believe in children’s centres, in a full service and in the early stimulation of children, but unfortunately those naughty people up there in Oxford, down there in Surrey or up there in the north-east happen to be short of money and it is all their responsibility.” No one can shuffle away from such responsibility. If children’s centres are cut back or cease to exist as fully integrated models, the buck stops with the Government. I hope that all parties in the House recognise that.
There is a very real problem with the final piece of evidence in the Government’s response to the Select Committee report. I was very fond of evidence-based policy, as you know Madam Deputy Speaker. On page 3 of the Government’s response, they say:
“The Government agrees with the recommendation—high quality provision leads to better outcomes for children and families. Research evidence shows that it is the quality of support which makes the difference for children's outcomes, particularly for disadvantaged children. That is why, where children's centres are providing early education and care, it should be led by either an Early Years Professional or a Qualified Teacher to ensure quality and provide expert input to the activities and services on offer.”
Do we all agree with that? I am looking at the ministerial team. Do we agree? Can I have a nod? [Interruption.] I am not going to get a nod, because they know that page 6 says:
“It is crucial that children's centres in disadvantaged areas continue to offer high-quality early education and care to support vulnerable and disadvantaged families. However, since we have removed the requirement for children's centres in disadvantaged areas to provide full day care, we do not want to be as prescriptive as the previous Government in expecting them to employ both a Qualified Teacher and an Early Years Professional. Therefore, we have removed this requirement.”
The Minister responsible for schools became very fond of one little bit of evidence in Clackmannanshire, when he was converted to synthetic phonics, but all the evidence, not just one piece in a relatively obscure part of the United Kingdom—
Mr Sheerman
No, Clackmannanshire.
One inquiry swept the Minister away to the world of synthetic phonics, and he has been there ever since, but in fact much research shows that a qualified teacher or an early years professional in an early years setting makes a substantial difference to outcomes, and this Government are taking that away.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)
We are not taking that requirement away; we are taking away the requirement for both professionals.
Mr Sheerman
That is good information, but if I take the two responses together I find that the requirement is substantially weakened.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)
He hasn’t read it.
Sarah Teather
Yes, I fear that the hon. Gentleman probably has not read all the document.
Part of the problem is that in some areas—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman lets me finish, then he can shout at me. In some areas, we find that there is no need for full day care, and if there is no need, we end up subsidising full day-care places, which is not sensible. We should put that money into the evidence-based programmes that make the difference, to which the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) referred. That is where the money must go, and that is why we have taken away the requirement for full day care. There is no requirement for both professionals, but there will need to be one.
Mr Sheerman
I am sorry, but it is unkind of Ministers to suggest that I have not read the document. From a close reading of it, I have explained how those two paragraphs do not make sense. Taking away the commitments to 10 hours a day and to 48 weeks a year substantially weakens the overall offer.
Now that I have managed to get the Minister to the Dispatch Box, I wonder whether she will also tell us a little about the future mutualisation of children’s centres. The Select Committee said that it was in favour of variety and more community-responsive children’s centres. We certainly were not against diversity in the shape and nature of children’s centres throughout the country, but throwing into the response to our report something about the possibility of mutualisation, without really developing it, left us all rather puzzled. Can she enlighten us on mutualisation?
Sarah Teather
I shall pick up on those wider points when the hon. Gentleman sits down and I make my speech. I just wanted to make that clarification, but I am conscious that other Members want to speak and I am just prolonging his speech.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. That is a good point. We do not want a discussion just between the Minister and the hon. Gentleman, even though it might be of interest to other Members. Other Members are waiting to speak.
Mr Sheerman
I would never be so churlish as to suggest that the hon. Lady has not read the document.
Ten years ago, when I became Chairman of the Select Committee, we produced a report on early years. I used to go to early years settings where people were employed for £1 an hour. There was a very poor core of professionals and many volunteers, and 10 years ago there was a lot of fuss because a Labour Government introduced the national minimum wage. People told us at our inquiry that that was the end of early years, because no one would be able to afford to pay the minimum wage. Over those 10 years, everything we saw taught us that the policies that increased the professionalism of the early years resource and staff were a fantastic investment—the sort of investment that our communities and our Government should make and be proud to make. Our original report made that point very clearly, and I still believe in what we said: the children’s centre network is highly valuable, and we destroy it or undermine it at our peril.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to follow that very lengthy and detailed speech by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman).
This debate needs to cover several points, some of which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Chairman of the Education Committee. For example, unfortunately we have a huge number of NEETs in our country. That is a measure of the failure to deal with children in early years education in a proper and satisfactory way. Until we got into government, there was a failure to deal with the widening inequality gap—a damning indictment—and we have to tackle that.
I want to say a few words about resources. This debate is, to some extent, influenced by the fact that we are in a period of reductions in public expenditure, so it is worth noting that we spend almost 40 times as much paying interest on this country’s debt as we do on the subject that we are talking about. That puts our funding difficulties into perspective.
Of course, we have Sure Start facilities in my constituency—for example, Treetops in Dursley, which is first class. It is very important to ensure that Sure Start really does what the label says. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) is right that it is a very good brand, and it does say something that is really encouraging—a sure start. However, we must be completely certain that that is exactly what happens. My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) was right to talk about the importance of evaluation and ensuring that Sure Start works in every different area.
Bill Esterson
I want to give an example from personal experience. My own family were lucky enough to have access to a children’s centre some years ago when my son was three years old, and we certainly benefited as a family, but this is more about the other families who were from more disadvantaged backgrounds than ours. They clearly stated that in terms of opportunities and development, the differences between the younger children who had access to children’s centres and their older siblings were very noticeable within the same families, let alone on the same estates between different families. That evidence was very strong, and I could see it at first hand.
Neil Carmichael
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I would say that that is the experience of Sure Start in one situation, but we need to be sure that all Sure Starts deliver high standards for all the children who attend.
I want to make two general points about Sure Start. First, there is the issue of localism, which has cropped up several times. The real need is to ensure that we shape our services for the needs that we find on the ground where we see the problems. It is therefore right that local authorities have more influence in allocating and shaping provision. This is the converse of the previous Government’s approach, which was always top down, telling everybody what it was important to do and ensuring they did it, but not taking into account people’s needs, especially local circumstances. That obsession with top-down control often means that people end up worrying too much about the structure and too little about those within it and the children needing to benefit from it.
Secondly, we are no longer ring-fencing funding. That is right, because it is important to have local accountability for the provision of services and to enable local authorities to make the decisions that they want to make. The way in which the Government are now funding Sure Start is the better way to ensure that these facilities can be more flexible and adaptable. I make the case for localism on those terms.
Mr Graham Stuart
I would like to pull together the point that my hon. Friend has just made and the point about evaluation. Does he agree that if we are to have a more localist approach, national Government need to ensure that evaluation takes place so that we have the data to see whether local authorities are making a difference to the school-readiness of children when they turn up? If we spend all this money and it does not make any difference, as the Durham studies have shown in too many cases involving poorer children, then we are spending money to no positive result.
Neil Carmichael
My hon. Friend is right. We need to be sure that we deliver the outcomes that we want. If we are obsessed with process, structures and all the rest, and not with outcomes and delivery, we are letting down the very children we aspire to help.
The Education Committee went on a trip to Finland, where there were some interesting points to note, one of which was schools’ involvement in more than just teaching the children. Schools always had social care provision and, in effect, district nurse provision, and there was proper, regular consultation between those providers and the teachers if there was a problem. That is well worth thinking about. It is important to consider other ways of doing things than simply the prescribed way from central Government. As I have often said, it is sensible to look at other systems, not necessarily to copy them completely, because that cannot be done effectively—there are too many obstructions such as different cultures and priorities—but to pick up ideas that can be transferred. I urge people to keep an open mind about that kind of arrangement.
Before we got to Finland, we were in Germany. There, too, I learned something, which was that the Germans have a different approach to NEETs, and they did not seem to have nearly as great a problem as we have had. They were taking relatively proactive measures to encourage young people to become involved in society at an early stage and to give them signposted ways into further education and employment. That is something that we could pick up on. There is a lot more detail that we could discuss about those trips that would be useful to the debate, but I mention those two examples.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead was entirely right, and very moving, when he spoke about family structures where parents were sometimes unable to provide decent parenting for their children, and wondered whether he could have survived in certain circumstances. We must recognise that this is a very serious issue. We cannot, as a society, be happy when such comments can be made and readily accepted without question. We must concentrate on improving parenting—not in the case of all parents, obviously, but those with the biggest challenges and problems.
I met a lady in my constituency who is in charge of the Nationwide Community Learning Partnership, which focuses on providing strong and effective programmes for improving parenting. I urge the Minister to think very carefully about such programmes, which offer a way forward. That organisation is of a very high standard. It is based in the county of Gloucestershire but has functions across the country. I think that, allied to Sure Start activities, helping people in need of parenting skills is a way forward. I invite the Minister to meet the Nationwide Community Learning Partnership, because I think that it would bring something of value to the discussion.
We need to be more flexible and open-minded on this issue. We need to recognise that Sure Start has a strong role to play. It is sensible to have a localist and flexible approach to providing such support.
In this debate, it is worth remembering the role that the pupil premium will have in helping children. I do not think that it has yet been amplified, but I believe that it is an important way of getting financial support to the right place at the right time. The schools I have visited in my constituency that will receive a large amount of pupil premium recognise its value.
The Government’s decision to provide funding for two and three-year-olds is a big step in the right direction. As hon. Members have said, one can tell when children who need that support have received it and when they have not. To solve the problems of children in this category, it is logical that we must help them when it really matters, and it really matters at that young age.
This is an important debate. We have to be sure of the quality of the services that we provide. We need better evaluation and a wiser way of interpreting the data. We must capture the needs of local people and children in a much more intelligent way. To a large extent, that means trusting local authorities to do just that. It is right to have this debate at this time. There are a lot of challenges and we should not rest until the headline figures that I referred to at the beginning of my remarks come down much faster than they have done thus far.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I give my apologies in advance in case the debate continues beyond 4 o’clock, because I am hoping to speak in Westminster Hall.
I agree with the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) about the importance of evaluation. There have been constructive speeches from Members from across the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) said, we have to start by looking at the evidence of what is working in our country and, as several hon. Members have said, what has and has not been successful in other parts of the world. Several hon. Members talked about the balance between having universal expectations of services in all parts of the country and local flexibility. I am a fan of local flexibility. The hon. Member for Stroud said that the situation must depend on the needs on the ground. I say to him gently that although that is true, meeting those needs on the ground depends on the resources being there. In the latter part of my speech, I will talk about the impact of the Government’s cuts to these grants on children’s centres and nursery provision in Liverpool.
I absolutely concur with the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) on the need to focus on those who are not in education, employment or training. Ultimately, the success or failure of Sure Start and other investment in early years will be assessed by whether we succeed in cracking the nut that all speakers have referred to: that so many people’s life chances are set before they go to primary school or even, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) said, before they enter a Sure Start children’s centre.
Before 1997, I had the privilege of working with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), who is now Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. She was asked by the then Leader of the Opposition, Tony Blair, to develop a policy for early years. That ultimately became the Sure Start policy that was taken up in Government by my right hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell). Our approach then was very much the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield set out. We looked at the evidence and at the examples of excellence from our own country. They did exist, but they were individual cases rather than occurring nationwide. Perhaps more importantly, we looked at the head start programme in the United States, which seemed to be having such a big impact on the life chances of children and young people from poorer communities, and at similar programmes in European countries.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has had to leave the Chamber, but his speech was an important contribution to the debate. In the latter part of my remarks I will focus, as I am sure will other Labour Members, on the impact of Government cuts, and in doing so we are saying that not everything in the garden is rosy. Of course some children’s centres are doing better and are more effective than others, but we need a proper quantitative and qualitative analysis of what is working so that lessons can be shared across the country.
Mr Graham Stuart
I believe it was the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) who had the courage to say that if one believes in early intervention, in the current financial situation one must reduce funding further up by taking money away from primary schools, secondary schools and colleges, and give it to early years. Does the hon. Gentleman therefore support the fact that two-year-olds will now have nursery education at a cost of more than £300 million, which perhaps reflects a redistribution from later school years by this Government?
Stephen Twigg
I welcome that element of what the Government have done. On its own, it would represent something of a redistribution. The trouble is that it exists alongside other changes that work in the opposite direction—principally the removal of the ring fence. The hon. Gentleman referred to the debate on ring-fencing. It has always struck me in debates about education and other public services that people tend to be against ring-fencing in general, but in favour of it in particular. We all want our favourite thing to be ring-fenced, but we do not like the general idea. The principle of moving away from central Government saying, “You must spend this funding on this, regardless of local circumstances,” is good. However, it is concerning in this instance, not least because it is happening in the context of cuts in many areas. With the best will in the world, it is very difficult for local authorities to maintain expenditure on early years with the ring fence removed, when they are having to make such big cuts in other areas of their budgets. I will come back to that point, but I urge the Government to think again about the proposal to remove the ring fence for this area of spending.
I think that the case for investment in this area is now accepted across the House. It can make such a difference to the life chances of all children, and in particular those from the poorest and most deprived areas with the greatest need. The formulation set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead is right: we want a universal service, but within that, we must focus without relenting, and without any apology, on the needs of those from the very poorest communities.
That brings me to the financial predicament that is being faced by local authorities of all parties up and down the country. There is no quarrel about the need for cuts, or about the fact that some of the cuts will affect children’s services, but our concern is that the scale, speed and distribution of those cuts, combined with the removal of the ring fence, will cause enormous damage.
Tracey Crouch
In the light of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, will he join me in congratulating Tory-led Medway council, which has had a difficult funding settlement, on keeping all its Sure Start centres open, including the All Saints centre in Chatham and the Kingfisher centre in Princes Park?
Stephen Twigg
It is very welcome to hear of any authority that has managed to keep all its centres open despite these financial circumstances. We heard earlier, during Prime Minister’s questions, about another Conservative authority, Bromley, which is closing the vast majority of its children’s centres. The impact is clearly being experienced in different ways in different parts of the country, so I welcome the fact that Medway has managed to keep its centres open. I am not sure whether my welcoming that will make much of a newspaper headline in the hon. Lady’s constituency, but her news is nevertheless welcome.
Mrs Hodgson
My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) has talked about the services that the centres will provide. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) not agree that it is all very well keeping the buildings open, but that that will not be much use if the services have been scaled back to a point at which they are unrecognisable?
Stephen Twigg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am not familiar with the details of what has happened in Medway, so I do not know whether that has happened there, but that is precisely what is happening in other parts of the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) has said. In Liverpool, the day nurseries attached to two of the centres in my constituency, at Croxteth and Knotty Ash, are closing down. Keeping centres open is an important indicator, but it is not the only one. What matters is what goes on inside the centres and the services and outreach that they provide.
Liverpool city council is seeing the greatest cuts of any authority in England. Birmingham council, a Conservative-Liberal Democrat council, has produced a fascinating graph showing the relationship between the cuts in Government grant and the average level of need in an authority. There is a remarkable relationship between how deprived an area is and how big the grant cuts are. Liverpool is right up at the very top with the biggest cuts and the highest levels of deprivation. We accept the need for cuts, but we do not think that they need to go as far or as fast, and even if the quantum of cuts can be justified, their distribution between different authorities absolutely cannot be.
In that context, Liverpool city council, which has placed a strong emphasis on children’s services over the past decade under Liberal Democrat and now Labour control, is having to cut children’s centres. It is not cutting them on the same scale as Bromley, but, of our 26 centres, four are earmarked for closure, which is four more than I want to see. It is also four more than my hon. Friends the other Liverpool MPs want to see, and four more than all the parties on Liverpool city council want to see.
One of my first engagements as the new MP in West Derby last May was to attend the opening of the West Derby children’s centre. A week ago, I went back there to attend a meeting to discuss its proposed closure. It is heartbreaking for the children, the parents and the people working at the centre to see that fantastic new facility, which was created for that community, facing closure. Even at this late stage, I am working with people at the centre and councillors to consider every possible option for safeguarding it, even if it takes a different form in the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield talked about mutualisation and social enterprise options. There might be options for at least some of the services at that children’s centre to be retained, but it would have been much better to keep the whole centre open. It opened only a year ago to provide all those services for the local community, and what is happening now is a direct consequence of Government cuts.
I also visited the Knotty Ash nursery last week, and I want to mention a woman whom I met there. Lisa Dempster is the mum of a child at the nursery, and she is happy for me to mention her. She left school when she was 16, which was 24 years ago. Throughout those 24 years, she has been in work. She has never claimed unemployment benefit, and she has paid her tax and her national insurance. She has two teenage children and a toddler. Both her teenagers want to go to university, so that they can get on in life. Her daughter, who is in the first year of the sixth form, is losing her education maintenance allowance this year, and her son, who starts sixth form this September, will not receive EMA at all. Her children are losing their bus passes, and they fear that they will face enormous debts in the future. On top of all that, her little one’s nursery place is going to be lost. She is a good example of someone who has been very badly let down by this combination of policies from the Government. The latest blow for her and her family is the closure of her local nursery.
I apologise again that I might not be here to listen to the Minister’s response to the debate, but I shall read the Hansard record. I urge her to think again, in two respects. First, I really believe that the ideal would be for the Government to re-impose the ring fence for Sure Start children’s centres. That is the best way for us to ensure that there is a universal entitlement, which goes hand in hand with local decisions about how that entitlement is implemented in each community. If she cannot agree to that today, or thereafter, I ask that she, her colleagues in the Department for Education, and particularly her colleagues in the Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government look again at the unfairness of the distribution of the cuts, which are hitting children’s centres in some of the most deprived areas of the country much harder than those elsewhere. All those who have contributed to the debate agree that Sure Start has achieved some amazing things over the past decade. We also all agree that a focus on the areas of greatest deprivation must be at the heart of Sure Start in the future. I fear, however, that the broader picture of the cuts will undermine all the Minister’s personal good intentions.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate today, and I am following a large number of Members who have spoken with great authority and understanding. I have listened with interest to the debate, but one thing seems to be missing. It is the big picture. The biggest impact of the money spent on children’s education, in terms of our ability to improve cognitive skills, is seen in the earlier years. There is now consensus not only in the academic literature but across the House that we need to target resources in that area, because that is where they have the biggest impact on child brain development. However, when we consider how the money is spent in the UK and across the world, we see that the inverse of that is happening. Excellent research has shown that the money going into post-16 education in the UK is 1.5 times the amount per head that is spent at primary level. The differential is even greater for the pre-school and under-twos provision that we have been discussing today.
We all recognise this historic anomaly, but the question is: what can we do about it in the context of the extremely tight public spending limits that are necessary, given the scale of the deficit? That is not an easy proposition. The analysis is easy, and the evidence all points the same way, but it is extremely difficult to achieve the practical and political ability to make that change, so that that money will go to children at the age at which it has the most impact.
I shall give two examples. The Government have made two proposals that will save money, because the evidence showed that the money being used did not have as much impact as it could have done elsewhere. They are politically difficult proposals. First, the Government have asked students to pay more of their tuition fees, and secondly, they are restructuring the EMA. At the moment 90% of those who receive it would have stayed in school anyway, so now the impact will be much greater. Those are both extremely politically sensitive changes, yet they are having exactly the impact that Members of all parties have called for.
In an era of rising budgets it may be easy to put more and more focus on increasing spending at the lower end of the age distribution. In an era of very tight finances, however, it is difficult to redistribute and retarget money from the older end, especially post-16, where the evidence shows that the impact on cognitive ability is the smallest, to under-fives, for whom the evidence shows it is biggest. However, this Government are doing it. Members of all parties ought to recognise how difficult it is to make that change in the context of the very tight public finances.
That supports the strength of the Government’s position, which I applaud, of keeping the early intervention grant flat in cash terms in the forthcoming period. Protecting money for early intervention, in the context of the current spending conditions, is an achievement for which the Minister ought to be applauded.
We then come to the argument about how that money is spent and where the cuts are falling. I did a bit of research and found 27 councils across the country that are managing to keep all their Sure Start centres open despite the difficult public finances. Of those, 24 are run by the Conservative party and three are Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalitions.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what percentage cuts those councils are receiving compared with the 4.4% average cut to local authority budgets?
Matthew Hancock
Absolutely. My own county council, Suffolk, did not do very well in the distribution of the local authority grant, but because it is making savings in back-office costs, re-engineering how it delivers services, reducing the cost of services and being flexible in how it delivers them, it is able to keep its centres open. I absolutely take the hon. Lady’s point, and the crucial point is that councils ought to be making savings in the back office and re-engineering their services to protect front-line services, as Suffolk is doing.
Mr Slaughter
I will try to keep this non-party political, but since the hon. Gentleman makes that point, I will ask him the same question that I asked the Chair of the Education Committee. If councils are closing most of their Sure Start centres, should we just shrug and say, “Well, that’s a matter for localism”, or, given what the hon. Gentleman has said, should the Minister take an interest?
Matthew Hancock
There is of course a statutory amount of Sure Start provision that must be in place, as I am sure the Minister will spell out in more detail. The question is whether services can be provided in a way that delivers better value for money, through savings in the back office. I recently chaired a report on councils’ ability to save money and deliver services better by bringing together the delivery of local services. Reference was made earlier in the debate to the fact that when that has been done, it has not only saved money but actually improved services. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) talked about Sure Start centres that also have health and social services, so that they are a one-stop shop. Those are exactly the sort of innovative solutions that we need to examine.
One example of a council that is doing that extremely well is local to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter). Hammersmith council, and others across the country, are saving money by changing how services are delivered. That is far better than cutting front-line services, and I commend that approach. I mention that not to make a party political point but to argue that by allowing local councils on the ground to spend money in the way that they see fit, with the flexibility to deliver early intervention as best they can, we allow innovation and improvements in delivery instead of the attitude that the man in Whitehall knows best, which top-down provision and tight ring-fencing bring.
Mr Slaughter
The theory sounds fine, but the practice is different. I am trying not to be party political, but let us say that a council decides it is going to cut the Sure Start budget by about half and close most of its centres. That cannot be dressed up as back-office services, and for many children, the essential services with which they are currently provided will not be there. Should that be a matter for the Government to take an interest in?
Matthew Hancock
That is why it is important to have a specified national minimum level of provision, and then allow councils to ensure that they meet—and, one hopes, exceed—that level. The reason for allowing local innovation and flexibility with a national minimum level is to enable different approaches to be taken in different places, so that best practice can emerge. That lets local councils and people deliver in the way that is most helpful and appropriate to local people, but it is also about ensuring that instead of a centralised, bureaucratic system, we have a local system that responds to local need.
We heard earlier from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) that we need better management, but we have had a centralised system for years. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee I am obviously well aware of National Audit Office reports, and, sad to say, the NAO found that the amount of formal child care among the most disadvantaged fell between 2004 and 2008. Instead of leading to more provision for those people, the centralised approach actually led to less, so let us try a different way.
Andrea Leadsom
Does my hon. Friend agree that if we had too centralised a system, we would lose the excellent work of many voluntary sector organisations in specific areas, such as the charity with which I have been involved in Oxfordshire, OXPIP? We would not have the opportunity to introduce local services to meet local needs.
Matthew Hancock
I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend’s passionate argument earlier, which made exactly that case. Local innovation and a local ability to respond to local events, with a national set of standards that must be met, allow money to be spent better.
I come to the central reason why I support that approach—the fact that it is about outcomes, not inputs. Tight ring-fencing is all about ensuring that the inputs go to a certain area. I understand as well as anybody how easy it is to get a headline out of writing that x million pounds is going to such and such a project—but what matters to people on the ground is not the amount of money poured in at the top, but the outcomes delivered at the bottom. The ability to improve value for public money, get better outcomes and have innovative social groups, such as the one that my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) mentioned, is, given the extremely tight fiscal environment, vital. I therefore applaud the Government’s approach in loosening ring-fencing while retaining minimum standards to allow flourishing local innovation and improve the value that we get for the hard-earned taxpayers’ money that we spend on their behalf.
In the context of spending more money on early years, and thus getting better outcomes, I also applaud the free entitlement to 15 hours of early years education for the most disadvantaged two-year-olds. That is another example of managing to get money from the older part of the age range to the younger part. I also strongly applaud the desire for increased qualifications in the work force and better leadership, especially through the National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services, to ensure that we get more highly talented people into the work.
Of course, I welcome the 4,200 extra health visitors, targeted at very young age groups. I think we can all agree that the reduction in the number of health visitors in the past few years was a mistake. Reversing that and ensuring that there is universal coverage, and more health visitors, is very valuable.
Mr Sheerman
The hon. Gentleman made a good point. As soon as I realised that he was a member of the Public Accounts Committee I took great notice of his words. However, early years professionals and a qualified teacher will not be required even in the children’s centres that have full-day provision. Surely, if he believes in professionalism in the work force, he deplores that. On a visit on Friday, I found that people are giving up on the early years qualification, because they feel that it is no longer valued and will not be funded after 2012.
Matthew Hancock
It is important to have highly qualified people, but again, I would not make that mandatory for a centre because many people are highly qualified to work in and deliver early years education, but do not have the specific qualification. If people in, for example, the charity with which my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire is closely involved do not have that qualification because they have come to it through a different route, I would not want to put a barrier in their way. That does not mean that we should not have more professionally qualified people.
Mr Sheerman
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is okay for unqualified people to provide the professionalism in Sure Start centres? That seems to be happening in the schools sector—in free schools—recently. Do qualifications mean nothing in the profession any longer, according to the Government?
Matthew Hancock
Of course qualifications are meaningful, but does the hon. Gentleman claim that no person without the formal paper qualification is up to the job? I do not think so. Of course, a qualification is part of someone’s resumé and experience, but we should not be so bureaucratic about the piece of paper. We should look at the person’s ability and qualifications through their history.
Andrea Leadsom
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. On qualifications, in the charity with which I am involved there are people with PhDs in psychotherapy, and paediatricians, who have decided to move to working with the very young. It is nonsense to say that having a specific piece of paper uniquely qualifies someone to support early years.
Matthew Hancock
I agree wholeheartedly.
There is a consensus—I am glad that there is—about the need to focus resources on early years. There is much more difficulty with actually doing that, and several people will the ends without willing the means. I regret it when the subject becomes a political football, because almost all of us agree about the ends. Before the election, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) went to Ipswich and said that Sure Start centres would be closed there. However, they are all open. It was a mistake to make that prediction, and she should withdraw it. Similarly, it is a mistake for the Labour party to argue that the amount of cash for the early intervention grant is falling when it is being kept flat. We should work together to achieve the ends, about which we all agree, in the difficult circumstances that the Government did not bring about, to ensure that we serve our children best and improve their life chances, cognitive abilities, skills and happiness. We should not create a political football, saying that we agree about the ends while disagreeing on the means to achieve them.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
To close a building in a community can rob it of a useful resource, but to close a children’s centre robs a community of something far more precious—its future. We have heard many contributions about the value of Sure Start and our children’s centres, and differing opinions about the extent to which they have been successful, but there has been general consensus that the Sure Start programme has been a success and ensured that children get the right start in life.
I have visited all the children’s centres in my constituency and been struck by the many stories of the parents and grandparents who take their young ones to them, and have benefited from them more than from many other services that our local authorities provide.
I will be party political in my speech: Conservatives are robbing families in my constituency of the chance of a better future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) said, it is a matter of record that the city of Liverpool has the greatest need but is getting the biggest cuts. To those who need the most will come the least. My first question to Government Front Benchers who are present—and to Treasury Ministers who are not—is to ask what they have against the children of my constituency. [Interruption.] Yes, it is.
At least the House and the country can see what the Government’s priorities are. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby said, even if Liverpool had the average level of local authority cuts, my city would get £26 million more than it currently receives—enough to save the Sure Start centres at Childwall and Woolton, and Church and Mossley Hill, which are today threatened with closure.
Luciana Berger
No, I will not give way to the hon. Lady, who has only just joined the debate. I have been here for two hours.
If we take out the money allocated to Liverpool schools, Ministers have decided to cut the money for children and families by 35%. In the city with the greatest need, more than a third of the budget for children and families is being shed.
We all support efficiency and back-office cost savings, but I asked the Minister in a named day question on 15 February what the average back-office costs for a Sure Start centre are. I am still waiting for a response.
Matthew Hancock
I am puzzled; I hope I will not be shocked. I know that Liverpool council’s total spending power is falling by 15% over two years in real terms. The hon. Lady has just claimed that spending on children’s services is falling by 35%. Is it true that Liverpool council—
Matthew Hancock
Is it run by the Labour party? Is it true that that council is cutting children’s services by so much more than the total overall cut?
Luciana Berger
The grants to children, which are not allocated to schools, are being cut by 35% in Liverpool by the Government. [Interruption.]
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
By the Government, not the council. It is no good Conservative Members shaking their heads.
Luciana Berger
Let me get back to my point about back-office costs. How much can be saved in back-office costs from a Sure Start centre that has a part-time co-ordinator and one receptionist? I asked that question because of the heartbreak and concern that this matter is causing parents and grandparents in my constituency, and I want to share the strength of their feelings with the House. I have received many letters and e-mails in recent days, as I am sure other right hon. and hon. Members have. These are the voices of the communities who do not feel that they are “all in this together”, and the voices of parents who feel that they have been singled out for attack.
Wendy told me:
“I was devastated to hear that my local children’s Sure Start centre at Woolton and Childwall is in the pipeline for closure. As a new mum I have found the centre to be extremely supportive and a vital service for the community. The staff have always been brilliant and extremely informative. It is also a great opportunity to meet other parents.”
Kate said:
“Sure Start have responded well to the local needs. They recognised the presence of a number of families with twins locally, and promptly provided specific twin baby classes and a multiple birth support group. It is hard to express how important these groups are. As a family with twins, you are excluded from some other activities (e.g. swimming) and simply struggle to take your babies to anything that is not well set up to cope with twins. And yet, as a mother at home with multiples, your need to get out and stimulate the kids is even greater. Our local Sure Start centre is a haven for us!”
Helen wrote:
“The children’s centres are important in our communities and help to give our children the best possible start in life”;
and Emma wrote:
“the staff at Church and Mossley Hill Sure Start are some of the most skilled and committed I have ever met (and I have more than 10 years’ experience working in education). Church and Mossley Hill Sure Start is an over-subscribed, thriving hub of support for parents and babies in south Liverpool…Church & Mossley Hill Sure Start has already built up strong and lasting links in the short time that it has been running.”
My inbox and letter bag have been swamped by many more messages like those.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
I should like first to take this opportunity to apologise for the delay in the answer to the hon. Lady’s named day question; I will investigate that on her behalf.
The hon. Lady is making a powerful case, and I join her in praising the hard work and dedication of the staff whom she has rightly praised. However, as she will be aware, funding for Sure Start children’s centres is distributed through the early intervention grant, which is calculated on a formula basis to take account of rural sparseness, need and—particularly—deprivation, according to working tax credit data. Obviously, we want to ensure that that formula is improved if necessary. Does she have practical suggestions for how the early intervention grant should change to ensure that the communities most in need receive what they deserve?
Luciana Berger
I thank the Secretary of State for his intervention. The cabinet lead for education in Liverpool, Councillor Jane Corbett, about whom I shall say more, has spent many an hour with local education practitioners, members of the community and Sure Start staff to talk to them about what can be done. I would welcome the opportunity to join representatives from Liverpool to meet the Secretary of State to discuss that.
Michael Gove
I am sorry to intervene again, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to do so. I am looking forward to visiting Liverpool on 28 March, and I am sure that I can extend the itinerary that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) is shaping for me so that I have time to talk to the people concerned.
Luciana Berger
I look forward to the Secretary of State’s forthcoming visit to Liverpool.
From many pieces of correspondence with families in my constituency, I have learned that they cannot understand why, when they play by the rules—many are in work and paying their taxes—their most prized and precious asset is the among the first to come under the axe. Councillor Jane Corbett, whom I mentioned—she is Liverpool council’s education and children’s services cabinet member—spoke for so many in our community when she said:
“The Government is showing complete contempt for the youngest children in Liverpool by putting forward these politically motivated cuts. I cannot believe the lack of concern for children and families in Liverpool.”
Liverpool people have a strong sense of fairness. They know that the Government are not treating them fairly, and they will not forget it. If the Government want a big society, they need not look much further than the Sure Start centres at Childwall and Woolton, and at Church and Mossley Hill.
Mr Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady was just asked how she would like the deficit impacts to be dealt with on a local authority basis, and said that she would welcome a meeting. However, if there were a Labour Government, how would the money have been divided up? Undoubtedly, under a Labour Government, there would have been pain in children’s services, as in other areas, just as under a coalition.
Luciana Berger
I will come to what needs to happen in the final part of my speech.
To go back to my previous point, the Government seek a big society, but we already have that—in the two Sure Starts that are under threat of closure. We have committed staff, engaged parents and fantastic children. However, if we are looking for a big betrayal of children’s hopes and futures, we need look not much further than those on the Government Benches.
My hon. Friends have spoken previously about pledges that were made before the election, and I want to repeat those in this debate, because those important points have not been made today. The day before the election, the Prime Minister said:
“Yes, we back Sure Start. It’s a disgrace that Gordon Brown has been trying to frighten people about this. He’s the Prime Minister of this country but he’s been scaring people about something that really matters. Not only do we back Sure Start, but we will improve it.”
Also on the day before the election, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
“Sure Start is one of the best things the last government has done and I want all these centres to stay open.”
On behalf of all parents and children in the communities in my constituency who today depend on Sure Start in these challenging times, and those who will depend on it in future, I urge the Government, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to honour the pledges that they made the day before the election. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said earlier to the Prime Minister, it is not too late to ring-fence the money to save our Sure Starts.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I have raised the cuts in Sure Start provision in my constituency with the Minister on a number of occasions, but I make no apology for raising the matter again today. She will accept that this is serious and that I am very concerned. They are the most substantial cuts in public services so far in Hammersmith—from what I have heard today, there are some horrific stories from around the country—and the cuts in my constituency are the largest proportionately anywhere, in that nine of 15 centres will close.
When the Minister responds to the debate, I want her to answer this question, which I have put to the Chair of the Education Committee and others. What is the proper role of the Government in local authorities that do not do what the Government say they should do? Given all the talk of localism, and the fact that the Government are happy to intervene when they think that councils are not clearing snow quickly enough or emptying bins often enough—[Interruption.] I am directing my comments to the Minister, who I hoped would listen to them, but apparently she will not—[Interruption.] I will pause, if you do not mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, until the Minister pays attention, given that I am asking her a direct and specific question. She persists in talking to her colleagues and not listening, which is somewhat discourteous. I am talking about the majority of services for the under-fives in my constituency being cut by her Government, so she could at least have the courtesy to listen to my comments.
Sarah Teather
I sincerely apologise for not listening to the hon. Gentleman—I was trying to hear when this debate was going to wind up and when I would begin my speech—but he now has my full concentration.
Mr Slaughter
I am grateful for that. The Minister has said in previous debates that she has concerns about what is happening in Hammersmith. Her view—she has expressed it both in answer to parliamentary questions and in debate—is that there is sufficient money in the early intervention grant to preserve the network of Sure Start centres. I am sure she will repeat that view today, in spite of a cut of about 13% coming from central Government—certainly my Conservative council has said that the cut in Sure Start funding through the early intervention grant is 12.9%.
Given that we are talking about what are already pretty lean organisations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) said, we could argue about whether even a 13% cut can sustain the current professional network. However, the Minister has set out her stall on that, so I will address the issue locally, because even on the basis of the cut of about 45% that we are facing—a cut that has been revised slightly downwards—the preservation of Sure Start in Hammersmith is demonstrably unsustainable.
Without going into too much detail, there are one or two points from my local examples that bear analysis, because similar things may be happening elsewhere in the country.
Mrs Hodgson
Before my hon. Friend moves on, I would like to get some clarity on the assertion, which we keep hearing, that the early intervention grant is being protected in cash terms. When we look at the technical note, which I continually refer to—I even carry it round in my handbag, to have it handy at every opportunity—we see a £311 million in-year cut for 2010-11. It looks as though the grant is being protected in cash terms, but a £311 million in-year cut is being taken off the bottom, so it is not protected in cash terms at all. When we bear that in mind, we see that we are talking about a 20% cut over three years.
Mr Slaughter
Indeed, and with a 13% cut in the first year for my area. However, if my hon. Friend does not mind, I want to leave her and the Minister to debate that point, which is a valid one. We heard a disingenuous speech by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), who implied that there was no need to make cuts of that order and that the Government were in some way protecting Sure Start. On the figures that my hon. Friend has given, that is not true around the country. However, if she does not mind, I will leave that point because, from my perspective, we would be grateful for a 13% cut—if I can put it that way—rather than what is actually happening.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman expand on this 45% cut? It has been said that the cut adds up to 15% over three years, so has he not got it the wrong way round? It is not 15 multiplied by three; it is 15 divided by three. Could he expand on how he has got to 45%?
Mr Slaughter
If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I am sure that he will get the point that I am coming to, but, in essence, because the money is not ring-fenced, my local authority has voluntarily chosen, in the face of what it says is a 13% cut from the Government, to make a 45% cut in the first year. That came about in the following way, which bears some analysis.
Karl Turner
It seems that the temptation for Government Members is to say that councils are making decisions for political effect, but that is simply not true. My Lib Dem local authority settled its budget last Thursday, and the cut to Sure Start children’s centres was huge—something like more than 50%. That was certainly not done for political effect, because as a Lib Dem council it was already very concerned about the prospect of annihilation at the May elections.
Mr Slaughter
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I shall now try to make some progress.
On or about 27 December—a time when we are all assiduously reading Government and council documents—my local authority published a report on family support, indicating what funding would be available over the next financial year. The report addressed Sure Start—not directly, but obliquely—first by rubbishing Sure Start provision, saying that although the centres were
“clearly popular with families, and seem likely to have some preventive impact, we have much less clear evidence about the degree of impact this has—including on the ultimate number of children falling into child protection”,
and that
“early studies showed no clear evidence of impact on early school results”.
That might come as a surprise to Members on both sides of the House, given that we heard my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree earlier quoting the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister—certainly before the election—expressing their strong support for Sure Start. However, those rather vague and grudging comments were used as the basis for reducing Sure Start funding by over 50%, with the council report saying:
“However, it is not likely under this scenario that LBHF could continue to directly fund more than 6 Children’s centre teams. In any case we would no longer seek to directly run centres”,
adding that it aimed
“to maintain some provision at most centres, through small amounts of pump-priming funding.”
In the financial section of the report, however, no money whatever was provided for such pump priming; money was provided simply to keep the remaining six centres open.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, by the time report came to committee and was due to be dealt with on 10 January, there was what might be called “a row on the town” in that a large number of people were concerned about it and turned up at the meeting. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) was one of them, so she might want to comment further in her own speech. At that meeting, the authority, faced with great popular disapproval, told people that they had misunderstood the position as no centres were going to be closed, and had misunderstood that the decision had already been taken as consultation was about to be launched. That is what we were told. That would have sounded quite good, save for the fact that the report was then passed in its entirety, including the 50% cut to the budget. We were in the peculiar position of being told one thing when a decision had been taken that was entirely contrary to it. The situation became even more complicated when, later in the same week and rushed out in response to public demand and other factors, a consultation paper was published, with an extra £19,000 slipped in, which turned out to be the pump-priming money—the £19,000 that was going to the Sure Start centres under threat of closure.
Leaving aside the fact that this was shambolic, chaotic and no way to run anything, let alone a local authority, we need to reflect on the reasons for this process of decision making. There were three. The first was connected to public relations. By putting £19,000 into centres that previously had no money at all, the authority could say to the general public and the media, who by this time were taking a strong interest in the issue, that it was not closing the Sure Start centres. Secondly, the consultation was done quite successfully, but it confused the parents and users of those centres, who were told that the centres were not closing but staying open as a result of this £19,000. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, somebody had bothered to look at the regulations, so a scrutiny report was published at the same time, making the observation:
“Local authorities have duties under the Childcare Act 2006 to consult before opening, closing or significantly changing children’s centres, and to secure sufficient provision to meet local need”.
The authority realised that it would be subject to judicial review if the consultation process did not happen. I suspect that it will still be subject to judicial review because consulting after the decision has been made is not the best option.
Mrs Hodgson
I read that same paragraph in a copy of a letter from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), which was a response to a letter to the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), from the all-party Sure Start group. I was curious because I thought it sounded like closing the stable door after the horse had bolted. Once the budget cut has been made, the consultation does not matter, because if the consultation showed that people wanted to keep the centres, where would the money come—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We need much shorter interventions, as there are more Members wishing to participate in the debate.
Mr Slaughter
The whole situation is clearly nonsense. The belated process of consultation closed on Monday 28 February, but the budget for the year was decided at the budget council meeting on 23 February. Nobody is fooled by this, and I suspect that the divisional court will also not be fooled by it when it comes to look at the decision-making process over Sure Start in Hammersmith and Fulham.
There is a fourth reason for the last-minute change of heart, whereby no money suddenly became £19,000. Another paragraph of the later report said:
“We understand that there is no expectation of claw back of capital spend on children’s centres”—
that is, by the Department for Education—
“unless the buildings are no longer used for the services for under fives and their families. We are confident that the proposal outlined above will satisfy DfE requirements.”
So one of the officers said that if the grant was withdrawn as intended and as decided, the Minister of State would come round, not to see what wonderful work had been done but to take back the buildings that had subsequently closed.
Two centres are closing in the ward where I live, in a substantial area of deprivation. About a minute’s walk from my home is Wendell Park children’s centre. A number of parents whose children attend the centre were at the seminar held this morning by the shadow Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), and I met them afterwards. They are campaigning to keep their centre open, and they are under no illusion—
Mr Slaughter
No, I will not give way to the Secretary of State, at least not at the moment. If he wishes to participate in debates such as this, perhaps he should be present from the beginning. Given that when I have tried to raise this and other education issues in my constituency with him over the past few weeks his replies have been flippant and have not addressed those issues, I am in no particular hurry to hear his views on this subject. I may give way to him if I have time at the end.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I think that we had better continue with the debate.
Mr Slaughter
I think that I should sometimes say what I feel in these debates.
As I was saying, the Wendell Park parents whom I saw this morning were under no illusion that reducing a budget of £250,000 to £19,000 meant anything other than that the centre would be closed. Cathnor Park children’s centre, which is about half a mile from where I live and which currently has a budget of £473,000, is also to have a budget of £19,000 in the future. The 100 parents who turned up to a meeting at that centre two weeks ago—which none of the Conservative councillors could be bothered to attend—are similarly under no illusion about what is happening. Notwithstanding the weasel words that we have heard from certain Government Members, what is happening is that children’s centres are closing, their budgets are being withdrawn, the centre is being withdrawn and 45% of funding is being withdrawn. That is the future of Sure Start in my constituency.
Does the Minister of State take any responsibility for what is happening? I understand the rhetoric about localism, but I also understand that if we are to take seriously what the Government said before the election—that they support Sure Start and want the network to be maintained—and if local authorities, of any political complexion but in this instance my Conservative-run council, are cutting budgets by almost 50% and reducing the service by more than half in terms of the number of centres that remain open, the Government have a clear duty to intervene.
Although its budget has already been set, it is still possible for Hammersmith and Fulham to look for resources within the funds that have been allocated. This is a council that spends several million pounds on publicity. It would not be difficult for it to find enough resources to keep the Sure Start centres open, albeit at a reduced level for the time being. At present, all the centres that face closure are considering how they can save money, examining business plans and looking at ways of maintaining the service, but people should not insult our intelligence by claiming that although there is no budget and no service, centres are somehow being preserved because buildings are still standing—if they are not also withdrawn by the Government.
I ask the Minister of State to address directly an issue that she has already addressed obliquely. What is she going to do about local authorities which, despite what they have heard Ministers say about Government policy on Sure Start, persist in shutting down what ought to be a national service of which we should be proud—as I thought we all were—because they do not consider it to be a local priority?
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I am delighted to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) in speaking in this important debate. The fact that three Labour MPs representing Liverpool constituencies have contributed shows the depth of feeling in our city about the issue under discussion.
In a move designed to detoxify the Tory brand and cultivate cuddly, compassionate Conservatism—allegedly big on children and the family—the current Prime Minister told Tory acolytes back in 2009:
“Sure Start will stay, and we’ll improve it.”
Actions speak louder than words, however. Eighteen months and one election later, 250 children’s centres are due to close nationwide and some 2,000 will be forced to reduce their services. Sure Start as we know it looks set neither to “stay” nor “improve”. This is another example of Cleggism, if one was needed: saying one thing, but doing another.
Steve Rotheram
No, not just yet.
It is glaringly obvious that the Government do not understand the holistic nature of the Sure Start children’s centres—their qualitative as well as their quantitative value. Yes, they are about providing a co-ordinated range of practical facilities and services, but, equally importantly, they are also about offering social and emotional encouragement and support, often to parents living in some of the most disaffected, marginalised and hard-to-reach communities in the land.
Sure Start children’s centres do not cater only for the most disadvantaged—whom our Cabinet of multi-millionaires clearly finds so tiresome. They also support hard-working low and middle-income families. Ministers would do well to remember that. Isolation, chaos and dysfunction are both causes and symptoms of family deprivation and marginalisation, and are not the preserve of the least well-off.
I fully acknowledge that the children’s centre programme, which is still in its infancy, is far from perfect. The quality of provision is sometimes patchy, there is room for standardisation and improvement, and although all the indications are good, it is much too early to evaluate the benefits fully.
Claire Perry
First, may I apologise for joining the debate late? I was attending a Justice Committee meeting.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for these centres, but Wiltshire has had a 25% cut in its revenue support grant yet not a single centre is closing—and no library is closing either, so why is Liverpool choosing to shut its centres? This is a matter for the local council, not central Government.
Steve Rotheram
You just don’t get it, do you? I do not know what the settlement is in your area. [Interruption.] Well, let me tell you that the total settlement in Liverpool is—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Members must address each other through the Chair.
Steve Rotheram
I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. To address the hon. Lady’s point, Liverpool is the most deprived area in the country—I have said that before in the Chamber—and it is facing the biggest cuts not just in the policy area under discussion, but in all areas. I invite both the hon. Lady and the Secretary of State for Education to come and see my constituency. It is not only in the most deprived area in the country; it is one of the most deprived constituencies in the most deprived area in the country.
Stephen Twigg
As my hon. Friend has said, Liverpool is the authority with the greatest need. Does he agree that Liverpool city council is to be commended for focusing its cuts first and foremost on back-office functions, halving the number of senior managers, cutting the chief executive’s pay and reducing bureaucracy, yet even after that it has had to make service cuts?
Steve Rotheram
I thank my hon. Friend and fellow Liverpool Member of Parliament for the points he makes. I should perhaps put on record the fact that until May I am still a Liverpool city councillor, so I understand the difficult decisions those councillors are having to make. This is an open book: anybody can come to Liverpool and have a look at the situation we face—councillors’ unenviable task of going through the budget and trying to decide which services to cut.
We are often told by Government Members that we are “deficit deniers”. That is the mantra that everybody uses when they come to the Dispatch Box—the Prime Minister did it again today. If they do not think we should be cutting children’s centres or any other service in Liverpool, they should tell us what they think we should be cutting. It is their Government who have slashed funding to our city right across the board. We have been hit the hardest, yet we are the most deprived. [Interruption.] What was that? I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought somebody on the Government Back Benches said something.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We will have less noise from the Back Benches, unless it is an intervention. I have two people standing. Steve Rotheram, I do not know whether you are giving way. I call Luciana Berger.
Luciana Berger
Did my hon. Friend see the report on BBC news only the other evening in which an independent efficiency expert, Colm Reilly from PA Consulting, singled out Liverpool city council for the work it had done to make £70 million of efficiency savings so far, with £30 million to come in the next couple of months? He said that, despite all these efficiency savings, there was no way that Liverpool city council could protect the front line.
Steve Rotheram
My hon. Friend is of course right, and Colm Reilly was not the only one to say that. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government praised Liverpool city council for its efforts to come up with a budget, given the circumstances it finds itself in.
As I said, the indications are good, but it is much too early fully to evaluate all the benefits of Sure Start. That is precisely why we should be giving it a fair chance to bed in, rather than hobbling it before it has barely taken off.
Bill Esterson
I add my own congratulations to Liverpool city council for the way in which it has tackled the almost impossible task of managing the budget and protecting Sure Start and other key preventive services. I use this opportunity to call on Sefton council, which has its budget meeting tomorrow night, to follow Liverpool’s lead in protecting Sure Start and other vital services.
Steve Rotheram
As we have heard, the Government and certain Members just do not get any of this, but actually, Liverpool city council does get it. It is much maligned of late by the Con-Dems, of course, but, no thanks to the coalition, and despite an 18% cut to its early intervention grant, from which Sure Start funding must now be drawn, it has managed to secure the future of 22 of its centres and will work hard through its consultation process to find ways of avoiding the closure of the four that are threatened, which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby referred to earlier.
However, this is no vindication of the Government’s approach, as unfortunately, service reductions are inevitable. City-wide, under-fives and their families will suffer as a consequence and, needless to say, Liverpool city council has been forced by the Government into the iniquitous position of having to take from Peter to give to Paul. Shuffling reduced resources has inevitably meant that protecting children’s centres has come at the price of other vital services.
I am particularly concerned about the broader, vaguer proposal tucked away in the coalition agreement to introduce payment by results into the Sure Start equation. Market forces bring with them risks, competition and inconsistency. People such as the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) may disagree, but in my book there is no place for any of those in the delivery of services to children and young families.
All this would of course be all well and good if the Government could present a reasoned, evidence-based case for change, but as usual they cannot. In fact, in their arrogance they appear to have gone out of their way stubbornly to ignore popular opinion and expert advice, proffered well in advance of their budget deliberations.
Mr Graham Stuart
The evidence that we need to change the system of accountability is available, both from the National Audit Office and from Durham university, whose team analysed primary schools and the young people attending them over seven or eight years. It found that the readiness for school of young people from the poorest families was not improving, despite all the expenditure by the previous Government. Therefore, moving to payment by results, so that local authorities and children’s centre staff are absolutely focused on transforming the life chances of children, is precisely what we need to be doing, and I think the hon. Gentleman should think again.
Steve Rotheram
What a bizarre argument. Saying that an area such as Liverpool, which is among the most deprived, is having its money reduced and that that will somehow result in improved services to the groups that the hon. Gentleman is talking about is bizarre. As we have heard, almost a year ago the Children, Schools and Families Committee, as the Select Committee was known then, published a progress report on Sure Start children’s centres, having conducted a lengthy inquiry involving dozens of expert witnesses and practitioners—apparently, Jamie Oliver was the only one to turn down this fantastic opportunity. The Committee’s analysis was rigorous and measured, and it was firmly rooted in common sense and fairness. Three of its recommendations are worth highlighting again today.
First, the Committee warned that any reduction of funding
“would undermine the programme to an unacceptable degree and jeopardise the long-term gains from early intervention… we would not wish authorities to be bequeathed an underfunded statutory duty.”
Mr Sheerman
May I help my hon. Friend, because he has just taken an intervention from the Chairman of the current Select Committee? I have read the Government’s response to our original response and it states:
“We are aware that Durham University published a report recently which suggested that Government investment in Sure Start had not delivered improvements in early language and numeracy development. We do not share that view—the 2010 Foundation Stage Profile results showed that the proportion of young children achieving a good level of development had increased by 4 percentage points compared to 2009”.
We must therefore balance what the Government actually said against what some people think they said.
Steve Rotheram
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point.
Secondly, the Committee urged the Government to give the programme time to bear fruit, given that even the oldest tranche of centres was only about six years old at that stage. The Committee said:
“It would be catastrophic if Children’s Centres were not afforded long-term policy stability and security of funding while evaluation is ongoing.”
Thirdly, the Committee categorically urged against the removal of ring-fencing, saying:
“We consider that it would be unwise to remove the ring-fence around Children’s Centres funding in the short or medium term; putting Centres at the mercy of local vicissitudes would risk radically different models and levels of service developing across the country, with differences out of proportion to the variation in community needs.”
Some Tory Members served on that Committee, so this was a cross-party report.
Bill Esterson
I received a letter from the chair of the governors at the St William of York Catholic primary school. They also manage the Thornton children’s centre in Crosby and they tell me that they have seen a marked improvement in the school readiness of the children who attend the centre and whose families use it compared with that of those who do not. That kind of evidence is as important as what is in the Select Committee report or elsewhere. It puts the record straight in respect of what the Chairman of the Select Committee said.
Steve Rotheram
Of course evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, is always a useful tool.
The Government’s response to the Committee’s recommendations was to rush headlong into decisions, to cut funding and to remove the said ring-fencing. In short, the response was to dismiss entirely the logical, considered advice of those best placed to offer it, who included some of their own Members. I know that the Prime Minister is not a man for detail, but you know a policy is truly shambolic when even the Prime Minister fluffs his own case and defence. On 9 February, he arrogantly told the House: “On Sure Start, the budget is going up from £2,212 million to £2,297 million. The budget is going up. That is what is happening,” but that was downright wrong. Not only did he confuse the Sure Start budget with the broader early intervention grant in which it is being subsumed, but he used 2012-13 figures. The EIG is being cut this year by 11%—down from £2,482 million to £2,212 million. So the numbers were out, the dates were out and the argument was out. What hope for our children in the face of such cavalier amateurism?
The key to Sure Start programmes lies in the name, but thanks to the coalition’s cynically calculated decision to pass a poisoned chalice on to local authorities in the guise of localism, millions of babies and toddlers are now set to miss out on the sure start in life they might otherwise have enjoyed. I truly wonder how the Ministers responsible—fathers all—can sleep soundly at night.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I thank the Chair of the Education Committee for securing this timely debate. We served together on the Children, Schools and Families Committee in the previous Parliament and he is already making a name for himself. Although I am very grateful to him for securing the debate, I doubt that the Minister will be quite so grateful given the opportunity it has created for colleagues to air their experiences of the impact on the front line of the decisions that she and the Secretary of State have taken about funding and the removal of ring-fencing.
The debate is timely for several reasons, but primarily because many local authorities are taking decisions that they do not particularly want to take on the future of children’s centres. That is especially true of Liverpool. Contrary to some of the disgraceful comments that have been made in the past week and even in this debate, those decisions are not politically motivated. Liverpool is having to take them because of the terrible settlement it has received, which is one of the worst in the country even though it is the most deprived local authority in the country.
The debate is also timely because it fortuitously follows a seminar on Sure Start that was hosted in Parliament this morning by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), as well as the 4Children conference at which the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who is not in his place, also spoke. I understand that she thanked them this morning for their constructive criticism, so I hope that she will take my remarks in the same spirit.
If the Minister had been able to come to the seminar, I am sure she would have found it very useful. We heard from a number of parents and others involved in children’s centres about what services mean to them and their communities and about the impact that budget cuts could have and are having. We heard from everyone, including some of the Minister’s colleagues, whom we were pleased came along. We heard, as we have heard in this debate, about the difference that good children’s centres can make to the lives of children and parents. We heard from Willie Wilson, whose children attend the Pen Green centre in Corby. He told us how being involved in its Sunday dads group had helped him to overcome his mental health issues and how much his children enjoyed using the centre. He said:
“Everything good in my life in the last five years has been down to Pen Green Children’s Centre”.
Those sentiments were echoed by a young mum who told us how her local centre had helped her and others to get over post-natal depression. Pen Green is facing big cuts to its funding and might have to cut services. I understand that the Minister’s colleague, the hon. Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe), has said that that will happen over her dead body. I do not know whether the Minister just caught that but I think the Secretary of State did and I hope that they will talk to the hon. Lady about that, as such comments are not necessary.
The panel at the seminar agreed with something that the Minister will have heard at her engagement this morning: the ring fence to Sure Start funding is key to the stability of the service on the front line. It also agreed that it is no good keeping centres open if they are not providing a good quality service.
We learn, as we have today from Hammersmith and Fulham, the Prime Minister’s favourite council, that centres that are apparently being kept open will have to survive on a budget of £19,000 a year. No doubt the Minister will agree that that will not go far. It is hardly enough to pay for a caretaker, let alone the running costs and a work force. If we want good results from centres, they need the funding and the stability of funding to employ qualified staff and provide quality services. Cuts and the removal of ring-fencing will not help.
The Minister has been conspicuous by her absence from the past two meetings of the all-party Sure Start group, although we were pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) was present. The hon. Lady recently got round to replying to a letter sent from the group in December, to which I referred earlier. Given the Minister’s absence from the meeting as she was ill, I was surprised to receive, during the meeting, a Google alert informing me that she had published a local media release that very afternoon criticising her local Labour council in Brent for closing or downgrading
“10 out of 20 children’s centres”.
Apart from that not being strictly true—I have checked—I thought it was a bit rich that the hon. Lady should be criticising her local council, which is having to deal with a real-terms cut to its budget for early intervention of almost £10 million over three years, or 18%, according to figures that I have from the Library. That is a cut that she handed to the council, and a decision that she made. She even had the sense of humour in that press release to portray that as a rather good deal. I doubt whether many of her constituents will see it that way, even if Brent council manages to protect the majority of front-line services.
We keep hearing the refrain that there is enough money in the early intervention grant to maintain the children’s centre network. We heard it from the Prime Minister earlier, and a couple of weeks ago he even said that funding for that grant is going up. Both those statements are misleading to the public. The early intervention grant might be increasing by a small amount between 2011-12 and 2012-13, but from the baseline—the budget that councils originally had for services that will now be provided by that fund—there is a significant cut. The EIG covers more than 20 other funding streams, as well as children’s centres, and according to the Department’s publications it is being cut by a total of almost £1.4 billion over three years in cash terms. In real terms, Commons Library research shows that that will be more like 18%, with the worst-hit areas seeing cumulative cuts of more than 22%.
Funding for children’s centres is not ring-fenced within the early intervention grant, which itself is not ring-fenced from the rest of the local authority’s budget, so there is nothing to stop that money being used to fund things entirely separate from what it is supposed to be for. There is therefore no way in which the Minister can realistically tell us today that she is protecting Sure Start. She will call it localism, no doubt, but I call it naiveté in the extreme. Why be a Minister if all she can do is cross her fingers and hope for the best?
I am sure that very few local authorities want to cut budgets for children’s centres or other early intervention schemes, but given the scale of the cuts to their budgets across the board, many of them will have no choice. If not children’s centres, do they cut breaks for disabled children, programmes to combat teen pregnancy, family intervention or targeted mental health in schools, all of which save money in the long term, which is the purpose of early intervention projects? We all know the old adage about a stitch in time saving nine. In short, cutting early intervention funding is ill thought out and will create long-term problems for the sake of short-term savings.
Mr Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, all the more so after her kind words. It is early days and, as I said in my remarks, I hope we do not see the dismantling of a service that is still embryonic. It is not about buildings or budgets, but about outcomes. How does she think we can best ensure that it delivers the outcomes we want? Would she support a movement to payment by results, for instance?
Mrs Hodgson
I would support a return to the ring fence, if not for the whole early intervention grant, then specifically for the Sure Start element within it. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman wanted my opinion and I have given it. The proposals are also contrary to the considered views of the Select Committee, which he now chairs, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen).
The Minister of State seems to be continually distracted and keeps missing important points I am making. She has already had to ask the Secretary of State about my comment on the hon. Member for Corby, and I would not like her to miss anything else I say.
As I said, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North, whose opinions the Minister actively sought, have both championed the prioritisation of early intervention schemes such as children’s centres.
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady says that she would ring-fence funding for Sure Start but has not made it clear that she would increase the early intervention grant. The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) has recently proposed a tax cut by not going ahead with the VAT increase on fuel. If she would ring-fence Sure Start and cut taxes on fuel at the same time, where would the money come from to support the other important services that she was generous enough to list earlier?
Mrs Hodgson
As I am sure the Secretary of State is aware, I am not shadow Chancellor; my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) is. I will not be tempted to go outside my remit—[Interruption.] All I have said is that I would ring-fence the Sure Start element within the early intervention budget, as the leader of the Opposition said today. We have heard the Secretary of State say so many times that he has given councils enough money to maintain their current network of children’s centres—that comes from a direct quote—so if they have enough money within the early intervention grant, why should we be afraid to ring-fence the Sure Start element in it? It is not a spending commitment.
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady was kind enough to mention earlier that by her own calculation ring-fencing Sure Start within the current early intervention grant envelope would mean that other services would have to go. How will she protect those other services? Will she raise taxes, cut spending elsewhere or, as she said earlier, simply cross her fingers and hope for the best?
Mrs Hodgson
It is Ministers who are crossing their fingers and hoping for the best, not me. By making that comment, the Secretary of State has admitted that the early intervention grant is not big enough for the sum of its parts and that all 22 funding streams that feed into it cannot all be met. He has made that admission on the Floor of the House, and I am sure that Opposition colleagues are grateful for it.
Bill Esterson
Surely the point is more about what the Government should be advising local councils to do. Will the Government now come clean and give guidance to local councils on which services they should protect in the early intervention grant and the other restricted Government grants that go to local government, or will they continue to say that it is nothing to do with them and down to local councils?
Mrs Hodgson
That is a key point, and I am sure that the Minister will refer to it in her closing remarks.
The Minister has said on several occasions that she wants children’s centres to be paid by results. That does not necessarily seem a bad thing, until it is considered that, nine times out of 10, improving results will need up-front funds, or at least guaranteed budgets. I completely accept that we need to ensure the best value for taxpayers’ money and that outcomes are what matter, but if payment by results means holding significant chunks of money back from budgets, centres will have to concentrate more on managing their funding, which detracts from the quality of service they can provide with reduced funds.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something about payment by results. In the letter to the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), which I referred to earlier, the Minister said that she would do so in early 2011. Now, when I look at a calendar, I see that it is definitely early 2011. It is actually March 2011, so I look forward to hearing about payment by results.
The Minister will no doubt tell us that that funding is targeted at those who need it most, but Library research shows the opposite. The brunt of the cuts to the early intervention grants seem to be borne by local authorities with the greatest number of children living in poverty, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) just said with regard to Liverpool city council. Local authorities such as Knowsley, Sefton, Wirral and Sunderland, which covers my constituency, are all in the top 10 for cumulative cuts, while authorities such as Cambridgeshire, Richmond upon Thames and Hampshire—all sounding leafy and suburban—are among those that come off best. Can the Minister explain the difference between her words and actions?
There is so much more that I would like to say, but I want to hear from the Minister. To echo the former chief executive of the Daycare Trust, in speaking to the Select Committee, Sure Start
“has been not just a step in the right direction but thousands of steps”.
Every closure, every child whose provision deteriorates, every parent who misses out on the help to improve their parenting, and every early years professional forced to abandon the sector because the jobs have disappeared represents another step backwards from the creation of a society in which every child has the best possible start in life.
I should like to believe that the Minister and her colleagues think the same, but in so many other areas the warm words that we heard before the election, from the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and others, and since have not matched the actions of this Tory-led Government. Promises to protect Sure Start have been broken—plain and simple broken promises. Cash-starved councils are being forced to make unpalatable decisions that look set to deprive many thousands of families of the services that they value highly and, in many cases, rely upon, because of a decision that the Minister and her colleagues have made.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (James Duddridge)
Two minutes over.
Mrs Hodgson
I did give way a number of times to Government Front Benchers.
Not only that, but many areas with the greatest need are seeing the biggest cuts. The rhetoric does not match the reality, so the Minister needs to make a decision: she should either be honest about her failure to protect children’s centres or take action to make good her words.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the whole Select Committee and, indeed, the previous Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), for the important report that we are debating today, and for giving the House the opportunity to discuss the future of Sure Start children’s centres.
The report has been timely and helpful as the Government develop their approach to early years. The debate has on the whole been very good and constructive, with focused speeches about the future direction of policy, but the report demonstrates the extent of the all-party support for children’s centres as vital hubs of excellence in delivering integrated services to families, particularly those who most need support and advice. I have listened with interest to Members, and I shall try to address as many issues and concerns as I possibly can, as well as picking up on the key areas of our response to the Select Committee report. I am mindful, however, that I now have very little time left in which to speak.
The start of the debate was particularly important, because the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) reminded us why we are debating the matter. Early years are the foundation for life. High-quality early intervention has the potential to turn around life chances, and poor experiences in early years, such as those to which the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) referred, can actually change the physical nature of the brain. The failure to develop relationships of attachment can affect a child for ever, not just in the first few years of life. That is precisely why the Government have prioritised spending in this area, as the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) discussed.
I was struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) about the importance of Sure Start in providing other support for families, not just for children. Let me be clear about this from the start. The coalition Government see Sure Start as vital to their work on social mobility: it is a key priority. Sure Start has proved itself to be a programme that has the capacity to be life-changing, and we want to build on its success. The Chair of the Select Committee said that he hoped we were not going to rip everything up. That is exactly what we are not doing. We are building on the good aspects of Sure Start, but, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead said, trying to develop it to ensure that we focus, particularly with more evidence-based programmes, on the families and children who need our support most. We believe that the best way to do this is through greater local decision making and accountability, more involvement of organisations that have proven expertise in service delivery, and, specifically, more use of evidence-based programmes.
Our response to the Committee’s report clearly states that, in our view, the main purpose of children’s centres is to ensure that families get help when they need it and to tackle issues early to prevent costly problems from emerging later. We want children’s centres to provide the foundation for stronger early joined-up working offering universal services for all families and targeted services focused on the neediest of those families.
Several hon. Members spoke about the need for evaluations, so let me pick up on a few of those points. The Government have commissioned an evaluation of Sure Start children’s centres in England that runs until 2016 alongside the national evaluation of Sure Start, which is evaluating a wide range of children’s centres. A report on the cost-effectiveness of the earlier Sure Start local programmes will be published later this year. I hope that that will be very useful information, for which the Chair of the Select Committee, in particular, asked.
The introduction of payment by results will incentivise better local evaluation of the impact of centres on children’s outcomes. In response to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and the Opposition spokesperson, I point out that when we begin trialling payment by results, some additional money will be going in to help us to do that. We will then learn from those trials to find the most effective way to roll out payment by results in future to ensure that we can incentivise children’s outcomes.
Sarah Teather
I am afraid that I cannot answer the hon. Lady’s question at the moment.
Children’s centres are a priority for us, so we have ensured that there is enough money in the system to maintain the network of Sure Start children’s centres through the early intervention grant, or EIG. The spending review announced that funding for Sure Start children’s centres would be maintained in cash terms, including new investment from the Department of Health for 4,200 health visitors to work alongside outreach and family support workers. I understand that many in the sector are concerned about the removal of ring-fencing. However, this is not about a lack of priority for the sector; on the contrary, it is a recognition of its growing strength and maturity.
The removal of the ring fence is not taking place in a vacuum. Across the piece, this Government are removing ring fences in many areas because we believe that the right way to make decisions is to trust people on the ground to decide how best to prioritise funding. In that way, we get much better decision making.
Sarah Teather
I give way first to the Chair of the Select Committee and then to the hon. Gentleman.
Sarah Teather
I do not want to spell out exactly which bits of the EIG go to what, because I want local authorities to make decisions on the ground about the best ways to do that. As the hon. Gentleman says, the money for health visitors comes from the Department of Health. I will write to him to provide some information about that, because I do not have it here with me. However, I do not want to—
Sarah Teather
I will give way in a moment; let me answer one point at a time. The hon. Gentleman should not get too excited.
I do not want to spell out the details, particularly because when finances are tight there is an even bigger onus on us to ensure that we provide flexibility for local decision making. I do not think that we will get better decisions if I try to drive all this from Whitehall. We will get better decisions if local authorities can look at their provision and work out how they can best rationalise it based on local need.
Bill Esterson
I say to the Minister that I do get excited about protecting services on which families in my constituency depend. She made the point about local decision making, but there is a difference between making decisions on how to deliver the detail of services and deciding whether to deliver those services. That is the crucial issue in relation to ring-fencing. I call on her again to reconsider the decision on ring-fencing so that councils have to deliver services, even if they can decide how to deliver them.
Sarah Teather
I will not reconsider the decision on ring-fencing because I believe that it is the correct decision. As I was trying to say before I took the interventions, this is not taking place in a vacuum. Payment by results will ensure that we focus much more on outcomes. As the hon. Member for West Suffolk powerfully put it, the problem with ring-fencing is that it focuses on inputs. I do not think that it is inputs that generate outcomes. We have to try to drive behaviour to focus on the outcomes.
Matthew Hancock
Does the Minister accept that in my area of Suffolk the removal of the ring fence has allowed the council to work up much more innovative solutions and to integrate different services? It can provide better solutions by bringing the delivery of services closer together, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) said, and get better value for money. I therefore strongly applaud the Minister’s decision not to put the ring fence back in place.
Sarah Teather
I absolutely agree. The point is that local authorities ought to have the freedom to decide whether they want to integrate these services with their youth provision. I want them to make better use of what are often fantastic assets, which are not always fully utilised. If we provide flexibility for local authorities, they will have the opportunity to do that.
Mr Sheerman
On a related point, a thread that runs through all the reports of the previous Select Committee is the importance of the professional qualification for early years professionals, and of paying and training those professionals well. There is some unhappiness at the moment because it seems that the early years qualification will be brushed aside. Will the Minister reassure us that that is not the case?
Sarah Teather
I am not sure that I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. We are in the process of co-producing a policy statement with the Department of Health and the sector on the vision for early years and on how we will drive forward a number of changes. In particular, it will deal with quality, which I spoke about this morning at the 4Children conference. The questions include whether the existing qualifications are fit for purpose, whether we should change them and whether we should ensure that there is a greater focus on child development. We are considering those matters at the moment and we will publish the policy statement later this year. Quality is key, which is why we have asked the National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services to focus on the quality of leadership in children’s centres. Children’s centres have the potential to drive forward quality, not just in their centre, but in much of the early years provision in their area. They have a great deal of potential.
I only have about four minutes left, which will make it difficult to respond to all the questions that have come up. I want to deal with one point that was raised by Labour Members, and in particular by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger). She made a number of allegations about cuts being made in proportion to need. I simply dispute her point. In fact, we used the previous Government’s funding formula to allocate most of the money in the EIG. As she will be aware, the formula
“is based on the under 5 population, weighted to reflect deprivation (based on Working Tax Credits data), rurality and the Education area cost adjustment.
Also,
“Some of the EIG has been allocated according to a youth formula. This is based on population numbers, educational attainment at Key Stage 2 and 3 and GCSE, numbers of young people not in education, employment or training…and the Education area cost adjustment.”
It simply is not fair to say that we have chosen to target cuts at areas with the greatest need—that is quite offensive. I appreciate that some hon. Members have made speeches today in order to defend councils of their own political colour, which I can understand. I also acknowledge that things are extremely difficult for many councils at the moment. I am not saying that it is easy to run a council, any more than it is easy to run the country at the moment, given the parlous state of our finances.
Many local authorities are making sensible decisions—to cluster Sure Start children’s centres and to merge back-office functions, for example. They are looking innovatively at how they can bring services together to make the best use of the assets available. We have heard from a number of hon. Members whose local authorities are managing to prioritise not only children’s centre buildings but the services that are being provided in them, to ensure that they always focus on children’s outcomes, which is absolutely vital.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) asked some specific questions about what the Government are doing. I have made it clear to local authorities that this issue is a priority—so much so that they have been complaining that I have placed a moral ring fence around children’s centres. We have made it clear in the guidance that local authorities have a duty to consult properly, and we have drawn their attention to the fact that, if they are using an asset for a purpose for which it is not funded, the Department is obliged to consider whether to claw back some of the money involved. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is using all those arguments in his discussions with his local council.
I was hoping to say a little about the vision for Sure Start children’s centres but, unfortunately, everyone else has spoken for so long that I have only about a minute left. Flexibility is key, and targeting the neediest families is an absolute priority for the Government, as is focusing on evidence-based programmes and making use of the reports produced for us by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). We also want services to be brought together much more effectively, which is why we are working so closely with the Department of Health on our vision for children’s centres. I am pleased that we shall have so many more health visitors on track. Many of them will be placed in Sure Start children’s centres, and all of them will have strong links with their local centres. That is vital. Evidence shows that if health services are closely involved, the neediest families can be reached.
I was hoping to go on to speak about mutuals and the voluntary sector, but it is now 4.32, and I have to sit down. If hon. Members would like to hear more from me in future, they might want to restrain their speeches just a little. This has been an extremely useful debate, however, and I want to thank all hon. Members for their contributions.
Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54(4).
HM Revenue and Customs
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
I am glad that the request of the Select Committee on the Treasury to hold this debate on HMRC’s estimates has been accepted. I am conscious that I am speaking on behalf of a large number of colleagues from right across the House, many of whom cannot be here today, who have spoken to me about the problems that their constituents are experiencing with HMRC. I am also speaking on behalf of hundreds of thousands of taxpayers who have encountered difficulties and feel that they have nowhere to turn. I am delighted that the Chairman of the Treasury Sub-Committee, the hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie), will follow me in the debate. He has done an excellent job in focusing the Sub-Committee on these problems and, in so doing, has built on the work done by the Sub-Committee in the previous Parliament under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon). I should like to take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for his hard work.
“Ten years ago the Inland Revenue had the reputation of being one of the best run Departments in Whitehall. Today HMRC’s reputation is in tatters as one disaster has followed another.”
Those are not my words but the considered conclusions of the Chartered Institute of Taxation in written evidence to the Treasury Committee. I have a stack of similar evidence from other qualified bodies and people, and they are all variations on the same theme—HMRC is close to being a failing institution in some areas.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Treasury Committee has heard much evidence from representatives of businesses who say that dealing with HMRC is now costing enterprises significantly more of their profit and income? Matters that used to take a few hours now seem to take literally months to resolve.
Mr Tyrie
I agree completely, and the next sentence of what I intended to say was to be along the lines of asking what the situation means for small business men. They are not experts in tax, they just want to get on with their job. We must constantly bear in mind the fact that when HMRC gets things wrong, its mistake can be a catastrophe for the taxpayer on the other end of the experience.
I want to tell the story of one such business man who has written to me, who wants to remain anonymous. His business was the subject of an HMRC investigation, and when it found no irregularities, it started an investigation into his personal tax affairs. As he says in his letter to me, “They investigated everything”, even challenging a gift of £15 to a nephew. He had the impression that the local tax office felt it had to find something, having invested so much time in his case. All that went on for five years—it was like being on trial for five years. Finally, a very senior manager at HMRC saw sense and transferred the case to another tax office, and a week later that small business man had an apology.
However, like so many similar cases, it is not a matter of “all’s well that ends well”. The collateral damage has been huge. That business man’s accountant estimates that his business has lost £7 million in the time and effort of handling the case, and on top of that the stress involved in such an experience would have been crippling for many people. It is not just that individual who has lost out but all those who depend on his business for their livelihood and all those who might have had jobs in it had it been able to concentrate on expansion rather than fending off HMRC. One case does not prove anything, but the sheer scale of complaints now pouring into MPs’ postbags suggests something.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that HMRC is going to write off all open cases from 2007-08, which equate to just under £1 billion? It wants to sort out the overpayments, which of course affect the person whom he mentioned. The problem is that, under the four-year rule it is not sure how it can do so. Can he help me on that point?
Mr Tyrie
My hon. Friend makes a point that I was intending to make, and he makes it very fully. Because I want to give other people the opportunity to speak, I will not elaborate on it.
I wish to say a further word about HMRC as an institution. It has a very difficult job. Nobody likes the taxman, and it is easy to kick HMRC. I have no doubt that most people there are struggling to protect the revenue fairly and trying hard to do a reasonable job. Doing that job requires a strong sense of collegiality and loyalty to the ethic of the institution. When I was an adviser in the Treasury in the ’80s, I had a lot of contact with people in both the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, and I thought that they were the salt of the earth. They were immensely dedicated to their jobs and civil servants of the best sort. One had no doubt that they were a highly motivated group of people, or that morale was high.
What about now? The Cabinet Secretary runs an annual staff survey, which has been going on for many years. It shows that HMRC has the lowest morale of any Government Department. Some 25% of staff want to leave as soon as possible or within a year, and only 15% believe that the department motivates them to do their best. Only 12% say that the department is well managed, and the survey goes on with a similar litany. There is some good news, which relates to what I said a moment ago. The job content is still considered interesting by three quarters of staff, and more than three quarters say that they can rely on their colleagues. There is still some collegiality. Even that will not last unless we start to put right what has gone wrong. HMRC will become dysfunctional unless action is taken to bring to an end the string of disasters that has befallen it.
Let me give some examples. Last September, the Government were forced to announce that up to 6 million taxpayers were to receive letters informing them that they had paid the wrong amount of tax through PAYE. That had been caused largely by the introduction of a new computer system, which was simply not up and running in time, and it provoked a powerful Public Accounts Committee report, which detailed the failures. There was the matter of the incorrect PAYE notices in January 2010. That provoked even more critical treatment in the PAC report. Then there are the phone call response times—try ringing HMRC. The National Audit Office found that in 2008-09 only 57% of call attempts were answered. That disastrous performance declined even further for a time, before recovering recently. I could give other examples.
What is the root cause of the problems? Some clues probably come from that survey of staff morale. It shows that the collapse of morale appears to have coincided with the merger. I know that the survey on morale began in that form only at the time of the merger, but it charts a decline from then. I believe that the merger was probably a mistake, and I said, from the Front Bench at the time, that merging two institutions with such different cultures was unlikely to be worth the candle. However, now that the merger has occurred, I am equally clear that unscrambling it would also be risky.
In any case, the department is reorganising itself. It is moving from a regional structure, with customer contact based on local offices, to a centralised model. We have heard that before. The experience of the banks with that centralised model, whereby they got rid of Captain Mainwaring, was distinctly mixed. However, the die is cast on the move to a centralised model and, in HMRC’s case, the performance of the new centralised model is not entirely disastrous. Its figures suggest that overall customer satisfaction was 73% in September 2010.
The key question must be whether that reorganisation can be completed while cutting so many more staff. The hon. Member for Leeds East will consider that issue. I hope that it will be completed, but it would be the triumph of hope over experience, if we consider the history of other Whitehall Departments and their reorganisations.
Of course, the large firms with which HMRC engages will not feel the effects of the reorganisation. They will continue to receive a good service. They provide most of the tax yield, and I understand why HMRC devotes so many resources to focusing on them. However, I worry greatly about the small firms—those least able to absorb the turbulence whenever HMRC reorganises itself. I worry particularly that, while HMRC may make savings, it will merely shift the burden of administration to taxpayers and their accountants in small businesses. The effect on the whole economy will not be neutral. It is not a matter of £1 spent in HMRC transferred to the private sector—it may be worse than that, eroding overall business efficiency and bringing downward pressure on GDP.
In a recent evidence session, I asked the Institute of Directors and the main bodies representing the accountants to start to estimate a full compliance cost for firms that deal with HMRC. It has never been done before and it is not easy work. However, we must have at least some core figures to enable us to monitor over time the full compliance burden placed on firms by HMRC. There is no point—absolutely no point—in creating a leaner HMRC at the price of massive compliance costs in the private sector. My challenge to the institutions that represent the private sector is to find that true cost of compliance. I also want to allude to some challenges for the department and the Government.
First, all the evidence that the Treasury Committee has seen suggests that HMRC needs to communicate better with taxpayers—it must find ways of giving clearer and more accurate answers to reasonable queries, and to give those answers quickly. Secondly, it is vital that staff have the training and experience that they need to work with taxpayers. There is no earthly point in a call-centre culture that is based entirely on read-outs from computer scripts.
Thirdly, we need to consider incentives as well as penalties as a means of encouraging the right amount of tax to be paid. Some argue that HMRC should consider a general disclosure facility to encourage the disclosure of previously undeclared tax. We need to reflect on that. There is a risk with amnesties, which is the road down which that proposal goes, but it needs to be looked at.
Fourthly, we must accept that with PAYE coming under increasing pressure as more people develop a variety of sources of income rather than rely on employment from a single source, further changes to PAYE will inevitably be necessary, as well as the coming introduction of real-time information. Those changes must be made extremely carefully if we are not to have yet another major road crash, such as we have seen in the past few years.
I should like to end by offering one crucial, big challenge to the Government. Much that is wrong with how HMRC operates is not its fault, and nor is it the fault of taxpayers. Rather, it is the fault of us—legislators. Successive Governments have put ever more complex legislation on the statute book. In 2009, a leading legal database found that the UK had the longest tax code in the world. That is a charter for accountants and for evasion opportunities. Length means more complexity, and complexity means higher costs for all of us. In evidence to the Treasury Committee, the IOD told us that KPMG estimated the total cost to the UK economy of running the tax system at 0.4% of GDP. I wager that that is an underestimation, as I alluded to a moment ago.
My challenge to the Government is that we must have tax reform. I was struck by a point made in a discussion paper in the Mirrlees review on tax administration, which begins:
“Most of modern tax theory…completely ignores administration and enforcement. The policy formation process is not much better, too often addressing implementation only after reform has been determined”.
Of course, administration should be an integral part of the decision-making process, but in recent years, tax policy formulation has been travelling in the opposite direction. The 2004 O’Donnell report resulted in most decisions on tax policy being taken in the Treasury, with implementation done by HMRC. It is widely held that the policy-making function in HMRC has gradually been downgraded, but we must reverse that. I urge the Government to return to a situation in which there is much greater creative tension between HMRC and the Treasury on policy formulation. If we do not do so, there will be more episodes in which the implementation of policy—delivery—mysteriously turns out to have an unexpectedly high cost or to be unacceptably complex.
In that respect, I very much welcome the creation of the Office of Tax Simplification. However, that will not be enough. We must have better policy and a simpler tax system that gives greater certainty and stability. I hope that the forthcoming Budget will point the way on that. Business and the self-employed in particular are crying out for such measures. We need a series of tax-reforming and simplifying Budgets. In the long run, everyone will gain: HMRC will have a better system to manage, taxpayers will have something that they can understand and the UK economy will have a tax system that creates opportunities for better long-run performance.
The tax system loses the respect of taxpayers, however grudging, when it becomes as complex as the one that it looks as if we are developing. Once we have arrived at that point, the country has a big problem. We will be on the slippery slope towards wide-scale evasion and an erosion of the tax base. I will not name the EU countries that are on that slippery slope, but there are quite a number, and we all know which they are. It is partly with that in mind that the Treasury Committee has launched an inquiry into the principles of tax policy that are needed for such reform. We will be reporting shortly. If we in the UK get those principles right, many of the problems that we have heard about today will diminish, and a more prosperous economy and stable society can result.
Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) for his kind remarks. When Lord McFall left the Treasury Committee, no one thought its work could be kept at the same level, but I think that it has improved—that is, if one can improve on Lord McFall’s performance. As Chairman, the hon. Gentleman has already gained the respect—even the fear, I think—of witnesses appearing before the Committee, which is a good sign. He also serves a useful purpose for me, because when I go on one of my northern, regional rants, he will translate it for the southern gentlemen before us, and I sometimes get an answer.
As expected, the hon. Gentleman has dealt with this issue on a policy level that I could not match. I take a more pragmatic view towards the department, because although there is an argument for having a look at policy—tax definitely needs simplifying—we should not necessarily do things at that level to suit a vehicle that is dysfunctional; rather, we should ensure that the vehicle is functional. At the moment, I fear that the department is in a disappointing state. To give some background, we on the Treasury Committee, and on the Treasury Sub- Committee under the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), see HMRC every year, and we have had one or two inquiries over the years. In 2006, the Committee published a report on the efficiency programme. We identified concerns that reductions in the headcount were leading to falling service standards, and we made certain recommendations. We have returned to that issue in our current inquiry—we are halfway through it—into the same subject as this debate, and we have sadly discovered that nothing has been done along those lines. Indeed, in our 2009 review of administration and expenditure in the Chancellor’s Department, we noted
“a 7% increase in total recorded customer complaints”.
We asked HMRC to square that with its submission that strong progress had been made.
Mr Liddell-Grainger
The latest figure from HMRC is that complaints have gone up by 33% in the last two years, so the hon. Gentleman’s figures are a bit light.
Mr Mudie
They probably are, but the report that I am quoting is a couple of years old.
The other thing that we highlighted—the hon. Member for Chichester referred to this—were the dire results for HMRC of a cross-government staff survey. We expressed deep concern about employee engagement at HMRC and its effect on performance, along with the severely low morale, which has been referred to. What that amounts to is this. The problem could be a passing phenomenon, but it is not. It has been consistent for a number of years and it has to be faced up to. What are the reasons for it? We cannot move away from that dismal performance without accepting that severe staff cuts in the department are a major—if not the major—contributory factor. The work force has gone down by 30% since 2005. There might be some excuse in that the merging of two departments—Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue—provides scope for rationalisation, but not for losing 30% of the staff. There is worry that with the spending review, another £2 billion might be taken out—or £3 billion, with £900 million going back. In addition to seeing those 30,000 jobs, another £2 billion is to be taken out of its resources, and we cannot anticipate a better performance in the years ahead.
Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
I am hearing rumours that some people threatened with redundancy are earning £20,000 to £25,000 a year, yet the work they do saves the Treasury hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. Surely that does not make any sense either?
Mr Mudie
That is a well-accepted fact. To be fair, the £900 million is an acceptance of what my hon. Friend says. Theoretically or on paper, this money is going back to bring in £7 billion-worth of tax that has not been collected for one reason or another. I would like the Minister to deal with the phasing of that £7 billion. As usual with the Treasury, this can be read any way. I know that we culminate with this £7 billion, but what are the targets for the years ahead?
The computer has also contributed to demoralisation in the Department. It is not just the computer, but the man in Whitehall who thinks that the computer is the answer, because pressing a button produces something and it does not argue back. As we have discovered elsewhere in government, that simply does not work under any circumstances. The Revenue saw the computer as an answer to its problems with the budget cuts and thought that the staff could be taken out. They were removed before the computer was up and running, before it became operational and proved to be defective. That is why we had the debacle at Christmas 18 months ago of millions of taxpayers receiving an unexpected and largely unwelcome envelope. I grant that some might have been welcome, but they were mostly unwelcome.
The 30,000 jobs are gone, but I have yet to mention the merger. It was particularly important for staff morale, because at the same time this brilliant Department—I suppose it was the Treasury—brought in McKinsey to do its thinking, and it ended up adopting a French model of “départements”. There were 36 such departments inside the organisation, which meant no joining together of the two departments with their great traditions and ethos, and no welding together of the best bits from both. Instead, the departments were broken up—everybody was broken up—and there were no lines of accountability or anything like that. It was a complete shambles. Steps have been taken to put that right, but some of the damage persists, which is another contributory factor. That is what has happened. It is not possible to take out 30,000 people, have a merger or reorganisation, load in additional work and duties and expect it all to work. It is not working; something has to be done about it.
The hon. Member for Chichester touched on the issue of taxpayers. When the new computer came in, as usual somebody in Whitehall said, “It is wonderful to have this computer in London, so we can shut some offices”—and they gaily did so. On paper that meant saving staff, costs and so forth. The trouble is that tax is a very complicated issue. The best of us—I say this because I am among them—simply cannot handle tax and the details relating to it. Two or three years ago I decided that my accountant was too expensive, and took over the job of filling in the forms myself. In the first year, I received £300 back; in the second year I was charged £1,500. Now I am back with my accountant.
The difficulties involved in dealing with tax are a fact of life. The closure of tax offices has been a disaster, along with the cuts in working hours and days. We have reached a stage in public life, at both local authority and national levels, when call centres may seem to be the answer but are really—I suspect—a way of placing a brick wall between the decision-makers and the public. They can be helpful when dealing with ordinary questions, but are often unhelpful when it comes to detailed matters such as tax. That is especially true when they are talking to the elderly and those for whom English is a second language. I am reminded of confused.com: call centres are unhelpful to anyone who is confused.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
The closure of tax offices is an important issue in north Wales. I hate to be parochial, but I represent an area in which about 20% of the working population are self-employed. The need for self-employment is paramount in north Wales, because the economy is so fragile that unless we create our own job opportunities, we cannot work at all. Unfortunately, over the past few years we have seen the downgrading of the Porthmadog, Bangor and Colwyn Bay tax offices. The 20% of the working population who are self-employed must now travel to Wrexham and even over the border to be served, which is a big problem. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, when a small business is forced to use an accountant because it is unable to talk to—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We must have short interventions.
Mr Mudie
I am sorry that you stopped the hon. Gentleman, Mr Deputy Speaker, because his was a better speech than mine. I do not think that he needed to use the word “parochial”, or even to apologise if he thought that he was being parochial. In fact, he was being regional. Here in London, it is assumed that any region above Watford can be written off. The hon. Gentleman has made an extremely valid point.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont), who is sitting behind me, is a strong supporter of tax office staff. However, I agree with the Chairman of the Select Committee about the number of telephone calls that are not answered. At one stage, the figure was 43%. One of the professional witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee said that an HMRC tax manager had been in his office and observed that it took 12 minutes for a call to be answered and seven minutes simply to change a tax code. That simple transaction took 20 minutes. That is a witness’s statement, and a very good one. I am sure that the Minister has read all the evidence given to the Committee, and has noted that that particular witness described his experiences brilliantly.
Mr Liddell-Grainger
The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the two companies charged with this task by the Government, Capgemini and Accenture, have been at it for a decade. The system that they were asked to use a decade ago is not the system that they use now and is not capable of doing the job, although it is starting to throw up problems that we saw a couple of years ago. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that both companies’ contracts should be upgraded to a level that is appropriate to the 21st century?
Mr Mudie
That is an interesting point.
I am using up time rapidly, but let me mention in passing another feature of call centres. Telephoning 0845 numbers can be very expensive for pensioners—indeed, for everyone. The fact that people have to hold on for so long does not help, but in any case it is not the right way to decide complex matters. It is best for people to deal with those face to face. The best people in the whole business are the agents, as they are the professionals. They take the frustration and get angry about it—and they have given good evidence. The ordinary individuals are in the worst position, however. The professionals get used to things and can get on with other tasks, yet, as the professionals said, those who are not represented get the worst deal, and with office closures, cutting hours, and relying increasingly on telephone calls, e-mails and letters, the whole system knocks out a fair number of the population. That is what is happening. Plenty of Members want to speak, and they will spell out their constituents’ experiences.
Does the system need to be improved and will it be improved? I do not think it will, first because it goes against the grain—I will explain that. Sadly, every time witnesses from HMRC have appeared before us, they have been in a state of denial. If someone has a problem, there is no chance of their dealing with it unless they own up to it and accept it. I sympathise with them in a way, however. The hon. Member for Chichester said we are to blame and that is true; we are to blame, in particular the Ministers. It is hard for a civil servant to go before a Select Committee and say, “Yeah, I admit it; we can’t do this because we don’t have the people.”
We look for loyalty and a straight bat from civil servants, but the way we are doing things is not generally the best way to get a real dialogue. Therefore, when we have them before us in a couple of weeks, I am not sure that Dame Lesley will do anything other than give us the Geoff Boycott treatment, or even do a Pietersen and knock us out of the ground a couple of times. Because she and the management are in this state of denial, I cannot see things happening unless the Minister takes some steps. I really do think this comes down to staff and resources. Unless they are in place, we cannot load new jobs on.
Finally, let me describe a few points that should push the Minister to want to have a fresh look at resources. One of them is to do with what the Chairman of the Select Committee said about the integrity and reputation of the system, and real tax compliance in this country. If we frustrate and ignore people, and make it difficult for them to get explanations, one way or another, non-compliance will grow. There will be increasing disrespect for the system and the people in it, and a growing feeling that they are not here to help. The tax inspectors and staff are adamant that they are here to help however, and that has always been my experience at that level—when we can get to speak to someone, they are helpful.
If something is not done and we treat people in this way, they will respond in a manner that I think is natural, which is to say, “Get on with it”—I almost said “Sod it”—and “I am not complying.”
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We cannot say “Sod it.” I am sure the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that.
Mr Mudie
Well, I did withdraw it; I said I will not use the phrase “Sod it.”
I have made points about management being in denial and non-compliance. The next point is more current. We live in a time of austerity. It is a hard time and people’s wages and homes are being affected, yet the public are reading about Barclays paying £190 million on billions of pounds of profit, and about Vodafone being willing to pay £3 billion or £4 billion and having that available to pay to the Inland Revenue, but the Inland Revenue accepting £1.3 billion. This big multinational company is getting away with paying that amount of tax at a time when we are closing vital public services. We see Mr Green paying his wife through Monaco. In last Sunday’s papers, we read about a man with reputed wealth of £47 million being forced by someone he sacked to confess that he pays no tax at all because of the trust his father set up. Such stories are starting to resonate among ordinary people.
The Governor of the Bank of England came before the Treasury Committee yesterday, and at one stage in the evidence session he accepted that the anger we have witnessed in the past couple of years is nothing compared to what might happen when we see the real cuts, which are starting now. Last year, we talked a lot about cuts, but they amounted to only £6 billion. However, in Leeds recently, people invaded the council chamber when the budget was being fixed. There were people outside in wheelchairs whose benefits were being cut. Cuts were made to housing benefit. Students and trade unionists were also there. Some 1,000 jobs there are to go.
I genuinely say to the Government that a dangerous situation is brewing. A very affluent lady in America said, “Tax? That’s just for the little people.” That belief is starting to take hold in this country, as a lot of evidence shows. We need to get the tax people working properly. The tax gap is reckoned to be between £40 billion and £120 billion. We would not have these cuts if everybody paid their tax in a responsible fashion. That issue needs to be tackled, yet right now thousands of tax staff are being given their cards, when they could be dealing with it.
I want to finish by being helpful to the Minister. Another computer program is wending its way through the Department that has a crucial bearing on the Minister’s future. It deals with real-time initiatives and has very strict deadlines. It is for not only the Treasury but the Department for Work and Pensions, and it is a crucial factor in delivering the universal credit. I know that Treasury Ministers are very anxious to get universal credit in. To judge by past performance with computer systems, I wish the Minister luck. However, let me mark his card in this debate: all the signs from the Department are that, unless he gets a real grip and has a serious word with the Chancellor, that deadline will not be met. We are talking about not just one Whitehall Department negotiating a contract, but two, and when you put two Departments together, that leads, I fear, to trouble.
As an old friend of the Minister—we have worked together on the Treasury Committee and on other matters—I would not like that contract to be lost on his watch, and that is the third, and perhaps most compelling reason why he should do something about this problem.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
I speak as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which has held a number of hearings with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs over the past few months. HMRC collects about £440 billion, but its estimate of the tax gap—the amount it thinks it could collect compared with what it actually collects—is £42 billion. Others, notably public sector trade unions, have produced even more ambitious estimates of that gap, putting it as high as £120 billion, although a lot of those numbers are more controversial. To put those figures in context, the entire cost of running HMRC is less than £4 billion.
As we have heard, huge systems changes and headcount reductions have taken place in recent years, and they have led to poor morale. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) said, HMRC came a lamentable 96th out of 96 on staff morale in the previous civil service staff survey. It also came 95th, 95th and 94th on “Leadership and Management of Change”, “Understanding My Work” and “Learning and Development” respectively. Those are shocking statistics.
I recently visited an HMRC office close to me to meet groups of staff, and their comments confirmed the survey’s findings. Despite being generally low paid and having their job security and pensions under threat, they did not even mention those issues. They talked not only about pride in the service, and their experience and professionalism, but about their frustration at the chaos they could see all around them and, above all, about the “process as seen” mentality. It means that they have mindlessly to process data they know to be wrong. Examples of that can be as simple as not being able to use data from a P60 where they have been omitted from a tax return, which leads to erroneous tax bills or refunds. In the private sector the mantra “Get it right first time” has been around for at least 30 years.
In the same staff survey, damning verdicts were given under almost every heading, as we have heard. Only 13% of staff gave a positive response to the statement, “I feel HMRC as a whole is managed well”, and only 12% agreed with the statement, “Overall I have confidence in the decisions made by HMRC’s senior managers”. Despite those shocking results, the results on other headings still showed that the staff have the appetite and drive to do a good job, so they remain a very good resource for sorting the situation out. It appears that rock-bottom morale and a lack of faith in the management is blighting the department, but that the majority of staff are still interested, engaged and proud of their work.
As has been well reported in the media and in this place, the changes in HMRC have led to chaotic services being provided to clients, and the huge burden of work has led to a higher level of write-offs. For example, just increasing the threshold for claims from £50 to £300 for the past two years has led to the loss of £160 million in revenue. Moreover, each year local caseworkers refer some 4,000 cases of suspected serious evasion to specialised teams for investigation, but the centralised referral system has not been used consistently across the department, despite being mandatory. In 2008-09 just 20% of referrals were taken up by investigation teams, with the rest being returned to the originating officer to pursue.
The department does not analyse the reasons for rejection, which would help to judge the quality of referrals, nor does it know the result of returning those cases to the originating officer. Not only does that lead to caseworkers becoming disillusioned by the low rate at which referrals are taken up, but it has a serious knock-on effect on the tax gap. The average time taken to complete dealing with a case of serious fraud in 2009-10 was 25 months, whereas the internal target is 18 months. Some 75% of cases exceeded that target, and a substantial number took more than three years to deal with. Of course some cases are more complex than others and will take a lot longer to investigate, but it is clear that the department needs to improve the speed and efficiency of investigations in future, to increase the number of cases and bring in more revenue. Inefficiency is clearly causing revenue to be lost.
New structures, such as the penalty regime in force for tax returns relating to the past two years, have been blighted by recurring top-down problems. The new regime was designed to set tougher penalty rates for deliberate errors. It is obviously good practice that such penalties should be recovered promptly, but the department does not routinely monitor whether they have been collected. An analysis revealed that it could not trace payments for 27% of the outstanding tax due on completed civil investigations of fraud. Of the £58 million that could be traced, only 84% had actually been collected. The Treasury is therefore losing tax not only through evasion and legal avoidance but through systematic inefficiency in HMRC. This lends credence to the statistic mentioned earlier that only 13% of staff feel they are managed well. Given that the total cost of HMRC is less than 1% of what it collects, it should not be treated like a normal spending department—judged partly, at the moment, by its ability to slash costs.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
Given his experience on the Public Accounts Committee, what is my hon. Friend’s view of HMRC’s claim that it made £1.1 billion-worth of pure efficiency savings between 2005 and 2009-10 without any negative impact on performance? Is that a credible claim?
Ian Swales
I can express a personal opinion, which relates to what I was just saying: we should not judge efficiency savings at HMRC without reference to the tax that is collected. We cannot judge it simply according to headcount reductions and those sorts of changes.
Mr Liddell-Grainger
Is my hon. Friend aware that 194 million national insurance accounts are not rectifiable even though they are scanned twice a year? HMRC does not even know how much money is in those accounts. Does he think that that is equally a problem, in that the morale has gone because people do not understand what is going on within the system?
Ian Swales
Judging by the evidence that the PAC received, there seems to be a lack of control over the trail of cases. All the changes have resulted in less focus on individual companies and taxpayers. I certainly recognise that sort of story.
There should be a constant watch in HMRC on the business case for investment in it. I welcomed the announcement of £900 million in extra funds to address avoidance, but I remind the House that it is targeted at collecting £7 billion, although the tax gap is £42 billion even according to HMRC’s estimates. How have we arrived at the figure of £900 million, and how do we know it is the right amount? As a taxpayer, I would be happy to invest any extra money that could be proved to produce a positive return.
The department has recognised that it has lacked detailed information on the costs and returns of different types of enforcement activity. At present it does not know the costs of, or returns on, civil investigations, or the point at which further investment in a particular type of activity would produce diminishing returns. It is therefore very difficult for it to decide how best to deploy its resources. Its management and senior officials need to show strong leadership and pay close attention to the morale of staff if those problems are to be overcome. The headcount at HMRC should not be reduced further until efficient new systems and ways of working are properly established. The department urgently needs to manage its resources effectively to optimise the tax take. The current system is obviously not working effectively for people either inside or outside HMRC. At a time such as this, when everyone across the country is having to tighten their belt, it is unacceptable that HMRC is failing to collect such a large amount of money through inefficiency and mismanagement. I urge the department and the Government to put this right.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
We are discussing the administration of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and I should declare a constituency interest because Cumbernauld HMRC is one of the largest tax offices in the country. It is a strategic site, and the largest employer in my constituency. As this debate shows, HMRC is equally important for the Government, who must collect tax more effectively if they are to be successful in their economic and financial objectives.
I should like to address a few issues regarding HMRC’s effectiveness, many of which were touched on in the thoughtful contributions of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) and, most recently, the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales). In my view, two things are necessary if HMRC is to be as effective as possible. First, it must be properly resourced, and I endorse the final words of the hon. Member for Redcar about the wisdom of getting HMRC sorted out before moving to a programme of further cost cutting.
Secondly—this relates to observations that have already been made—HMRC must have well-organised and highly motivated staff. I am concerned that that will not be the case in the future, not only because of the cuts that the Government are making in HMRC’s budget, but because of how they are being implemented. Together, the cuts and their implementation are having serious effects on the morale of HMRC staff in Cumbernauld and elsewhere. Simply put, HMRC staff know that cuts are being made, but do not know yet where they will fall.
HMRC received a tough settlement in the comprehensive spending review. The settlement mandates overall resource savings of 15% and efficiency savings of 25%. Those cuts were announced in October, as Members in all parts of the House are well aware, but we have yet to receive any confirmation from the Government of how HMRC is to be restructured.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Is it not the case that every additional tax officer collects many times their own salary, and that if we want to collect more revenue and make HMRC a more profitable organisation, we need more staff, not fewer?
Gregg McClymont
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is a problem of short-term savings at the cost of long-term benefits—what we might call a false economy. I shall come to that.
We have not had any confirmation from the Government of how HMRC is to be restructured. We do not know which services to the public will go, or which services will be changed. We do not know yet which jobs will go. Before Christmas I asked the Treasury Whip about the future of HMRC jobs in Cumbernauld in a Back-Bench debate. The Treasury Whip suggested to me that the Cumbernauld jobs were safe. I understand that as it is a strategic site, its situation is different from that of some of the smaller call centres and the like. I urged the Treasury Whip to share the information that proved this to be the case: it has not yet been forthcoming, for good reason.
Subsequent questions for written answer revealed that the Government cannot give any such undertaking until HMRC publishes its business plan. It is better for HMRC to take its time and get its business plan right than to get it wrong in a rush, but that has consequences. It seems that the business plan will not appear before April. The delay and the mixed messages do not make tax officers’ jobs any easier. Clearly, the increased anxiety can damage morale.
We have heard about the situation from the hon. Member for Chichester and others. It is not surprising in those circumstances, and also given the nature of the job, that in a recent survey only 11% of HMRC employees felt that change in the organisation was well managed. HMRC employees in Cumbernauld are now just as uncertain about their future as they were when the programme of cuts was first announced in October. Such uncertainty has an impact on staff morale, and thus on productivity and performance. More fundamentally—this goes to the point raised in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins)—I suspect that the cuts to HMRC’s budget may well prove to be a false economy. Short-term savings at HMRC could reduce the Government’s ability to maximize tax revenue in the long run.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman, like many others in the Chamber, was at the presentation to Members of Parliament by HMRC staff last year. At that presentation, HMRC staff indicated that they were aware of revenue that the tax bodies were not collecting. Their message was clear: more staff, more tax revenue; fewer staff, less tax revenue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should consider the false “savings” that they will make in this year, against the tax income that they could generate instead?
Gregg McClymont
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that observation. Clearly, this is a complex issue and there will be reasonable arguments on both sides, but it seems to me that it is a job in which morale is particularly important. I intend to refer later to the psychology of being a tax officer, which pertains to his point about raising more revenue.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to make an observation based on a recent conversation I had with a tax expert. When the Government looked at the overall staffing reductions in HMRC as a consequence of the spending review, it became absolutely clear to all that the gaps in their ability to raise taxes were such that they would need to put something back, and that is the explanation for the £900 million.
Gregg McClymont
I thank my hon. Friend for that information. As a member of the Treasury Committee, he is well known for his interest and expertise in this area. What he said sounds not only plausible, but likely.
I am suggesting that short-term savings in HMRC could reduce the Government’s ability to maximise tax revenue in the long run. They reduce the likelihood that HMRC will be able to attract and retain the talent necessary to administer complex systems and crack down on fraud, and the hon. Member for Chichester and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East alluded to that aspect of the argument. It seems to me that there is a danger not only that revenue will be lost to the Government, as has been made clear in previous contributions, but that reducing services to the public means that the costs will be passed on to the public and to businesses, particularly small businesses. If HMRC is harder to contact or slower to rectify errors, costs for the public and business will increase. The hon. Member for Chichester eloquently set out the dangers for small businesses of this process of HMRC reform or cutbacks, or whatever we call it. It is clear to me that those costs will disproportionately harm those with the least resources.
Mr Liddell-Grainger
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Revenue has just been fined £1.6 million for sloppy data handling and processing? When people asked why that had been a problem, they were told that it was too expensive to find out what the problem was. The hon. Gentleman is right. Is the problem due to a lack of skills, a lack of training or a lack of people? It must be one of the three, or perhaps all three.
Gregg McClymont
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. My suspicion is that it will be a combination of all three. I will come to the skilling aspect, which it seems to me is important alongside the issue of number. If the costs are passed on to taxpayers, I suggest that they will fall disproportionately on those with the least resources—small businesses and poorer taxpayers.
To allude to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East, pensioners and other vulnerable groups will have to pay to phone 0845 numbers and will struggle to get through. Beyond the financial cost, there is the psychological anxiety caused by respectable working men and women having to worry that the taxman feels that they are not following the law. The psychological burden on vulnerable groups is worth considering alongside the burdens on businesses and other organisations.
I will focus for a moment on small businesses, although I will not take long as the hon. Member for Chichester somewhat shot my fox on this point. It is clearly okay for the big boys in business and the big organisations that can afford the finest tax accountants money can buy, but for small businesses every minute spent on administration, doing a tax return or conversing with HMRC is a minute less spent running their businesses. Usually, small businesses have much less slack to operate with. As the saying goes, “Time is money”, and any shifting of the burden back on to the taxpayer is likely to be deleterious in the extreme to small businesses and vulnerable groups.
Several Members have referred to efficiency and effectiveness, and that brings me back to staff morale, because staff motivation is particularly important in such a profession—the efficient and effective collection of taxes on behalf of the taxpayer. Inevitably, many of the savings that the Government wish to make will be made through redundancies and restructuring, but the Government approach that package of restructuring and redundancies in the context of an HMRC where staff motivation and industrial relations are already fairly poor.
The figures from the capability review that the Cabinet Office published in 2009 have been quoted, and, as we know, HMRC was the subject of heavy criticism. The review found that only one quarter of HMRC staff, compared with 61% of senior civil servants, were proud to work for the department. Perhaps senior civil servants are not the best comparator for HMRC staff, but 25% satisfaction is not very impressive. The survey also found that only 11% of staff—the hon. Member for Chichester said 12%; I am prepared to meet him halfway and say 11.5%—and 17% of senior civil servants felt that change was well managed in HMRC.
I worry that the combination of low staff morale, which the Government inherited but are contributing to, and further funding cuts might be a perfect storm that leads to more problems at HMRC. After all, if we think about it for a moment, we find that enforcing the payment of tax is not necessarily an easy job. No one likes paying tax, and HMRC staff—disproportionately, I suspect—deal with people who are particularly unhappy about the tax return with which they have been presented.
Staff in my constituency would have been greatly reassured and better able to serve the public if HMRC and the Government had worked together sooner to develop an implementation plan for cost savings, so anything that could be done to reduce the anxiety that they have felt for a reasonably lengthy period would be very welcome. It would reduce the worrying gap between the announcement of cuts and people’s knowledge of where they will fall. Anxiety among staff—particularly given the job that they do—is bound to undermine their effectiveness in serving the taxpayer and the public more widely. Given the importance to our country of effective tax collection, I urge the Government to do everything they can to reduce that anxiety.
My final observation touches on several contributions to the debate. As I have suggested, tax collection is not always an easy or, at times, pleasant job. People do not generally like paying tax, and in a profession such as tax collection, esprit de corps—a sense of public service and duty—is especially important. Previous Governments were not blameless in this respect, but this Government must be careful that, in the quest for short-term savings, they do not further damage the thread of professionalism, duty and pride in the job, without which an efficient tax collection system is unlikely to be possible.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of morale at HMRC. As we discovered from testimony to the Treasury Committee, which Members discussed earlier, HMRC has gone from being a flagship Government department to almost dysfunctional on some metrics. One area in which it is dysfunctional is morale. Does he share my view that the nature of the cuts that have been made over the past decade and the very poorly handled merger with Customs and Excise have been most to blame for the crisis of morale at HMRC and the decline in its reputation?
Gregg McClymont
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his observations. I was very interested in what the hon. Member for Chichester said about the merger. I come to that subject with little background knowledge, and I intend to do some reading on it, because at face value it seems to be a plausible reason for some of the problems that HMRC now faces.
Mr Love
Taking on board the point just made by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, should that not be a further argument that now is not the time to be asking for further reductions in manpower? Because of the difficulties of the merger and the problems that it created, we should be trying to retain the expertise that already exists in HMRC.
Gregg McClymont
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. If we do indeed have an organisation that is dysfunctional, to use the hon. Gentleman’s term, there is clearly a question about whether the way to approach managing such an organisation is to engage in severe cutbacks.
Jesse Norman
I have a simple point of information for the House, which is that my constituency is Hereford and South Herefordshire, not Hertfordshire. Although Hertfordshire is undoubtedly a place of great glories—sadly, with due deference to my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary, only very slightly secondary to the qualities of my own constituency—the two should certainly not be confused.
Gregg McClymont
Now that the hon. Gentleman has provided that important point of information, I will conclude with a final observation that pertains to his previous intervention and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love).
Only with a cadre of well-paid, trained and skilled staff who enjoy a status commensurate with the important job they do will a more effective, efficient and productive HMRC become possible, and those staff have to be the foundation stone as we go forward through this decade. Does the Minister think we have that cadre as things stand?
Mr Ruffley
The return from the autumn survey of civil service staff at HMRC says that 14% think that the organisation inspires them to do their best in the job and 12% that it motivates them to help to achieve its objectives. Can the hon. Gentleman say, from his constituency experience in Cumbernauld, whether any work has been done with the senior management there? It seems on the basis of these figures that there is a problem with motivating and inspiring the work force.
Gregg McClymont
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am not able to give him a definitive answer, but I have met the senior management at Cumbernauld, who struck me as dedicated and professional, and its work force.
We need to take a—I hesitate to use the word “holistic”—panoramic view of the functions of HMRC. One can always make reforms and efficiencies, which, compartmentalised, seem to save money, but in fact, in the broadest possible context, will be a false economy and a short-term saving at the cost of a long-term sense of professionalism. I suspect that someone doing the job of tax collector needs a sense of pride in their job because at times there will be ups and downs during the course of the day.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the work of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. I pay tribute to the Treasury Committee for its work in scrutinising that organisation and for the many helpful inquiries it undertakes.
I have a particular interest in the administration and effectiveness of HMRC, because it is clear to me and to many residents and businesses in my constituency that it is a failing organisation that all too often treats people and businesses in the most appalling fashion. I have endeavoured to raise these points before in the House, but have had the misfortune to be unsuccessful in the ballot for Adjournment debates. I am pleased that I can now put these matters on the record in the House. I should add that I am immensely grateful to the Exchequer Secretary, who has faced a deluge of correspondence from me regarding the numerous cases in which my constituents have felt harshly treated by HMRC. I thank him for meeting me earlier this year to discuss the numerous complaints and concerns about the administration and processes of HMRC.
We are all aware of the highly publicised issues associated with HMRC, which range from problems with PAYE and tax credits to lost child benefit discs. Many hon. Members have touched on those areas. As constituency MPs, we see at first hand in our surgeries and in the letters we receive the distress and sheer misery that these mistakes and errors cause. I am exasperated by the extent and seriousness of the cases, and by the level of distress among the constituents who have come to me. Such constituents usually come to us in desperation, after experiencing tremendous difficulties in communicating with HMRC and in getting answers from it. They are the human victims of HMRC. I will draw to the House’s attention some of the cases that I have come across in my 10-month tenure as a Member of Parliament.
First, my constituent Mr Philip Wright has an ongoing dispute with HMRC that dates back to 1999, in the days of the Inland Revenue. It relates to employment and tax status in the construction industry—a notoriously complex matter. Six years later, in 2005, the case was heard before Colchester general commissioners, who ruled in Mr Wright’s favour. Despite that, HMRC refused to let the matter rest and appealed on the grounds that the general commissioners had misdirected themselves. The case has since gone from one tribunal to another, including a sitting two years ago at which neither Mr Wright nor his representative could be present. There have been suggestions of irregularity in the process, and HMRC appears to be making it as difficult as possible for Mr Wright.
It is now 2011 and the case is still ongoing. The cost to HMRC of pursuing the case his spiralled out of control and has gone well above the claim that it has against my constituent. I saw Mr Wright on Saturday in my surgery and the stress of the case has clearly had a devastating impact on his health and emotional well-being. I urge senior HMRC officials who are paying attention to this debate to reflect on this case.
Another distressing case in which HMRC has gone after a local business in a thoroughly disproportionate way came to my attention just this week. A firm in Witham sent its VAT payments to HMRC two weeks late because there was a delay in it receiving a payment from a customer. Instead of exercising a dose of common sense, HMRC is pursuing the firm for a surcharge of almost £5,500 on a VAT bill of about £36,000. Of course there are rules about paying taxes, but at a time when so many businesses are struggling, it seems thoroughly inflexible of HMRC to target such small businesses, especially when they have paid their taxes in full. I get the impression that officials are waiting like vultures to target their prey when they are at their weakest. The effect on businesses of that approach, as many hon. Members have said, is to put jobs and prosperity at risk. A £5,500 surcharge might seem like small pickings for HMRC, but for most businesses in my constituency, where 80% of the local jobs are in SMEs, such a sum could enable somebody to be employed or a financial investment made in the business. The instruments of government should be helping business and the private sector, not causing such unnecessary burdens and distress. I have written to HMRC this week about these cases, and I hope that, among the 70,000 people it employs, there are enough who will have enough common sense to do the right thing.
I have come across other cases in which businesses have suffered at the hands of HMRC. One business that was applying for VAT exemption encountered nothing but excessive delays. Another case, which landed on my desk in June last year, alarms me no end. A local business received what I would describe as a generic letter from HMRC on 1 June, stating that the business was £64,000 in arrears. The letter stated that that sum had to be repaid by 14 June, even though it arrived only on 1 June. That is a significant sum of money. During that 14-day window, my constituent made a number of attempts to contact HMRC about the issue, but no one would return any calls. It was not until I intervened that HMRC finally replied. Its inability to return calls, its automated actions and its generic letters cannot be justified. It would be a shock to anyone’s system to receive a notification of that nature.
Mr Love
I want to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) about the shift in compliance costs from HMRC not only to small businesses but to individuals and large businesses. As that shift is already catalogued as having happened in recent years, does the hon. Lady think that the implications of the comprehensive spending review are that small businesses will have to meet even greater compliance costs in future?
Priti Patel
I do not, actually. Many other measures came out of the comprehensive spending review and last year’s Budget that will help small businesses to further their interests and, we hope, grow their businesses as well.
I come from a small business background—my parents have a small business—and I am stunned by the attitude and the bureaucracy associated with HMRC. Its lack of accountability is also deeply disturbing for all our constituents. I have had constituents in my surgery who have been reduced to tears when describing their own personal experiences and the distress that HMRC has caused them. In one case, a couple who had separated were having endless complications with their tax credit awards, and the wife was receiving demands from HMRC for the repayment of overpaid credits. In another, problems were caused by HMRC’s delay in processing the correct levels of tax credit for a constituent because—surprise, surprise!—HMRC had made mistakes with the information that it held on her, and my constituent subsequently had to supply it with a great deal of additional paperwork and ID. That involved a lengthy and inconvenient process.
I should like to draw the House’s attention to another tax credit case. It concerns a couple who received overpayments as a result of HMRC’s mistakes. HMRC even gave my constituents a reward of £35 in recognition of that. However, the errors mean that that family are now being pursued for a range of repayments and are undergoing another lengthy and bureaucratic process, even though they have done nothing wrong. Make no mistake, HMRC is effectively still persecuting them and treating them like criminals.
In all those cases, and many others, my constituents have endeavoured to do the right thing, and there has been no evidence of any attempt to avoid paying taxes or to mislead HMRC. However, due to an overly complicated tax system and what seems to be endemic incompetence at HMRC, my constituents, and, as we have heard today, many others, have suffered. My constituents feel that HMRC, with the full force of the state behind it, is effectively bullying them and persecuting the disadvantaged, the weak and the powerless, and that it fails to realise the worry, stress, anxiety and misery that its errors cause the businesses and individuals who are threatened. Those unreasonable actions defy common sense and undermine how HMRC operates and the tax system.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
When my hon. Friend takes up cases with HMRC, does she find that they are suddenly sorted out extraordinarily quickly?
Priti Patel
I wish that the answer was yes, but unfortunately it is no. As with all large organisations, I am staggered by how long it takes to get a response. I am the one chasing up cases on behalf of constituents months after a complaint has been made.
That brings me on to accountability. Despite the fact that I have taken up every single constituency case directly with HMRC’s chief executive, she has yet to respond personally on any case I have written to her about. It seems that there is a lack of transparency in HMRC. I should also point out that it has an organogram that reaches about 45 pages, which tells me that it is a substantial bureaucracy, but there seems to be no manager for common sense in the organisation. I urge it to start seeing common sense.
In my view, that bureaucracy adds weight to my constituents’ impression that HMRC is an unwieldy, unaccountable organisation that seems effectively to be a law unto itself and never to take responsibility for its errors. I have concluded that that is its practice because it does not feel it has to do so. All too often, officials seem to hide behind complex rules and leave businesses and families having to pursue lengthy appeal processes, whether through the adjudicator, the tribunal, the ombudsman or the courts. Clearly, that puts those who feel that they have suffered an injustice at a significant disadvantage. In many cases, people do not want to go through a lengthy and perhaps costly process to seek a resolution. When they do pursue a matter, those who are unable to seek legal help are left to pitch up with their own amateur efforts against the professional force that is HMRC’s bureaucracy.
I make those criticisms and comments not to attack or damage HMRC but because I want it to make drastic improvements in the service it provides to the British taxpayer. I draw my remarks to a conclusion by congratulating the Treasury Committee on its ongoing and important investigations into HMRC. I praise the Exchequer Secretary for the attention he has given my constituents’ cases, and I wish him luck and all the best in the challenge ahead of him.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on her creativity in using an estimates debate to get so many constituency cases addressed. Following her critique of HMRC, I say to her that the buck stops here in Parliament.
I am not a member of the honourable fellowship of the Public Accounts Committee or the Treasury Committee. I was a member of a Select Committee back in 1997, I believe, when the Labour Whips, in a fleeting moment of jocularity, put me on the Deregulation Committee. I sought to change it to the Reregulation Committee, and we parted company soon after. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) was in the Whips Office at that time, but I do not bear grudges.
I attended the debate on the legislation that founded HMRC. The House was relatively empty, and I believe that I was one of the few Members who tabled amendments on Report. At that time, a number of us were concerned about whether the merger was appropriate. We were also concerned about a trend that started immediately when the merger happened, when 3,000 job cuts were announced. Soon after that, 12,000 more were announced. I do not know of any organisation—public or private—that could have survived the treatment that HMRC received in recent years, including recent months.
When the merger happened, there were 104,000 staff. Since then, there have been 30,000 job cuts. We are now down to 75,000 staff. The £2 billion cuts as part of the comprehensive spending review amount to another 11,500 job cuts. I appreciate that the Government have put back £917 million to tackle tax evasion and avoidance, but cutting £2 billion and putting £900 million back seems like a ricochet policy rather than a planned approach to reform, as many Members have suggested.
I want to follow on from the points that the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) made. I chair the parliamentary PCS trade union group, an informal group of Members of all political parties. It enables us to meet the trade unionists who represent HMRC staff—the tax inspectors. Reference has been made to the briefings that have been given in recent months. That has educated us about the role that the staff play and what they have had to endure. It is not just the job cuts; 200 local tax offices have also been cut. We have now been told that there is a radical reduction in the opening hours of the walk-in tax inquiry centres. The point was made that, in some parts of the country, there are no local tax offices and vast gaps. The worst example is Wick in Scotland, where there is nothing in the vicinity and nowhere to transfer the redundant staff to ensure that they are retained in the service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) made the point that for every tax official appointed, £685,000 is gained in tax income that is generated.
Ian Swales
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a walk-in centre that is open only a couple of days a week and staffed by somebody who knows nothing about tax, and whose main role is to note details or direct people to telephones, is not a good walk-in centre?
John McDonnell
Yes. In recent years and from the time of the initial legislation, there has been almost a Dutch auction between Front Benchers competing to see who could cut more jobs from HMRC. We tried to point that out. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East gave a good example of how not to do a tax return. Some people need a face-to-face discussion about their tax affairs and that cannot be done through a call-centre mentality.
Some Members have pointed out that the evidence on call centres is fairly appalling. The pressure on call centres has mounted. Let me give some statistics for the record. Calls were up 20% from 2009-10 to 2010-11. Call attempts were up 100% from 2009-2010 to 2010-11. Engaged and busy tones played were up from seven to 35 minutes. One can see why that tune—“Greensleeves” or whatever it is—pushes some people right over the edge if they have to listen to it for 35 minutes. The current contact directorate performance prediction for 2010-11 is that only 40% to 50% of call attempts will be answered.
Kelvin Hopkins
I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. Together with the cuts in staffing, which have put extra pressure on staff, and de-professionalisation, will my hon. Friend mention the relatively low pay with which many tax office staff have to cope?
John McDonnell
We once prided ourselves on an effective and efficient tax delivery service through tax collection, and the job of tax inspector was one to which people aspired. We have undermined that through the de-professionalisation of the service, the way in which staff are treated and pay.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) has direct experience, having met large numbers of his constituents who work in that tax office. The problem is not just the numbers of staff or how some of the services have been downgraded; it is the fact that the redundancy payments of people who are being laid off as a result of the recent cuts are being cut by up to two thirds. In addition, their pensions are now threatened by the change from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index.
Of course, that spells disaster for many people in planning their careers and their futures, so it is no wonder that the statistics on morale are so appalling—and morale is getting worse, not better. Staff were asked whether the changes were usually for the better, but fewer than one in 10 answered yes, meaning that they hold out no hope for the future.
Staff have been treated appallingly by management over a period too. Some Members were in the House when we debated the introduction of the lean system to HMRC, which was lifted straight from the Toyota car factories. That system produced the first strike in the history of HMRC in Scotland, because of how staff felt they were being treated. Hon. Members have learned that members of staff describe the imposition of the new attendance management system as draconian. One said that HMRC management seems to be
“more interested in finding ways to justify dismissing staff to get the numbers down as this is cheaper than redundancy rather than staff welfare and delivery of good customer service.”
The fact that professional staff have those sorts of opinions is an indication that something is wrong.
Staff are also concerned about elements of privatisation, such as the increasing role of private debt collection agencies in pursuing tax debts of under £10,000, and the conduct of private companies that do not have the expertise that HMRC has developed over the years in door-to-door collection. There are real concerns about not only office closures but the disbanding of whole HMRC business streams, which is reducing expertise and damaging service delivery.
Kelvin Hopkins
One feature of privatisation and the call centre culture is that it destroys the public service ethos. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) said earlier, the public service ethos is vital in an important job such as tax collection.
John McDonnell
I fully agree, and we have painted a picture this afternoon of the impact of a combination of job reductions, cuts in redundancy pay and the threats of cuts to pensions, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East described as a perfect storm. The message from those on the front line of tax collection is that HMRC is in a perilous situation. I hope from here on in that those voices will be heard and that we will consider a more systematic approach to HMRC reform.
Hon. Members have been told that access to face-to-face inquiry services has been significantly reduced, which is extremely worrying. Let me put on record what a number of tax inspectors have said about that. They say:
“Those offices that remain open”
after the 200 closures
“are having their enquiry centre opening hours significantly reduced. In some case these offices are due to be opened for only two or three days”—
maximum—
“rather than the five days a week they currently open for.”
There is also concern about the disbanding of the complex personal return team in March 2009. Many thousands of the top UK taxpayers no longer have the services of a dedicated case owner and customer relationship manager. Thirty-five thousand taxpayers whose tax affairs were handled by that dedicated team—a highly trained, professional team—are now dealt with in the wider HMRC network. There is a view that the skills are therefore not available or not dedicated in the most effective way to increase tax revenues.
In conclusion, I have heard figures bandied about for how much tax is avoided or evaded, and therefore should be collected. They range from the internal estimate of £46 billion up to £120 billion. A number of us have worked with Richard Murphy and John Christensen of the Tax Justice Network over the past five to eight years to try to highlight the issue. Until recently it was not taken up or reported particularly effectively by the media, so I pay tribute to UK Uncut—a group of individuals who have come together spontaneously, taken information from the tax justice campaign and mobilised direct action, which, whatever Members think of it, has been incredibly effective in raising the issue up the political agenda. As a result of campaigning by the Tax Justice Network, UK Uncut and others, and as people are experiencing the cuts and moving from abstraction to reality in their communities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East said, they are now asking the question: why are we not collecting this tax? It is due not just to a lack of political will—although there is a tax reform issue that needs to be addressed—but to the way in which we have treated HMRC over the years, undermining its ability to collect those taxes.
Charlie Elphicke
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that everyone should pay their fair share of tax, but I strongly disagree with—indeed, I would condemn—any endorsement in this place of direct action that has the effect of shutting down businesses for a day, at a time when jobs and money are hard enough to come by for people in this country because of the Labour party’s recession.
John McDonnell
Jobs would be more protected if companies and rich people paid their taxes. If there is £120 billion out there that should be paid, then it should be paid, and if it takes direct action to force action on that, I support that direct action. Indeed, I have participated in it and will do so in future.
Now that the issue has become so pertinent to our constituents, to the country’s financial affairs and to trying to tackle the deficit, my view is that if we continue to hamstring HMRC in the way that it has been since 2005, we will undermine its ability to operate effectively. If we continue with the job cuts experienced in recent years, and with those as a result of the comprehensive spending review, we will destroy that public service ethos, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North said, undermining the organisation that we have been so proud of over the past two centuries for its effectiveness in ensuring a fair and just taxation system. I urge the Minister to put in place a consultative process, consulting the unions and the staff on a reform programme for HMRC, so that it can once again do its job effectively.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
This is an important debate, because the evidence shows that businesses and people do better when taxes are simple and certain. Anyone who knows anything about business will know that people in business have to plan. They have to know where they stand and what the tax regime will be. That regime has to be as simple as possible, so that people can understand it and get their heads round it. That is fundamental to the consistency of the rule of law and the framework that enables business to thrive.
It is the same for individuals. I could tell hon. Members about the number of people who come to my surgery who have been stressed out of their minds by demands for £2,000 in tax that they simply do not have. That kind of demand weighs on them, giving them the gravest possible concern and taking over their lives, as they wonder how they will manage to make ends meet. I tend to intervene in those cases, because I can write to Dame Lesley, although I have to say that my experience has not been entirely the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel). I have found the Revenue quite helpful in giving people time to pay and helping them to understand that they can do so through their coding notice. Nevertheless, things should not be like that. We have heard time and again that the Revenue did not used to be like that. It is only in recent years that it has gone that way.
It is important that everyone in this country should pay their fair share of taxes, and that includes business. However, we also need to be careful not to make up phoney figures for the tax gap and make wild claims that it is £150 billion a year, when the Revenue itself has said clearly that it is no more than £40 billion.
I take issue with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is still in his place, when he says that it is somehow acceptable to have direct action campaigns against business for the amount of money that it might or might not owe. It is unacceptable to close down a business for a day and deny the people who work on the shop floor—people who are often not well paid—the chance to earn their living and go about their business in their ordinary way in their ordinary lives. It is wrong to do that, and in some cases taking part in such direct action campaigns amounts to a criminal offence, so I urge all Members not to take action that unlawfully impedes business, particularly if it is of a criminal nature.
I am a member not of the Treasury Committee or the Public Accounts Committee, but of the lowly Public Administration Committee, in which we look at paper clips and try to reflect on how administration can be improved. Looking at the careful and thoughtful work done by the Treasury Committee before the election, it is quite clear that the number of customer complaints has risen dramatically. It now stands at 87,179, so I ask where those complaints and problems are. That is how to deal with the issues arising. Call centre issues are important—the fact that we cannot eyeball someone or get our phone calls answered quickly. Complaints about office processing have risen by 38%, while complaints about online services have risen by an astonishing 181%. It is logical to focus on where the complaints arise and where the problems need to be dealt with.
Let me deal with the call centre issues. We know that 43% of phone calls were simply not answered in 2008-09—[Interruption.] That is a huge number of calls, as my hon. Friend the Member for Witham interjects from a sedentary position. We also know that 35% were not answered last year. That does not tell us how long it took to answer the calls that were answered. Oral evidence to the Treasury Committee suggested that it could be as long as 12 minutes—an extraordinary situation. One person providing evidence said that if he took 12 minutes to answer his phone calls, he would not be in business for long. There is clearly an issue about the efficiency and quality of call centres that needs to be looked at.
I do not condemn HMRC, as many of its officers and officials have worked very hard, but I do condemn the previous Government for using the expertise of these wretched consultants time and again to answer all their problems, instead of using the expertise that existed within two institutions with long, proud and successful histories.
I hope that the Exchequer Secretary who comes on deck at this moment will realise on the one hand that he is fortunate, as he cannot do any worse than his predecessors, but on the other hand that he faces a challenge and should take care not to sit on deck while the orchestra is playing and the water is flooding in through holes down below. I hope that he will be assiduous in looking at the issues and trying to sort out the administrative, policy and leadership issues in HMRC today—including the matter of political leadership.
I say that because the staff survey suggests that staff feel pretty wretched. We have heard that time and again, and no one seems to think that the HMRC is well managed. No one has much confidence in anyone and no one feels energised to go the extra mile. Most people do not have that much confidence in their line managers, but they have an awful lot more confidence in them than they do in the top leadership of the entire institution. It is pretty clear, then, that we need to focus on providing the political leadership and the organisational and managerial leadership to make HMRC a better place and, above all, to make it feel better about itself.
We also need to sort out the information technology. It is clear from the Treasury Committee report that, under the previous Government, IT was an unmitigated disaster. I have to describe the response from this Government, who had only just come to office, as Panglossian. It was one of the poorest responses that I have ever seen. I do not blame the Minister, because this was back in June when the Government had only just been formed, but I urge him to take much greater control. I hope that he will take the policy side of his Department by the scruff of the neck.
Commenting on the disaster of the call centres, the Government’s response was that
“six of the seven indicators have improved from baseline and therefore exceeds HMT’s definition of ‘strong progress’.”
The Government seemed to suggest that everything was just marvellous. They went on about how wonderful the call centre answering record was, and I do not think that that is acceptable. The Government do not seem to have been in touch with the reality of the situation.
When asked about the disaster of morale, the Government went into management-speak worthy of the former director-general of the BBC. They talked of creating
“a working environment which motivates and develops our people to give of their best and take pride”.
Whenever we hear mission statements of that kind, we have a sinking feeling that the consultants have crept in through the back door and started to charge a lot of money and ruin an organisation. I hope that the emphasis will change, and that the Government will instead say, “We are going to inspire people, and give them back their sense of pride and responsibility at ground-floor level.” That will enable those people to make real advances and exercise responsibility at every level, rather than returning to the dreadful tick-box culture that has grown up over the past 10 years.
As for IT, we know that it is a disaster. The Exchequer Secretary had to come to the House in the autumn and say that it was a disaster. I must say that he was very forthright and honest with the House, and dealt with the situation superbly. The earlier Panglossian response had been:
“The robustness of HMRC’s IT systems continues to improve, however the scale of the operation, and the amount of legacy systems, is such that this is a journey of continuous improvement and not overnight change.”
Charlie Elphicke
Indeed.
I believe that the Exchequer Secretary is a very fine Minister who will, in time, become one of the ablest Ministers to have graced this or any Government. Let me end my speech by urging him to grab this issue by the scruff of the neck. I urge him not to knock the officers of HMRC who work so hard but to inspire them, make them feel better about themselves, and allow them to take charge and do really well—to provide a great call centre service, a great online service, and the great service in general that HMRC used to provide before it was ruined, particularly in the last decade.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I shall speak very briefly.
I agree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). I especially agree with what he said about the need not to demoralise the staff of HMRC any further, but to put the blame where it truly lies—with the Treasury. My experience has led me to believe that the Treasury is the most stupid of all our Departments, and I say that advisedly.
I had my earliest experience of the Treasury and HMRC when I first entered Parliament and visited a local VAT office. There were splendid people there who were doing a good job, but they said, “We have not enough staff to collect all the tax.” They said, very modestly, “Every tax inspector collects at least five times his or her salary. What we really need is a few more inspectors.” I wrote to the Treasury, as one does, suggesting that because they were collecting more than their own salaries, employing more of them would bring in more revenue. I thought that that was a wonderful idea. The letter that I received from the Treasury, however, was one of the most vacuous, stupid letters that I have ever received from a Government Department. It said, “We are trying to reduce costs by minimising staff.” An eight-year-old child would have seen the illogicality of that. Obviously, cutting staff would cut revenue by far more than the salaries that would have been paid to those staff.
I have not changed my mind about the Treasury since then. I would add that managing the economy has not been one of its great successes either. I hope that one day I shall be challenged by the Treasury—by Ministers, or even by senior civil servants—to justify my accusation. That letter read like a thin press release rather than a proper, intelligent letter from a Department.
I subsequently raised the matter with union members. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), I am a member of the union support group. They said that inspectors dealing with income tax and corporation tax raise sums that are many times greater than their salaries—five times is just a modest amount for VAT inspectors, and it is much more for other forms of taxation: the Vodafone scandal involved billions of pounds, for example. HMRC cannot collect enough tax simply because it does not have the resources to do so. It has been demoralised and de-professionalised. I have had many private conversations with senior tax officers, so I know what the problems are.
My next point might not be popular with my party colleagues. Against my better judgment, the previous Government arranged for HMRC to hand out benefits as well as collecting taxes. They gave it the job of handing out credits, but in my view benefits should be handed out by a Department specialising in that, namely the Department for Work and Pensions. No other country in Europe has three major Government Departments handing out means-tested benefits— I have checked that. Housing benefit is paid by the Department for Communities and Local Government, tax credits are paid by the Treasury and other benefits are paid through the DWP. Why not have one Department responsible for handling benefits, especially as each is means-tested, they all overlap and the people who receive them and therefore have to deal with these complex, means-tested benefits are often the elderly and people who might not be the most able? These benefits should be handled by sympathetic, professional staff who can deal with all of them in one place. Part of the problem is that the people who currently do this job have been landed with it.
These two tasks are completely incompatible. Taxation is collected on an annual basis; most taxes are paid yearly, and some of us fill in tax returns while for most PAYE, or pay-as-you-earn, is collected automatically. Benefits change throughout the year, however. Those who claim benefits are often people whose circumstances change almost by the week. They might be in and out of work and their pay rates change so they are either entitled to a credit or not. The situation is immensely complex, therefore. It was stupid to hand that responsibility to HMRC, and I opposed the move. I have stated before in the Chamber that we should have one Department responsible for handing out benefits and another responsible for collecting taxation. The two roles are completely incompatible. I stand by that position, and I hope that one day a Government will be more sensible and will start to unify the handing out of benefits in one Department.
I have met many tax staff, both senior tax officers and the basic back-room staff. All of them complain that they are demoralised and overworked, and that there are too few staff. The less senior staff are very poorly paid, too. If we are going to have a good HMRC for the long term, we must re-professionalise it, and provide enough staff and make sure they are properly paid, and we must take away the nonsense of them handing out benefits as well as collecting taxes.
My message is simple, and I hope it goes home and is thought about, even if it is not acted on immediately.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I speak in this important debate both as a member of the Treasury Committee and on behalf of my constituents.
We have heard about the prestige of the Revenue historically, and about the effects of the merger with Customs and Excise, and the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) just talked about its transformation into a benefits agency, and made a good point on that.
Although there has been a lot of discussion of costs, this problem is not just about cost cutting. It is also about a failed model of public service delivery, which is at least as important. To illustrate that, let me describe the situation we have found in Hereford. The tax office in Hereford was closed a couple of years ago with the loss of 90 skilled jobs, despite local protests, with which I was closely involved. We are talking about a high-quality employer in a county that is not a high-wage part of the country. That was a grievous loss to the local economy, and in my view a rather unnecessary one, as I will argue.
My second point concerns a local company—I will not name it—working in the area of defence, a small enterprise exporting very successfully. That business presented some concerns about the coding of its exports to the Revenue, and was then appalled to have HMRC take up residence, conducting a kind of fishing expedition through its accounts, which resulted in the Revenue demanding a substantial payment for tax allegedly not received. In turn, that involved huge amounts of time being taken on, and attention being paid to, dealing with this complaint against a very small but rather successful business.
These two points illustrate the effect of the transfer of compliance costs, which has been widely noted, from the Revenue to the people and SMEs it deals with. We have had the loss of a local presence through the tax office, and its replacement by a call-centre mentality that is often incompetent and impossible for the public to deal with.
Guto Bebb
On IT systems and call centres, is my hon. Friend aware that the current system is not compliant with HMRC’s own Welsh language policy and is also contrary to the Welsh Language Act 1993? As a result, I have constituents who are unable to deal with the tax authorities through the medium of their own language because the offices have been closed, or because the call centre or online service is not available through the medium of Welsh.
Jesse Norman
I was not aware of that and I thank my hon. Friend for his remark. Of course, historically, Welsh speakers on the other side of the border were very welcome to come to Hereford to have these issues solved, but unfortunately that option does not exist now.
The point is that it is not simply an issue of the cost cutting that has taken place over the past 10 years; the whole model of public service delivery has relocated that service away from local people and back to call centres, as we have heard. That has happened under the influence of a mentality bred by the consulting firms. In particular, one picks out McKinsey, which did a substantial piece of work for HMRC some time ago. This, I am afraid, has been the method by which this mistaken conception of public service delivery has been promulgated. Services, instead of being brought closer to people, have been removed from them. A use of technology that could have assisted the ordinary man and woman and small businesses in dealing with their tax affairs has ended up impeding them, and that has been a terrible and costly shame.
I would direct the current management of HMRC to what systems theory calls “failure demand”. Failure demand is not the cost of delivering a service, but the cost on the rest of the system when people fail to deliver a service. Failure demand in the Revenue has gone through the roof in the last decade, and the statistic we have heard about the length of time people spend on the telephone dealing with Revenue and Customs is a very precise quantification of this increase in failure demand. Essentially, instead of thinking of the costs on the system as a whole, the Revenue has been pushed into pursuing the lowest unit cost, which has encumbered the whole.
There is a parallel in the manufacturing industry. Historically, General Motors ran a production line and if a substandard car was on it, it would be removed from the line and the line was allowed to continue. The result was that these “lemons”, as they were called, built up over time and required a substantial amount of time to fix. However, the system itself never got any better because every time there was a problem, the lemon—the bad car—was removed from the production line. The Toyota approach was entirely different. Every time there was a problem with a car, the entire production line stopped. One can imagine the result: enormous pain for a time, followed by a dramatic improvement in quality and a dramatic fall in costs, because the system was no longer tolerant of failure.
At the moment, for the reasons we have described, HMRC has a system that is massively and very unhappily tolerant of failure. The Government are picking up this mess and will be seeking to make something of it over five years—I hope they will be doing so over 10 years. I encourage them to address not merely the issue of boosting the tax collection rates, but the failed model of public service delivery that underlies the Revenue and so many of our other public services. The Conservative party is committed to improving public services and this is a very good place to start.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who made some salient points, reflecting the insight that he has secured as a member of the Treasury Committee. I pay tribute to him and his colleagues on that Committee for the work they have done, which has helped to inform this debate, as have the many representations that we are all making.
I wish to highlight a couple of dimensions relating to HMRC’s performance and organisational structure as they particularly affect my constituency and my part of Northern Ireland. Before I do so, I wish to endorse a point made by other hon. Members by saying that I am not making these complaints to target or criticise HMRC staff, who are dealing with huge demands on them. They are trying to cope with a system that has been changed around them, and has been made much more inadequate and much more confusing for them. The system causes stress and anxiety to them, as well as to the many public customers with whom they are dealing.
For staff, the situation has been a bit like driving at night with people coming at them at full beam and as soon as they recover from one at full beam, someone else comes along. Changes have been made in the organisational structure, then in the management and then, as the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) said, in the staff work load. They have, probably rightly, had to deal with matters such as the minimum wage; child benefit issues have been absorbed on to the tax side, which has meant that issues have arisen for staff in Northern Ireland; and then they have had to deal with the whole issue of tax credits.
I particularly wish to discuss tax credits and the impact on Northern Ireland and, in particular, on my border constituency. Many people live on one side of the border and work on the other. No matter whether they live in the Irish Republic and work in Northern Ireland or vice versa, their circumstances may mean that they have to deal with the tax office for tax credits and, indeed, for child benefit. Under European Union rules, child benefit is paid according to where someone is employed, not according to where they or the child lives—it is a bizarre rule, but it is there and it adds to the complications. Rather than have tax credits in Northern Ireland administered in Northern Ireland, all that administrative work was taken over to England, perhaps for specialisation.
Included in that work were the issues relating to cross-border tax credits. Every case of every cross-border worker is treated as complex and goes to the complex cases unit in Washington. Other hon. Members have mentioned the difficulty of getting in touch with HMRC, but these people, be they in Donegal, Derry or other parts of Northern Ireland, have real difficulty getting in touch. When they manage to do so, or when their accountants or their employers’ people get in touch, they are told things such as, “Northern Ireland is not in the EU, so what are you talking to us about?” They are not even being told that Northern Ireland is not in the UK; they are being told that Northern Ireland is not in the EU.
These people also have to deal with the relevant officials of the Irish Republic, and the relevant department there is centralised in Letterkenny, only 20 miles from my house and from a tax office in Derry. Rather than all the liaison taking place between officials who are 20 miles apart and who can meet, the cases are dealt with on a completely remote basis, with an office in Letterkenny in the Irish Republic and an office in Washington in England. Can things be exchanged over the internet? No, they cannot, because data protection rules say that things have to be transmitted in documentary form, and letters get mis-sent. Letters that contain people’s details and that are meant to go to the Irish Republic end up going in envelopes that are fit only for UK delivery and so do not get delivered for months. Letters that are going to constituents in Northern Ireland, or to others in the Irish Republic who come to me, end up going completely astray too. There is a simple answer to that—make sure that if cross-border cases are not processed in Northern Ireland, there should at least be a liaison office or front office in Derry, in Northern Ireland, that people can go to where someone deals with their case and they are not left crying and in distress, which is how many people come to me when they have been referred by accountants who will no longer touch tax credit cases involving cross-border workers. Employers are very distressed for their workers as well, but there is a simple answer.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I thank right hon. and hon. Members across the Chamber for their contributions to the debate, particularly the Chairman of the Treasury Committee—the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie)—and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie), who chairs the Sub-Committee. I begin by placing on the record the value of the work of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Clearly, it has faced significant challenges, which have been mentioned by hon. Members across the House, not least of which was the merger and the implications of bringing two big organisations together to deliver a large public service. However, as someone once said, we are where we are, and I want to look to the future and some of the challenges, rather than revisit old territory.
Between HMRC’s formation in April 2005 and March 2010, it collected £2,188 billion in tax and paid out £157 billion in benefits. That is a big operation by any standards, and its functions relating to tax credits, taxation, child benefit, child trust fund endowments, the national minimum wage, which my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has mentioned, and the supervision of a range of money laundering regulations are key issues that are impacting on the Government as a customer, in relation to raising taxation, and on members of the public as customers. I understand that, as the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) has pointed out, there are many areas in which that interface causes severe frustration and difficulties in relation to customer service. The service to both the customer and the recipient, including the Government, needs to be improved in those areas.
A key thread of today’s debate has been the level of service, especially outward-facing service. We need to reconsider how to improve the response of the service to members of the public who engage with it. That includes not only phone responses, which the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) mentioned, letter responses and complaints procedures, but the whole issue of how the public interface with the service, how they use it to help them to pay their taxes in an effective way, and how difficulties are resolved. People should expect a level of public service and should know what that level of service is, and we in the House, both in opposition and in government, should look at how we can help to support that. There are real problems here, and if the Minister dealt with the strategy to help improve the service to the public, so that there was clarity and transparency about the issues that hon. Members have raised in connection with what the public should receive, I would welcome that.
HMRC’s main customer remains the Government. It is a tax-collecting agency and it needs to perform that function effectively and efficiently. It is important to maximise revenue flows and to improve compliance. One of the key issues in today’s debate has been how to raise those issues in a positive way to ensure that we take forward tax collection to maximise the available tax-take in a fair and effective way. To do that, we need a dedicated work force with good morale; hon. Members have touched on the changes and the fact that staff morale in the service has been low. To bring about those changes effective leadership is required from the Minister, which I am sure he will give, and from the staff who lead the organisation, focusing on HMRC’s core objectives of delivering services to the public and to the Government. A key issue in that regard, which was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East in particular, is that in a time of global recession and public spending challenges, we need to ensure there is fair and effective taxation and compliance in relation to the taxation issues in our community at large.
One of the key themes in today’s debate, which was reflected by my hon. Friends the Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), is how we manage effective tax compliance and revenue collection at a time when, by the Minister’s own admission, he is reducing HMRC’s settlement by 15% overall as part of the efficiency savings that he seeks to make. Despite the fact that he is investing £917 million in tax collection and compliance, the £2 billion cut in the service causes concern.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), on a topic that he has raised in the Chamber on many occasions, drew attention to the fact that the PCS and the Association of Revenue and Customs believe that the compliance figure for each officer amounts to a yield of about £650,000. There are many opportunities for the Minister to enhance compliance in the future. Like my hon. Friends, I am concerned that the 25% potential efficiency savings and the £2 billion cut in the budget will result in job losses, which will equate to revenue losses and lower morale among the staff whom my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East represents, and staff elsewhere, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned.
I want to hear from the Minister, in the time he has at his disposal, how he expects those efficiency savings of £2 billion to be made, over and above the £917 million that he has put in place to support revenue collection. I want to hear an answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East: how much of the money that will be raised by the extra £917 million is to be collected before the 2013-14 deadline, given that the Minister said that he expects to raise an extra £7 billion by that time? I want to hear from him about the service that HMRC will provide. With that £2 billion reduction, I worry that service issues identified by the hon. Members for Witham, for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) will be exacerbated as a result of insufficient legal resources for litigation, lower response times, increased compliance costs and more difficulties in delivering the efficient service that we all seek.
The Minister needs to give the House an account of his future strategy for the effective collection of revenue by HMRC. We saw last year, with the PAYE debacle in which 1.4 million people were asked to make up an underpayment worth about £2 billion, that the service impacts on everybody’s life, as has been pointed out by Members speaking about their own constituency experiences. Mistakes that are made, from child tax credits to tax demands, cause stress and worry. The efficiency of the organisation is desirable not just because it is a public service, but because of its effect on people’s day-to-day life.
I want to hear from the Minister how he expects to manage revenue collection and compliance over the next few years, and how he intends, with officials, to improve the service and sharpen its focus at a time of reduced resources. Those who work in the service care as much as we do about it, and about its future direction. The trade unions have emphasised to me the need to invest in training and support for tax professionals, the need to ensure that we have an effective deterrent against non-compliance, and the need for measures to reduce the tax gap and ensure that we provide a service to customers out there who are our constituents.
I think that we have a clear role to look at where we have come from and to focus HMRC on its core business, which is providing a service to the public and raising the revenue that we seek to spend. I simply put down as a marker for the Minister the fact that the Opposition will be watching carefully to see how his efficiency savings either hit or support that public service and revenue collection. HMRC’s role is key to helping us fund the public services that we all want, and it is his job to ensure that it does so in the most efficient way possible.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
We have had a valuable debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), the Chair of the Treasury Committee. We have had the benefit of his expertise and that of other Committee members, including my old friend, the hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). We also heard from a member of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales).
We have heard about the experiences of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and had the benefit of the considerable tax expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). We have heard about some of the difficulties of a border area from the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and also heard from the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont), whose constituency has the largest tax office in the UK. We have also heard from the hon. Members for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who both have a long-standing interest in the matter.
There is clearly a consensus across the House that HMRC is a hugely important organisation that has a valuable role to play through the service it provides to taxpayers and tax credit claimants and its contribution in dealing with the difficulties in the public finances. We have heard articulated a widespread concern about a number of aspects of its performance. As the hon. Member for Leeds East pointed out, that has been a consistent concern for a number of years. We have heard a little about some of the causes of the problems. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, among others, talked about the difficulties of the merger, and my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester and for Dover talked about tax complexity. The hon. Member for Luton North talked about the challenges created by the introduction of tax credits and HMRC’s responsibility in that area. Those issues have contributed to a number of the problems.
In the time available, I will touch on the various issues that have been raised. A number of Members mentioned staff morale. The survey numbers are pretty shocking, as HMRC does very poorly on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester referred to HMRC staff as the salt of the earth, and talked about their dedication. I visit a lot of HMRC offices and find that the staff are very dedicated and committed to their jobs. The problem is that they do not feel a strong connection with HMCR or the sense of loyalty and affection to the organisation that they might, but there is a desire to do their jobs very well.
There is sometimes a feeling that HMRC staff are kicked around a bit and that some of the criticism is unfair—happily, I can exclude all Members who have participated in the debate from that charge. To be balanced and fair to HMRC, we should acknowledge some of its successes. Just over a month ago, for example, they successfully dealt with a record number of self-assessments by the self-assessment deadline.
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
I wholly support what the Minister is saying. It strikes me that what HMRC staff need most is to feel valued, because they do an extraordinarily important job for this country.
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is right for us to put that point on the record.
On PAYE reform, there is no doubt that there were real problems with the introduction of the national insurance and PAYE service—NPS—computer system. The system does improve how PAYE works, but last year we saw significant problems with tax codes. So far this year we are more than halfway through the tax code process, and it seems to be going well, but these are still relatively early days. There has been a concern about the introduction of NPS, and a considerable concern about the end-of-year reconciliation process. PAYE has always involved an end-of-year reconciliation, but the numbers revealed in September were shocking. We have enormous sympathy with those who face an unexpected tax bill, and we want to do everything we can to ensure that they are treated fairly and sympathetically.
The fundamental problem is that the PAYE system has failed to keep up with changes in working patterns: people tend to move jobs more often, and they often have more than one source of income. We are taking steps to address that by introducing real-time information to the tax system, and we believe that that can address the real causes of the problem. I am aware of the concerns that the hon. Member for Leeds East raised about the timetable, and we are looking closely to ensure that we can deliver to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover was entirely right to mention contact centres and their slow responses. The current service is not good enough, and in the long term we will solve that by getting things right first time and ensuring that the tax system is simpler so that people do not need to phone up. As a temporary measure, however, HMRC will employ between April and September—a particularly busy time for HMRC—1,000 additional contact centre advisers to ensure that we see an improvement in performance.
Several Members raised the issue of the tax gap. The £42 billion figure that HMRC produced—the other figures that have been thrown around lack credibility—is a big number, and although it compares well internationally we are determined to do what we can to bring it down. The figure is made up of several factors, including the hidden economy, written-off debt and so on, and there will always be a tax gap, but we are determined to reduce it.
That brings me to the spending review. Let me be very clear: during the usual communications that take place between Opposition spokesmen and senior civil servants in the run-up to a general election, we said to HMRC, “If you have proposals for areas where additional expenditure could result in substantially increased yield, we want to look at them,” because all too often the previous Government did not listen or even attempt to address that matter.
We were very pleased when HMRC came up with proposals for spending £900 million over the course of the spending review period, and it believes that that could really deliver. I cannot supply the full profile, but by the end of that period HMRC should be raising an additional £7 billion as a consequence of strengthening its compliance capacity, increasing the number of people working in compliance and enforcement, and tackling tax evasion. That is an important step to take.
We have had a useful and valuable discussion within a wide-ranging and interesting debate about an incredibly important issue. Across the House, we recognise that HMRC is a very important organisation. It is right to focus its efforts, as the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said, on collecting taxes and getting the yield in, and that is what we are doing.
We recognise that savings have to be delivered, that services have to be maintained, that performance must be improved and that revenues must be increased to help tackle our nation’s record deficit. We are determined that HMRC will deliver, and that by the end of the Parliament it will be a far better department, and one that is more efficient, cost-effective and better tailored to the needs of modern Britain.
Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54(4)).
suppmentary estimates 2010-11
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
I beg to move,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Continuance in Force of Sections 1 to 9) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 3 February, be approved.
The purpose of the order before the House is to renew sections 1 to 9 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 pending their repeal and replacement with an alternative regime. These sections expire after one year unless renewed by order, subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses. The effect of this order will be to maintain the control order powers until the end of 31 December 2011. As the Home Secretary said to the House on 26 January, this limited renewal is to allow us to bring forward the legislation introducing a replacement system.
I would like briefly to set out the context for the proposal before the House. As the Prime Minister has said, the threat to the UK from international terrorism is as serious as we have faced at any time. It is assessed by the joint terrorism analysis centre to be “severe”. A number of significant terrorist plots have been uncovered over the past year. Recent trials and investigations show that terrorist networks are continuing to plan and attempt to carry out attacks. That threat will not diminish at any point soon.
Against this background, and given our commitment to redress the balance in our counter-terrorism powers, the Government conducted a review of counter-terrorism and security powers which considered the necessity, effectiveness and proportionality of control orders.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Have any of the people whom the Minister is concerned about—who may or may not be plotting terrorist attacks—at any time been subject to a control order or considered for a control order?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is not appropriate for me to comment on such sensitive security issues. I can tell him that the review we undertook underlined that the Government’s absolute priority must be to prosecute suspected terrorists in open court. Measures that impose restrictions on suspected terrorists who have not been convicted in open court should be our last resort. As far as possible, given the need to protect the public, any restrictions should support the primary objective of prosecution.
The review concluded that for the foreseeable future, there is likely to continue to be a small number of people who pose a real threat to our security, but who, despite our best efforts, cannot be prosecuted or, in the case of foreign nationals, deported. As at 10 December 2010, eight individuals were subject to control orders. Our reluctant assessment is that there will continue to be a need for a mechanism to protect the public from the threat that such individuals pose. Lord Carlile reached the same conclusion in his most recent and last independent report on control orders. Consequently, he and the other statutory consultees support the proposal to renew the control order powers. I am sure that hon. Members from all parts of the House will join me in thanking Lord Carlile for his work over the past 10 years.
The review also concluded that it is possible to move to a system that will protect the public but be less intrusive and have more clearly and tightly defined restrictions. In particular, the two-year maximum time limit clearly demonstrates that these are targeted, temporary measures. It will be possible to impose a further measure only if there is evidence of new terrorism-related activity after the original measure was imposed. Measures will have to meet the evidential test of reasonable belief that a person is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity. That is higher than the test of reasonable suspicion of such involvement in the control orders regime. The police will be under a strengthened legal duty to inform the Home Secretary about an ongoing review of a person’s conduct with a view to bringing a prosecution. A more flexible overnight residence requirement will replace the current curfew arrangements.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous so far and we will see how this goes. Will he clarify how the new residence requirement is different from the existing arrangements? In her comments to the Home Affairs Committee, the Minister for Security, Baroness Neville-Jones, was less than clear on that point.
James Brokenshire
I know that this issue was of interest to the Home Affairs Committee. As the Minister for Security made clear in her evidence, the normal overnight residence requirement will be for between eight and 10 hours. She has written to the Committee to set out that as at 10 December 2010, the longest curfew under a control order was for 14 hours, which was in place in two cases. Of the remaining curfews, one was for 13 hours, three were for 12 hours, one for 10 hours and one for eight hours. Therefore, at least six of the eight individuals will be confined to their residence for a shorter period than they are currently. The Minister for Security has made that point clear.
It is worth stressing some of the other relevant issues. Forcible relocation to other parts of the country will be ended. Geographical boundaries will be replaced with a power to impose much more tightly defined exclusions from particular places. There will be no power to exclude someone from, for example, an entire London borough. Individuals will have greater freedom of communication, including access to a mobile phone and a home computer with internet access, subject to certain conditions such as providing passwords. They will have greater freedom to associate—for example, there will be no blanket restrictions on visitors or meetings. Individuals will only be prohibited from associating with people who may facilitate terrorism-related activity. They will be free to work and study, subject again to the restrictions necessary to protect the public. These changes will allow the individual to continue to lead a normal life so far as is possible, subject only to the restrictions necessary to prevent or disrupt involvement in terrorism-related activity.
The more limited restrictions that may be imposed may facilitate further investigation, as well as preventing terrorism-related activities. The new regime will also be accompanied by an increase in funding for the police and the Security Service, to enhance their investigative capabilities. The Government intend to bring forward legislation to that effect shortly. The legislation must be properly prepared and properly scrutinised by the House. In the meantime, we are clear that it would be irresponsible to allow the current regime to lapse in the absence of alternative measures and while the investigative capabilities of the law enforcement and security agencies are being developed.
It is important to underline that control orders remain legally viable and although they are, in our judgment, imperfect, they have had some success in protecting the public. We are satisfied that the current control order powers and the order before us today are proportionate and fully compliant with the European convention on human rights, and that, pending the introduction of their replacement, it is essential that these powers continue to be available in order to protect the public.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I should like my hon. Friend to take note of the observation made by a former Home Secretary, Charles Clarke:
“The principal responsibility of the judiciary is to justice and to the liberty of the citizen properly carried through, but not to the security of the nation.”
Is my hon. Friend also aware of my Prevention of Terrorism Bill, which I introduced today? The object of the Bill is simply to disapply the Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of these matters in order to ensure that we maintain habeas corpus, due process and fair trial, even in the case of alleged suspects.
James Brokenshire
I am aware that my hon. Friend has introduced a Bill, although it would not strictly apply in the context of this debate on control orders and the new proposals that we are seeking to introduce, given that his Bill applies to provisions allowing for detention. That means that it would not affect these measures, because they do not allow for detention. I note that he has sought to introduce his Bill, but I do not think it is directly relevant to this debate.
Jeremy Corbyn
Is the Minister aware that the objection that many of us have to the principle of control orders is that they are effectively a form of Executive control and not subject to judicial review in the normal way? What we need is criminal law to deal with criminals, rather than Executive fiat to deal with people about whom the Security Service might or might not have suspicions.
James Brokenshire
I certainly hear the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. As I have already stressed, our preference is always to bring prosecutions and to bring people before the criminal law. I must also highlight my previous comment on the compliance with the ECHR of the provisions before us. These measures are always used only as a last resort.
We are currently preparing legislation to introduce the replacement system. I am anxious that the passage of that legislation should follow due process, and that it should be subject to the intense scrutiny that I know Members of this House and the other place will rightly bring to bear on it. Hon. Members will understand that these are complex issues, and I am sure that they will share my desire to ensure that we get the new provisions right. While the process is under way, it would not be responsible for us to leave a gap in public protection between the repeal of control orders and the introduction of the replacement regime. Our intention is that there should be a safe and managed transition to the new system. This means that, until the new system is introduced, we need to retain the full range of control order powers. The alternative would be to allow individuals who pose a threat to the public to go freely about their terrorism-related activities for the remainder of the year.
This is the last occasion on which the House will be asked to renew these powers. The Government will shortly bring forward a more targeted and focused regime to protect the public. Before the transition to that new regime is complete, the risk to the public would be grave indeed were control order powers not renewed. I therefore ask the House to approve the renewal of those powers for the transitional period.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
As the Minister said, the threat level to our country remains at “severe”, and the threat of terrorism is never far away. We are a high-profile country that will be holding high-profile events this year and next, so there cannot and should not be any room for complacency.
We should congratulate and thank our security services and police on their co-ordinated work in keeping us all safe. They do a tremendous job, and we know of the plots that have been foiled in the recent period. It is our duty in the House to provide them with the tools and procedures that they need to do their job effectively. Sometimes, that means walking the difficult line between balancing individual freedom and collective safety, with the rights of the wider community sometimes outweighing the rights of the individual. Control orders have been the tool for that.
As has been said, in an ideal world we would not wish to use control orders. It would be greatly preferable if our criminal justice system could deal with terrorists who wished us harm. However, as previous Home Secretaries and Ministers have said, control orders have become a necessary evil. Until an alternative comes forward that gives the same level of protection, we have to accept that.
As the Minister said, this is the sixth annual review of control orders since the power was introduced in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. The order before us provides for the continuation of the power to make a control order against an individual when the Secretary of State has
“reasonable grounds for suspecting that the individual is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity”
and considers it necessary to impose obligations on that individual for the purpose of protecting members of the public from the risk of terrorism. That has to be the major priority for any Government.
Lord Carlile, who was the independent reviewer of terrorism, said in a previous report that one person subject to a control order was
“a dangerous terrorist who would re-engage with terrorism the moment he could.”
That is the type of person we are dealing with. I add my congratulations to Lord Carlile on his nine years in the job. He did a tremendous job, and I know that it challenged his political views on control orders and other terrorism-related matters.
The original intention behind control orders was to deal with foreign terrorists who could not be deported or prosecuted. As the Minister said, eight people are under control orders at the moment, and some of those orders have been made since the coalition Government came to power. As I understand it—he may be able to confirm this or otherwise—the current control orders are all on UK citizens as opposed to foreign nationals.
Yesterday, the Home Secretary announced in the Protection of Freedoms Bill what we see as a weakening of anti-terror legislation. We have also seen the ridiculous situation of the order on 28-day detention being allowed to lapse without the draft emergency legislation being in place. That legislation has now been published, but as yet we do not know when we will discuss it. There may be a difficulty if it is introduced when the House is not sitting and there needs to be a recall of Parliament for us to scrutinise it.
As the Minister said, the Home Secretary wants to repeal control orders, as she said in her statement to the House on 26 January following the belated counter-terrorism review. She said that too much of the 2005 Act was “excessive and unnecessary”, but she and the Minister have admitted that for the foreseeable future there are likely to be a small number of people who pose a real threat to our security but who cannot currently be prosecuted or deported.
We need to know whether the replacement for control orders will be weaker and whether it will protect the country as it should. We would like to hear from the Minister what evidence came from the security services and the police about the new regime that he and the Home Secretary want to introduce. There is a suspicion on our side that it is a political fix to get the Deputy Prime Minister out of a mess, and that it has to do with the reality of being in government as opposed to the rhetoric of Opposition. I say that because the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister realised, on the advice of the security services and the police, that there are dangerous people out there, whom we must tackle. I hope that the new regime is evidence-based, and I will be interested in any evidence that the security forces and the police publish about their viewpoints.
If the Minister is able to respond to the debate in the time available, will he react to the House of Lords Joint Committee report and its recommendations on the scrutiny of the new proposals?
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
Some of us recognise that control orders are the jewel in the crown of the previous Government’s authoritarian legislation. The hon. Gentleman said that we are discussing the sixth annual renewal. Does he believe that the existing rules on control orders—that necessary evil—are perfect? If not, did he ever vote them down on the five other occasions they were discussed?
Mr Sutcliffe
No. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. As I said, every time the matter has been discussed, the Minister of the day has said that it is a difficult matter, and that we much prefer to get to the point of prosecution so that the criminal justice system deals with it. However, as Lord Carlile, who was the independent regulator, found, there are circumstances for which the criminal justice system cannot cater in that way.
Richard Fuller
I greatly appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s giving way again. He used the word “weaker”, but a change in the law could be perceived as an improvement rather than a weakening. We should be careful when we use such words because they can have different meanings in different contexts.
Mr Sutcliffe
I take the point, but that relates to the parliamentary scrutiny of the new proposals, and perhaps I will deal later with how we can consider that further.
Counter-terrorism policy has to be built on evidence and on advice from the security services and the police, not political fixes. That is important because Members of Parliament do not get the detail of exactly what has occurred. We get the independent reviewer’s report, but we do not get the information about what has happened. Usually the Home Secretary, sometimes on Privy Council advice, gives briefings to the Opposition. When we discuss the new regime, that might be a way forward to work together to try to ensure that we understand what exactly is happening on the ground.
The Minister referred to the replacement legislation in discussing what the Home Secretary said on 26 January. She asked the independent commissioner, David Anderson, to pay particular attention to the new measures in his first report. That is fine, but the Minister used the word “shortly”, which was a favourite of mine when I was a Minister, and means any time between now and a given date a long time in the future. When does the Minister expect the proposed legislation to be available so that we can discuss the various issues that we face?
I particularly want to debate the difference between a curfew and an overnight residence requirement. The Minister mentioned a possible difference in hours, but we will see how we go.
The legislative proposals need to be scrutinised. The new control order regime pays particular attention to surveillance and we are told that sufficient finance will be available for the resource-intensive proposal to the police and the security services. Will the Minister confirm that it will be new money? How will the continuation of the current control order regime deal with the financial cuts that the police and the security services face? How much will the police budget for counter-terrorism be? How will a cut in that budget affect control orders? Is there any likelihood of needing to increase the number of control orders as prisoners detained under counter-terrorism measures are released and returned to our streets? Has any assessment been made of the possible increases in the need for control orders? Another issue that was raised the last time we debated control orders was the cost to the Exchequer arising from legal challenges made by controlees. Will the Minister inform us of those costs?
All hon. Members recognise that the safety and security of the public are difficult issues. We have long-held traditions of individual rights and freedoms, but as I said, given the world that we live in, there is a difficult balance to achieve. Evidence-based policy is vital, and we should err on the side of caution when it comes to the safety of the public. The Opposition will obviously support the extension of the orders this evening. We look forward to the new legislation on how we work and scrutinise what happens. We hope to reach a consensus that meets the requirements of individual freedoms while putting the safety of our country to the fore.
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe). Many of his comments, and his support for the Government, were not unexpected.
I sometimes wonder how much time we consume in the House of Commons dealing with apparently insignificant affairs. For instance, having had a grand total of—I think—nearly 30 individuals under control orders at one stage, we are now down to eight, so we find ourselves devoting many minutes, if not hours, of parliamentary time discussing the fate of eight individuals. That is important. However, what concerns me most is that the previous Government imposed control orders that are fundamentally wrong, misapplied and undemocratic—they are fundamentally a help to our enemies—but did not seem particularly bothered when individuals who were subject to them under the previous regime absconded or escaped.
That is the point. I pay huge tribute, as the hon. Gentleman did, not only to the work of Lord Carlile, but to the work of our security services, who have foiled or plain put off any number of extremely dangerous plots. However, the fact remains that although the eight individuals about whom we are speaking today are not numerous, they are a totem for our enemies.
Jeremy Corbyn
I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s opinions, but, as the Minister said earlier, there are no charges against those eight individuals, and there is apparently no possibility of deporting the foreign nationals involved. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the House will vote through Executive orders that control and change people’s lives entirely when no criminal charges have been laid against them?
Patrick Mercer
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is helpful and timely, and I completely agree with him. The difficulty is that we are detaining those individuals undemocratically and improperly, which plays directly into the hands of our enemies.
Our foes—be they Islamist fundamentalists, direct action groups or animal rights groups, Irish individuals or whatever—all understand the power of propaganda. The one thing at which they are good is broadcasting their word. They understand that the spoken, the written and the broadcast word are more powerful than any bullet or bomb.
Before Christmas there was a series of events, with which I shall not detain the House, involving a serious plot against western Europe—a core al-Qaeda plot—that both failed and was foiled. To replace that failure in the eyes of the public, an extraordinarily ill-thought-through plot was mounted from Yemen involving ink cartridge containers on a certain number of aircraft—cartridges that, frankly, were unlikely ever to explode. However, for very little effort, our enemies dominated the media for four complete days at the end of October last year, making the point that terrorism had not gone away and that they still intended to terrorise people. They did so without killing or injuring anyone, and with very little effort on their part.
The point is that with control orders we continue to aid and abet our enemies in exactly those methods of operation. First and foremost, we fought Nazism, communism and Irish republicanism without having to resort to any of those methods, because we were a democratic nation fighting on democratic principles against non-democratic enemies.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend is saying, but we did intern people in the last war and we did have extraordinary regulations—regulation 18B—to lock up people who were deemed to be a threat to the state, so I think it is fair to have extraordinary regulations for relatively small numbers.
Patrick Mercer
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right: of course we interned people in the last war, and we also carried out the disastrous policy of internment in Northern Ireland in the ’70s. I was not there at the time, but I was there in the follow-up to that policy, which was literally disastrous, not only in countering terrorism, but in aiding and abetting the recruitment of our foes in the battle with the Irish Republican Army that lay ahead. However, I hope that my hon. Friend does not mind if I do not go into that in too much detail.
If we retain the powers indefinitely and continue to treat that small number of people in that way, we will pass the most important tool that we can to our foes. We will be saying to our enemies: “Please understand that without letting off any bombs or killing any policemen, soldiers or civilians, you have achieved exactly what you want to achieve. In other words, you have destabilised our democracy. Without raising a finger, you have done exactly what you wanted to do: you have changed the way we live our lives.” That is not right. I celebrate the changes that the Home Secretary announced earlier. Without doubt, there have been some improvements. For instance, of the three measures for which I have long argued, and for which I shall continue to argue—the ability to question after charge, the use of intercept evidence and plea bargaining—one has been accepted. One is better than nothing—it is an improvement—but we must understand that our abiding aim is to get those individuals into court on a legitimate charge and with a legitimate trial, and to uphold the principle that they are innocent until proven guilty.
We have other methods of dealing with criminals. I am sure that, like me, the House remembers how a previous Prime Minister made it a point of principle that Irish republican terrorists, and indeed Protestant paramilitaries, should not be treated as they wished to be—that is, as soldiers—but as mere common criminals.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I am following the hon. Gentleman carefully, but will he correct his reference to “Protestant paramilitaries”, by perhaps describing them as loyalists or so-called loyalists? His use of the word “Protestant” in this context is not correct.
Patrick Mercer
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. I am afraid that I am a victim of my own experience. He is absolutely right that the term is outdated. It was one that we used in the many tours that I served in Northern Ireland, but it is both wrong and probably insensitive, and I apologise.
Whatever stamp of terrorist we were facing in Northern Ireland, that terrorist was deemed to be a criminal. There are methods that we can use to handle those criminals. They are not soldiers; they are criminals. Therefore, surely it is up to us to deal with them in the same way, using the rules of bail along with other methods that we use to surveille those of whom we are suspicious. We do not need to take these individuals’ liberties away from them.
There are two points behind that idea. The first is that it is improper and undemocratic; the second is that it is plain damn silly. If we say to someone, “We are interested in you; we are surveilling you; we are keeping you under observation”, we immediately fail to harvest the intelligence that those individuals can give us. Not all of them are terribly clever, although some are, and many of them are very foolish, which is why they have fallen under suspicion in the first place. Foolishness, of course, should be aided and abetted by the security services because foolishness provides us with further clues and further evidence.
I will not detain the House further. Despite my instincts, I will certainly support the Government tonight on the basis that I understand that future legislation needs time to mature and to be properly formulated. The fact remains that I hope that the Home Secretary and her Ministers will look most carefully at what is proposed so that in the future we will deal with our enemies not only in a democratic and proper way, but in a thoroughly practical one.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I am grateful for being called to speak and I am sorry that it looks as though there are not enough Members present to call a Division later. I personally believe that these are very serious matters and I have opposed control orders in the previous Parliament as well as in this one, so at least I have the benefit of consistency on this matter.
I oppose control orders not because I have any truck with those who wish to set off bombs in the cities of this or any other country. Indeed, my borough lost more lives on 7/7 than any other London borough, and attending those funerals because of what happened on that day is not easily forgotten. My concern is that Parliament is again voting through provisions that give extraordinary powers to a Secretary of State, who is able to impose a control order on an individual without recourse to a due process of law.
As the Minister said, these are people against whom no criminal charge could be brought and they cannot be deported, presumably because of the lack of convention applicability in the countries to which they might be deported. We do not know, of course, who these eight individuals are. I think that for Parliament to give such powers to any Secretary of State is an abdication of our responsibility for two reasons. First, the separation of judicial and political functions is central to the constitution and very important. We are not a court; we cannot put people on trial. We can pass laws, and it is for the courts to deal with them in a separate place. Secondly, if by this process we deny individuals access to any judicial process whatever and people are restricted and to some extent detained by Executive decision, that bypasses both ourselves as a Parliament and the independence of the courts. We should think very carefully about that.
We are apparently dealing with eight individual cases and I have no idea who those eight people are. I do not propose to discuss any of those cases; that is not the point. The point is one of principle relating to what we as a Parliament are doing. If this measure is part of the war on terror, I ask Members to remember what the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) just said about the experience of internment in Northern Ireland. Indeed, for that matter, there is also the case of internment at the start of the second world war, when a large number of Jewish people were detained on the basis that they had German relatives. Of course they had German relatives: they had fled from Nazi Germany and came to this country to escape fascism, only to be promptly detained as suspects of fascism. I suspect that they found that experience deeply troubling and that it did not leave them for the rest of their lives. We need to reflect carefully on that.
If an individual has an order placed against them, their movements, their liberties and their life opportunities will obviously be restricted. If an employer knows about it, as he probably will, the person concerned will be unlikely to keep his job. I suspect that many universities will be very reluctant to allow students in that position to remain there, and might refuse outright. The lives of such people are seriously harmed in many other ways
Is this a fair thing to do? If there is evidence that an individual is manufacturing a bomb, planning to put a bomb on a plane, or planning to kill civilians for no obvious reason—indeed, to kill civilians in any circumstances—let a criminal charge be brought against them. We should bear it in mind that in Northern Ireland, internment became a recruiting sergeant for the IRA.
Let us look at the issue on a wider scale. Let us consider the hundreds of thousands of young people who are wasting their lives away in refugee camps in Gaza, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and many other parts of the middle east. Do they feel that they have a democratic choice? Do they feel that they have a democratic right for the rest of their lives? No. They see the rest of the world vicariously, through television screens and computers. Does their experience make them respect a democratic process? Does it give them choices and opportunities? No. It is the breeding ground for irrational acts of criminal violence against civilians.
The House cannot solve all those problems, but we can at least make two contributions. First, we can try to bring about peace and justice processes throughout the region concerned. Secondly, we can ensure that in this country we defend the democracy of an elected Parliament, defend the independence of the judiciary, do not allow Ministers to have powers to detain individuals without recourse to the courts or to an individual hearing, and allow such individuals to know what the charges against them are. We would condemn many other societies in which someone can visit an individual and say, “You are under suspicion; you are under arrest; you are under control”, and I think that we should be very cautious indeed about passing a law allowing that in the House of Commons.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman says that the accused should be allowed to know what the charge is. That brings into play the concept of special advocates who are given evidence behind closed doors and cannot take instructions from the accused, and hence the concept of not being given a fair hearing. On that basis, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the process involving special advocates should be reviewed, and that the concept of a fair hearing at which the accused can be given a chance to comment on the evidence must be right?
Jeremy Corbyn
I more or less entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission courts involve that concept of the special advocate who does not know—or, rather, may well know but cannot share with his client, the defendant—what the charges are against that person, and how the defence is to be mounted. Franz Kafka wrote about such circumstances extensively and with great passion. It is possible that descendants of Franz Kafka are working away in the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office or some grubby basement somewhere.
We are talking about the creation of a miasma of untrustworthy or untrustable sources. There might be a case against an individual, but that individual does not know what it is. His advocate might know what it is, but cannot tell him and can say only, “Do not worry—I will try and get you off. You want to know what you are charged with? Oh, I cannot tell you that.” Hello? Let us get real. If we believe in a proper judicial process, let us practise a proper judicial process.
I feel very reluctant to support any anti-terror law that departs from the principle that anyone who has been charged must know what the charge is, must be able to defend himself against that charge, and must be either found guilty or acquitted, depending on what evidence is presented and what the court decides at the end of the process. That principle, surely, is the best defence of a free society. Departing from it weakens a free society and damages all of us.
It is disappointing that the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), is not present to comment on its report. I want to make three brief points about the summary. The Committee calls on the Government to
“urgently review all existing control orders to ensure they are compatible with the findings”,
but it was not clear to me from the Minister’s earlier contribution whether that had happened, so perhaps he will tell us in summing up.
One of the other Select Committee recommendations was:
“The Director of Public Prosecutions should be asked to consider whether a criminal investigation is justified in relation to each of the eight individuals subject to existing control orders”.
Again, I am not clear whether that has happened. I apologise if I missed something the Minister said, but I would be grateful if he would say what has happened in that respect.
The Select Committee also said:
“We do not accept the Government’s reasons for not providing this opportunity”—
for pre-legislative scrutiny—
“and recommend that it be published and made available to Parliament”.
If the Government have measures to introduce on control orders or anti-terror in general, that is clearly an important and major piece of legislation. This House has slowly and reluctantly dragged itself from the 18th century into the 19th and the 20th, and although we have not reached the 21st yet, we do have a process of pre-legislative scrutiny. Therefore, I think a Bill should be published as early as possible so that the House can thoroughly examine it and we can have a serious debate on it before it reaches the light of day. These are serious and important issues. We are talking not about just eight individuals’ lives, but the whole principle of a democratic and free society.
We put in place control orders, secret courts, special advocates and all kinds of special measures, and we have a Security Service that is not public and that is unaccountable. We also have charges that are unknown against individuals who do not know what the charges against them are. That creates a rather unpleasant Kafkaesque secrecy surrounding our society and our lives. It does not make us any safer, and it does not make the world any safer; actually, it contributes to making the world a more dangerous and precarious place.
I hope the Minister understands both my reasons for making these points and why many of us hold these views. It is reasonable and fine for him or the Secretary of State to ask for opinions and views from the security services and the police; of course they should ask for their views. They should also, however, ask for the views of the judiciary, advocates, civil liberties groups and the people who spend their whole lives trying to defend the civil liberties of all of us. Their views are equally legitimate and important.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who has consistently held his views on this issue over many years. I have a lot of sympathy with what he has said. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), for whose views I also have much sympathy.
I want to comment on a point made by the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe). I know he is an honourable man, but he made an unfortunate comment which I suspect was down to an over-enthusiastic, wet-behind-the-ears political novice who is working in his office at present, who got a quote from the Labour agents’ handbook suggesting that the coalition Government’s proposal is some kind of political stitch-up for the benefit of the Deputy Prime Minister. That was an unfortunate comment, and it demeans the hon. Gentleman, because it has no credibility whatever. To suggest that the coalition Government would put the country’s security at risk is extremely regrettable, and I wish he had not made that remark.
I would prefer it if this debate did not have to take place, but I realise that we cannot allow control orders to lapse without anything in their place. I therefore welcome the fact that this is a temporary renewal, and that, as the Minister said, this will be the last occasion of its kind. We have a very clear milestone—31 December this year—by which the alternative arrangements need to be in place.
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which he has made a number of times over the past couple of days. I certainly agree with him that any process must be heavily based on a judicial process; indeed, that is central to this debate.
It also gives me some reassurance that, where the coalition was able to take immediate action, such as on the 14-day provision, such action was indeed taken. Since this debate last took place, I have met—a couple of months ago—someone who was the subject of a control order that had been quashed. That happened because, eventually, some of the evidence held against this controlee had to be released. One of the apparently most convincing pieces of evidence held against him was that, when he was on the top deck of a bus with his son, he had stood up and turned in such a way that the camera could not see him, and therefore he had clearly been given counter-surveillance training.
That person set out precisely what his experience had been. He was at home when, all of a sudden, a large number of police officers came through the door. He was told, “We are now going to relocate you. No, you can’t call a lawyer. We are going to relocate you to a part of the country you’ve not been to before. That doesn’t matter—that is where you are going.” He was then subject to conditions which meant that going out to work was not a possibility—doing that is not possible for someone who has to be back in their residence perhaps three hours after leaving it. If they live in a place that is already some distance from the town where they work, no sooner have they got there than they have to come back. They can therefore forget working, going to university and so on.
That experience led that person to have a breakdown and to abscond, because he could not take the pressure of the control order he was subjected to. As I said, it was eventually quashed, because when some of the evidence against him was produced, it was considered not terribly convincing.
There was one very regrettable aspect of the review process. The hon. Member for Islington North rightly talked about the other organisations that should be consulted as part of this process. It is very clear that one group of people who were not consulted as part of the process was controlees who subsequently had their control orders quashed. In order to get an appreciation of the effectiveness of this measure, what alternatives could be put in place and whether, psychologically speaking, this is a good way to move people away from terrorism—if that is what they are inclined to pursue—it would have been sensible as part of the review process to sit down and listen to some of these people’s stories. However, that has not happened. That omission needs to be addressed in any ongoing process of examining the new legislation, and I hope it will be.
Whatever the alternative measure is, it clearly has to be a qualitative improvement from a civil liberties perspective—and, indeed, from a security perspective—on what was there before. It has to put the onus on prosecution rather than containment. All too often, as is acknowledged, one of the purposes of control orders is to contain people for long enough for them to lose track of the people whom they had had contact with in the context of terrorist activity, so in many respects it is simply a containment process. People are kept for as long as it takes for them to lose track or lose interest—or, indeed, grow up—and therefore not pursue that line of action. Therefore, the focus was not on trying to prosecute people and that was a mistake. I hope that the proposed terrorism prevention and investigation measures—TPIMs—will ensure that prosecution is very much at the heart of what happens. Lord MacDonald has set out clearly how that process could work and how a limited process of a couple of years could be allowed for such a prosecution to take place, and the Government will need to examine that very carefully.
As has been mentioned, further clarification is needed on curfews. As we know, a curfew does not stop someone doing what they want to do—that is also the view of Lord MacDonald. To replace a curfew with a shorter curfew is not the right course of action. A curfew, be it for 12 or 10 hours, is still a curfew and we need to examine the alternatives. For example, we might need to consider carefully a system where someone nominates a place of residence where they will be and has to give advance notice if they are going to be somewhere else on a particular day or week. We must not simply replace a curfew with a shorter curfew.
As I have stated, the judicial process has to be at the heart of the arrangement. Liberty has produced a useful crib sheet listing what applied under control orders and what will apply under TPIMs. I suspect that Liberty welcomes half the changes, although perhaps feels that more clarification is needed on a quarter of them. For example, control orders are renewed annually, but we need to know whether there will be a renewal process for TPIMs, as opposed to a permanent arrangement. As we have heard, there are question marks over the future of special advocates—perhaps that process could be changed—and, as I have said, we also need more clarification about exactly what is proposed on curfews. On some areas, particularly the judicial nature of the process, Liberty has severe reservations, as do I. I will certainly welcome anything that we can do to move this process into a court-based environment, rather than an Executive one, as will other Members who have spoken in this debate.
Clearly this is a crucial piece of legislation. There is a no alternative for us tonight; we cannot do anything but renew it, and that is entirely the right course of action. We have until the end of the year to flesh out what the alternative will be and to address some of these fundamental civil liberties considerations that require further clarification. I hope that we will see some substantial improvements from a civil liberties perspective, if not tonight, certainly as the draft legislation is developed, so that we can get rid of control orders and replace them with something with which I and others who are concerned about civil liberties will feel comfortable.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Having listened to much of this debate, I find that I come to it from a completely different perspective from most, because I know the importance of facing the reality of terrorism. Many in this House have lived in the safety and quiet of their own home, but for 25 years of my life I lived totally under police protection. I could not drive on my own—I never drove in those 25 years. I had to be taken from A to B in a police car in the presence of the police because of terrorism. That was so even when some Members from my side of the Irish sea were playing along with those who were threatening people within the United Kingdom.
This debate is important, because it goes right to the heart of the solemn duty that is placed on a democratically elected Parliament and Government, which is to provide the protection and security of their people. The effect of the order will be to maintain the power set out under the 2005 Act and to allow the Government to exercise the use of control orders to tackle any severe threat from suspected international terrorists in particular.
We are living in a dangerous world. Let us realise that there are people in our society, within the UK, who live and breathe terrorism. They live to destroy and bring havoc upon the law-abiding people of the UK. I speak from experience, as IRA terrorists wreaked havoc on Northern Ireland for more than 30 years. I have spoken in many debates in the Chamber over the years, pointing out that various Governments have sought to appease terrorists, leaving the innocent population to endure grievous suffering and pain.
Tonight, hon. Members have spoken, no doubt with sincerity, about the withdrawal of people’s rights and ability to move around, but my family have been denied such rights for the past 35 years. For 25 years, my wife was denied having her husband travel with her, but nobody seems concerned that elected representatives in the UK were forced into an intolerable situation or that those people inflicted that situation on our families. Many of my children grew up without their father being able to travel in the car with them. They grew up under a continuous threat and behind bulletproof windows and doors. That is how we lived our lives in Northern Ireland. I wish that hon. Members could live in the real world when they talk about these issues. That was the reality in Northern Ireland. Many people were happy to play along with Gaddafi whenever he was arming the Provisional IRA. They were lauding and applauding him, saying what a wonderful person he was, but of course they want to jump ship now because that does not really suit the international scene.
I am sure that no hon. Member desires to have these Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 measures continued for one second more than is necessary, but necessity prevails and we have a duty to grant the Government the powers that are essential to deal with the threat. I remember travelling by aeroplane across the Irish sea whenever there was a bomb threat. I know what it is to land on the ground—thankfully safely—and immediately be evacuated from the plane, going down the chute, because of a bomb threat. There is nothing glorious about terrorism and I suggest that the House should be more concerned about innocent, law-abiding people than they sometimes seem to be about terrorists and their rights.
Sadly, there are those in the community who pose a real threat to public safety and unfortunately they cannot always be prosecuted or deported if they are foreign nationals. Such people not only pose a significant potential threat but seek to undermine the very fabric and stability of our society. There are those who suggest that if there is not sufficient evidence to prove such persons guilty of a crime they should not be detained even though they are perceived to pose a serious threat. I do not accept that argument. The burden of proof means that the high level of evidence needed to gain a successful prosecution may not always be available, but the Government have vital information and intelligence showing that those persons pose a serious threat to the safety of people residing in the UK. There has to be a series of measures available to those in authority who are charged with the important responsibility of providing safety and security for the people of the UK.
It is easy for some in society, and even in this House, to condemn the availability of such measures, but when something goes tragically wrong they are often the same people who readily criticise those in authority for not acting swiftly enough and who even call for heads to roll should mistakes have been made. It is very easy to sit on the sidelines and be an armchair general without having to make a life-or-death decision, but I suggest that Ministers will be faced with that reality in future as Ministers in the House now have been faced with that responsibility of high office.
We cannot stand idly by and let a potential threat go unchecked. Perhaps it is important for us and for me tonight to pay tribute to all those within the police, the armed forces and the intelligence services who are actively engaged daily in seeking to keep us safe. The House owes them a great debt of gratitude, and I wish to put that on the record.
Control orders are used only for a relatively small number of individuals and although this may not be ideal, in my humble opinion and without apology, I believe it is preferable to allowing terrorists to endanger the general public. Members have laid great emphasis on the fact that eight people were under detention orders. One successful terrorist—not eight—can leave a whole city, a whole community, a whole country in grief and wreak havoc upon family after family.
It is not my wish to detain the House any further. I support the Government in their desire to have a valuable tool available to be employed when necessary. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will carefully examine what the coalition Government intend as a replacement.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak in the debate and to follow the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea). I welcome the outcome of the counter-terrorism review. Ministers have been decisive in scaling back some of the more draconian aspects of the previous Government’s authoritarian legislation, such as pre-charge detention and stop-and-search powers, and by tightening regulations in relation to surveillance.
The contentious debate that we are having on control orders should not obscure this welcome sea change in the overall approach. The tide is turning, and I commend the Minister for helping to bring about that change. Likewise, I recognise that Ministers are committed to substantial reform of the control order regime. The new powers will be significantly less offensive to basic principles of British justice than what we have now, but each half-step in the right direction raises the question of why we are not scrapping them altogether.
Under the regime that we are reviewing, the Home Secretary must have “reasonable grounds to suspect” an individual’s involvement in terrorist-related activity before imposing a control order. Now the threshold will be raised to “reasonable belief”. No one can deny that that is progress, but it still allows the equivalent of a criminal penalty to be imposed without a criminal conviction. There is no getting around that. It undermines the most basic principle of our justice system: innocent until proven guilty.
The two-year limit is a welcome recognition that a person not convicted of a crime should not be subject to intrusive restrictions indefinitely, but the orders are renewable, or they will be, which in the same breath undermines this element of the reforms. The fact that under the new system an order can be renewed if someone is engaged in further, different, terrorist activity while subject to its restrictions speaks volumes about the frailty of control orders as a means of public protection. I recognise that curfews are an improvement of sorts on virtual house arrest, a feature of the current regime, but as Lord Macdonald said in his report, curfews are still “disproportionate, unnecessary and objectionable”.
Control orders are an affront to British liberty and justice, but—I make this point to the hon. Member for South Antrim—their relevance as a security measure for dealing with a threat on which we all agree is at best minimal. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) put it more eloquently. There are eight control orders in force. On the best numeric assessment, there are 4,000 terrorist suspects in this country. Use of the orders against that rising threat has halved. Overall, 15% have absconded. Between 2006 and 2009, £16 million was spent on the regime. That is without factoring in court costs or policing.
The new regime is intended to strengthen the duty to consider prosecuting controlees, but Lord Macdonald pointed out clearly and categorically that control orders are not just a poor substitute, but make prosecution more difficult. He said that the regime is
“an impediment to prosecution… controls may be imposed that precisely prevent those very activities that are apt to result in the discovery of evidence fit for prosecution, conviction and imprisonment”.
With that in mind, the House should note that the number of terrorists convicted in the past three years has not just fallen, but plummeted. The number of convictions has fallen off a cliff edge—90% in three years, according to the October statistics. Control orders cannot reverse that trend. As Lord Macdonald said, they just get in the way.
What is being done to address this pretty fundamental failing in the counter-terrorism strategy that the coalition Government, to be fair, have inherited? What is being done on plea bargaining, prosecutorial policy and intercept evidence? The Home Secretary has indicated that the review on lifting the ban on intercept will continue. Both Lord Macdonald and the current Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, support lifting the ban. They say that it can be made to work effectively, as in virtually every other country in the world. However, Liberty has described the Government’s efforts—I think it is a reference to official efforts—to grasp this important reform as “lethargic”. Prosecution is vital. It is not some quaint commitment to legal tradition. In relation to the home-grown threat, suspects cannot be deported, so prosecution and incarceration is the only way to protect the public.
Mr Dodds
I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying and his emphasis on prosecution and incarceration. He will remember that his party and the Labour party, and indeed the House, voted to release terrorist prisoners who had been duly prosecuted and imprisoned for lengthy periods of time. It was decided that they should be let out, free from the severe punishment that had been meted out to them. That was a decision of this House. Does he now regret the decision to take that course of action, given what he has said about prosecution?
Richard Fuller
On my hon. Friend’s point about the critical importance of prosecution, is he aware that many of the conditions that apply to control orders also apply to immigration bail conditions: relocation, restriction on communication and tagging, all without any charge and imposed indefinitely? Does he agree that it will be an omission if those restrictions in the conditions are not also considered for change in the review?
Mr Raab
My hon. Friend makes a valid point and is absolutely right that those restrictions should be considered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newark made an important point about the significance of measures that we consider in this House. The political heat that the debate on control orders has generated over a number of years bears scant resemblance to their relevance as a security measure. In fact, that distracts us from grappling with a growing prosecutorial deficit, which in my view is one of the major problems we face.
There are other vital reforms that we should be grappling with but are not because of the political lightning rod of control orders. Most notably in my view, we should be reforming the Human Rights Act 1998 so that we can deport criminals and terrorist suspects more readily. I want to be clear that we would not necessarily deport them to face torture—I do not support that—but there has been an expansion in article 8 cases, which prevents deportation when it might disrupt family life; I currently have a constituency case dealing with that. That is a bridge too far and a result of judicial legislation. Some changes to the Human Rights Act would restore some balance in that respect.
The increasing fetters on deportation mean that we are importing risk, which is one reason why the previous Government resorted to so much authoritarian legislation in the first place. In deference to this Government, I welcome the fact that they are expediting the review on the Human Rights Act and the case for a Bill of Rights. That is an important piece of work and it should not end up in the long grass.
I support the Minister in his efforts, but I struggle to see the case for keeping alive this broken control order regime to limp on indefinitely when there is so much else that we can and should be doing to deport and prosecute those who threaten our country with terrorism.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for calling me in this important debate. As we consider control orders and counter-terrorism, it is important to think of the context in which we make these decisions. It is a time of unprecedented flux in the middle east and in north Africa, and what we are seeing there is nothing less than the wholehearted pursuit of liberty. None of us can imagine what it must have been like to be part of the Egyptian revolution in Tahrir square, and none of us has experienced the oppression that Libyan protestors are currently suffering.
All of us are privileged to live in a country where, by and large, freedom has been established and protected for many generations, but it has been clear to many of us for a while that those cherished rights and freedoms have been under attack. The previous Government used the uncertainty created by terrorist atrocities to carry out a widespread squeeze on civil liberties, and they shamefully used fear as a political and electoral weapon. Even their party’s leader, who is not particularly given to making statements about the dubious legacy left to this Government by new Labour, admits that they “seemed too casual” about civil liberties. He has not yet overcome his vagueness and set out a new and generally liberal path, although I hope that he will, and he certainly has not told either shadow Home Secretary whom he has so far appointed.
The coalition Government, however, are making progress—slow but steady progress—in their attempt to regain a better balance between security and liberty, and the counter-terrorism review was an important part of that programme. I am privileged to be a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and I was involved in writing its report on control orders, which I hope Members have read. Along with the Committee, I welcome the review’s conclusion that the current control order regime, which Labour put in place, is too intrusive and fails to demonstrate a commitment to the priority of criminal investigation.
Terrorism prevention and investigation measures are a step forward, and the system is different and better, although it is certainly not perfect, because, as many Members have already said, extra-judicial processes are simply not the right way to proceed. It is a shame that we do not yet have the replacement, and it is a shame of timing that we are not in a position to ditch control orders completely and pass the legislation on TPIMs. That is what I would like, and I have made that point in a number of places in the House. In fact, we should go further. We already have the concept of bail for people who have not yet been convicted of a crime, and that is the model we should use, not the control order regime. I hope that we continue with that thread.
I am concerned about what will happen in the next nine months if we agree to the order tonight. It seems illogical for the Government to ignore their own assessment of the weaknesses of the control order regime, but that is what is happening. A number of points have been made about Lord Macdonald’s suggestion that the Director of Public Prosecutions should have a role in criminal investigation. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point, which others have made, and that he will be asked to look at each current controlee’s case to see what is the right thing to do.
I am also concerned—in timing and in practice—about the Government’s plan to make emergency legislation available for a stricter version of control orders, which would be introduced in an unforeseen emergency. Lord Macdonald described to the Joint Committee how huge such a disaster would have to be, and the Government say that they will share a draft of the legislation only with those on the Opposition Front Bench. That is wrong. The number of Members who are neither in the Government nor part of the Opposition Front Bench, but who would be interested in seeing such legislation, is very high. We would like to see it, and it should be scrutinised.
I find it hard to imagine what the need would be, but, if there ever were a need, I would like to know that Parliament had thought in the fullness of time about how the legislation would work, and had not made a rushed decision after a huge number of bombs had already gone off. I hope the Government will agree to let all Members see the legislation and go through the same process that they are going through for their emergency legislation on 28 days’ detention.
There are a number of concerns about TPIMs in detail, and I have had the privilege of talking to people in the Home Office and raised the matter with the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. On the measured transition that the Minister described, we know that the review described relocation as too intrusive and inimical to the possibility of prosecution. Will the Minister commit to leaving unused the power for relocation in control orders between now and the new TPIMs regime?
Similarly, can we shorten the curfew periods in control orders as we head towards the new TPIMs regime? I hope that we do not introduce just a shorter curfew. To me, an overnight residence requirement involves a requirement to live somewhere normally, and if I live somewhere normally that means I am typically there between 1 am and 3 am, that I am often there earlier or later, and that sometimes I will get up early and sometimes arrive home late. That, not a shortened curfew, is an ordinary residence requirement.
I hope that the Home Secretary will thoroughly review the current controlees to see how we can bring the regime into line with what we aim for in TPIMs, and as a first step towards getting rid of the whole system. I look forward to the Minister’s comments and hope he will be able to reassure the many of us who wish to see even greater steps away from the abhorrent nature of control orders.
Mr Speaker
Order. Let me point out that I intend to give the Minister a 10-minute winding-up speech, so the hon. Gentleman has a brief opportunity to contribute if he so wishes.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to you, Mr Speaker, as ever.
Having listened with great interest to hon. Members’ speeches, I think it is perfectly possible to reconcile them all. With reference to the excellent speech by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), the whole question of the realities of terrorism has to be dealt with in relation to whether people should, as the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) suggested, be given a proper trial. That is what I keep insisting on in my interventions, as I did in the debate that took place yesterday. These are the real freedoms. At the same time, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), who makes extremely valuable contributions to these debates, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer). I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), which may surprise him a little.
All these things can be reconciled if, as the essence of my Bill on the prevention of terrorism proposes, we take out the overhanging shadow of the human rights legislation against which our legislation is constantly being tested. It is simple. We did not have a problem in the days when we ourselves decided on matters such as habeas corpus, fair trial and due process. It is not beyond the wit of our Parliament—in fact, it is the duty of our Parliament—to make proposals that meet all the different requirements. That can be done by sitting down, drafting a Bill, sending it to Committee and coming up with a reconciliation of all those different questions under one simple principle, to which the hon. Member for Islington North rightly referred—that people should be guaranteed the proper justice to which they are entitled when they are confronted with an accusation, whether they are suspected terrorists or serious criminals of a different order.
There may be a public emergency, which can be defined in various ways, in which it is absolutely essential that the Secretary of State, not the courts, should make the decisions, because ultimately the security of the nation has to be prescribed, as Lord Hoffmann clearly stated in a case called Rehman. Following that important judgment he was somewhat criticised by those who want to see a much more relaxed arrangement. National security has to be decided by Secretaries of State not by the judiciary, and once those decisions have been taken, the manner in which the legislation is interpreted by the courts follows.
I leave the argument at that point. We have a review. Let us stick to simple principles. Let us be sure that we give justice even to suspected terrorists, but not at the expense of the security of the state.
James Brokenshire
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this measured, considered and useful debate on a range of issues relating to combating and preventing terrorism. I, too, would like to put on record my thanks to the police service and the security services for all that they do in keeping us safe, keeping our constituents safe and keeping our country safe.
I will seek to address as many of the points raised as I can in the time available to me. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) for the support that he is giving to the renewal of this order on a temporary basis until the end of this year. I hope, notwithstanding his comments, that he may be minded to support the important measures that we will introduce on TPIMs. We think that those measures are an important step in bringing forward measures that are less intrusive, with more clearly and tightly defined restrictions. I note that the hon. Gentleman sought to have some political fun, but the serious point is that the review of our terrorism and security powers was about trying to do the right thing for our country, for its security and for our civil liberties. The Prime Minister has made it clear that we will not do anything that puts our national security at risk.
The hon. Gentleman made a number of other points. As for the timing, we will try to introduce the replacement legislation at the earliest opportunity, but we want to get the technical issues right; he will appreciate the legal issues. It is therefore important that we make the revised proposals at the appropriate time after that work is concluded. I reiterate what I said in my opening speech: we want to ensure that there is proper scrutiny by this House of the provisions. He will recall that the provisions on control orders were brought forward in an expedited fashion, and perhaps did not receive such scrutiny and investigation. We believe it is important that that should take place.
Jeremy Corbyn
Does that include pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposed Bill?
James Brokenshire
The Bill will be brought forward and scrutinised in the usual way. I think that the hon. Gentleman may be referring to the draft Bill on the enhanced TPIM provisions, which the hon. Member for Bradford South highlighted. When this matter was raised with Baroness Neville-Jones by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, she said that she would take it away and give it further consideration. We are considering it further.
Hon. Members have asked whether the Security Service is content with the outcome of the review. The Security Service played a full role in the review and provided it with all the facts and assessments required. The director general of the Security Service told the Home Secretary that he was content that the replacement measures and mitigations balanced the risk of the abolition of control orders. I note that the Joint Committee sought the publication of a summary of the views of various agencies and organisations. Again, Baroness Neville-Jones undertook to consider whether such a summary could be produced, but noted that some of the contributors to the review would have views on whether they wished all their evidence and views to be made public, and that it would be necessary to consult on that. We are considering that position further in the light of those statements.
I thank the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) for his impassioned and very personal contribution to the debate. Anyone who was here and who listened to it will have felt his comments keenly. The threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism is significant, and it is vital for the UK’s terrorism legislation framework to be capable of dealing with it. Evidence from Northern Ireland was taken account of as part of the review, and the Home Secretary has discussed the review several times with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take security in Northern Ireland extremely seriously. I know that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, who is on the Front Bench, would endorse that view in relation to the work of his Department.
I have been asked about cost. The control orders regime cost the Home Office £12.5 million between 2006 and 2010. We will provide sufficient new money for the Security Service and the police to take the mitigating actions that they have identified as necessary.
Other points have been made about the Joint Committee report published this morning. Quarterly reviews are undertaken of the conduct of individuals who may be subject to control orders, the prospects of prosecution and the prospects of gathering evidence that could be used to prosecute. Those are formally reviewed by the relevant authorities on a quarterly basis. This issue is examined further and followed through in that way. I reiterate that it is our priority to get individuals into court on appropriate charges. That is the commitment that the Government have always made.
Some questions were asked about special advocates. As part of the counter-terrorism review, we received a contribution from the special advocates. On 6 July 2010, as part of the package of measures on detainees, the Prime Minister announced a Green Paper on the use of intelligence in judicial proceedings. This will aim to develop a framework for ensuring full judicial and non-judicial scrutiny of intelligence and wider national security activities in line with the Government’s commitments to individual rights and the rule of law, and to protecting national security properly. The Green Paper will need to include consideration of the key concerns that have been expressed about the operation of the special advocate system. We will ensure that the system remains compatible with human rights. We will consider this matter along with the Committee’s other recommendations, and we will respond formally to its report in due course.
Some questions were raised about the use of intercept as evidence. There is an ongoing programme of work on assessing the likely balance of advantage, cost and risk involved in a legally viable model for the use of intercept as evidence, compared with the present approach. Our intention is to provide a report back to Parliament during the summer.
This has been an important debate. We are replacing the control orders with a new, less intrusive, more focused system of terrorism prevention and investigation measures, but we wish to see a safe and managed transition to the new system. This means that, until the new system is in place, we need to retain the control order powers in order to avoid a gap in protection for the public, which is clearly the primary role of the Government. I therefore hope that the House will support the motion.
Business without Debate
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
delegated legislation
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Youth Inclusion Programme (Bristol)
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
This petition was presented to me after a visit to the Catch 22 project in the Barton Hill area of my constituency, which is the most deprived ward in the city of Bristol, and one of the most deprived wards in the south of England.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Bristol,
Declares that, after nine years of working with the families and young people of East Central Bristol, there is now a real risk that the East Bristol Youth Inclusion Programme will not have its funding renewed; and notes that the Petitioners believe that this cut will have a negative impact, not just on local young people, but also on the wider community.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure that money for preventative work remains ring-fenced, so that young people can be given the necessary support to remain out of the youth justice system, and live fulfilling and empowered lives.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000891]
Trawlermen’s Pensions
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The purpose of the debate is to bring to the attention of the House and the Minister a scandal involving the maladministration of a pension scheme that has left thousands of distant water trawlermen who reached retirement age up to 30 years ago without a penny of the pension to which they contributed, and thousands more unlikely to receive their pension in future. I am pleased to be joined this evening by hon. Members who represent port constituencies, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) and my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell).
I shall set the context. Distant water trawlermen worked in the most arduous and hazardous occupation imaginable, working 18-hour shifts in Arctic waters where temperatures could fall as low as 40° below freezing. In 150 years of distant water trawling from Hull, which was exclusively a distant water port and the biggest in the world, 900 ships were lost at sea—that is six a year—and 6,000 trawlermen were killed. The mortality rate was 14 times higher than in coal mining.
When the industry collapsed as a result of the agreement between Britain and Iceland that ended the so-called cod wars in 1976, a Government Minister, from the Dispatch Box, promised the men compensation, retraining and redeployment. They received nothing. Classified as casual workers, they were thrown on the scrap heap. While the trawler owners were paid millions of pounds in decommissioning grants, not a brass farthing was paid to the trawlermen themselves. That injustice was belatedly rectified by the compensation scheme that the previous Government introduced in 2000, although one aspect of it is still outstanding, and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and I have referred it to the parliamentary ombudsman.
As we worked with the ex-trawlermen to achieve that compensation, a number of them referred to a pension scheme that operated in the industry. Some men over 50 had been allowed to commute their pension to a one-off payment, to alleviate the hardship that they suffered as the industry collapsed, but many men said that they could not remember receiving anything from the scheme, even though they were now well beyond pensionable age.
I ascertained that there was indeed a fishermen’s pension scheme, which had been established on 1 April 1961 by a trust deed made on 19 December 1960 between British Trawlers Federation Ltd and Lowndes Associated Pensions Ltd. The scheme was compulsory for those coming into the industry after the date of its introduction. It was a contributory scheme, with the men originally paying sixpence per sea day and the employer ninepence. I add that that is old pence, as a few Members will not remember the conversion to decimal currency, so those sums were 2.5p and 4p respectively. Contributions to the scheme ceased in 1979, and benefits ceased to accrue. The benefits accrued up to the date of discontinuance were secured by a group deferred annuity contract underwritten by Norwich Union, which is now Aviva. Capital Cranfield became the trustee when it acquired Lowndes in April 2000.
Having established those facts, I wrote to Aviva in 2006 to find out whether any pensions remained unpaid. My impression was that there might be about 100 such cases. By 2007, I had discovered the full horror story of a scheme in which few records had been kept and no efforts had been made to track down the men whose pensions were due. More than 4,500 trawlermen from Hull, Grimsby, Aberdeen, Fleetwood, Milford Haven and North Shields had reached pensionable age from the 1980s onwards without receiving the pension that they were due. About a quarter of them were from Hull.
The reason for that disgraceful maladministration was that the only record kept of members was their surname, initials and date of birth. There was no record of the men’s national insurance numbers, their addresses or any other pertinent information by which they could be traced. There had been no attempt to rectify the situation and nobody in the communities affected was alerted to the problem, least of all the MPs. The unpaid pensions simply remained in the fund while many of the men affected lived out their old age in penury.
Aviva, the insurer, had been paying benefits—or more accurately not paying benefits—without the intervention of the trustees since 1986, at the request of the then trustee, Sedgwick Noble Lowndes, which, as I said, is now part of Capital Cranfield. That in itself seems a strange arrangement and one that neither party should have allowed.
As well as the 4,500 men who had reached pensionable age, there were 8,879 still below 65 with little prospect of receiving their money as they became eligible. Since I wrote to the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Pensions Regulator in January 2007 to alert them to the scandal, a great deal of effort has gone into finding the missing fishermen.
Aviva has worked with local MPs on the Find the Fisherman campaign, which we agreed should run for two years. At the end of that time, in October 2009, Members of Parliament met Aviva and Capital Cranfield to take stock. Aviva, in its briefing note for this debate, talks about unclaimed assets being “common across the industry” and, after setting out details of the Find the Fisherman campaign, states that “some members remain unpaid”.
For “some”, read 6,837. That is the figure that we were given for the men who had not been—and probably never would be—traced at the end of the campaign. That is more than half the scheme membership. Perhaps the Minister will tell me whether he believes that that level of unclaimed assets is at all “common across the industry”.
With my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and my former hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes and for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood, who also attended the meeting with Aviva and Capital Cranfield in October 2009, I put forward proposals that would allow the schemes to be wound up fairly.
First, we would need to agree how to distribute the surplus in the scheme coffers. At that time it was £2 million, although I heard this morning that Capital Cranfield is saying it is £1.3 million. The disparity has yet to be explained to us.
Secondly, provision needs to be made for unidentified beneficiaries who may come forward in future. Thirdly, we sought payment to the 50-odd families for whom payment is disputed. Those are cases in which Aviva says that the money has been paid, usually in the 1980s, but it has no proof of payment and the families are adamant that it was never received.
In that respect, let me explain how the payment system worked as described by the chief executive of Aviva in a letter to one of my constituents:
“When an employer wanted to claim a pension on behalf of one of his employees he would make an application to the Royal National Mission”—
the seaman’s mission—
“who acted as an intermediary and would in turn apply to Norwich Union on behalf of the employer. Norwich Union would verify the details against the policy and authorise a payment to be made to the Mission who would then pay the employer so they are able to pass the money on to the individual fisherman”.
He goes on:
“I appreciate this will appear unnecessarily complex but, rightly or wrongly, this is how payments were settled in the past”.
I think that we would all agree that it was “wrongly”.
A scheme with no national insurance numbers and no addresses relied on trawler owners, who were gradually disappearing as the industry was in terminal decline, to go through the seaman’s mission—which incidentally informed Norwich Union, as it was then, 12 years ago that it did not have the resources to undertake this work—to give cheques to men who in the main did not have bank accounts.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
From my knowledge of the fishing industry and how it works, I would say that sometimes fishing organisations that represent the people have a record of their membership. I am sure that that has been checked, but if not, it may be a method, even at this late stage, of getting a wee bit more information.
Alan Johnson
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion. He is right—records are kept. We have looked at all those possible avenues, including the DWP’s tracing arrangements and the former Department of Trade and Industry’s records of trawlermen. We have exhausted every avenue to try to find those men.
Perhaps the Minister will understand why we say, given the convoluted way in which the payments were made, that the benefit of considerable doubt in disputed cases should rest with the men and their families.
Our final proposal concerns recompense. We feel strongly that some compensation should be paid to the men and/or their communities for the appalling way in which the scheme has been administered.
The trustees and the insurers had a financial and moral responsibility to scheme members, which they failed to fulfil. The way this scheme operated would have shamed an office sweepstake organiser. The fact that the men whose interests they should have safeguarded did one of the most difficult and dangerous jobs imaginable, and in the main spent their old age scraping for every penny while money that could have eased their plight was never paid to them, adds to the sense of injustice within those proud communities.
Since October 2009, we have been fortunate to have the services of a pensions expert from Thompsons solicitors working pro bono on our behalf to try to bring the arrangements discussed then to a successful conclusion. Seventeen months later, there has been little progress, and no further approaches to the port MPs by Aviva or Capital Cranfield to resolve the outstanding issues.
In the absence of any ex-trawlermen or anyone from the affected communities among the trustees, I believe it is incumbent on Aviva-Capital Cranfield to seek the approval of the port MPs for the final arrangements to wind up these schemes. Perhaps the Minister will tell us to whom those are companies answerable. I understand that they are proposing to agree their own fees for the wind up—the money will come from the scheme. There must surely be some external oversight of those arrangements.
The port MPs wish to meet the Minister to explore the issues surrounding that scheme and smaller associated schemes in more detail, and we think that it would be beneficial to have the Pensions Regulator present. Surely he must have a role in ensuring that the schemes are wound up in an orderly and timely fashion, with the interests of the members properly protected.
We seek from the Minister nothing beyond his understanding of how badly this scheme has been administered and his assistance in bringing this long saga to a conclusion that is acceptable to port MPs, as virtually the only remaining representatives of those fishing communities. We seek no public money and no taxpayer contributions.
Finally, I ask the House to imagine the outcry there would be if thousands of bankers, civil servants, or even former MPs had been treated in such a way. That would be a huge story that we would be following regularly in the national media. This has been an almost silent scandal, but this evening’s debate will, I hope, bring it to the attention of a wider audience in the quest for justice for communities who contributed so much, sacrificed so many and yet were treated so abysmally.
Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) on securing this debate and on the fight he has put up, and indeed initiated, on behalf of the fishermen. Icelandic fishing finished in 1976, and the middle water fishing that went out of Grimsby finished in the ’80s with the laying up of the cat class British United Trawlers vessels, and the industry has been in abeyance as a powerful force since. It is a tragedy and a scandal that this matter has not been cleared up, so many years after the death of the distant water fishing industry. We are also still fighting for compensation for fishermen who did not receive it under the two schemes operated by the Labour Government.
The fact is that the pension scheme was appalling. It was badly administered and badly run, and the fishermen were treated with total contempt by the owners. The owners had to set up a scheme, but set up the meanest scheme possible. It was run inadequately first of all by Lowndes, which became Noble Lowndes. It then passed in a series of shuffles to General Accident, and finished up with Norwich Union, which promptly changed its name to Aviva.
My attempts to grapple with the problem began in the early ’80s. Some people were allowed to withdraw their pensions, but some were refused. I took up some of the more difficult cases with the Office for Pensions Administration, which investigated the scheme and found that the records were in an appalling state. The company did not know to whom it was due to pay pensions. It had no records of their addresses or dependants, and it made no attempt to contact them to say that there was money to be collected on their behalf. It was not until pressure was brought to bear by my right hon. Friend, working with the fishing port MPs, that we got a response. To be fair, Norwich Union, and subsequently Aviva, has done its best to contact those concerned, working with the mission and the port MPs, and putting adverts in local papers. A large number of people have come forward to make claims, but, as my right hon. Friend has said, there remains a substantial number who have not been found who are still owed money—substantial sums in some cases; small sums in most cases—by the scheme.
The time has come for the scheme to be wound up and for the Minister to exercise whatever power he has. It is time for the company, working with the fishing port MPs, to wind up the scheme. We have decided that the money could best be paid to fishing charities, to support fishing families in desperate need. That would be a fair use of it. However, after all this time, the company owes us the decency of adding a substantial sum in compensation to the sums already in scheme to be wound up, because here we are, after 34 years, still arguing for justice for the fisherman. That could have happened to no other section of our society. It is appalling that we have to do this, but let us now get it done. Let us get this monstrous scheme wound up.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
It is common courtesy, simply as a matter of routine, to congratulate the Member who has secured a debate, but in this case I sincerely congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), because he has a track record of campaigning on this issue over a number of years. I looked at some of the articles on his website, and I recognise that he and other right hon. and hon. Members have done an important service to their constituents and the trawlermen. He spoke powerfully and evocatively about the lives that they led and their quite proper demand for justice.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for that work and for, as he said, giving a voice to what has to some extent been a silent campaign. I must admit that when the titled “Trawlermen’s pensions” came out of the hat, I raised an eyebrow and wondered what the subject was. As I have read up on the issue and as my officials have provided me with briefings, I have been quite startled by, as has been said, the shoddy record keeping of the various schemes right from the beginning. It seems incredible to think that a pension scheme could have just a name, an initial and a date of birth—for example, “Smith, J., 1920”, or whatever. It just seems hopeless.
It was clearly a different world back then. We did not have the Pensions Regulator, a pensions ombudsman, the Pensions Advisory Service or the pension tracing service. A lot of those institutions have come about partly to ensure that such situations do not arise again. I want to talk predominantly about the trawlermen and their situation this evening, but I should also say that good record keeping in company pension schemes has not completely gone away as an issue. Even this year, the regulator has been doing more work to ensure that schemes keep proper records. I would like to use this opportunity to reiterate the vital importance both of schemes keeping proper records—something that the trawlermen’s case demonstrates—and, if records are not in order, of doing something now to put them in order to avoid a recurrence of anything similar.
Let me draw together where we are now and where we go from here. I recognise that in the limited time available I might not be able to cover all the detail that I would like to, so let me say that I would be more than happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to discuss how we might take matters further, although I do have an update for him of where we have progressed things in the interim.
We are talking about five schemes, all of which are now administered by Aviva. One confusing aspect of this situation is that the schemes have traded under different names at different times. The principal scheme is the fishermen’s pension scheme, which had around £1.3 million of assets as of June 2010, as the right hon. Gentleman said—obviously these things fluctuate—and around 4,800 remaining members, but there are four others: the Fleetwood fishermen’s scheme, the Scottish trawler fishermen’s pension scheme, the Fairtry pension scheme and the Hull fish merchants’ pension scheme. The right hon. Gentleman talked about tuppence-ha’penny and fourpence going in, but what is unusual about those schemes is that, essentially, the amounts coming from them are in many cases not pensions at all, but lump sums of, say, £300 or £400. This leads to confusion about where some of the money has gone. If someone was told that they were paid a pension but they said that they were not, it would be obvious and easy to decide, but on the whole we are talking not about pensions but about a right to a small amount relative to a lifetime of pension receipt. In the past, those amounts were often paid as lump sums.
Alan Johnson
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for agreeing to a meeting. The amounts involved average £600, and, as with any average, many of the amounts are higher. The people involved did not have bank accounts, and when the battle rages about disputed payments—there are about 53 cases—it is important to recognise that fact. One of my constituents, unusually, had a bank account in the 1980s and he was able absolutely to prove his case. Aviva said it had sent the money via the seaman’s mission and the employer so that it eventually ended with him, but he was able to prove from his bank account that the money had not arrived. In the one case where there is any proof, we can see that it clearly supported the side of the trawlermen and their families. That is why we say that people should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Steve Webb
One issue that I know has been suggested to the right hon. Gentleman in the past, but as far as I am aware has not so far been taken up—he will correct me if I am wrong—is how far the pensions ombudsman could be used for this purpose. There are issues of cases being out of time, but it might be worth considering whether the pensions ombudsman can provide a route to resolve some of the disputed cases. It is an issue that we could discuss further.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) stressed the need to wind the schemes up as soon as possible. One problem has been the absence of trustees and the difficulty of tracking people down. I asked my officials to speak to the Pensions Regulator on that very subject. As the former Secretary of State will know, the regulator is operationally independent of the Department and therefore cannot be told what to do by me, although I am sure that he is doing his best for the trawlermen.
We spoke to the Pensions Regulator’s office today to find out the latest information and to try to ensure that things move forward as quickly as possible. The regulator confirmed that he expects Capital Cranfield to be appointed to the other three schemes where it is not already the trustee. I understand that the appointments are imminent. Capital Cranfield will be in a position to resolve issues quickly, and I certainly hope that it will do so.
I should add, given that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby asked about costs and charges, that Capital Cranfield has confirmed that it is willing to take on the trusteeship of the additional schemes at no charge. The regulator is taking all urgent steps to get the trustees in place quickly—within weeks. I hope that getting those trustees in place and getting the schemes dealt with by a single trustee will represent an important step forward. My impression from the briefing provided by Capital Cranfield is that the lessons learned from the biggest scheme can be applied quickly across all schemes to bring these matters to a satisfactory conclusion.
The decision about what should happen to the balance of the funds is important. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this issue is governed by a number of factors—fundamentally, trust law and tax law. There are formidable barriers to taking money from a pension fund under trust law for which tax relief and so forth is given. There is quite a web—if you will pardon the phrase, Mr Speaker—of complex legislation surrounding the use of that money for an entirely laudable purpose, but one that is different from the trust’s original purpose. I believe that Capital Cranfield has looked at that option and I know that the right hon. Gentleman is in dialogue with it. I would be happy to discuss it further with him when we meet, but I place on record the fact that there is a significant barrier to that approach.
Very much prompted by the right hon. Gentleman’s efforts, Aviva undertook the Find a Fisherman exercise. I understand that one further exercise is being undertaken to try to track down those who might not have made claims. This uses a service known as Assets Reunited and it is used to track down any people not already found. It is a dwindling exercise, but I am pleased to hear that this ongoing effort is being made.
The right hon. Gentleman asked to whom the companies involved are answerable. There is a sequence. They are answerable initially to the members of the scheme, who have some representation—typically they are represented by the trustees, although the position varies—and are then answerable to the regulator. The regulator is becoming very involved, and I welcome the work that it has already done. In the event of maladministration, that is where the pensions ombudsman comes in. I should be happy to discuss with Opposition Members the scope for involving the ombudsman, particularly in the disputed cases.
I understand that the overall sum that we are discussing is about £1.7 million across the five schemes, and, as we have heard, there are between 6,500 and 7,000 untraced members. Given that the record keeping was so poor, it is not surprising—although entirely to be condemned—that it has been impossible to trace half the members involved. It is reasonable to assume that, thanks to the efforts of the Pensions Regulator to improve record keeping, the failure to find members will not be repeated on the same scale. As I have said, the problem does not occur as much in large, well-run schemes, but one of the features of pension funds is a very long tail. In many very small schemes record keeping may not be particularly good, and problems not dissimilar to this may well have arisen in other schemes. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, over a period the assets of the schemes and member records have passed through various companies owing to corporate amalgamations and acquisitions, which has increased the difficulty of tracking people down and finding out what has happened to the money.
Capital Cranfield has expressed the hope that matters will be pretty close to resolution by, certainly, the end of this year. I know that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle has been involved in the issue for about four years, but these schemes were set up 50 years ago, and it has been a long saga. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the sooner we can resolve the matter and convey the money to the people who should have it, the better.
There is also the question of the balance of the fund. I shall leave aside for the moment the idea of an alternative charitable or other use. In the normal sequence of events, part of the balance would be used to buy a deferred annuity for any deferred member who might no longer be a trawlerman—presumably that applies to pretty much all of them now—and who had not yet reached pension age within the scheme: in other words, to buy a product that would match the pension promise made to that scheme member. That would be the first call on the funds, but a second possibility would be the purchase of an insurance policy. If new members turned up after the scheme had been wound up, the policy would pay out and they could also make a claim.
If, after all that, there was a surplus in the fund, it would be a matter for the trustees and the administrators to consider how the money is allocated. I understand that the most straightforward option available—although it is a matter for them, not for me—is to allocate the money to the people who are still members of the scheme. One of the questions that I have asked when we have discussed the matter in the Department is whether it would be possible to pay it to the people who had received the lump sum some years ago, but in many cases that money was paid and those people cannot be traced.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle on raising an important issue of injustice. I am happy to commit myself to working with him and with the Pensions Regulator to try to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
As the Member who secured the first debate, on women in business, is not present, I am afraid that I have no alternative but to suspend the sitting until 11 am.
Sitting suspended.
St David’s Day
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to debate the designation of St David’s day as a public holiday. It is also a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and to belatedly wish everybody a happy St David’s day, or dydd gwyl Dewi hapus.
There have been many mentions of a St David’s day public holiday over the years, but this is the first time in my five years in this place that we have had a debate, albeit a short one, devoted wholly to the subject. This year, I hope that the celebrations in Wales will be much bigger. We celebrated St David’s day yesterday, but we will also vote tomorrow on whether the Assembly should be granted extended law-making powers, and it would be an added cause for celebration this week if, as I hope, we achieve a yes vote.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
On that very point, and on the eve of an historic referendum that could give the Welsh Assembly defining legislative powers, does my hon. Friend think that it would be good for the organisation of public holidays in Wales to be within the competence of the Welsh Assembly Government?
Mr Mark Williams
My hon. Friend pre-empts my next line. Even with those powers—assuming we are successful in the referendum—the Welsh Assembly Government would be unable to designate St David’s day as a public holiday without the approval of the Westminster Government. A positive response by the Minister today could form part of a memorable Welsh treble, even if the triple crown will, sadly, remain elusive this year.
St David, or Dewi Sant, was renowned for his inspirational qualities as a monk, abbot and bishop. He is renowned for his achievements in spreading Christianity throughout western Britain and among the pagan Celtic tribes that resided there. He was the archbishop of Wales, and his fundamental importance to the establishment of religion in Wales cannot be underestimated. Colleagues in the Chamber will know that and they will understand that those traditions are as important in their constituencies as they are in mine.
St David had particular links with my constituency. He was the grandson of King Ceredig, the founder of Ceredigion. Dewi’s mother, Non—herself reputedly related to King Arthur—was born in the village of Llanon in my constituency and, indeed, gives her name to that village, whose name literally means “parish of Non”. St David was educated at the Henfynyw monastery near the newer village of Ffos-y-ffin, in the middle of Ceredigion.
St David’s day is already an extremely popular occasion for those inside and outside Wales. Yesterday, we had a fantastic service a few paces from this Chamber, and it was good to see the Speaker, the Secretary of State and all the political parties there honouring St David. It was especially good to see the children of the London Welsh school, who, through their dress and their singing for us, showed how vibrant our traditions are. Back home, there were eisteddfodau, a gymanfa ganu and a range of celebratory dinners. There was the legendary cawl. Even Google paid its tribute to Wales’s patron saint. However, we could and should make more of the opportunities with which St David’s day presents us.
I should congratulate the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on designating St George’s day as a public holiday before Christmas. In the debate on his Bill, he mentioned the case for a St. David’s day public day. I am not pushing the case for a St George’s day public holiday, although I am sure there is much support for that in England. My key concern is that a St David’s day public holiday should be a matter for the Welsh Assembly. It is a matter for Wales, it affects Wales uniquely and the decision should rest with the National Assembly.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Has the hon. Gentleman given any thought to border constituencies such as mine? Many of my constituents live in Flintshire, but work for the police, the local council and other agencies in Chester. Many people on the English side of the border, where there is a similar crossover, work in my constituency at the Airbus plant and other plants. What consideration has the hon. Gentleman given to that issue? It should be considered by this Parliament and, potentially, the Assembly.
Mr Mark Williams
I understand that point. Although the balance would still be in favour of the National Assembly making the decision, I well understand that transition and flow of people as someone who used to teach in the borders in Powys. Such things mean that people across the border in England are very interested in St David’s day and want to participate in the activities that I mentioned.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I warmly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing time for the debate. Following on from what he said, I should say that I have been a Member for nearly 20 years, and a St David’s day holiday has been argued for more or less every other year. If the issue remains within Westminster’s powers, nothing will happen. However, things are moving, and the Welsh Assembly should make the decision. This is a matter of great pride. Dewi Sant said that we should be careful to address the small things, but we are not necessarily talking about a small thing; indeed, it is a matter of national pride. Indeed, we are holding this meeting across the way from the Supreme Court, where y ddraig goch was flying for the first time yesterday. The hon. Gentleman is right: this is a timely debate, and I wish him well with his efforts.
Mr Mark Williams
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. The important message that will, I hope, be heard—certainly in the National Assembly—is that there is wide cross-party support on this issue. As I will explain, all four parties passed a unanimous motion within a year of the National Assembly’s creation calling for a public holiday on St David’s day.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I understand his arguments about the Assembly making the decision, but I represent a constituency that is very dependent on tourism, and businesses there have expressed concern that a bank holiday that is not coterminous with those in, for example, the north-west of England, where so many of our tourists come from, would not give us the economic boost that some of those arguing for this proposal claim it would. That is one of my concerns about a decision being made without any reference to decisions in England.
Mr Mark Williams
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I will come on to some of the concerns that have been raised. I just cite the Welsh Tourism Alliance—I am sure it has as much of an interest in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency as it does in many other constituencies in Wales—which supports this move and sees huge opportunities for tourism in particular.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), is the hon. Gentleman arguing that St David’s day should be an additional public holiday or that it should replace an existing public holiday?
Mr Mark Williams
The Minister will have the chance to reply to my speech in a minute. However, I would point out that this country compares very favourably with others in the world when it comes to public holidays. We have eight public holidays, which is on a par with Australia and the Netherlands. I appreciate the sensitivities about this issue, and there is added sensitivity this year, of course, because of the welcome news of the royal engagement, which means that there will be a public holiday on the Friday, with another the following Monday. However, my cause in this debate is to argue the case for the National Assembly to make a decision about St David’s day on the basis of a full consultation—the precedent was set in Scotland—on the issues and the concerns of business people. The decision should reside with the National Assembly.
There is also considerable public support. BBC Wales commissioned a survey for St David’s day in 2006, which found that 87% of respondents supported the idea of a public holiday for St David’s day, which is perhaps not a surprise. I acknowledge that concern has been expressed by some parts of the business community, but there is generally a good deal of support for this proposal.
As I said, there was a unanimous vote in the early days of the Assembly in 2000 for St David’s day to be a public holiday in Wales, reflecting support for the proposal. Unfortunately, that proposal was not taken forward, and it was explicitly rejected in 2000 by the then Labour Government, who ruled out introducing it unless it was explicitly supported by business. That was disappointing, but, as a result of this debate, I hope that the Government will be willing to discuss the matter with Welsh Ministers in a reasonable manner—something the Minister always does in these debates—and in the spirit of the respect agenda that they rightly hold as their overriding principle in their dealings with the devolved Administrations. I hope that the outcome of the debate will be that the door is open for the Assembly—perhaps the new Assembly after the elections in May—to engage in dialogue with the Westminster Government on this matter and, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) said, advance it for next year.
There are some good precedents and the Scottish Government have made St David’s day a public holiday. [Hon. Members: “St. Andrew’s day.”] I am sorry; they have made St Andrew’s Day a public holiday, passing legislation after detailed consultation. However, banks are not required to close and employees are not entitled to the day off, but rather companies can choose whether or not to observe the public holiday, which is either on the day itself or the following Monday if it falls on a weekend. There have recently been calls in the Scottish Parliament for more public bodies and organisations to recognise the holiday, and it seems to have been a popular move but, critically, the debate is happening in Scotland. When the original proposal was made by the MSP Dennis Canavan, his consultation indicated 85% support from the public.
The Scottish Government took a very detailed look at the economic costs and benefits, the level of support from the public and the relationship between holidays and employment and productivity. I am loth as a devolutionist to give advice to the Welsh Assembly Government, but I hope that they would, if given the power to decide on the matter, examine the Scottish model closely, building on the considerable work that has already been done to consider the advantages and disadvantages of a public holiday.
St Patrick’s day became a public holiday in Ireland in 1903. It was granted by an Act of Parliament introduced by the Irish MP James O’Mara. St Patrick’s day remains perhaps the best example of a country using a public holiday to its advantage. It has built Ireland’s profile throughout the world, encouraged many more visitors, and provided a significant boost to the Irish economy. The St Patrick’s festival alone was estimated to have contributed €50.5 million to the Irish economy in 2010, €43.7 million of which came from overseas visitors. I do not necessarily claim that a St David’s day holiday would lead to similar encouraging revenues as St Patrick’s Day, but there are relatively few opportunities for a small country to publicise itself. A national St David’s Day and the boost from a public holiday would really help to put Wales on the map, particularly in the tourism sector to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) alluded in an intervention. It would also be an opportunity for a more prominent celebration for the Welsh diaspora which, although not as vocal as the global Irish community, is well established across the world. Anything that makes people look at their roots and ancestry, and perhaps even plan a visit to their homeland with their wallets, would be encouraging and welcome.
I understand the concerns of some in the business community. I do not mean the one-man bands, but what one of my constituents called the two or three-man and woman bands—the businesses that dominate much of rural Wales. It is vital to take into account the views of the business community, and I would expect the Welsh Assembly Government to consult the business community and work out the best way to advance the proposal. Even with established bank holidays, there is no automatic right to time off, and businesses can, if they wish, include bank holidays within the statutory holiday allowance. The Scottish Government have set up St Andrew’s day as a voluntary public holiday, with many businesses choosing to observe it as a holiday. I should like us to consider the Scottish model, but it is a matter for the National Assembly.
I want to stress the positive benefits that a St David’s day holiday would bring to Wales and the Welsh economy. The Wales Tourism Alliance supports the idea and has highlighted the benefits: a day when we can show off our culture, heritage and language, among other facets of the country, would be an important shop window for Wales and an encouragement to tourism operatives. As well as the obvious benefits to be gained for tourism from a St David’s day public holiday, it would be an opportunity to showcase Welsh products. To take the food sector as an example, when I became an MP I was able to initiate a Welsh cheese week at Westminster. It might sound like a small thing, but we have excellent cheese producers in rural Wales. We ensured that two cheeses from Ceredigion, Gorwydd Caerphilly and Celtic Promise, were served in this place. The initiative attracted some publicity for the excellence of the products. The following year, the cheeses returned and were joined by Golden Valley ale from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams). I do not know how much of a direct impact that had, but the promotion of excellent Welsh produce is crucial, and a St David’s day public holiday is another opportunity to promote Wales at its best.
For all the concern about the impact of public holidays on the economy—and I respect those concerns—we still have, with eight public holidays, among the fewest of any country in the world. We are level with Australia and the Netherlands and have half the number in Japan and India. In the past, some have suggested that there is a link between a high number of public holidays and a high unemployment rate. The Scottish Parliament information centre did research and looked into those claims during the consultation on St Andrew’s day, and found no obvious correlation between unemployment and the number of public holidays that a country has within the EU.
I hope that the Minister can provide a positive response and that he will argue that the decision should rest with the National Assembly, which would be right. I hope at the very least he will adopt an open-door policy for discussion of the matter with colleagues in the National Assembly, so that we can finally move forward with the decision on whether St David’s Day should be a public holiday in Wales. I will certainly support the campaign.
I shall finish with Dewi Sant’s last words to his followers in a sermon given on the Sunday before he died. Rhygyfarch translates them as
“Be joyful, and keep your faith and your creed.”
As the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, who is familiar with the quotation, as many people are, said, the passage continues:
“Do the little things that you have seen me do and heard about. I will walk the path that our fathers have trod before us.”
“Do the little things” or “Gwnewch y pethau bychain” has become a well-known phrase in Welsh, and I hope that the Minister can give us an indication that he plans to do what I consider is a little thing: offering the Welsh Assembly the opportunity to designate St David’s Day as a public holiday. It would be a little thing but would have huge significance back home and bring huge opportunities for the future of Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on securing the debate, and on very nearly securing it on St David’s day itself, missing by only 24 hours.
My hon. Friend is of course entirely right: St David’s day is hugely important to the people of Wales. He was also right to stress the importance of children in the event, because St David’s day would be nothing without them. All of us who were brought up in Wales will know what a magical day it is for schoolchildren and I am sure we all participated in school eisteddfodau. I remember learning, as a small boy, “Y Cudyll Coch” by I. D. Hooson, and reciting it—to no great success: nevertheless, recite it I did. Right across Wales St David’s day is recognised, and as my hon. Friend said it is not only the focus of school eisteddfods but the occasion for celebratory dinners. Indeed, it is already a day on which there is much celebration, when the Welsh people celebrate their unique culture, language and way of life.
Recognising as I do the importance of St David’s day, it is somewhat sad for me to have to strike the cautionary tone that I think my hon. Friend expected when he made his impassioned speech. My caution is of course that a public holiday on St David’s day, attractive as it would no doubt be, nevertheless would not be without any cost at all. In fact, there would be a considerable economic cost. In the current straitened economic climate, responsible Governments need to bear that in mind.
Guto Bebb
The economic point is important, but there would also be a cost for the social impact of St David’s day in schools and so on. Not every child in Wales gets the opportunity to celebrate St David’s day at home, whereas almost every child invariably gets the opportunity to celebrate our patron saint in schools and at concerts. Parents take great pride in preparing their children. Between us, my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) and I have nine children, and I am sure that his four children and my five all celebrated St David’s day at school yesterday. I believe that there would be a cost if that was lost to communities in Wales.
Mr David Jones
My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I said earlier, children and St David’s day go hand in hand. School eisteddfods are tremendously important to the culture of Wales, and the St David’s day eisteddfods are a well-established tradition that I would not wish to see disturbed.
Mr Mark Williams
On the back of the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy, my four children will be taking part in our school eisteddfod, in ysgol Craig yr Wylfa, but that will be on Friday morning. It is not necessary to hold school eisteddfods on the day itself. Such school events are critical to the future of St David’s day, and they will happen regardless of whether it is a public holiday.
Mr David Jones
My hon. Friend makes a fair point. As I said earlier, St David’s day itself is a magical day in Wales, and the eisteddfods held on St David’s day are equally magical. I, for one, would be rather sad to see the magic of the day lost. However, as my hon. Friend said, it is a matter upon which Parliament will shortly be able to vote, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) is promoting a private Member’s Bill that would create bank holidays on St David’s day and St George’s day. That Bill received its First Reading on 15 December and will have its Second Reading on 13 May. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion will participate in that debate. The Government will make their position on that Bill known in due course.
I return to more hard-headed matters and the unfortunate subject of cost. Bank holidays have an economic impact. A bank holiday across the country would cost in the region of £3 billion in lost wages, on the basis that everyone would be paid for an extra day’s work. Pro rata, the cost in Wales would be £138 million. Of course, we cannot take Wales in isolation because, as the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) pointed out, it will have an impact across the border. That is another factor that will have to be taken into consideration. Frankly, the right hon. Gentleman was entirely right to say that having a bank holiday on St David’s day should be a matter for the House.
Mr David Jones
The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right. For that reason if for no other, it is a matter that properly resides with Parliament.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion made mention of tourism. The Government have received a number of calls from the tourism industry to consider spreading the United Kingdom’s bank holidays across the year. Evidence shows that when the Easter holiday falls close to the May day bank holiday, as it does this year, it does not promote the even spread of tourism across the calendar. This year is somewhat unusual because we also have a special bank holiday for the royal wedding. The Government have given those representations careful consideration, and I am sure that the House will be interested to hear that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is working on a new UK-wide tourism strategy, which is likely to include a proposal to consult on moving the May day bank holiday to another point in the year.
I asked the hon. Gentleman whether it was his vision to have an additional bank holiday or whether an existing bank holiday should be moved. If an existing bank holiday was to be moved, we suggest that it would be appropriate to move the early May bank holiday. That would not create a new bank holiday, but there will be consultation on whether it should be moved—for example, to St David’s day. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that there had been representations from groups within the Welsh Assembly that St David’s day should be a bank holiday. That would be an excellent opportunity for those groups and others such as the Welsh Tourism Alliance to make representations to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Roger Williams
The Minister puts great emphasis on the economic considerations that need to be taken into account. In weighing those considerations, would it not be good also to weigh the spiritual consideration that it would be a good time for the nation to contemplate the life of our great saint? That might lead to greater individual benefits in the longer term rather than economic ones in the short term.
Mr David Jones
My hon. Friend makes an interesting argument, and he can put it forward during the DCMS consultation. I am sure that the Department will listen carefully to his spiritual arguments. The Government are not closing their mind to a holiday on St David’s day.
Mr Mark Williams
I welcome the tone of what the Minister says. Although many people will be baffled that the Welsh Assembly is not in a position to make the decision, the encouraging news that the consultation is to take place, and the expectation that the Welsh Assembly Government will participate in it, is most welcome.
Mr David Jones
I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes my remarks. Perhaps we have achieved something this morning.
My hon. Friend spoke of the life of St David. It is probably fair for me to conclude by pointing out that St David was noted for his ascetic life. It is said that he was sustained by a simple diet of bread and herbs and drank nothing but water—hence his being called Dewi Ddyfrwr, or David the water drinker. He is also reputed to have been in the habit of standing neck-deep in cold water, reciting from the scriptures. It is most unlikely that St David ever took a day’s holiday.
Child Slavery
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Hood. It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship today. I rise to speak on this subject in the reassuring knowledge that on the general thrust of this debate, it is more than likely for the most part that party political differences will be set to one side. I say that not out of any sense of presumption but from my own experiences as a Member of this House and from the united opposition to the obscenity that is child slavery. We may differ in our responses to particular examples, but right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House have a shared abhorrence of the ongoing present-day shame and nightmare of child slavery.
Recently, Save the Children UK reaffirmed the figures of the International Labour Organisation, which revealed that across the globe, something like 218 million children between the ages of five and 17 are working as child labourers or are in child slavery. 126 million of those children are involved in hazardous work. About 8.4 million are trapped in the very worst forms of illegal, degrading and dangerous work. That equates to the horrifying statistic that in the least developed countries, 30% of children are engaged in child labour in some shape or form. In sub-Saharan Africa, there are some 49 million children involved in this activity.
It is further estimated that some 1.2 million children, both boys and girls, are trafficked every year and exploited as workers in agriculture, mining, factories, armed conflict and the sex industry. Those children are modern-day slaves, and the numbers are greater than when the old historical slave trade was at its height. Their sufferings are no less wrong, and the injustice inflicted upon them is no less real than those that were endured by slaves in a bygone era.
I want to consider three main issues: forced marriage, which is a form of slavery for children as young as 10 and 12; the trafficking of children for sexual exploitation; and forced labour and the economic exploitation of children. When we consider the issue of forced marriages, it is worth remarking that the previous Government tightened up the situation, which is to be welcomed. However, the then shadow Minister, Baroness Warsi, had this to say in relation to the new laws:
“The onus to go for a civil protection order is actually on the victim of the forced marriage or somebody close to them. I know from speaking to victims of forced marriages that, when they’re in those circumstances, the last thing on their mind or the last thing that they’re able to do, is go to court and seek an order.”
Hon. Members will no doubt be familiar with the fact that between April 2009 and March 2010, the British high commission’s assistance unit in Islamabad dealt with 121 cases of forced marriages, and there were 124 cases previous to that. In August 2008, 22 new cases were taken on by the unit—equivalent to one every working day of that month. In reference to those figures, Baroness Warsi said:
“Forced marriage ruins lives. It can lead to rape, abuse, and unwanted pregnancies. This is a serious problem, and these figures are just the tip of the iceberg. Forced marriages have no place in Britain today. The Government’s current approach is clearly failing vulnerable people who need our help. It is now time for the Government to consider making forced marriage a criminal offence.”
I am sure that many hon. Members will also be aware of the story of 14-year-old Jasvinder Sanghera who was shown a photograph of a random man and told that she was going to marry him. She ran away from home. When she rang to say that she was safe, she was given an ultimatum: either marry the man in the photograph or, because she had “shamed” the family, she would be dead in their eyes.
Later, she heard that one of her sisters was brought to such depths of pain and despair by her own forced marriage that she set fire to herself and died in hospital from 80% burns. I have no doubt that hon. Members will know of the letter that the then leader of the Opposition and now Prime Minister sent Jasvinder in which he said:
“As a country, I believe that we are half-asleep to these issues.”
I am sure that many hon. Members will share my concern about the recent report in The Times on 2 February that stated that of the 254 protection orders issued, only five families have been brought back to court for breaching the order and there have been no convictions.
In the same report, Nazir Afzal of the Crown Prosecution Service said:
“You are easily looking at 10,000 forced marriages or threats a year. I keep asking myself how many unmarked graves are there where people are not even reporting that their child is missing.”
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I commend my hon. Friend on the timeliness and importance of his debate. He is touching on the sheer volume of the problem and the lack of prosecutions. Does he agree with me that while we all share the outrage and anger at the prevalence of this activity, what we need to see is more activity in trying to bring those responsible, particularly those engaged in trafficking, before the courts to be convicted?
David Simpson
I agree with my hon. Friend. He has hit the nail right on the head; we need convictions. People involved in this—we may not be able to do this within the law—should be locked up and the key thrown away. I am sure that all Members will agree that forced marriages and slavery are horrific crimes.
The Times also quoted a police officer who called for this crime to be made an aggravated offence, which would hand the courts power to pass enhanced sentences. I have already mentioned the comments made by Baroness Warsi in relation to the whole matter of forced marriage and the new laws introduced by the previous Labour Government. At that time, she also made a commitment that the Conservative party would make forced marriage illegal. Given the current situation, I would suggest that the time has come to change forced marriage from a civil offence to a criminal offence.
When he was in opposition, the Prime Minister promised that that was a step that he would take. Baroness Warsi also made that commitment on behalf of what is now the senior partner in the coalition Government. I encourage the coalition Government to go that extra mile now and stop this form of child slavery. The trafficking of children for sexual exploitation is shameful. It is estimated that about 100,000 to 500,000 people are trafficked into Europe on an annual basis.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I also remind him that I have to attend a Committee this afternoon, so if I slip away shortly it is not because I am not interested in this debate.
When my hon. Friend looks around the devolved jurisdictions that now exist in the United Kingdom, does he think that they are doing anything on top of what our national Government are doing to address the slave trade? The slave trade is not a 21st century phenomenon. It has existed for many centuries, and sometimes expertise and other help is needed to address it.
David Simpson
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and he is right. During the debate that we had some time ago in the House on slavery, the issue of the devolved jurisdictions was raised. I think that slavery has been discussed in the regional Parliaments and I know that the Northern Ireland Assembly unanimously agreed that something should be done about people trafficking. However, although we say that something should be done about it, we need to see tangible evidence that something is being done. Words are fine—they are nice on paper—but we need to see evidence that something is being done for these children.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I add my commendations on the fact that my hon. Friend has brought this important subject to Westminster Hall. As for what can be done about trafficking, is it not the case that something could be done in Europe through the European directive on trafficking? Does he agree that there are concerns about why the United Kingdom has not gone further in relation to that particular issue and sits outside that directive?
David Simpson
I agree with my right hon. Friend. He is 100% right. Britain should play a stronger role on this issue, and perhaps later in my speech I will address that point. It is important that Britain take the lead on this issue, because slavery is such an horrific crime.
The US Department of State has estimated that up to 800,000 people are trafficked across borders worldwide. Most of them are women and children who are trafficked for sexual purposes. That figure does not include people trafficked within individual countries.
Concerns about the trafficking of children and young people for sexual purposes in the United Kingdom have been raised for some time. I commend the work of ECPAT, which is a very good organisation. Its full name is “End Child Prostitution Child Pornography and the Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes”. In its October 2010 report, “Child trafficking in the UK: a snapshot”, it made 10 recommendations. They range from establishing a Government rapporteur on trafficking to the issue of departmental responsibility for safeguarding the child victims of trafficking. They also include very practical recommendations such as the appointment of
“a designated lead manager on child trafficking…in every local authority”,
the provision of
“safe accommodation for all child victims of trafficking”,
and the creation of
“a system of guardianship for child victims of trafficking. Such a system would mean that every child victim of trafficking would have someone with parental responsibility”.
I am sure that the Minister is well aware of those recommendations and I ask him to give us an update on what the Government are doing with regard to them.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this timely debate. He has already given statistics about the exploitation of children, including statistics about forced marriage and sexual exploitation. I am sure that he will agree that, although the statistics themselves are horrifying, it must be remembered that behind each of them there is a horrifying experience. It has been reported that children as young as five are being bought and sold on the streets within the United Kingdom for £16,000.
David Simpson
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I agree 100% with him. We need to have convictions. There must be a willingness from the Government’s point of view to do something about this issue. If there is a will within the Government to do something about it, we will see results and then convictions will come afterwards. That is why it is important that we listen when the Minister responds to the debate. Hopefully, some glimmer of light and hope will emerge.
Investigations by children’s charities have identified sexual trafficking not only through the United Kingdom to other destinations but to the United Kingdom itself, with children and young people ending up as sex workers in brothels in various parts of the country. That seems to be a very strong statement when we are talking about the United Kingdom—this United Kingdom, the modern United Kingdom, which emphasises its work skills, its technology and everything that goes with that. We are out there to market ourselves to the wider world and we have a situation today where children as young as five or six are being sold on the streets of England for £16,000. That is the evidence from the research papers that I have been given—I did not make it up. It is abhorrent that that should happen in any country.
UNICEF is a reputable organisation. It has said that about 250 children were known to be trafficked into the United Kingdom within a five-year period, but it added that the real figure is likely to be far higher. These children are brought into the United Kingdom as slaves for the sex industry. In 2009, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre published a report, “Strategic Threat Assessment Child Trafficking in the UK 2010”. That report identified 325 children in the United Kingdom as known or suspected victims of child trafficking in the year from March 2007 to February 2008. Trafficked children in the United Kingdom have been identified as coming from a widening range of sources.
In 2009, the then Government set up a national referral mechanism for the identification of children coming into the United Kingdom through the trafficking process. Between 1 April 2009 and 30 June 2009, 40 children were referred through that system, including two children under the age of 10. That is horrific.
Some children who have been trafficked may have been physically abducted, but many children are trafficked with the knowledge of family members, who believe that their children are being offered the chance of a better life within the United Kingdom or elsewhere and do not know that they may be destined for sexual exploitation. The vast majority of those trafficked for sexual purposes are girls, but trafficking of boys is not unusual.
UNICEF has also estimated that that figure of 40 children —those who were identified through the national referral mechanism—is likely to be higher. UNICEF has recently estimated that at any one time there are about 5,000 child sex workers—not five, 50 or 500—in this so-called modern United Kingdom. Some 75% of them are females, and the remainder are young boys.
The internal situation in other parts of the globe is worse, and even more distressing. It has been estimated that 30% of sex workers in India are children— between 270,000 and 400,000 child prostitutes. In Brazil, up to 500,000 boys and girls are commercially sexually exploited, and on the borders between Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina, 3,500 children are confined in brothels and clubs as slaves. We are talking about children who have not reached sexual maturity, and have no idea or understanding of what is happening to them. That is absolutely disgusting. Police in South Africa estimate that 28,000 children are coerced into the industry every year, and that in Cape Town alone some 25% of workers in the sex industry are very young children. In south and east Asia, one third of sex workers are children. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that those figures are shameful and beggar belief. Yet they are more than statistics: every figure represents the misery and loss that is routinely inflicted on a young life daily. Young lives are destroyed, and the very notion of civilisation or society debased.
Dr McCrea
On the sexual exploitation of children, does my hon. Friend agree that many of these children have been abducted from their families? No one can understand the anguish and pain that that causes a family. I say that as a parent who, many years ago, nearly lost one of his children, who was three or four at the time, in a hotel on vacation. My child was being taken away from us by a lady, and could have ended up in the industry. No one can understand the horror and pain that that can cause a family.
David Simpson
I absolutely agree, and I have mentioned the abhorrence, pain and anguish. I am sure that all hon. Members will have seen the recent news about a woman from New York who was abducted when she was very young and found out about it when she was an adult. There was a reunion, but it was miraculous that that happened, because so many times it does not, and people are left wondering how their children have turned out. It would be very difficult to live with the fact that a family member had been taken and used in such a way.
When it comes to the economic exploitation of children, including child labour, very often the United Kingdom is further downstream from the event, but the situation is no less real and no less dreadful for those caught up in the middle. Commodities—finished products that we buy—can have been produced, in part, by the efforts of forced child labour or slavery. In more than 50 African, Asian and South American countries, 1 million children are put into mines and quarries. That is a fact. About 40,000 children work in mining in the Congo. In west Africa it has been estimated that 200,000 children work in small-scale gold and mineral mines and quarries, and almost 18,000 children work in gold, silver and copper mines in the Philippines. Mining shifts worked by children can last up to 24 hours. Children work unprotected in mineral extraction, crushing ore using toxins such as mercury, at the risk of contamination. Children break and sort out rocks, water supplies are often contaminated, and there is the risk of underground explosions.
On top of those figures, we can add the number of children exploited as a result of bonded labour, in which a child is forced into slavery to pay off their family’s debt. It has been estimated that in India alone some 15 million children, most of them from low-caste families that have got into difficulties, could be working to pay off someone else’s debt. Many children across the globe, including in the United Kingdom, are beaten frequently, and passed from one owner to another as little more than a possession, or a dog. Save the Children has estimated that in Nepal there are approximately 200,000 bonded labourers, many of them children. In one province of Pakistan alone, it is estimated that there are almost 7 million bonded labourers, including children, and that around 250,000 children work in Pakistani brick kilns, and live there. Almost 70% of all child labour is in agriculture, with more than 130 million children involved in agricultural work each day.
Last year, the United States Department of Labour drew up a list of products produced by child or forced labour—slavery. The list goes from cocoa and cotton to rubber and coal; from gold and diamonds to emeralds and silver; from carpets and clothing to leather and silk; from garlic and grapes to bananas and rice; from salt and sugar to tobacco and tea; and from footballs and fireworks to fashion and furniture. All those products are made around the globe through the exploitation of children and the use of child slavery.
When it comes to both the sexual exploitation of children internationally and the kind of child labour that I have just mentioned, there are real issues for the United Kingdom Government. I am sure that all hon. Members will be able to identify numerous areas in which these issues cut across a number of Departments, but I draw specific attention to the Department for International Development. I emphasise that we are grateful for the assistance given by the UK Government to other countries, and that we are even more grateful to the many millions of people across the United Kingdom who donate money to special causes and needs, but surely pressure needs to be applied and greater emphasis placed on using our influence to end these practices. I think that all hon. Members will agree that the facts of life for millions of children across the globe, right now as we participate in this debate, are shocking and shameful.
As I said at the beginning of my contribution, I am certain that whatever minor differences hon. Members might have about individual incidents and the particular responses required, we all share a conviction that child slavery is wrong, unjust and unacceptable in this modern world. I have no doubt that that is the case. That fact draws out before each of us a question that might at first glance seem unusual, even unnecessary. Whatever our political background and personal experiences, why do we share an opposition to child slavery and a conviction that this evil should end? It makes no sense in evolutionary terms. Are we not told that evolution is about survival of the fittest and competition within species? So what if the poor, the weak and the helpless are exploited by the strong and the ruthless? But buried in the depths of every man and woman is a conviction that there is something better.
Every springtime—we are coming into spring now—nature stretches out and reaches up to bring forth new life and vigour, leaving behind the deadness of winter. Every year it is doomed to fall back in winter, but every spring it stirs and rises once more. Likewise, every human being stretches out and reaches up for something better and higher. It is inborn and embedded within us to be like that. What do we stretch out towards and reach up to lay hold of? In my opinion, it is the God who reaches down to us and who himself came down to us. It is the original created image in us—yes, it is tainted, marred and clouded, but it is still that part of man, made originally for God and in the likeness of God—that stretches out and reaches up for something better and higher. That is what tells every man that the wicked enslavement of children is wrong. Just as one came down to earth to open the soul’s prison, break its fetters, snap its chains and set it free, so we feel the urge and impulse to set at liberty children who are enslaved.
I do not intend to offend any right hon. or hon. Member by saying that I do not believe that there are many Wilberforces around today. However, I believe that in the breast of every hon. Member from every political party already beats something to which Wilberforce gave voice. Wilberforce said on one occasion:
“If to be feelingly alive to the sufferings of my fellow creatures is to be a fanatic, I am one of the most incurable fanatics ever permitted to be at large.”
It is my wish by this debate to make such fanatics of us all.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) on a moving speech—perhaps the most moving that I have ever heard in this Chamber. I think we all share an abhorrence of child slavery.
I, too, started by reading the Save the Children report “The Small Hands of Slavery”—it is an emotive title—and came across the disturbing statistics involving such large numbers. That was back in 2007. What progress are we making? As the hon. Gentleman said, the report states that 8.4 million children are trapped in the worst forms of illegal, degrading and dangerous work. It also identified the eight most prevalent forms of child slavery: child trafficking, commercial sexual exploitation, bonded child labour, forced work in mines, forced agricultural labour, child soldiers and combatants, forced child marriage and domestic slavery.
The hon. Gentleman provided many tragic examples from around the globe. It is, of course, a tragedy that there is such a variety. Our children are our most precious asset, and it brings tears to the eyes to think of children suffering in such ways. More recently, Save the Children published the report “Children on the Move”. We must remember that in high-profile conflict situations, such as in the middle east, children are particularly vulnerable to certain practices.
There is so much to be done. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must consider the problem from the UK’s perspective, looking outwards as well as inwards and across Departments. Clearly, in order to tackle it, we need national, international and strong local action. We need to consider poverty reduction. This Government’s commitment to increasing the proportion of GDP spent on aid must be welcome, as it is well targeted to reduce poverty. We need education, legislation—legislation must be appropriate, but it is also important that it is put into practice—and resources for prevention and rehabilitation. Those principles can easily be applied to tackling problems in the UK. In my brief contribution, I will concentrate on trafficking, but I recognise fully the scale of the issue.
Research by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre discovered that at least 287 children in this country were identified as potential victims of trafficking between March 2009 and February 2010. More than one third were brought to Britain for the sex trade. Amazingly, 18% were made to cultivate cannabis. I must admit that I have learned a great deal from reading ECPAT UK’s representations about the use of child labour in cannabis cultivation in this country. It makes us realise that we can tackle such issues. It must be possible to track them down and take suitable action.
Dr McCrea
Has the hon. Lady seen the CEOP study on strategic threat assessment? It states:
“There are only a handful of UK police forces which have units designated and trained in running investigations into trafficking.”
Does she believe that more should be done initially to change that?
Annette Brooke
I certainly believe that more must be done on a range of issues. I will address the hon. Gentleman’s point shortly.
Sadly, many of the victims identified go missing again and are obviously re-trafficked. We must bear that in mind. We need, of course, to think about what is happening in the countries sending these people. We need international co-operation.
It is interesting that, under the Labour Government, we finally signed up to the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, which came into force in April 2009. There had been questions over a long period from both sides of the House about when we were going to ratify the convention, but we did do so.
I hope that we will have some better news about the EU directive on human trafficking, which the European Parliament approved in 2010. So far, the Government have decided not to opt into it, which I find really difficult to understand. The UK and Denmark are the only EU states not to have opted in, even though we are told that everything we do complies. As I understand it, the directive improves existing EU legislation and provides better protection for trafficking victims, more rigorous protection measures and tougher penalties for traffickers. Signing up to the directive would make a clear statement about our Government’s support for trafficked women and Ministers’ willingness to provide protection and secure convictions.
An organisation called Care claims that this country is not really doing everything it could and that it is not doing everything in the directive. It says that forced begging is also trafficking. It says that we cannot prosecute crimes outside Britain. It says that Britain fails to provide universal access to safe accommodation and medical treatment for victims, fails to investigate cases after a victim withdraws a statement and does not always offer proper protection of victims in criminal proceedings. Those are all things that I believe we should be able to do.
As I understand it, the directive has a specific focus on child victims, so it is very relevant. It provides them with greater care and protection. It also directly calls for the UK to introduce a system of guardianship for trafficked children. I wonder whether that is the problem preventing us from signing up to the directive. Again, I want to be fair to both Governments. I have long argued for a system of guardianship for children who are unaccompanied asylum seekers, and I have tabled many amendments in Committees dealing with Bills on children, always to be defeated. We should not see this as a political issue, because we all need to work together.
Mr Dodds
On the EU trafficking directive, I agree entirely with the hon. Lady. However, given that we should all be working together and erring on the side of the caution in the protection of children and vulnerable people, does she understand the irony that even Eurosceptics—I include myself among them—have no problem with the Government opting in on this issue, although, of course, they opt in on a whole lot of other issues with which we do have problems? On this issue, however, there is a bit of agreement, so why not err on the side of caution, even if the Government are saying that they are doing these things already?
Annette Brooke
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He makes a valid point. It is a strength of the EU that we can have co-operation over a large number of countries when crimes are being committed that are clearly not retained within the boundaries of an individual nation.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her excellent speech. Although the Government claim we are meeting all the requirements, what message does it send to those looking at countries to target if we do not sign up?
Annette Brooke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, but I think he has answered himself. What he says is very true. The main thing is that we must be seen to be fighting this problem on all fronts, but there is a feeling that we are not.
I would be really interested to know whether guardianship is the issue that is holding us back from signing the directive. I strongly believe in the advantages of someone taking parental responsibility, and that has been alluded to. In a recent answer to a parliamentary question, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), said that responsibility for child trafficking victims lies with local authorities, but that can co-exist with parental responsibility. When it comes to children in care, for example, we are aware that we have not done enough about the concept of corporate responsibility. We are talking here about children who have been through so much, and it is not a big ask to ensure that there will be not only some corporate body, but an individual to whom children can relate and from whom they can get support.
At present, a number of organisations are being closed. That is a concern in itself, but I hope that the Minister can reassure us, perhaps by setting out an alternative way of doing things. I am by no means arguing that we must carry on doing things in exactly the same way as we have in the past, and I would very much welcome a brand new approach, but I just have to raise concerns. The Gangmasters Licensing Authority faces closure. We no longer have the Metropolitan police’s human trafficking unit and Operation Golf, which were particularly focused on child trafficking. The UK Human Trafficking Centre has been absorbed into another organisation. We are not clear whether all the POPPY project’s funding will be protected. CEOP itself will be absorbed into another organisation. That need not all be negative news—perhaps the news about the POPPY project is—if the Minister can assure us that we will do things better. In addition to those cuts, the voluntary sector, like all of us, is facing cuts, but the problem we are talking about needs resources as a matter of priority. The hon. Member for Upper Bann has shown us that it should be a high priority.
The key issues for me include preventing these problems in the first place. That has to involve working on a wider international scale. Another key issue is identification, which this country is not very good at. We do not really know how many sex workers or child victims there are in this country; we come up with numbers, but they are probably just the tip of iceberg. How can we have the right priorities and the right policies unless we have the knowledge? I hope that identification and raising awareness will be given priority in the national strategy on trafficking, which is due to be announced.
Local strategies are important, and I would like to be reassured about how they will be worked through. Our local safeguarding children boards have a lot to do on identification, raising awareness and making sure that the right services are developed and supplied locally. We all need to be aware of the dreadful issues around us.
Whether a person is under 18 is still a big issue. Representations have long been made to me to the effect that the immigration age assessment dispute process is often used to divert young people into the immigration system, rather than to protect them. Obviously, it is very difficult to determine the age of a child. We must have effective intervention, and I am sure that we can do so much more on that. We must have safe and appropriate accommodation, so that once children are rescued, they stay rescued.
We need better evidence. We need all agencies to share information and to work together. We need better prosecution procedures. We need to support victims so that they give evidence. I am a little concerned about the period of reflection allowed by the UK Border Agency. The time for deciding whether a person is trafficked is to be reduced from 45 to 30 days. In Italy, it is six months, which I have always felt gives people—particularly young women—time to build up their strength and the courage to bear witness against the perpetrators. It is very difficult for someone who has just been pulled away from a horrific situation to give evidence at that time.
We have been around the globe in the debate and finally I want to stop off in Dorset. I commend the work of Poole Soroptimists, who have done a great deal to highlight trafficking, through supporting the purple teardrop campaign. I went to a very well attended meeting in Dorset organised by the Soroptimists, and people there were deeply shocked. In Dorset we do not necessarily think that we have trafficked children in our midst; but we do—and we do all over the country. That is why awareness-raising is so important for me.
It is also important that there should be specialist police units. As with most areas, cutbacks in the number of police in Dorset are proposed. It has been suggested to me, although I have not had it confirmed, that one thing that might disappear is specialist police work on trafficking. That would be very sad, particularly in the light of my final point: we are all looking forward to the Olympic games, but we must fear what might happen in our country at that time. The evidence is that a major international sporting event causes an increase in sex exploitation, forced child begging and child labour. We are blessed to have the water sports in Dorset, but we are concerned that there should be adequate policing. Because we are a safe part of the country we naturally do not have the highest level of police funding, but we shall need adequate policing in the light of the issues associated with the Olympic games.
Like the hon. Member for Upper Bann I can say only that the problem is so serious that we would be very remiss as politicians if we were not to commit to work together and do our very best for children in such incredibly awful situations as he described.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) for bringing the matter to Westminster Hall for debate. Many of us are aware of the issue, both within and outside our constituencies. I prepared a speech about a month ago, when my hon. Friend told me about the debate, but it is still relevant today, because things have not changed since then. They are still the same. The research about the amount of slavery in the world shocked me. I was sickened to my stomach as I read some of the stories. If hon. Members have not read the background information provided by the House of Commons Library they need to do so. When they do, they will be as shocked as I was about what is going on throughout the world.
An estimated 27 million people live in bondage today, but we know little about their plight. It is easy to watch a red nose day special and regard those precious faces in Africa and other parts of the world with a sense of pity, sympathy and perhaps compassion, but it is harder to face the fact that the problem is not simply an African one, but a global one. It is shameful to say that we are not immune in the UK. The hon. Members who have spoken so far have underlined that, and so will those who follow. I read a report in The Independent—I do not buy it, by the way—that stated that more than 5,000 children are being forced to work as sex slaves in the UK. I find that almost impossible to comprehend in a modern, understanding and compassionate society. The figure includes thousands trafficked to this country by criminal gangs. Indeed, a study of global slavery exposed Britain as a major transit point for the movement of child slaves around the world. The United Kingdom, of which we are all members, with UK passports, is an integral part of child slavery, the sex trade and the exploitation of children that goes on.
The report paints a shocking picture of an international web of gangmasters exploiting children as young as five, as well as vulnerable women. Many are threatened with violence, then sold into the sex trade and forced to become domestic servants. The issue is not all about physical abuse or sexual exploitation, as people are also exploited as domestic servants. Some would say that they are paid to work, and in many cases they are, but they do not always retain their full wages, which are kept as “savings”. They are told that if they go to the police they will be imprisoned, and they live in fear. The human trafficking trade now generates an estimated £5 billion a year worldwide, which makes it the second biggest international criminal industry after the drugs trade. I ask the coalition Government what priority they give to tackling that form of exploitation and child slavery.
Children’s charities in Britain say that there has been a dramatic rise in the number of referrals of trafficked children to sexual exploitation services. An investigation by The Independent on Sunday has found that the gangs, especially those from Romania and Lithuania, as well as Africa, increasingly target Britain, because markets in other European countries, such as Spain and Italy, are saturated. Things have moved slightly, and the impact is different.
We need tighter rules, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) clearly showed in relation to the EU directive. I look for some hope in that regard from the Minister. Will we sign up to the directive? I think that we should, and sooner rather than later.
Abolitionists fighting sex traffic in both south-east Asia and Latin America report that parents commonly sell their kids so that they can make an improvement to their home or purchase a vehicle or other consumer item. Those stories align with a report in The New York Times that parents in Albania sold their children to traffickers so that they could buy a colour TV. Can you take that in, Mr Hood—that anyone would do that with their child for the price of a colour TV? My goodness me; that could be about £150. Is that the price of a child today? Going by the background material available, and press stories, some 70,000 children are kidnapped in China every year, of whom only 6,000 are returned to their parents. Every year 64,000 children in China go missing and disappear into child exploitation across the world.
I received a breakdown of facts from the International Labour Organisation about child labour, which more often than not translates as children being forced to work for little or no recompense, to all intents and purposes as slaves. There are 246 million children who are child labourers and 73 million working children less than 10 years old. No country is immune or outside the problem, which involves 2.5 million working children in the developed economies, and another 2.5 million in transition economies. Every year, 22,000 children die in work-related accidents. The largest number of working children aged 14 and under—127 million—are in the Asia-Pacific region. Sub-Saharan Africa has the largest proportion of working children: nearly one third of children aged 14 and under—I think it is about 48 million children.
Most children work in the informal sector, without legal or regulatory protection, and 8.4 million children are trapped in slavery, trafficking, debt bondage, prostitution, pornography and other illicit activities. Of those, 1.2 million have been trafficked. One out of six children in the world today is involved in child labour, doing work that is damaging to his or her mental condition and physical and emotional development.
The ILO study has shown that the economic benefits of eliminating child labour will be nearly seven times greater than the costs. That does not include the moral benefits, and the most basic fact—that children can then have some semblance of childhood. Nearly three quarters of working children are engaged in what the world recognises as the worst forms of child labour, including trafficking, armed conflict, slavery, sexual exploitation and hazardous work—things we in this Chamber would shun. What co-operation is there with other countries to ensure that child trafficking or illegal and criminal activities are curtailed or stopped?
Amnesty International has stated that the strategy currently employed to combat that in the UK is ineffective and must be revamped. That must be our ultimate goal and aim. We must work with the zeal, enthusiasm and energy of Wilberforce—his name has already been mentioned—and pray that our results will come a lot sooner. I support the point made by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) about sporting activities. The information supplied by the Library refers to the under-age sex trade booming at the Superbowl. In modern society and in modern world, whether it is the United Kingdom, the USA or elsewhere, people have a responsibility due to their affluence, their money and what they can buy. A child—and the innocence of a child—cannot be bought; I feel very strongly about that. It amazes me to read that some
“300,000 girls between 11 and 17 are lured into the US sex industry”
every year. That shocks and worries me. The story was also in the press, and it notes that some 50 children were rescued during the previous two Superbowls. Those who follow the event will know from watching it on TV that it is a great sporting occasion, but in the background there is the shadow of criminal and illegal activity, which causes me concern.
In conclusion, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann on highlighting the issue again, and pledge to work with him, with others present and with the Government to ensure that we, as elected representatives, speak out for those who have no voice, and cry out for the rights of the oppressed. These children are the most vulnerable and we have a responsibility to them. Let us carry out that responsibility and I ask the Government—our Government; my Government—to work with us.
Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)
I intend to call the Front-Bench representatives by 3.40 pm at the latest. I call Justin Tomlinson.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Hood. I expect my speech to be brief. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) on securing this crucial debate, although I dearly wish that we did not need it. I also pay tribute to those who have spoken on what is a truly horrific subject.
I wish to highlight four areas of concern, and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response. The first relates to the scale of the problem. I have done research and met organisations that wish to tackle the problem, and it is clear that, at best, the estimates are patchy, both in the UK and across the world. It seems that the true scale of the horror is all too often hidden away, lost in the system, or simply ignored. Far more needs to be done to make sure that we get a real understanding of just how horrific the situation is.
Secondly, if a victim is rescued in the UK and is brought in by the police, it worries me that, if they do not provide a statement or if they withdraw one, all too often an investigation does not follow. The main reason for that is that the victims live in fear of the gangs that control them. Unless we are able to convince them and give them confidence that we can provide them with sufficient protection, we will always struggle to get that evidence and break the grip of those gangs. I urge the Minister to look at whether we can proceed without getting all the evidence or statements from victims, or to make sure that those victims are given sufficient care.
The worst example is when a victim is released on bail and, as they leave the police station, the gangs are waiting outside to take them back. They are then lost to the system, the evidence trail is destroyed, and the cycle of despair continues. If the victim goes through the process and is placed in local authority care, the gangs will target those children and snatch them, often just days after they have been placed there. It is clear that the safeguards in such cases are woefully inadequate. Another worry is that, when rescued, the victims are often treated as criminals themselves, for either drug or immigration offences. They are treated as criminals, not victims.
Thirdly, on awareness, all too often, people acknowledge that this is an horrific issue while claiming that it does not happen in their area. But yes, it does—it happens under everybody’s noses. Gangs often target some of this country’s more affluent, new-build estates, where residents cannot name their neighbours, to be safe houses, cannabis-cultivating factories and brothels, because people do not notice when others come and go at different times. We all have a duty, as elected representatives and the Government, to highlight the issue. People need to be aware of it and understand that, if they see suspicious behaviour, they should report it to be investigated. I have been surprised a number of times to see that what seemed to be a quiet, well respected, crime-free area was actually hiding something pretty horrific behind closed curtains. We all have a duty to play a part in raising awareness of the issue.
Finally, I wish to highlight the issue of sex offences abroad by UK citizens, particularly the three-day loophole that allows known sex offenders to travel abroad for up to three days without notifying the authorities. In reality, that is a minor inconvenience if someone seeks to travel in Europe. It might stop them travelling to the other side of the world without supervision, but it causes no problem at all in relation to modern travel in Europe. Our record of prosecutions of British citizens for child sexual abuses overseas has been described by Christine Beddoe of ECPAT UK as “appalling”. Frankly, that is shameful and more should be done, because it relates to our citizens perpetrating horrific crimes abroad.
I shall conclude with a plea. There is clear cross-party support for action. Although the UK in many ways leads in this area, much more can be done to protect and rescue victims. It requires better co-ordination of services, because it is not just about the Government. It is a multi-service agency issue and we all have a part to play. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) has said, it is about fighting on all fronts, and we need real leadership to deliver. As has been said, behind every statistic is a real life horror story, and I urge the Minister urgently to deliver the leadership that we all want and that victims so desperately need.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) on securing a debate on this important issue, on which there is cross-party support, concern and willingness to address the problems that still exist and, as the hon. Gentleman said, to end the evil of child slavery once and for all.
The hon. Gentleman gave a powerful and moving account, with both a global and a focused, national perspective, which was helpful. It was also rich in reports, statistics and research, which is always helpful when dealing with an emotive subject such as this. He talked about the three key issues of forced marriages, sexual exploitation and economic exploitation, and addressed the problem of bonded labour, particularly in India. It was good to hear him quote at the end of his contribution the words of William Wilberforce. I am a Member of Parliament for William Wilberforce’s home city of Hull, and we in that city know that the problems of trafficking and child slavery are still with us today and that there is still much more that we need to do.
The brutal trade in trafficked children and child slavery is the modern-day manifestation of the slavery that William Wilberforce and others campaigned to abolish more than 200 years ago. We are concentrating today on child slavery, but it is so near to international women’s day that it is right to point out the overlapping trade in trafficked women around the world who are also kept in slavery.
We have heard interesting and thoughtful contributions from hon. Members during the debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who has a strong record in championing children’s rights and has been a strong advocate for standing up for the most vulnerable in our society. Her analysis—at the beginning she focused on the international perspective and she then moved on to the issue of trafficking—was very well thought through. What struck me about what she and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said was their comments on the issue of awareness. In many parts of the country, people think that child slavery or trafficking does not happen in their area—people have said that to me in Hull—but when we start to dig down, we realise that there are problems with trafficking all around the country. It was interesting to note the reading habits of the hon. Member for Strangford. He reads The Independent, although he said that he did not buy it.
Diana Johnson
Perhaps just once. The hon. Gentleman talked about the generation of £5 billion through the operation of slavery worldwide. That is a huge figure and we need to bear that in mind, because some very powerful interests will want to make sure that slavery continues. He also talked about Albania, China and the international issues there. The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) correctly reminded us about the victims. We need to ensure that we focus on the needs of those victims.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who is the chairman of the all-party group on human trafficking. He has done a huge amount of work on the matter and has followed in the footsteps of the former Member for Totnes, Sir Anthony Steen. Thousands of people—children, women and some men—are brought into the UK each year to work in the sex trade. In 2008-09, the Select Committee on Home Affairs claimed that more than 5,000 people were being trafficked. In 2003, the total economic and social cost of human trafficking for sexual exploitation was put at around £1 billion. Many more people, including hundreds of children, are smuggled into the country each year to be exploited as domestic servants, farm hands or drug cultivators. We know that that is a real problem in the Vietnamese community. Vietnam is the most prominent of the 47 countries of origin for trafficked children and there seems to be a particular focus on young boys between the age of 13 to 17, who act as gardeners and cultivate cannabis plants in various settings.
In the remaining time, I shall discuss the EU directive on human trafficking. We have had lots of discussion this afternoon about why the Government have chosen not to sign up to the directive. The Government have said that they are already meeting the requirement set out in the directive. If that is right, which is in dispute, I ask the Minister to explain what would be lost by signing up to it. If we are doing everything anyway, what is the problem? Many hon. Members and organisations think that the Government are not complying with the directive. That was pointed out by many hon. Members in the debate on human trafficking held in Westminster Hall on 12 October and in the anti-slavery debate on the Floor of the House on 14 October.
As the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole mentioned, a report was published by CARE—a Christian charity—on 7 February entitled, “The EU Directive on Human Trafficking: Why the UK Government Should Opt-in.” The report shows areas where the Government are not complying with the EU directive. They include support for child victims; widening the trafficking definition to forced begging; giving jurisdiction over UK citizens engaging in trafficking overseas; assistance to victims of trafficking in health care and accommodation; the investigation and prosecution of trafficking crime; protection of victims in criminal proceedings; and establishing an independent national rapporteur on trafficking. Such a role would be similar in nature to the one that Lord Carlile played in anti-terror policies.
The Government oppose in particular the measure on guardianship for child victims of trafficking—an issue that is referred to in early-day motion 513 tabled by the hon. Member for Wellingborough and which has been raised by a number of charities. I would be grateful if the Minister shed some light on that subject. The Minister for Immigration told the House that the Government do not want to be bound by measures that “are against our interests”. It would be interesting if the Minister responding to this debate explained what that means. To whose interests is the Minister for Immigration referring?
The coalition agreement states that tackling human trafficking is a priority. I ask the Minister how much of a priority the matter is for the Government. I am concerned that many measures have been introduced that will weaken the protection of children from exploitation and the protection of vulnerable children, trafficked children and children who are held against their will. For example—the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole referred to this—there have been Government grant cuts to children’s services in councils. We already know that there is a lack of awareness about trafficking and child slavery, and I am concerned that those cuts will have even further impact. There have also been cuts to specialist policing in the area of trafficking. Operation Golf has been abandoned, vetting and barring procedures have been weakened—as set out just yesterday in the Protection of Freedoms Bill—the Gangmasters Licensing Authority has been closed, and the UK Human Trafficking Centre and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre have been dismantled. In addition, last year, ContactPoint was abandoned.
On the issues of child slavery and trafficking, co-operation is the wisest policy for the Government to follow. The cost of not pursuing such a policy will be terrible for exploited children and other vulnerable people. Many hon. Members have discussed the need to secure convictions, but we need a comprehensive approach to do so. On 27 January, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), justified not taking a decision on whether to opt into the EU Directive, and stated that
“we will make our decision in due course.”—[Official Report, 27 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 440.]
That is particularly surprising bearing in mind the stance of the Liberal Democrat party on the issue and its long-standing view on the matter, which it has held for many years.
We all want to do everything we can to stop child slavery and trafficking. I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government plan to address the issues raised in this afternoon’s debate.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
First, I should explain that I am responding to the debate on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, who is in Rome today. He apologises for not being able to be here, but I should emphasise that he is on ministerial business. I am pleased to be responding to this interesting and important debate, in which I am happy to be engaging as Minister for Policing.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) on securing a debate on such an important subject: child slavery. Tackling the trafficking of children into the UK is a key element of the Government’s work to tackle child slavery in the UK. Children are brought to the UK to be exploited in domestic servitude or for labour, or to be used for sexual exploitation. The Government view human trafficking as an abhorrent crime. People are treated as mere commodities, exploited and traded for profit.
We have always stated very clearly our commitment to tackling the issue. The overall aim is to make the UK a hostile environment for trafficking and to identify and protect victims wherever possible. Children are included because they are, of course, the most vulnerable among those victims trafficked from various countries. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has done to raise the matter, and the contributions made by hon. Members from all parties. I agree that there is a large measure of consensus on the issue. I shall try to respond to all three of the key issues that the hon. Gentleman raised: forced marriage, the trafficking of children and sexual exploitation, and forced labour.
The UK leads the world in tackling forced marriage and places great emphasis on tackling early child marriage. It is an appalling and indefensible practice and is recognised in the UK as a form of violence against women and men, domestic child abuse and a serious abuse of human rights. There is no culture in which forced marriage should be acceptable. Victims can suffer physical, psychological, emotional, financial and sexual abuse, including being held unlawfully captive and being assaulted and repeatedly raped.
The Government have stepped up their efforts to tackle forced marriage in a range of ways: by strengthening the legislation and providing statutory guidance, practice guidelines and online training for professionals; by raising awareness and understanding of the issues, including among children and young people; and by providing effective one-stop support to individuals through the Forced Marriage Unit, which is a joint initiative between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office.
The Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 came into force on 25 November 2008, and offers civil remedies to protect victims or potential victims of forced marriages. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the question of whether forced marriage should be made a crime, which he raised as a potential solution. A national consultation was carried out in 2005 on whether to introduce a specific criminal offence for forced marriage. The majority of respondents felt that the disadvantages of new legislation outweighed the advantages. Many worried that criminalising forced marriage would force the issue underground. Victims of forced marriage can be unwilling to take action against their parents and many respondents felt that the legislation would not be used. Those at risk of forced marriage, or already in a forced marriage, can seek protection through the civil remedies in the form of a forced marriage protection order. Some 271 such orders have been taken out since 2008. The Government said that we would look at the legislation if it was not working, but those figures suggest that the civil remedies are working. Of course, we should keep such matters under review and we will consider any further representations that hon. Members make on the issue, but I hope that that is a reasonable answer to the hon. Gentleman’s particular concern on the issue of forced marriage.
On the issue of child trafficking, on 14 October, during the debate on anti-slavery day, the Minister for Immigration announced the Government’s intention to produce a new strategy on combating human trafficking. The strategy reiterates the Government’s intention to take a comprehensive approach to combating trafficking, both by combating traffickers and by looking after victims. There is a lot of extremely valuable work already taking place and there is a strong foundation to build on. The strategy will maintain the focus on supporting victims, while signalling a greater emphasis on tackling the root problem through more targeted activity in source countries, smarter multi-agency working at the border and more co-ordination of our law enforcement efforts in the UK. We are consulting with NGOs to ensure that their views on the strategy are heard and taken into account. We will certainly take into account the ECPAT report on child trafficking, to which the hon. Member for Upper Bann referred. The strategy will be published in spring and will build on the measures already in place.
Concerns were raised about the EU directive on human trafficking by my hon. Friends the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) and for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), and by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on the Opposition Front Bench. I will not dwell on that because much has been said already, but I will restate the Government’s position. The draft directive contains no operational co-operation measures from which the UK would benefit. It will help to improve the way other EU states combat trafficking, but it will make very little difference to how the UK fights trafficking. Opting in would also require us to make mandatory provisions that are currently discretionary in UK law. Such a step would reduce, in the Government’s view, the scope for professional discretion and flexibility and might divert resources that are already scarce.
If we conclude later that the directive would help us in the fight against human trafficking, we could opt in. However, by not opting in now, but reviewing our position when the directive is adopted, we can choose to benefit from being part of a directive that is helpful, and avoid being bound by measures that we judge are against our interests. However, I would not want the fact that we believe that it would not be helpful to opt in to the EU directive—indeed, that it may be unhelpful in some respects—to colour the absolute determination that the Government have to act on the issue.
The Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings came into force in the UK on 1 April 2009. To aid in identification and referral, the national referral mechanism was established as part of the ratification of the convention on 1 April 2009. The NRM is a multi-agency framework that allows us systematically to identify trafficking victims and to refer them to support where necessary.
In addition to victim care and work at the border, the Government have always been clear that we remain firmly committed to instituting a strong enforcement response against those who seek to trade in human beings. It is for that reason that we introduced dedicated anti-trafficking legislation through the introduction of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. I say “we”—I think that must refer to the previous Government, although I think there was broad agreement on those provisions. While the Government are committed to apprehending and charging those who commit this crime, we are also keen to ensure that victims, who are used by them for profit, are appropriately safeguarded. Our response must be international. Most victims of the crime are foreign nationals and there is an obvious need, therefore, to tackle the issue at source.
Hon. Members asked about the particular contribution of the Department for International Development. We have worked with DFID, the Foreign Office and the Serious Organised Crime Agency to support a number of initiatives that aim to tackle trafficking at the country of origin. DFID plays a key role in preventing trafficking at source as part of its work in combating poverty and social injustice through long-term development programmes. Additionally, DFID has supported programmes that are specifically focused on preventing child trafficking in such countries as Bangladesh and Uganda.
I would like to mention SOCA and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, as the status of both was raised by hon. Members. Both do valuable work in this area. SOCA has increased engagement through its global network of liaison officers in 40 countries. We intend to build on the work of SOCA by creating the national crime agency and maintaining the fight against serious and organised crime, of which that is an important component. Similarly, in relation to the important work of CEOP, to which I pay tribute, I reassure hon. Members that it is already a discrete part of SOCA. Should CEOP become a part of the successor body to SOCA, the national crime agency, it will remain a discrete part of the national crime agency. We are absolutely determined that CEOP should continue to be supported externally in the way that it currently is, and continue its valuable work. Nothing we will do will threaten the work of CEOP in any respect.
Diana Johnson
Has it not yet been decided whether CEOP will go into that new structure? Is that still to be debated?
Nick Herbert
We will announce a strategy in relation to serious organised crime in due course and are carefully considering those matters.
On the issue of funding, which was raised by the hon. Lady and by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, it is certainly the case that many agencies, including the police, are being required to save money. That must not deter them from their core business of providing front-line services. These are very serious crimes. Agencies and forces must remain focused on those crimes while they seek savings in other areas.
Finally, I would like to respond to the issue of child labour, which was raised by the hon. Member for Upper Bann. We are committed to the elimination of child labour and are working towards long-lasting changes to tackle the underlying poverty that is the root cause of that problem. Children the world over must be given the opportunity to achieve their full potential, as expressed in the UN convention on the rights of the child and other international and regional instruments. All children have the right to an education and should not have to work to survive. Entering the labour force too early significantly limits young people’s opportunities over their lifetime and helps to trap families in poverty from one generation to the next. We are working through DFID. In addition, our commitment to the education millennium development goals of universal primary completion and gender parity at all levels of education, is evidenced by DFID’s work in tackling poor working conditions in developing countries.
I hope that it is clear from my response to this interesting and important debate that there is a concerted effort taking place in this country and abroad, through a number of Government Departments and agencies, to heighten awareness of this issue and to ensure that assistance is given, where appropriate, to our overseas partners. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Upper Bann for securing this very important debate. The Government are committed to tackling this horrendous practice and, whether it is referred to as slavery or trafficking, it is clear that that terrible crime must be combated and child victims safeguarded.
David Kato
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab)
In late January, millions of people around the world were deeply saddened to receive news of the horrific murder of David Kisule, better known as David Kato, the prominent human rights activist best known for his brave campaigning on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights. David had been beaten to death in his home near Kampala. The shock at the killing was felt in this House particularly by colleagues such as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns), who is not able to be here today. He had met David Kato in his celebrated campaigning role for Sexual Minorities Uganda just before his death.
Since then, the Ugandan police have made a number of arrests and one individual has been charged with the murder; in fact, the trial begins tomorrow. However, the trial must not signal an end to David Kato’s case and all that it stands for, as some in Ugandan public life would, frankly, like. That is because the wider cultural and political backdrop in present-day Uganda is characterised by open and often vile homophobia. Uganda is hardly the only place where that is the case, but it is a country which, for the best part of a couple of decades, has had a broadly positive trajectory on democracy and human rights. It has not been perfect, and in some years people might have said that President Museveni had taken his foot off the pedal somewhat, but it is unquestionably the case that Uganda has been one of the better success stories in Africa.
When countries, particularly developing countries, skew their developmental trajectories, we should sit up and take careful notice, particularly when it is a country such as Uganda—there are others—of which, on the whole, we have had a good view. I have a personal record of involvement with politicians in Uganda. It is places such as Uganda that catch our eye. And so it is with human rights: we know which countries routinely abuse human rights and have done so for many years, and we try to do our best through campaigning, relationships with other countries and so on to change that, but when a country does not on the whole have a reputation for treating its population badly, it worries us when the quality of governance suddenly slips back.
The essence of the problem in Uganda, which David Kato’s death has thrown into sharp relief, is that some people in Ugandan public life—politicians, journalists, business people and others—have for some time been seeking personal gain through pandering to and even encouraging homophobia. Prominent among them is David Bahati, the Ugandan MP, who tabled a private Member’s Bill calling for homosexuals to face the death penalty. His name is ironic: I understand that “Bahati” means “peace.” He wants peace for most people, but he wants to kill those who are gay. The Bill whipped up a fervour of enthusiasm among some newspapers, and the oddly named Rolling Stone—a new newspaper, not the famous American counterpart, I do not hesitate to add—eventually published pictures of known members and campaigners in the LGBT communities and urged people to kill them. Not that long afterwards, and perhaps tragically unsurprisingly, David Kato was killed.
David Bahati and Rolling Stone are both a disgrace, of course, but even more worrying at the time was the slow initial response of the Ugandan Government. Some Members and politicians stoked the fire with gusto. Bahati’s private Member’s Bill proposed, among other things, a widening of the definition of homosexual acts and a toughening up of penalties. It called for fines or imprisonment for anyone found to be promoting homosexuality, and the death penalty as punishment for serial homosexuality—the mind boggles.
Some agencies in the developed world chose to view the debate that raged around Bahati’s Bill as providing an opportunity to present Africa through an African prism. In a sense, that is a noble, sound journalistic intent, but they used completely the wrong subject—again, the mind boggles. The BBC asked on its discussion forum whether homosexuals should face execution. That lent international legitimacy to the many people in Uganda and elsewhere who think that the answer is yes. I was reading the responses on my iPhone in the Chamber as they came out, and I was struck by the fact that no one who put a comment on the board was from Uganda. In effect, the BBC had stimulated a debate about whether homosexuals in the UK should be executed. There were people who said, “It is up to Uganda what is done in Uganda but we should probably do that here.” That was the level of debate that that completely insane question stoked. It was most unfortunate, and I subsequently spoke to the head of World Service-Africa. I believe there is an understanding that that question and that particular treatment should not be repeated.
That said, the forum was an indicator of how people sometimes confuse a perfectly noble intent to understand developing world countries and say, “It is not for us to impose our values”—we all know about the tricky relationship that we sometimes have with China in respect of democratic values and so on—with what was, in this case, a universal value. I believe we can all accept that what David Bahati is doing is entirely monstrous.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that proposed measures such as David Bahati’s Bill and some of the public and media debate in Uganda to which he referred provide exactly the right environment for people to be physically attacked and, in the most extreme cases, murdered?
Eric Joyce
My hon. Friend makes a strong point. I believe that everyone I have spoken to in all parts of the House would agree with that. It behoves everyone in the media to reflect on the BBC example, and to separate forcing a post-imperialistic, unacceptable perspective on a developing country from what is actually a perfectly reasonable, universally held value. In this case, the judgment was straightforward. That is something that not just journalists but everyone needs to reflect on when they think about such issues. We are not exercising some kind of imperialistic hegemony just by saying, “Don’t execute homosexuals.”
Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which deals with a subject that has not been given the time in the public eye that I would have liked. The Rolling Stone publication that he referred to has been covered extensively in the UK media, but it is not always made clear that it was produced solely to out homosexuals and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) said, to incite violence against those individuals. It has not been going for a long time—it was created in the past few months.
Eric Joyce
That is a profound point. To be honest, I did not know that. I knew that Rolling Stone was a new magazine, but I was not aware of that. When I think about it now, it is obvious. That is a potent point. It has struck me as odd that the proper Rolling Stone, the American magazine, does not sue for breach of copyright, but I am not sure whether the copyright laws would apply in Uganda. My hon. Friend points to part of the general persecution of gay and LGBT communities in Uganda.
It is fair to give President Museveni a bit of credit for establishing a commission to investigate the implications of the Bill. As it is a private Member’s Bill, it seems odd that it should need a commission, to be perfectly honest. The long and short of it is that the commission recommended that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill be withdrawn, although it is important to say that it is still, in fact, pending. It is also important to recognise that Uganda has just had presidential and parliamentary elections, and is now in a period of very little activity. It is possible, although I would hope not probable, that the Bill could go through in a wash-up on a truncated procedure. I suspect that President Museveni would not let that happen, but if the Minister or his diplomats in Kampala get the opportunity, perhaps they could make the point to the Ugandan Government whenever they can that the thing should be withdrawn, the sooner the better.
I shall conclude early so that someone else can speak. It is worth reflecting on the fact that the European Union has developed a set of guidelines for human rights defenders. It is very important, after David Kato’s death, that the issue is fully pressed home not just by our high commission but by representatives of the EU and any EU institutions in Kampala. I am not sure whether the European foreign service—I hesitate to use the name—could also press it home.
The UK is in a position to take a strong lead, as we have a good record on equalities issues. I hope that the Minister will feel able to raise the matter with his Ugandan counterparts when he has the opportunity, and make the strongest case to the Ugandan Government that the UK and perhaps millions of people, and certainly tens of thousands of campaigners throughout the world, will not allow the matter to go away. President Museveni has said that things are done differently there, but he also recognised that there are international standards, and he has openly referred to the UK and US Governments as Governments to which he should pay attention. I conclude on that point, and wait to hear what the Minister says.
Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)
Mr Speaker received a letter from an hon. Member who wants to speak, but her office was not advised that she needed the permission of the Member who initiated the debate and the Minister. Does the hon. Member have that permission?
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Hood, for letting me speak in this debate. I also thank the Minister and the hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce) for allowing me to join in. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I had asked for the same debate, but clearly because of his seniority the Speaker chose him instead of me.
The murder of David Kato demonstrates that despite some reforms under the newly re-elected President Museveni, aspects of his rule are a major concern, and speak as loudly against him as any successes have spoken for him. We know that David Kato was murdered with an iron bar or a hammer. That was first heard of under Idi Amin’s brutal dictatorship, which we certainly do not want to return to. Such methods of murder are vicious, and I hope that people in this country appreciate what an awful death it will have been for David Kato. He was not the only person to suffer that fate, but he was such a champion for gay rights and the lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender community that it is important to recognise what a serious event his murder was on the world stage. It was not just something that happened in Uganda; it has affected people throughout the world.
The spin and the lies about a burglar perhaps being the murderer—it was claimed that items were stolen—have started to fall away, and we now know that it is much more likely that he was murdered because he was homosexual. He had received threats from the paper that was mentioned. It is telling that society in Uganda was ready to believe that the murder occurred just because of a burglary, and not because David Kato had campaigned not just for himself, but for wider society in Uganda.
Since the murder, I have had the good fortune to meet representatives from the wider civil society in Uganda, who have all told me that they now fear for their safety, and that there is a climate of fear in Uganda. Because of safety concerns, it would be irresponsible to divulge who they are. Whatever their sexual orientation and views, no one should suffer such a fate or live in such fear. That would be like the 1950s in this country, and we should not encourage that.
Many people in civil society have received threats by letter, e-mail and text, notes have been left at their homes, and their friends and colleagues have been raped or beaten up. The way in which those messages have been sent is of grave concern and makes me think that the authorities may attempt to look the other way if another activist is murdered. That is a great concern, and we in this country can do something about it. One activist told me that the Ugandan Government regularly hacks into their phone and knows who they are talking to. It is only the worldwide network of support that protects them from being severely beaten or, even worse, killed.
Intimidation of civil society has always existed, and one has only to look at the 2009 draft Bill on public order management—if it goes through, it will restrict small meetings of more than three people from taking place—to see that the Government of Uganda view a more liberal civil society as a direct threat. Although Uganda has made many strides forward in the fight against poverty, there is still an important role for civil society in Uganda to ensure that the country continues to grow and to get its people out of absolute poverty and into a much more prosperous way of life. However, with unfavourable legislation and the increasing security threats highlighted by the murder of David Kato, civil society in Uganda is retreating. Its presence in Uganda not only feeds the hungry and heals the sick, but provides a voice for those marginalised by the Ugandan Government.
I hope that today's debate demonstrates to civil society in Uganda that we support its campaign for a fair society, and I also hope that it will take its place in the wider argument against the Bill on anti-homosexuality, which was tabled last year against the background of increasing hostility towards civil society. I hope that President Museveni, who was recently re-elected, will steer his next Parliament towards international obligations and will, in the light of the global uproar against David Kato's death, build a fair and just Ugandan society. I also hope that our Government will put pressure on Uganda and encourage other countries to do so to support international human rights standards and to uphold the Ugandan constitution.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce) on securing this important debate, and I thank the hon. Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), and for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash), and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) for their contributions.
The hon. Member for Falkirk raises an important issue, on which the Government have been closely engaged for some time. Indeed, I welcome this timely opportunity to discuss an important and difficult issue in Uganda, across Africa, and elsewhere in the world. Today, I want to talk in as much detail as I can about the deeply worrying death of David Kato. I would also like to take the opportunity to discuss issues relating to the human rights of sexual minorities more broadly in Uganda today. In doing so, I intend to set out the Government’s position on the lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender issue in Uganda, and to discuss our work in that area.
First, let me address the tragic death of David Kato on 26 January this year. He was well known to several hon. Members, and his killing saw the loss of one of Uganda’s foremost human rights activists. He was widely respected by both domestic and international colleagues, and his valiant efforts, especially his work as an LGBT activist and a Christian activist, was important in defending the human rights of all Ugandans. His death, unfortunately, represents a backward step for human rights in Uganda, and I am sure that his loss will be felt by many in Uganda and around the world.
It is vital, as the hon. Member for Falkirk suggests, that the Ugandan police force thoroughly investigates Mr Kato’s death. In my statement at the time, I urged the authorities to do that, and to bring the perpetrators to justice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire said, it was a particularly vile, vicious and unpleasant killing. Our high commission in Kampala has reinforced the importance of this in subsequent representations to the inspector general of police in Uganda.
I am advised that the Ugandan police investigation has so far resulted in two arrests. One suspect was released without charge due to lack of evidence. The second, Enock Nsubuga, remains on remand in Mukono prison awaiting a recommendation from the magistrates court for the case to be heard in the High Court, which is a legal requirement when an offence is potentially punishable by death. I understand that in a statement to the police on 2 February, Mr Nsubuga, a convicted criminal who was apparently employed by Mr Kato, confessed to robbing and killing his benefactor. Our high commission will continue to monitor the case closely, and plans to be present in court during the next hearing. In the meantime, the coalition Government will continue to support the rights of LGBT people in Uganda, as we do elsewhere.
I want to say a few words about our policy more generally in Uganda. We are committed to combating violence and discrimination against LGBT people as an integral part of our international human rights work. We realise that sexual orientation is a sensitive issue in many communities, but we firmly believe that any illegality of consenting same-sex relations is incompatible with international human rights law, including the international covenant on civil and political rights. Laws should guarantee the same rights to everyone regardless of sexuality, and if LGBT people choose to exercise those rights, they should be free do to so.
The Foreign Office has a clear programme for promoting the human rights of LGBT people that focuses on the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the fight against discrimination. It includes taking action on individual cases where discrimination has occurred, lobbying for changes in discriminatory practices and laws, and helping individuals on a case-by-case basis. Although the debate focuses on Uganda, similar prejudices against LGBT people unfortunately exist in many parts of Africa, and in many other places around the world.
Although we fully recognise and respect cultural and religious sensitivities, we intend to be active about LGBT rights in Uganda in various ways. On a number of occasions, we have made clear to the Government of Uganda that the UK position on respect for the rights of LGBT people is not something from which we will deviate. We are opposed to any actions that have a negative impact on the human rights of Ugandans. The high commission in Kampala has regularly raised the issue with the Ugandan Government, including with the Prime Minister and other Ministers. I was in Uganda in July and I had a meeting with President Museveni. Among other things, I raised the issue of human rights and the proposed legislation and Bill, which I will speak about in a moment. I made our concerns plain and clear.
Stephen Twigg
I welcome the strength of what the Minister has said in restating the Government’s policy, and I offer the full support of the Labour party for that. Does he see value in taking the policy further and working alongside our European Union colleagues? If he does, has he had the opportunity to discuss with his European counterparts the ways in which the European Union can put pressure on Uganda to guarantee human rights for LGBT communities?
Mr Bellingham
It is essential that we work with our European counterparts, and if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will say something about that in a moment.
The Government will continue to take this matter very seriously, and we often take the lead on this issue, co-ordinating action across other diplomatic and donor partners. On the point about the EU, a formal démarche initiated by the UK was delivered by EU member states to the Ugandan Foreign Minister, and there have been regular meetings with LGBT activists. We have also been involved in the drafting and subsequent implementation of local EU guidelines for human rights defenders in Uganda. I hope that that will convince the hon. Gentleman—if he needed convincing—that we are very much on the case and working with our EU partners.
The UK has chosen to support the work of the Sexual Minorities Uganda group, which has acted as a focal point for a number of LGBT groups and activists in their work to protect those who have fallen victim of the law because of their sexuality. For example, we have enabled individuals to seek an injunction to prevent the publication of articles that incite hatred against the LGBT community. The high commission in Kampala remains in close touch with other Ugandan civil society groups that campaign for the rights of all minorities. I hope that that chimes with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire about how important it is to work closely with civil society groups throughout Uganda, and help them in their campaigns.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the hugely inflammatory articles that appeared in Uganda’s Rolling Stone magazine late last year, targeting David Kato and many others alleged to belong to the LGBT community. The articles, which included photographs of the people whom the magazine was attacking, were deeply disturbing and incited hatred and violence against homosexuals. Of course we commend Uganda for its largely free press—I know that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby shares that view—and the positive role that that often plays in generating debate. However, I absolutely and unequivocally condemn the type of journalism in that magazine.
We raised our concerns over the articles with Prime Minister Nsibambi and the Minister responsible for internal affairs, and we made clear the damage that we believe such things can do. I am glad that some senior figures in Uganda have highlighted the dangers that can result from insensitivity towards the gay community. Those people include the inspector general of police, Major-General Kale Kayihura, who cautioned the public and anti-homosexuality pastors against such insensitivity in an article in the Daily Monitor newspaper on 4 February this year.
Another related issue that has caused concern and was mentioned by the hon. Member for Falkirk and by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire is the anti-homosexuality Bill tabled in the Ugandan Parliament by David Bahati in 2009. This is a private Member’s Bill and has not—fortunately—been endorsed by the Government of Uganda. Nevertheless, we have made our concerns clear to that Government on a number of occasions, because the Bill seeks further to criminalise homosexuality. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the legislation has the potential to inflame and incite serious hatred and violence. As the hon. Member for Falkirk said, the Bill includes a provision to introduce the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality”, and a term of life imprisonment for anyone convicted of “the offence of homosexuality.” That is staggering and beggars belief. The Bill has not been adopted and remains at the Committee stage in Uganda’s Parliament. It will, however, be carried over into the new Parliament. We are doing all we can and are monitoring the situation. We will keep up the pressure on the Ugandan Government at every available opportunity.
The UK will continue to play a leading role in Uganda and worldwide in helping to end inequality and discrimination against LGBT people—indeed, against all minorities. In July 2010, the coalition Government published “Working for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equality”, a programme of work to ensure that the UK continues to push for LGBT equality both at home and abroad. That includes robustly examining the human rights records of other countries through the UN-led universal periodic review, and seeking opportunities to raise the issue within the Commonwealth.
A meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government will take place later this year in Perth, Australia, and we will be active in preparing the agenda for that. Given some of the unfortunate trends on increased persecution of gay minorities that are regrettably taking place in a number of Commonwealth countries, we will ensure that the issue is on the agenda for discussion at CHOGM later this year.
Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Falkirk for securing this important debate. The death of David Kato was a terrible tragedy and a horrendous, gratuitous murder. We hope that his legacy will live on, and I am sure it will. It is equally important that the perpetrators of that ghastly crime are brought to justice, and we will make sure that we play our role and that the small assistance the UK can provide is made available.
We have good bilateral relations with the Ugandan Government. I visited Uganda in July, and the Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr O’Brien) also visited last year. Uganda is a country with which we have an intensified bilateral relationship and many equities at stake. We have important trade agreements with Uganda and it is an important partner in the UN. It has been a temporary member of the UN Security Council, and we have worked with the country on issues affecting Africa.
However, as a candid friend, we will not resile in any way from telling Uganda about our concerns regarding its human rights record. Uganda moves forward as a country that is playing an increasing role in the east African community. It has just had an election. That had its flaws, but in the main, it was free and fair. Nevertheless, the country does itself no favours when it persecutes minorities of all kinds, and we will continue to stand up for those minorities. Once again I congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk on securing this important debate. I hope that I have answered his point, and if there are any outstanding matters I will be happy to write to him in due course.
Hospital Services (Worcestershire)
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I am delighted to secure the debate on hospital care in Worcestershire. To put hospital care in Worcestershire in context, I should explain that we have two acute hospitals and a treatment centre. The acute hospitals are based in Worcester and my constituency of Redditch, and the treatment centre is in Kidderminster. In other parts of the county, we have community hospitals, which play a great role in delivering the highest level of care to our constituents.
The emphasis today is of course on the new cancer care facility, but all areas of the NHS trust are working hard and playing important roles. Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust has recently appointed a new chairman, who is determined that the mission of the trust will be to make all care patient-orientated. To do that, the care offered, the facilities available and the attitude of all staff must put patients and their well-being first.
I shall begin by sharing with hon. Members some of the successes within the trust. The national target of ensuring that 80% of patients brought to accident and emergency by ambulance staff are seen within 30 minutes has been surpassed by our trust. The benefits of receiving treatment quickly are self-explanatory. Obviously, the more quickly a person is seen, the less likely they are to deteriorate, and the ambulance staff can get back to doing what they do best.
I spent some time in A and E at the Alexandra hospital and was incredibly impressed by what I saw. The staff do an amazing job, sometimes in very challenging circumstances. Guided by Mr Christopher Hetherington, a consultant in the department, I saw at first hand how staff dealt efficiently with arriving patients. I was struck by their professionalism and commitment to their patients.
Despite the added challenge of the snow and bad weather in December and January in Worcestershire, the trust’s ambulance staff achieved a performance rating of more than 90%—the result of focus and dedication. I look forward to seeing them later this month when I do a night shift with an ambulance crew in Redditch.
Successes have also been shown in the results of patient surveys. The national maternity survey from 2010 showed that mothers in Worcestershire were impressed by the maternity care that they received. Those who completed the survey were pleased with all aspects of care, including care at home after leaving hospital. The trust now ranks in the top fifth for offering mothers choice. Choice should be at the forefront of the reorganisation that our NHS trusts face. If we are to create an NHS that is centred on patient care, offering patients choice about and influence over their treatment is essential.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I echo my hon. Friend’s comments about Alexandra hospital. It is a hospital that people in her constituency and in my constituency share, and I know that constituents from far and wide respect the services that they receive, the quality of care and the dedication of the employees and the health care professionals. Does she agree that, along with Alexandra hospital and the other acute hospital that we have in our county, the community hospitals, such as the Princess of Wales community hospital in Bromsgrove, complement the health services on which our constituents rely in Worcestershire?
Karen Lumley
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I totally agree with him. Many of my constituents in Redditch also use the Princess of Wales hospital. I have been there on many occasions and know what a fantastic job the staff do.
Effective hospitals rely on good facilities. Kidderminster hospital has recently acquired a state-of-the-art MRI scanner. It offers patients the best diagnostic procedures available. New services can now be offered, including breast scans and whole-body imaging. Some 9,400 scans a year can be performed with the machine. One-stop-shop access to out-patient clinics cuts waiting times and means that patients are in the clinics for as little time as possible. Developments such as those are lessening the postcode lottery effect in the NHS.
Worcestershire is awaiting a decision about whether a radiotherapy unit will be built at the Alexandra hospital in Redditch or the Worcestershire Royal hospital. I, of course, hope very much that it will be built at the Alexandra hospital in Redditch.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this extremely important debate, because it allows me to place on the record the thanks of the Malvern community for the opening of the new Malvern hospital by the Princess Royal last week. Does my hon. Friend agree that a key thing with radiotherapy services is the distance that people have to travel every day and that Worcester might be considered a very central location in the county of Worcestershire?
Karen Lumley
As you can see, Mr Hood, we have a debate among ourselves about where the cancer centre should be sited. Obviously, we in Redditch and Bromsgrove have the advantage of lots of space to build the cancer unit, and we have already started a local campaign to bring the unit to the Alexandra hospital.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) for the point that she made. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) would acknowledge that the Worcestershire Royal hospital already has considerable expertise in cancer treatment. Will she join me in urging our right hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that, wherever such services end up being placed, they are supported, as they are a vital component of a strong and much needed cancer strategy for our county?
Karen Lumley
As you can see, Mr Hood, the feeling among us is quite strong. We have all campaigned together to try to secure a unit in Worcestershire and we are all very grateful that we are to get that unit—we just need to know where it will be. But wherever it is built, I am very pleased that, by the end of 2013, 95% of the radiotherapy and chemotherapy patients will be treated in Worcestershire. That is the message that we all want to get across. The ability of my constituents battling cancer to receive their treatment close to home and to know that the treatment is the best available will, I hope, make a real difference. The new facility will match the already excellent care that the trust offers—care that means that it was ranked in the top 20% of trusts in the national cancer patient experience survey.
The news of the radiotherapy unit and other successes is encouraging. However, like many other MPs, I am very concerned about the money that is spent providing locum doctors to cover staff shortages. I hope that the Minister will deal with that today. The number of locum doctors employed has increased dramatically in the past 10 years. Trusts face acute shortages of middle grade doctors. Locum doctors are expensive. They should be used only to fill unforeseen gaps in staffing or when there is a dramatic increase in work load. They should not form part of the regular staffing arrangements as they do now.
We all know that we must make cuts in the public sector. However, I cannot see why my constituents should face reduced public services because money is being spent inefficiently. A cost-effective NHS will offer greater scope in how we care for people in our communities, both in Redditch and nationally.
The problem has been exacerbated by the European working time directive. Reducing—unnecessarily, I believe—the number of hours that doctors can work leads, of course, to a reduction in the number of hours covered by doctors available to hospital management. That is combined with the new strict immigration rules, which have resulted in far fewer doctors being able to emigrate from India and Pakistan and increased the pressure on hospitals as they try to fill an increasing number of vacancies.
The result in Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, which has 24 vacancies at the moment, is that money that could otherwise be directed to caring for patients is spent on locum doctors, the agencies that they come from and the bureaucracy involved in short-term employment. If we are to succeed in reducing public spending, we can no longer rely on short-term solutions. I understand that the trust has been actively recruiting doctors from Poland and the Czech Republic. Initiatives such as that must continue. However, the idea being explored whereby non-medical roles are created to support rotas and treatment concerns me. The trust considers that option “undesirable”.
It is not only doctors in hospitals who are anxious about the impending changes. I have met GPs recently—I do so regularly—who have shared with me their concerns about the establishment of the NHS commissioning board. When each GP must be a member of a consortium, their job will have to include commissioning services. The doctors in Redditch whom I meet regularly are equally concerned about the unequal funding for shire counties. I hope that that will be addressed sooner rather than later. There are also concerns about the reorganisation taking away local knowledge of the complexities of our county and its problems. Bromsgrove and Redditch GPs will do their best for their patients—I hope that, when the changes are introduced, they will be fully skilled to do the best job that they can.
In summary, I am delighted that we are finally getting a cancer care unit for Worcestershire—I hope that it will be in Redditch. However, I hope that the Minister will address my concerns about the expensive use of locum doctors and the concerns raised by local GPs. I welcome the coalition Government’s commitment to local health care being delivered by local clinicians in our own localities.
Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) on securing what she rightly describes as an important debate. May I say how pleased I am to see my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), for Worcester (Mr Walker) and for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) here today? Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch, their commitment and interest in the NHS in Worcestershire is second to none. They make a fine team, fighting on behalf of their constituents for the finest health care, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch said in her closing remarks, is at the forefront of the modernisation of the NHS outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am delighted to hear of my hon. Friend’s commitment not only to increasing choice for her constituents but to our modernisation programme; local decision-making will give far greater flexibility in effecting local health economies.
I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the many who work so hard to deliver high-quality NHS services in Redditch but, equally important, across Worcestershire, for the benefit of my hon. Friend’s constituents and those of the other hon. Members who represent that fine county. They do a tremendous job, and the Government will support and empower front-line staff to continue improving services like none before them.
I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the creation of the Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust. The new trust will manage all mental health services in Worcestershire, and all community services currently managed by the PCT’s provider arm. That can only be of benefit to the people of Worcestershire. Sarah Dugan, formerly chief executive of NHS Dudley, has been appointed as chief executive of the new trust, and the full board should be in place by the end of March. It will officially come into being on 1 July, giving it sufficient time to complete its registration with the Care Quality Commission.
The people of Worcestershire are also benefiting from the new Malvern community hospital, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire said, was recently opened by the Princess Royal. The hospital brings together the expertise of nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists, dieticians and a Macmillan team to provide integrated, patient-centred care for patients in the community and in their homes. Providing more NHS care in that way is essential if we are to improve health outcomes while making significant efficiency savings across the health service. Frankly, outcomes are of the utmost importance to our constituents, as part of their care pathway.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch is concerned also about the current shortage of full-time health care professionals, which is due in part to restrictions on recruitment from outside the European Union. I appreciate that she is concerned because of the impact that the problem is having on her constituency. The Government’s policy on immigration seeks to balance the obvious benefits that people can bring to the UK while limiting additional pressures on local services such as housing and schools.
We still want the UK to benefit from the brightest and the best individuals who can contribute positively to the UK economy and to the NHS. The Department of Health is working closely with the UK Border Agency to ensure that the NHS has continued access to the best candidates, in order to provide the best quality care for NHS patients. I hope that that goes some way to reassuring my hon. Friend that we are aware of the situation and are working to find a practical solution that stays within the general philosophy and the wider scope of our immigration policy.
My hon. Friend raised a related issue—the ongoing impact of the working time directive. The Government committed themselves in the coalition agreement to limiting the application of the directive in the UK. The Department of Health and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are working closely together to achieve greater flexibility in the application of the directive in the NHS.
I understand that Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust currently has 24 vacancies for middle-grade doctors in specific specialities, including emergency medicine, paediatrics and anaesthetics. That has caused the trust to rely on expensive short-term locum doctors. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is a far from ideal situation. She rightly said that if one is paying more for locum doctors it means that there is less to be reinvested in front-line services. In the current economic climate, it is crucial that we save as much money as we can from inefficiencies, or working practices that need to be improved, and that every penny of those savings is reinvested in front-line services for the benefit all of our constituents.
It is the responsibility of NHS trusts to plan and manage their demand for temporary staff in the context of local business and work force planning. Worcestershire Acute Hospitals Trust is actively looking to recruit doctors from the Europe Union; as my hon. Friend said, the trust had success recently in recruiting doctors from Poland and the Czech Republic. Eight of the 24 vacancies have thus been filled, and I assure my hon. Friend that every effort is being made to fill the rest. I totally agree that it is crucial that the trust is able to fill those placements as quickly as possible.
My hon. Friend mentioned the success of cancer care in Worcestershire, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Worcester and for West Worcestershire. Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust has been held up by the national cancer survivorship initiative team as an example of how to run a successful prostate cancer service. It reflects extremely well on the staff of the trust that they have been able to deliver that quality of care—and received justified recognition for what they have achieved. The trust has just celebrated the first anniversary of its being declared a level 1 paediatric oncology shared-care unit, for providing better and more local care to children and families in Worcestershire. There is now a Macmillan cancer information and support centre at each of the three hospital sites. I join my hon. Friend in welcoming these developments, as it means better quality cancer services for her constituents and those of other Members.
I am glad to see that Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, University Hospitals Coventry and Worcestershire NHS Trust, and Warwickshire NHS Trust are working together to build a new specialist radiotherapy centre in Worcestershire. That is a subject and an interest that is close to the hearts of all Worcestershire Members, but particularly to those here today. As my hon. Friends will know, patients in Worcestershire travel in excess of a million miles every year for treatment, but by the end of 2013 the centre will mean that 95% of radiotherapy and almost all chemotherapy will be delivered within the county.
I am sure that my hon. Friends as well as the people of Worcestershire will accept that that is the right way to go, because when it is justified—it certainly is in these circumstances—care should be provided as locally as possible so as to reduce or eliminate the need for people to travel too far, especially if it is not necessary. My hon. Friends will agree, particularly for cancer care and radiotherapy, that it can be extremely upsetting, distressing and uncomfortable to people to have to travel long distances rather than being treated in the local hospital. For Worcestershire patients to have to travel in excess of a million miles every year for treatment is excessive, and I congratulate the Worcestershire trusts on coming up with such a proposal.
The trusts will work with existing cancer service providers to ensure that there is no disruption for patients who are currently receiving treatment. As my hon. Friend has said, they need to decide whether to locate the new centre at Worcestershire Royal hospital in Worcester or at the Alexandra hospital in Redditch. The local NHS will work with patient and clinical groups to make a decision as soon as possible based on the clinical and operational benefits of each site.
I understand that my hon. Friend has been encouraging the trust to locate the centre in Redditch. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester is doing exactly the same with regard to his constituency. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch that her views will be taken fully into consideration when the decision is made. I hope that she is satisfied with that. She realises that it would be totally inappropriate for me to seek to interfere with the process because it must be decided locally—by local clinicians and local trusts. I am confident that a decision will be reached at the appropriate time, and I urge all my hon. Friends to have some patience because an announcement will be made in due course.
Oncology patients and diagnostics will continue at Alexandra hospital, Worcestershire Royal hospital and at Kidderminster hospital. I hope my hon. Friends will be reassured and pleased by that.
My hon. Friend also raised concerns over the impact of GP-led commissioning on local NHS services, following her recent meeting with health care professionals in Redditch. While the new commissioning arrangements will be led by GPs, they will work not in isolation, but in partnership with their clinical colleagues. When one starts to bring together clinicians from primary, secondary and community care to discuss how best to design local services, organisational distinctions quickly fall away. The conversation instead becomes one about the most appropriate pathway of care for a particular group of patients. I am pleased to say that that is already starting to happen in Worcestershire. Again, that must be the right way forward.
There are currently two pathfinder consortia in Worcestershire: South Worcestershire GP Commissioning Consortium and Wyre Forest GP Commissioning Consortium, with a third group, covering Redditch and Bromsgrove, in the pipeline.
Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust is starting to build good relationships with these new consortia and has already had some very positive discussions with its GP colleagues. Indeed, each hospital, including the Alexandra hospital, has set up a commissioning board and is already meeting regularly with GPs. The trust’s recent restructuring has enabled its senior clinicians and management team to develop further the relationships, and individual boards are now in place at each hospital site. That will allow the hospitals to work with consortia on a regular basis and jointly to agree the most appropriate way in which to provide safe, effective, patient-centred care for the people of Worcestershire.
Whatever concerns have been voiced by local clinicians in my hon. Friend’s constituency, I hope that the practical experience of working with consortia—as opposed to working separately from them via primary care trusts—will soon change minds. Once the pathfinders have established themselves and their working practices and become more familiar with their enhanced role within the modernised NHS as laid out in our White Paper, I am confident that they will come to appreciate the system. GPs have the best knowledge of their patients’ requirements. For the vast majority of patients, their first contact with the NHS is through their GP, and GPs are best qualified to identify their needs and requirements. I am sure that as the system beds down, GPs will come to appreciate their greater independence and their proactive role. In effect, there will be a bottom-up provision of commissioning for the health care requirements of patients rather than the existing top-down procedures through the PCTs. It will be a boon not only for GP consortia in Worcestershire but throughout England as the system becomes more established.
My hon. Friend is concerned about the possible impact on the Alexandra hospital of the financial challenges that lie ahead. Last year, the Alexandra hospital made a surplus of approximately 1.3%, which was roughly in line with the trust’s surplus. Figures for this year are not yet available. However, as part of the need for the NHS to make up to £20 billion of efficiency savings in the coming years, Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust faces a significant efficiency target in 2011-12. The Alexandra will have to find its share of those efficiency savings. Budgets are in the process of being set and hospital teams are currently identifying where savings and efficiencies can be made. I hasten to reassure my hon. Friends about the savings. Every single penny of those savings will be reinvested in front-line services, providing care for the constituents of my hon. Friends and people elsewhere in the county, and, indeed, the country. It is crucial that we make savings to cut out inefficiency and ensure that the provision of care is of the highest quality and delivered in the most effective and efficient way. Let me repeat again, all of the £20 billion that is saved over the time period will be reinvested in front-line services. That is what providing health care is all about. That is what we will do and what must happen so that we can maximise the money available for front-line care for patients.
The trust assures me that it has no plans to reduce the status of A and E services at Alexandra hospital, which I hope reassures my hon. Friend. Indeed, the terms of reference for the ongoing surgical review at the site state that there must be a viable A and E service in Redditch. I trust that my hon. Friend and her constituents will be reassured by that commitment.
My hon. Friend was also concerned that rural constituencies such as her own may be losing out under the NHS allocation formula. Rural communities generally have a higher proportion of elderly people and, because of the increased difficulty in reaching providers, rural populations may make less use of health services. Some argue that the previous formula may have disadvantaged such areas.
The Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation examined the issue but found no evidence that an adjustment was needed for rural areas other than the continued need for an emergency ambulances cost adjustment to account for geographical variations in the cost of ambulance services. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked ACRA to look again at the unavoidable cost differences in rural areas in the light of the move to GP consortia. ACRA is due to report its findings to the Secretary of State in June 2011. I cannot anticipate what those findings will be, but it is important to get an independent body to examine an issue that is of great concern not only to my hon. Friend but to other hon. Members who represent rural constituencies in England.
In conclusion, there is a great deal to be positive about in Worcestershire, and I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree with me on that. The addition of a new radiotherapy centre is a particularly exciting new development. Indeed, all my hon. Friends showed great enthusiasm for the centre, calling it a positive enhancement of local health care. They also expressed their wishes as to where it should be located. Even more exciting is the changing nature of the clinical relationships that our modernisation of the health service will bring and the potential for significant improvements in NHS services for my hon. Friend’s constituents.
I am delighted to have had this opportunity to discuss the local health service in Worcestershire. There is a lot of positive news. My hon. Friends still have to express some of their views to the relevant authorities, and in due course, decisions will be taken.
Written Ministerial Statements
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
School Capital
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
Mr Justice Holman, on Friday 11 February, handed down the judgment in the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) judicial review proceedings brought by Luton borough council and Nottingham city council; Waltham Forest London borough council; Newham London borough council; Kent county council and Sandwell metropolitan borough council.
The judge said that he was
“absolutely clear that the decision is not open to legal challenge on a discrete ground of irrationality, however that argument is developed or put”;
and he agreed that nothing which the Department for Education or Partnerships for Schools had done in respect of these local authorities went
“so far as to create a substantive legitimate expectation that any given project would definitely proceed.”
These were the substantive points in this case and I am delighted that the judge ruled in my favour.
There were further, procedural, grounds on which the claimants made their case, in particular on a duty to consult; and on the duty to have due regard to equalities considerations. On these procedural grounds, the judge has ruled in favour of the claimants.
The judge has not ordered a reinstatement of funding for any BSF project. Nor has he ordered me to pay compensation to any of the claimants. Instead, he concluded that I
“must now, after giving each of them a reasonable opportunity to make representations, reconsider [my] decision insofar as it affects the claimants and each of the projects in relation to which they have claimed, with an open mind, paying due regard to any representations they may make, and rigorously discharging [my] equalities duties.”
Officials have, today, written to the six claimant local authorities to begin a process of consultation on their affected BSF projects.
The process
I have requested that the six local authorities provide me with any and all information about the BSF projects in their area which they consider is necessary for me to take into account when making a fresh decision with respect to those projects.
I will not be making contact directly with the affected schools. Local authorities will want to engage with the schools concerned and will provide the school-level information that they consider is necessary for me to have in mind when making my decision. Local authorities are in the best position to give an overview of the local issues affecting the school estate in their areas.
I have suggested that the local authorities may wish to include information on building condition, basic-need pressures, contractual liabilities, equalities impact and any school reorganisation proposals for each school within their claim. In addition, I have suggested that they highlight the particular circumstances of the schools which are covered by their claims and how these differ from schools which have either already received or are due to receive BSF investment as a result of inclusion in an earlier wave; and schools which are not due to receive any BSF funding at all. They may also wish to include information about costs that the councils have incurred by taking part in the repeat wave of the BSF.
During the consultation period, new general equalities duties may come into effect. As a result, in order to rigorously discharge my duty in relation to all protected characteristics, in addition to disability, race and gender characteristics, I will consider the protected characteristics of gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, religion or belief, marriage and civil partnership and sexual orientation.
The local authorities have been given a deadline of 11 April to return their representations to the Department.
Partnerships for Schools (PFS) has been commissioned to conduct site surveys of the schools in the consultation and their reports will be sent to the local authorities concerned.
Next steps
I will consider carefully the information that the local authorities provide. Local authority officers and relevant elected members and Members of Parliament will be invited to attend a meeting at the Department. These meetings will allow the local authorities to discuss the information they have provided in more depth and allow them to make further representations on issues that they consider need particular attention. The purpose of the meetings will be to allow local authorities the opportunity to fully present their case and is a further part of the information-gathering phase. No decision will be made at the meetings.
At the next stage a letter detailing my provisional or “minded to” decision will be sent to the local authorities and they will be given the opportunity to make further representations.
After that, I will make a decision on each of the projects, having considered, with an open mind, all of the information gathered over the consultation period and with due regard to my equalities duties. As the judge made clear,
“the final decision on any given school or project still rests with [me]”,
and that I
“may save all, some, a few or none”.
He concluded by saying that
“no one should gain false hope from this decision”.
I have written to all relevant Members of Parliament and local authority elected members to inform them of the consultation process. All schools within the consultation process have also been copied the letter sent to the local authority to ensure they are informed of the process. I have also placed in the Library of the House copies of the letters sent by my officials to the relevant local authority chief executives.
2050 Pathways Analysis
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)
I am announcing that the Government are launching the updated 2050 pathways analysis and 2050 calculator tomorrow. This analysis has been updated following discussion with experts, and reflects suggestions received during the call for evidence held July to October 2010.
The UK faces major choices about how to move to a secure, low-carbon energy system and wider economy over the period to 2050. The 2050 pathways analysis is a tool to help policy makers and the public understand these choices. The analysis was developed with extensive engagement of experts from business, academia and the third sector.
Alongside the updated 2050 calculator and pathways analysis report, tomorrow I will launch a new tool: the My2050 simulation. This user-friendly version of the analysis is aimed at a youth audience and we plan to engage schools and colleges in using it to raise awareness of the issues. My2050 is designed to help young people explore the hard choices the UK faces when it comes to tackling climate change and securing energy supplies. Scientists, engineers and politicians around the world have been grappling with these issues, but in the end it is ordinary people, especially young people, who in 2050 will be living with these decisions.
Tomorrow also sees the launch of our online event: “The 2050 Pathways Debate: having an energy-literate conversation about the UK’s options to 2050”. Leading climate and energy experts will use the 2050 pathways calculator to present their personal view of how the UK can reduce its emissions by at least 80% by 2050, ahead of the online debate being opened to the wider public.
Christchurch Earthquake
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)
A significant earthquake hit Christchurch, in New Zealand’s South Island, at 12.51 pm local time (23:51 GMT) on Tuesday 22 February 2011. The earthquake, which was measured at 6.3 on the Richter scale, caused widespread destruction and multiple fatalities in the city centre. There are still frequent aftershocks.
New Zealand is one of our closest allies and there are many close ties between the people of both countries. Around 300,000 British nationals visit New Zealand each year. The New Zealand authorities have confirmed 160 deaths, but this is expected to rise. I understand that at least four British nationals are among the dead. Our High Commission is in contact with the New Zealand police force concerning the formal identification of the deceased. I am unable to rule out further British casualties as the situation develops and more information is made available.
Officials from the British High Commission in Wellington, led by our High Commissioner, were quickly deployed to Christchurch to liaise with the New Zealand authorities and provide consular assistance to British nationals. They have responded to the needs of over 300 British nationals in Christchurch, issued more than 70 emergency passports, made regular visits to hospitals, attended family liaison meetings, kept in close contact with the New Zealand emergency operation centre, and provided consular assistance to the families of British victims. The remaining High Commission staff in Wellington have provided assistance on a 24-hour basis to British nationals arriving from Christchurch, while Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials from the wider region have been deployed to New Zealand to reinforce our efforts.
In response to a request for assistance from the New Zealand Government, we sent a self-sufficient search and rescue team of 63 experts drawn from the British emergency fire and rescue services, including trained paramedics. The UK team are now fully absorbed into the Christchurch search and rescue effort.
In addition, our offer of support in the process of disaster victim identification has been gratefully accepted by the New Zealand authorities. A 10-man team, specially tailored to support the local authorities, has arrived in Christchurch and will provide essential support and expertise in helping to identify any potential British victims and bolster the New Zealand authorities in their wider identification process.
East Caribbean Visa Waiver Test
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I are announcing the final decision under the UK’s first global review of visa regimes in relation to two countries in the Eastern Caribbean—Dominica, and St Lucia.
A visa regime is a very effective immigration, crime and security control measure. As part of our overseas defences our visa waiver test helps us determine whether our visa regimes are in the right places. Travellers from every country beyond the European economic area and Switzerland were measured against a range of criteria including illegal immigration, crime and security concerns.
In the final stage of the test we worked closely with Dominica and St Lucia whose nationals had been identified as posing a sufficiently high risk as to warrant, in principle, the introduction of a visa requirement for all visitors to the UK.
Work was undertaken over a six-month period to find ways to reduce the risks posed to the UK without the need for a visa requirement. Progress was made with both countries through a combination of advice, training and improved working relations on migration matters.
As a result, Dominica and St Lucia have made concrete improvements to the immigration, border control and identity systems which would not have happened without the test. At the end of this process we assessed the overall progress made by each country, and whether or not it was sufficient to mitigate the risks to the UK.
It has been decided that we will not be introducing new visitor visa requirements at this time for Dominica and St Lucia. We will continue to work with these countries on migration matters and assess the longer-term effectiveness of the actions taken.
Britain will always welcome genuine visitors but will continue to take all steps necessary to protect the border. Should circumstances warrant it, we will re-examine the situation and take prompt action to address any risk to the UK.
Grand Committee
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes)
My Lords, the clock is striking quarter to four. Before the Minister moves that the first statutory instrument be considered, I remind noble Lords that, in the case of each statutory instrument, the Motion before the Committee will be that the Committee do consider the statutory instrument in question. I should perhaps make it clear that the Motions to approve the statutory instruments will be moved in the Chamber in the usual way. I should also advise the Committee that, as is our wont on these occasions, if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Jobseeker’s Allowance (Work Experience) (Amendment) Regulations 2011
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that is has considered the draft Jobseeker’s Allowance (Work Experience) (Amendment) Regulations 2011.
Relevant document: 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, in moving the Motion, I am satisfied that the instrument is compatible with convention rights.
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the amendment before the Committee today. As your Lordships know, young people typically face disproportionate difficulties in finding work both during and after periods of recession. However, youth unemployment was stubbornly high even before the recent recession. The Government inherited a major youth unemployment problem, which has left us with some 600,000 young people who have never worked since leaving school or college and some 250,000 children growing up in homes where no one has ever worked. This is why this Government are determined to overhaul the welfare system and support more young people on to the first steps of the career ladder.
Today’s amendment is an important part of that process. It is just one element in a package of measures that the Government are introducing to help young people to make a smooth transition from education into work. However, it will play a key role in ensuring that we offer young people the opportunity to gain real experience of the world of work and the discipline required to allow them to play a full and responsible part in society.
The rationale underpinning the proposed amendment is really quite straightforward. We wish to reframe the rules around work experience programmes to make them more effective and more valuable for those who need most support. That is why we have built a number of defining characteristics into the new programme, which I will run through briefly.
For example, we aim to target the programme primarily at 18 to 21 year-olds who find it hardest to make the transition into employment. This is important, because the evidence suggests that, even though the headline figures for youth unemployment move up or down in a relatively smooth manner, there is a great deal of volatility underlying the figures. Indeed, some 80 per cent of young people move off jobseeker’s allowance after six months. Rather than paying for people who would move off JSA without the need for a great deal of support, we want to make sure that we target our resources at those who need it most—the 5 per cent or so who are at most risk of becoming long-term unemployed or withdrawing from the labour market altogether.
Another feature of the work experience programme is that we are keen to ensure that those taking part get a real sense of what it is to make the commitment to work. This is why we have made a conscious choice to extend the work experience placements from two weeks all the way up to eight weeks. Just as important, this approach also explains why we have introduced an element of mandation into the scheme. What this means in practice is that a Jobcentre Plus adviser will offer advice to those who are most likely to benefit from a spell of work experience. After that, the jobseeker will have a choice about whether they commit, so that funds are focused on those willing and motivated to attend. Each participant will then have a week-long probation period to find out whether the work is suitable for them. From this point, however, there will be a benefit sanction for those who do not complete their placement. This will give each young person a real sense of what the world of work is about—discipline, professionalism and commitment. Not only that, it also signals to the host business that we value the time and effort that it is putting in, as we will not accept time-wasters getting away scot free.
The last point that I wish to raise in relation to the work experience scheme is that we will still ask those taking part to show that they have made an effort to find work. This is a particularly important point because we know from previous experience that, even when people are doing programmes such as this, they have a better chance of moving off JSA if they stay with their job searches. However, we will also make sure that advisers have the flexibility to adjust the job-search reviews to make sure that they do not disrupt the work experience placements.
We are taking a whole new approach to work experience to make it more relevant and more cost-effective. We have created the framework for giving young people the opportunity to boost their confidence, their employability and their prospects. We have already secured support for the programme from a number of major companies, such as Skanska, Homebase, Hilton Hotels, McDonald’s, ISS facilities management, Chums, De Vere hotels, Carillion, Coyle Personnel and Punch Taverns.
This is a great start in giving young people access to quality work experience and introducing them to the world of work. However, given the sheer scale of the challenge that we have inherited, we know that we have far more to do to effectively tackle youth unemployment. The Government are willing to take on the challenge. That is why we are helping more young people with personalised support at jobcentres to help their transition to work, making access to skills provision a priority across the country and vastly increasing our investment in apprenticeships, where the Government have already committed to increase the budget for 2011-12 to more than £1.4 billion.
We will also help to get Britain working by rolling out work and enterprise clubs across the country, introducing the new enterprise allowance to support the start-up of up to 40,000 new businesses over the next two years and introducing the new work programme this summer to provide tailored solutions on a payment-by-results basis to help those trapped on benefits to start making the journey back to work.
All these measures are part of a wider commitment across government to make sure that we are giving everyone, especially young people, the right support to make the transition into the workplace, no matter which path they choose to get there. This is the only way to help people to work their way out of poverty and to spur the private sector growth that this country needs to drive the recovery and generate the long-term jobs that we need to build a sustainable economy for the future. I beg to move.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for putting flesh on the bones of this statutory instrument. Inevitably, what can be put across is limited by the regulations’ dry form. My reading of them is that they change the jobseeker’s legislation so that you can volunteer to take up a work experience opportunity and then, once you are in, it becomes mandatory with the threat of sanctions. If I was mischievous, I would say that this raises the possibility of compulsory volunteering. I know that it is not quite that. I have had experience of debating with Prime Ministers and others whether or not compulsory volunteering is a credible option, so I will not stray down that road.
We agree with the Minister about the value of work experience. When I was appointed Employment Minister in the previous Government, the Prime Minister told me that, as employment was rising in general and in particular among young people, the challenge was to get it to come down again. He would lend a hand through chairing the National Economic Council. It was implicit that it would be particularly helpful if that were achieved by the spring of last year rather than the summer. We did a range of things: the young person’s guarantee, the six-month offer, the September guarantee of education for young people and expansion of apprenticeships and, crucially, Backing Young Britain, which was in some ways the best example of which I can think of what others might describe as the big society.
It was a considerable effort to persuade employers in this country to offer young people opportunities for work—as work experience, as internships, as apprenticeships, or as whatever else they could offer to give young people a chance and something to put on their CV. We also developed sector routeways. When the Minister listed the names and different sorts of employers who have already expressed an interest in his work experience scheme, it was interesting to note that quite a few of them were in hospitality. I wonder what has happened to those sector routeways in care and in hospitality in particular and the part that they played in creating tens of thousands of opportunities for real work for our young people. We also had the fiscal stimulus, as a result of which we started to see growth come back into the economy and, magically as instructed, unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, fall in the spring. It is unfortunate that it is now going back up.
Work experience was vital to that effort and to all those packages for which I was responsible last year and the latter half of the year before. Therefore, I cannot argue with the Government in their wish to bring forward a work experience scheme. I would also encourage them to develop a form of work experience along the lines of what we would describe as internships. They are not a silver bullet—as, if I were unkind, I would say Ashley Cole might have found out at Chelsea recently—but they can be extremely helpful. In my private office in DWP, for example, we took on an intern who turned out to be an excellent official and who has been taken on permanently by the department. I would be interested to learn whether the Minister is now taking on another intern given that he knows the value of internships in the past.
We have seen the success of more extended schemes such as the Future Jobs Fund, which provided six months’ real work, at proper minimum rates of pay, through work experience, volunteering and the Community Task Force. I commend to your Lordships the work that we did with BTCV, CSV, v and Volunteering England, which provided 50,000 young people with work experience opportunities in the voluntary sector. I would be interested to learn whether any voluntary sector organisations—the Minister did not list any—will be engaged in offering work experience programmes. The outcomes from that scheme—I spoke to the chief executive of BTCV yesterday—were exceptional given the quite limited time during which the work experience opportunities were available.
The principle behind the proposals is therefore fine, although I have a few questions for the Minister in addition to those that I have already asked—he knows that I like to ask a few questions. Why the mandation? When we introduced our work experience schemes, which proved successful, as I have said, we did not need to change regulations in this way to require mandation. Might not a potential unintended consequence be that people will say, “Well, I’ve still got to fulfil the jobseeker regime in terms of being available for work and actively seeking work, which I’ve got to demonstrate to the adviser at Jobcentre Plus, so why put at threat my benefit by signing up to a scheme where, as a sanction, I could lose it? Why not just go and volunteer, and build up a CV by volunteering and doing work experience in other forms rather than joining the Minister’s scheme, where I do not get any extra money but where I might lose it?”
The Minister said that this was part of a wider package for young people. Of course, whatever the Government feel they can do to help young people is welcome, because we are extremely concerned about the rising numbers of young people who are unemployed, particularly the huge number of graduates who are now in unemployment. Are there any guarantees attached to his package? We had a guarantee that you would get some useful activity at least, even if it meant the Community Task Force as the back-stop provision, if you like. That meant that we could require them to do something and that doing nothing was not an option. Is doing nothing an option under the Minister’s scheme? How will he procure this provision? Will it be in the normal way, or will he just encourage people to offer work experience opportunities but not actually procure work experience opportunities, as I recall we did by, for example, using Reed in Partnership?
In summary, there is nothing that I can oppose in considering this statutory instrument in Committee today, but I still need a bit of convincing that it is needed. I would be grateful for answers to my questions, particularly as to whether there will be unintended consequences, with people not wanting to engage because of the threat of sanctions.
Lord German
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations. My noble friend has outlined some of the key issues relating to why these amendments and changes are necessary. I certainly welcome them.
I shall start by explaining why, in my view, work experience is so valuable. If experience is the key word, then what is the most valuable experience that anybody looking for a job can have? It is surely the experience of real work. I shall come back to mandation, or the mandatory element, in a moment because, in any real work there is an element of mandatoriness—you turn up in the morning and, if you do not turn up very regularly, the employer does not wish to have your services for much longer. Even if the employer who gives you a work placement is not hiring, the job that you do will help you to get the key skills that are so valuable to boost employability in the future and to raise the chances of getting a job somewhere else.
When these amendments to the existing regulations were laid, I looked up the criticisms at the time of the previous set of regulations relating to this matter. I turned to the editorial of Personnel Today issued in September 2009. It seems to me that I can do no better than to quote a couple of key sentences in this editorial, written by the deputy editor. He said:
“It seems completely illogical that young people who show initiative and arrange work experience placements off their own back should be ineligible for jobseeker’s allowance”.
That is certainly the case. Why would you want to engage in this great experience if you are losing money? I echo the noble Lord’s sentiment: if you are going to lose money, why would you want to take on an experience of that sort? The editorial continued:
“The current set-up makes the presumption that if an individual is undertaking work experience then they are not actively seeking a job”.
This is, indeed, nonsense. We need to ensure that people who are getting the experience are on that ladder and pathway towards a job.
“And it also risks creating a two-tier system, where unpaid opportunities are only enjoyed by the more affluent”.
There are certainly examples of people trading off an opportunity to get their son or daughter into a form of work experience, where the jobseeker’s allowance does not matter to the jobseeker. However, there is a quid pro quo. The last sentence of the editorial says:
“But employers also need to look at their own policies and not use young people on work experience as a ready source of cheap or unpaid labour”.
That raises some key issues. First, as the editorial says, if the experience is to reflect what is in fact a real work opportunity and to give people an opportunity to see work in every aspect, are these regulations either too heavy or too lean on the mandation? I think that the Minister has got it just about right. If you turn up and find on day one or two that the job is not really what you have an interest in or is totally alien to you—in which case someone has failed to help you further down the line—you can turn away from it without penalty. However, when you stick it out for your first week and carry on with it, if you fail to undertake the normal aspects of being at work, you will clearly be subject to the same relationship as if you were at work. I think that that brings just about the right level of flexibility into mandation.
I have a number of questions about what constitutes work, where the work is placed and what a workplace is. Clearly, it is important that we place people in the best experience, which will help them to seek employment. This Government are particularly anxious that we should encourage the voluntary or third sector to engage. Do placements inside the voluntary or third sector constitute a place of work?
I also welcome but would like a bit more explanation of the flexibility of Jobcentre Plus in helping people to arrange work experience. The ability of the person to arrange their own work experience, to work with Jobcentre Plus to come to it together or for Jobcentre Plus to make the appropriate placement at a local level is crucial. Do we have the sort of experience and guidance for Jobcentre Plus employees to work in partnership with jobseekers and not simply to find them a place? The difficulty is also that, if the target for Jobcentre Plus is to get as many people into work experience as possible, you choose those who are easiest to get into placement. I have represented Merthyr Tydfil and Ebbw Vale, which compete with each other to be the most difficult places in the country to get people into work; these are places where long-term unemployment is a feature. My experience is that it is often the low-hanging fruit that makes these things difficult to achieve. I like to think that Jobcentre Plus will not focus only on those who are easy to get into these placements. We need rather to encourage this to work on a wholesale basis. Perhaps the Minister could reflect on that.
Finally, I go back to the editorial and the issue of whether employers will truly use the opportunity to give experience of work rather than simply finding someone who is an extra pair of hands to do a job that does not necessarily provide the right level of experience. I am talking about quality assurance. Will the Minister reflect on the nature of quality assurance that we will need to get from Jobcentre Plus staff when they seek to carry out these placements? These are a worthy set of amendment regulations and I trust that, with the appropriate guidance, the Minister will see success with their implementation.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester
My Lords, I shall add one or two comments. I, too, very much welcome these regulations. I was interested that the Minister said that they were aimed primarily at 18 to 21 year-olds. That presumably means that the Jobcentre Plus advisers have some discretion and that the only thing that is absolutely laid down is that the person must be over 18. Will that be known by all the Jobcentre Plus advisers so that they do not prevent anyone from getting a work experience placement if they are, say, 25? Someone may have had a very chequered career and may have been in and out of work; they might quite like to be involved in this scheme but may be over 21. Can the Minister clarify that? Furthermore, why did the Minister alight on the time span of two months? I would rather like one of these work experience people myself, but I suppose that the House of Lords is not an employer. It is a pity—maybe we should be.
Lord Freud
My Lords, we have had an interesting debate and, as usual, some snappy questions. One of the things that this short debate has clearly demonstrated is the concern that we all share for the plight of young unemployed people. Their plight is why it is so important to develop this scheme and other schemes like it. I shall try to work through some of the questions.
I start by making the point that we have effectively built something of a Catch-22 for young people in that employers require work experience, or are much more comfortable with people who have demonstrated an ability to hold down some good work experience, whereas the support system for poorer youngsters on JSA has been loath to let them do it. The previous Administration carried out some experiments and programmes on this, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, pointed out, and I fully and absolutely acknowledge that we are building on previous experience. The noble Lord referred to the contract with Reed. I was interested to read the report on the Reed work experience and some of the interesting lessons there. One of the most interesting lessons was that the switch from going off JSA, which was a kind of bureaucratic requirement, on to a training allowance led to the loss of many youngsters, some simply because they could not transfer smoothly. The other factor that made that programme improvable—I will express it like that in the interest of consensus—is that the youngsters lost the link with jobseeking in that period. It was called a training allowance but they did not feel that they were still linked in. They lost the link with their Jobcentre Plus adviser.
This is a very different approach, which we incorporate within the mainstream JSA offer. The question “Why mandation?” was asked. I think that this is one of the things that starts to pull it together. We are saying to people, “You remain on the conditionality that JSA requires—you have to go on job searching. We will be more flexible about how you do that, working with the employers, but mandation remains in your JSA requirement and that carries forward into your work experience. Also”—as the noble Lord, Lord German, pointed out—“we have balanced it so that you have a week to work out whether this is really completely intolerable, and you can get out without a sanction. But once you have committed, you are like any other employee and you cannot bunk off without some repercussions”. In that way, the JCP regime is replicating what an ordinary employer would do to an ordinary employee where there is a set of mutual obligations. We cannot have a situation where employers, for whom we will want to make a lot of effort to ensure that this work experience is of great value, feel that they waste those resources because somebody can just stop turning up. That is the reasoning behind that.
Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (Consequential Amendments to the Mobile Homes Act 1983) Order 2011
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hanham
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that is has considered the draft Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (Consequential Amendments to the Mobile Homes Act 1983) Order 2011.
Relevant document: 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I apologise that this speech will be rather longer than I would have wished, but I shall get through it as quickly as I can.
The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (Consequential Amendments to the Mobile Homes Act 1983) Order 2011, the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment of Schedule 1 and Consequential Amendments) (England) Order 2011 and the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Jurisdiction of Residential Property Tribunals) (England) Order 2011 were laid in the House on 31 January and, subject to your Lordships’ approval and the approval of Members in the other place, our intention is for them to come into force on 30 April.
I turn first to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Jurisdiction of Residential Property Tribunals) (England) Order 2011. There are some 2,000 or so park home sites in England providing around 85,000 affordable homes. The Government value the park home sector, which provides an alternative to mainstream housing for many thousands of households in this country, often older people. The Government wish to ensure a well run sector in which disputes between residents and site owners can be resolved informally by negotiation and agreement. However, it will not always be possible for parties to resolve disputes between themselves. It is vital, therefore, for there to be an effective independent resolution system.
Often residents complain that they are unable to effectively challenge their site owner's decisions or enforce their rights because of the complexity and cost of court proceedings. Site owners, too, are concerned about the expense and delay in dispute resolution that court action can cause. Some of the responses to the consultations suggest that there are sharp practices in the sector and that unscrupulous site owners can be obstructive and even threatening when residents try to exercise their lawful rights. The transfer of jurisdiction will provide residents facing these abuses with a quick and cheaper means of challenging such behaviour.
The aim of the order is to create a level playing field between site owners and residents in resolving disputes and enforcing their rights. It will do this by transferring most dispute resolution and other proceedings from county courts to residential property tribunals.
The order has been long awaited by the park home community. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is not here, as he has been very much in the forefront of this and pushing for change. I hope that the fact that he is not here does not mean that he is too unwell. The order will apply to all mobile home sites, including park home sites and privately managed Gypsy and Traveller sites, as well as those owned by local authorities. The previous Government originally consulted on this proposal in May 2008 and it was welcomed by the majority of resident and site owner consultees, while a small minority, including representatives of Gypsies and Travellers and some site owners, preferred to retain the court to resolve disputes. Although, following further consultation, the previous Government announced in December 2009 that they intended to transfer the jurisdiction of the courts to hear most types of disputes to residential property tribunals, the transfer did not take place.
It has been a priority of my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Housing and Local Government to introduce a framework whereby residents and owners of park home sites are treated on an equal footing in dispute resolution. That is why he announced on 14 July last year that he intended to implement the transfer, subject to Parliament’s approval.
The order transfers dispute resolution and other proceedings under the Mobile Homes Act from county courts to residential property tribunals, except applications to terminate an agreement, which will remain within the county court’s jurisdiction. However, if the ground on which termination is sought is that the home is in disrepair, this fact will in the future need to be established in the tribunal before the court can be asked if it is reasonable to terminate the agreement.
The tribunal will be able to deal with such matters as pitch fee reviews or applications for approval of a purchaser of a home that arise after 30 April, as well as other matters, such as re-siting of homes, recognition of qualifying residents’ associations and other contractual disputes.
Tribunals are cheaper and easier to use than the courts. In some cases, such as those relating to pitch fee reviews, no fee will be payable to make an application. Where there is a fee, it will be set for a single application at £150—and this will be waived for applicants in receipt of certain state benefits. Unlike in the courts, applicants and those defending cases do not risk having costs awarded against them if they lose. The tribunal does not award costs in favour of a party because he or she wins, but it can impose penal costs up to a maximum of £5,000 if one of the parties to the proceedings has acted unreasonably. Of course, we recognise that transferring dispute resolution to the tribunal will not be a solution to all the problems that park home residents face from the minority of unscrupulous operators in the park home sector, although it will go some way towards making it easier to challenge their behaviour.
My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Housing and Local Government announced on 10 February that he proposed to consult on a range of measures that will help to address these problems by giving further powers and tools to local authorities to better monitor and enforce the licences that they grant for park home and other caravan sites and to improve the buying and selling process of park homes by giving new powers to this tribunal to intervene when site owners have unreasonably blocked sales in the past. He plans to consult on these measures in the spring.
I turn to the two orders that relate to the application of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 to local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites. I have given their full titles before and I am not going to say them again. These orders will come into force in tandem with and as a consequence of the commencement of Section 318 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. Section 318 removes the provision that currently excludes local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites from the protections of the Mobile Homes Act 1983. Section 318 will be brought into force by a commencement order that does not require parliamentary procedure.
On 29 August 2010, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government announced his intention to apply the Mobile Homes Act 1983 to local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites by commencing Section 318 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. This is part of a package of measures to provide a fair deal for Travellers and the settled community.
Gypsies and Travellers who play by the rules and live on authorised sites will have the same protection against eviction as people living on other types of residential mobile home sites, such as park home sites. The new homes bonus will reward communities that provide additional authorised Traveller sites. Funding will be available to councils for the provision of authorised sites through the Traveller pitch funding scheme. Both schemes will begin in April 2011. Councils will get stronger powers to tackle the unauthorised development of sites. Proposals to limit the opportunities for retrospective planning applications, in relation to any form of unauthorised development, are set out in the Localism Bill.
The role of elected councils in planning for Traveller sites will be strengthened by the abolition of regional strategies and the replacement of Planning Circulars ODPM 01/2006 and 04/2007 with a short, light-touch new policy. The legal basis for regional strategies will be abolished through the Localism Bill, and a consultation on the replacement of the planning circulars will be published shortly.
The rights and responsibilities of Gypsies and Travellers living on permanent local authority pitches are currently covered by the Caravan Sites Act 1968. This provides only limited protection from eviction and harassment. In particular, in order to evict a resident who might have lived on the site for a number of years, a local authority need only give a minimum of 28 days’ notice to terminate the licence and obtain a court order for possession. The court does not have the opportunity to consider whether it is reasonable to grant the order, although it can suspend the possession order for up to a year at a time.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for her careful explanation of the terms of the three orders. I endorse the tribute that she paid to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who has fought for the rights of people living in mobile homes for at least the past 25 years and probably many more. Going back to the Mobile Homes Act 1983, he has always been at the forefront of the struggle to give mobile home dwellers the same rights in disputes as people who live in conventional housing. The orders accomplish that. As the Minister explained, they also extend the provisions of the 1983 Act to people living on Gypsy and Traveller sites so that they enjoy the same protections as have hitherto been enjoyed by non-Gypsies. I should like to raise only a couple of points on these aspects of the orders.
In the amendment of Schedule 1 order, the definition of Gypsies is taken from the Caravan Sites Act 1968, into which it had been copied from the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. The Act states that,
“‘gipsies’ means persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin”.
I think that the Minister is aware that in the case of Wrexham County Borough Council v Berry in 2003, the Court of Appeal held that Mr Berry, who had retired because of ill health and was no longer nomadic, was not a Gypsy according to the statutory definition. The Government at the time acknowledged that a new definition was needed, and the formulation with which they came up, in paragraph 15 of ODPM Circular 1/2006, was that,
“‘gypsies and travellers’ means … Persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of their own or their family’s or dependants’ educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently”.
Secondly, the residential property tribunals order provides that most disputes other than possession actions on 1983 Act sites, including local authority Gypsy sites, formerly dealt with by the county court or an arbitrator, are to be dealt with by the RPTs. As the Minister has explained, the average cost of an application to the RPT is estimated at £150, compared with £4,000-plus for presenting or defending a case before the county court. In the consultation with Gypsies and Travellers, the Government undertook to ensure that Gypsies and Travellers were provided with assistance in presenting their case. Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of respondents to the consultation favoured the use of RPTs, with only a handful supporting the other two alternatives—the retention of the county court's jurisdiction or the creation of a dedicated tribunal dealing with park homes and Gypsy site cases, other than cases related to termination proceedings.
The Government, who had agreed that compulsory arbitration clauses should no longer have effect as they appeared to favour site owners, appear to have left a loophole in this order. In paragraph 7.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum, it is said:
“Where an agreement specifies that a dispute is to be determined by an arbitrator that requirement will not have effect and instead the disputes will be determined by a Residential Property Tribunal”.
Sure enough, the order provides that in new Section 4(5) of the 1983 Act, if the owner and occupier have entered into an arbitration agreement before the question arose, a tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the question and entertain any proceedings arising instead of the court—and in this case the tribunal would normally be the RPT. But when the sequence is reversed, with the question arising before the agreement, new Section 5(1)(d), in the interpretation clause, says that in that context “tribunal” means the arbitrator. Presumably, if a question arises other than an application by a site owner to terminate an agreement, which is still to be determined in the county court in all circumstances, the occupier would be advised not to accept an arbitration agreement, so that it would be extremely rare for those questions to be determined by the arbitrator rather than the RPT. But why did the Government find it necessary to make this difference in the order between questions that arise before and after an agreement? The Explanatory Memorandum is silent on the matter, and I would welcome some elucidation by the Minister.
Lord Scott of Foscote
My Lords, I shall say just a few words about the arrangements made by these statutory instruments regarding the so-called transit pitches. However, I must make a comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has just said on the nomenclature. Years ago, when I was at the Bar, I got involved in a case involving some children who had been taken from their mother and secreted in some caravans where some Gypsies resided. When the case eventually reached court and I was cross-examining, and I said, “I don’t know why you’re so upset, because my client too is a Gypsy”, the answer was one of scorn. I was told, “He’s not a Gypsy—he’s nothing but an Irish tinker”. But he was certainly a Traveller. One has to be careful about who one is calling a Gypsy, because the expression does not necessarily extend to all nomadic Travellers who live in mobile homes and caravans.
Be that as it may, I shall make some remarks about the arrangements made for the so-called transit pitches. These are defined in the statutory instrument as,
“a pitch on which a person is entitled to station a mobile home … for a fixed period of up to 3 months”.
As I understand it, these transit pitches are needed by local authorities—this applies only to local authorities—because from time to time there are eviction orders made against Gypsies/Travellers who have been stationing their caravans or mobile homes on private land; the landowner has obtained an eviction order so they have to move—and the question is where they can move to. The local authorities want to have available sites—I am speaking as a matter of belief, and I must be corrected by the Minister if this is wrong—where they can be decanted from the site from which they have been evicted as an emergency matter, hence the need that the local authorities’ transit pitches should not be permanently occupied. The distinction is between permanent sites and transit sites.
Lord Scott of Foscote
If the noble Baroness can listen at the same time as being spoken to, she is a remarkable lady.
These are points that the Minister’s department should consider in connection with this statutory instrument before treating it as satisfactory in its present form. I saw this before—perhaps I should have said that I am a member of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee. I remember reviewing this and raising the points that I have raised this afternoon when the Select Committee considered this instrument. I do not know whether the secretariat of the Select Committee communicated the points I made to the department; it may not have done, but if it did, the points will be somewhere on file in the department. If it did not, the department needs to consider them and consider improving the statutory instrument by withdrawing it and redrafting. That, I remember, was done before the election by the previous Government when the Select Committee had objections to the way a particular statutory instrument was phrased and it led to a meeting for which the Minister, Mr Jack Straw, came to this part of the Palace of Westminster. He had a meeting with the chairman of the Select Committee, his officials and me, where we worked out a satisfactory wording, and the statutory instrument was withdrawn and relaid and went through in that satisfactorily amended form. I respectfully suggest that something similar needs to happen to this statutory instrument, because I do not believe that it is going to be satisfactory as it is now drafted.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, I share the pleasure of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities that the long-standing source of discrimination and harm caused by their lack of equal tenure rights on mobile homes has been put right by these orders. I congratulate the Government on the orders, but, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, there are problems and I, too, am surprised that the Merits Committee did not make more of them.
I want to add a few words on two provisions. The first, the outdated definition explained by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, which was not flagged up in the consultation, would exclude a large number of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller residents—because, for instance, they want their children to have a continuous education, or they need regular healthcare—from the rights provided in the order. Two-thirds of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community live in settled accommodation from time to time at least. I really think that this must be put right. Could guidance do it? I do not see how it could, but what does the noble Baroness say?
The second provision that I want to comment on effectively excludes all possessions actions from the last resort of justice at a court of law, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said. I had thought that the Government’s intention was to drop the idea of arbitration being the final stage, so that everything could go to the residential property tribunals, with their last resort being the courts. The weakness of the order as it stands, as far as I understand it, is that the local authority can insert an arbitration agreement in contracts as a device to avoid any possibility of court action. I do not think that that is fair either, and that was not our intention when we moved the amendment that eventually brought this order about. I submit that this, too, needs amendment.
Lord Patel of Bradford
My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the work done in this area by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. It is sad that he is not here today.
I shall be brief because the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, and my noble friend Lady Whitaker have covered some key issues. I welcome the changes in the three instruments to provide the same procedural safeguards and other rights and responsibilities to Gypsies and Travellers on local authority sites as on private sites. This is in line with the previous Government’s policies, which were aimed at increasing the number of authorised pitches and ensuring that appropriate enforcement powers were available.
I am grateful to the Minister for outlining clearly and in great detail how the current provisions provide limited protection from eviction and harassment. If these changes were not made, there would be a risk that the current problems—the continuing inequality—would be perpetuated, which would inevitably lead to an increase in the number of challenges to possession actions and associated costs. Therefore, the proposed changes should improve security of tenure for Gypsies and Travellers on local authority sites, which has to be welcomed.
I echo and add my endorsement to the issues that my noble friend and other noble Lords have raised. They are crucially important. There are two particular issues that I shall add a little more comment on, which have been clearly identified. The first is on the definitions. Under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment of Schedule 1 and Consequential Amendments) Order 2011, in Chapter 1, paragraph 1(4), the interpretation as I and other noble Lords have read it clearly says that the words “Gypsies and Travellers” mean,
“persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin, but does not include members of an organised group of travelling showmen, or persons engaged in travelling circuses, travelling together as such”.
Therefore, a large number of residents on local authority sites would fall outside this definition. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, gave the example of the Wrexham CBC v Berry case in 2003, which held that Mr Berry, who had retired on the grounds of ill health, was no longer a Gypsy in terms of the definition. The Government accepted that this was not an acceptable situation and introduced a new definition, in paragraph 15 of Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Circular 01/2006, so that “Gypsies and Travellers” means,
“persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of their own or their family’s or dependants’ educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently”—
again, excluding members of an organised group, and so on. It would be really helpful if the Minister could say what the situation is. Has this order been drafted wrongly and does it need redrafting, or is it associated with a previous Act in some way?
I shall not labour my second point, because the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has referred in detail to arbitration. I hope that the Minister can provide us with some reassurances, particularly on what my noble friend Lady Whitaker said about exclusion of all possession actions. That concerned me with regard to residents being able to take disputes to court when there is an arbitration agreement. As has been said, this could provide local authorities with a method for avoiding any matters going to the court by inserting an arbitration agreement. If the Minister could address that point, it would be helpful.
As the noble Baroness said, the preferred option in the consultation in 2008 was to transfer jurisdiction to the RPT, although clearly applications to terminate agreements would still be dealt with by the county courts. If the Minister could reassure us on that issue, it would be very helpful.
Overall, the new rights, which remove the current exclusion of local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites from the provisions of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 and ensure that residents of authorised sites have the same protection against eviction as those living in other residential mobile homes, are to be welcomed. However, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide reassurance that the rights will not be limited to certain narrowly defined groups or prevent residents from taking a dispute to court if arbitration does not resolve it to their satisfaction.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have attended the Committee and for their comments. It is correct that the definition of Gypsies and Travellers was changed as a result of concerns expressed about it. However, for the purposes of the order and for it to come under the Mobile Homes Act, the definition had to revert to that provided in the 1960 Act; otherwise, Gypsies and Travellers could not have been encompassed by it. Gypsy and Traveller sites as they are defined pending commencement of Section 318 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 are excluded from the Mobile Homes Act. That is why we went back to the 1960 Act, under which they are not.
The exclusion from the 1983 Act of local authority Gypsy or Traveller sites relates to land and not to people. It is not the Gypsies who are affected by it but the sites. Gypsies and Travellers who rent pitches on private sites have agreements under the Mobile Homes Act.
Baroness Whitaker
When the order comes into force, will Gypsy, Roma and Travellers who from time to time live in settled accommodation have equal rights of tenure?
Baroness Hanham
I am receiving lots of nods from behind me—if you saw them, it was four nodding-of-heads. I shall interpret that as yes.
I hope that I have adequately explained why we have had to amend the definition. If we had not, we would not have been able to include Gypsies and Travellers in the orders.
Lord Avebury
For the life of me, I cannot understand how, when the order comes into force and someone brings proceedings in respect of a Gypsy living in a mobile home under the 1983 Act, a court is not bound to reach the same conclusion as it did in the case of Berry. It would say, “This person is not a Gypsy and he is therefore not entitled to benefit from the provisions of the order or of the 1983 Act”. What fallacy is there in that argument?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, as I understand it, if that is the conclusion, it means that we cannot bring the order forward. Without the original definition, we cannot change the Mobile Homes Act, which is the purpose of the order. As I understand it, Section 318 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 will bring forward the other definition when it is implemented. This is a short-term problem that will be rectified by the introduction of Section 318.
Baroness Whitaker
Will this be explained in some kind of advisory note or guidance, so that at least the Gypsy, Roma and Travellers’ representatives will know what the law is?
Baroness Hanham
This is obviously very important, and whatever advice goes forward will be recorded in Hansard. I know that probably they do not read it very closely, but somebody might. But it will be made clear that that is the situation.
Arbitration agreements were brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. As we understand it, very few agreements are subject to arbitration. These are mostly for park home sites, not Gypsy and Traveller sites, so arbitration will not be a huge problem from that point of view. The arbitrator’s function has been moved to the residential tribunal, and is likely to come up on termination or possession. If an agreement is subject to arbitration, the transfer is to the tribunal for termination not possession, but an arbitration provision has to be agreed to by the resident. If there is no agreement at all, termination—and by that I include possession—will be dealt with in the court. So there is a route to court in this matter.
Baroness Whitaker
The problem is that a contract or agreement will be drawn up by the local authority with the arbitration provision, and the tenant or caravan occupier may not realise that that completely ousts all possibility of their taking an unresolved dispute after the tribunal to the court. How could that be tackled?
Baroness Hanham
Let us go back to possession. Only a court can grant possession, so the tribunal proceedings would not deal with possession. It is always dealt with in the courts. My previous remarks referred to termination, where, if there was no agreement by the resident, it could go to court. By both routes it can end up in court, but with possession it starts and is completed in court. You cannot have possession that does not go through the courts.
I was fascinated to learn that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, was on the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee. The way in which it is laid out, there were no challenges from the committee—I am sorry, from the JCSI—on this matter. My advice is that there is no need for a notice period to be specified, because the Caravan Sites Act 1968 already provides that the occupier on quitting early must give four weeks’ notice. That requirement has not been changed. Terms of occupation will be set out in a written statement, which will be given to the occupier who is coming on for three months.
Lord Scott of Foscote
These statutory instruments provide that the occupier has to give four weeks’ notice if he is terminating an agreement relating to a permanent site. The provision relating to a transit site does not include any requirement for the period of notice. That distinction must mean something—it must mean that no period of notice must be given.
Baroness Hanham
All I can say is that in the consultation local authorities said that in practice they did not expect occupiers of transit pitches to give much or any notice. The question was how much notice they had to give on departure from the pitch. So if they take up to three months or if they have a three-month agreement or if they have four weeks, it does not matter whether they give notice or not; they can just tip off. I am sorry if I am misunderstanding you.
Lord Scott of Foscote
Forgive me. These statutory instruments, if brought into effect in the terms in which they are now cast, constitute the law. What the practice is between many local authorities and many occupiers of these sites is another matter. This constitutes the law and it needs to be understandable and coherent as the law. At the moment, Chapter 4, which deals with permanent sites, says that the occupier must give four weeks’ notice; Chapter 3, which deals with transit sites, says simply that written notice must be given without any reference to any period.
Baroness Hanham
Forgive me. It would have been helpful to have had notice of what is clearly a legal matter, but if we can adjourn for five minutes we will try to sort it out. I apologise for not being able to answer straightaway.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Attlee has made a proposal to noble Lords that, since this clearly needs sorting out legally, I should undertake to write to all Members of the Committee with a legal answer and that we will not have the order moved on the Floor of the House until noble Lords have seen that and are satisfied with it.
Lord Scott of Foscote
Forgive me, but there was another important point on paragraph 4 of Chapter 3.
Baroness Hanham
Could we cover the whole lot in the same letter? I shall just say, quite mournfully, that it would be really helpful, where there are clearly legal points, to have notice of them. I would have ended up not looking quite so unprepared and noble Lords would have had an earlier answer.
Lord Scott of Foscote
If the Minister, or whoever deals with these things at the department, wants to talk to me about it, that is fine.
Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment of Schedule 1 and Consequential Amendments) (England) Order 2011
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hanham
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment of Schedule 1 and Consequential Amendments) (England) Order 2011.
Relevant document: 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Jurisdiction of Residential Property Tribunals) (England) Order 2011
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hanham
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Jurisdiction of Residential Property Tribunals) (England) Order 2011.
Relevant document: 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
House of Lords
Tourism
Lord Lee of Trafford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their latest estimate of the number of people employed in the tourism and hospitality sectors.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
Tourism is one of the UK’s biggest employers, directly supporting 1.36 million jobs. British tourism is expected to employ 1.5 million people directly by 2020, and nearly 3 million in total if indirect employment is included.
Lord Lee of Trafford
I am very grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Does she appreciate that the British Hospitality Association estimates that 30,000 new beds will come on stream in the next two years, providing further employment, but that the current reality is that without our overseas nationals, our hotel and restaurant industry would probably collapse? A leading restaurant in Piccadilly employs people of 32 nationalities; a leading hotel on Park Lane employs people of 60 nationalities.
Parallel to that, we have a most serious youth unemployment situation in this country. Could not the Government therefore work in a creative way to try to build bridges between our hospitality industry and those who are unemployed, and to turn the negative attitude in this country to the industry and service industries generally?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
As my noble friend identified, the hospitality sector has long been reliant on migrant workers. Of course we value the skills that they bring, but we recognise that more needs to be done to attract and train people locally. Industry bodies such as People 1st and Springboard are working to improve the appeal of the industry and to demonstrate to young people the enormously wide range of job opportunities available to them.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
I have a registered interest as a board member of VisitBritain. Does the noble Baroness agree that one of the great advantages of tourism is that it can bring economic development to parts of the country that other industries do not reach? There are great opportunities for British tourism over the next year to 18 months with the royal wedding, the Olympics and the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, but there are challenges too with rising oil prices. Will the noble Baroness ask the department to come back on the issue of visas for those coming from emerging markets? Many people from countries such as China find it very difficult to come to the United Kingdom because of the visa requirements. That one step alone would help to create even more jobs in tourism and give us an even better 18 months to two years.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the attractions of different parts of the country and the many big events that will happen around the UK, which we hope will bring an increase in tourism. On visas, there are figures to show that there has been a significant increase in the number of people from China applying for visas to come to this country, so the deterrent might not be as severe as the noble Baroness fears, but this is something that we keep under constant review.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
Does the noble Baroness agree that it would help recruitment to the tourist industry if the Government made clear that they are taking a positive view of language teaching in British schools not merely for academic high-flyers but for all children?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
The noble Baroness speaks to an issue that is after my own heart but which is slightly wide of the Question. Teaching languages and training people in this country to speak other languages is vital on all sorts of fronts. Hopefully, with the Olympics, there will be a boost because people who have trained in the hospitality sector will need to converse with all the visitors in their own language.
Lord Elton
My Lords, if we are to have more people in the tourist industry, we must generate more visitors. A great deal will depend on repeat business. Can my noble friend tell us who in government is responsible for surveying and maintaining visitor experience in this country, and could she ask him or her to pay attention to terminal 3 at Heathrow?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
Without wishing to move to another department, I think terminal 3 is slightly outside the responsibility of DCMS, but my noble friend raises a very valid point on it. Many of the responsibilities for tourist attractions are at local and regional rather than national level, but DCMS keeps the whole tourist experience under constant review and looks at how we can attract tourists and encourage them to come back again.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet
Does the Minister agree that the skills that are required in this industry are well catered for in the sector skills councils, in particular by People 1st, of which she has knowledge? Will she encourage government to ensure that apprenticeships are also made available within that industry?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
The noble Baroness speaks with great experience of this area. Apprenticeships in the hospitality and tourism sector need to be encouraged. On the whole skills level, we hope that this sector, like others, will be given a terrific boost when the WorldSkills competition comes to London in October. We will be able to see the brightest and best of the UK competing against the best of the world. I encourage all noble Lords to go to the ExCeL centre in October to see how brilliant the skills of young people around the world can be.
Lord Tanlaw
Would the Minister not agree that north of the border the tourist industry would be greatly improved if daylight saving were in operation? Would it not help if time became a devolved subject so that the Scots could at least make their own decision on this, just as they do in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
A Bill on daylight saving is currently being scrutinised in the other place, so we probably need to await the outcome of that. It has been clear that there is no intention that time should be devolved between the four countries of the UK. We would like to see all four countries agreeing on the same time zone.
Baroness Billingham
As ever, the Minister has given us clear and concise answers and has answered many of the questions that I was going to put to her. I am sure she would agree that the people most at risk in our economy at the moment are young people between 18 and 25. Would she agree that the tourism industry is the one place where they could most easily be accommodated? What action are the Government taking to target more funds and resources on the tourism industry to stop a whole generation being denied their fair chance at employment in future?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
As the noble Baroness will be aware, the Government are making funding available to the tourism and hospitality sector. On encouraging young people, I mentioned the skills competition, but there are programmes, such as FutureChef, which appeal directly to young people to encourage them to come in. This is a two-way trade. Not only do the opportunities have to be there, but young people have to demonstrate commitment and interest in the jobs. The Government will do as much as they can to encourage the jobs and the young people to fit them.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
On daylight saving, is the Minister aware of the research by the Policy Studies Institute that shows that up to 80,000 jobs could be created in the UK tourist industry? Can she think of any other government decision that would cost no public money to help thousands of our young people back into work?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I thank my noble friend for that. Daylight saving is a timely issue. We have discussed it before, it is raised in the media and it is very much under discussion. However, it is currently under review in the other place, and I think we need to wait for the outcome of that Bill to see what happens following those discussions.
Banks: Mutual Ownership
Lord Borrie
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they envisage the sale of banks in which they have a stake being accompanied by the revival of mutual ownership.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, UKFI, which manages the Government’s investments and financial institutions is responsible for devising appropriate exit strategies. Its mandate requires it to act in a way that protects and creates value for money for the taxpayer and pays due regard to financial stability and competition considerations. It is currently exploring the options available for disposing of Northern Rock plc. All exit strategies will be considered, including remutualisation.
Lord Borrie
I am grateful to the Minister for his moderately helpful Answer, especially the reference to the activities of UKFI. Does he agree that traditionally and well deservedly mutuals have had a very high reputation among customers generally for satisfaction with their activities, that mutuals have engaged less than banks in speculative and risky activities, and that certainly they have provided a great deal of competition and diversification over the years? In this new set up today, when there will be some sales of existing state-owned parts of banks, will the Minister ensure that the mutuals get a great deal of understanding in this regard? Perhaps the Government could initiate a feasibility study through UKFI, which would be most helpful.
Lord De Mauley
Yes, my Lords, I think I can agree with the noble Lord. The important thing is the stability of our financial system. The Government are committed to fostering diversity in financial services, including, where appropriate, mutual ownership, and to creating a more competitive banking industry. That is why we have set up the Independent Commission on Banking: to recommend reforms to the banking system that meet those objectives, including promoting financial stability and consumer choice.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
Will my noble friend confirm that it is the Government’s intention that the shareholdings in question will be sold during the lifetime of this fixed-term Parliament? Will he also inform the House of the best estimate that the Office for Budget Responsibility has made of the proceeds of these sales?
Lord De Mauley
No timetable has been set. UKFI does not think that it is possible or desirable to set firm targets, such as time or proceeds, that would drive the Government’s sale of shares. When UKFI has a proposal, it will offer it.
Lord McFall of Alcluith
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that all building societies that transferred into plcs in the 1990s are now no more. People realised that there was strength in the mutual principle and framework. Will he go further and assure the House that UKFI will engage with the Building Societies Association to ensure not just that there is a war on words but that there is a proposal on the table to ensure that we will have competition and diversity in the marketplace in the future?
Lord De Mauley
I think I can perhaps go a little further in saying that the Government are implementing a number of legislative reforms that will allow financial mutuals greater flexibility to develop and expand, and so promote mutual ownership in financial services. These include such things as completing the passage through Parliament of the Legislative Reform (Industrial and Provident Societies and Credit Unions) Order, commencing the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 2010, and bringing Northern Ireland credit unions under FSA regulation. As I have said, the Independent Commission on Banking will also consider competition in the banking sector and make recommendations on this as part of its report.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware of the excellent report in 2006 by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Building Societies and Financial Mutuals that identified the beneficiaries of demutualisation as essentially the directors, who saw their remuneration go up. Among the biggest losers were those who live more to the financial margins, require basic bank accounts and are at risk of financial inclusion. Will he ask that when a future is considered for Northern Rock and others that this test of serving the financially excluded is part of the specification and that the work that mutuals do in this area is recognised?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I will certainly take my noble friend’s comments back to the department.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, the noble Lord on a couple of occasions has referred to the Independent Commission on Banking. Will he confirm that in recent weeks there have been threats of resignation from the commission if its remit is in any way constrained?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I am not fully aware of that and I will come back to the noble Lord on the matter.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the major issues in this area is the lack of trust in the large banks? Does he accept that trust is much higher in organisations that retain a mutual element, such as the Nationwide Building Society or the John Lewis Partnership? Will he affirm that there is a need, whatever arrangements are being made, for real attention to be paid to the need for a restoration of trust within the sector, of which mutualisation might well be a very important part?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I absolutely take the right reverend Prelate’s point. It is very well made.
Lord Tomlinson
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that mutual benefit societies of a wide variety are perhaps one of the earliest manifestations of the big society working, and that we will partly judge the Government’s views on the big society by the enthusiasm with which they pursue mutualisation in this area?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, what a highly helpful comment from the noble Lord. I will make sure that the Government are made aware of it.
Bribery Act 2010
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they intend to bring the Bribery Act 2010 into force.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the Government are committed to the implementation of the Bribery Act. We are urgently working on the guidance to commercial organisations to make it practical and useful for legitimate business and trade. After the guidance is published, there will be a three-month notice period before full implementation of the Act.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I hope the Minister will forgive me for making my thanks for that not very satisfactory Answer fairly perfunctory. The fact is that the Act should be in force by now. Does he not agree that those who have been campaigning so vociferously against the entry into force of the Act have done Britain’s industry no favours whatever by suggesting that it can export successfully only by the use of these dubious practices? Does he not also agree that suggestions that this piece of legislation was rushed through Parliament before the election are a travesty, considering that the matter was subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny for a lengthy period in a committee of both Houses?
Lord McNally
My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord’s last point: the legislation was subject to very careful scrutiny. Since coming to office, we have also subjected the Act to a wide range of consultations aimed at making sure that the Act, which passed both Houses with all-party support, was fully understood and could be implemented fully. I take the noble Lord’s point, as I think that the Government do, that any suggestion that British industry can only make advances in overseas trade by bribery does unjust damage to our reputation as a fair-trading nation.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I had the privilege of taking the Bill through this House. The Minister is quite right: it was received with widespread and vocal support from all sides of the House. That does not always happen with Ministry of Justice Bills. One criticism, however, was that legislation should have been put in place sooner, not as late as it was. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has reminded us, one year after the Bill became an Act of Parliament, we still do not know when it will be implemented. Does the Minister agree that this is totally unsatisfactory and that he needs to go back to his department and insist that the Bill be implemented as soon as possible?
Lord McNally
I hear what the noble Lord says. During the period we are talking about we have not been idle. My right honourable and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice has met representatives of the CBI, the multinational chairmen’s group of the International Chamber of Commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce and Transparency International. We are trying to make sure that this is understood and it is going to be implemented effectively. I certainly will take note of the comments made in this House today about the sense of urgency.
Lord Howe of Aberavon
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on boards of British companies that include American directors, British directors have long been embarrassed by the great enthusiasm with which their American colleagues cite the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, well ahead of anything we have had alongside it for a very long time? Despite what my noble friend has said, is it not the case that it is becoming increasingly difficult to explain the delay, and that that is doing increasing damage to the reputation of British industry and, indeed, to the reputation of the Lord Chancellor himself?
Lord McNally
My Lords, again I cannot help but draw attention to the fact that there is a sense of unity in the House on this. We are proceeding with all due speed on the matter. One thing that gives me encouragement, having sat in on a number of the meetings the Lord Chancellor has had with industry, is that industry itself seems to be quite capable of living with this Act. I take note of what my noble and learned friend has said, but I do not think that this is a matter of the reputation of the Lord Chancellor, although there is the question of implementation on which I hope these exchanges will be duly noted.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, there is time for all these questions. Perhaps we can hear first from my noble friend and then from the noble Lord.
Lord Goodhart
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that bribery and corruption are hugely damaging to developing countries, not least to those in North Africa and the Middle East, and that that is a very important reason why the Government should not delay any further in bringing this Act into force?
Lord McNally
My Lords, the Government are taking strong action on anti-corruption, including the recovery and freezing of corrupt assets in the areas the noble Lord has referred to, but the message is clear from this House that there is a matter of national reputation involved in any further delay. I duly take note of that.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, have any bribes, facilitations or other payments that might or could be bribes within the meaning of this Act been paid from public funds to Libyan officials over the course of the past few weeks? If so, at what level and by whom were those payments authorised?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, two of my noble friends wish to speak, but my noble friend Lord Campbell rose to his feet earlier on.
Lord Campbell of Alloway
I am much obliged to my noble friend. This is not a long question. Is the noble Lord aware that nothing he has said justifies the conduct of the Government on this Bill—nothing at all?
Lord McNally
My Lords, one of the great advantages of this House is that a Hansard report is made of interventions. I will ensure that the Hansard report of the exchanges that have come from all parts of the House are duly reported back to the relevant government departments.
Health: Cancer
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Patel
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proposals they have for improving outcomes for cancer patients.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, we published Improving Outcomes: A Strategy for Cancer on 12 January, which sets out a range of actions to improve outcomes for cancer patients. Earlier diagnosis is crucial to improving outcomes, and we have set out plans to deliver this through improving GP access to diagnostic tests, supporting symptom awareness initiatives, and extending cancer screening programmes. We are also improving access to treatment and the quality of support for survivors.
Lord Patel
I thank the Minister for his Answer, which is very helpful because it prompts two questions. First, when does he think the procedures which he has put in place will succeed and cancer outcomes will improve, and in the mean time what is likely to happen to cancer outcomes? Secondly, could he also say what the state of radiotherapy treatment in England is?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the strategy we have laid out is an ambitious one. It aims to save an additional 5,000 lives every year by 2014-15. That programme is supported by over £750 million of additional money over the next four years. It sets out actions to prevent cancer incidence and to improve the quality and efficiency of cancer services and of patients’ experiences of care. We are giving ourselves a little time, but we are under no illusions, and this is an agenda to be pursued very energetically. We are putting considerable additional money—from memory, it is £150 million—into radiotherapy services, but we also feel that there is an important issue around the use of existing radiotherapy equipment, which is often not utilised as effectively as it could be.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that the regional networks of specialist cancer services, established through the co-operation of clinicians themselves, have been instrumental in improving outcomes for patients? If so, how does he think that essentially collaborative model fits with the rigid and mandatory price competition that the Government now want to introduce into the NHS?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the Government are not introducing price competition, it has never been our intention to do so, and the Bill that will come before the House will make it absolutely and abundantly clear that price competition is out of range. As regards the cancer networks, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. Over the past 10 years, these have played a crucial role in improving the quality of cancer treatment and the patient experience of care. The outcomes strategy that we have published explicitly states that next year there will be funding for cancer networks to support commissioning.
Lord Alderdice
My noble friend introduced the question of diagnosis, which is increasingly a multi-professional matter, involving pathologists, surgeons, radiologists and so on. This seems self-evidently a good thing. However, is the department accumulating evidence to show that it is actually improving the outcomes? It is of course an expensive procedure to involve so many senior professionals together.
Earl Howe
My noble friend is quite right. It does involve often a number of senior clinicians. The key to diagnosis, however, is to get in early, as I am sure he would recognise. The outcomes strategy commits us to saving the additional 5,000 lives very largely through additional identification of early cancer. In fact, 3,000 of the 5,000 lives that we are hoping to save will be saved, we hope, by earlier diagnosis. A good example of that is that over 90 per cent of bowel cancer patients diagnosed with the earliest stage of the disease survive five years from diagnosis, compared to only 6.6 per cent of those diagnosed with the advanced disease.
Lord Walton of Detchant
Would the noble Earl accept that this country has had a very proud record in carrying out clinical trials, not least in the field of cancer; and that since the passage of the European directive on clinical trials, the problem of getting ethical approval for multi-centred trials—in a variety of different centres—has become immense? Is he aware of the recent report of the Academy of Medical Sciences, from a committee chaired by Sir Michael Rawlins, which has made a number of crucial recommendations? If accepted by the Government, those would make the performance of these trials very much easier.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am indeed aware of that excellent report. It is being studied with care in my department. We hope to make an announcement reasonably soon in response to it. It contains some extremely important recommendations which, if implemented, should do a great deal to restore the country's position as a destination of choice for clinical trials.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, there has been no question from the Conservative Benches so perhaps on this occasion we can hear from my noble friend.
Lord Mawhinney
My noble friend, in his original Answer, talked about the importance of early diagnosis. Is he not concerned at the cascade of cases reported in the media of GPs sending patients home with flu symptoms and indigestion and not detecting the cancer until it is too late? What does my noble friend intend to do to improve GP training to assist the earlier diagnosis on which he rightly lays so much emphasis?
Earl Howe
My Lords, of course those reports are a matter for concern, which is why we are clear that GP consortia should be supported as much as possible in terms of commissioning guidelines and information. One of the tasks of the NHS commissioning board will be to provide that support and information based on quality standards produced by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
Armed Forces: Redundancy
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, first, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering sincere condolences to the families and friends of Private Dean Hutchinson of 9 Regiment the Royal Logistic Corps and Private Robert Wood of 17 Port and Maritime Regiment the Royal Logistic Corps who were killed on operations in Afghanistan recently. My thoughts are also with the wounded, and I pay tribute to the courage and fortitude with which they face their rehabilitation.
With the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows.
“On 19 October last year, in the strategic defence and security review, the Government announced reductions in the size of the Armed Forces—reducing the Army by 7,000, the Royal Air Force by 5,000 and the Royal Navy by 5,000. This was to reshape the Armed Forces for Future Force 2020 and also to respond to the budgetary pressures resulting from the need to reduce the inherited deficit and deal with the black hole in the MoD’s finances.
Following the announcement, normal procedure for proceeding with the redundancies was followed. Let me briefly describe this. The Armed Forces modelled the manpower they needed for Future Force 2020 and consulted their own people on the best methods and timescales for achieving this. The families federations have been kept informed. Following yesterday’s announcement of the RAF programme, the Army and Navy will follow on 4 April with their programmes. The Army and RAF will give individuals notice that they will be made redundant on 1 September, followed by the Navy on 30 September. The exact timing of further tranches has not yet been decided.
Afghanistan is the Government’s main defence effort. Decisions in the SDSR were therefore weighted towards the protection of capability for the mission in Afghanistan which, as the Prime Minister said, will see a transition to full Afghan lead in 2014.
Redundancy is never a painless process, whether in the Armed Forces or elsewhere, and it is sad to see committed and patriotic men and women lose their jobs. But in that process it is essential that they are made fully aware of the options available and the timescales involved. That means a timetable needs to be adhered to for the sake of themselves and their families.
It would simply be wrong to alter that timetable for the convenience of the Government. Personnel were expecting the announcement this week. To delay for political expediency would have been to betray their trust. Difficult though it may be, in this Government, political convenience will not be the final arbiter of our decisions”.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I join the Minister in offering condolences to the families and friends of Private Dean Hutchinson and Private Robert Wood. It is right that the Minister draws attention to the wounded, some of whom will carry the price of their bravery for the rest of their lives.
I thank the Minister for repeating the Secretary of State’s response in another place as a Statement in this House and I thank him for giving me an early view of the Statement. This Statement, together with the Written Ministerial Statement yesterday, is about cuts in manpower and how they are to be achieved. It is extremely precise: it talks of 344 pilots who will continue training, another 170 who will not and so on. Sadly, we learn that even more precise details were supplied to the press yesterday at a conference at 2 pm—which was before this House received details, before we had details in the Written Ministerial Statement and before the details that came out today in the other place. Can the Minister tell me whether in fact such a detailed briefing did take place yesterday at the Ministry of Defence? I am sure that it did. I will not comment on whether that is a good thing—the House must comment on that. However, I am sure that Members of the House would wish that details had come here or to the other place first.
The Statement has to be taken together with yesterday’s Written Ministerial Statement. The essence of the two documents is that there is some detailed grand plan of what we are trying to achieve. It refers to Future Force 2020 and the SDSR as the basis for this. It speaks with such precision that you would think there was a precise description of where we are trying to get to with this grand plan. I can only assume that, within the Ministry of Defence, there is a clear view of what the force strength will be in 2015 and what the force strength will be in 2020. I can assure the Minister there are no figures in the SDSR to enlighten us and there are no figures I know of in the public domain. The Royal Air Force and the fast jets in particular are in the top of our minds and the Statement is principally about redundancies in the Royal Air Force. Can he give us some statement or indication of what front-line force these manpower adjustments are designed to yield in 2015 and what front-line force we are looking for in 2020? Can he also assure us that this Government, if elected, will provide funding from 2015 to 2020 to deliver the so far undefined Future Force 2020 promise?
I am sorry that these days one has to read the press to keep up to speed with the Government’s thinking on defence. In today’s Times, it is suggested that a further £1 billion of cuts will be needed between now and April. Is that true? Is it likely that he will be coming back to the House to tell us about more cuts, and will those cuts involve additional manpower losses or additional losses of capability?
I turn to what may be one of the most crucial elements of this Statement on redundancies: what I call the Afghanistan promise, which was made in the other place by Dr Fox on 8 November 2010. He said:
“It would not be possible for the Government to say that no one who had ever served in Afghanistan in any way, shape or form since 2001 would not be made redundant”.
At the end of the day, one accepts that there has to be a little more flexibility than something as extreme as that. But he went on to say:
“I reiterate what I have said: that because we need to maintain the Afghan rotation, no one currently serving in Afghanistan, or on notice to deploy, will face compulsory redundancy”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/11/10; col. 13.]
Can the Minister confirm that anybody serving in Afghanistan on 8 November 2010 will not be made redundant under this? I believe that would be a perfectly reasonable interpretation of that promise. Unfortunately, yesterday’s Written Ministerial Statement was much softer. It said it would be those who had “recently” served in Afghanistan. Can the Minister confirm that “recently” means 8 November 2010 and if not, and he is actually resiling on the promise made on that date, can he define what “recently” now means?
What of those who are made redundant? The Written Ministerial Statement, at the bottom of page 2, starts to talk about what we will do for them. It starts off with good words about how we have a duty to these people and about how they have served us bravely, and now that they are made redundant they must face a future. It ends up by saying:
“A comprehensive package of support and advice on housing, finance and finding a job will be made available”.
That is starting to sound like something tangible. But it goes on to say:
“Over the coming months, Ministers will scrutinise those plans in detail, working closely with domestic departments, to ensure they are as good as can be achieved”—[Official Report, 1/3/11; col. WS 108.]
What does,
“as good as can be achieved”,
mean?
Surely, this is the moment to meet a promise that I thought I heard the Prime Minister make, to put the military covenant in law so that these assurances are tangible and can be delivered. The Minister has an opportunity, when he brings the forthcoming Bill to this House, to bring forward proposals to give a real, tangible base to the military covenant and I encourage him to do that. Will the Minister give us clarity on what sort of forces we are planning for, will he give us clarity on the Afghanistan promise and will he give us clarity on the military covenant? If he cannot, how does he expect to maintain the morale of our brave men and women?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, this is no new announcement. The department briefed the press at 2 o’clock yesterday but those being briefed were not allowed to leave the building until the WMS was laid. That is exactly what happened when the noble Lord’s party was in power; nothing has changed. We have gone out of our way to keep both Houses informed and will continue to do so. In the Oral Statement on the SDSR in October, the Prime Minister announced that the MoD would reduce the Armed Forces by 17,000 and that this would necessitate redundancies. That has been discussed in this House, including in an Urgent Question two weeks ago.
Yesterday, the Defence Secretary updated the other place, as I did here in a WMS, on the dates on which the various areas of the Armed Forces will look for redundancies. The RAF published its details yesterday; the Army and Navy will do so in April. Decisions on specific individuals will not be made until September. I must make it clear that we are not hiding anything and, as I have said before, I am always happy to organise briefings for any noble Lords in the MoD.
The noble Lord asked me about 2020. We have a clear view. As stated in the SDSR, the Future Force is structured to give us the ability to deploy highly capable assets quickly when needed but also to prepare a greater scale and range of capabilities if required. The aim is to do so affordably and in a way that minimises demands on our people, with five central concepts: readiness, reconstitution, reinforcement, regeneration and dependency. This flexible approach will allow us more effectively to counter the threats that we are most likely to face while maintaining the ability to respond to different threats in future.
The noble Lord asked me about further cuts. I can confirm to him that there is still a lot of work to be done on this; we are having a lot of discussions in the department, and I assure the noble Lord that the House will be the first to hear.
The noble Lord asked me about Afghan redundancies. Those engaged in combat operations for which they are in receipt of operational allowance, within six months of deploying on or recovering from those operations, on the day when the redundancy notices are issued will not be made redundant unless they are volunteers for it. I hope that that makes it clear.
The final question was what will happen when a serviceman or servicewoman is made redundant. All personnel will be entitled to receive support to transition to civilian life. Personnel leaving under the redundancy programme will qualify for the level of resettlement support for which they would have been eligible had they completed the commission or engagement on which they were serving when made redundant. We expect most if not all personnel to qualify for the full resettlement programme and the comprehensive services offered by the career transition partnership—the arrangement between the MoD and Right Management Limited. The package includes training courses, job-finding and individual counselling, CV and job interview preparation, analysis of transferable competences, conversion and skills enhancement training and information services. Under this package, job-finding support is available for up to two years after leaving the military.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I remind the House of the benefits of short questions, rather than speeches, so that we can get in as many noble Lords as possible.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I associate myself with the remark that the Minister has made concerning those who have given their lives or been injured in the defence of our country. Our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families.
The National Security Council was supposed to be at the heart of our defence strategic planning. On Monday the Government confirmed that they wanted to see a no-fly zone established over Libya, but on Tuesday they confirmed that 11,000 of our service personnel were to be made redundant. If this is the quality of our strategic planning, would it not be better to keep the troops and sack the National Security Council?
Lord Astor of Hever
Absolutely not, my Lords. We are reshaping our Royal Air Force to be configured for Future Force 2020. It makes sense that we reduce the number of pilots only if we are reducing the number of planes. On the question of a no-fly zone in Libya, no decisions have yet been taken.
Lord Boyce
My Lords, will the Minister confirm what I have heard at the coalface among soldiers, sailors and airmen—that the redundancy terms for this round may be significantly meaner than those that were available in the early 1990s when we had another large redundancy programme? If that is the case, why?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, it is not necessarily meaner than last time. A full plan is in place for the military redundancy programme with full information available to all service personnel to make decisions for themselves and their families as soon as possible. We have gone to great lengths to ensure that the process and the practical application of this is both fair and understandable, and we are putting great effort into ensuring that it is communicated appropriately to all members of the Armed Forces.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool
My Lords, we on these Benches associate ourselves with the Minister’s condolences. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Royal Army Chaplains Department, whose ministry is so appreciated by the bereaved and injured, and, indeed, to the chaplains of all our services.
I declare an interest as a former pupil of the Duke of York’s Royal Military School, which still serves the needs of children of people serving in the Armed Forces. Will the Minister assure us that the children’s places of those who have been made redundant will be safe at that school and that the educational arrangements that have been made for other children of those made redundant will be honoured by the Government?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question. I agree with everything that he says about the Royal Army Chaplains Department. I was in Afghanistan last week and had the great honour to talk to a couple of those chaplains. They are doing very great work. I cannot give the right reverend Prelate an answer here and now on the specific case of the children about whom he asked, but I will write to him and deposit a copy of the letter in the Library.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
Will my noble friend clarify the position with regard to those servicemen and servicewomen who have been injured?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, every case of wounded, injured or sick personnel will be assessed individually. No one will leave the Armed Forces through redundancy or otherwise until they have reached a point in their recovery where that is the right decision, however long it takes.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Urgent Question. This is a very significant reduction for the Royal Air Force. Is this the end of the reductions, or are there more to come? It is very important for the service to know exactly where it is.
Lord Astor of Hever
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his question. As I said in my earlier answer, there is still ongoing work in my department on this issue and the House will be the first to hear about it. I very much hope that there will be no further cuts.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, the whole House holds the Minister in very high regard. We are all grateful for the attempts he makes to keep this House informed in what I am sure must be for him, as well as for many of us, very painful circumstances. However, these redundancies are not only very unfortunate but utterly short-sighted and irresponsible. The nation will rue the day when we lose those skills. In repeating the Statement, the Minister has increased the confusion about the nature of the guarantees that are being given by the Government to those who are serving in Afghanistan or who are on leave after operations there. How many more soldiers, sailors and airmen would have been covered by the guarantee had it been dated from 8 November than will be covered, given that the guarantee now runs only from the date of issue of the redundancy notices? If the Minister does not know the answer off the cuff—obviously, I forgive him if he does not—will he be kind enough to write to me and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House?
Lord Astor of Hever
I thank the noble Lord for that question. These are very painful cuts. When I became a Minister I did not look forward to making lots of cuts. It is a very difficult situation in which I find myself but we inherited this black hole and we have to act.
Lord Astor of Hever
We did. The noble Lord asked how many people were affected. I cannot give him a figure at the Dispatch Box but I will write to him and deposit a copy of the letter in the Library.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, asked about the Royal Air Force. There will be cuts to two Tornado squadrons. This week’s announcement to remove two squadrons of Tornados implements a decision taken by the previous Government during planning round 10.
Lord Lee of Trafford
My Lords, I associate these Benches with the earlier tribute. What effect does my noble friend think that all this uncertainty and these redundancies will have on recruitment over the next 12 months?
Lord Astor of Hever
My noble friend asks about recruitment, and I have an answer somewhere. The Armed Forces depend upon high-quality young men and women who want to join them for a rewarding and exciting career. The level of recruitment will be reduced during the redundancy period to suit new structures, but recruiting will continue.
Lord Stirrup
My Lords, these painful redundancies are an outcome of the strategic defence and security review, which, as the Minister said, was aimed at delivering Future Force 2020. Can he confirm that that Future Force, as planned, will be achievable only with specific real-term growth in the defence budget in the second half of this decade? What assumptions are his department making about the financial planning levels for those years?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I can assure the noble and gallant Lord that that is the case. As he will remember, during the SDSR the Prime Minister made it absolutely clear that 2020 will be achievable only if we get more money.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden
My Lords, will my noble friend clear up an additional matter about redundancy? The Statement says:
“The Army and RAF will give individuals notice that they will be made redundant on 1 September followed by the Navy on 30 September. The exact timing of further tranches has not yet been decided”.
Does this mean that in the Army and Navy, after 1 September and 30 September respectively, there will remain people who do not know whether the threat of redundancy will materialise for them? If it does not mean that, will he kindly say what it does mean?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, it depends on who comes forward for voluntary redundancy. At this stage, it is too early to be able to answer that question.
Earl Ferrers
My Lords, will my noble friend be kind enough to revisit the answer he gave to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce? His question, as I understood it, was: will the redundancy payments that are being offered to these people be meaner than those offered to people made redundant previously? I do not think that my noble friend answered that.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, it is a question of how one defines “meaner”. As I tried to say in my answer, we in the department think that these are fair amounts.
Viscount Slim
My Lords, the impression abroad is that the delay in arriving at a good and proper military covenant is that the MoD and the Government wish to get this lot out of the way, as has been discussed in your Lordships’ House this afternoon. Is it not a fact that great stress was placed in our debates in the past few weeks on the immediate need to bring forward a new military covenant that would not only set the scene for redundancies and everything else that we have been talking about, but would assume complete responsibility from the day that someone joins the services until he dies? It was made clear in several speeches that it was the responsibility of the Government to look after those who are being made redundant or who leave the services for any other reason. I say that because more and more evidence is appearing of soldiers, sailors and airmen slipping through the system, over the net and through the net, and now begging on the streets of Manchester, Birmingham and London. When will the military covenant be brought forward, so that we will know what the total responsibilities of this Government to soldiers, sailors and airmen are?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the noble Viscount said that we give the appearance of wanting to get this lot out of the way. That is not the case. As the noble Viscount knows, we value all members of the Armed Forces. I understand that several service men and women will come forward for voluntary redundancy. The noble Viscount mentioned people slipping through the net. If he knows of any such cases, I would be very grateful if he could bring them to my attention.
As far as the military covenant is concerned, we are writing into law, through the Armed Forces Bill, the commitment that the Secretary of State for Defence will lay before Parliament every year a report on what is being done to live up to the covenant. We are committed to rebuilding the covenant to improve support for service personnel. We are doing everything we can to provide them with the right support, focused on the most important areas, despite the financial situation we inherited. We will soon publish a new tri-service Armed Forces covenant—the first of its kind. This will set out the relationship and obligations between the Armed Forces community, the Government and the nation. The report will also set out how we are supporting our Armed Forces, their veterans and families in such key areas as healthcare, housing and education. This will ensure that all future Governments must stand up for the Armed Forces.
Lord Laming
Could we return to the terms of redundancy? I am somewhat confused about the meaning of “meanness”, compared with the meaning of “fairness”. An earlier question was asked about meanness and the noble Lord described the terms as being fair. The question is: fair to whom? I simply ask whether the terms of redundancy are the same as before—the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, referred to them—or different.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I cannot add anything to my earlier answer. We have looked very carefully at this whole issue and we consider that these amounts are fair.
Lord Richard
I am sorry to go on about this issue but when it comes to fairness and meanness, surely there is one way of answering the question. Will they get less this time, given the change in the value of money, than they got last time? If they will, prima facie it is meaner.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I cannot add anything to my earlier answer. We in the department consider that these amounts are fair and generous to our Armed Forces.
Lord Soley
With respect, that is not really satisfactory. Could the Minister, who is very thoughtful on these matters, give the matter some thought and maybe put it in writing in a letter to the House? That would enable us to make a comparison. The point that has been brought up by the noble and gallant Lord is a very fair and important one. To have the rumour running around that this is meaner but fairer, or something of that nature, just plays into a demoralisation argument. Please do not go there.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the noble Lord and the noble and gallant Lord raise a very important point. I am happy to put this in writing to the noble Lord, Lord Soley, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce. I will certainly deposit copies of those letters in the Library to clarify this issue.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, given the perennial difficulty of deciding whether fair is better than very fair or vice versa, I have the gravest possible sympathy for my noble friend.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that. This is a very difficult issue. We have struggled with it for a long time and I can assure noble Lords that we are doing our very best.
Energy Bill [HL]
“Purpose of this Part
(1) The principal purpose of this Part is to deliver energy savings from the domestic building stock, which will make commensurate contributions to—
(a) the achievement of the target contained in section 1(1) of the Climate Change Act 2008 (the target for 2050) and the carbon budget set for each budgetary period under Part 1 of that Act (carbon target and budgeting); and(b) the elimination of fuel poverty by the target date required by section 2(2)(d) of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 (strategy relating to fuel poverty).(2) In performing functions, exercising powers and reviewing the effectiveness of the green deal under this Part, the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) the principal purpose set out in subsection (1); and(b) the recommendations from time to time of the Committee on Climate Change where these are adopted by the Secretary of State.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I apologise for the slight delay in getting to my feet. I need some assistance from my colleagues, as the noble Lord will know.
These amendments are very similar to those that we brought forward in Committee, but we have taken into account the comments and concerns that the Minister expressed on that occasion. The amendments before us today seek two things. The first is the provision of an annual report to Parliament by the Secretary of State on how the ECO and the Green Deal are fairing. Secondly, they establish the purpose of both these new clauses in the Bill in terms of the Government’s objectives as stated in previous legislation.
In Committee, the Minister was understandably concerned about not imposing a new duty on installers or providers to take account of the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change. That is not unreasonable, and we took it into account before putting the amendments before your Lordships today. Therefore, these amendments have been slimmed down. They would impose no new duties on the Government other than to provide an annual report—something to which I know the Minister is sympathetic—on the goals and aims, as stated in the impact assessment on the Bill, for carbon reduction and fairness. It is a way of putting the Bill into the context of government policy.
A report by the Secretary of State to Parliament on the operation of the Green Deal would be extremely helpful. Indeed, when dealing with a point raised by noble Lords in Committee, the Minister said:
“The scheme needs to be road-tested to ensure that it works and we must keep a watchful eye on it. Getting these things precisely ordered is a very good thing for the Bill”.—[Official Report, 17/1/11; col. GC 17.]
He will know of the criticisms that were made just yesterday of the Minister in the other place, Greg Barker, when he spoke at the Ecobuild conference in London. Concerns were raised by the UK Green Building Council, and the president of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors said that there was not enough certainty or incentives for the industry, and that, although they supported the Government’s package of measures as being incredibly ambitious, they were concerned that it would not achieve the objectives. Like the Government, we want this Bill to achieve the objectives that have been set. They are ambitious, and some amendments have been tabled to help the Minister to achieve those objectives, to which we know he is committed.
Probably the most helpful parts of the amendments before us today relate to the annual report. The Secretary of State will have the opportunity to come back to Parliament, having looked at how the Green Deal is fairing. In the light of the commitments that the Minister made in Committee, there will be an opportunity for the Green Deal to be tweaked or changed and to see whether more can be done to create incentives. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I support the amendment. The Minister will undoubtedly have been advised by officials and the Cabinet Office that it is not normal to put purpose clauses into Bills. However, that has always been nonsense. It is particularly important that we set out clearly in Parliament the purpose of these measures.
I commend the Government on developing the plans for the Green Deal, but undoubtedly not all the details have yet been thought through. Some will be thought through before the scheme is launched, some will appear in codes, some will appear in regulations and some will have to be dealt with in subsequent practice once we see whether the market is mobilised as effectively as the Government wish. However, the purpose will not change. With any changes down the line that the Government find it necessary to make, it is particularly important that we go back to the purpose of the Bill. That purpose is, in effect, twofold: to save energy and therefore carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases, and to reduce the incidence of fuel poverty. Both those need to be addressed and set out in something like a purpose clause with a requirement to report back.
As for fuel poverty, I speak as one of the two Ministers who drew up the original guidelines. My noble friend Lady Liddell was the other Minister who signed the original Act to set up targets for fuel poverty, and it is not an easy subject, but it is important that the Government and Parliament set out the objectives. The contribution towards the elimination of fuel poverty is clearly one such objective. That will not solve the problem, as other measures also need to be taken, but it is a contribution and any subsequent change down the line needs to be seen against it, particularly in relation to the Green Deal.
On the face of it, it is not clear how the basic principles of the Green Deal apply to the fuel poor, particularly those who are in tenanted accommodation, whether with social landlords or private landlords, because the best way of delivering that dimension of the Green Deal may be in a deal with the landlord, albeit that the tenant normally pays the bill. Some complicated arrangements will have to be made. That is not yet in the Bill and I do not expect it to be, but reference back to the objectives and obligations to report annually would help us to keep the objectives of this provision clear. I hope that the Government will adopt something like these clauses in the final version of the Bill, either today or in subsequent proceedings in another place.
Lord Dixon-Smith
My Lords, I hesitate to intervene, and if the Minister had risen quickly enough to keep the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in his seat, I probably would not have intervened at all.
Although repetition is a good thing, we must bear in mind that the stated purposes have already been written into legislation and are already so ingrained in all our thinking habits that, frankly, to put them at the beginning of this Bill adds nothing. One problem with the amendment is that it requires “commensurate contributions” from two very diverse and very different things that will depend on a great deal of voluntary action by large numbers of people or groups, societies, local authorities, housing associations and so on. To me, the word “commensurate” makes this, worthy though it is, in effect meaningless because there are too many outside factors that mean that commensurate action will probably be only accidental because it depends on so many people, either tenants, landlords or the other categories of people whom I have already mentioned, volunteering to take part. It also depends on a lot of other factors, the primary one being the absolute certainty that the energy savings they will achieve, and the value of them, will be greater than the costs that they have to bear. Such arguments were expressed in Committee because of the uncertainty about what might happen with interest rates in the future.
The second point is that, even if we put this into place, the far more potent effect in reducing emissions from domestic households will be the work that will have to be done on the supply side of the energy industry to decarbonise the electricity supply. It is far more important to pay attention to that sort of aspect, where the effect can be far greater on a residential level, than this aspect, which will have a beneficial effect—there is no denying that—but not a huge effect because the amount of energy and the cost saved will be nowhere near the cost of making the domestic sector CO2-emissions free. In my view, the effect of the 2050 target implies that by 2050 the whole domestic sector has to be carbon-emission free. We need to focus much more on that effect and take this as it is now. It will be a benefit, of course, but it will be only a small benefit. I do not think that we should complicate the matter, and still less should we try to take actions that depend on the actions of others—that are commensurate—because we simply cannot control the situation with that degree of accuracy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and want to tell everyone that I am on my best behaviour because my boss is watching, so I will not say anything too controversial or concede too much.
It is a great opportunity for me to thank all noble Lords for the time and effort that they put into Committee to identify issues and work together to make this a much more valuable Bill. That is the expertise of the House. We can contribute, and we have done magnificently. We have given the Bill a thorough road test with great cross-party agreement, and I pay my personal thanks to those on the Opposition Benches for all the work that they have done—through very difficult physical circumstances in the noble Baroness’s case. I am delighted to see her able to get to her feet. She can always have assistance from our side, particularly when going into the right Lobby.
We have sought where possible to accommodate suggestions, but some cannot be achieved within the timeframe available on Report. However, we will endeavour to do so by Third Reading, and then further changes will be made in the other place. Of course, some amendments would not provide the functionality that is required, and even though we have listened very hard to them, unsurprisingly we will not accept them. I hope noble Lords will take that into account when they make their contributions. We have listened and we have all ridden together to make this a constructive document, and again I thank everyone for their support. I do not believe that it is necessary to set statutory powers, as referred to in Amendments 102 and 121, but I agree that there should be an aim for our energy efficiency policies. We will come back with proposals on that for consideration in the other place, which I hope will satisfy the noble Baroness. We cannot achieve that now, but we will be looking to achieve it as we go forward.
I am grateful for the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I was pleased to see that he had a playful smile when he referred to fuel poverty, which is fundamental to what we are trying to achieve. Fuel poverty has increased exponentially and we must put the brakes on that. Much of what we are trying to do with the Green Deal addresses that. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith rightly points, as he often does, to the issue of whether we should have continuing annual reports, and so on. Clearly the Government are committed to openness and transparency, and we have an annual report on progress towards our energy efficiency goals. We will consider the operation and performance of our energy efficiency policies, not least the Green Deal and the ECO, which will prominently feature in our reports published under the department’s annual energy statements. Such documents will provide all the information required on the activity of the department, including the Green Deal and ECOs. I hope that that reassurance will allow the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I thank the noble Lord for the way in which he has engaged with the Opposition during the Bill’s proceedings. He says that he will take things away and look at them again, which has been a theme throughout the Bill. All the amendments today are within that spirit of co-operation. I feel strongly about them, so I shall press the Minister for clarification. I think that what he is saying might satisfy our requirements, but we will test the will of the House unless I am clear about that.
There are two issues here. One is the annual report on ECOs and the Green Deal; the other is the purpose. Does the Minister intend to bring forward a purpose or aim clause which will specify what the Bill is to achieve in the context of government policy on emissions and other legislation? Will an annual report from the department include information about the Green Deal, such as how many homes have had Green Deal measures installed and what the emissions savings have been? If so, he has gone a long way to meet our concerns. If he is saying that those measures will be brought back either at Third Reading here or in the Commons, I will happily withdraw the amendment, but some clarification would be helpful.
Lord Marland
Forgive me; I thought that I was quite clear on the subject. The department’s annual energy statement will provide details of the progress of the Green Deal and ECOs, which will answer the noble Baroness’s question. Obviously, in providing information about the Green Deal, it will provide information on the amount of activity that we are able to create with it. We are committed to that.
As for the aims, I state clearly that we will look at them, refine them and come back with proposals in the other place, if we can in the timescale available for further debate. It should be very encouraging for the noble Baroness that that will carry on through the passage of the Bill.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I think that the noble Lord realises the effort it takes me to get my feet, but I will continue to do so throughout the evening. I am very grateful for that explanation; on that basis I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen
This is a very small amendment aimed at clarifying the position of liquid petroleum gas under the Green Deal plans. Calor Gas, in particular, is anxious to have that clarification, and I am very grateful to it for briefing me on the amendment. Calor is very keen to involve itself in all ways which make its product as green—that is, as efficient—as possible; in particular, in the use of liquid petroleum gas in microgeneration boilers.
I understand that approximately 43 per cent of British homes are currently classified as hard-to-treat for greater efficiency purposes for a number of reasons, such as not having cavity walls or not being on the gas grid. A reasonable proportion of those homes appear to be unlikely to qualify for the Green Deal, either because they have little potential for improvement or because their heating bills are too high for the measures to have a positive financial impact. That could affect the position of those living in rural areas, where fuel poverty tends to be concentrated. Liquid petroleum gas systems, which are off the gas grid in hard-to-treat homes, may be the answer, offering the potential to reduce domestic fuel bills by up to 25 per cent, together with improved efficiency and lower carbon emissions. Does liquid petroleum gas qualify for the Green Deal? I beg to move.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I commend this point to the Minister on behalf of people who live in rural areas. I hope that he will be able to say to us that it is perfectly all right, but the fact is that many people in my former constituency and constituencies like it rely on liquid petroleum gas. It would be a great pity if they could not improve their circumstances. It is an important part of our programme and it would be a pity if, by some oversight, it was left out.
Lord Teverson
I, too, speak as a rural resident. There is a point to be made about LPG. Some of us find LPG difficult and have to survive on gas oil instead; that comes into the same category of fuels. I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I have some sympathy with the objectives of this amendment, but what strikes me as a problem is the structure of the Green Deal, which requires suppliers of energy to recover the debt that will have been advanced for the improvement of the house and transmit it to the providers. If one is talking about gas, electricity, and, I think, fuel oil, that would not be difficult, but in relation to LPG, a great deal of which, particularly in rural areas, is delivered to individual householders in individual canisters that have to be replaced from time to time, this fits rather uneasily into the main structure of the Green Deal. If this amendment is to be accepted, it will be incumbent on my noble friend on the Front Bench when she replies to explain how the debt would be recovered in relation to supplies of gas in canisters. It is not quite the same as gas and electricity supplied through the mains. It may well be that when she winds up the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, will be able to explain what Calor Gas has in mind.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for raising this issue and I also thank other noble Lords for contributing. The amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, seeks to include in the Green Deal measures that save liquid petroleum gas. As she and my noble friend Lord Deben indicated, this goes to the deeper question of how we tackle properties that are not connected to the main gas supply and ensure that the Green Deal is as inclusive as possible. I can assure the noble Baroness that it is our intention that the Green Deal is flexible enough to allow appropriate measures to be installed in the maximum number of properties. I assure her that the provisions in the Bill are already wide enough to allow this. This may also reassure my noble friend Lord Teverson. We are even now working with stakeholders to ensure that this can include measures that save energy in buildings that are not on the main gas network. In these discussions, some of the issues that my noble friend Lord Jenkin has raised will no doubt have to be addressed. I hope that the noble Baroness found my explanation reassuring and that on that basis she will withdraw her amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may say that these issues will have to be addressed, but are we not entitled at this stage to know what might be in the Government’s mind as regards people buying cylinders of gas from ordinary retailers, as is often the case? If there are powers in the Bill that cover this, that is fine. I would be happy to accept that, but one needs to know how this is going to fit into the main structure of the Green Deal.
Baroness Northover
I am assured that there are indeed provisions in the Bill that will cover this. It may very well be that my noble friend Lord Marland would like to explain them in greater detail to my noble friend Lord Jenkin, to assure him that all is as it should be.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen
I think I will leave the noble friends to talk to each other. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for the points he raised, and I thank the Minister for her response. I will refer the debate back to Calor Gas, which is very interested in the replies. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group in my name and those of my noble friends on the Front Bench. I also look forward to the contribution that my noble friend Lord Whitty will make to the debate on his amendment in this group.
As the Minister is all too well aware, we raised these issues in Committee. In particular, we raised them against a background of concern that we should be clear about what is in legislation and what will be enforceable in circumstances where such an important concept as the Green Deal is to be communicated to the nation. The expectation is to make as rapid progress as we can for all the objectives, which noble Lords share, in terms of achieving carbon emission targets and improvements in the fuel efficiency of households. That will be a massive exercise. Therefore, what is being constructed in the scheme needs to be absolutely clear in legislation. That is why we have tabled amendments seeking to make an obligation on the Government under this clause and subsequent clauses relating to this area. The concern is obvious.
However, I should first put on record my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who in Committee assisted us by indicating that we had used somewhat archaic phraseology when we introduced the concept of “shall” and that if we want to hit this objective we should insist on “must”. The House will be pleased to note that our amendments are perfectly constructed to be entirely acceptable to parliamentary draftsmen and the language that they are wont to use in legislation.
We are concerned to ensure that the legislation lays clear obligations and not elements of discretion on the Minister—not that we have anything but total trust in this Minister and the person, who I imagine is from the Commons, to whom he referred as his boss. I understand that relationships in the coalition may be defined in all sorts of interesting ways, which is a dimension I suppose I am obliged to accept. I take it that the Minister recognises that, whatever assurances he gives, we are discussing here not the intent or good will of Ministers, which we take for granted and of which we had great evidence from this Minister and his colleague in the conduct of the debate in Committee. However, the intention and good will of Ministers is as nothing to the import of statute and the law of the land. That is why, despite the fact that we received from the Minister a constructive response in Committee, following which we of course withdrew our amendments for further reflection, we are still of the view that this clause will be improved if we substitute “must” for “may” on the part of the Government in order that the country can be entirely secure about what the legislation constructs and so that it is not open to determination or discretion at subsequent dates.
This is an issue on which the country has to be involved. This is so much a question of participants among so many people with regard to the delivery of the Green Deal that it behoves Parliament to be absolutely clear in the Bill, which will eventually, with the good will of us all, become an Act. The Act must be absolutely clear about the way in which the legislation intends to work. Accordingly, I beg to move.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, my Amendment 6 in this group provides the Minister with an option. I agree with my noble friend that in many respects what goes in the Act, and therefore in the regulations, would benefit from the Bill stating “must” rather than “may”, but my proposal would leave discretion to Ministers because of what I spoke about in the first group of amendments today. We are in a situation where the Green Deal is being developed fast and furiously but without total clarity as to how it is to be structured and how different groups or different types of building can benefit from the terms of the Green Deal.
My amendment therefore gives the Secretary of State the option to put into those regulations, or codes, provisions that address the particular circumstances of particular groups. If, as I suspect, the fuel poor, in particular the tenanted fuel poor, will be difficult to deal with on the same basis as the bulk of the Green Deal arrangements, the Government will need some special regulations to address the problem, and to deal in particular with the relationships of the landlord and the tenant, who actually pays the energy bill.
For example, as we have just debated in considering my noble friend Lady Gibson’s amendment, in rural areas there will be a lot of houses off the gas network that rely on either Calor gas or heating oil. For those people, there will be no attraction in the central mechanism of the Green Deal, as was rightly spelt out by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and others who reflected on that. In some areas, such as the south-west of England, over 50 per cent of people are off the gas network. A larger number of people have houses which are difficult to heat because of structural reasons and which, again, will require a larger investment than is easily repayable through the normal level of energy bills.
Therefore, I suggest that the Government recognise that they may need to make some special provision for chronic fuel poverty, chronic hard-to-heat or locational difficulties, which make the normal run of Green Deal structures and Green Deal arrangements, and the financial arrangements that lie behind it, not applicable. There is no reason why the householders in that situation should not benefit from something akin to the Green Deal. The power would, as I say, be discretionary, so I hope that the Government will recognise the necessity of having such a power, which would give them a little bit of elbow room down the line. They could either adopt my amendment today or promise to come up with something similar in subsequent parliamentary proceedings on the Bill. I think that they will find they will need it.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I hope the Minister will notice that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in that very interesting speech, gives the key to why “may” is better than “must”. It is simply that this is supposed to be a Bill that Ministers can apply most effectively to the particular circumstances. In many ways one of the reasons the Bill has had common support is that it is a brave Bill; it is an attempt to make a big change and to make a big change in partnership. It seems to me that to have “must” without any prioritisation or the like is a very difficult thing to have. You have to decide at any given time which provisions you are going to go for. Somebody could come back to you and say, “Well, you may have provided the first, second, fourth and seventh sets of regulations, but you have not provided the third”. You have not done so because until those regulations go into operation you cannot do the other things. There is a question of practicality that makes “may” much more sensible, which is why the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has raised his particular proposal in the form that he has.
However, it appears to me that the noble Lord’s proposal may well be covered in other parts of the Bill. If he is right and it is not, it would seem sensible to make sure that it is possible for Ministers to make specific arrangements, which will reach out to people in peculiar circumstances.
One of the things that has happened in the course of discussion of the Bill is to recognise how many people are in peculiar circumstances. This is not an area where you have simple programmes, where you can say that everybody is like this. I listened to my noble friend talk about Calor gas. We have a totally different view of what Calor gas is. For me, it is a very large tank with a delivery, not these little pot things, which relate to a different circumstance. It is perfectly possible to deal with the very large pots where perhaps it is not so easy to deal with the small pots. I merely make the point because there is a fundamental difference in the ways these things happen.
I hope the Opposition will accept that, on this occasion, I am afraid that we will have to depend on the good will of Ministers, because otherwise they will be unreasonably constrained in how they implement these matters. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will resist the amendments, not in a curmudgeonly way, but simply because it is better to do it this way. However, perhaps he could explain to the House whether the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to make sure that this reaches into all the tiny corners is addressed. Many of us who have dealt with particular areas of the country will know how easy it is for decisions made in metropolitan London not to work in the back kitchen of a cottage in a small village near Saxmundham. That is a different world and we must be absolutely sure that we cover it. In my former constituency, the poorest people living in the most acute fuel poverty were to be found in what looked like idyllic cottages at the end of lanes. It is very important not to forget them.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Another issue that this group of amendments raises was discussed in Grand Committee. Much of the detail of this legislation will be found in regulations, and indeed we have been told that there are to be 19 different sets of regulations. I think we have accepted that that is an inevitable feature. My noble friend assured the Grand Committee, and indeed the House at Second Reading, that there would continue to be a great deal of consultation, and I take some comfort from that.
I have had a report of a meeting, held by the senior official in my noble friend’s department who is in charge of this activity, which was attended by 60 to 70 industry representatives. Apparently, she said that DECC is completely open-minded on the details and is listening to every point of view that is put forward—“listening” being the important word—and I welcome that. Furthermore, all the evidence will be published so that in due course we shall be able to see that other matters will be brought forward for continuing consultation. That is a reassuring point. Indeed, the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Deben and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, are exactly what those sitting in the official Box will pick up on. They will recognise that when they come to draft the regulations, these things will have to be dealt with properly. From what I have heard from industry representatives, I am reassured about what the process actually is, and perhaps my noble friend will take some comfort from that.
Earl Cathcart
My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment 6, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, which deals with making,
“specific provision for the green deal to address situations of fuel poverty”.
With this in mind, will householders in fuel poverty be able to afford the cost of the assessor? I believe that this cost, which might be £80, £100 or £120—I do not know—could be a barrier to the take-up of the Green Deal. £100 may be the entire weekly income of some householders in poverty, so rather than spend £100 on the assessor, they will choose to buy food or whatever. I suggested in Committee that this cost could be rolled up into the Green Deal so that no one has any up-front costs. The Minister’s response then was:
“As for rolling up the costs of the assessor, we would not encourage that, but there may be a framework in which it could happen. We will need to look into that further”.—[Official Report, 19/1/11; col. GC69.]
I wonder whether my noble friend has been able to look into it further and whether he can give me any comfort on the matter.
Lord Marland
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has made a valuable point in asking whether the Bill should state “must” or “shall”—shall we or shan’t we?—so there are many imponderables. I am also grateful for the contributions made by my noble friends Lord Deben and Lord Jenkin of Roding, both of whom speak with great authority on these subjects.
The most important thing is that, as we take this Bill through its meandering course, we have the flexibility and the opportunity, as Ministers, to consult industry and all bodies that have an idea on this, and eventually to tighten the code of practice. At this point, however, it would not be appropriate for us unilaterally to change these words, which currently give the Government flexibility. I am heartened by and grateful for the words of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that for the authority of Ministers it is imperative to have that flexibility. In the spirit in which we have conducted this Bill, I am happy to consider Amendment 3 in principle, as it is very important that the Secretary of State establishes a scheme through regulation. In considering the matter, it is rather important that we remove any doubts about the issue. That is why we are prepared to consider this amendment, but as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would suggest, we need flexibility in the other areas as we continue to go forward.
As to the cost of assessors, further consultation has taken place with industry. We strongly believe, as I said in Committee, that many of the suppliers will pay for the assessment, because it is to their benefit. Typically, I would imagine, if one went to B&Q, as one does when buying a home, one might be provided with a list of approved assessors and an assessor would then go in and make the assessment, which would be paid for by the provider. Our research with industry and with the potential providers suggests that that will, we hope, answer the important question of my noble friend Lord Cathcart.
In the spirit of what I have just said, I hope that my comments on these amendments find favour, and that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I am grateful for the tone which the Minister has taken, as he did throughout the Committee stage, indicating that he will further consider our proposals. He will forgive me if I indicate that “considering” is not quite a promise of change, and he has had one further look at it as a result of our deliberations in Committee. I want to pay due credit for that deliberation.
I think that the noble Lord has an amendment on the code of conduct in the next group that would greatly strengthen his case and his position, and if he had prayed that in aid in relation to why “may” should remain rather than be replaced with “must”, I would certainly have been floored. Possibly, however, he wants to make the case for the next group of amendments in his own good time, and I recognise that. What I am indicating is that it is an indication of the Government’s approach to these issues. Our approach is as one. The reason why we are concerned to have concepts like “must” in the Bill, at certain crucial structural points, is obvious. I accept entirely my noble friend Lord Whitty’s point about an additional feature that should be taken into consideration, to which he would not necessarily want to attribute the concept of obligation.
On the structural issue, the reason why we think an obligation should be present is simply that we have got to communicate a message to many of our citizens who, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, indicated, comprise an enormous variety. The enormous numbers of people in the nation who have to respond to this legislation, hopefully in a constructive way, are such that the legislation needs to be as clear as possible, so that the message that is sent out is sufficiently clear to be readily understood.
As I indicated, because of the Minister’s response to these amendments and even more in his actions with regard to future intentions—I refer to the next group of amendments, which are government amendments that are constructively expressed—I am happy to withdraw my amendment at this stage.
Lord Marland
Lord Marland
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, has telegraphed, this group of amendments respond to the excellent comments made by my noble friend Lady Noakes—such is the harmony that flows between the parties at the moment I was going to say his noble friend Lady Noakes—and my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. The Delegated Powers Committee also prompted a number of these amendments. I hope they are self-explanatory and respond wholeheartedly to suggestions by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, to whom we are, as always, extremely grateful. I hope that the amendments satisfy his requirements and those of the Delegated Powers Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I am indeed entirely satisfied with this group of amendments. This gives me an opportunity to say that the Government tabled no fewer than 145 amendments to the Bill. I assure the noble Lord that I did not have to count them. He was kind enough to send them to those of us who are active on the Bill numbered one to 145. It was a little difficult sometimes to match them up with the numbers of the amendments that finally appeared officially on the list.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Of course. I am not blaming my noble friend for that in the least. On the contrary, I found it all extremely helpful, accompanied as they were with helpful notes to explain the amendments. He has met our case splendidly with this group.
Lord Davies of Oldham
Sorry, my Lords; I was a little slow on my feet because I was somewhat taken aback by the speed with which the government amendment was moved, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, indicated. With this number to get through, I suppose the group needs to be disposed of with some dispatch, but I had anticipated a slightly longer description from the Minister of what the amendments in the group purport to do.
Suffice it to say that the burden of my remarks on the previous group of amendments is that Amendments 50, 51, 52 and 56, which relate to how the code will be considered as far as parliamentary practice is concerned, go a long way to meeting anxieties about how we can be responsive to the application of the new deal. We need a framework into which we can all contribute. I have not the slightest doubt that we have an exercise of considerable complexity and real challenge. It means the commitment of real resources for people against fairly distant objectives. For some people, the gains will be future gains on behalf of the community while there is an immediate practical personal cost. That is why Parliament must be assured that we have provided a framework that works effectively.
The Minister listened to our concerns in Committee and these amendments, particularly those relating to the code of practice, are extremely constructive. I will be happy to support the amendments when they are put before the House.
“( ) Regulations for fees payable under this section may establish a reduced fee for charities and social enterprises applying for initial or continued authorisation as green deal participants.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I proposed a similar amendment to this in Committee and was greatly encouraged by the Minister’s response, which prompts me to bring it forward again today. In some ways, we might call this the big society amendment. My last role in Government was as Third Sector Minister and in it I saw—as I am sure many other noble Lords in their time in different departments, former Members of the other place in their constituencies and indeed noble Lords in their work in the community all have—how the role of the charitable sector and social enterprises in helping the most vulnerable in society, particularly those who are fuel poor or fuel vulnerable, is something society as a whole has welcomed. I know the Government want to attract those kinds of non-profit making or third sector organisations into public sector provision. However, there is an opportunity here for the wider charitable and social enterprise sector to be involved in the kind of work that it does best in conjunction with Government.
Although the Minister was very encouraging in Committee, I think some noble Lords misunderstood my explanation of this amendment, which merely seeks within the framework regulations, where a fee is payable for the initial or continued authorisation of the scheme, that the fee be reduced for those organisations such as charities and social enterprises. I am perfectly happy, in the welcome spirit of co-operation that the Minister has displayed today, to look at alternative definitions and for him to come back with one.
I accept that many—indeed most—of the providers, installers and operations will be, as the Minister said, market-driven. However, we should do everything we can to encourage those charities, social enterprises and non-profit-making organisations that have a special and specific role in helping the vulnerable, those with special needs, the disabled and those with learning disabilities. I found the Minister’s response last time very encouraging so I thought I would give him another opportunity to come forward. He has been very gracious today in accepting the proposal that has been put forward and I know that he would not want to see—as I would not—any potential assessor or installer excluded from the market when they have the ability to help those that most need it.
The amendment is also about ensuring that we have a Green Deal that reaches as many people as possible—I know we all want to see a big take-up. Attracting those charities, social enterprises and voluntary sector organisations into the market can only help increase the number of households that take up the Green Deal, as well as giving that specific help and support to the poor and the vulnerable. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I feel strongly on this issue and I know he does as well. I hope he can satisfy me on this issue and we are able to withdraw the amendment. However, if we are unable to, we will want to test the view of the House on this.
Baroness Northover
I thank the noble Lords for their suggested amendments. This amendment seeks to ensure that where the code of practice specifies that an authorisation fee is payable by Green Deal participants, it should be reduced for charities and social enterprises. We recognise that these bodies will have—must have—an important role to play in helping to deliver the Green Deal. We are already considering how secondary legislation could allow for authorisation fees to be set at a variable level, depending on the nature or status of the organisation. We appreciate noble Lords’ desire for more clarity on this matter and I assure them that we are continuing to consider this issue further and will bring back a government amendment if necessary to this effect in the other place. We are seeking to make sure that this is as comprehensive as possible.
I am sure the noble Baroness would agree that we do not want to end up in a situation where, by specifying one or two organisations, we thereby exclude others. We fully accept the notion she is putting forward that the authorisation fee might be variable. We are seeking to work out how best you take that forward so that it is as effective and inclusive as possible, as opposed to being too specific around some particular groups that might be identified now, thus inadvertently excluding others. That is why we are still looking at this. However, we fully support what the noble Baroness seeks to do and if this is best put in primary legislation, an amendment will be brought forward. That will probably be in the other place because of the timing, but we are seeking to work out how best to achieve it. That is why we ask her at this stage to withdraw her amendment so that we can work this out better. We invite her to contribute to the discussions about how best to achieve that. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, the Minister’s encouragements to me were certainly not misplaced and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that answer. I entirely agree. It was never my intention to specify individual organisations or their categories. The variable fees approach is very much the way to proceed and I am happy to work with her to see how best we can achieve that. I look forward to seeing the amendments, if necessary, in the other place. On that basis, I am again happy to withdraw my amendment.
“( ) The provision made by the code in relation to green deal participants must also extend to matters in connection with energy plans that are promoted or arranged at the same time as green deal plans.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I feel that I have the appearance of a jack-in-a-box at this Dispatch Box. Hansard may make of that what it will. The amendments put forward in today’s sixth group—I beg to move Amendment 8A and to speak to the others in the group—all seek to achieve the same aims. They are all supportive and reflect the discussion that we had in Committee. Certainly, our Amendments 8A and 8B look to ensure that protection is there if an assessor identifies within the Green Deal—this also expands to the energy plan—that plans that are promoted or arranged at the same time as the Green Deal plans should also have protection from the same code of practice, so there is no confusion for those who have work undertaken in their homes.
We are certainly very supportive of Amendment 11, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I think he is trying to raise exactly the kind of issues that we raised in Committee. The amendments before us reflect our discussion in Committee, when I raised the point about having an energy plan from which the consumer could choose their Green Deal plan. That is in effect covered by this amendment. Much of his amendment, and ours, hits the key areas that concern people about the Green Deal. The assessor will identify what measures can be taken to improve energy efficiency. They must act in the best interests of the improver—that is, the consumer—but it is the customer or improver who chooses which measures in the energy plan then go into the Green Deal plan. Subsection (4) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 11, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, ties in with our purpose clause and reporting clause, which the Minister so graciously accepted the need for earlier, but on a smaller scale to let us know the impact by consumer.
Again, the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Whitty is excellent. One way to best protect the consumer at any stage is through transparency and openness. If we always ensure that we have those, that fits in entirely with the Government’s approach on other issues as well. Our amendments are very much worth supporting. The key for consumer protection is that if consumers have a Green Deal plan, other measures introduced in their energy plan should all have the same protection, so that the consumer does not feel at a later stage that they have been somehow conned. I believe this will give confidence to the consumer and to the public in taking up the Green Deal.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, we have had a long and useful discussion about making sure that consumers receive the best deal that they can from the Green Deal. One of the areas that I felt was missing when we considered the original Bill in Committee was a duty for providers, for people who were bringing plans forward to consumers, to ensure that that was the right plan for that household and that family. I thank the Minister for the discussions we have had, and that I know he has had with other parties, on this area. I welcome the fact that the Bill is being brought forward relatively near the beginning of the parliamentary Session so that we can get the Green Deal implemented next year.
In putting the amendment forward, I was looking to get on the record the Minister’s further thoughts about how this area will operate. I have wrestled in my own mind to a large degree with how the tripartite arrangement of the financier, the adviser and the person who does the work will come together. We must avoid a bias in the solution whereby the person who draws up the plan fits it to the provider whom they are dealing with or fits the term of the finance deal to the finance provider, so that we do not have a situation where a biased recommendation is put forward that the consumer then feels they have to accept. How will the people who do the assessment be paid for if they are not connected to the other people?
My conclusion, having thought this through at some length with my meagre intellectual powers—
Lord Teverson
I hear shouts of derision. I am sure that the way this will operate—I do not say this negatively; it seems to be a fact of life—is that those three pillars of the deal that the consumer faces will be as one. I cannot see every potential provider, worker or builder going out there and getting the smart financial deals from the money markets, not just in London but worldwide or whatever, that larger organisations can. I cannot foresee a situation in which the advisers go out independently and then whether or not they get a deal depends on whether they get a fee. I do not think that any household will pay a fee. There is no provision for fees in the Bill.
The way in which this will work is that integrated major organisations—there is still a question about how smaller builders and SMEs will participate in the scheme, though maybe that is a broader issue—will come forward with major deals. There will then have to be competition so that the consumer can go out to maybe two or three of those major providers and get alternative deals, with alternative financial implications for the sort of deal that they go for.
I am interested to hear some further thoughts from the department about how this will effectively operate from the consumer’s point of view in terms of whom they come into contact with and who the deals will be sold by. How will we make sure that the competition is sufficient and that people feel confident enough that they take advantage of inviting more than one potential provider into their household? How will the Minister ensure, whether through a duty or through quality assurance, that those plans, even when there is competition, really reflect the best interests of the consumer? This whole area, as the Minister has said many times, is critical to ensuring that the scheme has credibility. It will roll out in the volume that we all want only if consumers find this to be a credible option that they can trust and that they know is going to give them not just a good deal but the best and the right one.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My noble friend’s meagre intelligence has led him to ask a series of very important questions. I put “meagre” in quotes; it would be quite wrong for him to stand by his own words.
I have a slight anxiety about this matter. As my noble friend rightly said, a number of parties are involved in producing the Green Deal for the customer. I had assumed that it was the role of the assessor to determine whether a proposal being put forward by a provider would achieve the objectives of the Green Deal. It seems to me—certainly a lot of people in the industry think that this will be the case—that a very wide range of bodies will wish to become providers under the Bill, not just banks, building societies or financial institutions. It has been suggested that major retailers might wish to become involved as well as local authorities, housing associations and a range of other bodies. I am not entirely clear how far the responsibility for ensuring that the plan is in the best interests of the consumer can necessarily rest with the provider.
My noble friend’s amendment emphasises the provider in this regard. The provider is entitled to rely on the advice of the assessor as the assessor will advise all parties on the validity of the proposals being put forward. Therefore, it would be very helpful if my noble friend could make this clear when he replies to the debate. I quite understand that these matters are being discussed with all the interests involved, but we must have some idea where the responsibility primarily lies. It is difficult to suggest that it lies with the provider, as my noble friend’s amendment does. The provider is entitled to rely on the advice of the assessor. As my noble friend rightly says, I hope that these matters can be decided in a competitive environment so that the consumer has a choice.
Lord Oxburgh
My Lords, I wish to pursue the point made by the two previous speakers. This is an extremely important area in which the fine detail will determine whether the scheme works. I draw attention to the implicit assumption in the Bill that there is such a thing as a unique assessment. Regardless of who makes the assessment—whether it is done by the person who ultimately provides or an independent assessor—these are matters on which there can be different views and with which a householder may be dissatisfied and may legitimately and reasonably want a second assessment.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group and wish to speak specifically to Amendments 14 and 15. These are the remnants of a pretty broad discussion that we had in Committee about the need to ensure consumer confidence in this scheme. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, has just referred to that matter. The noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Jenkin, have indicated in relatively few sentences what a complicated arrangement this might appear to consumers. One of the reasons they need assurance is because this is more than a trilateral arrangement. In most cases there will be an assessor, who should be independent, and a provider, who will be the main provider and deal with the scheme, but the actual installer might be someone entirely different and under a certified, authorised subcontract to B&Q, the bank, Marks and Spencer or whoever might be the main provider. Then behind all that, financial arrangements that are closer to the householder may or may not come further downstream. It will be confusing. For that reason, the consumer—the householder or the landlord—needs serious confidence-building measures.
We were assured in Committee that some of those measures, apart from a bit of tweaking in the Bill, are already on the statute book in the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act and that they apply in this case. Most of those measures are, in fact; I am greatly reassured by that and I am grateful to the Minister for spelling that out. However, some areas are not so clearly covered by the consumer credit arrangements, and there are other markets where the consumer credit arrangements have not proved to be sufficient.
My two amendments address cross-selling and mis-selling. Amendment 14 talks about the assessments being dealt with by assessors who are independent of the providers. That does not mean that they will be totally independent, but that their assessment should be made on an unbiased basis and that they do not make recommendations that are geared to the specific offers of particular providers. Were that not to be the case, not only would the consumer interest be damaged but the Government’s desire—rightly so—to make this a competitive market would be seriously undermined.
The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, is right to say that there is ultimately no such thing as a completely objective assessment. However, it has to be an honest and clear assessment that is clear of bias towards any potential provider or installer. Amendment 14 deals with that, because there are no measures in the Bill to prevent Green Deal assessors being incentivised by providers to make assessments in their interests. It is important that the consumer is reassured on that. Similar provisions in other areas of financial credit have not proved to be sufficient to avoid biased financial advice appearing in some markets. Indeed, the FSA is still struggling with some of those issues.
My second amendment deals with transparency. Again, I am not sure that the Consumer Credit Act is sufficient. There are references to fees at various points in the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, referred to the fee for assessment, and I agree with him that it would be highly desirable if in all cases, not simply for the fuel poor, the fee for assessment was rolled up in the totality of the deal and arrangements were made for cross payment, as necessary. If you are faced with a threshold fee, that is a discouragement. You might end up paying the same money, but it should be part of the credit arrangement, not a separate arrangement.
There are subsequent references to fees, not all of which are entirely clear, and some of which may relate to exit fees. I understand that exit fees are an important provision for some credit providers in different markets, but it has to be made absolutely clear in the original agreement if there is to be an exit fee. We know that in other financial markets—mortgages and others—the regulations relating to exit fees are not clear enough. Certainly in the information provided to a person taking out a mortgage it is not always spelt out sufficiently when there is a substantial exit fee. In this case, the fee may relate to the owing of money, not to the person with whom you have dealt or who installed the energy-saving measures but to a financial company that lies behind that, via an energy bill from your energy supplier, and it is important that exit fees, if they exist, are specified. It is highly desirable that exit fees should not be another inhibition to the householder or a subsequent householder when deciding to move away from a particular supplier or form of credit.
Transparency is very important, and the current provisions of the Consumer Credit Act do not seem to tie this up sufficiently for application to these deals. The complexity of the arrangements, and the difficulty of explaining the range of organisations that will be involved in the totality of the deal for the average householder, make it even more important than in some other markets—where there is clearly a bilateral arrangement—that transparency exists. I therefore hope that the Government will take these amendments seriously.
Just to underline this, the real danger for the Government seems to come at the beginning. If one or two of these things go wrong because consumers are put off taking up the scheme, or very early on have some misunderstanding—to put it at its most neutral—with the installer, the provider or the financial vehicle, the rumour that this is not a good scheme will spread rapidly. We all want the scheme to succeed—to have a wide take-up and make the maximum possible impact on energy efficiency. However, it could stumble at a very early hurdle unless consumers are reassured. These two measures would help to reassure them.
Lord Marland
My Lords, I have just been handed a speaking note, which has slightly confused me. Ireland has beaten England in the one-day cricket—so much for the Green Deal. I am sorry to take away from the serious aspect of what we are talking about and I hope noble Lords will forgive me for imparting that. I know the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, will be as distraught as I am to hear that news.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, makes a very serious point, as always with his knowledge of consumers. At the heart of the Green Deal must be consumer confidence. Without consumer confidence we will not get this deal off the ground. It is imperative that the Government do this. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raise what I think are probing points that need to be ironed out in the passage of this Bill. The ironing out will be carried out with the platform of the Green Deal being very much consumer confidence, as we have debated in this Chamber and in Grand Committee rather exhaustively. On that basis, noble Lords will forgive me for reading out my speaking note, which is unusual for me. I will do it on this occasion because I want to get it right. Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I suffer from meagre intelligence, so this has to be done in very big language.
Amendments 11 and 14 seek to ensure that consumers are offered the best possible energy efficiency solution. Clause 4 is central to the Green Deal and sets out the circumstances in which a Green Deal plan can be offered to the consumer. We envisage that a standardised methodology—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh—will be used to carry out the assessment. This will ensure that the assessment is carried out in a robust, impartial way so that any measures recommended are suitable for the property in question and not influenced by other considerations.
Where the responsibility lies was the question asked by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. Assessors are responsible for getting the technical impartial assessment right. The Green Deal providers will be able to rely on this. They are responsible for financial advice. Installers will be responsible for the standard of installation.
I carry that theme a little further in response to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on how the financing will work for small builders, for example. Assessors and installers will not need to raise the capital. The Green Deal plan is between the Green Deal provider and the consumer, but that does not mean that assessors and installers will be paid a commission. Nor does it preclude independent assessment. In addition, Clause 3 provides for the code of practice that will regulate the proficiency of the Green Deal participants. The provisions in this clause seek to ensure that consumers are offered the best possible energy efficiency solution for their property.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord for another very helpful answer. Perhaps before I say anything specific about the amendments, I may offer him some helpful advice. Both he and I are new to our roles in your Lordships’ House. I am told that one thing that no noble Lord or Attendant ever does is tell my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham the result of a cricket match. I am also informed that he is rather grumpy because, having recorded the match to watch later, he now knows the result. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Marland, should be grateful that it is me and not him sitting next to my noble friend.
The noble Lord has gone a long way towards understanding our concerns. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, the relationships between the assessor, the installer, the provider and the customer are very complex, and this scheme is not going to work unless we have consumer confidence. However, I am reassured by the Minister’s comments that he understands the nature of the problem and is seeking to resolve it. If, at a later stage, he is able to bring forward regulations that show that energy efficiency improvements under the energy plan that are not part of the Green Deal can still be subject to the same consumer protections, that will be very helpful. It might also be helpful to investigate some of these matters further at Third Reading. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think that he understands why we have concerns—they relate only to a wish to make this work and today he has gone a long way towards reassuring us. Therefore, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Marland
“( ) In this Chapter references to a code of practice include references to a code of practice which has been revised by virtue of subsection (3)(d).”
“( ) An assessment made and provided under this section must clearly detail those energy efficiency improvements that qualify under the green deal.
( ) In making an assessment, the assessor must include all energy efficiency improvements options that qualify under the green deal.
( ) Nothing in this section prevents a green deal assessor from identifying energy efficiency improvements in their assessment that—
(a) sit outside the green deal; or(b) collectively exceed the total amount qualifiable under a green deal plan, where this is clearly identified on the assessment.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, the amendments in this group are again about consumer choice and consumer confidence. As we said previously, the main objective of the Green Deal is commendable, although it is possible to go beyond the Green Deal with what is before us. Again, the assessor could potentially also be an improver.
There is no problem in identifying measures over and above those which can be provided by the Green Deal which improve energy efficiency. We welcome that. However, there could be a problem with an assessor who is paid or contracted by an installer or a provider, as the noble Lord said previously, as there could be a conflict of interest. In that relationship, who would make the decision on what are the appropriate measures to be undertaken under the Green Deal?
Very helpfully, the Minister said in Committee that:
“We must allow the consumer to make the choice, but we must ensure that the choice that he makes is regulated with proper standards”.
That is appropriate. Our major concern is that if the assessor tells the customer that a number of measures can be undertaken under the Green Deal, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who decides what is appropriate? If the relationship between the assessor and the installer is a financial one, we are then concerned that the customer receives the correct information from the assessor. We have raised this issue before and we are trying to avoid any possible conflict of interest between an assessor and an installer. The Minister also said in Committee:
“In many cases, we envisage the Green Deal provider employing or contracting the assessor. The assessor would identify the potential for energy savings using the standardised methodology”.—[Official Report, 19/1/11; col. GC 66.]
I do not think we have got to the bottom of this difficult point about how the appropriate measures for a home are decided on. In Amendments 12 and 13 we are trying to ensure that any assessment clearly identifies everything that qualifies under the Green Deal. It has to include all energy improvement under the Green Deal; but there is nothing to stop an assessor identifying energy improvements in the early assessment outside the Green Deal or going over and above what the Green Deal includes. Any potential conflict of interest between an assessor’s functions and their connection with any installer or provider can be disclosed in writing. If the improver and the bill payer are aware of that relationship, they are able to make a choice in line with what the Minister said in Committee. That would ensure that at no stage is the improver, the householder, put under pressure, in any way, by an assessor to accept measures that an assessor could be putting forward because of the relationship with an installer. That is difficult and comes back to the independence of the assessor and how that can be achieved. It is similar to the point made by my noble friend Lord Whitty a moment ago.
The excellent amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, comes back to the points made at the beginning, which the noble Lord was happy to look into further as regards an annual report and having further information. This is the transparency issue. If the Secretary of State can do a cost-benefit assessment, to identify the benefits of the Green Deal, that would give confidence not just to the consumer but also to the energy industry. Much of it will be in terms of the Green Deal and the industry having the confidence to invest in undertaking the Green Deal.
I hope that the Minister understands why these measures have been brought forward today. We want to ensure that consumers have absolute confidence that they are not being given information that serves the commercial interests of others and to ensure that whatever measures are recommended to them, or that they choose, are in the best interests of energy efficiency for their homes. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley
I shall speak to Amendment 160A which is in this group. It follows on from what my noble friend Lady Smith said about transparency, information and confidence in the field of energy conservation. As noble Lords will know, this is a rerun of Amendment 34 in Committee. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, for her tireless work in supporting energy conservation and for moving the amendment eloquently in Committee. She emphasised the lack of interest of Governments over the years in the issue of saving energy rather than producing more to meet an often unnecessary demand. My noble friend Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan supported her and urged publication of the information.
I am trying again to see whether I can squeeze a little more out of Ministers at this stage. I pay tribute to the Association for the Conservation of Energy which has been tireless in promoting this part of the energy debate on conservation, which is often put into the “too difficult” category by government. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, responded in Committee and said that the Government are already obliged to report annually to Parliament on the progress towards legally binding carbon budgets. She also said that,
“the principle of this amendment is sensible and laudable, although we feel that the case for specific reporting from Government may be stronger for the energy company obligation”.—[Official Report, 19/1/11; col. GC 107.]
Surely the information on conservation is as important as is the information on energy production.
I remind the House of a few facts given in Committee. The European Climate Foundation reports that emissions from buildings can be reduced by 95 per cent, which breaks down into 40 per cent from reduced demand and 45 per cent as a result of the electrification of heating. It is important to bring all these figures together at least in one report—we can debate whether or not it is annual—given the enormous challenges the Government have in meeting our carbon reduction targets.
It is also worth reminding the House that Chris Huhne, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, said that the cheapest way of closing the gap between energy demand and supply is to cut energy use. Many other Ministers have said similar things. The Association for the Conservation of Energy has been calling for a cost benefit assessment of energy saving for many years and it asked the Government about six months ago whether they had carried out a long-term assessment of the costs and benefits of energy saving and efficiency as against those of energy generation. The answer was that there was nothing specific in the public domain. I suggest that there should be because consumers need that information. I hope that when the Minister responds he will accept the principle of the amendment and agree that the Government should publish a cost-benefit assessment. How can the Government have properly thought through their overall energy policy without that? If they do not have that information, they should have. If they do have it, perhaps they should publish it.
I refer noble Lords to the Long Title of the Bill, which refers in line 5 to,
“information relating to energy consumption, efficiency and tariffs”.
It would be a small step for the Government to produce a report and then we would know both sides of the equation: the production; and the consumption and conservation.
Baroness Maddock
As has already been said, I moved a similar amendment in Committee so I am happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, today. At a time when we are trying to persuade people about all the things we need to do to tackle climate change and CO2 production, we ought to have the best analysis and figures to back up our arguments.
There is little I can add to what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, but if we are to persuade the sceptics, we need the very best figures. I withdrew my amendment in Committee—we were in Grand Committee and we could not go any further—but I hope that since our discussion the Government have looked at this and thought, “Why on earth can't we do it?”. It is not that difficult. There is lots of information available to draw the figures together. That would be very helpful for all of us. A lot of time and energy is going into the Bill because we believe that it is the right way forward. Let us have the complete evidence to back it up.
I hope that, even if the Government cannot say yes today, they will go away to look at the common sense behind the amendment.
Lord Marland
My Lords, as always, there have been some valuable contributions for which I am extremely grateful. To deal first with the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, it is clearly fundamental that there is transparency and independence, that the reputation of assessors is impeccable, and that we avoid the cowboy culture that could exist, and in certain parts of industry has existed, in the assessment work. That is fundamental to the confidence that consumers must have in the Green Deal. Therefore, we will set out in secondary legislation more detail of the standardised methodology, which will protect the consumer from the cowboy culture and any further abuse.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, whose thoughts on energy efficiency are extremely well known. We are extremely sympathetic to them. Unless we educate people to use less electricity, we will end up using more, and the quickest way to reduce consumption is by using less energy. A lot of the work that we are doing on smart meters in homes will give people an everyday assessment of what electricity they use in their homes. At times, they will find it quite frightening, as I do with my children, whom I have referenced before, when I point to the excellent device we have that is also extremely frightening. The noble Lord, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, rightly referred to the work that ACE has done, which we applaud and listen to in detail. It is fundamental that we develop a pattern of education so that energy use is reduced.
We can readily identify that with the levers that we have available. In October of this year, we will produce our fourth carbon budget report, which will provide evidence of the cost-effectiveness of economy-wide packages under consideration. That report will continue. The costs and benefits to society of particular technologies are assessed through extensive consultation within industry, so a lot of information is provided to us from industry groups. In addition, we provide publications on carbon budgets, energy market reform, feed-in tariffs, CERTs and green deals, so a huge amount of information is provided, which helps us readily to assess the extent to which carbon production and energy use are being reduced.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the Minister, who has sought to be very co-operative and helpful in his comments. However, two things stand out for me. One is that he is right that there is a great deal of information out there for the consumer. In fact, there is so much that it is totally confusing for most people. The simple cost-benefit assessment that is referred to in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, would not only help the Government in developing policy but would be helpful to the consumer. Having information readily available is something that we all require.
The Minister welcomed both our amendments, but he did not pick up on one point. If he is able to assure me that he will come back on it later, it would be helpful. The issue relates to information being provided to the improver and the bill payer about the relationship between the assessor and the installer. That is necessary for transparency and openness. If that relationship is open, there can be no suggestion that there is anything underhand or against the interests of the consumer. If there is a doubt in the consumer’s mind, people will not have confidence in the Green Deal. I can see the noble Lord nodding at me, which is always a welcome sign, so I hope that he will look at these issues—he is now making extremely strange faces; I preferred the nod—and addresses these issues to take that point into account. Openness about that relationship is crucial.
On the basis of what he said, and on the basis that he will look again at the matter on which he nodded to me, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham
“( ) Where consent to green deal improvements is sought by an improver, that consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.”
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, we discussed this issue in Committee, and the Minister gave, as ever, a constructive response, but to the wrong anxiety as far as we were concerned. He seemed to construe our concern as being about the Green Deal being forced upon someone. Consent is clearly the basis on which we seek to proceed, but there might be a tenant who comes under some degree of pressure, so the Minister’s response was to indicate that the Bill would have a framework of regulations that would give protection. I accept the Minister’s position on that without reservation, and I am very grateful to him for expressing that concern.
It might have been my fault in not making it explicit enough when speaking to the amendment, but my concern was almost entirely the other way round. The improver and the bill payer are two different people, and I envisaged that the improver might be involved in the improvement of a substantial number of properties, such as a block of flats which he owned. He might get improvements from 99 out of 100 tenants, but what if one objected and said he was not prepared to sign up to this deal and what if it is difficult for the work to go on without the issue being considered in its totality? We have to envisage that with certain kinds of improvements, the whole building has to be improved or nothing is effective. I was concerned to express the anxiety expressed in this amendment about what happens when an improver is bent upon improvements to the property that meet the objectives of the Green Deal, subscribe to all the benefits that the Bill contains and therefore fulfil the objectives of everyone in this House, but one person stands out against them.
I think that that is a genuine anxiety. I tried to raise the issue in Committee. As I have said, it may have been entirely my fault in that I was not explicit enough or that the amendment was not drafted as accurately as possible, but the response that I received was not directed at this specific problem. I want reassurance from the Minister that he has considered my anxieties and those that might be shared by other noble Lords, that this problem has been tackled satisfactorily in the provisions in the Bill, and that therefore we can see circumstances in which we all recognise that improvements will go ahead only through consensus. There has to be an understanding of that.
However, what about the minority position in extreme cases in which someone is excessively affected, not least because, as we all appreciate, for some individuals the benefits from the improvements to the property might look fairly limited? They know that they will get an increase in their bills pretty soon. The benefits might lie in the future and such individuals might consider that their personal circumstances, in a long-term perspective of that kind, are too long term for the pay-off. I am interested in where ordinary citizens, to say nothing of the awkward squad, might find themselves in a position in which they see no benefit but where they are a very small minority and all other tenants in the building see the advantages. I am interested in how the Bill copes with that issue. I beg to move.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I was very attracted to this proposal, but I should like to share with your Lordships why I do not think that it is sensible in the end. I am attracted to it because there are a lot of curmudgeonly people in this world—you do not even have to have an argument to say that people have a good reason to do something. There are curmudgeonly people who say, “I don’t want this. Why have I got to do this?”. I can quite see the argument. I also have a concern for those who think that other people might benefit and therefore have a slightly dog in the manger attitude.
I come back to the purpose of this Bill, part of which is to get advocates for what we are trying to do around the nation: that is, convincing and converting people to what we are trying to do. I find it difficult to imagine circumstances in which a discussion should go on among flat owners—perhaps there is a landlord, ground rent is paid or whatever—about improving the building. I do not like the idea that behind that is the threat. This is contrary to the way in which the Bill is supposed to operate.
The Minister has said again and again that if this does not work, there will have to be further regulations. The Bill is designed to make that possible, but in the first flush we should try to get a widespread range of people advocating the proposal and convincing their neighbours to go along with it. If we do not do that, one of the most important roles of this Bill will be interrupted.
I have been in both Houses over many years and one of the words that I most dislike is “reasonably”. The difficulty is that the definition of “shall not be reasonably withheld” is difficult in the case that we are talking about now, simply because most people object to something in a way that they consider to be reasonable. They might be very unreasonable people, but when they come to the argument they feel that they have put forward a reasonable argument.
I return to the purpose of the Bill. I am very concerned that we should start this whole process of the Green Deal with an understanding that this is the Government seeking—if I were a modernist I would say “reaching out”—to convince the population as a whole that they have created a framework within which, with consent, we are going to do a large amount to reduce the amount of energy that we use to improve the housing stock and to do all the things that we want to do.
I therefore hope that the Minister will resist this particular amendment, not because we might not be driven to it—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, might be right; we might be driven to it—but because I hope that at least we can start off with the intention of the missionary, to win converts to this, rather than with the intention of the mercenary, to force people to do what you want them to do. All my instincts about something I believe in strongly are to the former, but I have a belief in the end that the latter might well win more converts.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, whether or not the Minister accepts the amendment, it is clearly an issue because there are curmudgeonly tenants and curmudgeonly landlords. The Minister’s understanding of the amendment in Committee and the way in which my noble friend Lord Davies has explained it today will arise. Whether or not she accepts that this provision should be in the Bill, the reality is that the basic concept of the Green Deal is that you pay back through the energy bill, yet the person actually making the improvements, or paying for the improvements in the first place in the normal sense of the word, might do so as part of a general improvement plan. It might be the landlord when the tenant pays the bill, or it might well be the tenant who wants to see these improvements and the landlord pays the bill, whether or not that bill is then re-charged to the tenant. So you have some complicated arrangements here.
One of the reasons why this matter is important is that the private rented sector has the least energy-efficient building structurally and has the highest incidence of fuel poverty proportionately. Therefore—I go back to my earlier point—before we launch this we need to have these things sorted out. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, says: that in a sense we do not want to appear to be holding a dagger to the throat of whoever is taking these decisions, or whoever is being curmudgeonly in his terms, but we need a way around this problem. I am not sure I have heard from the Minister yet that we have a way around this problem. Hopefully by the time she produces regulations, we will at least have the outline of a way around this problem, and, as I say, if it is not solved in the private rented sector, then a whole part of the potential benefits of this Bill will be lost.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I am grateful for the amendment, which raises an important issue about human nature, if nothing else.
Removing consent barriers from the Green Deal journey is of course crucial to the success of the initiative. We agree with the sentiment behind the amendment. We want as many people as possible to take out a Green Deal, and the consent process must therefore be as straightforward as possible. However, we also need to be aware of the rights of property owners and tenants to object to works on their property or the addition of a Green Deal charge to their energy bill. Given this, we need to ensure that any options to overcome consent barriers achieve a balance between respect for these existing rights and unblocking barriers, which could hinder people’s ability to take out the Green Deal.
The noble Lord has just flagged up a very important and very complex issue. I assure him that officials clearly fully understood what the noble Lord said in Committee and are actively working to address the barriers. We will continue dialogue across government to identify solutions. The work is ongoing. I hope that that reassures him. He flagged up a very important area that is now being worked on. Because of that we are not yet in a position to accept the amendment.
I am certainly struck by what my noble friend Lord Deben says in regard to this and hope that he will continue to lead in this area as he always has. I like the notion of the missionary as opposed to the mercenary, but it is worth bearing in mind that some people are not too keen on missionaries either. I hope that at this stage the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. What has been identified, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Deben, acknowledged, and certainly as my noble friend Lord Whitty did, is that this is a difficult area but one that we have to confront if we are going to effect improvements. Again I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Whitty for pointing out how important the private rented sector is and how much the improvements have to be generated in that area to reach the targets to which we all subscribe. The success of the Bill will depend on success in that area as much as in any other.
I appreciate the response made by the noble Baroness, but she will appreciate that she is asking the House to take things somewhat on trust: namely, that the Government recognise a problem but are not quite in a position yet to identify what their solution might be. That is a very difficult thing to say while a Bill is passing through Parliament because, as we all appreciate in this House, this might be close to being the last time that we can address ourselves to this issue. Consequently, we must hope that the department is successful in the work that it has done under the guidance of Ministers who, I have no doubt, will be strenuous in these terms.
Because I am happy to put my trust in Ministers with regard to the objectives of the Bill, I will indeed withdraw the amendment in a few moments, but I hope they recognise that Parliament will expect answers to this and related problems of similar complexity and difficulty, because, although I am entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that the best approach is the missionary approach, we have an exercise to sell and we all have a role to play in that to convince our fellow citizens of the advantages. A lot of progress has been made. If you look at public opinion polls in response to concerns about issues that the Bill seeks to confront, there is no doubt that we are making progress. However, there is a long way to go and things differ enormously from a general response in an opinion poll and where—dare I say it?—hard cash and the mercenary come into play. Therefore, I wish the Government well and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Northover
(a) meets the standard specified in the code of practice in relation to the product or description of product, or(b) is listed in a document which—(i) is issued by the Secretary of State or a person authorised by the Secretary of State in connection with the code, and(ii) is referred to in the code as listing the products which are to be taken as meeting the required standard.”
Baroness Northover
My Lords, government Amendments 17, 19, 20 and 50 relate to the framework for ensuring that the products installed under the Green Deal are of an appropriate standard. This issue came up in Committee and we are seeking to address it.
We must, of course, ensure that products going into homes and businesses are of high quality, are safe and are installed by accredited installers. The amendments to Clause 7 provide that products must meet standards to be set out in a code of practice. Where products are not already subject to rigorous standards, we will require them to be certified using a testing methodology to be set out in the code. Many energy efficiency products are already required to comply with standards, and we will use these as far as possible. The fundamental principles about which measures are eligible will be set out in secondary legislation. DECC will consult on the draft regulations and the code of practice in the autumn.
Clause 7 contains an option to produce a long list of specific products that comply with the standards. We will consult on whether it is appropriate to produce a list such as this because we must protect consumers without stifling innovation in the market. It is critical that any list is capable of being updated regularly when new products come on to the market. We are enabling the list to be issued and updated by an external body, for example the body appointed to administer the code of practice. I hope, therefore, that the House will welcome the government amendment.
We are sympathetic to the proposal set out in Amendment 18 that an oversight body should govern such a list. However, the government amendment allows for this as well as additional approaches, should they be chosen by the Secretary of State as appropriate. Given that, I hope that my noble friend will be happy to withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment 18 (to Amendment 17)
Lord Teverson
“( ) is administered and updated by a green deal oversight body,”
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I am pleased that my noble friend is sympathetic towards this amendment. I should explain that it was going to be spoken to by my noble friend Lady Parminter, who regrettably is defending Britain’s interests in Brussels with her European sub-committee at the moment, so she cannot be here today. The basis for this amendment is that in Grand Committee, we had quite an extensive discussion around making sure that within this system there would be some form of ombudsman or final appeal for consumers so that people would feel assured that any dispute would be looked at in a proper and independent fashion, and could be resolved in a sensible and cost-effective way. The process should be friendly to consumers and would come to an objective conclusion, but would not cost them a lot of money to go through it.
I know that my noble friend has looked through the government amendments to see how this could be achieved and feels that this is one of the more appropriate ways of dealing with the issue. Disguised in the rather generic language of the “green deal oversight body”, which in the language of 1984 would probably mean something quite big brotherish, the amendment is trying to use the Government’s form of language in order to introduce the concept. Given that, while I welcome the Government’s own amendments, I am disappointed that we have not yet found a way of bringing this dimension to the Green Deal. I would be keen to hear from the Minister in her response at the end of the debate how this particular need, which goes back to consumer confidence in the process, could be met. I am not absolutely sure that the government amendments put forward at this stage will do that. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
This group of amendments provides a welcome opportunity to talk about one particular participant in the whole process, and that is the many firms which supply the products. There is an enormous range of them and they are hugely important if the objectives of the Bill are to be achieved. All I want to say in a very few remarks is that I hope that the department really will listen to those people who have had the experience of supplying products to the various participants under the Green Deal’s predecessors. The impression of the trade association that represents the builders’ merchants is that there was actually a great deal of malpractice under the CERT programme, which it describes as operating as a closed shop and distorting the market with unfair subsidies. In my Second Reading speech, I warmly welcomed the new approach set out in the Green Deal and the energy companies’ obligation as it represents a considerable improvement on the previous system. I am delighted that it has been so widely welcomed around the House.
The participation of the supply chain is very important to this process. Suppliers have a great deal of experience and provide a wide range of products including loft and solid wall insulation, replacement windows and doors, heating, hot water systems and associated insulation, draft proofing and all the rest. It seems to me that those suppliers have a great deal of wisdom to convey to those who are trying to draw up the regulations and the code under Clause 7. This is an opportunity to stress the importance of the supply chain.
I believe that the department is listening to the trade association concerned and therefore I wish only to say firmly that it would do well to listen hard. Its representatives have experience and are deeply involved in the whole process, and they totally support both the concept and the practice of the Green Deal. Just as we do, they want it to be as successful as possible. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give me an assurance that this will indeed be something that the department will do.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, at the previous stage of this Bill, I tabled an amendment about carbon monoxide alarms. I have not retabled it now because I have had reassurances from the Minister. These amendments are about compliance with appropriate standards, so I rise simply to seek an assurance that the standards will cover both primary products and secondary products, which must be appropriate carbon monoxide alarms to accompany the installation of appliances which may produce carbon monoxide. Sadly, we have a steady string of notifications of carbon monoxide poisoning. Charlotte Church was recently poisoned but she survived because luckily she lives in a large house and her grandfather had told her to get a carbon monoxide alarm because of her symptoms. No one is immune, from the most famous names to those one has never heard of.
A further reason that the concept of a Green Deal oversight body is appealing is that, while many victims of carbon monoxide poisoning survive, unfortunately many will do so only with neurological and other damage. They need to be listened to and their claims to be heeded. I therefore seek a reassurance from the Minister that the issue of carbon monoxide alarms has not been forgotten or sidetracked, and that it will be considered as part of the appropriate standards to be set out in a code of practice as a result of this Bill.
Lord Deben
My Lords, first, I declare an interest because, in the course of advising people on corporate responsibility, that can hardly be done without talking to quite a number of businesses that at some stage may be involved in this process—and not only the businesses, but the people. That enables one to ask the Minister to be extremely careful about a long list of appropriately ticked-off equipment. This is an area of fast-moving innovation. I have to tell the Minister that, in the work which I do professionally, one of the most difficult things is to keep up in this particular area, so rapid is the development. One of the problems that any of us who work in this kind of area face is the way that government legislation can hold up the market, stop development, and make it more difficult for new things to come forth.
I understand that we have to have a balance, and to stop people installing the wrong thing, the bad thing, the thing that does not do what it says. However, I beg her to look extremely carefully at the mechanism, so that it encourages innovation and makes it possible for new products to come onto the market rapidly, some of which will be cheaper and better able to meet the needs of the Green Deal. We need to have a system which does not inhibit the very necessary innovation which in part will be driven by the Green Deal. We do not want to have a situation in which the Green Deal is driving that innovation, and then find that people cannot meet the requirements because it takes six months to get it on the list, or because there is some technical reason why you cannot get it on the list. There are so many examples today of things which would do very well if we had not passed some regulation, when nobody knew how to do this, so that the new product cannot actually be recommended.
There is a second thing that I hope the Minister will think of, though this is not the appropriate place for her to put it. I am always worried when we talk about products without talking about people. You can have the best products in the world, but a cack-handed involvement in them will result in a worse position than the one you started off with. I discovered this from my professional work, in this case, when we did some work with plumbers. The fact is that there are no regulations ensuring that plumbers can be competent. You could have a product under this legislation which would be perfectly well ticked off, but a plumber doing the work could make it absolutely impossible to operate it as the rules and the certification would suggest.
This is an appropriate moment to say to the Minister that I hope very much that, in considering the products and making sure that they are suitable, we remember that products need installation. The installers must in fact be capable of installing them properly, or all the regulations on products in the world will not deliver the goods. I hope that the Minister will ensure that, when her civil servants are looking at this, they will see these two things together. They have to be part and parcel of the same mechanism, and that mechanism must not in any way inhibit the innovation which I very much hope will be the result of this legislation.
Lord Oxburgh
My Lords, I, too, strongly support this amendment. Innovation is moving extremely fast here. A couple of weeks ago, I had the privilege of being a judge in the final of the Shell springboard competition, which, as many noble Lords will be aware, aims to encourage and support small companies which are bringing what I might loosely describe as green technologies to the market. One of the two winners of this competition produced a technology which will have profound implications for the Green Deal—namely, a domestic voltage regulator. That is not a person; it is a very small piece of machinery. Without becoming too technical, I should explain that the appliances in our houses work on 220 volts. For technical reasons of the grid, typically it supplies us with something like 240 volts and 250 volts. That excess voltage, at best, does not do any harm to our domestic appliances, and at worst it damages them, because they receive too high a voltage, and it is indeed wasted. A domestic voltage regulator regulates down to 220 volts, and the consequence is that one proportionately reduces one’s electricity use. This is now a well-tried technology, and has the scope of reducing domestic use of electricity across the country as a whole by around 10 per cent, which is a massive saving. This is the kind of technology that we need to make sure is taken up rapidly. It has now been thoroughly tested, is already available, and has been in use for a number of years at the large-scale commercial level.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, these amendments to Clause 7 seek to strengthen the framework for ensuring the quality of Green Deal improvements and products, and address a number of points made in Committee. Amendment 17 provides that Green Deal improvements must meet standards set out in the code of practice, and that if the Government decide to use the power to create a list of products that meet the standard, this can be administered and updated frequently. Amendment 19 makes provision for a testing methodology and certification process for products. Amendment 20 is simply a repositioning of text which was previously contained in Clause 7(3)(a), and makes clear that the code of practice is issued under the authorisation scheme in the framework regulations.
In Committee, we had a full discussion on the challenge between the need for certainty of standards and codes, and their drafting and interpretation to the complexity in the housing stock. Although there was a recognition that certain standards of work, of procedures to follow, and of improvements in products should be consistent in the provision of the Green Deal, there was a recognition that flexibility would be required to meet varying properties with differing levels of energy efficiency. The Committee reconciled the differing approaches by expressing a wish for a guarantee of quality to be recognised, so that there would be consistency of outcomes that would provide a greater level of confidence, vitally required to produce the maximum uptake of the Green Deal. The Minister and his team have listened to what has been said on this. These amendments, as proposed by the Minister, meet the Committee’s concerns, and I am grateful that the Government have come forward with them on Report.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, and particularly the Opposition Front Bench for their welcome of the government amendments. The Government believe that the approach of my noble friend Lord Teverson could be permitted under these amendments, though I recognise that an ombudsman is not specifically mentioned. There has been quite a debate about how specific you should be, and on the pluses and minuses of that within this, which is a tension within the Bill as a whole. How do you ensure that you have got customer protection and standards, and how do you make sure that does not then become too prescriptive and restrictive? As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, mentioned, there has been wide consultation with many of those who operate in this area, and I can assure him that, in terms of addressing these areas, the Government will continue to do that. Their experience of the problems that have arisen in the past will be very useful in terms of feeding in to ensure that the work taken forward addresses those kinds of problems.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned carbon monoxide monitors, and primary and secondary products like this do come under what we are discussing here. She recognises that my noble friend Lord Marland gave a very sympathetic hearing to the very important point that she made at an earlier stage. Again, that is something that comes within this.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, is right about the difficulties of having a specific list and the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, also referred to that. It is extremely important that the Bill is not out of date by the time it is finally concluded in the other place. We have to be extremely careful about lists. There is a balance between trying to ensure that what happens is not too specific and that we have a high standard, but that we are stimulating innovation and not stifling it, as noble Lords said.
In the light of those assurances about what we seek to do, I trust that noble Lords will accept the government amendments. Although we fully understand where the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is coming from with regard to the ombudsman, we hope that at this stage he will be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and I will withdraw the amendment. I say that to save the tension and stress of the House, which is never good at this time of year. However, I genuinely feel that something should appear in the Bill, whether it is the oversight body or the ombudsman, ombudsperson or whatever it would be these days. I ask my noble friend to think further about that as we reach Third Reading or as the Bill moves to the other place, as this is an important area for confidence and dispute resolution within the way that the Bill works. At this point, however, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Northover
“( ) In specifying the standard in relation to a product or description of product for the purposes of subsection (3)(a), the code of practice may make provision as to the testing and certification of the product or description of product.”
“( ) In this section references to the code of practice are to the code of practice issued for the purposes of the scheme under the framework regulations.”
Lord Marland
Lord Marland
My Lords, Amendment 21 is in an extensive group of amendments that relate to the energy performance certificate. As I have said on a number of occasions, we are extensively reviewing the energy performance certificate to ensure that it is fit for purpose for the Green Deal and that there is no confusion between the certificate’s relationship with buying and selling a home and achieving energy performance under the Green Deal.
As currently drafted, the Bill would apply the energy performance of buildings regulations, with modifications, where a Green Deal plan is present. This would enable Green Deal information to be added to an EPC and kept up-to-date. In this way, we will be able to monitor the progress referred to earlier by other noble Lords and thereby measure the success of the Green Deal’s energy-saving benefits.
Amendments 58, 170, 172 and 174 make consequential amendments relating to parliamentary procedure, extent and commencement. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that these are effective and transparent ways of fulfilling our criteria for disclosure in the Green Deal. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
When we were discussing the number of government amendments earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, made an appropriate comment about how we are all grateful to the Minister for tabling the amendments early. To have early sight of them was indeed helpful as, in the true spirit of the complications of energy legislation, it is sometimes difficult to trace them back and follow them through—that is more of a problem with the following group of amendments—although I am sure that all noble Lord have been able to do so.
The noble Lord has taken on board comments that we made throughout Committee stage about monitoring and having information and transparency. With this group of amendments the Minister has responded to issues raised by the Committee and I am grateful to him for doing so.
Lord Marland
“( ) The reference in this section to securing that a document is updated includes a reference to securing that a document is replaced by a document of the same description.”
Lord Marland
““the 2010 Regulations” means the Building Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/2214)”
Lord Marland
Lord Marland
“( ) Subsection (3) applies if one or more of the first, second or third conditions is met.”
“(2A) The second condition is that—
(a) by virtue of section 8(4)(b) or (c), the framework regulations specify a document of a description which is required to be produced under the 2008 Regulations, and(b) provision is made in the 2008 Regulations by virtue of section 10(3) to require a document of that description to contain additional or updated information.”
“(2B) The third condition is that, by virtue of section 8(4)(b) or (c), the framework regulations specify a document of a description other than one falling within subsection (2) or (2A).”
“( ) In this section references to a document being required to be updated or further updated include references to a document being required to be replaced by a document of the same description.”
Baroness Northover
“Disclosure of green deal plan in connection with other transactions etc
(1) This section applies where—
(a) there is to be a transaction or other arrangement in respect of a green deal property (not falling within section 12(1)), and(b) the transaction or arrangement is of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(2) The regulations may require a person of a description specified in the regulations to—
(a) obtain the document mentioned in section 8(4) or, if that provision has not yet been complied with, produce a document containing the same information in connection with the green deal plan as that document would have contained, and(b) provide the document free of charge to a person of a description specified in the regulations at the time so specified.(3) The regulations may provide for an obligation imposed on a person by virtue of subsection (2) to be discharged by a person acting on the person’s behalf.
(4) In this section the reference to a green deal property is to be read in accordance with section 12(5)(b).”
Baroness Northover
My Lords, Amendments 41 and 42 are a straightforward extension of the existing disclosure and acknowledgement provisions to ensure that all relevant circumstances are captured. The principle behind Clauses 12 and 13 is that those taking on responsibility for repayment of the Green Deal should have the presence of the charge disclosed to them, and acknowledge that they are aware of it. After further consideration, we have concluded that additional powers are needed so that we can require disclosure and acknowledgment in circumstances that do not fall within Clauses 12 and 13.
As drafted, Clauses 12 and 13 rely on there being a relevant property transaction for the sale, rent or licensing of a property to trigger the obligations to disclose and acknowledge. However, the provisions will not cover all circumstances—something that was flagged up in Committee—such as where a property is transferred by executors to a beneficiary under a will, or when a property is given by one person to another. The new owner ought to be made aware of the Green Deal, and this is the purpose of the amendment.
Robust disclosure and acknowledgment requirements protect individuals and businesses by ensuring they know they are taking on a Green Deal plan when they choose to move into a property. This helps to minimise the number of disputed Green Deal plans, which means that payments are maintained and the cost of finance is kept as low as possible. We will work with stakeholders on how these new provisions will apply in practice. Our aim is to use existing systems where possible, and we will consult before setting out these arrangements in regulations.
Amendments 43 to 45 enable the sanctions contemplated by Clause 14 to apply to those other circumstances or other transactions where disclosure and acknowledgment may be required under the new provisions.
Amendments 59 to 61, 171, 173 and 175 deal with consequential issues such as parliamentary procedure, extent and commencement elsewhere in the Bill.
In conclusion, I can assure noble Lords that these powers are necessary and proportionate to protect the consumer and to ensure the effective operation of the Green Deal. Furthermore, I would be grateful if noble Lords could note the Government’s intention to introduce, in the other place, a further amendment relevant to consumer protection under the Green Deal. This future amendment will propose that, in certain exceptional circumstances such as particularly long Green Deals, Green Deal providers will be able to recover more compensation from bill payers when a Green Deal is repaid early than is currently permitted under the Consumer Credit Act. Where extra compensation is recoverable, this will be within the limits set by the consumer credit directive. Without such a measure the cost of finance is likely to be increased, thus driving up costs for all Green Deal consumers.
I am highlighting the future introduction of this amendment now to reflect noble Lords’ close interest in consumer protection matters—something that has also been flagged up today—which are an issue of utmost importance to the Government in the development of this legislation. We propose to introduce such an amendment in the other place to allow further time to ensure that, in making this change to the Consumer Credit Act, we are able properly to balance the interests of Green Deal providers with the protection of consumers, which is so important within the Green Deal scheme. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
Once again, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments, which show that the Government have listened to what was said in Committee. She referred in particular to the provision of information where a property changes hands through an executor following a legacy. That issue was raised by my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham, and I am grateful to the Government for looking at it.
I am very pleased that she has told us now about amendments that she will seek to have tabled in the other place, which will want to scrutinise those proposals. We have concerns—we will have to look at the detail of how this works out—that additional compensation may be charged for early repayment. Indeed, that was a concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in Committee, so I appreciate her informing us now of the Government’s intention.
Another point that I want to make is that I was very pleased at her opening comments on the importance of disclosure of information about charges. She may recall that one of our amendments—I cannot recall whether it was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, or by myself, but it was supported by us all—was on pre-payment meters, which often mean that people pay much higher rates for electricity or gas than those of us who pay by direct debit or in response to a bill. One of our proposals in Committee, which was not accepted at the time but which I think the Government said they would look at again, was that greater information should be provided for those customers about exactly how much the Green Deal costs them and how much their energy bill costs. If the Government are bringing in greater transparency so that information on charges can be disclosed, we would like to see that point included. Therefore, perhaps that issue can be looked at at the same time.
Baroness Northover
I thank the noble Lady for her very positive response to these amendments. We will indeed look at the issue that she has raised.
Lord Marland
“Acknowledgment of green deal plan in connection with other transactions etc
(1) This section applies where—
(a) there is to be a transaction or other arrangement in respect of a green deal property (not falling within section 13(1)), and(b) the transaction or arrangement is of a description specified in regulations made under this subsection by the Secretary of State.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may require a person of a description specified in the regulations to secure, at a time and in a document so specified, that an acknowledgment is made by a person of a description so specified that—
(a) the bill payer at the property is liable to make payments under the green deal plan, and(b) certain terms of that plan are binding on the bill payer.(3) Where the green deal property is in England or Wales, regulations made by the Secretary of State under this subsection may provide for any acknowledgment required by virtue of subsection (2) to be in the form prescribed in the regulations under this subsection.
(4) Where the green deal property is in Scotland, regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under this subsection may provide for any acknowledgment required by virtue of subsection (2) to be in the form prescribed in the regulations under this subsection.
(5) In this section references to a green deal property are to be read in accordance with section 12(5)(b).”
Lord Marland
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Lord Jenkin of Roding
One of the features of this whole Green Deal, which has run right through the discussions, is that it will be the suppliers of gas, electricity and, no doubt, other products, who have to collect the payments from the improver, through their energy bills, in order to repay the loan that will have been made by the provider to enable the improvements to be made. This is an important new role for the gas and electricity supply companies. They have unanimously—I have spoken to a number of the companies—welcomed the whole process in this Bill. They recognise that this will bring a range of energy efficiency measures to homes and businesses.
However, they have a very serious concern about an aspect of this process of cash control. My noble friends on the Front Bench will remember that I have raised this at every stage of the Bill, including at Second Reading. They do not want to become liable for the Green Deal debt. If there is a default on the payment, it is difficult to understand why the gas and electricity companies should be the ones that bear that. Perhaps I may spell this out because that is what this amendment is all about. Clause 15 as currently drafted provides power for the Minister to modify gas and electricity licences, and industry codes and agreements maintained pursuant to a licence, for the purpose of requiring and enabling licence holders,
“to take, or not to take, specified action in relation to Green Deal payments”.
That is very wide indeed. The power can be exercised by the Minister subject only to routine public consultation. It really is quite a peremptory power.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, while it is for the Minister to respond to the eloquent identification of the issue by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in his concluding remarks the noble Lord identified a dimension of that issue for which I do not think I have seen the answer in any of his earlier speeches on it—that is, as he says, that someone has to pay. I imagine that if this paragraph is taken out of the Bill, the question of who has to pay will have deleterious consequences for the success of the whole concept behind the Bill, but I imagine it is for the Minister to identify those issues.
Lord Marland
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for helpfully answering this question for me because it is absolutely fundamental that if we withdraw the liability from one party, we have to establish where it is going to fall. No one knows more about the industry than my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. He is very close to it indeed and, as he said, this is a complex accounting issue on companies’ balance sheets. These implications need to be looked at carefully and that needs to be done in consultation with businesses. I refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said earlier: if we withdraw from one, we have to work out who is going to pick up the bill at the end.
I make a strong commitment to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding—he knows that when I make these commitments, I mean them—that we will be liaising with the energy suppliers and the finance providers over the next few months as we put together the important financing of the Green Deal which, as we all know, we have not as yet structured. It will, however, be an important structure and through that we will develop a policy and provide absolute clarity on this issue for, we hope, all parties. It is fundamental that all parties go into this Green Deal approach unified and clear of their position and, indeed, that the customer is clear of his recourse in that position. That is a commitment that the Government will make to this process and I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, I say that if the supply companies are not going to be made liable then it will of course be the providers. They put up the money and if there is a default then, like any lender, they have to bear its cost. The risk of default could mean a marginal increase in the rate of interest that they would have to charge in order to cover that risk. They do not face the same problem as the supply companies, which have the problem of having the whole thing landed on their balance sheets. As I have said, that could amount to billions of pounds.
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for his promise to consider this. He has of course been as good as his word on so many of the other undertakings that he has given. While he will be discussing this with the industry and with the providers, I simply find it difficult to believe that it could be right in the present circumstances to leave the whole of the debt outstanding, in the case of a default, on the balance sheet of the supply companies. I want to make my own views on that clear. Having said that, my noble friend has made a fair offer and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Marland
Lord Marland
My Lords, these are further government amendments. I have written to noble Lords who have been interested during Committee and our various debates about these amendments. Again, I apologise for their exhaustive extent but all noble Lords are, I think, in agreement that this variety of amendments improves the Bill and that we have taken on board the excellent work that various noble Lords have done in Committee.
These amendments make small technical changes to Clauses 20 and 92, and a consequential amendment to Clause 73. Amendment 48 makes a small amendment to Sections 33(1) and 81(2) of the Utilities Act 2000, if your Lordships are still following me, and would insert into those sections a reference to the modifications made under Clauses 15 to 18 of the Bill. Section 33 of the Utilities Act lists the provisions which form the standard conditions of electricity licences and Section 81 of that Act lists the provisions which form the standard conditions of gas licences. Amendment 163 makes this amendment to Section 33(1) of the Utilities Act in respect of modifications made under Clause 92 of the Bill.
Amendment 49 provides that the,
“principal objective and general duties”,
as set out in Sections 4AA to 4B of the Gas Act 1986 and Sections 3A to 3D of the Electricity Act 1989 apply in respect of the Secretary of State’s exercise of the licence modification powers contained in Clauses 15 to 18, as they would apply in relation to functions of the Secretary of State under Part I of the 1986 and 1989 Acts. Amendment 164 does the same thing in relation to Clause 92, while Amendment 165 is made in consequence of Amendment 164. I am already looking forward to the response by the opposition Benches to these excellent amendments, which I hope will be supported.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I could not disappoint the Minister. In fact, I was able to see further clarification in his own words. I have sat down with these amendments and looked through them, but they raise an important issue about the complications of energy legislation. I know that the noble Lord and his team sought to be helpful to all Members of the Committee and to those who took an interest in these issues by sending through not just the amendments but some explanatory notes, which were helpful. I am grateful to him for doing that.
While we will continue to scrutinise this legislation, it may be helpful at some stage—probably not at Third Reading but at some later date—if we were to have one of the wonderful seminars that the Minister has organised to look at some of the detail of energy legislation, the direction in which it is going and where it can be consolidated. That would be helpful to all noble Lords considering these issues in future. In the mean time, I am grateful for his detailed and helpful explanation of the amendments in front of us.
Lord Marland
“(7) In section 33(1) of the Utilities Act 2000 (standard conditions of electricity licences)—
(a) after paragraph (d) omit “or”;(b) after paragraph (e) insert “or(f) under Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Energy Act 2011.”(8) In section 81(2) of the Utilities Act 2000 (standard conditions of gas licences)—
(a) for “2008 or” substitute “2008,”;(b) after “2010” insert “or under Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Energy Act 2011”.”
“( ) Sections 4AA to 4B of the Gas Act 1986 (principal objective and general duties) apply in relation to the powers under sections 15 to 18 with respect to holders of licences under section 7 or 7A of that Act as they apply in relation to functions of the Secretary of State under Part 1 of that Act.
( ) Sections 3A to 3D of the Electricity Act 1989 (principal objective and general duties) apply in relation to the powers under sections 15 to 18 with respect to holders of licences under section 6(1)(c) or (d) of that Act as they apply in relation to functions of the Secretary of State under Part 1 of that Act.”
Lord Marland
“( ) If the function of revoking a code of practice issued for the purposes of the scheme is specified in an order by virtue of subsection (1)(a), the code must not be revoked without the approval of the Secretary of State.”
Lord Grantchester
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, during Committee we expressed a clear wish to see as much information regarding appeals as could be provided with clarity in the Bill, rather than it being included in secondary legislation. While we accept that there is no requirement to specify further all the details regarding appeals, which is the challenge we are making under Amendment 54, nevertheless we still feel that we need to be more precise in specifying the nature of the appeal forum. That is the subject matter of Amendment 53.
I have undertaken some quick research into Acts with appeals sections. Without undertaking an exhaustive search, I can cite the Housing Act 2004, with proceedings relating to tenancy details, the Education Act 1993, specifying a special educational needs tribunal, the Children, Schools and Families Act 2010 and the Social Security Act 1998. All those specified with greater clarity the tribunal and the relevant way it will operate. We seek to bring that same level of clarity to this Bill, especially in regard to what the relevant authority is regarding appeals. I beg to move.
Lord Marland
My Lords, this is a valuable amendment. It is clear that we have to have a course of action if things do not go correctly. At this point in the process, though, it is fundamental that we work out what the sanctions are before we establish the process. Because at this point we have not established the sanctions, we cannot yet establish the process. It will take us some time to work this through; noble Lords in the Opposition know that we are at an embryonic stage with this. It is fundamental and we are committed to making sure that there is a right of recourse and there are sanctions. As the Bill progresses and we get into secondary legislation, I know that the picture will be much clearer, and I agree that that is important. I hope that that answer gives noble Lords confidence that we acknowledge where they are coming from and that we are taking steps to deal with it, and I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Grantchester
I am grateful to the Minister for his recognition and acknowledgment that this is an important area that still has to be filled in with greater clarity. We know that there are many opportunities yet for the Bill to be so amended, and even for part of it to come forward in the regulations. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Northover
Baroness Northover
My Lords, these amendments do three things. First, Amendments 55, 80, 87 and 90 seek to refine the definition of “subordinate legislation” in the Bill. This would make it explicit that the Secretary of State is able to amend Welsh subordinate legislation under the powers in Clauses 31, 39, 42 and 45 relating to redress and appeals. This power is needed to ensure that the Secretary of State can properly implement the redress and appeals mechanisms required by Chapters 1 and 2 in Wales.
Secondly, Amendment 93 requires the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers before making PRS regulations that relate to domestic private rented properties in Wales. This amendment reflects the interest that the Welsh Ministers have in this area.
Thirdly, Amendments 64, 63 and 93 require the Secretary of State to have obtained the consent of Welsh Ministers before amending or revoking Welsh subordinate legislation pursuant to the redress and appeals provisions in Clauses 31, 33, 39, 42 and 45. The requirement to obtain consent does not apply where the Secretary of State is making only incidental or consequential amendments.
Our officials have been working with the devolved Administrations and territorial offices throughout the Bill process, I am sure noble Lords will be pleased to hear. Wales has confirmed that it is content with the government amendments that we are moving here on Report. Our engagement with Wales is ongoing; my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be giving evidence to the National Assembly for Wales Sustainability Committee in Cardiff on 10 March, and my honourable friend the Minister of State will be speaking in the Welsh Grand Committee in the other place, also on 10 March. We will continue to work closely with Wales throughout the passage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I am not going to raise any objection to amendments that take account of the interests of Wales. I am just somewhat amazed that the Government missed the opportunity to do this on 1 March rather than on 2 March.
Lord Marland
“Parliamentary procedure in relation to code of practice
(1) This section makes further provision in relation to the issuing of any code of practice for the purposes of the scheme established by the framework regulations.
(2) Before the code is issued the Secretary of State must lay a draft of the code before Parliament.
(3) If, within the 40-day period, either House of Parliament resolves not to approve the draft, the code may not be issued.
(4) If no such resolution is made within that period, the code may be issued.
(5) The “40-day period”, in relation to a draft of a code, means the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft is laid before Parliament (or, if it is not laid before each House of Parliament on the same day, the later of the 2 days on which it is laid).
(6) For the purposes of calculating the 40-day period, no account is to be taken of any period during which—
(a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or(b) both Houses are adjourned for more than 4 days.”
Lord Marland
“(7A) The Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Welsh Ministers before making provision under section 31 amending or revoking—
(a) provision included in an instrument made under a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales;(b) any other subordinate legislation made by the Welsh Ministers (or the National Assembly for Wales established under the Government of Wales Act 1998).(7B) Subsection (7A) does not apply to the extent that the Secretary of State is making incidental or consequential provision.”
“( ) Subsection (8) does not apply to the extent that consent has been obtained under subsection (7A).”
Lord Davies of Oldham
“( ) Before making regulations or an order under this Chapter, the Secretary of State must report to Parliament with proposals on green deal apprenticeships.”
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, Amendment 65 raises an obvious point. We all see that there is going to be a significant increase in economic activity as a consequence of the Bill. A great deal of work will need to be done by a great number of people, and it is a potentially significant stimulus to an economy that is sorely in need of any kind of stimulus that it can get, particularly in terms of employment. I want to emphasise through this amendment my hope that the Government will address themselves significantly to the question of youth unemployment, particularly the role that an increase in apprenticeships can provide in dealing with that problem.
We are all well aware of the fact that we are going to see a substantial increase in unemployment in this country. We know that hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs are going to be lost. We also know that the private sector is going to have difficulty in making up for this loss of opportunities. This is one area where the private sector will seek to expand its opportunities and employment. We all want to see a substantial contribution in terms of jobs created for young people. Otherwise we are going to see a whole generation of young people blighted by the loss of jobs. So apprenticeships can play a significant role.
I think that the House will recognise the fairly substantial expansion in apprenticeships that occurred over the years of the previous Administration. When we came to power, apprenticeships had reached a very low ebb. Although we did not reach anything like the ambitious targets that we would have liked to reach, the significant increase in apprenticeships needs to be sustained. We cannot afford as a society to look as if we have turned our backs upon that next generation of school leavers. The issue is sharp enough with regard to higher education and university places and we know the pressure there will be regarding opportunities for young people there. However, a substantial number of school leavers still have no aspiration to higher education and apprenticeships could potentially play an important part in providing skills for that generation.
That is why I hope that the Minister will recognise that the Bill is a stimulus to economic activity and could potentially increase levels of employment in this country. We should certainly ensure that apprenticeships benefit from this in order that the younger generation gets its fair share of opportunities too. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I do not think that the amendment is appropriate to go into the Bill. That said, everything that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has said is right; this is a really important opportunity to upskill and to find ways to create important apprenticeships in a growing, expanding and increasingly important sector of the economy. One of the things that the Bill does is to open up a lot of employment opportunities in that sector. I agree that there is a challenge; in some ways this area could become almost a deskilled tick-box process that did not require a great deal of skill. That would be wrong in terms of both employment and the long-term viability and credibility of the scheme. I hope that it will be an area where the Government encourage apprenticeships with a good standard of learning. This programme is particularly good at stimulating such apprenticeships as it is long term. The Green Deal will last for a number of years and there will be time to train people properly. That is one of the reasons why we are not jumping up and down and saying that all this needs to start tomorrow.
We accept the Government’s timetable for implementing the programme. It has to be drawn up in the right way not just in terms of formulating codes of practice, its administration and the way it works but in order to ensure that we have a sufficient number of people with appropriate skills in the marketplace to enable the programme to be delivered effectively. Therefore, although I agree absolutely with the spirit of the amendment, I do not think that it is necessary to include it in the Bill. However, I hope that the Minister will agree that apprenticeships will be an important part of the scheme.
Lord Marland
I am extremely grateful that this amendment has been put forward as it goes to the very heart of how we are going to develop as a nation over a rocky period—the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, and my noble friend Lord Teverson mentioned this—when growth, enterprise and opportunity will be fundamental to restoring the country’s financial viability. That is why the Government have committed to spending £250 million on apprenticeships over the spending review period. Some 75,000 apprentices will be created between now and 2014-15, leading to more than 200,000 people starting an apprenticeship each year. This is a fundamental commitment which I am sure the whole House applauds as very good news.
I was hoping to make an announcement on apprenticeships and the Green Deal. However, as noble Lords will understand, I am a very junior Minister and more senior Ministers will want the glory of making that great announcement, which, in fairness, would be more appropriately made next week in Green Growth Week. On a serious note, I hope that that announcement is satisfactory news for all concerned, particularly those on the opposition Benches who have tabled this amendment, as it will demonstrate our commitment to Green Growth apprentices and the Green Deal. As I said, I fully concur with the two noble Lords who have spoken on this subject. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I extend my sympathy to the Minister for the fact that he is not able to make these great announcements. However, we welcome any advance that the Government make in this very important area.
I thought that I had achieved enough leverage to get this amendment included in the Bill. I realised that the Minister might take a little persuading but I had strong hopes that I could appeal to other sections of the coalition. Nevertheless, when the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, complimented me on my remarks but said that he did not support the amendment, my heart sank. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Northover
“(iii) under a tenancy which is specified for the purposes of this subsection in an order made by the Secretary of State”
Baroness Northover
My Lords, government Amendments 67, 68, 91 and 92 give the Secretary of State the power to expand the range of tenancy types that are within the definition of “domestic private rented property” in Clause 35. They also clarify that the Secretary of State is able to consider non-PRS properties in the review if he considers it appropriate to do so.
We committed to considering the amendments of my noble friend Lord Teverson and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, from Grand Committee on the definition of this type of property. After that consideration, we now propose these government amendments. These amendments also make it clear that the Secretary of State’s review of the PRS might include a review of the energy efficiency of other types of property if he or she considers it appropriate.
Amendment 67A would amend the definition with the intention of not excluding social housing from the PRS provisions within the Bill. After an extensive debate in Committee, we agreed that we want to see the social housing sector continuing to improve its energy efficiency performance. That sentiment still stands and the Government are actively engaging with the sector to ensure that this is the case under the Green Deal. However, we feel that in the context of the PRS provisions, which are all about targeting the worst performing housing sector, regulating social housing is not necessary at this stage.
In addition, the PRS and social housing sector are governed by very different frameworks. While the PRS includes a large number of landlords, each with a small number of properties, the social housing sector contains considerably fewer landlords each with hundreds or thousands of properties. These social landlords have been subject to previous requirements to invest in the energy efficiency of their stock. However, we want to encourage the social housing sector to continue to drive up standards across its stock and will be keeping a careful watch on the sector’s uptake of the Green Deal. With that explanation, I hope that noble Lords opposite will be content to withdraw Amendment 67A, and that the House as a whole will be willing to accept government Amendments 67, 68, 91 and 92. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester
I have listened to the noble Baroness’s comments on the government amendments which enable the Government to extend a review of energy efficiency to the social rented housing sector and provide a flexible instrument for expanding the definition of “private rented sector” in the Bill to cover other types of property. We are most grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation. In the light of these concessions and the conversations that we have had with the department on this subject, we no longer feel that it is necessary to move our own amendment on the future of social rented housing as it is clear that this type of housing is intended to fall within these provisions. As I say, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I wish to speak briefly on this matter and ask for a response from the Minister, possibly in writing as she may not have the information to hand. Quite a few vicarages might benefit from the Green Deal. Older vicarages are typically not well insulated and not particularly well looked after over time by their impecunious residents. They are prime candidates for insulation improvements but they are neither private rented nor social housing as such. Indeed, they are typically occupied under a form of licence. It would be helpful to be told either now or in writing—the Minister may prefer to reply in writing—how the Green Deal arrangements will apply to a considerable stock of houses that are occupied under licence by office holders such as clergy.
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for responding to issues that I raised in Committee. I was anxious that as many dwellings as possible came within the scope of the Bill, particularly in the private rented sector. I discussed the position of agricultural tenancies, certain tenancies under the Housing Act 1988 and houses in multiple occupation. I sought a provision that would enable the Minister to include any property that he considered appropriate. That point has been answered but in Committee confusion arose over agricultural tenancies. In Committee on 24 January, the Minister assured me that agricultural tenancies were already covered in the Bill but on 26 January he changed his mind and said that they were not. Therefore, I am not clear where we are on agricultural tenancies. Some agricultural tenancies are in a similar position to that of vicarages. Even if my noble friend is unable to answer today, there is some confusion on this issue, and I should be grateful for clarification on which other tenancies the Minister is minded to include. I assume that this will be done through secondary legislation, but I am not entirely satisfied that the Minister has responded to the queries on these important issues.
Baroness Northover
I thank noble Lords for their general welcome for these amendments. Perhaps I may pick up the various points that have been made. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the Bill covers as wide a range of properties as possible. Therefore, I can confirm that both the categories that have been mentioned would be included within it. In fact, we pay particular tribute to the church for its leadership in this field and for seeking to move to zero carbon. I can confirm that the church properties would fall within this arrangement, as would agricultural tenancies. However, if noble Lords want more specific information, I am sure that we can arrange discussions between them and officials on all the details. I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that the purpose is to be as inclusive as possible in the Green Deal, and that is what the government amendments seek to achieve.
Baroness Northover
“( ) A review under this section may include a review of the energy efficiency of such properties which are not PR properties as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
Elections: Voting Arrangements
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Astor
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will consider changing the voting arrangements for British citizens residing abroad and members of the Armed Forces serving abroad.
Viscount Astor
My Lords, I hope you will forgive me for asking a Question on voting arrangements, because of course, as a Conservative hereditary Peer, I have never voted in any general election. However, there is a referendum approaching in which I look forward to voting, and I have, of course, always been able to vote in local elections.
This Government have always seen the merits of enfranchisement of British citizens living abroad. However, in recent years, the take-up of overseas registration has been disappointing. I am afraid that one of the reasons was the change of rules enacted by the previous Labour Government. It is now very difficult for British citizens living abroad to register, and it is even more difficult for them successfully to use their postal vote. As a result, registration has plummeted.
Equally, those serving abroad in the Armed Forces have had severe problems getting their postal votes processed. Does my noble friend have any estimate of how many members of the Armed Forces serving overseas successfully managed to vote at the last election? At present, the only sure way for members of the Armed Forces to vote is by proxy. However, surely those who wish to exercise their vote by secret ballot should be able to do so. It is extraordinary that out of all the troops from NATO countries in Afghanistan, who are there to encourage democracy, ours are often denied it. Can my noble friend give an assurance that for the referendum that is to be held on 5 May, when postal ballots are sent out on 18 April to those in Afghanistan, the Falklands or the many other territories, postal ballots will be able to be returned on time so that the votes count?
We seem to be the only EU country that does not encourage its citizens living abroad to play an active part in their own country. It is difficult to register and it is difficult to vote. You have to register in the constituency where you last lived in the UK, and you have to prove it, so many do not bother—it is a cumbersome procedure.
Through the internet, those living abroad are as close as they have ever been to their home country. It is the same as if they were living here. You can download any national newspaper any morning. You can watch the BBC on a television anywhere in the world. You remain part of your home country and belong to it. However, if you do not register, you lose interest in your home country and do not feel like supporting any political party. As a result, many feel disfranchised, unwanted and irrelevant to what is happening in their home country.
The main groups affected are those who are working abroad, including members of the Armed Forces, and particularly those who have moved or retired abroad. We live in a world where many travel for both short-term and long-term reasons, and their numbers are increasing; but that should not mean that their political rights should not be exercised. The rules are seen to be unfair and totally different from the rules for other EU countries, which not only make it easy but actually encourage their citizens abroad to take part in the democratic process. French citizens abroad can register with their embassy or consulate. Their votes can be cast in person, by mail, by proxy or on the internet. The advantage of that is that the French embassies and consulates know where their citizens live in foreign countries; often in times of crisis or difficulties, those nationals are able to be contacted much more easily than we can contact our nationals who live abroad.
Italy has a somewhat similar system. The Greek constitution provides for voting from abroad by post, but the law required to apply this provision has not yet been passed—although that is intended to happen. In Germany, the restriction on those voting is 25 years compared with 15 years in this country. Noble Lords will remember that the previous Government changed the rules, whereby if you have lived abroad for more than 15 years you are no longer able to vote. That is unfair, and that does not happen in many other European countries that I have looked at, including Belgium, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. All have better arrangements for voting abroad than we do.
There are always exceptions to the rule. For some inexplicable and particularly Irish reason, only diplomats and military personnel serving abroad can vote in elections in Ireland. I do not understand, nor have I been able to discover, why that is the case, but perhaps a noble Lord with more knowledge of that may be able to answer that question.
At the last election, complaints were numerous. For those living abroad, despite getting their requests to register well in advance of the deadline, many did not receive their registration. If they succeeded in registering, the ballot papers often did not arrive in sufficient time for the votes to be cast and to arrive back in the UK in time to count. The system is unworkable and deprives many British citizens of their right to vote.
We saw at the last election that many were disgracefully locked out of the polling booths at the last minute—at a quarter to 10, or just after. The Electoral Commission has a lot to answer for, and one wonders whether it is up to the job.
There is a 15-year rule in this country and I hope that the Government will look again at that, because it is unfair and excludes perhaps half the expatriates living overseas. There is no credible reason for that. When the Conservative Government re-enfranchised expatriates in the late 1980s, they did not imagine a situation when a Labour Government would come along and disfranchise people again by adopting the 15-year rule. That provision should be reversed. This is not a party issue. In the US, the Conservative and Labour groups signed a joint letter complaining about the 15-year rule and disfranchisement. Under the present system, the only way expats can be certain that their vote will arrive in time, especially from outside Europe, is to vote by proxy. However, many do not have an obvious proxy, and many do not want to vote by proxy.
I understand that there are at least 650,000 British citizens living in EU states, and some 800,000 expatriates worldwide who receive UK pensions. When one looks at the figures and evidence provided by the Electoral Commission, one sees that the entry of overseas voters on the UK parliamentary electoral registers had increased to the rather meagre sum of 30,809 in December 2010. By any standard, that is a pathetic amount, compared to the number of our citizens living overseas. It is something that must be addressed. Can the Minister confirm any of the figures that I have given him? Are they correct for how many people are living abroad and how many manage to vote? I am not entirely sure that all my figures are right. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Finally, under the recent Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act, from which your Lordships are only just recovering, overseas voters have the right to vote in the referendum on 5 May. What is being done to inform them of their rights and encourage them to vote in this important referendum, which could change a significant part of our constitution? It is important that the Government undertake to review the system before the next election, as it is unfair and discriminatory in an age when we all ought to be voting online.
Lord Wills
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, on securing this important debate. I declare my interest in these issues: I was the Minister responsible for them in the previous Government. I will focus my remarks on the voting arrangements for service personnel, although some of the improvements that can be made will also have implications for British citizens living overseas. I want to focus on the armed services because when men and women make such sacrifices for their country, they must be able to have an effective say in their country’s future. The Government must do everything possible to enable them to do so.
There are two elements to ensuring that service men and women can vote. First, they have to be registered. Secondly, when they do vote their vote has to be able to be counted in time. Both pose particular problems for services voters. They are often more peripatetic than other voters, which can cause problems with registration and deployment in remote areas, particularly in conflict zones; and can create serious problems with the timely return of postal votes. Much work has been already been done in both areas. The period for service declarations was extended to five years under the previous Government to help accommodate the volatility of life in the services. There are annual electoral registration campaigns targeted at service personnel and their families, and each unit has a unit registration officer.
We can see the results. During the time of the previous Government, the number of service personnel serving abroad who are registered to vote increased from around 36 per cent in 2005 to 48 per cent in 2008. An MoD survey carried out not long after that estimated that in 2008 65 per cent were registered to vote. This is still far too low and much more must be done to increase registration rates, just as more needs to be done to increase registration among the 3 million or so voters who are eligible to vote but cannot because they are not on the register. I hope the Minister will respond to this debate by telling the House how the Government are building on the work of the previous Government to increase registration rates further.
Once registered, all service personnel serving overseas can make use of proxy votes to ensure that their votes can be counted. They are not disenfranchised. However, when I was the Minister and I consulted representatives of service men and women and their families, they made it clear that many were uncomfortable using proxy votes and wanted to ensure that postal votes could be used. In my view, the Government should do everything possible, consistent with the integrity of the ballot, to enable voters to vote in the way that they wish.
The electoral timetable, for good reasons, means that postal ballots are issued only relatively close to election day, and therefore there can be serious problems with the timely return of postal ballots. The previous Government took action to address this problem. A great deal of excellent work was done by first-rate experienced officials in the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Defence. A bespoke postal voting scheme was set up for the last general election to expedite postal voting in Afghanistan, and a process was established to produce a long-term solution. Before the last election, I secured agreement from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties that, whatever the outcome of that election, a consultation would be launched in July 2010 on the options for additional voting channels for service personnel and their families. This consultation was to have concluded by the end of November last year. The aim was then to reach conclusions on the way forward in the light of that consultation by spring 2011, and to bring forward legislation in 2012—in good time for the next general election.
I recognise that there is a wide variety of views on how best to proceed. As the Minister I heard, for example, suggestions for automatic registration for service personnel, for counting military votes on a longer timetable after polling day, and for the electronic distribution and remote printing and counting of ballot papers. All of these suggestions had merits and drawbacks but they were all worth exploring further. I became convinced that the answer lay with the internet. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, referred to this as well. Enabling voting by internet would require changes in electoral law—which is enormously complex—and must satisfy, crucially, any concerns about the integrity of the system. However, none of these problems seemed insoluble, not least because the security of the internet is becoming at least as robust as the security surrounding traditional methods of voting. Just as importantly for the credibility of any changes, the security of the internet is increasingly widely accepted. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the House what progress the Government are making with this consultation and bringing forward the legislation necessary for any changes.
Finally, I want to touch on the referendum, which the noble Viscount referred to. At the moment, I understand that the proposal is to issue postal ballots on 18 April. That, as the Minister will appreciate, leaves very little time for them to reach personnel deployed in remote areas and be returned in time. While there may well be good reasons—and there are—for such a late issue of postal ballots for a general election, I cannot see why that applies to this referendum, where the contents of the ballot are known now. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Minister could outline the measures he is taking to ensure that all voters in the armed services, no matter where they are deployed, will receive postal ballots for the referendum on AV in good time for them to be returned by the due date.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Viscount for initiating the debate. I agree with what he has said and with what the noble Lord, Lord Wills, has said. I raised this issue last summer in a Written Question, when I asked the Government whether they would introduce legislative proposals so that British citizens who have worked overseas for more than 15 years in international organisations could have the same right to vote in parliamentary elections as members of the Armed Forces, Crown servants and employees of the British Council. My noble friend Lord McNally, in a Written Answer on 10 June, said:
“The Government are aware that representations have been made on behalf of those working in some international organisations abroad that they should continue to be able to vote after a period of 15 years’ continuous residence overseas. The Government have not yet considered the way forward on this issue”.—[Official Report, 10/6/10; col. WA57.]
I quite understand why that should be so for a new Government, but I hope—for the reasons that I will give as well as those that have been given—that the Minister will indicate that this thinking and open-minded Government will further consider these important issues.
I put down that Question for Written Answer because Simon Palmer, a very distinguished senior official in the Council of Europe, who has now been serving abroad for, I think, 27 years, raised the issue with me. He pointed out that in the days of the internet and broadband, British citizens serving abroad in international organisations are at least as well informed about British politics, British social policy and what is happening generally in this country as they would be if they were living in Herne Hill. He pointed out, therefore, that if there was any rationale in the pre-internet age for the 15-year cut-off, to do with knowledge of what is going on in the United Kingdom, it has long since disappeared. I agree with that.
He also pointed out, as has the Electoral Commission in the information that it has provided, that the cut-off point has varied from five to 20 to 15 years. I am not aware of any rationale for how those periods have been chosen. They seem to be entirely arbitrary and, I dare say, discriminatory in a way that violates Article 14 of the European convention read with Article 3 of the first protocol. There seems to be a difference in the treatment of, for example, an employee of the British Council, who is not subject to any cut-off point, a member of the armed services, who is not subject to the same cut-off point, and someone such as Mr Palmer who has been providing service abroad in the wider public interest, who is subject to this cut-off point. I should be very grateful if the Minister could tell us the rationale behind a period of five, 20 or 15 years in relation to such a person.
That is not all. So far, I have concentrated on membership of service in international organisations. However, in a world in which there is a right of establishment and freedom of movement under European Union rules, I ask myself why our concern should not include, for example, business men or women, who under the right of establishment are living, working, earning money and paying taxes in other parts of the European Union. Again, that seems entirely irrational. It might be said that it is somehow administratively difficult to administer the scheme without a cut-off point. However, that cannot be right because, as we know from the exceptions to the 15-year rule and to the overseas voting scheme, it is perfectly possible to manage without it in respect of those exceptions.
Therefore, although I do not expect the Minister to be able to give a definitive answer this evening, I very much hope that these concerns, which have already been raised by the two previous speakers, as well as by me, can now be looked at so that a full and comprehensive answer can be given to the question raised by the noble Viscount, which affects basic civil rights and freedoms, quite apart from any European dimension or any question of Peers voting—although Peers are of course subject to the 15-year rule if they are outside the country for that time—and quite apart from the vexed question of prisoners’ voting rights. We are dealing with something that transcends all that and I very much hope to get a positive answer.
Lord Rogan
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, on securing this debate. He asked whether any Member present this evening could explain the vagaries of the electoral system in the south of Ireland. As an Ulsterman, I am as mystified as he is.
Where there is a will, there is a way. In this modern, sophisticated world of ours, we pride ourselves on the ingenuity of mankind. We contemplate the merits of sending a man to Mars; medical teams have transplanted an entire human face; and we have unlocked the basic building blocks of life itself. Amazing, ingenious—is there nothing beyond our grasp? Apparently, there is. We can send a probe millions of light years into deep space and receive back pictures of worlds previously not even contemplated, but somehow the ability to send ballot papers to serving soldiers and receive them back before the polls close is one small step just too far for mankind—at least, of the British variety.
Patently, it is nonsense that those who serve in the Armed Forces—those whom we dispatch to mortal peril in the name of democracy—cannot be serviced with an adequate voting system in the 21st century. Iraqi and Afghan citizens living in this country have more chance of voting in their national elections—a franchise they enjoy courtesy of the efforts of British and other allied troops—than those very same UK troops have of voting at home. It is an insult that those who serve at the sharp end in the service of our democracy are so impeded in their ability to action that most basic democratic right—the right to vote.
Now, I do not propose that we use the 1945 election as a template. While it is true that that election accommodated the huge numbers of service men and women serving overseas, it did so by postponing the counting of votes by some three weeks. In Northern Ireland we used to postpone the counting of general election votes until the day after the polls closed, while everyone else on the mainland busied themselves with counts during the night. Given the level of irritation which that small delay caused, I do not think that postponement is the solution. Surely the answer lies at the other end of the electoral process, by providing for a slightly longer period between the close of nominations and the day of the election. That should provide enough time for ballot papers to be sent and returned in a timely fashion.
I know it is said that a week is a long time in politics, but just how many budding, potential parliamentarians are going to be debarred from standing for election because they have been asked to submit their nomination papers several days earlier? I suggest that there would not be many. In any case, surely the need to support the right of those in the Armed Forces to vote far outweighs the needs of those who feel compelled to stand for election at the very last moment.
Others have argued that the means for serving soldiers to vote already exist through the use of a proxy. That is to assume, however, that everyone has access to a proxy to whom they can entrust their vote. In any event, the use of a proxy is but a pale imitation of the real thing. Personally placing an X—and I say “X” deliberately, rather than the “1, 2, 3” that some well-intentioned but, I believe, misguided souls aspire to—is the moment of closure.
At a time when our learned friends at the European Court of Human Rights have advised Her Majesty’s Government that they would be well advised to provide voting rights to prisoners, we could well end up with the absurd position of criminals having more access to the voting system than troops in Afghanistan. That makes no sense to me and no sense to the country. When we are asking so much of our troops and when there is much discussion of the position of the services in today’s society and the need to support and enhance that position, ensuring that our service personnel serving abroad can, at the very least, cast their judgment on the Government who equip and direct them seems to me a fairly obvious starting point.
This is a point of principle and, I think, a moral obligation for parliamentarians. I urge the Government to bring forward proposals sooner rather than later.
Lord Lexden
My Lords, my brief contribution to this evening’s important debate might perhaps be regarded as having a slightly maidenly tinge. I have spoken once before since having the privilege of joining this noble House, but these are the first words since then that I have uttered in this Chamber, which Disraeli had chiefly in mind when he compared this House to the Elysian fields—that paradise in which heroes of the ancient world reposed for all eternity. Disraeli was firmly opposed to the creation of a mass electorate, convinced that the right to vote should be tightly restricted. However, above all, this great hero of the Tories believed that his party should seek to master whatever sets of circumstances might be created by the remorseless process of change to which, as he often pointed out, this progressive country is always subject.
I do not think it can be said that my party has so far done spectacularly well in dealing with the circumstances created by the enfranchisement of certain British citizens living permanently abroad, and nor perhaps have other parties. The most striking feature of the current overseas voting arrangements is how few people have so far taken advantage of them. Of those living overseas who are eligible to take part in our elections, no more than some 31,000 are actually registered today, as my noble friend Lord Astor pointed out. That is exactly the same number as 20 years ago after the Representation of the People Act 1989 had extended to 20 years—up from the initial five—the period during which our fellow citizens abroad can apply to vote in UK parliamentary and European elections. I was greatly struck by the comment of my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill about the lack of any rationale for these different periods. As he has told us, no rationale has ever been offered and it would be very useful to have one because, as other noble Lords have pointed out, it is of serious concern that so few British citizens living abroad have come forward to take up the right to vote here, which was conferred on them in the 1980s.
As far as my party is concerned, this state of affairs does not reflect indifference on the part of our fellow citizens living abroad. There are lively and successful Conservative associations in many overseas countries—some of which I have had the pleasure of visiting—and they form part of a network which is advised and assisted by the highly regarded Conservatives Abroad office in Tory headquarters. As one of our leading overseas members has recently said, “Within their host countries, expatriates meet and celebrate their Britishness in all types of organisations, associations, churches and schools”.
When the Conservative Party's flourishing overseas associations are asked why so few people are actually registered to vote—I think this is true of other parties—they tend to answer with one accord that the process of registration is too complex and cumbersome. There are other factors, but registration is so often the dominant one. The statutory requirements for registration are not easy to fulfil, as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, explained in his opening speech. Again, as my noble friend Lord Astor pointed out, the time needed to fulfil the requirements makes it virtually impossible to register close to an election. The position would be greatly eased if electronic registration were introduced. Of course, there would be many problems attached to this, not least fraud, but many other countries have overcome them successfully. There might perhaps be merit in asking the Electoral Commission to examine the issues thoroughly and produce a full report which could help to inform close discussion of the ways in which more of our fellow citizens abroad could exercise more easily the important right that they have been given.
Against such a background it might also be timely to reconsider the current rules which disenfranchise all our fellow citizens who have lived overseas for more than 15 years. Subject to the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, to whom we are greatly indebted for this debate, I ask the Minister to consider these suggestions.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
My Lords, I wish to express my appreciation for the debate secured by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and to say thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, for the effort that he made to enfranchise the Armed Forces when he was Minister in the other place. I have great hopes for the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. I agree with everything he says. I thought that he would turn to the electoral system in the Irish Republic, but he did not. He condemns the system which is so close to my heart—that of proper proportional representation—but I am sure that we shall remain on speaking terms. However, he spoke of the importance of service personnel being able to vote. I battled with this a couple of Sessions of Parliament ago when I tried to get serious consideration of the automatic registration of people when they sign up to the Armed Forces, so that they are included on an electoral register. We have a registration officer for every unit but I think we need more. Automatic registration would meet the criteria quite easily.
Others have already mentioned the very tight general election timetable: between the close of nominations and polling day there are just 11 working days. I suggest that 11 working days is far too short a period for nominations to be verified, for papers to be printed, for them to be dispatched, for them to reach the furthermost parts of our interests in Afghanistan and elsewhere and for them to be filled in and returned. It is nice to speak of doing things online, but I am sure that many of our troops are out of the reach of any sort of computer, so would be unable to take advantage of that method of voting.
This morning, the MoD confirmed that we have 9,500 troops in Afghanistan. How many of them voted? It says that at the time of the general election there were 9,000 or 10,000, so this morning I was astonished to receive figures from the Electoral Commission showing that, in the 2010 UK general election, 294 proxy voting applications were received and forwarded to electoral registration officers and 270 postal votes were successfully returned from Afghanistan to returning officers in about 120 authorities. That is out of 9,000 people who are eligible to vote. That is totally disgraceful and is not acceptable in any modern democracy.
I suggest that one of the reasons for that is the period of 11 days for the whole transaction. That contrasts with other timetabling for elections: for example, for the National Assembly for Wales, where we shall have an election very soon, there is a gap of 19 days; for the Scottish parliamentary elections, 23 days; for the Northern Ireland Assembly, 16 days; for the London Assembly, 24 days; and for the European Parliament and for local elections in England there is a gap of 19 days. When we have such important elections, why is the gap only 11 days? We tried to sort this out with the previous Government but I am so sad that they were not able to proceed to retimetable the gap between the close of nominations and polling day. It is nonsensical.
The situation becomes even more confused. Last year, a general election took place on the same day as local elections in England. Agents, returning officers and their staff were all involved in election campaigns and there was tremendous inconvenience because the different elections had different timetabling, even though they were to take place on the same day. Not only were ballot papers not returned in time because of the 11-day timetable, but candidates and parties were unable to reach the electorate with their messages and manifestos. The Representation of the People Act 1983 states that any candidate can send one item of election literature free of postage to each elector. However, that does not apply to people overseas. You get a ballot paper at the last minute but no information about the candidates and there is nothing to promote them. We need to extend this ridiculous period of 11 days so that there is sufficient time, not only for the ballot papers but also for the material from the various candidates to reach those who are entitled to vote.
Finally, having a consistent workable timetable, say of between 18 and 25 days—I believe that the Electoral Commission wants 25 days—between the close of nominations and polling day would enable those overseas, especially those serving in the forces, to play a much more significant part in our elections in the United Kingdom.
Lord Patten
My Lords, the issue of the voting rights of those living abroad or serving their country abroad seems to me to have a clear constitutional quality or aspect but also presents equally clear and simple logistical challenges to ensure that votes are deliverable on time, in the right place and in an orderly way.
Tonight we must debate the issues raised so eloquently by my noble friend on the run within our present rather ad hoc arrangements for constitutional change and reform. Within that framework I shall concentrate on the rights of service men and women, important though the feelings of, for example, British civilians living abroad are. We should treat the constitutional and logistical issues of the service vote specifically within the framework of the military covenant, which is central to my remarks. The military covenant should embody, with everything else, the clear voting rights of men and women who serve us abroad. I regard it as ever more important as we necessarily ask in these difficult times fewer to do more when they serve us. This is an urgent task.
The absolute right to vote on time and in secret should be enshrined in the military covenant. A proxy vote is no substitute for being able to vote in secret. I remember the late Lord Garden making that point very strongly some years ago. Why should service personnel not be able to vote in exactly the same way as any other British subject wherever they are in the world? The issue begins with the life of service registration which is now five years. I welcome that. I also applaud the MoD’s efforts to get the service vote registered. Its efforts are excellent, as are those of some local councils, such as North Lincolnshire, which only last month publicised the issue in its area. In the end I would prefer to see registration lasting the life of service if that is the only certain way to ensure the continuing right to vote for service men and women wherever they are.
There are then the sheer logistical problems of getting votes back from bases in, say, Germany, which are compounded to the power in getting votes out of in-theatre areas such as Afghanistan. As the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and my noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno, so rightly said, there is no reason why there should not be a longer period. Why cannot procedures for general and local elections be better aligned? At present the printing and posting of general election ballot papers can begin only after the final publication of those nominated—11 days. In local elections it is 16 days. For a start we could align the 11 days with the 16 days as those extra five days could make all the difference in the logistics of ensuring that those who are risking their lives do not also risk recording their vote when all that is required is a little neo-constitutional date alignment. I have heard the argument that someone should have the right to stand for Parliament at the last minute. I have never thought that that was a very good reason. Among the ranks of my new best friends in the Liberal Democrats, Mr Huhne, the Energy Secretary, took about three years before he tilted at the seat I represented, making it quite clear that he was going to stand. We should take the service vote as something that trumps the need for last-minute, monster loony applications to stand in general elections.
In short order, also, why do we not have special ballot box arrangements administered in theatre by forces with priority postal arrangements to get them back, and in the opposite direction, exactly the same expedited arrangements, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said, to get messages of candidates across? What my noble friend Lord Astor and the noble Lord, Lord Wills, said about looking at internet voting is very important but we should not diminish or forget the possibility of cyber attack on internet voting or indeed on any other internet sphere.
I end by recognising the fact that life cannot be perfect. There are a few particularly difficult situations facing those of our excellent submariners on board our deterrent Vanguard class submarines when on patrol on continuous at-sea deterrence for 80 or 100 days submerged, with all the communications involved. It would be pretty difficult, I suspect, to get their votes back. In those cases, proxies by those they trust might be the only answer. They deserve our thanks, as do all our service men and women, which is my reason for stressing that the service vote and its safety is not some little issue for returning officers, constitution freaks and those interested in the wider shores of constitutional reform. It is absolutely central that the military covenant in future should embody the rights of servicemen to vote in exactly the same way as anyone within the kingdom.
Baroness Gale
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for holding this debate tonight. It is a very good topic, of interest to everyone who believes that in a democracy voting should be uncomplicated and that an easy route to casting one’s vote should be found.
To assist British people living abroad and those in our Armed Forces serving overseas, the Electoral Commission runs advertising and media campaigns to encourage voter registration among British citizens living abroad. The campaigns include online advertising targeted at sites which are frequently used by British citizens living overseas. I received some information this morning in which the commission said:
“Our most recent campaign took place in spring 2010 in the run up to the UK Parliamentary General Election. It resulted in more than 40,000 overseas voter registration forms being downloaded from the Commission’s website. The Office for National Statistics publishes annual registration data collected from Electoral Registration Officers in Great Britain and from the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland. In December 2009 there were 14,861 entries of overseas voters on the UK Parliamentary electoral registers, this increased to 30,809 in December 2010”.
The Electoral Commission’s campaign doubled the amount of registrations, but the number is still very low. The commission believes that the current election timetable may not always provide enough time to allow for postal voters to receive the ballot paper, mark it and send it back in time for the close of poll. In its report on the 2010 UK general election the commission restated its recommendation, first made in 2003, that the Government should review the election timetable to ensure that there is sufficient time for voters to receive and return their postal ballot packs for future elections. Would the Minister look at this recommendation?
There are a number of problems for voters abroad, as other noble Lords have said. The closing date for nominations and then the wait of a few days for withdrawals means that, as has been said, the full list of candidates is available only 11 days before polling day. Most people recognise that this is too short a time to get postal votes sent abroad and returned. Fixed-term elections could overcome that problem. Proxy voting can be an answer for some people as it should be a sure way of getting one’s vote cast. However, not everyone is happy with allowing someone else to vote for them and they may not have someone they can trust enough. So that can be only a partial answer.
In America most states send out ballot papers between 20 to 45 days before an election, but there are also back-up systems, including online forms that can be printed and posted back. Canadian forces have a flexible special voting system that enables people to vote wherever they are stationed. Under that system, electors have a six-day window to vote beginning two weeks before civilian election day. Will the Minister look at other countries such as those mentioned to see if their methods could be adopted?
Another way to overcome those difficulties would be to move to electronic voting, as other noble Lords have said. Surely we could have a pilot scheme first. Like other noble Lords, I believe that that is the way forward. I think that we will get there one day, but I wonder how long that will take. Does the Minister think that that is a feasible idea?
My final question to the Minister is: why cannot people from Wales who live abroad vote in the referendum tomorrow in Wales, whereas they can vote in the referendum being held on AV on 5 May? There is a certain irony there. Welsh people abroad will be allowed to vote in the 5 May referendum but not in the Welsh Assembly elections on the same day. If a general election is held in May 2015, Welsh people abroad will be able to vote in the UK general election but not in the Welsh Assembly general election being held on the same day. The same applies to Scotland. I believe that that is an oversight. Because we have had devolution for only 11 years, no one has spotted it. I ask the Minister to have a good look at it and report back to the House.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, on that last point, perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, should look behind her and ask why the Labour Government did not deal with that apparent anomaly, but I will have a look at it. It seems strange that you can vote in one referendum but not in another. I sincerely hope that the Welsh people will turn out in good numbers and vote yes in tomorrow's referendum.
The key thing about this debate—I congratulate my noble friend Lord Astor on securing it during the first year of a five-year Parliament—is that many of the issues raised are good, should be studied and, I hope, be considered by the Government with urgency. I will deal later with the specific issue of the military vote, although it is significant that more than half the speakers devoted most of their remarks to it. I take on board the priority that the House gives to addressing that matter.
Of an estimated 5.5 million British citizens resident overseas, only about 30,000 vote. We must address that issue. As my noble friend Lord Roberts pointed out, for all the efforts made, only about 500 soldiers in Afghanistan voted, out of about 10,000. That disengagement of the military is not healthy. I take on board the points that have been made and will return to them.
The point about postal voting and the election timetable has been made. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, that, although proxy voting is an alternative, it is not one that all electors want. Therefore, it is right that we address the issue of the postal vote. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister said last September that the Government have noted the Electoral Commission’s view, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, and my noble friend Lord Roberts referred, that an extension to the electoral timetable would be an advantage. The Electoral Commission has said that a longer timetable for Westminster elections could be created by bringing the key deadlines into line with those used for the majority of elections currently held in the UK. That would mean that the election timetable would begin 25 working days before polling day.
As I said, the Electoral Commission's views are on the table, and I know that the Government are working on the issue with a sense of urgency—not in time, of course, for the referendum on 5 May. Again, the Electoral Commission is planning guidance to administrators to prioritise postal votes, particularly postal votes going overseas.
Several noble Lords mentioned electronic voting—
Lord Wills
Before the Minister leaves the point about the referendum, is he saying that it is impossible for the Government to issue postal ballots for the referendum before 18 April?
Lord McNally
No, we will not do so. I will come back to that.
A number of countries have moved to e-voting but some have stepped back from it—in particular, the Netherlands and a number of states in the United States—because of the security issues that were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Patten. One problem is that e-voting is vulnerable to attack and to fraud. On the other hand, I have actually voted electronically in a pilot scheme in local elections seven or eight years ago. I voted in a St Albans local election from my office in London. Although there is not a great deal of enthusiasm for e-voting at present, I think that if we are to have the in-depth study that this debate urges, a study of e-voting would be worth while. Voting in UK embassies is not easy, given the constituency basis of our elections and the need to get ballot papers to cover all parliamentary constituencies.
Let me use the last few minutes on the military vote, because I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Patten, that the military covenant is important and the right to vote on time and in secret should be addressed as part of that covenant. I will certainly take that message back. It is important that we try to encourage our service personnel to vote. The Government are making every effort to encourage participation in the vote on 5 May, not only in Afghanistan but in other British service areas where the British Forces Post Office will make voting in military locations a priority.
As I said, the Government are introducing an initiative for voting on 5 May. The deadline for new postal vote applications and changes to existing votes for the referendum is 5 pm on 14 April. The chief counting officer for the referendum has directed electoral administrators to prioritise postal votes going overseas, to ensure that they are sent out as soon as possible after the deadline for new postal vote applications has passed, with the first issue of postal votes to take place not later than 18 April. That issue will include postal votes for members of the Armed Forces. Why 18 April? Many areas will issue combined ballot packs and so will need to have election papers included with the referendum ballot. Also, 14 April is the last date for registration, and we will need to send out postal votes after that date in case of any change in details—a point raised by the noble Lord.
I say frankly and honestly to the House that on a wide range of the issues raised, such as the 15-year rule which was raised by my noble friends Lord Lexden and Lord Lester, I do not think there is a rationale—I almost feel I am back to why the AV Bill provides that there should be 600 MPs—for the figure of 15 years, five years or 20 years. However, I think that it is certain that, in a world where many more people work abroad, the issue should be properly looked at. I say to my noble friend Lord Lexden that Disraeli’s most famous intervention into voting was to dish the Liberals in 1867 and then bring in a more radical franchise in 1868.
I leave the House with the message that the issues raised tonight are very substantial. They have been raised at the right time in this Parliament by my noble friend Lord Astor and other noble Lords who have spoken. I will make sure that my right honourable friend Nick Clegg and his colleague, my honourable friend Mark Harper, in the Cabinet Office, who have responsibility for these matters, see the Hansard of this debate. It will carry with it my very strong endorsement that we should carry forward the momentum of what the noble Lord, Lord Wills, was trying to do towards the end of the Labour Government and that early in this Parliament we should have a really radical look at voting for our overseas residents and, very importantly, for our military. I hope that will be the lasting value of this debate.
Energy Bill [HL]
Baroness Maddock
Baroness Maddock
I shall speak also to Amendments 71 to 75, 77 to 79 and 84, and the comments I make will also be pertinent to Amendments 81 to 83, which are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best; they also have my name to them. When I saw this Bill, I was delighted to see that the private rented sector was to be included. As time has gone on, I am not quite so delighted with how far we have got on the private rented sector. What I aimed to do in Committee and reiterate here is to have greater certainty about what sort of regulation we are going to have and when it might come in, and to bring the timetable forward.
The amendments bring forward to 2020 the Government’s measures for local authorities to issue notices to landlords requiring relevant energy efficiency improvements, and make it a duty rather than a power. They remove its conditionality on the outcome of the review in Clause 36. Landlords receiving a notice from a local authority will be required to improve that property at least to a minimum energy efficiency level of EPC band E, and this level will be increased before 2020. The maximum penalty for non-compliance is increased to £10,000 per tenancy, and local authorities are given the option to carry out the improvements themselves and then impose a charge to recover the costs. From 2016, a minimum energy efficiency standard is introduced whereby it becomes an offence to let or market a domestic private rented property which falls below EPC band E—that means those in F and G—until it is improved to band E, and the minimum standard must be raised again before 2020. A fine of £10,000 can be imposed for marketing or letting a property which does not meet the minimum standard.
There has been a lot of discussion about this. Some landlords, the British Property Federation and the RLA have produced briefings that claim that lots of properties would be taken off the market. Given the situation in the housing sector at the moment, I think that is highly unlikely. The latest edition of Landlord & Buy-to-Let Magazine states:
“Landlords are faced with excellent levels of tenant demand, strong pricing power … and improving buy-to-let mortgage conditions and are looking towards 2011 with confidence”,
so I think that is one thing that can be knocked on its head.
It is important to look at the details surrounding this sector. According to the Government’s figures, properties rented from a landlord or a letting agency are most likely to be the worst insulated, and 42 per cent of tenants in the coldest rented homes are unable to afford to heat them properly and are defined as being in fuel poverty. New research by the Energy Saving Trust reported today shows that the average cost of improving the coldest rented homes is £2,535 and that 30 per cent could be improved for less than £900 through rather cheaper measures such as loft and cavity wall insulation. Only 5 per cent would cost more than £7,500. A poll by Friends of the Earth found that tenants renting from a landlord or through a letting agency faced the worst during the freezing snowy weather this winter, with half saying that they were uncomfortably cold in their home and a third turning off their heating because they were concerned that they could not pay the bill.
There are 754,000 F and G-rated—that is, below E —private rented properties in Britain. They could all be improved for less than £2 million. The average cost would be about £2,500. The annual fuel bill reduction would be something like £370 million and the average fuel bill reduction could be a little under £500.
The annual report by the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, for 2009, which was published in March last year, showed that people living in poorly heated housing live in great danger. Old, badly insulated properties offer significantly less protection against the risk of cold than more modern buildings. The annual cost to the NHS of treating winter-related disease due to cold in private housing is £859 million, although that is all private housing, not just the private rented sector.
This issue has been around for a long time. There is an issue about when and when not to regulate but, as I said in Committee, we are looking at the worst of rented properties. Most would not cost a lot to bring up to a proper level. A large percentage of people living in those properties are in fuel poverty, and this is one case when I really think we need to bring in some sort of regulation. We have been talking about trying to improve them for years, but nothing has happened.
My final point is that many people living in these properties are being paid for by taxpayers, who are paying huge amounts of housing benefit. Given where we are at the moment, I do not think we can go on doing that much longer. All the time I have been in Parliament, I have been trying to make sure that we have fewer people living in cold homes in the winter and fewer excess winter deaths. Even if the Minister cannot do anything today, I hope that he will promise that by the end of the passage of the Bill we will have more certainty that we are really going to do something about the private rented sector. I beg to move.
Lord Best
My Lords, Amendments 81, 82 and 83, which stand in my name and were aired in Committee, seek to address the problem that the Green Deal may make very modest inroads into the problems of poor standards of insulation in the private rented sector. The Government’s impact statement for the Bill recognises this problem and there was agreement in Committee on the difficulties of reaching those of the 1.2 million private landlords who own substandard properties.
In anticipation of continuing problems of getting landlords to take action, the Bill proposes giving enforcement powers to local authorities and giving tenants the right to trigger the necessary action. However, the Bill’s measures kick in, as we have discussed in relation to earlier amendments, only after a review has been concluded and the Secretary of State is satisfied that the measures will not deter lettings in the future.
My amendments cut to the chase, making sure that if there is only limited take-up of the Green Deal and if all other ways of securing action by private landlords were to fail, by 2016 it would no longer be legal to let properties with the very worst energy performance. Making the position clear would mean that all landlords and, very importantly, all managing agents—they look after some 60 per cent of private rented properties—know that they have five years to get the substandard premises up to the very modest E rating with 10 years to move them up to the D level.
Perhaps I may advance three reasons why these amendments, very carefully brought together by the Association for the Conservation of Energy and Friends of the Earth with considerable support from Members in another place, would help the Bill’s objectives in this tricky area of the private rented sector. First, setting a minimum standard as a legal requirement for letting greatly increases the chances of success in getting the works done to the more than 740,000 offending properties. The take-up of Warm Front and the CERT scheme has been poor in the PRS, and the misery of cold homes with attendant wasteful carbon emissions seems unlikely to end without the sanctions which a legal requirement for letting would bring.
As well as fixing the ongoing problems of fuel poverty for some 150,000 PRS tenants, the amendments would reduce problems of fuel debt. Citizens Advice tells me that it had more than 100,000 inquiries last year, which was up 33 per cent on the previous year, from people with fuel debts. A minimum energy efficiency standard of band E would save on average £488 for an average outlay of only £2,535, which would be a very fair rate of return. At the same time, according to the Energy Saving Trust’s research for Friends of the Earth, which the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, has mentioned, these measures would save 1.87 million tonnes of climate-changing carbon dioxide each year, which Friends of the Earth calculates as being equivalent to taking 800,000 cars off the road. I guess that the Minister shares the widespread view that achieving a minimum standard will require sanctions at a later date. These amendments give that process the necessary teeth without the delays and uncertainties inherent in the proposed review and its aftermath.
Secondly, landlords and their agents are well used to complying with statutory requirements. The simplest comparison here is the duty to obtain a gas safety certificate. Obtaining an energy performance certificate with a rating of E or above is just as straightforward and, since few landlords would deliberately flout the law, can be expected very quickly to become a normal part of the letting process. I emphasise my point that managing agents are important in this regard. Few agents wish to bother their landlords with suggestions for extra spending or give themselves more work. But virtually all agents, as responsible corporate entities that are much easier to reach than individual landlords, will make sure action is taken if it is a legal requirement.
As the Bill is drafted, no action will be required of the landlord or the tenant until such time as the review has been concluded, powers have been granted to local authorities, and local authorities have taken decisions to act and given the requisite notice, et cetera. The reality is that this leisurely timescale, which stretches past the next general election with no certainty of its outcome, means that all those who are not minded to take these matters seriously will simply sit on their hands.
Thirdly, the proposed arrangements, assuming the necessary powers are granted in 2014 or 2015 to local authorities and tenants, rely on either or both of those parties taking the necessary action. Local authorities may already have the power to act against landlords who let the very coldest homes because these properties are likely to fail the test set out in the housing health and safety rating system. Yet despite these existing powers, local authorities, which have a lot of other priorities to handle, are not exercising them. Recalcitrant landlords can be fairly confident that few local authorities will chase after them if and when extra powers are granted to those local authorities.
Meanwhile, the fallback of expecting tenants to take matters into their own hands seems even less likely to achieve results. A very high proportion of tenants stay little more than a year in their rented property while, with the loss of security of tenure since 1988, all will recognise the high risk of not seeing their tenancy renewed or even of receiving a couple of months’ notice to quit if the landlord sees them as acting against his or her interests. How much better would be the legal protection given by these amendments to the tenant, and how much simpler, cheaper and more effective for local authorities, if they need only to ask for the necessary certificate in the knowledge that if it is not available the landlord is not permitted to let the property.
I suggest that in achieving what the Government wish—a minimum standard, even if it is at a low level in the next five years, with clarity and certainty for landlords and tenants, and ease of administration for local authorities—these amendments, which are so strongly supported by the wide membership of the Association for the Conservation of Energy and Friends of the Earth, do the job to good effect at less cost to the public purse.
I should add that Amendment 82 provides for exemptions for meeting the minimum standards, while Amendment 83 gives local authorities the powers to do the works themselves if landlords fail to take action or face fines. I am sure that these consequential amendments could be improved by the Minister’s department.
Perhaps I may say a few words about the exemptions from the legal requirement in Amendment 81 to give reassurance to landlords who are anxious about meeting a statutory minimum level of energy performance. It would be sensible for local authorities to have discretion to exempt properties in several circumstances; namely, listed buildings and properties in conservation areas, and national parks where there are special planning requirements affecting the interior or the exterior of the properties.
In relation to the debate on excluding properties where the tenant wishes to refuse consent for the Green Deal, an exception might be made here for regulated tenancies where a tenant does not wish to be disturbed. There are 100,000 regulated tenancies out of more than 3 million private sector tenancies. These tenancies have been in place since at least 1988. Unlike shorthold tenancies used in the rest of the PRS where the average length of stay is 14 months, a regulated tenancy has been going for 22 years or more. Because the occupiers have security of tenure, they are unlikely to move. Although these tenants would be well advised to accept the upgrading to their properties necessary to meet the minimum energy performance standards by 2016, I can see the case for respecting their right to veto any works to their home if they cannot face the upset.
I hope that the Minister, who has made so many excellent changes to the Bill so far, will see the sense of these amendments and take them away with a promise perhaps to bring back something similar at Third Reading.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the strength of feeling on this issue from the debates we have had in Committee and from the two powerful speeches we have had this evening.
I speak not only to my Amendment 70, but also to the amendments in the group. They seek to achieve the same ends but by slightly different means. Their ambition is the same: to improve substantially the quality of the private rented sector in terms of energy efficiency. There is broad agreement on the aim; the differences are about how we best achieve that.
We should address the real concerns of the impact on those people who live in homes that are not energy efficient. In Committee we looked at the wider impact of cold homes. We spoke of the impact on those with homes rated in bands F and G. It is worth noting again, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that the Chief Medical Officer has estimated that the annual cost to the NHS of winter-related illnesses is more than £850 million. It is huge; it is absolutely massive. That is not just across the private rented sector; but some of the worst homes, some of the least energy-efficient homes, are in the private rented sector.
I want to say something about the impact that has on the individual. None of us in your Lordships’ House tonight lives in a private rented home that is rated band F or band G. Neither would we want to. If we did, we should be paying an extra 50 per cent in fuel bills to heat our homes to the same level as a band E rated property. If those properties rated F and G were brought up to band E standard, the difference would be between £500 and £800 for the bill payers. It can make a massive difference.
The energy scale goes from band A to band G. Band G is the worst for private rented homes. If we raise that standard to band E, it would take about 150,000 private rented households out of fuel poverty. That is 150,000 families with children and older people—25 per cent of all private rented households—who are currently in fuel poverty. Forty per cent of F and G rated properties can meet the standard for less than £1,500 per property. The average cost is about £270 per property. Sixty per cent of F or G rated private rented properties could meet this standard for less than £5,000. The amounts we are talking about, which would make a massive difference, are not great. I believe we can do this. Landlords with poor-performing property should be given help and advice about how to meet the standard and there should be a substantial increase to the landlords’ energy saving allowance.
I do not think that the wider public know what we are talking about when we talk about F and G rated property being brought up to E standard. It becomes a jargon. I asked Friends of the Earth and ACE to give me some case studies of what it means to people. What is the difference? What is the impact on people living in these properties? These people gave Friends of the Earth permission to publish their stories on condition that they only gave their names and the general location of where they lived. Susan from Abergavenny said:
“My 11 year-old daughter and I are currently moving out of a rented house. The house is freezing cold, with no draught proofing and draughty sash windows with huge visible gaps in the window frames. During the recent cold weather, ice formed on the inside of the window each morning. On Christmas Day, I was able to write ‘Happy Christmas Ellie!’ on it. Despite asking my landlady to help on this issue, she said it was our concern to keep the house warm.
We spend enormous amounts on heating but are never warm”.
This is repeated over and over again. Kristie from Pinner lives in a one-bedroom flat on her own. She says that her heating bills are 12 per cent of her monthly income. She says:
“I have told my landlord about this and asked for a better heating system, but he said it’s too expensive”.
Jennifer from Nottingham says:
“This winter has been unbearable in the house, no matter how long we put the heating on for the house remains freezing. I visited my doctor at home over Christmas with a cough that I’ve had for over 3 months now. He said that the house has probably given me a lung sensitivity and I am now on an inhaler to try to help it”.
These are real people suffering day in and day out. Environmental health officers, GPs and a midwife all tell the same story.
There are some glimmers of hope. Jenny from Norwich tells us:
“As an elderly landlady with a single small property rented out, I put my tenant’s warmth and health as high as my own. Two years ago they had an up-to-date boiler installed and this year, during other renovations, the attic insulation was increased to current standards and the gas fire replaced. If, as someone living on a smallish pension, I can afford to do this, then so can more regular landlords”.
I shall not continue with these stories, but I am sure noble Lords would find them as emotive and as heart-breaking as I do.
It seems that there are two or three key issues before us today with the amendments. One is the regulations to improve energy efficiency in the private rented sector. We had lengthy debates on this in Committee. The general view was that we needed action on this as soon as possible. I have no objection to any review being undertaken of energy efficiency in the private rented sector, but there is no justification to use this as a delay for bringing in regulations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has told some shocking tales. Funnily enough, I do feel that I stayed in one of those properties in my younger days. It was not at all comfortable, and I have a feeling that one of my sons, who is a student, is staying in such a property at the moment. It is a terrible tale and the whole idea of the Green Deal is to remove this from the equation. But let us stand back for a moment and work out what the Green Deal is. It is about giving people the opportunity to drive energy-efficiency endeavours into their homes, and to reduce the cost of electricity and thus to have all the ongoing effects that that may have in their lives. However, the Green Deal is not a prescriptive document, one that determines that “You, you and you should have this, this and this”, but rather it is to encourage and provide the facilities by which people can take advantage of situations.
Of course, there are also some very good landlords. There is some terrible accommodation, terrible houses and very bad landlords, but there are also some very good ones. So we have to look at this. However, we must start from the standpoint that we are committed, as a Government, to ensuring that the Green Deal works at all levels, and we are committed, as a Government, to ensuring that this drives hard into the private rented sector. But as I have said on a number of occasions, this is a market-driven endeavour where we want to see natural buy-in by all forms of property owners, including landlords, and we expect them to improve their properties to an acceptable standard. We would all love to wave a magic wand and say that the minimum standard should be band E, but the standard of what? We have inherited an energy performance certificate which was designed for people buying and selling houses, not for those relevant to the Green Deal. So until we have redesigned the energy performance certificate to make it fit for purpose within the Green Deal rather than for buying and selling houses tied into the now abandoned HIPs, which as I have told the House on many occasions we are working extremely hard to do, it would be wrong to be prescriptive about that element.
We are starting from the standpoint, which has been excellently portrayed by the noble Lord, Lord Best, of the 1.2 million properties that fit into the category of the private rented sector. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, rightly pointed out that 150,000 of them are in bands F and G. One would hope that landlords are listening to what the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lady Maddock are saying and will feel compelled to raise these houses up to an acceptable EPC level of band E and above. We want also to ensure that local authorities buy into this, along with all other housing sectors. Further, we have been briefed by ACE and Friends of the Earth, and we are very receptive to their briefings. But we are at an early stage in the passage of the Bill and we are starting to shape it. One of the fundamental timescales that we have established is a review in 2013. If landlords in the private rented sector do not adopt decent standards by 2013, we will be able to establish where the pressure points and the weaknesses lie.
We believe, with the encouragement that the Green Deal gives to property owners, that they will take it up, when the new EPC is produced, to level E and beyond, and this Government are fundamentally committed, as the sponsor of this Green Deal, to ensure that they do. It would be ridiculous for us to think that we have achieved things if we have not driven hard to get the public rented sector out of the F and G bands. There is a lot of work going on to get to this position. We do not want to get to this position until we have thoroughly gone through the process of redesigning the EPC and setting a framework that people can attach themselves to. We have given people the opportunity to use market forces and their best endeavours and best practices to achieve a minimum standard. If we find that they have not taken that up, of course we will come down like a ton of bricks, because it will show that what we have set out to achieve has not succeeded.
Throughout all these debates, which have been extremely well enunciated, and have found great favour with us, we have listened. We are all, after all, singing from the same hymn sheet, in particular on Amendments 69, 70, 76, 84, 89, and 94 to 99, which really deal with the materiality. It would be ridiculous if this did not find favour with us in terms of a form of words. I accept in principle the intention of this. I have listened to what noble Lords have said in Grand Committee, I will warmly consider this element of the amendments, and we will take the view of tabling this as a government amendment as the Bill carries on with its passage. I hope that that will find favour with noble Lords, and will demonstrate that, on the one hand, we have listened and that we all understand the problem that we all face, and, on the other hand, that we understand that, in the timeframe available and with the concept of the Green Deal, we must make an evaluation. Once we have persuaded the market to accept an opportunity, if it does not take it up we must evaluate it in a very short timeframe, which will be the end of 2013. If the market does not respond to that, we will then bring into action a set of standards, which we will help it to maintain. With that, I hope that this finds favour with the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Maddock and Lady Smith, who made excellent speeches, and that they will not press their amendments.
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, perhaps I should say that my glass is half-full at the end of that. I obviously think that this is a really important issue, or I would not have gone on at such length in Committee and here on Report. I take issue with my noble friend. As far as I remember, the energy performance certificates were not there because of what we are doing on buying and selling houses. It was a European piece of legislation, and it got thrown in with the HIPs because it was the best way of dealing with it. At the time, I thought it should be separate, and spoke on that issue. We need to look at it carefully, because the EPCs are part of what we are required to do in signing up to our responsibilities in Europe for reducing carbon emissions.
I will withdraw my amendment, but I look forward to what the Minister has promised. As I say, I feel my glass half-full at the moment. Maybe he will be able to top it up at some point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Marland
“Domestic minimum standard regulationsPower to make domestic minimum standard regulations
(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations for the purpose of securing that a landlord of a domestic PR property which falls below a minimum standard of energy efficiency (as demonstrated by the energy performance certificate) as is provided for by the regulations shall not let or market the property until such time as the landlord can demonstrate that the property meets the minimum standard for a domestic PR property.
(2) Regulations under this section are referred to in this Chapter as “domestic minimum standard regulations”.
(3) For the purposes of domestic minimum standard regulations—
“energy performance certificate” has the meaning given by the Energy Performance Regulations;
“landlord” and “local authority” have the meaning given by the regulations; and
“minimum energy efficiency standard” means Band E or above expressed in accordance with Regulation 11(1)(a) of the Energy Performance Regulations or above (or any higher level set in accordance with subsection (5)).
(4) The Secretary of State may by order amend the definition of “energy performance certificate” in subsection (3).
(5) The Secretary of State shall, no later than 31 December 2019, amend the regulations to raise the minimum energy efficiency standard.
(6) Domestic minimum standard regulations shall come into force no later than 1 January 2016.”
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester)
The noble Lord can degroup his amendment if he wishes, but he has already spoken to it in the previous group.
Lord Marland
Lord Marland
Lord Marland
(a) an order under section 35(1)(a)(iii), or”
“(5) The Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Welsh Ministers before making provision under this Chapter amending or revoking—
(a) provision included in an instrument made under a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales;(b) any other subordinate legislation made by the Welsh Ministers (or the National Assembly for Wales established under the Government of Wales Act 1998).(6) Subsection (5) does not apply to the extent that the Secretary of State is making incidental or consequential provision.
(7) The Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers before making—
(a) domestic energy efficiency regulations, or(b) tenants’ energy efficiency improvements regulations,which apply in relation to domestic PR properties situated in Wales.(8) Subsection (7) does not apply to the extent that consent has been obtained under subsection (5).”
“Local carbon budgets
For the purposes of ensuring local authorities assist in meeting the United Kingdom’s carbon budgets under section 4(1) of the Climate Change Act 2008 (carbon budgets), the Secretary of State must report to Parliament on proposals for introducing local carbon budgets by December 2011.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, this amendment deals with an issue that we discussed in Committee. Most noble Lords in the Chamber now were in Committee, so to the relief of the House I will not repeat all the comments made. We are very supportive of the issue of local carbon budgets and keen to see progress. We have deliberately worded the amendment in a way that gives the Minister some flexibility to report back to the House and to Parliament on this issue.
However, if we are really to make a difference in reducing our carbon emissions, we need to engage locally and work with local government. If we look across the board at where the support lies, Greg Barker has given his support as has the Federation of Small Businesses, which e-mailed many noble Lords today to say that it supports local carbon budgets and wants to work with local authorities and the community to reduce emissions. The trade unions, the workforce and the Audit Commission all see enormous value in having local carbon budgets so that local authorities and communities can play their role not just in their own estates and properties, but in their wider communities, whether we are talking about transport or domestic properties. Actions can be taken and advice and support can be given by local authorities working with the Government and working with their local communities to ensure that we reach the kind of targets and reduce our emissions in line with targets that the Government have set. The Climate Change Act 2008 set targets for the Government. Those targets can best be met if we work with local authorities and local communities.
I hope that the Minister can update us on the action that can be taken and I hope at some stage that he can assure us that there will be a report back to this House and the other place to show how the Government can work with local authorities to ensure that we have local carbon budgets really making a difference and settling this issue.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I support my noble friend. This is a crucial amendment and I hope that the Minister can respond. We are all agreed that the Bill is about meeting a challenge that is overwhelming and on which literally our future survival depends. We therefore cannot have the luxury of simply talking about principles and objectives without having the means to deliver them.
Some 80 per cent of the emissions in this country originate in local communities—in our homes, workplaces, travel and the rest. Therefore, it is crucial, as my noble friend said, that if we are to deliver the results and not just spell out hopes, we must work effectively with local authorities. The only point that I would make in addition to her real commitment is to say that it is my view—I speak for myself but I hope my noble friend will agree—that if this is going to be meaningful there will have to be very specific objectives spelt out to the local authorities about what is expected of them.
We have a national aggregate target, which we then disaggregate into what is required locally. Each local authority should be in no doubt whatever about what is expected of that local authority to meet the national target and local authorities should be expected to give convincing evidence that progress is being made. I am fairly confident—in fact I am very confident—that the Minister agrees with the spirit of what I am saying. I hope that he can not only respond to my noble friend’s amendment but give reassurance that this will not just be another chapter in the world of aspirations and good intentions but will actually spell out a sea change in terms of having the levers there to get results.
Lord Reay
I strongly oppose these amendments. At Second Reading, I declared that I was against introducing local carbon budgets into the Bill, although unfortunately I was not able to be present in Committee when the issue was debated on amendments brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and my noble friend Lord Deben. The ultimate purpose of these amendments is, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has explained, to oblige local authorities to do more to see that carbon emissions are reduced in their areas and, in effect, to coerce them into making a greater contribution towards achieving the Government’s renewable energy targets. However, in Committee, it was represented as being an opportunity rather than an obligation for local authorities, and one that they were longing to be given—“unanimously” at one point, said the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. I refer to col. GC 231 of Hansard of 26 January 2011.
No doubt there are keen protagonists of the Government’s renewable energy policy in positions of authority in local government who would welcome such an imposition. However, it surely stretches incredulity to refer to a general—let alone a unanimous—call from local authorities to be given such an obligation. Indeed, if local authorities reflect, as they might be expected to, the wishes of their electorates, I would anticipate a very minor interest in the subject; and, from some who are aware of some of the likely effects of introducing carbon budgets, a most violent opposition.
Legally established local carbon budgets would be likely to have the same sort of effect as regional renewable energy targets have had, and still have today, although they are due to be abolished under the Localism Bill. These have had one most malign effect: they are used by developers, some local authorities and also some planning inspectors to justify the most abominable decisions to permit gigantic wind farms in entirely inappropriate rural locations. It is developers, anxious to drink deep at the well of subsidies before the well dries up—as it has started to do throughout Europe—who would latch on to local carbon budgets and use them as another weapon in their hands in their tireless and far too successful efforts to use the financial advantage that subsidies give them to buy their way to victory in our planning system, as they appeal against every decision that goes against them and so triumph over the wishes of anguished but financially outbid local communities.
I appreciate that behind this amendment, and indeed behind this Bill as a whole, lies a belief that we must strive to meet carbon emission reduction targets for which we have assumed legal obligations. This is not the occasion to argue in detail for alternatives to that policy. However, I believe the cost that we have assumed for the purpose of meeting those targets is far too high and that we should be looking for ways to reduce the cost rather than meet the targets.
One of the greatest of those costs is of course that to the poor electricity consumer, whose bills are programmed to ratchet up each year into the indefinite future to pay for the ever-rising renewable energy subsidies. The current cost, according to Ofgem, is around £1.5 billion a year but is due to rise to some £5 billion or £6 billion by 2020—a miserable prospect for all those in fuel poverty, whose plight has been vividly described by others in this debate such as my noble friend Lady Maddock and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. Another of those costs is the destruction of our beautiful landscapes, which are famous and loved throughout the world, which our planning system has, to date, largely preserved and which the present Government seem so nonchalantly to ignore. Because the acceptance of these amendments would confirm how little we care about that threat, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will reject both of these amendments.
Lord Dixon-Smith
My Lords, if Essex man dare to stand up against Essex girl—I admire the noble Baroness for overcoming her present difficulties—I am afraid that I am going to oppose this amendment. The real problem with local carbon budgets is that local authorities, which presumably would have to administer them, have no power to influence so much of what goes on in their own areas.
The noble Baroness who proposed this amendment comes from a very urban area of Essex but I come from a rather more rural area. Not the least of the problems that would have to be included in local carbon budgets is that of what you do about agriculture. There is nothing we can do about this but agriculture is one of the highest carbon emitters in the country, so that is a difficulty. We have no control over our population’s motoring habits or the way people organise their lives, such as where they do their shopping. I have a lot of friends who go to do theirs 10 miles away, not because it is difficult—nowadays, it is very easy—but because it is cheaper for them to do so. There are so many factors that cross local authority boundaries, which mean that the local authorities would have no power to control what is actually going on in their districts.
You could, of course, get around all those factors by raising a huge number of exceptions so that you would not consider this, that or the other factor. However, once that starts to be done it destroys the whole purpose of the exercise. While the principle of controlling emissions in all ways is good, it seems to me that the principle that you can begin to administer that locally is simply erroneous because the powers do not exist to make that possible. I am sorry to quarrel with my noble Essex friend, if I may call her that, but I am afraid that we have to face that brutal reality. I hope that we will not inflict this duty onto local authorities. They have enough difficulties with the problems that they already face. Adding this burden onto them, which they could not fulfil anyway, seems not to be a reasonable thing to do.
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, put down Amendment 153 and I added my name to it, but he is not in his place. I spoke to this amendment at some length in Committee so I will not repeat what I said then.
I do not have the cynical view of local government that is being expressed by the two previous speakers. My experience over the years of local government is that it has been very effective in trying to deal with poorly insulated properties in its areas under the Home Energy Conservation Act, which is now going to be removed. I know that my noble friend the Minister is keen for local authorities to be involved in what is going on, but I also support the fact that we do not necessarily give new duties to local authorities. We have a Localism Bill coming that includes a power of general competence. However, it is clear to me that, in spite of all that, local authorities have a major role to play in this.
As I said, I know that the Minister agrees with that. I hope that he can set out some of the roles that he sees for local authorities as the Green Deal is rolled out, and give us some idea about what sort of rewards they might get. I do not mean rewards from the public purse; it is not necessarily from there that they will get rewards for being involved with this. I know that he understands what I am talking about.
I hope that, if not tonight then at some point, he will be able to set this out in a little more detail to reassure us—including local authorities, many of which are asking to be involved. Some of them are actually asking for carbon budgets, which Amendment 100 mentions. I have had a letter, as I am sure have other noble Lords, from a group of local authorities that want to have local carbon budgets. The situation is not anything like as clear-cut as the two previous speakers said.
I hope that my noble friend can go at least some way towards setting out how he sees local authorities being involved. Maybe this is something else where, when the Bill gets to another place, we can be more specific on how local authorities have been involved. Their record on doing things such as rolling out energy efficiency street by street is fantastic. People in local communities trust their local authority more than they trust the people who provide their utilities, so we need to take full account of that. I know that my noble friend understands that, and I look forward to what he has to say.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lady Maddock about the involvement of local authorities. I know from conversations with the Minister and other Ministers that this is very much in the Government’s mind. I welcome the fact that, as I hope they will, local authorities will be integrated into the process.
I want to talk about carbon budgets. Reducing carbon, as we talked about with regard to the Climate Change Act, is fundamental, but I just do not think that local carbon budgets are the right instrument to do that. There is huge pressure on local government finance at the moment, so I would agree that because of that—I declare that I am a member of a local authority—local authorities are starting to concentrate on activities where they have statutory obligations. Where they do not, they are having to consider rather more. If there were a more perfect way of doing this, I would like to see some statutory obligation generally in terms of climate change in a broader sense. However, I fundamentally believe that it should then be left to local authorities to decide how they implement and deliver that, and that they should have the powers to do so.
I spent a huge amount of time in this House two or three years ago on the Climate Change Bill. We spent a huge amount of time working out how national budgets could work. We looked at all the difficulties regarding air transportation, imports and exports and—maybe more esoterically, but importantly—whether carbon consumption was more important than carbon production. We looked at the transfers of budgets between years and at all the other sorts of mechanisms that there are. We considered what happens in terms of the EU ETS, transfers of that in or out and how it worked. We gave particular thought to air and shipping.
If you bring that down to local authorities—many parts of the country still have not one tier of local authority but two, so you have to add them up and they will not come to the national budget anyway—you have the issues of transportation, such as motorways being major emitters. The easiest way to mitigate those would be to stop industry coming into your local authority and get it to go the other side of your local authority boundary. If you took this seriously, you would have all sorts of weird incentives whose outcomes would be perverse.
Lord Lea of Crondall
I have thought about this point for some time. Is it not a fact that one of the possible anomalies in the whole discussion going back to the Climate Change Bill is that carbon budgeting and financial budgeting in the traditional sense do not correspond? That has to be done at some point or the whole thing will get out of sync. Does the noble Lord agree that you need a clear analysis of how carbon budgeting corresponds with financial budgeting at national level before you discuss it at other levels?
Lord Teverson
I would probably agree with the noble Lord on that matter. However, I do not want to prolong this discussion as we want to get through the Bill. Although it is vital that we reduce carbon emissions and local authorities need to play a key part in that, that objective should be a statutory obligation on them which is outside this Bill. They should have a much greater connection with the Climate Change Committee which should have a local authority aspect. It would be great if local authorities wanted to engage in a modified form of carbon budgeting.
Lord Judd
I would appreciate it if the noble Lord would clarify something for me. If he is in favour of achieving national carbon reduction objectives, how will that be achieved unless everybody who has a role to play knows what role is expected of them and what they must do to play their part in reaching the total? Unless you disaggregate the overall total, how on earth are you going to get that result?
Lord Teverson
We do not do that at national carbon level, do we? If we were to do that, we would disaggregate by industry, but the previous Government and the present Government have not gone down that route. If we took that a step further, we would come to individual personal carbon budgets. There are arguments for and against that. I do not think that you need to disaggregate everything completely as all the relevant levers are not in place and splitting it all down does not mean to say that everything would necessarily add up because all sorts of areas, including motorways and EU ETS major emitters—even proponents of carbon budgets agree on this—could not be effectively and practically included in those carbon budgets. That system of making the detail add up to the total would not work under this scheme anyway. I am not saying that the question was invalid but if we really wanted to go down that route we would have to go down the industrial sectorial route as well or separate out consumers, the manufacturing sector and the services sector. Such an approach gets too involved in the mass of detail as opposed to inventing the policy instruments that we need. We need to involve local government in the Green Deal. I would much prefer it to have a statutory obligation but I think that carbon budgets are the wrong way to do it.
As regards wind farms, in Cornwall they are fantastic. Tourists like them and the majority of people are not against them. They are beautiful objects to behold on the horizon and may there be more of them.
Lord Marland
My Lords, you have heard differing views on the future of carbon budgets, including those of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and my noble friend Lady Maddock. My noble friend Lord Teverson, as usual, clearly told us his views; and we heard those of the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Reay, who would be opposed to carbon budgets. It has been an excellent debate and we have heard views from all sides—all of which are respected.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, this has been a subject on which I have taken those views on board. We should try to find a way through in a spirit of co-operation. The Localism Bill, which is about a spirit of partnership, is going through Parliament at the moment. We have imposed upon local authorities a 10 per cent carbon reduction target through the DCLG, and they will have to set their own examples.
During the passage of the Bill, we have given great consideration to these issues, and we have determined that the best way forward is co-operation. I hope that next week we will be able to sign a memorandum of understanding with the local government group, to build upon the Nottingham declaration. The memorandum will set out a timetable for progress on reducing carbon emissions that we hope all local authorities will buy into.
At this point, I offer my thanks to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, who has set up a meeting with me and the chief executive of Liverpool City Council to discuss how we can get the Green Deal through to Liverpool and together reduce carbon emissions, and use Liverpool almost as a test case.
I have taken on board the valuable comments of noble Lords. I have taken on board the fact that it will not be acceptable to impose provisions on local authorities. Indeed, the Department for Energy and Climate Change cannot impose our will on local authorities, but we can impose a way forward and an understanding between us all that this has got to be right for the country, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said. It has to be right for future generations and it has to be right that we use less electricity and less energy than we are using now, to conserve the future.
I hope that given those comments and the impending memorandum of understanding—which I cannot reveal too much about now because, as you know, I am a very junior person—the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, will appreciate what we are doing. I hope that that finds favour with her and with the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and that they will not press their amendments.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord, because on two occasions today he has provided your Lordships’ House with information on the memorandum. He cannot make the announcement, but I think that he has stolen the thunder of whichever Minister will do so. The noble Lord’s response on the memorandum that he and his colleagues intend to bring forward addresses exactly the kind of issue we are looking at, whereby local communities and local authorities will have an opportunity to play their role in achieving carbon reductions across the country. I look forward to the further information, and I hope that there will be a statement to the House at a later date. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Marland
“( ) In subsection (1) (power by order to impose an obligation to achieve a carbon emissions reduction target) for “the Authority” substitute “the Administrator”.
( ) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) In this section “the Administrator” means—
(a) the Authority; or(b) if the order so provides, the Secretary of State or a specified body other than the Authority.”( ) In subsection (3) for “the Authority” substitute “the Administrator”.
( ) In subsection (4) for “the Authority” substitute “(subject to any directions given under subsection (9B)) the Administrator”.”
Lord Marland
My Lords, we come to yet another huge group of amendments that the Government have tabled, which recognise the points made in debates in Committee and at Second Reading.
These amendments serve to clarify the powers currently set out in Clause 67. They pertain to the Secretary of State’s ability to transfer from “the Authority” to himself or another body the administrative powers and responsibilities for the energy company obligation. The authority is defined as the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, the functions of which are presently carried out by Ofgem. The Government are currently reviewing the role of their various delivery bodies, including Ofgem, and it would be helpful to have powers already available that would enable us promptly to take account of the results of that review, thus ensuring certainty for those being regulated by the ECO.
In tabling this amendment, we are in no way prejudging the outcome of the review. This series of amendments refines the policy objective contained in Clause 67 by enabling the Secretary of State to transfer directly to another body, or to him, the functions currently performed by the authority. The refinement will preclude the need to make two sets of orders—one establishing the ECO and another moving some or all of the authority’s functions to another body or to the Secretary of State. The process for doing so has been streamlined. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester
I thank the Minister for his explanation of what is indeed an extensive list of amendments that address issues touched on in Committee. The amendments are necessary to ensure that future recommendations of the Government’s delivery review can be implemented without unnecessary delay and without causing unnecessary uncertainty to those energy companies caught by the future energy company obligations. It is possible that the Government’s delivery review may conclude that administrative responsibilities for the ECO should be transferred to a body other than the authority, which is currently Ofgem. This series of amendments enables any future ECO to be administered by “the Administrator”. The amendments make the authority the default administrator but give the Secretary of State a power to transfer the administrative functions away from the authority and place them on another body, or to transfer the functions to himself. We are content with these amendments.
Lord Marland
“( ) in paragraph (d) for “the Authority” substitute “the Administrator”;”
( ) for “the Authority” substitute “the Administrator”;( ) ”
“( ) in paragraph (f) for “the Authority” substitute “the Administrator”;”
“( ) In subsection (6) for “the Authority” substitute “the Administrator”.
( ) After subsection (7) insert—
“(7A) The order may—
(a) make provision for any specified requirement contained in it to be treated as a relevant requirement for the purposes of this Part; or(b) if it provides for the Administrator to be a person other than the Authority, make provision for and in connection with enabling the Administrator to enforce any requirement imposed by the order.(7B) Provision made by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (7A) may, in particular, include provision corresponding to or applying (with or without modifications) any of sections 28 to 30F and section 38.”
( ) In subsection (8) omit paragraph (b).”
“(12B) If an order under this section provides for the Administrator to be a body other than the Authority, the Secretary of State may make payments to the body of such amounts as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
“( ) The reference in subsection (12A) of section 33BC of the Gas Act 1986 to paragraph (c) of subsection (5) of that section includes a reference to paragraph (c) of subsection (5) of that section before its substitution by subsection (2) of this section.”
Lord Marland
“( ) In subsection (1) (power by order to impose an obligation to achieve a carbon emissions reduction target) for “the Authority” substitute “the Administrator”.
( ) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) In this section “the Administrator” means—
(a) the Authority; or(b) if the order so provides, the Secretary of State or a specified body other than the Authority.”( ) In subsection (3) for “the Authority” substitute “the Administrator”.
( ) In subsection (4) for “the Authority” substitute “(subject to any directions given under subsection (9B)) the Administrator”.”
Lord Marland
“( ) in paragraph (d) for “the Authority” substitute “the Administrator”;”
( ) for “the Authority” substitute “the Administrator”;( ) ”
“( ) in paragraph (f) for “the Authority” substitute “the Administrator”;”
“( ) In subsection (6) for “the Authority” substitute “the Administrator”.
( ) After subsection (7) insert—
“(7A) The order may—
(a) make provision for any specified requirement contained in it to be treated as a relevant requirement for the purposes of this Part; or(b) if it provides for the Administrator to be a person other than the Authority, make provision for and in connection with enabling the Administrator to enforce any requirement imposed by the order.(7B) Provision made by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (7A) may, in particular, include provision corresponding to or applying (with or without modifications) any of sections 25 to 28.”
( ) In subsection (8) omit paragraph (b).”
“(12B) If an order under this section provides for the Administrator to be a body other than the Authority, the Secretary of State may make payments to the body of such amounts as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
“( ) The reference in subsection (12A) of section 41A of the Electricity Act 1989 to paragraph (c) of subsection (5) of that section includes a reference to paragraph (c) of subsection (5) of that section before its substitution by subsection (2) of this section.”
Lord Marland
“( ) “the Administrator” means—(i) the Authority; or(ii) if the order so provides, the Secretary of State or a specified body other than the Authority;”
Lord Marland
“( ) “the Administrator” means—(i) the Authority; or(ii) if the order so provides, the Secretary of State or a specified body other than the Authority;”
Lord Marland
Lord Marland
( ) any body other than the Authority that is for the time being the Administrator in relation to a carbon emissions reduction order or a home-heating cost reduction order”
Lord Marland
Lord Marland
“12 (1) Section 103 (overall carbon emissions reduction targets) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) in the words before paragraph (a) for “by the Authority of its functions” substitute “of the functions of the Administrator”;(b) in paragraph (b) omit “generators,”.(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) in the words before paragraph (a) for “the Authority to apportion the target” substitute “the target to be apportioned”(b) in paragraph (b) omit “electricity generators,”.(4) In subsection (3) for “The Authority” substitute “The Administrator”.
(5) In subsection (4) omit “electricity generators,”.”
Lord Grantchester
“( ) in subsection (3)(g) after “consumers” insert “(including adherence to and independent Code of Practice for Installation).”
Lord Grantchester
With the permission of my noble friend Lord Whitty, I shall move his amendment. I pay tribute to him for his clear leadership on consumer interests. He has laid out in his amendment a very clear way forward regarding smart meters. I could not do justice to the exposition that he would have made far more adeptly than me. However, there is an important element that we should debate tonight and on which we should question the Minister on the way forward.
As we all know, there is considerable anxiety and resistance from consumers, arising by and large from misunderstandings over the operation of smart meters. However, smart meters offer the opportunity to reduce inaccurate bills to consumers, as well as to lower their costs. We had a full debate in Committee and wish to build on the positive discussions and proposals being considered with the Energy Retail Association and Energy UK, especially with regard to the code of practice. I know the Minister is also keen to bring in the benefits of smart meters in a constructive manner. He spoke in Committee of his dialogue with the energy companies, without saying exactly what he would do on this matter. This amendment would allow him to construct a good way forward. I beg to move.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, Amendment 157 draws attention to the need to ensure that the smart meter installation visit promotes consumer confidence and protects customers. We have already proposed to require suppliers to develop a code of practice governing the installation process and to ensure that the installation is not used for unwelcome sales activities.
Since the prospectus was published, suppliers have made good progress in drafting a code, with input from consumer groups and others. The smart metering programme has made it clear that the code will not be voluntary. We will shortly set out our detailed decisions in this area as part of the government response to the consultation. We have all the necessary powers to put the code in place, backed up by a licence obligation, under Section 88(3)(g) of the Energy Act 2008 as it now stands.
Amendment 158 in this group would require the Government to consult on a strategy to deliver the intended benefits of smart meters to consumers and to report on progress. Therefore, I assure your Lordships that the Government are clear that they are accountable for the successful delivery of the programme and its benefits. Indeed, this recognition was behind our recent decision that DECC would take direct responsibility for the next phase of the programme. We made this clear in announcing that decision in December, and it includes accountability for ensuring delivery of benefits.
However, provision in primary legislation is not required. Indeed, this provision would cut across the things that the Government are already doing to achieve the intent behind these amendments. The Government are already consulting on our strategy to achieve the benefits sought for the programme. As many of your Lordships will know, the Government published a prospectus in the summer last year containing a wide range of proposals for consultation. These proposals covered the policy design for the implementation of smart metering, including a wide range of proposals for the technical, commercial and regulatory arrangements required to deliver the benefits.
This has already been a very full and detailed consultation, with several hundred pages of published consultation documents. The prospectus was supported by two full impact assessments setting out clearly the benefits that we seek. We will shortly publish the conclusions of this process, which will confirm the Government’s strategy and plans. It would therefore be unnecessary to reconsult on this strategy and it would cast doubt on our conclusions to do so.
It is important to say that there will need to be further work to develop the benefits management arrangements and, crucially, the consumer engagement strategy. If necessary, we will bring forward proposals for changed or additional measures using the Secretary of State’s powers. It is also important that we have strong programme management arrangements, and that the measurement and reporting of benefits is robust and rigorous. We will set out how this will be taken forward. All these matters will be specifically addressed as the programme is taken forward by the Government.
I hope that the noble Lord will be able to assure his noble friend that much of what he is seeking is already in train and that his amendments would cut across that. I am sure that that is not what his noble friend intended. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Grantchester
I thank the Minister for her fulsome acknowledgement and exposition of where we are with smart meters and of everything that is going on within her department with regard to the industry. I shall certainly reassure my noble friend and he will enjoy the most fulsome remarks that she has just expounded. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Teverson
“Energy tariffs
(1) After consultation with electricity and gas retail sellers and consumer groups, the Secretary of State shall introduce regulations that make it mandatory for electricity and gas through pipeline supply companies supplying to domestic properties to configure their tariffs so that the initial units of energy supplied are at a lower cost to the consumer than the remaining units.
(2) The number of units in the initial tranche shall reflect the basic energy requirement of a household.
(3) The new tariff scheme shall be revenue neutral to consumers and energy supply companies as a whole.”
Lord Teverson
My Lords, earlier I forgot to confess that I am an Essex person. As I live in Cornwall, and have done for some time, I am often referred to as “Mr Treverson”; I am actually Teverson, which is a Danish or Anglian name, so perhaps I could join the Essex fraternity from at least three of the Benches—I suppose, that is something. However, that is not what I want to discuss now, although this affects Cornwall as much as it does Essex, as they both have very diverse populations.
I thank my noble friend Lord Cathcart for his work on reverse block tariffs. We intend to change around this perverse incentive to consume more energy by moving around energy pricing and energy tariffs, so that you are effectively penalised, or at least you are not financially advantaged, if you consume more rather than less. However, I confess that it has been very difficult to put this amendment together, in Grand Committee and in its amended form here, so that it precisely defines what is needed. If your Lordships were absolutely convinced by my arguments and decided, even if I withdrew it, to vote on it after all, I would really question your sanity as regards making the amendment work. The spirit is good, but the practicalities are difficult.
I welcome the very positive reaction from the Government and the Minister in this area. I am convinced that to get this right will take longer. I am also convinced that its rightful place would be in the energy market reform area, on which I know the Government intend to bring forward further legislation. I would be very content if the Minister were able to give me some comfort that it would be better positioned within that legislative framework. Having tried to describe how this should work, I do not underestimate that it will probably take most of the good public servants of DECC at least two years to work out how this should work. It is an important and worthy goal and I hope that my noble friend will be able to give me some comfort in that direction. I beg to move.
Earl Cathcart
My Lords, I apologise to the House because in my enthusiasm to speak to Amendment 6, I forgot to declare my interest which is as a landlord in the private rental sector. I do not think my interest influenced what I said on that amendment.
I shall not repeat the arguments that I made at Second Reading or in Committee, but it is generally accepted that three things make up fuel poverty: household income, energy prices and energy efficiency. This Bill will deal with energy efficiency and this amendment asks the Minister to review energy prices. I am also grateful to my noble friend for saying in Committee that the Government will carry out a full-scale review of fuel poverty and its implications. I know that a review into the way in which energy companies charge will not be popular with everyone, not least the energy companies, but the way in which they currently charge is a win-win situation for them. What manufacturing company in the real world would not like to charge a huge price for the first number of units sold so that they can recover their fixed costs and then a lower price for subsequent units so that they can recover their variable costs, thus guaranteeing themselves a profit?
The amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Teverson suggests that the energy companies, together with consumer groups, should be involved in the review. I hope that they will examine whether there is a better way of coming up with a pricing tariff. The amendment also says that a new tariff scheme will be revenue neutral for energy companies, so it is not intended that they will lose revenue. It will be revenue neutral to them.
If we want to do something about poverty—fuel poverty in particular—we must look at all the options and a review on setting tariffs is a welcome start. Energy prices will continue to increase. There are already 6.5 million households in fuel poverty. A quarter of households live in fuel poverty, 50 per cent being pensioners. That is not something to be proud of. The least we can do is review how energy is charged for.
Lord Davies of Oldham
I am confused as I was not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was moving or withdrawing his amendment. When I made my contribution last time on the general lines on which the noble Lord spoke today, I must say that I had every sympathy with the main principles on which his amendment is based, but the Bill is not the place in which to locate this issue, important though it is. We heard not just from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, last time, but we had the benefit of the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, who talked about energy prices from a historical perspective and explained how they had established themselves on a basis that is indefensible in terms of what we are seeking to achieve. I refer particularly to the fact that the old standing charge necessitated the heavy impost of the early units.
We are aware of the fact that we need a revision of the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, should be congratulated on articulating the case forcefully in Committee and for again today identifying why he still advocates the main principles. I do not think—and I think he was coming to the same conclusion—that it quite fits within the framework of the Bill. That is why last time I said that the amendment should be withdrawn and the Minister seemed to think that I had done his job for him. I had not done that then, and I have not done so this evening. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Marland
My Lords, I have a declaration to make. I am not an Essex person which seems to be the thing to declare before speaking in this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, suggested, was considering withdrawing his amendment. My department has been made available to him for discussing and working through this problem which we take seriously. We have made it available to my noble friend Lord Cathcart. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, is right that this is probably not the right Bill for this tariff but the department will be happy to work with the noble Lord and reach a conclusion. As he rightly says, it will take several months, but I invite my noble friend to either withdraw or do whatever he was going to do with his excellent amendment.
Lord Teverson
I thank the Minister. I have only two alternatives: to test the opinion of the House or withdraw the amendment. I have come across no other option in the Companion. I am happy to take the advice of both Front Benches in anticipation that we will revisit the issue in the next Energy Bill on market reform that comes to the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Marland
( ) In section 81(2) of the Utilities Act 2000 (standard conditions of gas licences), after “Part 1” (as inserted by section 20(8) of this Act) insert “or section 72”.”
“Accidental petroleum releases: verification of financial costs
After section 3 of the Petroleum Act 1998 (licences to search and bore for and get petroleum) insert—
“3A Accidental petroleum releases: verification of financial costs
(1) At the time of applying for a licence under section 3, the applicant must provide the Secretary of State with information showing that the applicant has sufficient funds to compensate any damage caused, or loss suffered, as a result of petroleum being accidentally released during the operation of that licence.
(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations, in particular, to provide for the type of financial and supporting information to be provided under subsection (1).
(3) Before issuing a licence under section 3, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that—
(a) the applicant has provided a complete and accurate record of information required by this Act and any regulations made under this Act; and(b) on reviewing that information, has sufficient funds to compensate for any damage caused, or loss suffered, as a result of petroleum being accidentally released during the operation of the licence.(4) In this section “sufficient funds” includes any insurance able to be claimed by the licensee in the circumstances outlined in subsection (1).”
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I raised a similar amendment to this in Committee as a probing amendment to try to clarify financial liability for oil spills off the UK coast. Looking back, I am not sure that I am any clearer on the financial responsibility, but my amendments then got a fair amount of support in Committee. It was understood that there has to be an arrangement whereby, should there be an accidental spill by those seeking oil off our coast, the responsibility for cleaning it up does not fall on local authorities. We were seeking clarification. We did not get that then and it would be helpful if the Minister could provide it now. As the Minister may recall, I drew comparisons with the requirements on the nuclear industry, which has to provide all costs of clean-up after its operations, with that of the oil industry of accidental oil releases into the environment.
A couple of issues were raised in Committee which I think were entirely reasonable, and I have incorporated provision for funding into our new amendment. I hope that the Minister can take this away to look at it. We have included a definition of sufficient funds and taken out detailed provision about certification, because that could go into regulations. I will be grateful to hear the Minister's comments.
Lord Marland
This is a very complicated issue for someone who is not in the insurance world; but for someone who is, it is quite simple. It may be best in this instance if I commit in writing the exact layering of this requirement. Suffice it to say that the oil industry is a very mature industry. Substantial insurance requirements are placed on it. As I mentioned extensively in Committee, it has a mutual pool which offers additional protection to its balance sheets, and those that it makes in the open market. As someone with an insurance background, I would be happy to explain that in greater detail in writing to the noble Baroness. I hope that she finds that an adequate response to enable her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think that he understands why I raised this issue. It is in large part due to public concern. He and I debated in this Chamber the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It was in research for that debate that I discovered concern about not knowing what the full implications would be if there were an oil spill off our shores. I am grateful for his comments and his commitment to come back to me in writing.
It would also be helpful if he would come back to me on the issues that I raised about comparisons with the nuclear industry. I have never really understood why the nuclear industry is treated differently from the oil industry. He may be able in his response to assure me that it is not treated differently. The nuclear industry, particularly under this Government, now has to find all the costs of remediation and disposal of waste. As I understand it, that is not the same for the oil industry. Can the Minister tell me that he is entirely satisfied that, in any event, for any oil spill, the liability will not fall on local authorities, and that insurance is in place to deal with the matter? I look forward to receiving that information in his correspondence on the matter, which I can perhaps discuss with him further, and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Northover
“Special administration under the Energy Act 2004Amendment of section 166 of the Energy Act 2004
(1) Section 166 of the Energy Act 2004 (indemnities) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) As soon as practicable after agreeing to indemnify persons under this section, the Secretary of State must lay a statement of the agreement before Parliament.”
(3) After subsection (6) insert—
“(6A) Where a sum has been paid out by the Secretary of State in consequence of an indemnity agreed to under this section, the Secretary of State must lay a statement relating to that sum before Parliament—
(a) as soon as practicable after the end of the financial year in which that sum is paid out; and(b) (except where subsection (4) does not apply in the case of the sum) as soon as practicable after the end of each subsequent relevant financial year.(6B) In relation to a sum paid out in consequence of an indemnity, a financial year is a relevant financial year for the purposes of subsection (6A) unless—
(a) before the beginning of that year, the whole of that sum has been repaid to the Secretary of State under subsection (4); and(b) the company in question is not at any time during that year subject to liability to pay interest on amounts that became due under that subsection in respect of that sum.Special administration under this Chapter”
Baroness Northover
This is a minor and technical amendment to ensure consistency of statutory reporting to Parliament under the Energy Act 2004 and the Bill with public expenditure rules. The amendment to ensure consistency will apply both to the special administration regime for electricity transmission and distribution companies and gas transporters created by the Energy Act 2004, and to the provisions for a special administration regime for energy supply companies under the provisions in this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I of course accept the amendment that the Government have moved, but I return to the issue that I raised in Grand Committee about the uncertainty created by the third of the three tests of whether a company can be put into administration, which is that the company is likely to be unable to pay its debts. Under the original Act, that was a decision to be taken by the company. Under this Bill, it is a decision that will be taken by the Secretary of State. Despite what my noble friend said in reply to that debate in Grand Committee, it seems to me that this still leaves a substantial area of uncertainty for the industry. My noble friend said at the time that there would be consultation with the company and its directors. What I would like to suggest and, indeed, if we were going to reach this clause next Tuesday—we have made such haste this afternoon and evening that in a sense I have been a little bit caught short—I would have tabled an amendment to say that it should be done only with the consent of the company. That would make the case. I wonder whether my noble friend can say something about this now or whether this is a point I could raise again at Third Reading.
Baroness Northover
I thank my noble friend for that comment. I think the best way to take this forward is by consultation. If he would like to discuss the details with officials, we could see what, if anything, needs to be addressed.
Lord Marland
“( ) In section 33(1) of the Utilities Act 2000 (standard conditions of licenses under Part 1 of the Electricity Act 1989), after “72” (as inserted by section 73(6) of this Act) insert “or 92,”,”
164: Clause 92, page 72, line 34, at end insert—
“( ) Sections 4AA to 4B of the Gas Act 1986 (principal objective and general duties) apply in relation to the powers of the Secretary of State under this section with respect to holders of gas licences as they apply in relation to functions of the Secretary of State under Part 1 of that Act.
( ) Sections 3A to 3D of the Electricity Act 1989 (principal objective and general duties) apply in relation to the powers of the Secretary of State under this section with respect to holders of electricity licences as they apply in relation to functions of the Secretary of State under Part 1 of that Act.”
165: Clause 92, page 72, line 35, leave out from “section” to end of line 37 and insert“—
(a) references to a gas licence are to a licence for the purposes of section 5 of the Gas Act 1986 (prohibition on unlicensed activities relating to gas), and
(b) references to an electricity licence are to a licence for the purposes of section 4 of the Electricity Act 1989 (prohibition on unlicensed activities relating to electricity)”
Lord Teverson
“Geothermal power
(1) The Secretary of State shall have the authority, after a period of consultation with industry, geological experts, the devolved administrations, local authorities, energy producers and other interested parties, to put into place for the United Kingdom a licensing system and regulations for the exploitation of heat from deep geothermal sources for both the direct use of that heat and for the generation of electricity.
(2) The licenses shall relate to—
(a) individual geographically delineated areas on land;(b) the heat held by rocks greater than one kilometre below the surface.(3) Licenses shall give exclusive exploration and production rights for the purpose of energy production from geothermal sources, both direct heat and electricity generation, to the licensee, for that area, and for a specific period of time.
(4) The Secretary of State shall have the authority to lay down regulations for the method of allocation of licenses to those organisations wishing to explore or exploit those resources (or both).
(5) Any organisation already undertaking exploration or exploitation from geothermal sources within the United Kingdom, in that they have already undertaken, at the time the licensing regime comes into force, boring for the purpose of exploiting geothermal heat to below one kilometre, shall be entitled to hold the first license awarded for that license area; and any licence fee or other consideration for that license area as a part of the licensing regime will then be determined by arbitration under rules determined by the Secretary of State reflecting the fees or other consideration paid for the licenses deemed to have similar potential.
(6) The holding of a licence for the exploration or exploitation of deep geothermal heat (or both) shall not convey any automatic rights in terms of planning permissions for surface development, or given any rights in terms of surface access.”
Lord Teverson
My Lords, this amendment is slightly different from the one I put down in Committee as it affects geothermal energy. I thank many sides of the House for supporting that. The change that I have made to this amendment is that I have not included time constraints, not because they are not important, they are, but because when I had to submit this amendment in time for Report, it was not clear from the industry or from the department whether it is possible to implement geothermal licensing through secondary legislation or whether it requires primary legislation. Since that time, the industry, I and a Member of the other House met the other Minister, my honourable friend Greg Barker, to go through this. I welcome the fact that a working party has been set up, which probably met for the first time today, to start finding a way forward to make this move. The industry’s advice is that licensing probably requires primary legislation rather than empowerment through this Bill to allow secondary legislation by the Minister. That has rather stymied my wish to press this matter forward strongly and makes the situation rather difficult.
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, I support my noble friend. Some years ago in Southampton we had a geothermal bore which contributed—it is not as hot as we would like—to the district heating scheme. It has been very successful. During the Recess I was in New Zealand. A great part of its energy mix is from geothermal. I suggest that noble Lords look at how it has been dealt with there as a good example of how to use geothermal energy.
Lord Dixon-Smith
I hesitate to speak at this hour, but since we are considering geothermal power, perhaps I may introduce a thought about indirect geothermal power. Such power is waste heat from power stations, which consume enormous amounts of raw energy and turn out enormous amounts of waste heat. Generally speaking, it is completely unused. It is an enormous financial handicap and an enormous energy inefficiency which our whole electricity generating industry has to bear and which, as customers, we all pay for.
While I am all in favour of looking for all geothermal sources of energy, we have these indirect geothermal sources of energy already available to us on the surface but we do nothing about them. It is legitimate to raise the subject in this rather indirect way even at this hour of the night. The same applies to nuclear power stations. One can argue that nuclear power is an indirect form of solar power. That is exactly what it is—solar power is nuclear power but happens to be 95 million miles away, and we enjoy it enormously as a result. If it was much closer, we would not. But we have these other sources of energy, which are indirectly the same source of energy as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was talking about. If we are looking at one of them as something that we should use, we really should look at the other.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I want very warmly to support the noble Lord on this issue. It has always intrigued me that we have never given the priority that we should have done to developments in this sphere. It is good to see it happening. He referred to the north-east. Perhaps I may say as a Member of Court of Newcastle University that one of the things that is very important about these developments is that universities such as Newcastle—I do not see Newcastle in any provision—are dying to make a contribution in the development of this new potential and, in the context of Newcastle, have already played a significant part in what is happening in the north-east. Therefore, there is a background of scientific and applied scientific interest, which sets it off on a very good course.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I rise briefly to say that I appreciate the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is presenting a very important argument, which we discussed intensively and fully in Committee. I have no doubt that we would have had a much more intensive debate this evening were it not for the lateness of the hour. That does not mean to say that those of us who have kept our speeches short, as I intend to do, do not have enormous respect for the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has put forward, but we did have a full debate in Committee and I am very grateful that he drew our attention to the matter again this evening.
Lord Marland
My Lords, I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. We had intensive debates in Committee and at Second Reading on this subject. My views are well known on the subject. That is why our department facilitated discussions with the Minister of State, Greg Barker, who is discussing this with the Environment Agency in the next few days. I think he had a meeting with him today, but I do not want to get diaries out of kilter to see how we can take the matter forward. He knows, as well as I do, that we are very interested in the subject and are committed to offering every possible opportunity for those who are interested in the subject, in taking the matter forward and in hoping to bring this provision into reality in what is a very difficult area. I think the noble Lord was thinking of withdrawing his amendment because of the meetings he has had. With that, I hope he will formally withdraw his amendment.
Perhaps I may take the opportunity of thanking noble Lords for staying up, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, who is still recovering from her ghastly operation, who, with great cheerfulness, has maintained an excellent presence here tonight, and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions so far and for helping in what has been a very harmonious evening.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and his continued interest, which is genuinely recognised and welcomed by the industry. I agree absolutely with my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith about the amount of energy, and heat particularly, that we waste, whether welling up from the ground in many ways or from industrial applications. Perhaps I may be forgiven for saying that one of the reasons is that we do not have a culture of district heating in this country. We look at each dwelling as an individual area. That is one of the things that has to change in terms of being able to utilise that energy. I thank him for reminding me of that.
I am well satisfied that the Government are taking this agenda forward seriously. This particular amendment is no longer appropriate. I have pleasure in begging leave to withdraw my amendment.