House of Commons

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

Monday 23 January 2012

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

1. For what reasons Work programme contractors are not permitted to publish their performance data.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

I thought that this afternoon we might have been extensively debating the benefits cap, but no Labour Members have been brave enough to raise the issue; I cannot think why.

The Department is following guidance issued by the national statistician in order to comply with the code of practice for official statistics and to protect the integrity and accuracy of data. However, we propose to allow providers to publish data that do not compromise the official statistics and will issue guidance to providers shortly.

[John Woodcock]

As the Minister knows, under the flexible new deal, providers were allowed to publish their data if they wanted to. If he is confident in his Work programme and knows that he has got the contracting incentives right, about which there is some doubt, why on earth is he refusing to let these providers publish their data if they want to?

[Chris Grayling]

It is precisely because I am keen to get information out there that we are looking at ways to ensure that that can happen, despite the rules about national statistics, which we have to obey very carefully. If the hon. Gentleman wants some statistics about employment programmes, let me share a set with him. The flexible new deal, to which he referred, cost the taxpayer £770 million and delivered 50,000 six-month job outcomes. He can do the maths on that—it amounts to approximately £14,000 per six-month job outcome. That is one failure of the welfare-to-work programmes we inherited, and that is why the welfare-to-work package that we have put together through the Work programme will be better value for the taxpayer and do a better job for the unemployed.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Following that robust answer, does my right hon. Friend agree that when we are able to publish these data, they are likely to show the success of putting work out to contract when we see that organisations such as the Shaw Trust are much better at providing work for disabled people than the work done in-house by the Benefits Agency?

[Chris Grayling]

When I visit Work programme providers —I have now visited most of them—I certainly find a great deal of enthusiasm, a sense of purpose and successful progress. I hope that that will show through in the official statistics when the time arises. I am not in the business of burying good news, and I very much hope that we will be getting the good news about the Work programme out there as soon as we possibly can.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I welcome the U-turn on the publication of data that the Minister has just announced. The White Paper, “Open Public Services”, which was published only last summer, included the following commitment:

“Providers of public services from all sectors will need to publish information on performance”.

So why did he write into the Work programme contract a ban on the publication of performance data by those providers?

[Chris Grayling]

As we can all see, one of the challenges that Labour Members face at the moment is that they are all over the place on policy. On Friday, they were attacking me for allegedly misusing statistics; today they are asking why I am not going round the rules set out for us by the Office for National Statistics. They need to make up their minds about what they really stand for, because at the moment they have no idea.

[Stephen Timms]

The Minister has signally failed to answer the question. We know that he did not ask the UK Statistics Authority, whose rules he regularly quotes, before he imposed this absurd ban. I welcome the fact that he has finally announced a climbdown today, but he cannot blame anyone for asking him what he was trying to hide.

[Chris Grayling]

I have absolutely nothing to hide. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman, as I have been saying to him for weeks, that I am not in the business of burying bad news. None the less, the statisticians expect us to make sure that we have robust and clear statistics before we publish them. As the Work programme has been going for only six months, and we have barely started to make payments for providers’ success in getting people into work, he is, I am afraid, not portraying the reality of the situation. I am glad that he is pleased that we are going to try to get the good news out there as quickly as possible, but we have to stick by the rules.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Is not the key point that statistics must be first approved by the UK Statistics Authority? Will Ministers ensure that when statistics are available, the success of the benefits cap is also published, with the approval of the UK Statistics Authority?

[Chris Grayling]

I will absolutely do that because, as my hon. Friend knows, we are all about trying to help people out of poverty by getting them back into work. The benefits cap is one part of a portfolio of policies—including universal credit, the Work programme and the migration of people off incapacity benefit—that will deliver the kind of change to our welfare state that we so desperately need and was so desperately lacking in 13 years under Labour.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that it is expected that the number of claimants on employment and support allowance who are routed to the Work programme will be about 150,000 lower than was expected when the contracts were let. What assessment has he made of the impact on their viability?

[Chris Grayling]

Overall, as the hon. Lady will have seen from the figures that we published before Christmas about expected numbers in the Work programme, we are likely to see more people in the harder-to-help groups go into the programme than was previously expected. However, she will also have seen from the previous sets of statistics on ESA that we have a larger than expected support group, which is partly because of policy changes that we have made in areas such as cancer, addiction and mental health in which we are trying to provide better long-term protection for people who are genuinely vulnerable.

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

2. What steps he took to consult disabled people and representative organisations on the development of the personal independence payment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

We have consulted disabled people and their representative organisations at all stages of the development of the personal independence payment. That included a formal consultation in December 2010 and our response which was published in April 2011; an informal consultation on the draft assessment criteria in May 2011; and a 15-week formal consultation on the revised assessment criteria, which started on 16 January this year.

[Nadine Dorries]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Agate house in my constituency, a Leonard Cheshire home in Ampthill, looks after some of the most severely disabled residents. Some are born disabled and many have degenerative illnesses that mean that they will need greater levels of care in future. They will never need less care than they do today or be less disabled, yet they all have to go through the ignominy and bureaucratic process of an assessment of their allowance once a year. Will the Minister examine that matter? It seems an incredible waste of money, a bureaucracy, a waste of civil servants’ time and an embarrassment to residents. Could we change that?

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and say to her that we absolutely share the objective of ensuring that the people with the severest challenges in living independently in our society do not receive undue assessments. At the moment there is no in-built reassessment under disability living allowance. She put her question in the present tense—I am not sure whether she was referring to other things for which people are assessed. I reassure her that under PIP, we do not intend to have fixed annual reassessments. They will be made based on individuals’ personal circumstances.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

In their report “Responsible Reform”, disabled people and carers analysed the responses to the Government’s consultation and raised many issues about the replacement of disability living allowance. Carers UK has also expressed deep concern about the impact on carers of cuts to disability benefits, yet today we learn that 5,000 carer households will be hit by the mean reduction of £87 a week as a result of the benefits cap. Will the Minister now publish an assessment of the impact on carers of all the Government’s cuts?

[Maria Miller]

To give the House total clarity I should say that the report that the hon. Lady references was highly selective. It examined only about 10% of the responses that we received on the DLA and PIP consultation.

I will answer the hon. Lady’s question about carers directly as she, like me, wants to ensure that carers get the support that they need. We have already made it clear that carers will be eligible for carer’s allowance as a result of the person for whom they are caring being in receipt of either level of PIP.

[Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central) (LD)]

Many disabled people are deeply unhappy about the performance of Atos Origin in administering the work capability assessment. As a result, they are scared about the introduction of the new PIP assessment. What discussions has the Minister had with disability organisations about who will carry out the new assessments, and what reassurance has she been able to give them that the mistakes made with the work capability assessment will not be repeated with PIP?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the new personal independence payment assessment will be separate from the WCA, and that any contracts that are in place for Atos are not at all connected with the new assessment that we need for PIP. In fact, a formal competition document is going out today to start the commercial process. To reassure her about the involvement of disabled people, I say that we already have an implementation development group, which involves disabled people closely at every step of the way.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

Just for balance, I should like to put on record my thanks to those who gave us the Spartacus report, which was a challenging document and took apart some of the Government’s points.

The Dilnot report recommended that universal disability benefits for people of all ages should continue as now. However, under the new PIP the Government are scrapping low-rate care. Some 500,000 people, and probably more, could face escalating unmet needs that will result in pressure on council care services. What specific discussions has the Minister, as lead for the Office for Disability Issues, had on the changes with her colleagues in the Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government, and with the Scottish and Welsh Governments, and what action has she taken as a result of any conversations?

[Maria Miller]

The right hon. Lady will know that we have been having very close conversations with both the devolved authorities and the Department of Health, and she is right that we have to consider the changes that are happening in the round. She should also be mindful of the fact that the changes that we are making under the PIP will remove something that we inherited from the previous Government—£600 million a year going out in overpayments to people whose conditions have changed and who no longer need the same level of support.

[Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)]

3. What steps he has taken to reduce the level of health and safety regulation affecting business.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

7. What steps he has taken to reduce the level of health and safety regulation affecting business.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

8. What steps he has taken to reduce the level of health and safety regulation affecting business.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

Britain has the best record in Europe for the prevention of death and serious injury in the workplace. We should be proud of that, and we will seek to retain it under the Government. We also have one of the worst records in Europe for unnecessary health and safety red tape. The Löfstedt report, which we published in November, recommends significant changes to our regulatory regime. We accepted the recommendations and, with other planned changes, we aim to reduce the total number of health and safety regulations by 50% by 2014.

[Jessica Lee]

My right hon. Friend referred to the Löfstedt review. Does he agree that, by returning to a common-sense approach to health and safety legislation, businesses such as mine in Erewash can concentrate on positively contributing to the local economy rather than fearing unnecessary prosecution?

[Chris Grayling]

Absolutely. That is very much our hope. We have already implemented one of the key recommendations of the Löfstedt review. On 1 January, we established the first challenge panel, which will allow businesses that believe that they are on the wrong end of a wrong decision as a result of a health and safety inspection to have a quick, easy and simple way of challenging and, if necessary, overturning it.

[Mr Ellwood]

Is it not the case that a culture of hesitancy, leading to paranoia, developed under the previous Government? That culture saw the term “health and safety” justify bizarre decision making, such as cutting down trees in school playgrounds in case children climbed them, or council office light bulbs being replaced only by those who had completed the “how to use a six-foot ladder” course. I hope that we will see some change from this Government on those issues.

[Chris Grayling]

We hope that a simpler regulatory structure will contribute to that. If we take the example of schools, we have already shortened the forms that need to be filled in for a school trip from more than 120 pages to eight. I encourage every Member of the House, including you, Mr Speaker, to challenge daft health and safety decisions when you come up against them in your constituency. There is almost certainly no basis for them in health and safety law.

[David Rutley]

The average annual cost of compliance with health and safety regulations is more than £4,000 for businesses of fewer than 50 employees. What steps are being taken to reduce further the burden of health and safety regulations on our start-ups?

[Chris Grayling]

That is particularly important. One of the Löfstedt review’s key recommendations was that we should exclude altogether from health and safety rules self-employed people who do not endanger the lives of others in the course of their activities. We have accepted that recommendation and will introduce it shortly.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

As a member of the Löfstedt review, I can confirm that there is a recommendation that has the potential to reduce significantly the net number of regulations. Will the Minister confirm that the review actually recommends consolidating lots of statutory instruments? It would not remove health and safety regulations and, more importantly, it is not a short, quick fix, but a very long-term systematic study that is needed.

[Chris Grayling]

Let me pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work on that committee—his contribution was much appreciated and greatly valued. He is absolutely right, though I emphasise that there is a mix. Today, we have begun a consultation on scrapping the first seven regulations that we have identified as superfluous or duplicating other provisions. As I said at the start of my remarks, our approach is not about undermining health and safety, which protects people from death and serious injury in the workplace, but about creating a streamlined and simple system that businesses can understand quickly, easily and cost effectively.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that the Health and Safety Executive estimates that, each year, £22 billion is lost in the UK economy because of health and safety failures. Surely any reduction in health and safety regulation risks increasing that figure.

[Chris Grayling]

That does not follow because the Löfstedt review—and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller)—identified many areas in which the rules and codes of conduct are too complicated and difficult for businesses to understand. We need to get back to a simple regime that is easy to understand and does what it is supposed to do: protect people from death and serious injury in the workplace.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Given that the Löfstedt report does not say that our health and safety legislation is either excessive or wrong, will the Minister also say that and stop peddling the myths on health and safety legislation—the Löfstedt report says that they are myths—that some of his colleagues keep peddling?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady misunderstands the challenge we face. It is not Members of the House peddling myths; they are peddled all around the country, by local authority inspectors and middle managers in organisations who blame health and safety for things that have no basis in health and safety law. If we have a simplified regime that everyone can understand, it is much less likely that they can get away with doing that.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

4. What plans he has to support residential training colleges for disabled people.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

DWP adult residential training provision is delivered in nine colleges. The Sayce review of specialist disability employment provision recommended that funding should focus on the individual rather than the institution. While the Government consider how to proceed following the recent public consultation, and to support the colleges through any period of transition, I have committed to provision continuing through to the end of the academic year ending summer 2013.

[Stuart Andrew]

I am grateful for that answer. Residential training colleges have built up a great deal of expertise in supporting disabled people back into work. How will my hon. Friend ensure that that expertise is preserved?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to ensure that that expertise is protected and retained. That is why I have given a personal commitment to the colleges for provision to continue through to summer 2013. Indeed, other parts of DWP are supporting colleges to broaden their approach, particularly those such as Enham in Hampshire and near my constituency, which delivers the Work programme in the Thames valley and on the Isle of Wight.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

5. What assessment he has made of the information technology systems which will support universal credit.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

Universal credit is on track and on budget. The systems are not new or complex. After all, more than 60% of the total developed system is based on reusing existing IT. New developments will use tried and tested technology. The key difference between how this Government are doing things and how they were done before is that we have adopted commercial “agile” design principles to build the IT service for universal credit in four stages, each four months long.

[Sarah Newton]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Given the billions of pounds that were wasted by the previous Government on failed IT programmes, this matter is vital to me and my constituents. Will my right hon. Friend therefore explain to colleagues more about the testing regime before the new system is implemented?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I should tell my hon. Friend that I am not complacent about delivery. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know that IT developments can have difficulties and can go wrong at key points, even when we are not expecting them to do so. I am trying to ensure that Ministers are directly involved at every turn. We get weekly updates and have fortnightly meetings with those in charge. I set up a programme board, which I chair, and a senior sponsorship group, which includes Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the programme board and the Department for Work and Pensions. The major projects review group has regular reviews. “Agile” principles make it easier for us to pinpoint where there might be failures.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

This morning on the “Today” programme, the Secretary of State declared that he knew where and who the families were who would be most adversely affected by the introduction of universal credit. They will lose their homes, their children will lose their schools and they will have to find new medical treatments. Why does he need that system, and has he begun the process of informing those families about the cataclysm that he will bring down on their heads?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

With respect to the hon. Lady, she is mixing up policies. This question is about universal credit, but she is referring to the cap. I am sorry that no Opposition Member tabled a question on the cap—there might be a reason for that, but I do not quite know what it is.

What I said this morning was quite clear. I said that when it comes to the cap and smaller numbers of people, we have worked very hard over the last nine months or so to ensure that we know who will be eligible to fall within the cap. We know exactly all their details, which will make it easier for us to help them through the process. She should have a word with Opposition Front Benchers, and ask them why they did not ask a question about the cap.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

When the Secretary of State introduces the new IT system, will he consider introducing a skills database for all those who want a job, enabling employers to dial into the database and match the skills required with the person seeking a job, as against the other way round as at present?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

That is a very good idea and I am certainly ready to discuss it with my hon. Friend. If we can make something work, it would be brilliant.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

The information technology necessary for university credit will depend on the Revenue’s new PAYE real time system. Is the Minister confident that every employer will be using the system successfully by next October?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We are working towards that, and so far it has been a success. Small companies of nine employees or fewer will have access to free software upgrades, so those that do not have a software payroll system will not incur any great charge. We are running trials that will start in April and that will join with the DWP in October. We are on target and we will continue to work towards that date. That is our expectation and ambition.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

6. What steps he plans to take to reduce the cost of sickness benefit paid to UK citizens living abroad.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

We are bound by EU rules to pay sickness benefits abroad when people are eligible. I emphasise that they need to be eligible, and the same rules apply to the contributory element on employment and support allowance and incapacity benefit—there are no additional limits. We are determined to clamp down on people claiming when they are not eligible, and we are arguing that through at the moment, even in the Commission.

[Priti Patel]

In the light of the significant sums being paid in sickness benefits to UK citizens abroad will my right hon. Friend update the House on the legal dispute between the Government and the European Commission? Will he assure me that he will fight the Commission all the way on this matter?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), is in the Councils on this one. My hon. Friend refers to the Commission’s idea that the habitual residency test should be abolished. That is quite wrong and we disagree with it fundamentally, but we are not alone: a large number of European nations disagree with the Commission and we join them in saying that this is a step too far—a leap into an area that has always been preserved for national Governments and in which it has no right. We will fight this, and I believe that we will win.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

This is a very serious issue, but will the Government’s programme of closing the DWP’s overseas network in many countries around the world help or hinder efforts to ensure that benefits are paid only to those entitled to them?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I believe that the hon. Lady’s question is not directly relevant to whether we are able to spot whether people are eligible, because anybody who claims will have to go through exactly the same checks as they would in the UK. That in itself will be a bit of a deterrent in their trying to claim something from a foreign doctor.

[Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con)]

9. What recent progress he has made on delivering universal credit.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

19. What recent progress he has made on delivering universal credit.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

Design work is well under way. As I said earlier, we are continually testing with staff and claimants to ensure that it works and that we make progress. On 8 December the major projects review group panel report acknowledged that significant progress had been made over the past few months.

[Chris Kelly]

How many households are expected to receive a higher entitlement as a result of the universal credit, and how will it help hard-working families in constituencies such as mine?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Universal credit will be a major sea change for my hon. Friend’s constituents, who will appreciate the fact that for the first time ever we will guarantee that work pays. Figures show that 2.8 million households will have higher entitlements under the universal credit.

[Caroline Dinenage]

Is there any flexibility in the way in which the universal credit will be paid? For example, could it be paid weekly rather than monthly, and could its housing component be paid directly to landlords in order to protect vulnerable families?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She has raised an issue that has been raised by a number of people. The reason why we want to try to pay universal credit monthly is simply that when unemployed people go back to work, they sometimes have to adjust to their wages being paid monthly rather than bi-weekly, which often causes them problems. One of the reasons why they often fall out of work is that they cannot settle on that. We want to try and pay the universal credit monthly, so that it assists them. We will give every bit of assistance we can to all those who have difficulty to help them manage their budgets, which will include a new test on the way we pay housing benefit and the way it will be allocated through their bank accounts. I also give my hon. Friend this undertaking: we will have set-back proposals to make it absolutely certain that we can assist those who genuinely cannot do so to pay their relevant bills.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Before Christmas it was announced that, at least initially, local authorities would have no role in the universal credit assessment. Will the Secretary of State tell me what impact that will have on those working in housing benefit departments in local authorities? Will his Department be helping with redundancy costs if large numbers of people working in housing benefit departments lose their jobs?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The reason is that we will be talking full time, all the time, to local authorities. We receive a huge amount of information from them, so we are not talking about stand-alone assessments being made; rather, the functioning of universal credit requires that, at its best, it should be done in one location. However, we will be in constant contact with local authorities about the needs in their areas, and we will be with them all the way through in the way this is applied.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

May I press the Secretary of State a little further on the matter of paying housing benefit directly to landlords? A number of my constituents have found that when they are overdrawn or beyond their overdraft, the bank snatches the money, leaving them still unable to pay their rent, so that they get into worse and worse difficulties. Will he reconsider?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I recognise that, and the point is that although the vast majority of those who receive local housing allowance make their payments on time, there is always a group that does not. The way to deal with that is to recognise that we need to help landlords by not allowing those kinds of people to get away with it—for example, by paying a little bit at the two-month point, which sets the clock back to zero. We can make adjustments that way, and we can also deal with those who have difficultly by assisting them and, where necessary, making direct payments. However, those payments should always be the exception, to try to help people manage their budgets.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

10. What estimate he has made of the average cost to a small business of real-time reporting of PAYE information to enable calculation of universal credit entitlement.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

Real-time information—there was a question about this earlier—should not be an additional cost to business, and I do not believe it will be. Ultimately, it will help to reduce administration burdens for employers. RTI will also be good for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, because it will help to eradicate some of the errors caused by HMRC waiting a year before adjusting what it has already paid and then trying to chase people for that money. The fraud and error savings that will arise from the RTI programme—which the DWP considers vital for the universal credit—should be around £700 million, which is an important feature.

[Dame Anne Begg]

I do not think that the businesses I speak to have any idea whatever that this is about to hit them ahead of the introduction of auto-enrolment, which they are more conscious of and worried about. However, that may be academic, because from what I am hearing, HMRC’s timetable for real-time information has slipped. It will not be ready to roll out RTI universally across the country on the date that the universal credit is introduced. What happens to universal credit if RTI is not in place on its launch date?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

From the word go, we have not needed the full system of real-time information to be ready for universal credit. We get our information from essentially two feeds, which we have already been working on with HMRC, long before any further timetables. The reality is that RTI will dovetail nicely with universal credit, but we do not need it for that, and we are not expecting it to be ready at the start of universal credit. We were never expecting that, and we have been working on that basis. However, RTI will come in—it is “on timetable”—and those involved will be working hard to produce it.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

11. What recent progress he has made on the introduction of the workfare scheme.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

We do not operate a workfare scheme. I think the hon. Gentleman might be referring to mandatory activity; in which case, I can confirm that we have schemes in place as part of people’s job search. They include mandatory work activity and the community action programme, which is being tested as part of supporting the very long-term unemployed.

[Grahame M. Morris]

May I press the Minister to give a fuller answer to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) asked a little earlier? Profits at Poundland soared by 34% in 2011, with people on workfare forced to work for free in Poundland stores and being told at the beginning of their placement that there is no prospect of permanent employment, while they carry out the same duties as paid employees. Who is the real beneficiary of workfare: the taxpayer or the shareholder?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman is telling a lot of complete nonsense to the House. The reality is that Poundland is one of many major retailers taking part in our work experience scheme, which is providing young people who are out of work with their first opportunity to get into the workplace so that they can show a potential employer what they can do. More than 50% of young people who go through the scheme move quickly into employment afterwards, including, in some places, with Poundland.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

There is a lot of noisy criticism from those on the left about asking people to work in return for benefits. Does the Minister think that they are right?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is right; those people keep harking back to the future jobs fund. Let me give the House a simple comparison. The future jobs fund resulted in about half the participants getting into work, at a cost of between £5,000 and £6,000 per placement. The work experience scheme is resulting in more than half the participants coming off benefit and going into work at a cost of about £300 per placement. Which one do you think is better value for the taxpayer, Mr Speaker?

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

12. What estimate he has made of the number of children who will be living in poverty in 2015.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

The Government do not forecast in the way that the hon. Gentleman’s question suggests. Child poverty is dependent on a number of factors, and we know that the most sustainable way of reducing it is through parents going to work. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity, when asking his supplementary question, to show his support for the benefit cap, which will be one of the best ways of ensuring that work pays, for families throughout our country.

[Mr Hamilton]

The Minister will have a long wait. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that child poverty, as measured by the Child Poverty Act 2010, will rise by 400,000 by 2015, and that 200,000 children will be forced into absolute poverty. That means that the Government have no chance of meeting the targets set out in the Act, which both parties supported. Does the Minister believe that those forecasts are wrong? Also, will she make a commitment not to overturn amendments to the Welfare Reform Bill passed in another place when the Bill comes back here?

[Maria Miller]

As I have already said, the Government are not really into the forecasts that the hon. Gentleman is looking at, but we are firmly committed to eradicating child poverty. The IFS projections do not tell the whole story; they do not take into account fundamental things such as behaviour change, or our significant investment in early intervention, our education reform policies and our policies in other areas.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Bearing in mind the great importance given to the issue of child poverty across the House, will my hon. Friend tell us what steps she is taking to assess the amount of child benefit being paid to the non-resident children of EU workers in this country? What can be done to ensure that those benefits are minimised?

[Maria Miller]

We all want to ensure that the money available goes to the children who need it most, and I am sure that we will look carefully at my hon. Friends’s question.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

Given that 92% of single parent households are run by women, will the Minister tell me what she is doing about the alarming rise in female unemployment, which is rising at a much higher rate than that of male unemployment?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady will know that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) is doing a great deal to support women and men back into work in these very difficult times. I should like to commend him for the excellent work that he is doing further to expand the Work programme.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Families with children that are currently in receipt of disability living allowance are among those who are worried about what they read in the papers about the Government’s welfare reforms. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reassure them that they will not experience any reduction in the cash value of that benefit under the reforms?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is referring to the future of the personal independence payment. He will be aware of my firm commitment to ensuring that that payment is focused on helping those who need help the most. He will have seen from our recently published documentation that our initial work in that area shows that more of that money is going to people who really need it in order to live independent lives.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

13. What steps he is taking to protect the interests of people with small pension pots.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

The problems associated with small pension pots can include higher charges, losing track of a pension or facing barriers to moving the pension and getting a decent annuity. That is why we published a paper last month that sets out some radical options for some form of automated transfer system to make it easier for people to build up one large pension pot.

[Rehman Chishti]

Does the Minister have evidence on the number of small pension pots that will be created after automatic enrolment?

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. There is a risk that without action, in an auto-enrolment world hundreds of thousands of new small pension pots will be created each year as people change jobs. That is why it is doubly important that we should have some mechanism to combine those pots so that they are a pension worth having.

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

The UK is in the grip of a private pensions crisis, with 60% of private sector employees saving nothing for their retirement. In the light of that fact and in the light of the emergence of new competitors in the auto-enrolment market, will the Minister consider ending the statutory restrictions on the national employment savings trust scheme so as to better serve the auto-enrolment market?

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. The Labour Government introduced the constraints on NEST—and for a good reason, as it ensured that NEST focused on its target market. The situation has moved on and competitive developments in the market have emerged that were not necessarily foreseen. We are reflecting on the role of those constraints and I look forward to discussing the issue further with the Select Committee on Wednesday.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

14. What assessment he has made of the likely effect of the closure of the social fund on (a) homelessness, (b) hardship and (c) use of payday loans.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

The social fund is not closing as payments for maternity, heating and funeral expenses will continue. Some discretionary payments, particularly community care grants, will be replaced by targeted local provision at the same total level—so it is not a cut in the budget—and universal credit will provide a better service with payments on account supporting many people in need of short and longer-term credit.

[Alex Cunningham]

I am grateful for that update. For some people, the social fund is a crucial safety net, allowing them to avoid catastrophe. One of the major concerns about its abolition is that people will no longer be able to claim crisis loans to pay rent in advance when they move into private rented accommodation. What provision will there be to help formerly homeless people pay rent in advance when moving into independent accommodation?

[Steve Webb]

I know that the hon. Gentleman had written his question before he heard the answer, but the social fund is not being abolished. The new system under universal credit of payments on account will actually be more flexible, allowing people to draw down their universal credit ahead of time. That will be more efficient than the current rigid system of crisis loans.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

What discussions has the Minister had with the Welsh and Scottish Governments about the transfer of some responsibilities to local authorities and with what result?

[Steve Webb]

We are localising to English local authorities and, as the hon. Gentleman says, to the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly. We take the view—we have had a positive response on this from the Welsh Assembly—that the ability to shape a system for Wales is welcomed. Whether the Welsh Assembly chooses to do that through Welsh local authorities or at a national level in Wales will be a matter for it.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

15. If he will set a limit on the charges which pension fund managers may levy for the administration of pension funds.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

Initial evidence ahead of the roll-out of auto-enrolment later this year is that the creation of NEST, with its relatively low charges, and competition in the market are leading pension providers to offer products for auto-enrolment with lower than average charges. However, we believe that charging levels are important and have taken additional reserved powers under the Pensions Act 2011 to cap charges under auto-enrolment if that proves necessary.

[Hugh Bayley]

The report produced for the Government by Dr Christopher Sier shows that pensioners are losing out because of the excessive fees and charges levied by private pension fund managers. What action will the Government take to cap the amount that private fund managers can milk from the funds they manage on behalf of pensioners?

[Steve Webb]

I think the hon. Gentleman was a Minister in our Department under the previous Administration, and as he knows they chose not to cap charges but to give themselves powers to cap them if it proved necessary. At the moment, our judgment is that the early roll-out of auto-enrolment will deal with big firms who will give good deals and low charges and that we have more competition than was perhaps expected, with NEST coming in at around 0.5% and other providers at or below that point. We are encouraged by developments in the market but we are absolutely prepared to use the capping powers if it proves necessary.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

16. What recent progress he has made on the youth contract.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

Since the launch of the youth contract, we have been engaging with employers, providers and stakeholders to give them an active role in shaping the delivery of the new offer. As a result, employers are now starting to sign up to support the delivery of the youth contract and we remain on track to implement it in April as planned. Let me pay tribute to all the employers that are currently and have committed in the future to offering places in our work experience programme and in sector-based work academies and to offering in other ways to support what we are trying to achieve.

[Mr Jones]

I thank the Minister for his response. I welcome the youth contract and I am sure it will help many of our young people into employment, but having spoken recently to a number of local business people, particularly from small businesses, I have concerns about the general level of awareness of the policy. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he is doing all he can to raise awareness of this crucial policy with employers?

[Chris Grayling]

I can indeed. I met representatives of the major business representative groups a few weeks ago. Communicating with individual businesses is certainly a challenge but we aim to do everything we can to ensure that employers are taking up the wage subsidies available from April. It is worth noting that later this evening we will debate the Opposition’s plans to create 100,000 supported jobs, but that through the wage subsidies in the youth contract we are offering a similar opportunity to 170,000 young people.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

17. What progress he has made in assisting members of troubled families into employment through the use of payment-by-results programmes.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

We launched the programme before Christmas, funded by European social fund money. This is the second major foray that this Government have made into payment by results, and I am confident that the payment-by-results approach, combined with the support that is available to those families if they move into the Work programme, will provide a transformational level of support in the lives of some of our most challenged families.

[Jack Lopresti]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Given that past Governments have not had great success at helping certain families get back into work, why does he think his approach will be more successful?

[Chris Grayling]

The big difference is that we are adopting the payment-by-results approach. The organisations taking part in the programme can be paid only at certain points—first, when they agree an action plan with one of the individuals in a problem household; secondly when they deliver that action plan, which might mean the person completing a training course or something similar; and thirdly when that person gets into employment. The taxpayer does not pay the bill unless that happens, and that is a much better deal than ever happened under the previous Government.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

In Bristol, we had the pilots for family intervention projects that involved working with families who had a multitude of problems to tackle some of these issues. Does the Minister accept that this is not just about working through one Department such as his own? Other Departments such as the Department of Health and the Department for Education, as well as drugs funding, will need to be supported if we are to succeed in tackling these problems.

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely do that. Two points regarding the contracting of this support are crucial to what the hon. Lady says. The first is that referrals come from local authorities so that they know they are taking people from their problem family register and are not duplicating effort. Secondly, the contracting was based very much around the effectiveness of the firms in the bidding process at showing they could form the kind of partnerships that she rightly says are so important.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

Today in the other place they will be debating an amendment on the benefit cap. I believe that that system will help to restore fairness by setting a cap for those on benefits of £26,000 a year after tax or £35,000 a year before tax. I cannot understand why those who have said they would support this and were in favour of it have voted against it as often as possible.

[Mr Ellwood]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his team on the work they are doing to modernise the benefit system following the mess that was left by the previous Government. On the benefit cap, does he agree that those who oppose it need to explain to those who are in work but who earn less than £35,000 a year why people on benefits should be better off than they are?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The reality is that almost everybody out there beyond the politicians and the game playing believe it is reasonable to say to people who are on benefits that if they are not working, they should not earn more than those who are working and paying their taxes. I am astonished at the Opposition, who do not seem able to get it. I understand from a recent poll that even their supporters are overwhelmingly in favour of the proposal.

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I hope that the Secretary of State will not mind if I sustain his attention on the benefit cap for a moment because there will be an important debate in the other place this afternoon on the cap. This is a policy we support because, like him, we believe that people should be better off in work than on benefits. However, I want him to be absolutely straight with the House about what the cap will and will not achieve. Will he tell the House how much the housing benefit bill is going to rise over this Parliament as a result of his failure to get people back to work?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

There are two things to say about that question from the Opposition. If the right hon. Gentleman is, as he says, in favour of the cap, why does his party keep voting against it? Today, in the other place, it has tabled what is officially a wrecking amendment on the cap. Labour Members cannot weasel their way out and say that they are in favour on the one hand and against on the other. On housing benefit, I remind him that under his party, housing benefit pretty nearly doubled in 10 years, and it was set to rise far more than it will under us.

[Mr Byrne]

Perhaps I can help the Secretary of State: the truth is that over the course of this Parliament—over four years—the housing benefit bill is set to rise by an extraordinary £4 billion. We do not want, on top of that, another bill for council tax payers—a bill to clean up the cost of homelessness. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has already warned us that 20,000 people will be made homeless as a result of the way in which the cap will be introduced, and this morning, the Department for Work and Pensions published an impact statement that puts up the number of families who will be affected by the cap by a third. It is almost as if the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is making the policy up as he goes along. I hope that this afternoon he will accept Labour’s safeguards against a new risk of homelessness. If he dismisses that risk—if he wants to be so glib about it—why does he not accept the amendment this afternoon? If he does not, we will support the lord bishops’ amendment to safeguard against a new bill for council tax payers. That is the way that we will get this vote—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman has had his say, and we are most grateful to him.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

First, I do not accept the bishops’ amendment, because of course it would raise the cap on the level of income to roughly £50,000; it would be rather pointless having a cap set so high that nobody could ever hit it. Interestingly, I have just had an e-mail from a vicar, who wondered why the bishops fail to recognise that he is paid only £22,000 a year. He wonders why they are getting excited about £26,000 being a poverty-level figure. As regards housing benefit, let me remind the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) that we are saving £2 billion a year; housing benefit doubled under him.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

T4. Will my right hon. Friend tell me what the Government are doing about migrants who live in the UK and claim benefits without working or paying tax? Will the Government consider recording the nationality of benefit claimants?

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

I can confirm that we will record the nationality of benefit claimants when universal credit is introduced in 2013. I also confirm to my hon. Friend that where we have identified people who have a question mark over their benefits and immigration status, investigations are already under way. For 27% of the people whom we looked at in our data matching process, we are not yet able to make a match between benefit claimant status and immigration status. We will continue to do detailed work to make sure that there is not a hidden problem, left behind by the previous Government, relating to benefit tourism and inappropriate claims.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind right hon. and hon. Members, in the light of the extensive interest in topical questions, that topical questions and answers need to be brief. Let us be collegiate towards each other.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

T2. The benefits bill this year will be some £15 billion higher than in the last year of the Labour Government, and that costs about £600 per family per year. What will the Government do to cut unemployment, which is what is pushing up the benefits bill so fast?

[Chris Grayling]

Of course, we will debate this again tonight, but as I keep saying to the House, we will sort out the problems in our public finances to deliver stability in our economy. We will deliver the best possible support to business through the various measures that we have introduced, including enterprise zones and changes to the tax system. Through the Work programme, our work experience scheme, and the youth contract, we will deliver the best possible support to get the unemployed back into the workplace.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

T9. My constituent, Dr Christine Davies, has contacted me with examples exposing the unfairness of Child Support Agency arrangements, which often fail to take into account the living costs of the non-resident parent. These are parents who are trying to engage with their children and do the right thing, but who are left to live on as little as £30 a week. What are Ministers doing to deal with this unfairness?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I assure him that we are working very hard on reform of the maintenance system, which still fails to support around half of all children in separated families. He talked about cases in which both parents want to stay involved in their children’s upbringing; he and I share that objective, and I hope that he will continue to support the reforms that we are taking forward, which will provide far more family support to enable that to happen.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

T3. What advice can the Minister give the 3,259 people in St Helens who have been told to downsize their home, despite the fact that on existing turnover it will take five and a half years for them to do so while, in the meantime, losing their benefit? What advice would he give those constituents?

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to social housing over-occupation. If people are in a particularly difficult situation, local authorities have been given an enhanced amount of discretionary housing payment to help them make that transition. It is vital that we tackle 1 million empty bedrooms in social housing.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Going back to the issue of testing the disability living allowance, will the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) reassure the House that testing will be localised, humane and fair?

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I pay tribute to him for all the work he does to make sure that things are right as we reform the benefits system. I can absolutely assure him that we will look at ensuring that the new face-to-face assessment is done in a fair manner, and we are going out to commercial contracting on that.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

T5. During the recent Westminster Hall debate on the future of Remploy, I was pleased to be able to tell the Minister that at the Wythenshawe print factory sales continue to increase while operating costs are falling. What action has she taken since then to procure additional print work for the factory from Government Departments and agencies, and when does she expect to be able to confirm that the factory will remain open?

[Maria Miller]

That was an important and useful debate to ensure that the work that we are doing in government is made clear. I have asked officials to look at the situation that he raised regarding Wythenshawe to make sure that the appropriate sales teams are in place. He asked when we are going to talk about our long-term decisions, and I can assure him that we will respond on that as soon as is practicable. We are in year four of a five-year plan, and it is important that we have those new plans in place.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

I was pleased that the Minister affirmed her commitment to residential training colleges, including the college of the Royal National Institute of Blind People in my constituency. She may be aware of recently published figures from the Select Committee on Work and Pensions showing that 1,000 people who have suffered sight loss are still looking for opportunities to be helped back into work. Does she agree that those colleges provide a valuable opportunity to help those people find employment?

[Maria Miller]

I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend does to support her local residential training college. I absolutely agree that colleges such as the one in her constituency have a valuable role to play, particularly to offer specialist advice and support. I hope that the commitment that I have given the colleges to ensure provision through to the summer of 2013 will help them to plan for a future in which we focus more on individuals than on institutions.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

T6. Recent reports have shown that more than £3 billion of pension charges are hidden from consumers. Will the Minister tell us what the Government plan to do to make it possible for pension fund trustees and consumers to compare charges between pension funds?

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that charges are a crucial issue, so we are working with the National Association of Pension Funds and others who have undertaken an industry-led initiative to make charges information-transparent and consistent, and we are pleased to support them in that.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

May I assure the Secretary of State that a great many of my constituents object strongly to paying through their taxes for people to get more in benefits than they can get on a working wage, or to live in property far beyond anything that they could afford on their wage? It is important that we get the transition right, but the principles are sound.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. It is remarkable that there is overwhelming support. Yes, he is right about making sure that we get the transition right, but the principle behind this and its application are vital. I simply cannot understand why the Opposition snigger and wriggle on this issue, failing to do what is right, and failing to do what is proper or to face up to their responsibilities.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

T7. The disability advocacy group Black Triangle has said that 11 disabled people have committed suicide in circumstances in which the coroner said that it was as a result of assessments as part of the work capability assessment. Is that figure right? Can the Minister advise whether he has looked into what legal liability the Government may have and, in particular, whether there is exposure under the corporate manslaughter legislation?

[Chris Grayling]

It is always a matter of regret when any person on benefits or indeed any person at all commits suicide. We always look carefully at reports that suggest any link between anything we do and people finding themselves in such a position. Let us be clear: the principle of trying to help back into work people who have been on benefits long-term is very important in supporting people who have mental health problems. If we do not reassess people, we will never be able to identify those who can benefit from that help.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Average earnings in my constituency, Stourbridge, are £23,700 a year, on which there is a tax liability of some £5,000. Does my right hon. Friend agree that to oppose or to equivocate on the policy of a cap on benefits is an outrageous insult to all hard-working people in this country?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The cap is fair and popular, and it helps to put right the welfare system that we inherited, which is in a mess and is trapping people in dependency when we could free them. My hon. Friend is right that the Opposition position is ludicrous. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) has taken more different positions on the issue than a Jane Fonda work-out.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Jim Cunningham, not necessarily on the subject of work-outs, but on whatever appeals to him.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

May I ask the Minister whether employers can still take a pensions contributions holiday and, if so, how many?

[Steve Webb]

Where employers run defined benefits pension schemes, if they are in deficit and have a recovery plan agreed with the Pensions Regulator, there is no obligation on them to overfund above 100%, and there are Inland Revenue rules that affect surpluses, which are still in place.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those well-intentioned but misguided individuals who oppose the introduction of a benefits cap are in serious danger of killing with kindness the very people they seek to help, by condemning them to a lifetime of benefits dependency and worklessness, which the benefits cap will seek to reverse?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I fully understand those who on every principle and in every regard oppose the cap, but I cannot understand those who say they are in favour of it and then vote against it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues. There is a great deal of interest, but we must now move on.

Petition

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

The petition is from the governors, parents, teachers and community of Downhills primary school in Tottenham.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Tottenham,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that there has been inadequate consultation about the Secretary of State for Education’s plans to close Downhills Primary School and re-open it as an academy; that the Petitioners value the links with the community that the school has maintained over the last 100 years; that the Petitioners believe that the Secretary of State’s plans are undemocratic and undermine the recent progress that has been made towards improving standards at the school and that the Petitioners oppose any attempts to change the status of the school without the consent of the community.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Education not to exercise his powers to close Downhills Primary School and re-open it as an academy.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P000998]

Executive Pay

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

15:32

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): Will the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills make a statement on the Government’s proposals on executive remuneration?

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

I welcome this opportunity to set out Government proposals on executive pay. Last September I published papers that explored the issues around the rapid growth in executive pay in our largest listed companies, and embarked on a call for evidence.

The evidence is clear that business and investors recognise that there is a disconnect between top pay and company performance, and that something must be done. We cannot continue to see chief executives’ pay rising at 13% a year while the performance of companies on the stock exchange languishes well behind, and we cannot accept top pay rising at five times the rate of average workers’ pay, as it did last year. It is not Government’s role to micro-manage company pay, but there are things we can do to address what is a clear market failure.

Today I can announce a package of measures that the Government will take forward to tackle the issue on four fronts: greater transparency, so that what people are paid is clear and easily understood; more shareholder powers, such as the introduction of binding votes, so that shareholders can hold companies to account; more diverse boards and remuneration committees; and best practice led by the business and investor community. No proposal on its own is a magic bullet, but together they can enable a major transformation to get under way.

Let me start with transparency. Shareholders have told us that they need clearer and more relevant information about pay, particularly the link to performance. At present many company pay reports are simply impenetrable. Through secondary legislation later this year the Government will require companies to publish more informative remuneration reports on how executives are rewarded. This will start with reports being split into two sections: one detailing proposed future policy for executive pay, and the other setting out how pay policy has been implemented in the previous year.

On future policy, remuneration committees will be expected to explain why they have used specific benchmarks and how they have taken into account employee earnings, including pay differentials, when setting pay. Companies will also have to explain how they have consulted employees and taken their views into account. UK employees in large companies already have the right to request that their employers consult them on issues relating to the organisation, including pay, through the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004. This potentially powerful mechanism for employees has been underutilised to date, so I encourage employees to use it and put executive pay on the agenda.

Shareholders say that pay policy too often appears totally disconnected from their company’s overall strategy. I want companies to state clearly and succinctly how their proposed pay policy reflects and supports company strategy, how performance will be assessed and how it will translate into rewards under different scenarios. In the backwards-looking section of the report, companies will have to provide a single figure for total pay for each director and explain how pay awards relate to the company’s performance. To provide context, companies will be mandated to produce a distribution statement outlining how executive pay compares with other disbursals, such as dividends, business investment, taxation and general staffing costs.

Alongside more information, shareholders need new powers to hold the board to account. I will consult shortly on specific proposals to reform the current voting arrangements and give shareholders a binding vote, enabling them to exert more pressure on boards. This will include a binding vote on future pay policy, including details of how performance will be judged and real numbers on the potential payouts directors could receive. Companies will have to include a statement on how they have taken into account shareholder views and the results of previous votes.

There will also be a binding vote on any director’s notice period longer than one year and on exit payments of more than one year’s salary. Shareholders will still get a vote on how the agreed policy has been implemented. I will consider whether we need further sanctions that could be applied when a significant number of shareholders dissented in the advisory vote. In addition, we will review what level of shareholder support is needed to pass pay proposals—for example, whether the threshold for a successful vote should be raised to 75% of share votes cast. By way of context, last year four FTSE 100 companies failed that test.

Let me move on to diversity in remuneration committees. Having diverse remuneration committee membership is crucial to changing the status quo on executive pay. The right way to tackle this is by having more diverse boards. I want to see more people who come from different backgrounds appointed, including people from the professions, public servants, academics, lawyers, and people who have not been directors before. For example, I would like at least two board members to have never previously been members of a board of directors.

In October a new provision in the UK corporate governance code will come into force requiring companies to report on their policy on boardroom diversity, how they propose to deliver it and what progress has been made. That sits alongside a new code of conduct for executive head-hunters and good practice guidance from the Association of British Insurers on the importance of board diversity, board evaluation and succession planning. The Government will also address fundamental conflicts of interest in the pay-setting process and require greater transparency on the role of remuneration consultants, how they are appointed, their fees, and who they advise and report to.

We have also observed that in the FTSE 350 about 6% of remuneration committee members are executives of other companies. There is a perceived conflict, as those individuals have a personal interest in maintaining the status quo in pay-setting culture and in pay levels, and we are looking at mechanisms to limit that.

In the context of such changes, we must deal with the specific issue of payments for failure. Some of our consultees have argued that all quoted companies, not just those in financial services, should have a clawback mechanism in place, and we will ask the Financial Reporting Council to revise the corporate governance code in order to require all large public companies to adopt clawbacks.

In relation to best practice, this package of measures will create a more robust framework within which executive pay is set and agreed. Moreover, lasting reform depends on active shareholders and responsible businesses accepting the need for change and pushing the agenda forward.

Deborah Hargreaves, who chairs the High Pay Commission, will launch a new project next week to monitor the state of pay at the top. The high pay centre will perform an important role in delivering the high-quality research that this area of debate badly needs. Companies have to show leadership on this issue, and in the following weeks and months I will be working with business and investor groups to build on the current momentum for reform, to agree on what best practice looks like, and to promote that more widely.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extraordinarily grateful—[Interruption.] Order. I am extraordinary grateful to the Secretary of State, but I have been immensely—perhaps excessively—generous, because the right hon. Gentleman took precisely three times as long as he is supposed to take in answering an urgent question. I know he will understand—I listened to him with great interest and respect—that I must make allowance for that with regard to the Opposition Front Bencher’s response, but above all I make the point for the future that those on the Front Benches must stick to the limit, because my concern is to protect the rights of Back-Bench Members.

[Mr Umunna]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for forcing the Secretary of State to come to the House today to set out the Government’s proposals in this area—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) chunters from a sedentary position, but it is quite extraordinary for Ministers to demand greater accountability and transparency from people in business, and then to seek to avoid being held to account for their policies in that area in the House of Commons.

The problems of excessive executive pay and rewards for failure have grown over the past few decades; in fact it was probably 30 years ago, when the current Business Secretary was a happy and active member of the Labour party, that things were more in proportion. We agree that it is right that those who work hard, generate wealth and create jobs for our country are rewarded, but excessive pay and rewards for failure are bad for business, the economy and society at large.

I welcome much of what the Business Secretary says, but his proposals simply do not go far enough in promoting the transparency, accountability and fairness that people want to see. We support all the recommendations of the independent High Pay Commission, to which the Business Secretary referred, but why will he not do the same, particularly given that his Treasury spokesperson in the Lords is a member of the commission, and presumably supports its recommendations?

The Business Secretary and other Ministers have underlined the importance of consulting employees, so why will he not back moves for employees to sit on the remuneration committees that set pay? Employees play that type of role in Europe’s strongest economy, Germany, and on the board of one of our most successful businesses, John Lewis. We read that he would like to back the proposal but has been prevented from doing so by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. Can he confirm that?

The right hon. Gentleman said nothing about the publication of pay ratios within businesses. Why will he not agree to that proposal? If I am wrong, I am happy to be corrected. I agree with him on the need for greater clarity about the role of remuneration consultants. They currently owe their duty to the board, as I understand it. Does he agree that there is a case for changing the situation so that, much like auditors, they owe their duty to shareholders?

Above all, I do agree that increased shareholder activism is key. Two issues have been cited as obstacles: that more of our UK stock is held by foreign investors and that it is held for a shorter period. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that need not be an insurmountable barrier to increased shareholder activism?

Finally, on shareholder activism, the Business Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers who ultimately bear responsibility and control the public stake in the banks—RBS, in particular—have said that they are in a position to stop the chief executive of that bank receiving a large bonus while he is issuing thousands of redundancy notices to RBS employees. How and when will that happen? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is acceptable for the chief executive of RBS to take a bonus of the order of £1 million when thousands of company employees are being made redundant?

[Vince Cable]

I start by acknowledging that the issue is, as some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions implied, complex. The best way to proceed with it for the country is to have an all-party consensus. The contributions made in recent weeks by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have contributed in a very positive way towards that, and we can make some progress on that. I contrast that slightly with the hon. Gentleman’s somewhat carping response. I believe that today he put out a press release describing as “half-baked” proposals that he had not seen; he did not know what was coming. That was not terribly clever.

The hon. Gentleman’s central criticism was that we had not gone far enough. Let me reflect on what that means. We have emerged from 12 years of Labour government, when many of the issues could have been dealt with. That period of government started with something called the “prawn cocktail offensive”, which led to my immediate Labour predecessor saying that he was “intensely relaxed about people being filthy rich”. Those were the standards that we inherited. I remind the hon. Gentleman about what happened in that period of government. At the beginning, chief executives’ pay was 47 times average pay; at the end, it was 120 times average pay. That is the problem that we are now trying to correct. Before the hon. Gentleman lectures me any further on not going far enough, he should reflect on why so little was done when his party had the power to do it.

Let me respond specifically to the point about workers on boards. It would be very desirable if there were more workers on boards. The initiatives being promoted in respect of encouraging John Lewis-type arrangements, which by definition will get workers on boards, will take that further. We welcome worker participation in industry; that is one of the reasons why my ministerial colleague, in conducting the Royal Mail legislation through Parliament, laid such insistence on worker shareholding and giving workers a right to participate. But there is a specific set of problems around mandating companies to have workers on their boards. Consider the position of the large number of FTSE companies whose employees are predominantly overseas. How would the work force be selected? Worker participation is a good idea for many companies, but let it be done without the prescriptive route, which would simply not work.

The same applies to pay ratios. There is a lot to be said for pay ratios; the hon. Gentleman may not have heard me, but I did advocate that kind of metric as a way of assessing what is happening. But if he had reflected for a few minutes, he would have seen that there is a big difference between a company that, for example, has a large number of unskilled workers, and another company that has outsourced a lot of its unskilled labour force, producing totally meaningless figures in respect of ratios. So we welcome pay ratios, but they should not be mandated and prescribed.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the High Pay Commission, which has done excellent work; I referred to it during my contribution. I checked back on its 12 recommendations, and we are implementing 10 of them in practice or in spirit. Of the remaining two, one—about employees on boards—I have already referred to. The other was a very specific recommendation on the structure of pay, which we judged to be impractical.

On RBS, let me just say that that matter is above my pay grade. The Prime Minister has said that he will ensure that it is dealt with properly. I am sure that it will be, and that there will not be excessive bonuses.

To return to my first point, we can make progress in this important area on an all-party basis. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to revert to his usual more constructive and moderate approach, and to work with us to achieve far-reaching and overdue reforms.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I welcome anything that recognises that it is the role of shareholders and competitive markets to decide pay in companies. With that in mind, let us consider what happens where the Government are the shareholder. Will the Secretary of State remind us what deal the Labour Government signed up to for RBS top executives, explain why it was so far in excess of the dreadful results that have been delivered in public ownership, and say what this Government can do to put that right?

[Vince Cable]

My right hon. Friend is right to stress the central role of shareholders and to remind us about the conditions according to which the head of RBS was appointed and the contract negotiated. Of course, the problem is not just with pay; we are now also having to consider the problem of knighthoods that were awarded for appalling behaviour in British banking.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

A lot of what the Secretary of State has said will have cross-party support. The Government are backing employee share ownership, the logical outcome of which is employees on the board. In view of that, and his rejection of the automatic right of employees to be on the board, for the sole reason that a lot of companies have foreign employees, is the Secretary of State really trying to address this issue and to find a way through? Although it may be difficult in practice, it is very good in principle.

[Vince Cable]

There is no logic to suggest an automatic carry-over from worker shares to representatives on boards. Those are separate issues. I simply urge the hon. Gentleman to look back on my comment about the use of information and consultation arrangements. There is a regulation that came from the European Union— one of its better ones—back in 2005, which employees in many companies could use to engage directly in conversations with their management about their pay. Far too few people have taken advantage of that. I hope that he and others will encourage them to do so.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State, who, after 13 years of a Labour Government who did nothing about this issue, has persuaded our Conservative colleagues that this is the right policy for the new century. I urge him to continue to be robust and to suggest that each individual company should have a policy that reflects the differential between the highest and the lowest-paid, according to the make-up of its own work force.

[Vince Cable]

Again, I do not want to be too negative. One of my Labour predecessors, Patricia Hewitt, advanced the issue by introducing advisory votes. That was a step forward but it was not enough, and we have to go further. However, that step was usefully taken. My right hon. Friend asked specifically about pay ratios. I have said that those are useful metrics, and that we should encourage their use. However, companies have very different structures, and pay ratios mean different things. Therefore, mandating them is a different matter.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is generally undesirable for public companies to pay more out in bonuses, particularly to their senior staff, than in dividends, especially as dividends are often paid out to pension funds, which include many members of the public on low incomes?

[Vince Cable]

Yes, my hon. Friend is correct. That is why one element of transparency that we have advocated is a breakdown of the different streams of payment by companies, which include payments to shareholders, payments to employees and other costs.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that context, as well as contracts, matters? Whatever it says in the contracts of the top people in the banks in which the Government have a major stake, the context is pay freezes for millions of workers and the biggest squeeze in living standards since the war. Will he therefore resist the temptation to rely on the defence advocated by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) about contracts and agree that there is nothing to stop bankers exercising restraint, given the economic context?

[Vince Cable]

Across the coalition, we have been very clear that we expect restraint. In some cases that has been accepted: the head of Lloyds, for example, has waived his bonus for this year. We should not trivialise the issue of contracts, which is a serious matter involving how business is conducted.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Whatever happened to the phrase, “We’re all in it together”? I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said. He talked about “we”. Does he mean himself and the Liberals, or does he mean the whole Government? The truth is that the workers will carry the can, and the bankers and executives who have got their 50% pay increases will get away with blue murder.

[Vince Cable]

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) reminded us, we are dealing with a legacy in which precisely the failings that he described were allowed to happen over a long period. We are trying to put that right. Addressing executive pay is only one means by which we deal with the fundamental injustices and inequalities in society. There are many other issues, including tax and regulation. However, this proposal will make a significant difference.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The Secretary of State mentioned ending the rewarding of failure. Has he consulted business people? Many of those to whom I speak believe that over the past few years far too many politicians have themselves been rewarded for failure, which has brought our economy down from the seventh to the eighth largest in the world. Does he accept that the vice of greed should not be replaced with the vice of envy?

[Vince Cable]

I do agree with that. Of course, it is essential, in a successful economy, and particularly a successful private enterprise sector, that enterprise, entrepreneurship and good management should be properly rewarded. The issue is not envy but performance.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State acknowledged that he gave a fairly lame answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) about worker representation on boards. Will he now try to give a proper answer on why the Government could not end the cosy closed shop on remuneration committees by legislating for worker representation?

[Vince Cable]

Ending the cosy closed shop on remuneration committees involves wider diversity in general. Workers are part of that, but so are consumers and people who have no other connection with the company. Diversity is a much wider concept. At the moment we are promoting the idea of women on boards. I gave a considered answer to the question about workers on boards. We must remember that other issues are involved. For example, different companies have different types of labour force spread across the world. There is also the question of how to ensure that a worker representative accepts the full legal responsibilities of a director. If the hon. Gentleman looked at what those legal responsibilities are, he would find that it is not practical to employ that approach.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Incentives and rewards are fundamental to the private sector growth that we are all keen to ensure. Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is sometimes hard to distinguish between performance and failure, and that certain companies facing extremely difficult trading conditions might have to hang on to an executive through the incentive of high pay?

[Vince Cable]

Yes, and that is why operational decisions must remain with the company so that it can make a judgment on the matter. Through these recommendations we are trying to ensure that investors are properly informed, and we are, through transparency, giving them the power to make the judgment that the hon. Lady described, and act accordingly.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State accept, as a number of his Back Benchers do not, that this is fundamentally a question about what type of society we want to be, and that when we see executives being paid 75 times more than the lowest-paid people in the company, that is not about economic efficiency or incentives, but immorality?

[Vince Cable]

Yes, this is about different types of society, but of course there are many wider issues than the remuneration policies of public listed companies and many aspects of fairness and inequality. I simply make the point that many other private enterprise economies —Germany, the Scandinavian countries, Japan—have a much more disciplined approach to executive pay than has been the case in the UK, and many of their companies do very well commercially.

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

The Secretary of State will be aware of the book “The Spirit Level”, which suggests that the most successful economies and societies are those in which the gap between the richest and the poorest is the narrowest. Does he believe that the announcements that he has made today will widen or narrow that gap?

[Vince Cable]

They will certainly narrow it, in contrast with the trend over the past decade that was identified in a recent OECD survey. It showed that almost uniquely in the developed world, the big disparities between the top and bottom are widening in Britain. Today’s announcement is one key element in rectifying that adverse trend, which we have seen particularly in the past decade.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State said that the decisions about RBS top pay were above his pay grade, but unlike the workers, he is on the board of the Government, namely the Cabinet. Will Ministers set a good example and control Stephen Hester’s bonus?

[Vince Cable]

Ministers have already made it very clear that bonus restraint should be employed in that company.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcements today, especially those on transparency and increasing shareholder power. Does he agree that the fundamental principle must be that executive pay reflects company performance? That is a principle that the 107 bankers suing Commerzbank for £1.6 million in bonuses next week would do well to remember.

[Vince Cable]

Yes, the theme of what I have been saying today has been the link between pay and performance, and as my hon. Friend knows, there are specific problems in the banking sector, not least because until the Vickers report is implemented we still have a “too big to fail” problem and an implicit Government guarantee. That is why rather stricter provisions have to apply in the sector.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State really want us to believe that those who get vast salaries, bonuses and share options and probably earn well over £1 million a year are now terrified as a result of what he has said today? The truth is, that it does not really amount to much, does it?

[Vince Cable]

I do not expect them to be terrified, but I do expect them to think a little more carefully about their wider responsibilities.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I have heard some drivel in my time, but I do not think that in all my years in opposition did hear as much drivel from the Treasury Bench as I heard from the Secretary of State today. Businesses look to his Department for support and help. May I suggest that he gets off their backs and lets them create some wealth, and that he spends his time in his Department trying to sort out the massive problems of their own that the Government face without interfering in every business across the country?

[Vince Cable]

May I just gently suggest that my hon. Friend reads through the responses to the consultation, which are predominantly from businesses and investors advocating measures such the ones we are implementing? He might particularly want to examine the contribution of the CBI.

[Mr Speaker]

It is interesting to note that the shyness and reticence that previously overcame the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) have now been successfully overcome.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

A few moments ago, the Secretary of State told us that he would consider it desirable to see more employees represented on boards, but then he told us about what he considered to be insurmountable obstacles. If Germany, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark can do it, why cannot we?

[Vince Cable]

I have dealt with this question several times already. I am aware that those countries—[Interruption.] Yes, of course those countries have a different system that results in workers on boards, but of course that does not happen in isolation. They have completely different systems of corporate governance.

Since the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) reminded me of my days in his party, I shall say that one of the last things that I tried to do under the 1979 Government, when I was working with John Smith, was introduce a co-determination system, but alas that Government showed very little interest in implementing it.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

As shareholders already have the power to vote out of office directors who they believe are underperforming, why is there a need for any further measures that will serve only to undermine the competitiveness of British business?

[Vince Cable]

As I have already explained to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), the consensus view among business and investors is that the status quo is not supportable and is leading to damaging and perverse rewards, including rewards for failure, and that we need to reform the system comprehensively.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

May I remind Government Members that they agreed with Labour for 13 years about releasing details of chief executives’ pay? Will the Secretary of State take retrospective action against any companies that try to get through the barriers before the changes come into operation?

[Vince Cable]

In general, retrospective legislation is not a good thing, but I will look at the implications of the question.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

As we have heard, some hon. Members argue that nothing should be done to put at risk a light-touch, risk-based regulatory regime. In my right hon. Friend’s attempts to achieve cross-party consensus on the matter, how does he hope to persuade the shadow Chancellor to abandon that position?

[Vince Cable]

I was not aware of the shadow Chancellor’s wisdom on that particular subject, but his party leader has spoken constructively and I hope that that will lead to agreement between our parties on how we can proceed.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State still believe that all bankers paid more than the Prime Minister should publish details of their remuneration, as he believed when he was in opposition?

[Vince Cable]

I am surprised that Labour Members keep reminding us about bankers’ pay. Bankers’ bonuses in 2008-09, when the Labour party was still in government, were something of the order of £13 billion. They have now come down to about a quarter of that.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

How does the Secretary of State think that his plans will help attract inward investment and so aid growth?

[Vince Cable]

I think they will help considerably. Many of the countries from which we attract inward investment have good corporate governance systems, in which there is considerable restraint on excessive pay, and reward for success rather than failure.

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State will know that youth unemployment now stands at more than 1 million. Why will not the Government repeat the bankers’ bonus tax, which could create up to 100,000 jobs for young people?

[Vince Cable]

This argument has been rehearsed many times. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who introduced the bonus tax, made it clear that it was a one-off measure and that, if it were continued, banks would simply avoid it by converting bonuses into consolidated pay. It was a good idea at the time. It worked for a year, and we now have a much more effective and credible way of taxing banks.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Rewards for failure: the old boss at ITV, where I used to be the trade union representative, slashed jobs, made a succession of poor business decisions and brought the company to its knees while picking up millions in pay, perks, bonuses and share options. Is my right hon. Friend surprised that the Leader of the Opposition has rewarded that failure with a key role in restructuring the Labour party?

[Vince Cable]

I have not followed those developments, but perhaps I should retract some of the complimentary things I said about the Leader of the Opposition.

[Mr Speaker]

I remind the Secretary of State that he has absolutely no responsibility for restructuring the Labour party.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Here is another opportunity for the Secretary of State to clarify his views on RBS bonuses. The share price has collapsed by 35% in the past year, so will he use any powers he has to block any bonus for the chief executive, or has he really surrendered those powers to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, who simply do not agree with him that the bonus must be stopped?

[Vince Cable]

I have heard at least three different sets of recommendations on RBS bonuses, including that they should be reduced and that they should be stopped altogether. If we get a coherent, single source of advice, perhaps I can respond better to it.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State think that it is more important to have a board with diversity or a board with competence, which looks after the shareholders, the workers and the company?

[Vince Cable]

I do not accept that there is a dichotomy between diversity and performance. All the evidence suggests that particularly the drive to get more women on boards has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with improving performance.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

A few months ago the Secretary of State said that the Government could intervene to stop bankers’ bonuses if they so wished. Does he stand by that? If he does, why is he not dealing with the RBS situation?

[Vince Cable]

I remind Opposition Members that the semi-publicly owned banks, including RBS, are managed on an arm’s length basis under an arrangement devised by the previous Labour Government. This Government have made it clear that we expect restraint in bonuses in the banking system and in RBS in particular, and we will see what happens.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that proposals to tackle excessive pay are just part of the Government’s plans to reconnect the principles of risk-taking, success, hard work and rewards in both the private and the public sector?

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, although we have of course already introduced principles governing remuneration in the public sector, including greater transparency, ratios and things of that kind. We are now extending those into the private sector where it is appropriate to do so, while recognising, as he implied, that in the private sector we need also to give incentives to entrepreneurship and good management.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State mentioned that he was not accepting the High Pay Commission recommendation to publish the ratio between the highest and the average earners in a company because it was too complex. Will he expand on that please?

[Vince Cable]

That was not the recommendation to which I referred. The commission also made a specific recommendation about a double number between salary and top-up to salary. For a variety of reasons, we do not feel that being quite so prescriptive is appropriate, but that was the recommendation to which I referred and which we were not able to take forward.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the state should not control private sector pay, but empower shareholders with the information they need so that they can be active and committed company owners?

[Vince Cable]

That is a pithy summary of what I was trying to say, on which, as Mr Speaker ruled, I took rather too long.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Apparently, the chief executive of Peacocks took a hefty pay increase just last year when clearly his company must already have been failing. I am sure that all workers facing redundancy from Peacocks would like to know how the Secretary of State’s proposals might assist people in their position in future.

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Lady refers specifically to Peacocks, on which I have been approached by several concerned elected representatives. Having looked at the facts, the Government do not judge that there are any grounds for intervention in the wider public interest, but I have great sympathy for the employees, who are in a very bad position because of bad decisions made in the past by their management.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an important role for lawyers to big City firms and large plcs in advising their clients on best practice when drawing up arrangements for contracts and bonuses?

[Vince Cable]

In mentioning diversity, I think I included lawyers, improbable as that may seem. There is probably a dissenting view on the Opposition Front Bench.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State accept the finding of the High Pay Commission that in the year to last autumn—on his watch—the pay of FTSE 100 directors increased by 49%, whereas average incomes rose by only 2.7%? Does that not make the case for a permanent body on high pay to ensure that companies reflect the social obligations that they owe to all of us?

[Vince Cable]

As I understand it, the commission is in the process of encouraging the establishment of a monitoring body of that kind. That is not governmental or Government financed, but it would be a very useful institution in helping us to understand the trends.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that crony corporatism, high taxes and high regulation are as unjust, if not more so, than some of the problems he has set out today? Will he pay as much attention to dealing with those things as he is to dealing with the issues he set out?

[Vince Cable]

I am not terribly comfortable with the phrase “crony corporatism”, but my hon. Friend refers specifically to directors serving on each other’s boards. We have looked at the facts on that. There are few examples of reciprocal agreements, but there are cases— 50 out of 1,000 or something of that order—in which directors serve on the board of another company. We are looking at how we can limit that, because it creates a somewhat more incestuous environment and lacks the diversity we are seeking.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is often not the management or those in executive roles who get the highest pay packages, particularly in the financial sector. For example, I have heard a rumour that at least one of the traders at RBS is going to get a higher bonus than Stephen Hester. Will the Minister tell us whether his proposals, particularly on transparency, will cover traders too?

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Lady is quite right: there is a different pay structure in investment banks, because of the problems that she describes. The Chancellor has already initiated action, in the form of a proposed regulation through the Financial Services Authority which will require financial institutions to declare the highest pay of employees who are not on the boards of those companies.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Secretary of State must be extremely happy. The liberal, left-wing clap-trap that he has announced today—which even Labour did not do, in 13 years—has somehow got through the coalition in the hope of a good headline. It has done nothing to increase growth or employment in this country. Is he a happy man?

[Vince Cable]

I am actually. I realise that when I first raised the issue of responsible capitalism 18 months ago, I was denounced in parts of the press as a Marxist. I thought I had left that behind, but apparently not.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I am sure that my constituents will be absolutely delighted with the arrangements for more transparency and, in particular, increased shareholder power. I wonder whether the Secretary of State will consider the fact that Somerset county council has imposed a pay freeze and is making people redundant—indeed, it sends me a Christmas card, at the same time as it is shutting libraries and slashing youth services—and is now considering abandoning youth carers, to save a paltry £70,000. Will he consider applying exactly the same principles of transparency and shareholder power—or in this case taxpayer power—to councils and their pay and bonuses arrangements for senior management?

[Vince Cable]

Mercifully, I am not responsible for local government, but there are certainly moves afoot, which my hon. Friend is aware of, to ensure much greater transparency in pay. Will Hutton prepared a report for Government with some good recommendations, which include those she mentioned.

Points of Order

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

16:17

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, on Friday a consultation paper was introduced that is intended to lead to legislation creating a statutory register of lobbyists. That was trailed in the press like confetti, across the media. It was accompanied on Friday by a brief written statement and nothing else. This is such an important issue that the Prime Minister himself has said that it is the next big scandal in British politics. Should not Friday’s statement be accompanied by an oral statement, and has the Deputy Prime Minister contacted you to indicate that he wishes to come here to make a statement?

[Mr Speaker]

I have not been contacted in the way that the hon. Gentleman expected or would have advised. What I would say to him is twofold. First, the form of Government statements is overwhelmingly a matter for Government to determine. The hon. Gentleman rightly references the fact that although the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) tabled a written ministerial statement on this subject on Friday, there has been no subsequent oral statement. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman, secondly, is that my understanding of the matter is that the Government have launched a consultation process. It is an extremely important consultation process, on what, as he rightly says, is an extremely important matter, but that is the stage that we have reached. If, following the consultation process, the Government have specific policy changes to recommend, I feel certain that they will do so via an oral statement to the House; and, knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do—we entered the House together in 1997—I know that he will be eagerly expecting such an oral statement and will probably be the first in the queue to complain if it is not forthcoming.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following the weekend reports that the Houses of Parliament may be slipping into the River Thames, will you give a statement to the House, just so that we know whether or not to buy ourselves lifejackets?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, in particular for his concern for all those who work, or even live, within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. I have known him for over 20 years, and I have never regarded him as an inveterate worrier. As he can see, I am not worried. He should not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers, or in those even more downmarket rags that in so describing themselves are almost certainly breaching the Trade Descriptions Act. Getting overexcited is their stock-in-trade; keeping calm and doing the right thing is ours.

Opposition Day

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Un-allotted Day]

Food Prices and Food Poverty

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

In the light of the increased interest that has been expressed in participating in this debate, I have decided to impose an eight-minute limit on each Back-Bench speech. For the benefit of the shadow Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) —and the Secretary of State, I remind them that there is no time limit on Front-Bench speeches, but I hope that they will apply a certain self-denying ordinance in order to enable more of their colleagues to contribute than would otherwise be possible.

16:20

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes that food prices rose by more than 4 per cent. over the last year and that an increasing number of families are relying on foodbanks; is dismayed at Government delays to the Groceries Code Adjudicator and that it has rejected recommendations by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to give it teeth; believes that the Adjudicator should have the power to fine retailers and that third party organisations should be able to report retailers for unfair practices; calls on the Government to bring forward proposals for the Groceries Code Adjudicator early in the next Parliament to ensure fairness across the food supply chain; and further calls on the Government to work with the retail sector to provide more responsible, transparent price promotions and clearer unit pricing to offer genuine value-for-money for consumers.

I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will do their best to abide by your strictures, Mr Speaker.

On Friday, I visited a food bank in Bradford and met people who use its services. One woman had fled her violent husband when she was eight months pregnant. Another had left her husband but discovered that he had set up loans in their joint names for which she was still liable. There were women there who had held down high-powered jobs—one had been the personal assistant to the chief executive of a large bank in Canary Wharf—but, through a combination of bad decisions, bad luck and bad men, they had fallen on hard times.

One of the women apologised for not following politics, but said that she could not afford a television licence. Another described how she had found herself shouting at her children when they asked for a bit of jam on their bread, and how she visited relatives at teatime to ensure that her children were fed, while she herself went to bed hungry. Another described cooking tea for her children and eating their leftover food. One woman told me how, the first time she brought home a food parcel, she cried all night because she could not do something as basic as feed her own children.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

The hon. Lady has mentioned food banks, and we have a very good one in Harlow. Can she explain why the previous Government stopped jobcentres handing out vouchers for local food banks? This Government have reversed that terrible decision.

[Mary Creagh]

I do not know the answer to that question. I am not sure whether it is the role of jobcentres to pass people on. There is a question mark over whether it is appropriate for a Government agency dealing with people’s welfare and benefits to outsource the food element of that to charities, so I throw that question back to the Government.

I went with the centre manager, Gareth Jones, to make up a food parcel. It contained cereal, tins of beans, four tins of meat and four tins of fish—all nutritionally balanced by a health visitor who advises the centre. The hardest part for me was choosing the four treats. Would the children prefer a pot of honey or a treacle sponge pudding, meringue nests or another pot of jam? Those are treats that we all put into our shopping trolleys without a second thought.

Gareth told me that it was important to put in a mix of branded and non-branded goods, so that when people opened the bags at home, they would feel valued. He told me how he holds pampering sessions at which mums can enjoy a hot chocolate while someone minds their children for half an hour. He described how the type of person coming to the food bank had changed from the homeless and destitute to the working poor. He said that families were referred to it by charities, social services or even—as the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) said—the jobcentre. When the state does not provide, the big society is left to pick up the pieces.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Much has been made of the importance of food banks, but does my hon. Friend share my concern that the New Life church in Billingham in my constituency has felt the need to set up a food bank for the first time, to help local people who are struggling? I support the church in doing so, but I am sure that she would agree that these facilities should not be necessary. Is not this another illustration of this Government’s failure to address the needs of the most vulnerable people in our society, who need food to eat?

[Mary Creagh]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend and pay tribute to the church in his constituency. We are seeing a proliferation in the number of food banks around the country and one of our challenges to the Government is to ask them to map where those food banks are and what social and economic policies are needed to tackle the proliferation of them and hunger in our society.

The Trussell Trust states that it now has 163 food banks around the country, with one opening every week. Last year, its food banks fed 61,000 people, 20,000 of whom were children, and this year it expects that figure to double.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that in Oldham a food bank has been established for the first time? That was in the paper today. The vicar who set it up said that the banks are not just for homeless people but for hard-working families who are at crisis point. Reports by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and other organisations show that such problems exist up and down the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that the cuts and austerity are not working?

[Mary Creagh]

I agree and it all comes back to the social and economic failure of this Government. We are seeing these problems in places that were never hotspots for homelessness, such as Oldham. We associate them with our big cities and do not expect them in our smaller towns. There is a food bank in Wakefield now, whereas previously there was not one.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend might be aware of the campaign conducted by Sainsbury’s shortly before Christmas, where the company invited customers to buy an extra item with their shopping and pop it in a shopping basket so that it could be distributed to needy households. I was shocked when I attended my local Sainsbury’s to meet many people who said that they would like to help but could not afford to buy that extra item. Is not the idea that we can rely on charity to meet the need bound to be too limited?

[Mary Creagh]

I agree with my hon. Friend. If Sainsbury’s is inviting consumers to put their hands in their pockets, it should match that investment item for item, rather than simply adding it to its bottom line.

[Kate Green]

In fairness, I should say that Sainsbury’s matched every donation.

[Mary Creagh]

That is very good to hear.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Bridgend food bank covers four of the 10 most deprived wards in Wales, so the service it provides is critical. In its recent report, it said that the people who applied for food there did so because of

“low income or ill health…repossession of their home…job loss or desertion by the…breadwinner, or”

burglary,

“house fire or unexpected benefit cuts.”

People who go to food banks go for a variety of reasons, but is it not appalling that in 2012, when we are celebrating the Olympics and spending millions of pounds, people are still starving?

[Mary Creagh]

I agree. Charities such as the Salvation Army and HelpAge are seeing an explosion in demand as incomes fall, working hours are cut and prices rise.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I know that my hon. Friend, like me, comes from Coventry. Would she be surprised to learn that 35,000 children from Coventry and Warwickshire will now be on the poverty line, and does she think that that is an indictment of this Government’s failed policies? More importantly, many families are now struggling with electricity prices, heating bills and so on, which is feeding through—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Interventions must be brief, as we are in a short debate with time limits on speeches.

[Mary Creagh]

I am very sorry to hear that my home city of Coventry has 35,000 children living in poverty. I am sure the number was similar when I was growing up there in the 1970s and 1980s and I am only sorry that much of the good work we did in government is falling away and poverty is increasing.

FareShare, which operates nationwide and works to redistribute aid from the food industry to charities, says demand is growing faster than supply. I pay tribute to both Sainsbury’s and Brakes, which recycle their in-date surplus to FareShare. It is important that the food is in-date so that there is no risk associated with that food, which includes fresh vegetables and, in particular, meat. Supermarkets could be doing much more to recycle food waste to hungry people. FareShare estimates it gets 1% of supermarket food waste, which prompts the question of where the other 99% is going. More of it should be recycled to hungry children in this country, which is one of the richest on earth. We can learn from food businesses such as Pret A Manger, which delivers surplus sandwiches around its London stores in the evening. We recall with horror the Tory proposals from Westminster council last year, when it wanted to make food distribution illegal. I pay tribute to all those who fought that proposal and protected people’s basic human right to a square meal even in the city of Westminster.

Gareth said that food is at the heart of everything his organisation does, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) said, charities are tackling a complex web of abuse, abandonment by the breadwinner, debt, unemployment, non-payment of benefits and other equally serious issues such as house fires, which she mentioned.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is talking about the situation in the UK, but does she accept that rising food and commodity prices are an international phenomenon and that biofuels are taking out of production a lot of agricultural land, which means that food prices are rising not only in this country but around the world?

[Mary Creagh]

Commodity prices of certain things, such as wheat, have remained stable over the past 20 years, whereas others have risen. [Interruption.] Well, at the Oxford farming conference I saw the US Department of Agriculture’s figures on that. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that there is an issue with commodity pricing, particularly with the financialisation of that sector, which is leading to increased volatility, making it harder for food producers to hedge and putting on pressure. We can see from Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs figures that where we are self-sufficient we are more protected from those food price spikes than where we rely on imports, which have to have the costs of transporting those materials added on. Also, when our pound falls significantly against other world currencies that puts those prices up.

The people who food charities are seeing are no longer just the homeless and the drug and alcohol users but the respectable mums and dads who have fallen on hard times and the pensioners whose energy bills are so high that they cannot afford to eat. It is an utter disgrace that, although we are the seventh-richest country in the world, we are seeing thousands of people going to bed hungry at night—many of them children. We need to look this issue squarely in the face. A wave of invisible hunger is taking root in our cities, towns and villages. Those charities are the canaries down the mine telling us that respectable working-class and middle-class poverty is on the rise—and this is happening before the housing benefit changes and universal credit come in.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the work that Hull city council is doing to reduce the cost of a school meal to £1 in recognition of the increasing cost that families are having to meet, including those families just above the benefit level for free school meals?

[Mary Creagh]

I pay tribute to Hull’s Labour council for that, as well as for the work it did when we were in government on its free school meals pilot to make sure that children in Hull had access to a free school meal. I know that that experiment has been carried out by Islington council as well, and that it helps to ensure there is a wide take-up of free school meals and that no stigma is attached to them.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the free school meals pilot, which Newham is continuing for primary school children. It wanted to extend it to secondary school children but simply could not afford to do so. One thing that I heard from parents in that pilot was that school holidays were a particularly difficult time because their children were burning up a lot of energy but there simply was not the food or the money to feed those children properly during holiday time. Again, that is a hidden form of food poverty.

[Mary Creagh]

I pay tribute to Newham’s Labour council and I find it amazing that, at a time when councils are experiencing a 28% cut to their revenue, they are still managing to subsidise school meals or, as in Newham, to fund completely free meals. What a tragedy it is that that scheme cannot be extended to secondary schools there. I will return to the issue that my hon. Friend raises about school holidays.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend share my great concern that the removal of extended schools money means that many schools cannot afford to put on breakfast clubs? Many children who would previously have gone hungry if they had not got breakfast through a breakfast club are returning to a situation in which they do not have food in their stomachs, and so cannot learn and are not getting a healthy start to the day.

[Mary Creagh]

It is a tragedy that both breakfast clubs and after-school clubs are under threat. The chef Richard Corrigan did a film for Sky called “Richard Corrigan on Hunger” in which a lady who runs clubs that are provided for by a charitable provider, Magic Breakfasts, talks about children being admitted to hospital in the school holidays for malnutrition—that comes back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) about the challenge that school holidays pose for families’ food bills—and scurvy appearing in children of primary school age, which I find deeply shocking.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend’s speech. Does she accept that some of the problem is hidden, because really good, well-meaning staff at schools are finding ways of feeding children during the day? That is hiding some of the scale of the problem.

[Mary Creagh]

That is true, and I am glad that there are so many passionate teachers—and passionate friends and neighbours, who may suspect that all is not well. I remember people telling me, when I brought forward my Children’s Food Bill, that they would invite their neighbours and friends in for tea on a Saturday and make sure that the children had as much meat and fruit juice as they could get into them, because it became apparent from the way that they were eating that they had not been fed since Friday lunchtime. That point, from my constituency of Wakefield, has certainly stayed with me.

In addition, the Agricultural Wages Board is to be abolished. That is a particularly nasty Government decision that has nothing to do with the deficit, but will take £93 million from the sick pay and holiday pay of low-paid agricultural, horticultural and food processing workers over the next 10 years. That money will leach out of the rural economy, where those workers live—out of local pubs, post offices and shops—depressing the rural economy when spending is already squeezed. It costs more to live in the countryside, and the abolition of the AWB could mean that we have in this country food workers who are unable to buy the food that they produce. We know that those agricultural workers are the most socially excluded people in our country. They are often migrants who speak limited English. Their work is seasonal, short-term and low-skilled. They are not in a trade union, and they move from county to county, picking daffodils in Cornwall in February, and following the crop and fruit cycle across the country.

After the Morecambe bay tragedy in 2004, Labour created the Gangmasters Licensing Authority to regulate labour providers in the food processing and packing, and agricultural, horticultural, forestry and shellfish-gathering sectors. Our aim was to ensure that workers received a minimum wage, decent accommodation, safe transport, contracts and decent working conditions, yet the GLA’s latest annual report reveals that, in the year to March 2011, it uncovered more than 800 workers being exploited in the UK. It prosecuted 12 companies and revoked the licences of 33 gangmasters. In 2010, there were horrific reports of children as young as nine picking onions in a field near Worcester. While the Government, continuing with their red tape challenge, are deciding on the future powers of the GLA, we say: “We will work with you to stamp out modern-day slavery, people trafficking, and serious organised crime, wherever they occur in these sectors.”

In government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) brought stakeholders together to look at the risks to our food security, and the challenges of feeding a growing global population sustainably. The result was Food 2030, the first Government food strategy since world war two. Peter Kendall, president of the National Farmers Union, has described how that strategy has been left on the shelf, and has been relegated to

“a one-line objective in the business plan”

by the current Government. Labour gathered stakeholders together in September last year to look at that food strategy. We believe that we must not lose sight of the direction that it sets out, and we are pleased that the Government have set up their green food project, imitation being the sincerest form of flattery. We look forward to it reporting this summer.

In government, along with many hon. Friends who are seated behind me today, I campaigned for improvements to children’s diets through the Children’s Food Bill. That led to nutritionally balanced school dinners, an end to junk-food vending machines in schools, and lessons on cooking and growing food as part of key stage 3.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government’s cuts to Sure Start have made that problem worse, because much of that educational knowledge about what is good food to give to children has been lost?

[Mary Creagh]

I agree. Sure Start has been an amazing tool in the fight for good food in families, and for cooking lessons. The 20% cut imposed by the Government centrally can only make that more challenging for those dedicated workers.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Secretary of State for Education has decreed that free schools and academies do not have to meet the same nutritional standards in school meals as state schools?

[Mary Creagh]

Yes, it is slightly bizarre that that should be the case. I do not understand why, having battled so hard to secure minimum standards across the sector, the Secretary of State should think it acceptable to water them down, unless it is about saving money in pursuit of an ideological objective, but that could surely never be the Government’s intention.

I have mentioned “Richard Corrigan on Hunger” and the hospitalisation of children. People also talk in that programme about lunch boxes containing last night’s cold chips and ketchup. In government, we set up the School Food Trust, whose latest research shows that the average local authority-catered school dinner has gone up by 5p in the past year to £1.88 in primary schools, and by 4p to £1.98 in secondary schools. Councils are forced to charge more as their Government funding has been cut. We have heard today about councils that are doing their best to prioritise children’s nutrition. Those price rises could force parents to take their children out of school-meal provision and make do with a lunch box. If someone has three children who do not qualify for free school meals, £6 a day or £30 a week is an awful lot of money to find.

Food will be a defining issue for this century. The price spike in food commodities in 2008 showed that the era of cheap food may not be with us much longer. Increases in commodity prices—oil, fertiliser and pesticides—all contributed to year-on-year food price inflation of 6% last September: the second-highest increase in the EU, apart from Hungary. That 6% added £233 to the food bill of a family of two adults and two children. Food inflation, currently at 4%, remains higher than most pay rises that people will receive this year. As prices rise, people are eating less beef, lamb and fish, and more bacon. People are shopping around and trading down, and there is less supermarket loyalty. Figures from DEFRA reveal a 30% fall in the consumption of fresh fruit and veg by the poorest fifth of families since 2006. Those families are eating just 2.7 of their five-a-day fruit and veg.

We need a better understanding of what is driving up food prices, and how costs and risk are transferred across the supply chain. However, shopping is confusing and labels do not always show the true costs. Supermarkets are not required legally to show the unit cost on special offers, so they give the price pre-discount, which makes it impossible to compare prices on the shelf; or they give the price per unit of fruit, rather than by 100 grams, making comparisons impossible. We want supermarkets to be more transparent in their labelling to ensure that shoppers get the best deal. We want them to help people to eat healthily. Our traffic light system was rejected by significant players in the food industry, who have turned their back on what consumers want and need to make healthy choices.

We want a fair and competitive supply chain for growers, processors and retailers. The Competition Commission in 2008 found that there was an adverse effect on competition from unfair supply chain practices. It recommended that supermarkets with a turnover of more than £1 billion a year should be prevented from imposing retrospective discounts and from changing terms and conditions for suppliers. That leads to an unfair spread of risk and cost down the grocery supply chain, and to short-termism in relationships. [Interruption.] I thought I heard a phantom sedentary intervention, but that is not the case. We wanted a voluntary approach, but the supermarkets were unable to agree a way forward. That is why Labour in government secured cross-party agreement for a groceries code ombudsman to ensure a fair deal for farmers and producers. This Government’s delays and procrastination mean that the adjudicator will probably not be up and running until 2014-15.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I note that the motion expresses dismay at the Government’s delay, yet it asks for the groceries code adjudicator to be introduced in the next Parliament, rather than in the next parliamentary year, which I assume is a drafting error. Leaving that aside, given the fact that the first Competition Commission report was in 2000, and the Competition Commission report to which the hon. Lady refers was completed in 2008, what word other than “dismay” would she use to describe the Labour Government’s response to that report?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. May I remind everyone in the Chamber that the debate ends at 7 pm? There is already a time limit of eight minutes on Back-Bench speeches. Interventions should therefore be short, and I hope opening speeches will not be overly long.

[Mary Creagh]

I quote back to the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George):

“Every week the government fails to act, farmers are finding themselves in more difficulty.”

That is what he said. The supermarkets were insistent. We wanted an ombudsman. The supermarkets asked for a voluntary approach. It is right to try a voluntary approach first, which we did, but it did not work. This is the anti-regulation Government, but that approach failed. What we need now is action from his Government.

The commission recommended the powers to levy significant financial penalties, but the Government are recommending that only in reserve powers in the Bill, not on the face of the Bill, meaning that fines for anti-competitive practices are even further away than 2015. The Financial Times quoted an executive of a large supermarket chain saying that

“it is an adjudicator rather than an ombudsman, which suggests that it is a watered-down role.”

Suppliers can complain anonymously, but they are liable for full cost recovery if the adjudicator finds that the complaint was vexatious or wholly without merit. The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee recommended that whistleblowing from within retailers should also be grounds for launching an investigation, which BIS Ministers are currently considering.

Consider this anonymous salad grower who works with the Food and Drink Federation:

“X”—

the name of a supermarket—

“have expected us to support their current pricing campaign in store by contributing with reduced price returns, to maintain their margin demands. It has been made very clear that lack of support could be seen as showing no commitment to”—

the supermarket—

“and the potential loss of business, forcing us to drop our prices and support the activity. Interestingly none of this has been put in writing.”

This suggests anti-competitive practices across the sector. If there is bad treatment at the top of the pyramid, that sets the tone for treatment all the way down the food chain, right down to the workers in the field. What we want is culture change across the food industry.

[Mark Tami]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. In the case of many buy one, get one free offers, the cost is not borne by the supermarket. It puts pressure on the supplier, because the supermarket is saying, in effect, “Unless you fund this, we will move the contract somewhere else.” In the end, it is often the workers in that company who suffer.

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Such offers increase the volume of sales, but often reduce the margin. That places enormous capital and liquidity costs on small companies in order to fund that as they wait for the money to come in from the supermarket.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I cannot allow that to stand. As somebody who worked for a supermarket chain for 13 years, may I tell the hon. Lady that suppliers used to fall over themselves to come to retailers and ask to do buy one, get one free offers or three for the price of two offers, because it was a good marketing tool for them? When I worked for Asda, we used to ask them whether we could have every-day low prices instead of all those offers, but it was the suppliers who were pushing buy one, get one free offers. The idea that supermarkets are forcing them on them is just guff.

[Mary Creagh]

That is interesting. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have a range of suppliers who will appear in the press tomorrow to say that the groceries code adjudicator is not required. No doubt they will make their thoughts very clear through the Food and Drink Federation, which represents the sector. However, I will not hold my breath for that. I like shopping in Asda, but I am not sure that it represents the sunlit uplands that the hon. Gentleman remembers from his happy times working there.

We want the Government to act swiftly on the grocery ombudsman. That will lead to less pressure on suppliers and an end to unfair competition, and greater price transparency in the supermarket sector. We want supermarkets to commit to clearer price labelling, particularly on those buy one, get one free promotions. If they do not do so voluntarily, Government should act. We call on supermarkets to commit to sending their in-date food waste to charities such as FareShare, which will ensure that it goes to a good home. We want supermarkets to publish the amount of food they waste, and if they do not do so, the Government should take action in the next waste review. We want supermarkets to commit to recycling more of that food to hungry children and less to landfill.

We call on DEFRA Ministers to work with stakeholders to define food poverty, identify the extent and scale of the problem and commit to tackling it. We have heard about the extent of the problem today and the obscenity of food being wasted while people are going hungry in our towns and cities, but anecdotes are not evidence. We ignore the perfect storm of rising food prices, falling incomes and food poverty at our peril.

16:50

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

Let me start by welcoming the opportunity to debate this important matter. World food prices are volatile and the Government should do all they can to help families, but if we are to have a grown-up debate we need to start by acknowledging what the Government can and cannot do. Contrary to the rather Dickensian impression the hon. Lady seeks to convey, food price increases are not a direct result of the Government’s political composition, and a Government cannot be held responsible for what the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) cited: the abandonment of families by the main breadwinner, the misfortune of a house fire or domestic violence perpetrated in the home. Food prices are the product of many complicated and interrelated factors, many of which are globally driven.

In order to have a fully informed debate, I will turn first to the specific issue of the groceries code adjudicator, which this Government, unlike the previous one, are introducing, and put the current situation in context. No one underestimates the difficulties families face in balancing household budgets when bills are high. As a veteran of the weekly shop, I see at first hand the impact of food price rises, as I am sure many of us do. Let us set the record straight. Last summer food price inflation overtook general inflation, but by November the reverse was true. In the coalition Government’s first year in office, food prices increased by less than the average annual increase in Labour’s last five years. Between 2007 and 2008 food prices rose twice as fast as they did between 2010 and 2011. Although the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) has a new-found interest in food prices, which is to be welcomed, it comes a little late.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady says that food prices are not rising as fast as they had been, but does she acknowledge that wages have not gone up over that period, which means that people are suffering huge food poverty?

[Mrs Spelman]

I am challenging the hon. Member for Wakefield to consider the fact that during her party’s 13 years in power, which saw steep rises in food prices, it introduced neither a groceries code adjudicator nor the other measures called for in the motion. Despite claiming today that the adjudicator would be some sort of panacea, the hon. Lady seems to feel that doing nothing about this for 13 years is a credible basis on which to criticise us for not having completed the process in just over 18 months.

[Philip Davies]

I must say that this is bizarre. My right hon. Friend says she is concerned about rising food prices, but she is agitating to bring in a groceries code adjudicator that, if it will have any influence at all, will only be able to put prices up further. The two things are completely contradictory.

[Mrs Spelman]

If we thought that the groceries code adjudicator would put prices up, there would not be the current cross-party support across the House for creating one.

The important point is that we need a degree of humility and candour about the Labour party’s record. As has been noted, Labour has shown extraordinary candour in the wording of its motion. We must be clear that the hon. Member for Wakefield is calling on the coalition Government to introduce the adjudicator early in the next Parliament. I am not sure whether she knows the outcome of the next election, but the motion clearly indicates that she has written off Labour’s prospects of forming the next Government—she is certainly not alone in that. It is always good to start a debate with an issue on which we can make common cause, but the good news for her is that we will not wait until the next Parliament to introduce the adjudicator.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State is keen to tie down the timing of the introduction of the grocery code adjudicator, so when will she commit to do so?

[Mrs Spelman]

As I am sure Opposition Front Benchers are aware, the lead Department on the grocery code adjudicator, both for the Government and for the Opposition, is of course the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but we have been very clear as a Government that we are fully committed to introducing the adjudicator as soon as possible.

Free and fair competition is the key to a healthy market, and it is right that the adjudicator should make sure the market is working in the best long-term interests of consumers. In this Session, we published a draft Bill to allow pre-legislative scrutiny. It was a popular measure, welcomed on both sides of the House, and as the Leader of the House said on 15 December 2011:

“There will be a second Session of this Parliament, and the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill is a strong candidate for consideration as part of it.”—[Official Report, 15 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 937.]

So there is no delay, but it has to be done right.

It is important to bear it in mind that, overall, the Competition Commission found that retailers are providing a good deal for their customers, and they should not be prevented from securing the best deals and passing the benefits on to their customers, but, similarly, we are clear that they should be required to treat their suppliers lawfully and fairly.

During pre-legislative scrutiny, the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee suggested that third parties should be allowed to lodge complaints. Our position remains that it is more appropriate for complaints to be lodged directly or indirectly by suppliers, but we are open to considering further arguments on extending the range of those who can trigger an investigation. That is the benefit of pre-legislative scrutiny. We recognise that third parties, including trade associations, have a valuable role to play, so the adjudicator will be fully free to gather evidence from trade associations once an investigation has begun.

The draft Bill provides the adjudicator with the power to name and shame retailers that are in breach of the code, and we believe that, in a highly competitive market, retailers will not risk reputational damage from unacceptable behaviour towards suppliers. If negative publicity proves insufficient, however, the draft Bill contains a reserve power for the adjudicator to impose financial penalties, subject to an order made by the Business Secretary but without the need for primary legislation.

I hope the House agrees, therefore, that these measures represent significantly more progress than was made under the previous Government and should be generally welcomed.

[Andrew George]

It has been suggested, in particular during the intervention by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), that the adjudicator would introduce inflation to the food market, but the Competition Commission itself, which is after all independent on the issue, made the situation quite clear, stating that

“if unchecked, these practices”—

the practices that the Secretary of State and others have described—

“would ultimately have a detrimental effect on consumers.”

It is quite clear that they would have a detrimental effect on prices for consumers.

[Mrs Spelman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The Competition Commission clearly keeps the practices of retailers under scrutiny and sees a benefit in independent adjudication of fairness in the supply chain.

I shall turn to other points in the motion. The hon. Member for Wakefield espouses the virtues of the Healthy Start programme, which this Government have continued, and no one will argue with the role of food banks, which are an excellent example of the big society. They are not new, as Churches have been redistributing food in that way down the decades, and we are four-square behind organisations such as FareShare, which do excellent work in the field.

In making it easier for shoppers, this Government have wasted absolutely no time in working with the food industry to simplify food date labelling. Last autumn I made it clear that one date should appear on the label, so that there is no confusion between “use by”, “use before”, “display until” or “store until”. There should be one date: if the product is perishable, the label should state “use by”, for food safety; if it is not, the label should state “best before”. In that way, we can certainly help people to reduce the amount of food that goes to waste.

[Kate Green]

I am shocked to hear the Secretary of State say that we should welcome food banks. It is a social policy failure that families are reliant on food handouts because they do not have enough money to afford a healthy diet for their children.

[Mrs Spelman]

I gather that the hon. Lady would like them banned.

[Kate Green]

indicated dissent.

[Mrs Spelman]

Well, she cannot have it both ways.

[Kate Green]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Spelman]

No.

Let us get back to some facts. Retail food price inflation reached 6.9% in June last year and currently stands at 3.8%. In real terms, food prices have stayed at about the same level since the start of 2009, notwithstanding the fact that food price inflation has fallen below the general rate of inflation. I accept that we need to help those on the lowest incomes, who are spending more of their budgets on food.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the major contributory factor to food price inflation is energy and fuel price inflation? They are indelibly linked.

[Mrs Spelman]

Shortly, my hon. Friend will hear me expand correctly on the analysis of what is driving food price inflation.

It is important to remember that in 2010 the average family spent 11.5% of its household budget on food. The figure is greater for low income families, at 15.8%, but it is coming down; the 2010 figures are 1% lower than two years previously. That is a very important fact—the trend is that household expenditure on food in the lowest income families is coming down.

[Luciana Berger]

I do not know whether the Secretary of State has seen the figures released by the OECD last week. They showed that in the UK food prices rose by 4% in the last year, which is 0.7% above the EU average.

[Mrs Spelman]

The hon. Lady needs to understand the contributory factors. The depreciation of sterling makes imports of food in other currencies stronger than ours more expensive. It is important to read the figures in the context of exchange rates and the other factors that drive up inflation.

The Government are, of course, actively finding ways to help mitigate the rises. But the Government cannot do it all, and they should not pretend that they can. Since the removal of production linked support in 2005, crops and livestock are traded on a global market. It is those markets that dictate food prices. As has been pointed out, the key drivers of domestic retail food price inflation include world agricultural commodity prices.

I hate to have to tell the hon. Member for Wakefield, but if she is to have this brief she needs to learn that the wheat price has not been stable; it has fluctuated in recent years from £60 a tonne to more than £200 a tonne. There are also oil prices and exchange rates. In 2008, although the price of wheat fell in dollar terms, it increased in sterling terms because of the relative weakness of sterling to the dollar. To understand the causes of food price inflation, one has to analyse correctly the underlying drivers.

World commodity prices are the key driver and we are working hard internationally to ensure the better functioning of commodity prices at the global level. That, in turn, will affect food prices at home. The depreciation of sterling has made dollar-denominated commodities more expensive. Furthermore, global weather extremes have caused shortages that drive prices up.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I assure the Secretary of State that the Opposition fully understand which things Governments can intervene on and which they cannot. What is she doing to help the poorest families in the country to make sure that they get enough food and do not have to rely on food banks? How many food banks would she regard as a measure of success, and what is she aiming to do by the end of her stay in office?

[Mrs Spelman]

The hon. Lady clearly was not listening to what I said about the continuation of the Healthy Start campaign, for example. Of course, in any big society, there is no finite amount of contribution that each of us might make to the more vulnerable; there is no need to put a limit on it.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the moves that the Government are making, such as freezing council tax and cutting fuel duty? That has made general inflation a much more manageable phenomenon for ordinary families.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Not at this precise point; the right hon. Lady is speaking to the motion.

[Mrs Spelman]

That is a shame, Madam Deputy Speaker, because there is a long list of things relevant to household budgets; there was a wider definition of that earlier. Freezing council tax is but one example of what frees up the budget to buy more food.

Last year, the Government’s Foresight report on the future of food and farming concluded that Governments across the world must take action now to ensure that a rising global population can be fed. It is a chilling fact that in only 13 years there will be 1 billion more mouths to feed on this planet. Increasing demand for water, land and energy means that food security is one of the world’s greatest challenges. The report identified five challenges for all nations to act on: balancing future demand and supply; ensuring that there is adequate food price stability and protecting the most vulnerable from volatility; achieving global access to food and ending hunger; managing the contribution of the food system to mitigating climate change; and maintaining biodiversity in our ecosystems. To take on those challenges, we need international reform. To address global food security, we need an increase in agricultural productivity, which means a move away from subsidy. To address the risk of climate instability disrupting production patterns, we must have open world trading systems.

In June last year, G20 Agriculture Ministers met and agreed to the creation of an agricultural market information system, which aims to stabilise food price volatility through better transparency in the marketplace. In November, I attended the climate change conference and helped the South African Agriculture Minister to get agriculture included in the work stream for the next climate change convention. We are now preparing for Rio plus 20, where we will push for international policies to help the most vulnerable in our society. We will lobby for the sustainable intensification of agriculture, climate-smart agriculture and the reduction of post-harvest losses. The Afghan Minister whom I met in Berlin this weekend at green week said that the reduction of harvest losses would make one of the greatest contributions to combating famine.

The challenges present an opportunity for the UK, and we need to be the first out of the blocks and embrace it. British food producers must make the most of international markets. That is why I have announced that I will publish an action plan at the end of the month to help export the best of British food and drink across the world. It is through global trade that the UK can secure its future food supply and help keep food prices down. We already contribute to global food supply. We provide 2% of global wheat exports, 4% of global barley exports and 1% of global cereal exports. That demonstrates that the UK has a major role in food production. By expanding production and exports, we can contribute to the overall economic recovery.

The food and farming industry is a high performer with great potential. The food chain contributes £88 billion per annum to the economy, which is 7% of GDP. It is responsible for 3.7 million jobs. The Government are acting across the food chain to stimulate growth, facilitate international trade and drive fair competition, because a thriving and competitive economy, where our products are freely traded on an international market, will deliver resilient, stable and affordable food supplies to our consumers.

The Government are working with industry and environmental partners to see how we can reconcile our goals of improving environmental protection and increasing food production. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wakefield for welcoming the green food project. The Government are spending £400 million on food and farming research, which addresses productivity, environmental performance and resilience along the food chain.

Nobody is under any illusion about the pressures that high food prices put on all our constituents. However, it would be wrong to pretend that there is a “silver bullet” solution when there is not.

[Julie Hilling]

I have not heard in the Secretary of State’s contribution any mention of what she will do for the most vulnerable in this country, who are dependent on a hugely increased number of food banks. What will she do to feed those families who cannot feed themselves?

[Mrs Spelman]

I am sure that the hon. Lady would accept that the responsibility for helping the most vulnerable people in our society to have more disposable income to provide food for their families goes beyond my Department. She must take account of other things such as our freezing council tax, cutting fuel duty, cutting income tax, taking 1.1 million low-paid people out of tax, increasing child tax credit, taking action on energy prices and helping with the cost of rail travel.

The groceries code adjudicator will not be a panacea in the face of rising food prices. The adjudicator has a role to play in delivering a robust check on fairness between supplier and retailer; that is why we are introducing it. However, limiting food price inflation rests on multiple factors, from energy to exchange rates, and not least the core issue of supply and demand. The Government are not only alert to those factors but actively finding opportunities to influence them. We are working internationally to ensure that a growing population can be fed, we are using the challenges of food production to kick-start growth and competitiveness here in the UK, and through the green food project we are addressing the tensions inherent in growing more food at less cost to the environment.

The steps we are taking will produce the market conditions required to deliver good quality, affordable food for households throughout the UK. This debate is important because it is about the household budget and the cost of living. The Government have not sat idly by. We are directly helping in all kinds of ways—the freezing of council tax, the cutting of fuel duty, and so on. Those are all measures that Labour refused to take when it was in power, despite running up the biggest peacetime deficit in our country’s history. This is a Government who are on the side of hard-pressed families, this is a Department that is on the side of British farmers and food producers, and this is an issue on which Labour has no credibility and no alternative. I urge the House to reject the motion.

17:10

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Listening to the Secretary of State’s final comments, I thought for a moment that I had stumbled into some sort of parallel universe, because I did not recognise any of her claims about what the Government are doing. She talked about the freeze in council tax. First, some of the families we are talking about are so poor that they do not pay council tax. Secondly, in Stoke-on-Trent, as in other areas, the council has been so hammered by the cuts in support from national Government to local government that it cannot accept the bribe of a 2% freeze and will have to make increases to try to get back some of the money that has been ripped away from it.

I welcome this debate because it provides the other side of the “heat or eat” coin. We recently discussed in this House the situation whereby people have to make the choice between heating their home and having food to eat. Sadly, many people do not have that choice because they cannot afford to heat their homes or to eat properly. Many families cannot afford to put proper food in their stomachs, let alone heat their homes.

The problem is going to get worse. To be fair to the Secretary of State, she touched on this area, to a small extent. Back in the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s, we had cheap oil and we encouraged farmers, not only in this country but globally, to turn that oil into food by using machinery—whether milking pumps, tractors or heated greenhouses—to produce more food. The UK imports a huge amount of food—even things that we grow well in this country, such as tomatoes. We seem to have a fascination with buying imported tomatoes even during our tomato season. On imported foodstuffs, we bring into this country a large amount of soy to feed our cattle because of the ever-increasing demand for more milk production. As a result, oil prices are rising and will continue to rise further. As the years go by, the built-in link between the price of oil and the price of food means that the food prices that we have been used to will continue to increase as the price of oil goes up.

We need to wean our farmers off oil. Back in the ’70s, companies decided to produce ever-better strains of seeds. That was linked to the oil industry, because in order to grow those better strains, the farmers needed fertilisers linked to oil. As the weeks, months and years stretch out ahead of us, if we cannot reduce the constant link with oil, we will face an inexorable increase in the cost of food. We need to act now, and the Government need to act now, to start to break that cycle.

Food banks such as that at St Clare’s, Meir Park, in my constituency are doing fantastic work and helping the vulnerable in our society, and they have started only in the past year. In the 13 years of the Labour Government, for which the Secretary of State tried to berate us, they were not needed. I would like to see a country in which there were no food banks, of course—everybody would—but while we have the need for them, we must have them.

[Julie Hilling]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Trussell Trust estimates that 60,000 people got food from food banks last year, and that 100,000 will this year? It estimates that by 2015, half a million people will depend on them.

[Robert Flello]

Absolutely, my hon. Friend is correct: that is the scale of the problem we face. By 2014-15 half a million people will be looking to food banks, so how many people will by 2020, and how many by 2025, if action is not taken soon?

People do not want to go to food banks. They do not think on a Saturday afternoon, “Oh, I know, let’s pop to the food bank.” They do it because they have no other choice. They are people with pride and self-esteem, but they think, “Well, hang on, it’s that or starve.” What a contradiction it is that at the same time we are throwing away 7.2 million tonnes of food every year. It is unbelievable that we are wasting food on such a level. It is appalling, and a national disgrace.

Why is that happening? The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) rallied to the defence of the supermarket industry. I will make further points about that industry in a moment, but when it has food promotions such as two for one or three for one, it causes problems for families at the poorest end of the scale, who do not have a freezer and cannot store so much food. However, most of the problem comes from people such as—dare I say it?—us in the House. Mea culpa: at the end of Christmas and its excesses, we look at our own fridge or freezer and see that it is still full of food that was not needed. That food ends up going in the bin, at the same time as people—[Interruption.] Well, actually, I do not throw food away, but there are people who do.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

You don’t look as though you throw it away.

[Robert Flello]

My hon. Friend is quite right. However, let us not lose track of the serious point.

[Philip Davies]

Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear to hard-pressed families in his constituency whether he is in favour of supermarkets and retailers offering buy one get one free offers, or against? I am sure they would be very interested to know.

[Robert Flello]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman asks that question. I would like the goods on the shelves to be at a fair price so that families can afford to buy one of something and do not have to go for a two-for-one offer to get the best value. I know that he is perhaps still an unpaid spokesperson for a supermarket.

There is a problem with the desire for perfect food, too. Our farmers are having to waste a lot of food because it does not meet some of the supermarkets’ requirements for perfect food.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Robert Flello]

I will not, because I have less than two minutes to go. If there is time at the end of my speech I will allow the hon. Lady to intervene.

My final point is about the groceries code adjudicator. We need somebody who holds the supermarkets to account, because whether we are talking about the past two years, the previous 13 years—as the Secretary of State tries to shift the blame on to our side—or the past 20, 25 or 30 years, the supermarkets have been making money left, right and centre, hand over fist, but at the same time our farmers have told us that they are struggling. The number of farmers now is a fraction of what it was 20 or 30 years ago, and customers and consumers—our constituents—are suffering. We need the adjudicator. If the Secretary of State has a problem with the need for an adjudicator, the answer is quite simple: if the adjudicator is appointed and does not have any work to do, perhaps the post will have been a success because the supermarkets have realised that the game is up.

This debate is not about those of us who are in the comfortable position of being able to go out and buy what we want in the supermarket. It is about the poorest in our society, who may not have freezers and fridges, and cannot buy in bulk, or buy food when it is on offer. They are the ones who work and live from week to week—sometimes from day to day. The House and the Secretary of State need to provide a positive steer, to ensure that the most vulnerable families are looked after, helped and supported by all the machinery of government.

17:19

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) on calling the debate. In welcoming it, I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. However, there are many other issues that the hon. Lady could have mentioned, which exercise those who live in rural communities. I recognise that Wakefield may not be quite as rural as Thirsk, Malton and Filey, but if we consider poverty among the farming community over the past 10 years, particularly in small upland farms, it is fair to say that farmers are not in a position to employ many outside their own family. Normally the farmer, his wife and his family work on the farm, and that has led to diversification when possible. In some of the most successful examples, such as Shepherds Purse cheeses and Get Ahead Hats, the wife has diversified or gone out to work separately.

The hon. Member for Wakefield also failed to tackle the increasingly important issue of farm-gate prices, as opposed to rising supermarket prices. I would like to draw attention to that. In my constituency, I can point to pockets of rural poverty in the Hambleton district. In the Ryedale district there is a poverty gap, for those on low incomes, between their low wages and the particularly high cost of housing.

DEFRA’s farm business income report showed that the cost of fertiliser and animal feed rose by nearly 30% each in 2010-11, the last year for which figures are available. That means that the livestock and horticulture sectors have suffered falls year on year. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Wakefield to the fact that livestock farm income fell by 29% in lowland areas and by 19% in upland areas, with horticulture income down 27%.

The hon. Lady did not consider exchange rates, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned. What if the unthinkable were to happen and the euro failed—or what if even one member country fell out of the euro? The question being asked coming up to spring in auction marts, particularly in the north of England, where most of the lambs are exported, especially to France, is: how and in what currency will farmers be paid? They are starting to wonder whether they will be paid at all. We had the opportunity to cover some of those issues in today’s debate, and I am disappointed that we did not.

I welcome the debate, but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained, we are looking at the high cost of fuel as well as the increased costs of feedstuffs and fertiliser. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said on so many occasions, oil prices are set globally. The price of cereals and many farm commodities are set internationally.

I want to focus on the role of supermarkets, and particularly the part of the motion that deals with the groceries code adjudicator. I draw the House’s attention to a successful one-off evidence session that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee held. The hon. Member for Wakefield has included kind words about the Committee in her motion. At the evidence session I was very moved by a category of people to whom, again, the hon. Lady did not refer—individual fruit and vegetable growers and horticultural growers, who have the loosest possible arrangement with supermarkets and virtually no protection. We were shocked to realise that their contracts could be terminated at a moment’s notice. They need protection and the ability to make a complaint anonymously. As we said in the letter that we submitted to the Chairman of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee:

“For many years there has been a ‘climate of fear’ in the groceries supply chain. We therefore endorse the provision in the draft Bill that will allow the Adjudicator to receive anonymous complaints from direct or indirect suppliers about retailers breaking the Groceries supply Code.”

I hope some good can come out of today’s debate and urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to use her good offices to put pressure on the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills; that is the responsible Department.

I commend all the Committee’s conclusions without hesitation, but I shall draw attention specifically to two of them.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend will know that the vast majority of suppliers to supermarkets are, by definition, huge organisations—multinational companies such as Mars, Coca-Cola, and Proctor and Gamble. Does she think that they need the protection of a grocery ombudsman, or does she agree that they are more than big enough to look after themselves?

[Miss McIntosh]

I am so fond of my hon. Friend that I have great difficulty in saying that I must draw his attention to the remarks I have just made. His big organisation—Asda—is revered in north Yorkshire because it stemmed from Associated Dairies, which not only set the price but provided a market for local milk suppliers. Individual growers need protection, because they are unable to speak for themselves. We all have big constituencies and may not always be aware of such individuals. I hesitate to say whether big companies are “good guys” or “bad guys”, but Asda and Morrisons source a lot of their food locally—almost 80% or 90%. We need to protect the small individual growers.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee believes that two of its conclusions could have an impact if the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs can persuade the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to amend the draft Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill. First, the ability of suppliers to make anonymous complaints is fundamental to the success of the groceries code adjudicator. Secondly, the adjudicator should have the power to launch investigations. We are all agreed that he should have the power to fine, but he should also have the power to launch investigations.

[Laura Sandys]

I have just established a not-for-profit company called Ugly Food. The strapline is “Tasty but imperfect, just like you”. There is a phenomenal number of small suppliers who have food rejected because their produce is not perfect. We should look to create a market for that food, so that we do not waste it.

[Miss McIntosh]

The House will draw its own conclusions about my hon. Friend’s self-advertising.

I understand that the powers of the Competition Commission are based on the powers of the Commission in Brussels. The EU directorate general for competition has the power to swoop when it believes an investigation should take place. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make the same plea to the Business, Innovation and Skills Secretary to adopt those two recommendations—and, indeed, all the Committee’s recommendations.

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be aware of the Committee’s work on food security. I hope she will remove any inconsistencies between trying to supply a secure strand of food and sustainable food production. There is an inconsistency at the heart of the Government on that. She will be involved in discussions on common agricultural reform in Brussels. Greening the common agricultural policy could take productive land out of production. It could also be hugely expensive and involve the introduction of more complex regulations, which we should be aiming to simplify.

[Mrs Spelman]

My hon. Friend will know that I acknowledged that problem when I gave evidence to her Committee last week, and that we will try to ameliorate the Commission’s proposals in that regard.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am most grateful for my right hon. Friend’s clarification.

In conclusion, we should say, “Keep it simple.” With all the regulations coming forward, whether to do with the adjudicator or not, the powers should be clear and allow individual growers, under a cloak of anonymity, to raise such issues, either directly or through a third party. I welcome this debate, although I regret that many of the issues that I have raised are not covered by the motion. However, we can have a positive debate today and see an early completion of the adjudicator code, with an early introduction of the adjudicator in the next Session.

17:30

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who, like me, represents a large rural constituency where farming is an important industry. I visit farms and talk to farmers regularly, and the one question they ask me to raise in Parliament is, “When are we going to get the supermarkets ombudsman?” I was not here in the previous Parliament. I cannot answer questions about why successive Governments did not introduce a supermarkets ombudsman. However, Members who were here tell me that the issue of a groceries code adjudicator has a long and not very productive history.

Members have championed the cause in opposition, but have proven remarkably slow to put anything into action when in government. In opposition, the Tories announced that they would create the new body through a levy on retailers. Two years ago this month, in January 2010, the then shadow Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), said that

“further consultation is not the decisive action that consumers or the industry need…Conservatives are clear: we would establish a supermarket ombudsman to enforce the grocery supply code as a dedicated unit in the Office of Fair Trading to ensure a fair deal for producers and safeguard the consumer interest.”

However, we are two years into this Government, and it appears that they are not quite so decisive now. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who was then the Liberal Democrat environment, food and rural affairs spokesman, also told us in January 2010:

“For years, Labour and the Tories have twiddled their thumbs while huge supermarkets have pushed thousands of farmers to the brink. Their response has been totally inadequate”.

However, the Lib Dems are part of this Government, yet we are seeing no sign of decisive action.

Where we have seen consistent, strong and decisive action is from the big four supermarkets. They have always offered strong and sustained resistance to the establishment of a supermarket ombudsman. Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons have fought a long, consistent and, it now appears, successful campaign of opposition and delay. However, in the meantime, the farming industry and the consumer continue to wait. Tom MacMillan of the Food Ethics Council tells us:

“The government must now ensure that it listens to small producers as well as big business. A strong supermarket ombudsman, invested with real power, would have the authority to ensure fair prices from the farm gate to the checkout”—

the very point that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton made. He continues:

“It would protect the livelihoods of farmers across the UK and give consumers better access to fresh, healthy food.”

The National Farmers Union tells us that dairy producers have been particularly squeezed, with dairy farmers going out of business every day. That is exactly what I am seeing in my constituency, where the number of dairy farmers has been reduced significantly, as they either move into other forms of farming or, more often, leave the industry altogether. War on Want believes that a supermarket ombudsman would support farmers here at home and help poorly paid workers in the developing world. Only the British Retail Consortium, speaking for the supermarkets, believes that a supermarkets ombudsman is a costly and unnecessary new bureaucracy that would not benefit suppliers or consumers. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Oh sorry, only the British Retail Consortium plus one or two Government Members.

The farmers in my constituency, and in many others across the country, are looking for decisive action from the Government on this matter. How many more of them need to go out of business before the Government get around to taking action? Farmers and consumers need a groceries code adjudicator with real powers who can impose real fines of a magnitude that will change the behaviour of food retailers, and that are not just seen as an occupational hazard and a risk worth taking. Thatis the way to bring in fairness across the food chain. It really does not matter whether we call the body a groceries code adjudicator, a supermarkets ombudsman or Oftrolley; what matters is that we get such a body now.

17:34

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

I must now declare an interest in the organisation called Ugly Food that I have established. I believe that it is open to all small producers to market their foods with new branding and a new logo.

Perhaps I am looking at these matters non-politically, and perhaps I am looking too far into the future, but I think that we have a real problem. We talk about cheap food, but we are not always going to be able to deliver cheap food. We will have been deluding our constituents by suggesting that it will be available in the longer term, unless someone comes up with the answers to climate change, increased calorific intake and population growth. If we are to be responsible and live in the real world, we must try to deliver a system in which the cost of feeding one’s family healthily and effectively does not go up in price, but that is fundamentally different from talking about cheap food.

The food system in this country has been distorted by the very cheapness of the products. Food here is cheaper than in any other country in Europe and, as a result, we have seen a much steeper price hike in recent years than the rest of Europe. That price hike has been compounded by two fundamental aspects of our food chain. We import much more than any other OECD country, and we eat much more processed food, which is highly energy intensive and labour intensive. A further anomaly is that, although this country’s supply chain is supremely efficient, it is not very resilient. As a result, we face greater price fluctuations and volatility when shocks to the system occur.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

I draw Members’ attention to my declaration of interest. My hon. Friend is right to say that food prices will continue to rise, and that that will be a problem. Is it not the case, however, that one way of tackling that would be to tackle food waste? Should we not also examine the new technology that could really move agriculture forward, not only in the UK but around the world?

[Laura Sandys]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It is pretty frightening that wheat yields in this country have not increased at all over the past 20 years. Also, because food has been so cheap in this country, we have not valued it. As a result, there is a huge amount of waste in the system.

It is interesting that the Opposition have chosen this subject for debate, because you left this country very vulnerable—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. That is the second time the hon. Lady has done this. She is not to refer to the Chair in that way. I have not done anything. She should refer to “the hon. Lady”. I certainly have nothing to do with fruit of any kind.

[Laura Sandys]

I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

To address the bigger problem of food insecurity, we should look to the energy model. This Government’s strategy on energy insecurity aims to manage a valuable resource, to address the waste in the system and to build greater UK resilience to international price fluctuations. With some tweaks, several of those policy mechanisms could and should be adopted for food. Security of supply is an example. The previous Government cannot claim much credit in that area. Imports of food increased by 52% under the previous Government and agricultural land was diverted away from production. Thank goodness, today we have Ministers who understand the issues of production.

To build greater security of supply, domestic production must, in my view, increase. We must build a hedging mechanism against global volatility and realise not only that food imports will become more expensive but that the level of imports, with a weak pound, is having a negative impact on our balance of payments and placing inflationary pressure on benefits and entitlements.

We must address food waste with a similar tenacity to that with which we are addressing energy waste through the green deal. We need to reverse the indulgent years that deskilled the consumer in food preparation and supported profligacy in the supply chain. Customers—we, the consumers—are often accused of being responsible for such waste, but I disagree. The system is designed to create waste and the consumer is merely responding to how the supermarkets and other retailers sell their products. The waste in procurement is terrifying and I hope that the grocery code of practice will ensure that we reduce some of it. As I have mentioned before, my campaign through Ugly Food is one way of addressing some of the waste embedded in our system.

Waste is also embedded in the design of consumer-facing products. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) talked about the packaging and presentation of food. People blame the customer, but is it their fault? Servings of food are often too big and processed foods are heavily advertised. Although the Government have made a great deal of progress on display dates, safety dates mislead the consumer about the longevity of products. Point-of-sale displays draw consumers to larger packages rather than smaller units of food and BOGOFs—buy one, get one free offers—neither help single item shoppers nor reduce the bills for family shoppers.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend add an additional item to that long and rather depressing list, which is country of origin?

[Laura Sandys]

I believe that EU regulations are changing and that country of origin labelling will have to be much clearer, but we certainly have an issue with knowing and understanding exactly where food comes from and, when it comes to meat, where the animal was born rather than where it was reared.

Our system is designed around cheap disposable food and the UK, more than any other country other than the US, must embark on a culture change. We should re-engineer our food system to place value on food and to stop regarding it as disposable. That is why I am calling for a food security obligation—similar to the energy company obligation—for supermarkets and large food producers so that they record and reduce waste through their procurement process and commit to designing their products with the aim of delivering real value for money for the consumer, which is quite different from cheap food.

Both 2008 and 2011 were shocks to the system, but the price rises we have experienced will be the norm in the future. We had better get used to it. Food will not be cheap, but with the right policies in place, feeding our families need not be more expensive.

17:43

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the excellent work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) through his private Member’s Bill, the Grocery Market Ombudsman Bill, which, as many Members will know, had a long history spanning several years. He said—this is the most important thing to remember about the Bill—that it was about fairness to all those involved, whether they were farmers, small producers, local suppliers, suppliers from developing countries, small shops, convenience stores, supermarkets or, most importantly, consumers.

The Bill led to the proposal for a supermarket ombudsman or groceries adjudicator being in all three parties’ manifestos for the 2010 election, but what has happened since then? The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) secured an Adjournment debate on the groceries code adjudicator last April, and in May we had the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills document, “The Government’s policy for a Groceries Code Adjudicator”, but it is now January 2012 and we do not seem to be any further on.

I should like to ask the Secretary of State why we are waiting so long for the Bill and when we are going to see it. Is it going to contain the proper sanctions that we all want to see—sanctions that will actually make a difference and make people change their behaviour? Will the adjudicator be able to carry out proactive investigations? One thing is certain: if, as the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) has explained, we need to increase food production, farmers are not going to be able to do that if they are being squeezed on prices. Many Members have cited the dairy industry as an obvious example. If the price of milk is squeezed, people inevitably go out of business and we produce less, which means we end up importing even such things as milk, which one would think we could produce very easily in our climate.

[Philip Davies]

Here we are being offered again this painless panacea in which everyone benefits from an ombudsman. Will the hon. Lady explain how getting the supermarket to pay more to the supplier and the farmer, fining it more and getting it to pay for the ombudsman will result in reduced costs for the customer? I am absolutely fascinated to hear how that will work.

[Nia Griffith]

This is about fairness. It is about paying a fair price to farmers for what they produce, having a fair price for consumers, and stopping sharp practices. It is about protecting the good businesses—the good guys if you like—and creating a level playing field, which is extremely important.

Let me address what happens to people when they go into supermarkets, particularly when they buy fruit and vegetables. We should not forget that there has been a dramatic drop of 30% in fruit and vegetable purchasing by the poorest families, so that the poorest children now get only 2.7 of the five portions of fruit and veg they should have each day. Is it small wonder that when people go into supermarkets they are quite worried about what will end up on their bill at the till, given that they are absolutely dazed by the displays of fruit and veg and the ways of pricing them? Sometimes they are priced by the item, sometimes by the packet—in fours, eights or tens—and sometimes by weight. For example, there are many varieties of tomato, from cherry tomatoes to beef tomatoes, and there is a range of different pricing mechanisms, which is extremely confusing. There should be a very simple formula that allows us all to compare prices easily, because it is very difficult with loose items such as fruit and veg, which can be packed in so many different ways, to work out exactly what one is being charged. Last September there was a bumper crop because of that fabulous spring we had last April, but did we see prices drop? No. Could we have told if they had dropped? No, because unlike at the petrol pump where we can all see the sign displayed very clearly and can tell when prices go up, one cannot see when prices for fruit and veg go up—it is easy to disguise and to pull a fast one on the consumer. Those issues need to be addressed.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) has explained, the number of people needing help from food banks is increasing and it is set to increase further. Why? Because some of this Government’s taxation policies are hitting the poorest hardest and squeezing their income. For example, some of the changes being introduced mean that those on low wages who are trying to do the right thing and go out to work are going to find that their tax credits will be cut. They would like to top up with more work hours, but those hours simply are not available. Sometimes that is because supermarkets prefer to have people on low hours; it gives them more flexibility for the Saturday and Sunday shifts that they want worked.

What about the cuts to housing benefit? They are going to leave many families who currently receive the amount they need to pay their rent having to use what should be food money to pay the rent. That is why we will see dramatic drops in the amount that people have to pay for their food. There will also be more and more families relying on food banks. What about the cuts in winter fuel allowance? They will leave some of our pensioners with less money to spend on food.

[Simon Hart]

Does the hon. Lady accept that obesity is increasing, particularly among young people and people from poor backgrounds? Despite the efforts of the previous Government and this Government, that does not show much sign of changing. Does she accept that, in reality, the issue is about a lot more than just the current Government’s tax system? It is much wider and much more complex than she portrays it.

[Nia Griffith]

Obesity may very well be on the increase because unhealthier foods are the only type that some families can afford; they cannot afford the healthier alternatives. That is a real issue. People look at the different pricing mechanisms and go for what can fill them up. That is the type of food that they rely on now. They do not have the luxury of choice.

Let me move on from pricing in supermarkets and our adjudicators Bill to my worry about families who cannot afford something very basic: enough food to eat. That is very serious. It is nothing to be proud of that we need food banks; that is something that we do not want to see. We do not want anybody to have to rely on charity for something that every family should be able to afford. We want proper policies that will put money in the pockets of the people who need to spend it on food. No one in this country—one of the richest countries in the world—should have to look to charity for food. We need to make absolutely certain that the policies put in place deliver fair prices for consumers and farmers, and that the distribution of income levels is fair, so that those who have the least can make the purchases that they need to make to feed their family. It is an absolute disgrace to rely on food banks to do something that everyone should be able to afford to do: feed their family.

00:00

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Thank you for this opportunity to speak on food poverty, Madam Deputy Speaker. Members have mentioned with concern a lack of knowledge among many people today about what constitutes a healthy diet, and a lack of the skills to create healthy meals. I share those concerns, but in the time that I have, I would like to concentrate on another skill that is less prevalent today than it was just one or two generations ago: the skill to grow and produce at least some of our own food. That is something that my grandparents did, and not just as a hobby; it gave them a vital supplement to their daily diet. I remember enjoying that whole-family activity on many summer evenings.

I want to concentrate on some of the excellent initiatives in my constituency devoted to sharing know-how in this sphere. Interestingly, while some groups are decades old, including the Middlewich and District Show Society, the Congleton and District Horticultural Society, and the Alsager Gardens Association, others have been set up in the past two to three years, with immense support. They include the Sandbach Allotment Society, Home Grown in Holmes Chapel, and the Congleton Sustainability Group.

People on low incomes have the lowest intakes of fruit and veg, and are therefore far more likely to suffer from diet-related diseases such as cancer, diabetes, obesity and coronary heart disease, which is why the initiatives that I am talking about could be disproportionately valuable to them. The ability to develop and share skills, and more opportunities for people to grow their own—whether in their garden, a neighbour’s garden, or on community land—are greatly needed. That need will increase, given that, as the chief scientific adviser to the Government has said, by 2030 we will need to produce 50% more food, and given that the European Commission’s current proposals could mean taking 7% of land out of production, much to the consternation of farmers in my constituency.

Turning back to the local, let me describe some of the benefits that the Middlewich annual show promotes. There were 400 entries last year across the many categories, including cookery, flowers and vegetables. John Carver, the chairman, grows leeks, onions, carrots, potatoes, peas and broad beans in his garden. I can testify, having visited it, that it is as attractive as any garden with flowers in it. He says he gardens as people did 30 years ago, and has to buy hardly any veg for his family. He has carrots in storage, and freezes beans and peas. He advises people to grow their own

“as they are far better since they have not lost any of their ‘goodness’”.

At the last Middlewich show, it was a real pleasure to see the civic hall crowded out. Some of the entrants were very young, and some of the veg were of phenomenal size; several leeks, when stood on end for a photograph with me, were bigger than me.

[Chris Ruane]

Never!

[Fiona Bruce]

That will not come as a surprise to some Members. We should promote the idea of making greater use of gardens. Indeed, many elderly people might appreciate having veg tended in their gardens in exchange for some of the produce.

The Sandbach Allotment Society has been going for just two years. Forty people came to the first meeting, and 120 to the second. It aims to encourage growing your own, and has found temporary accommodation on a 1.2 acre site belonging to a local farmer. That will provide 34 half-plots, each of which will provide a significant amount of vegetables for a family, at a fraction of the cost of buying them. It says that growing your own is not an old man’s domain; it is for families. It brings families and communities together. I know how popular it is: there is a 100-person waiting list for further allotments that it hopes to obtain.

Home Grown in Holmes Chapel is an innovative community action group that encourages residents of Holmes Chapel and neighbouring communities to buy locally produced food, shop in local shops, and work together to grow their own fruit and veg. It has been lent two previously untended plots of land in the village centre, one by the carpet shop and one by the health centre. The organisers say that, despite rain showers, on a blustery May day, nearly 40 volunteers turned up to the group’s first dig-in. Volunteers planted a variety of fruit and veg—strawberries, lettuces, cabbages, sugar-snap peas, and radishes donated by the volunteers, whose ages ranged from just 18 months to 75 years. Lissy Berry, aged eight, said to her mum:

“This is hard work, but I’m really enjoying it—it is so worthwhile”,

and other volunteers agreed. Another said:

“I have really enjoyed myself—it is a wonderful feeling to have achieved so much”.

I went to the group’s first harvest in October, and I can testify to the tastiness of the lettuce.

The group says:

“We want people to think about the way we live our lives…We are not trying to feed Holmes Chapel—just show what is possible with a little space, sunshine, water and love! It is great to eat vegetables that have been grown for taste, not for shelf-life, and it is great to be able to do so without driving the car anywhere or eating produce that has been flown half way around the world…We are growing community fruit and vegetables for the community to use!”

The group has great plans: it is starting to talk to the parish council and Cheshire East council about planting fruit trees around the village; holding a “shop local” week; and encouraging residents who have a bit of spare community land near their house to set up a community veg plot. It is working with Holmes Chapel primary school; I was pleased to see recently planted herbs and veg there, and there are plans for more vegetable beds. It wants to work with retirement and nursing homes in the village, and to see if it can get community groups working together to grow fruit and veg in those places. It says:

“that is enough to keep us busy for some time to come!”

Other initiatives in the constituency seek to reduce waste. Ray Brown, a farmer, proposes to convert an old Ministry of Defence fuel base into an anaerobic digester, with the support of Cheshire East council. It is anticipated that it will be able to take all the food waste from the entire population of Cheshire East, which covers not just my constituency but several others. That will raise Cheshire East’s recycling rates to a remarkable potential 90%. The scheme will also generate electricity and feed it into the grid. As I hope the Government will recognise, that should negate the need for an incinerator just 15 minutes away in Middlewich.

On waste, I cannot omit to mention the tremendous work done by the Congleton Sustainability Group, which produced the now-famous Congleton apple juice that many Members tried here recently. In 2010, it used 3.5 tonnes of apples that would otherwise have gone to waste, and its target for 2011 was 5 tonnes.

Those are just a few initiatives, but there are many more that I could have described. If we are to alleviate food poverty, it is important to promote, share and develop skills at all levels of food production. It could take us a considerable way towards tackling problems in the years and decades to come.

17:59

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my Front-Bench colleagues on securing today’s debate on this relevant and topical issue. I wish to use this opportunity to highlight the national scandal of rising poverty.

Some people find it hard to believe that food poverty really exists in this country. Last year, I was aghast to hear the former Conservative MP, Edwina Currie, say on BBC radio that she had “great difficulty” believing that people in Britain went without food. Only last week, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said that people are not suffering as a result of benefit changes. Perhaps they have not seen the very real and tragic situation that thousands of families and pensioners face this winter, and perhaps they have not been affected by the 4% rise in food prices over the past 12 months. However, the thousands who are forced to queue for handouts, in lines that stretch through church halls and community centres across our country, certainly are, and they include people who struggle to balance housing costs and rising energy bills, and the mums and dads who go hungry so that their children do not have to. With rising prices, higher living costs and falling wages, it is becoming more difficult for people to make ends meet. The consumer prices index shows that the average household spends 12% of their income on food, meaning that a couple with two young children spend more than £5,000 a year on food. In addition, according to the OECD figures that we have discussed a great deal this afternoon, 4% food inflation has added an extra £233 to that bill over the past year alone.

It is even harder for lower-income households to cope. DEFRA’s own statistics show that they have to spend 15.8% of their income on food—nearly 3% more than the average household. While jobseeker’s allowance for a single adult is £67.50, it is just not possible to eat healthily on £8 a week or just over £1 a day. Last May, I did the “Live Below the Line” challenge, which was organised to raise money for charities in Africa, and I lived on £1 a day for food and drink for five days. I did not have enough protein, and I got headaches. I could afford just one of the five recommended pieces of fruit and veg a day. I endured that for just five days: there are over 4,000 people in my constituency for whom that is a reality 365 days a year.

It is therefore not surprising that fruit and vegetable consumption in poorer families fell by 30% last year. It is even harder to buy food when the support to which someone is entitled is not paid on time, as I found out when I visited a Trussell Trust food bank in my constituency just before Christmas. I met a man who had walked in the freezing rain to get to the food bank. The week before, he had been in hospital recovering from heart surgery. When he came out of hospital, he was told that he would have to wait a number of weeks for his benefit payments to be reinstated. He was hungry. His district nurse had given him a food voucher, but he could not afford the bus or a taxi. He had to walk more than four miles. He was a desperate man.

That is one of three food banks operating across Liverpool. We have five in total across Merseyside providing desperately needed assistance to people who cannot afford to buy food. The figures show that the largest proportion of people seeking emergency assistance—just under 40%—do so because of delays in receiving benefit payments. With the Chancellor’s austerity programme sucking growth out of our economy and pushing up inflation and employment, it is clear that, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and a reduced Department for Work and Pensions cannot cope with the demands placed on them. That is set to get worse, as it is estimated that over the next three years HMRC will lose 10,000 more staff, and DWP is set to lose 17,000 staff.

In my constituency in the past nine months, 312 people were issued with food vouchers for themselves and their families, which entitled them to at least three visits to the food bank, but the food bank would never turn them away if they needed anything more. That situation is not unique to Liverpool. There has been a huge growth in food banks across the country, with one opening every week last year. Contrary to what the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs believes, I do not think that that is something to celebrate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) highlighted, according to the Trussell Trust, the fantastic charity that runs 163 food banks across the UK, in the past 12 months, 60,000 people received help from food banks, including 20,000 children. It predicts that 130,000 people will need help this year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) highlighted the fact that those figures are set to rise to 500,000 by 2015. The figures are staggering and awful but, faced with that crisis, the Government have pursued out-of-touch policies that are making the situation worse, not better. They are making it harder for families and pensioners to make ends meet and to cope with the rising cost of living. Tax rises and spending cuts that go too far and too fast are choking off economic recovery, pushing up prices and leading to soaring unemployment.

That reckless plan has backfired on the deficit too, with more people out of work and claiming benefit rather than paying taxes, meaning that the Government will not balance the books by 2015 as they promised. It is time to change course and get our economy growing to create more jobs. DEFRA should play its part by putting the food industry—the largest manufacturing sector in the UK—at the heart of the economic recovery and getting a fair deal for British farmers and food manufacturers. We want a competitive supply chain for growers, processors and retailers.

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was pressed earlier about when the groceries code adjudicator will be introduced, but we did not receive clarification. We are concerned that the office will not be up and running until at least 2014-15. As price rises are 0.7% above the EU average at 4%, we need action now, and we also need to act to protect consumers from vested interests. The grocery market is dominated by four big supermarkets, which account for about 85% of the total market. Nine out of 10 people are concerned about rising food prices, and over half of them are comparing prices more when shopping for food. However, only 53% of people think that it is easy to work out which product is better value for money using the price information available on labels. Consumers need transparent pricing from the major retailers to make it easier to compare goods so that they can make informed choices. Under Labour proposals, retailers would provide clearer unit pricing for goods, with information that is easier to read, and with unit prices for promotional offers.

Today’s motion sets out to put right the failed approach of this Government, who are out of touch with the families and pensioners facing the squeeze from rising living costs. The approach set out by Labour in the motion would help the thousands of men, women and children who cannot afford to eat properly this winter, introducing measures to get our economy moving and securing a fair deal for British farmers and consumers. Unlike the Secretary of State, I do not welcome the escalation in the number of food banks: there are already three too many in Liverpool, and 163 too many across the UK. It is a tragic and terrifying indictment that we have food poverty in 21st-century Britain, one of the richest nations in the world, and that food poverty is rising. The Government must do anything and everything to reverse the situation in which over 100,000 people this year cannot afford to buy food to eat. I urge everyone to vote for the motion.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I shall try my level best to allow everyone to speak. The wind-up speeches begin at 6.40 pm, so there is a six-minute limit on speeches.

18:07

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I shall do my very best, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am the first Liberal Democrat speaker, and I regret the fact that we have only six minutes. Of course, I am not criticising you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

There are no more Liberals here.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Gentleman has only just arrived in the Chamber, so I advise him not to start.

I welcome the fact that the Opposition have introduced this important debate, the full title of which is, “Rising Food Prices and Food Poverty”. That is appropriate, although I notice that the motion is rather narrow, and refers primarily to the groceries code adjudicator. Following my intervention on the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), I urge the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), when he replies to the debate, to ensure that the Opposition reflect carefully on the drafting error in the motion, which sends an unhelpful message to those of us who believe that the primary message of today’s debate concerns the speed of the introduction of the groceries code adjudicator. I urge him to withdraw the motion when he has an opportunity to do so. It is vital that we send a strong, clear message through our debate.

I acknowledge the point that many Members have made about the impact of food poverty and the fact that people have to choose between paying their rent and eating, or between paying their heating bill and eating. Nowhere does that apply more than in my constituency, which has been at the bottom of the earnings league table for years, pretty much since records began. Tragically and regrettably, a food bank is required in Penzance, which is strictly managed by an excellent team of volunteers led by David Mann, Brenda Fox and others, who do very good work. They consider it a matter of enormous regret that such things are needed.

I welcome other topics raised by the hon. Member for Wakefield, including the importance of maintaining regulation by the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and ensuring that agricultural workers are properly remunerated for their work. She expressed dismay at the failure to introduce the grocery code adjudicator. I remind her of the dismay that many of us felt at the failure of the previous Government to act in this area. However, those who have followed the debate over many years recognise that this is a matter on which there is cross-party consensus.

The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who was mentioned earlier, the former Member for Stroud, David Drew, who did some excellent work in this area, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), who is the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning—Members across all parties—have recognised that the abuse of power by the supermarkets is unacceptable.

In its 2008 report the Competition Commission recognised that there was a climate of fear in the supply chain. That had been identified by the Office of Fair Trading report in 2004, when it reviewed the failure of the then supermarket code of practice and the urgent need for a grocery supply code of practice. As a result of the Competition Commission’s work, that has been in place since February 2010, but it is a little like a game of rugby without a referee. It is all very well having the rules in place, but if there is no one to enforce them, we do not know that rampant abuses of power are not occurring within the supermarket sector.

I declare an involvement as the chair of the Grocery Market Action Group, which includes representatives from the National Farmers Union, Friends of the Earth, the Association of Convenience Stores, the British Brands Group and other organisations. Since 2006 we have been providing evidence to the Competition Commission and pushing for an adjudicator. We have made the point that we need a supermarket watchdog that has proactive powers, can take information anonymously, can receive third-party and trade association evidence, and follow that through to an inquiry. Of course it is important that an adjudicator should not be able to go on fishing expeditions and waste the time and resources of supermarkets and their suppliers in undertaking pointless inquiries. That will sort itself out over time.

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

I know that my hon. Friend has been looking into the matter for some years. What does he consider to be the initial priorities of the adjudicator, once that office is established?

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The objectives in the draft Bill are helpful. However, the importance of speed should be emphasised. Most of the framework is in the Bill, and I would be prepared to have it put in place early, even if we failed to achieve some of the elements that I have spoken about—proactivity, anonymity, third-party referral to the adjudicator, which is important, and the power to fine.

The Bill may well enable the Secretary of State to introduce regulations allowing the adjudicator to fine supermarkets that fall below the standards set in the Bill. To bring about reputational damage, which is the only way in which supermarkets will be made to change their practice, that additional power will be needed. It is important to recognise that not all the supermarkets and those who will be brought under the code object to the proposal. Supermarkets have been achieving record profits in the deepest recession, so to argue that they cannot afford it is rubbish.

I say to the hon. Member for Ogmore that speed is of the essence. The motion should be withdrawn so that we send a strong message to the outside world.

18:14

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As we have heard, people in the UK are facing the biggest squeeze in living standards since the war. They are being hit on all sides. They are losing their jobs or their overtime or having their pay frozen. If they are self-employed, they are struggling to earn the sort of money that they used to earn. They are being hit by cuts to public services, rising fuel bills, rising rents, cuts to housing benefits, cuts to tax credits, and as we have heard today, they are being hit by rising food bills too. All those things add up and have a devastating impact on household finances.

Food prices in the UK have been rising at well over twice the rate of the incomes of the poorest. Over the past five years, food prices have gone up by 32%, rising at well over twice the rate of the national minimum wage and twice the rate of jobseeker’s allowance. Around one in every 16 people have been forced to skip meals so that the rest of their family can eat. In Bristol that represents 26,500 people in the city having to go hungry because of financial hardship. Eight hundred people in Bristol have used a food bank in the past year. Oxfam South West has reported an increase in demand on its food banks, with some reporting a 100% increase on the previous year’s total of applications for help. As we have heard, the Trussell Trust estimates that the number of people using food banks could increase from 100,000 this year to up to 500,000 by the end of this Parliament.

I congratulate the charities and Churches that run the food banks on the work they do. During the half-term recess I will be visiting the food bank in Bristol run by FareShare, which is an excellent organisation. Those charities make an immeasurable difference to people’s lives, but as Kate Wareing, Oxfam’s UK poverty programme director, has said,

“Everybody in the UK should have enough money to feed themselves and their families, whether they are in or out of work. It’s an outrage that increasing numbers of people in our country are having to visit food banks to feed themselves or put a hot meal on the table for their children.”

So although I welcome the work of those running food banks, I—unlike the Secretary of State—do not welcome the need for their existence.

Families are not only turning to food banks. The Child Poverty Action Group has found that for a quarter of the children in the UK, school dinners are their only source of hot food. In Bristol the number of children eligible for school meals has been rising. Fortunately, the local schools forum agreed to maintain funding after this Government discontinued the ring-fenced school lunch grant, but schools too will be affected by rising prices. The value of breakfast clubs is often overlooked, despite the fact that 32% of children regularly miss breakfast. The simple truth is that too many children arrive at school each morning having not eaten a proper meal since lunchtime the day before. Research by London Economics found that breakfast clubs led to a statistically significant increase in attainment and improvements in punctuality that clearly outweigh the costs. A survey by Magic Breakfast, a charity that provides breakfasts at 22p per child at 200 primary schools, including some in Bristol, found that 88% of schools see improved attendance.

In the limited time I have left, I want to talk about the problem of food waste. Many people would regard it as immoral that good edible food is thrown away when people are going to bed hungry. On a global scale, all the world’s 1 billion hungry people could be lifted out of malnourishment on less than a quarter of the food wasted in the US, the UK and Europe. Charities such as FareShare and FoodCycle are taking concerted action to tackle the problem, and doing so in a way that also encourages healthy eating, community involvement and volunteer engagement. I am proud to be a patron of FoodCycle.

Much of the problem lies in the supply chain—farming, feeding livestock, transportation, supermarket supply, restaurant policy and expenditure, and a demand for out-of-season food free from visual imperfections, as we heard from the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys). I congratulate her on her Ugly Food campaign.

In its most recent report on the grocery market in 2008, the Competition Commission concluded that supermarkets are guilty of passing unnecessary risks and excessive costs on to their suppliers—for example, through forecasting errors by supermarkets. They might tell a manufacturer a week in advance that they will probably want 100,000 sandwiches, but on the morning the sandwiches are to be delivered, they substantially reduce their order, leaving the supplier with a pallet-load of sandwiches that they cannot sell. Worse still, many products carry the supermarket’s own brand name and supermarkets will often forbid the manufacturers to sell the products on, insisting that they must be sold to them exclusively. There is also concern that if they give the products to charity, that will damage the brand.

Particularly shamefully, supermarkets often agree a price for a product with their supplier, but when sales are less than predicted and products need to be put on price reduction, the supermarket will turn around and require the supplier to share the burden of the reduced revenue. Even worse, there are the notorious take-back agreements, whereby supermarkets return to the manufacturer produce that they have failed to sell.

Although the work of food redistribution charities is invaluable, their very existence implies an acceptance of the level of social inequality that creates the coexistence of food poverty and food waste. With more than one in five workers earning less than a living wage, low pay is so pervasive that tax credits and food parcels are required to give hard-working families the support they need simply to put food on the table. That is why I strongly support calls for the draft Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill to be brought forward in this year’s Queen’s Speech.

I will also bring forward a ten-minute rule Bill in March calling for action to enforce the principles of the food waste pyramid, which deals first with the reduction of food waste, then with the distribution of surplus food to redistribution charities, and then with sale or donation for feeding livestock, rather than food waste being sent for anaerobic digestion, or—even worse—landfill. I will be happy to talk with other Members who are interested in the Bill, and I hope that they will join me in supporting it.

18:20

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

In the Order Paper, the title of this debate is “Rising Food Prices and Food Poverty”, but I note that the words “food poverty” appear nowhere in the motion. We should start by examining what constitutes a state of affairs that can be described as food poverty. The Food Ethics Council, a registered charity, states on its website:

“Food poverty means that an individual or household isn’t able to obtain healthy, nutritious food, or can’t access the food they would like to eat.”

With so wide and all-embracing a definition, it could be argued that millions of people, including many quite high up the income scale, are living in food poverty. Having said that, there are people on limited and fixed incomes for whom paying the bills is a great struggle, but I do not accept the patronising view that they are somehow more likely to suffer from obesity because they can afford to eat only certain types of food. As we have heard this afternoon, processed and sugary foods are often much more expensive than fresh foods. I accept that food, as a variable item of expenditure, is always likely to come under pressure when there are other demands on the household budget. The question is what we can do to help those struggling to make ends meet.

I want to make two main points. First, we need to tackle the European Union’s common agricultural policy. It must be reformed. In a limited debate of this nature there is no time to do any more than flag up that disastrous policy. Few other sectors are controlled quite so overwhelmingly from Brussels as agriculture. Despite the Labour party signing away the UK rebate, supposedly in return for substantial reform, the CAP remains a complex system of subsidies and incentives that I believe distort the operation of the free market.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

I am interested in my hon. Friend’s point about the impact of the CAP. Does he agree that the biggest impact is caused by completely unnecessary regulation on farming? I happen to be a livestock farmer, and the costs of some requirements, such as electronic tagging, have to be transferred and are a serious contributor to the cost of food.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I submit that the impact of EU regulation is of far greater concern to farmers than their relationship with our nation’s supermarkets. Despite all the tinkering with the CAP, it still takes up more than 40% of the entire EU budget. British consumers would be far better off if we were free from the tentacles of the European Union and its CAP altogether.

Secondly, I do not think that we should interfere with the operation of our retailers. The fierce competition between high street food retailers has led to the sustained availability of a huge choice of foods that previous generations could only have dreamt of. As Asda battles Tesco, which competes with Sainsbury’s, which fights with Morrisons, which battles with Waitrose, Lidl, Booths, Aldi and Marks & Spencer, all competing with each other and with smaller chains and independents, there is surely no doubt that all this competition has served to drive down prices for the benefit of all consumers.

[Julian Sturdy]

Is it not true that driving down some of those costs has been detrimental to dairy farmers? Milk prices have fallen, and the fact that supermarkets sell milk as a loss leader is having a real impact on local dairy farmers.

[Mr Nuttall]

Dairy farmers can band together and form co-operatives in order to strengthen their negotiating position, as they have done. The market solution to the problem is to have higher prices. I am conscious of the fact that many Members wish to contribute to the debate, so will leave my remarks there.

18:26

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in the debate, and I apologise for not being here at the start—I was serving on a Statutory Instrument Committee.

I am afraid that the Government are yet again out of touch, in this case with families feeling the squeeze of higher food prices. At 4%, food inflation in the UK outstrips that of all other EU countries. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), because of his interest in Europe, and to be able to give that context.

As my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) powerfully and graphically spelt out, food poverty is a growing concern. The cost of living crisis is affecting households across the country and more families are relying on food banks. I pay tribute to the food bank in my constituency, organised by Scunthorpe Baptist Church, which does a fantastic job in helping people to meet their crisis needs, particularly when there is a dislocation in their benefit payments. As has been said throughout the debate, although we recognise the great benefits that food banks bring to society, it is a great shame and a great condemnation of where we are that people in such a rich country have to rely on them.

I am afraid that the Government are making it harder for families to make ends meet and overseeing a massive growth in handouts from food banks as families struggle with rising costs, higher bills and job insecurity. Rising food poverty is a national scandal. Last year 60,000 people relied on food handouts, including 20,000 children, and one new food bank opened every week. A family with two small children now has to pay over £233 a year more for food due to rising prices.

My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) drew attention to the health risks of families eating less fresh fruit and vegetables, and I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) speak about the contribution that people growing their own food on allotments can make. I am pleased that in my constituency there are initiatives across many primary schools whereby fruit and vegetables are grown to make children and families aware of the benefit of eating them. Indeed, Leys Farm junior school not only has such an initiative, but the produce is served in the school kitchen. There is much good practice out there that we need to build on.

Consumers want transparent food pricing by major retailers so that it is easy to compare goods and to make informed choices, and that is why unit pricing is so important. I am concerned, however, about the need to crack on with introducing the grocery code adjudicator; there is a strong cross-party consensus for putting that role in place.

I have asked several written questions on the matter and, in particular, on the issue of confidentiality in order to protect people who make complaints to the adjudicator, and the responses that I have received have all been in a similar vein: “Protecting the confidentiality of suppliers who raise complaints will be both a power and a duty of the adjudicator.” But the question is how that is done, and the key issue is how it is managed.

The security surrounding confidentiality is important. I had a meeting today with representatives of a packaging federation, and they made it clear that their members would be concerned about making individual complaints to the adjudicator, and that third-party complaints would need to be part of the structure. The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) said that people in the supply chain often operate in a climate of fear, so it is important that the decisions of this House, in pushing forward the role of the grocery adjudicator, ensure that that climate no longer exists and is properly addressed.

The National Farmers Union in my constituency and throughout the country is very much concerned to ensure that there is a third-party complaints process. Alex Godfrey, who represents the NFU in Scunthorpe, has made that very clear to me, echoing the evidence that was given to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

I hope that this debate helps to hasten putting in place the grocery code adjudicator in a way that gains the confidence of not only the people in this Chamber, but the people out there and, most importantly, the people who might want to use the adjudicator to ensure fair play in the world.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am grateful to the previous two speakers, Nic Dakin and David Nuttall, for not using their full allocation of time, as it allows at least two more speakers to get in.

18:32

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate, as there is no doubt about the conclusion that we should make—that there is a link between food prices and food poverty. It is apparent that the poorest in society will find high prices difficult, and we only have to look throughout the world to find that. As the population of the world reaches 7 billion, and moves towards 8 billion by 2030, we have a greater need to produce more food, and that is where I charge the previous Government, because for much of their final period in office they did not encourage food production. In fact they said, “We can import as much food as we like”; our home production did not matter.

We therefore need greatly to increase our food production in this country, and as other Members have said, we need to use biotechnology in order to do so and to reduce our use of fertilisers and pesticides. A blight-resistant potato is coming, and it could increase food production while dramatically reducing the environmental consequences of spraying potatoes, so there is much we can do, but we have to go forward and do it.

On the grocery code adjudicator, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who is no longer in his place, missed the point. If these wonderful supermarkets are not doing anything wrong, they have nothing to fear from the adjudicator. The point of setting up the post of adjudicator is to put him or her in place so that, if there is abuse, it can be looked at. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wants the role of the adjudicator introduced quickly, so we need to give the legislation parliamentary time. Farmers, growers and many other people in the food chain are often squeezed not only by the big supermarkets but by the big buyers in the chains, and that is why the adjudicator is so necessary.

I therefore very much welcome the debate and what the Government are doing to increase food production and ensure that common agricultural policy reform does not set aside more land and stop food production. There is a moral obligation to produce food not only for this country, but for the rest of the world.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you for your time constraint.

18:34

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

In the brief time that I have to speak, I shall make three points: first, about the link between food poverty and obesity; secondly, about the impact of loss leaders; and thirdly, about the role of local food production.

Data from the health and social care information centre show that one third of children are now obese, but the link between deprivation and the risk of obesity is stark. We see it in reception class, but it becomes even starker as children move through to year 6, where currently 23.6% of the poorest children, but only 12.8% of the wealthiest, are obese. The reason is the difficulty not just with buying food, but with the types of food that are the cheapest, and with people’s choices being driven by supermarkets and with the operation of loss leaders.

I would not call on the adjudicator to issue an outright ban on loss leaders, because previous inquiries have shown that such action does not reduce the cost of food overall, but there needs to be much greater clarity about the cross-subsidies that loss leaders introduce, because subsidising products such as alcohol, chocolate and crisps increases the cost of much healthier foods. We need to address that issue, because one of the Labour Government’s greatest failures, as identified by the King’s Fund, was in making progress on health inequalities, which we cannot address without tackling issues such as alcohol and nutrition. That is an important point, because obesity affects children’s life chances and costs the rest of us. We know that, unless we address obesity, by 2050 it will cost the country about £10 billion a year, so the adjudicator represents good value for money.

In addition to addressing loss leaders and ensuring that people have access to good-quality food, Ministers should also consider the role of local food production. I pay tribute to Transition Town Totnes and the Campaign to Protect Rural England for clearly setting out how supporting good, local, sustainable food webs and delivering good, fresh, seasonal produce does not necessarily result in higher prices, and for showing that we can use measures to encourage the right choice to be the healthy choice.

18:37

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

This has been a very good and wide-ranging debate, and all in all I think that we have had 12 speakers, if my maths is good—although maths is not my strong point.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) spoke eloquently on behalf of farmers, and pressed the Government on farmers’ genuine concerns about currency and exchange rates and rising costs. She spoke also of, in her phrase, “the climate of fear” in the supply chain, and we recognise that. She pushed the Government, as she has in her role as Chair of the excellent Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, to give real teeth and power to the adjudicator. She also almost referred to “good” and “bad” retailers, so I look forward to her contribution to the Labour left review or to Progress magazine.

The hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) also spoke well, and said that the era of cheap food is coming to an end. Perhaps it is, but if so I am sure we all agree that we need the fairest prices for consumers and fairness throughout the food chain. She mentioned her involvement with, if this is correct, “Tasty but ugly like you.” I do not mean you, Mr Deputy Speaker, of course. I hesitate to lay the words “tasty” or “ugly” on you—[Interruption.] No, I will stop there.

The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who represents a lovely part of the world which I know well, made a very good contribution that could have been called, “The Plot Thickens”. She talked about the importance of grow your own, and I too stress the role of allotments—given that the chair of the National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners, a very good gardener, lives in my constituency—and the need to protect and enhance them. The hon. Lady talked of giant leeks, which we see also at Wales rugby matches, and she advocated growing produce in one’s garden or in one’s neighbour’s garden—although in the latter case it is always best to ask permission.

The hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) said that there was no mention of “food poverty” in the motion. There is: it is in the title. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) recognised the real problem of food poverty, on which I congratulate him, and he took issue with his hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) about the nature and purpose of the adjudicator, on which we agree. There was also a thoughtful contribution from the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston).

The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) made a good contribution. He welcomed much of our motion and many of our remarks. I can clarify that we want the adjudicator in the next parliamentary Session. Will he support us? He should not let a drafting error get in the way of our emerging coalition on this matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) spoke extremely well for his constituents, describing a “heat or eat” scenario—or, worse, neither heat nor eat. He went into detail on food banks and mentioned clearly that they did not exist in great numbers under Labour because there was not the need for them on the scale at which they are now emerging.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) spoke powerfully for farmers in her area and the early introduction of a powerful groceries code adjudicator in the next parliamentary Session. We agree. “Fairness across the food chain”—her phrase—is a good rallying cry. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) paid tribute to the work of our hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) on the groceries code adjudicator and called for an urgent introduction of an adjudicator with clout. She said, stirringly, that it is a disgrace that anyone should have to rely on charity to feed their family.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) focused expertly on food poverty, the growth in the number of food banks in Bristol and the work being done to mitigate the problem of food poverty. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) described the national scandal of rising food poverty, coupled with the rise in broad poverty issues throughout the UK. She gave direct evidence of the human tragedy for her own constituents, not least because of the late payment of benefits, something echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin).

The Secretary of State talked widely about global issues, but did not focus on the particulars of food poverty and food banks. Labour Members picked up on astonishing complacency. She described food banks as a triumph for the big society, rather than a tragedy caused by the Government’s social and economic policy. How many more food banks do we need before we can proclaim the big society a resounding success?

[Mrs Spelman]

When the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard tomorrow, he will see that I did not use the word “triumph”. Opposition Members have failed to observe that, for many decades, many institutions in this country have helped the poor and needy. If he has never been to a harvest festival and understood that churches collect food to distribute among those in their community who really need it, he is not alert to how much that is part of British culture.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Charitable effort has indeed always been part of this country, before the phrase “big society” was invented, but never with the proliferation that we currently see. It is a tragedy.

Let me relate a direct story about one not unusual family of four in England today. One parent is out of work and the other is in a low-paid job. Before Christmas, they found themselves behind on their mortgage, with their council tax debt racking up and the gas and electricity meters running out of money. They receive working tax credit and child tax credit, both of which will soon be cut by the Government. Their home is increasingly cold and dark and the only things in their cupboards are food parcels from the local food bank. The right hon. Lady shakes her head, but they buy what fresh food they can when they can, but without the support and kindness of local people, they would simply go hungry. We would love that to be fiction, but such are now the facts of life for too many families.

Into that harsh reality stumbles a throwback to the 1980s—a former Conservative Minister who was then the hon. Member for South Derbyshire. When confronted recently with that dire social and economic regression, she boldly answered:

“Are you telling me people in this country are going hungry? Seriously? Seriously?”

Yes, seriously—former Conservative Ministers might not want to believe it, but it is a searing indictment of the Government that more and more people across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland find themselves relying on food banks, one of which was opening every week last year. Those people depend on the generosity of others to get by.

Last year, 60,000 people received help from a food bank, a figure that the Trussell Trust predicts will rise to 130,000 in the next year. For all those impoverished families who now need a voice in the Chamber, the words and sentiment of the former Member for Ebbw Vale echo down the years: this is their truth, our truth—tell me yours. What is true across the UK is true in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies. From Llanharan to Gilfach Goch, and Maesteg to Pontycymmer, and all points between, food banks proliferate.

We should pay tribute to the many volunteers and organisations involved, such as the Bridgend food bank and the Pontyclun food bank, but the issue is a terrible indictment of the economic misery inflicted on families under this failing coalition Government. I challenge the Minister and the Government to dispute that stark reality. The Government’s failing policies and inaction on the economy mean that families are finding it hard to make ends meet and struggling to cope with rising living costs, higher energy, housing and food bills, and the constant fear that they could lose their jobs—if they have them—at any time.

For too many, eating is losing out to heating and housing costs. Charities warn that having a job is now no protection; an estimated 10% of food bank recipients are middle earners whose salaries have been cut or frozen or who have recently lost their jobs. Food prices rose by more than 4% last year. Lower-income families are eating less fresh fruit and vegetables. They spend more than 15% of their income on food. In real terms, it comes down to a couple with two young children spending an extra £233 on their annual food bill.

When surveyed by Which? in the last year, more than half of consumers said that increasing prices made it difficult to eat healthily. Nearly 90% genuinely fear the increasing cost of food. Those are startling figures. However, when people need help, the Government seem torn between prevarication and paralysis when it comes to taking action that will go some way towards easing the pressure on people’s wallets—not least by assisting farmers and manufacturers of the food we eat with the retail and financial challenges that they face.

When in government, Labour took action after the hike in food prices in 2008 to address that challenge and to produce more food sustainably. In 2010, we published the first Government food strategy for 60 years and our priority was a sustainable, affordable competitive food sector. We gained cross-party support for the supermarket ombudsman—to ensure a fair deal for farmers and food producers, who still need a fair deal from major retailers—and for the implementation of the groceries supply code of practice in February 2010.

Yes, there was more to be done, but the creation of an ombudsman—the groceries adjudicator—to enforce and monitor the code of practice was a recommendation of the Competition Commission and is supported by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Business, Innovation and Skills Committees. It would do a great deal for farmers, food manufacturers and the public. It was not just us asking for it.

[Andrew George]

I have to put the hon. Gentleman right. The Competition Commission was empowered and used its power to introduce the groceries supply code of practice; it was not the last Labour Government. Will he retract that claim?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I am happy to say that the code is in place, and that happened while the Labour party was in government. I agreed with the hon. Gentleman when he said last September:

“Every week the government fails to act, farmers are finding themselves in more difficulty.”

So let us get on with it.

We do not want bluff and bluster; we do need action. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) said, we ignore the perfect storm of rising prices, falling incomes and food poverty at our peril. I urge the House to support the motion.

18:48

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)]

I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who bowled the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) and hit the middle stump, showing the paucity of the motion. I offer advice to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues—they simply cannot support the wording in the motion. It is a sign of desperation to pray in aid somebody who has not been in the House for 15 years when referring to Conservative or any other policy.

It is clear from this afternoon’s debate that Members on both sides of the House take seriously the challenges posed by food price inflation. It is also clear that down the years Governments of different complexions have seen varying degrees of price volatility. Of course I agree with hon. Members on both sides that wonderful work is done by charities and other organisations to support people on low incomes. That has always been the case. But please can we not pretend that in some parallel universe those charities were all forced into action on 6 May 2010 and that their existence is totally the result of the coalition Government? That is such a puerile and facile argument. Let us have a mature debate. I hope to add some thoughts in the few moments that I have.

Some Opposition Members have sought to ascribe the responsibility for high prices to the coalition. Clearly, that is undermined by the fact that food prices were rising at a faster rate under the previous Government. Likewise, we know that food price inflation was outstripping general inflation at one point last year, only for the situation to be reversed later in the year. The dynamics of where food prices stand at a particular point in time are of secondary importance to hard-pressed families who are balancing their budgets. Those families want to know what action is being taken to help, not just by Government, but by a range of organisations that have a distinguished track record in this regard.

We have heard of some excellent initiatives in the area of food provision and redistribution. We know about Healthy Start, which is a Government initiative. We have heard about FareShare, which provided 8.6 million meals in the last financial year. Many hon. Members have spoken about food banks, which are organisations set up by wonderful, community-minded people with real compassion. We applaud their activities. However, I say to Opposition Members, in particular the hon. Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), that it is ridiculous to say that the rise in the need for food banks is attributable to this Government. This Government spend £122 million a day just to pay the interest on the debt that their Government left us. That is what we have to spend before we even pay off the debt.

[Luciana Berger]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Benyon]

No, I will not give way.

The motion is almost entirely consumed with statements about the introduction of the groceries code adjudicator. We agree on the importance of introducing an adjudicator. That is why we have published a draft Bill and are getting on with putting it in place. What is rather more puzzling is the position of the Opposition, who wasted 13 years without introducing the adjudicator, even though they knew that power was shifting from the suppliers to the retailers and had received evidence on that. Despite that, they criticise this Government for not having completed the process in 18 months.

The motion refers to “delays”. The only element of delay is in the motion itself, which demands that the adjudicator be introduced in the next Parliament. The hon. Member for Ogmore explained that that was a drafting error. In that case, he must tell Members not to support the motion. Any Member who supports it is showing a paucity of ambition, because it means that they want the adjudicator to be introduced early in the next Parliament. The hon. Gentleman will have to withdraw the motion. That is the only thing to do. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) might want to wait until after the next general election to introduce the adjudicator, but the coalition has no such intention. We will carry on with the work in hand and bring it in during this Parliament.

Aside from the rather narrow focus on the adjudicator, there has been a series of interesting and useful contributions on the work that can be done to mitigate food prices. I pay great tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and wish her social enterprise well. It sounds like an interesting idea. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who made some interesting comments about the social impact of the threat of high food prices. I confirm for her that the groceries code adjudicator will consider anonymous submissions. She talked in particular about the fruit and vegetable sector. Those suppliers can approach the groceries code adjudicator anonymously.

The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) asked when the groceries code adjudicator would be introduced. I hope that we have answered her question. The draft Bill is available. I cannot second guess what will be in the Queen’s Speech. I would be in trouble if I did.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) spoke about local and home-grown food. I pay tribute to what is happening in her constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives was absolutely on target. He sought, as I do, cross-party consensus because on these issues this House sometimes produces more heat than light. If we look at the matter in detail, we see that there is a lot more that we agree on than separates us.

The Government are hugely supportive of food banks and other organisations that work to open up access to food. The coalition Government have been clear from the outset about the importance that they attach to third sector and civic activity. The success of many organisations in this area demonstrates why we are right to work hand in glove with them in delivering social solutions.

This debate has demonstrated the extent to which food price inflation is shaped by an intricate matrix of interrelated global circumstances. To stand here and pretend that the Government can step in and bring down food prices at a stroke would be disingenuous. The Government can put measures in place to ameliorate the worst effects of food price inflation, which we are doing through measures such as our continued support for Healthy Start and other schemes. One of the biggest determinants of food prices is global and domestic supply, and this Department has put farming and food production at the heart of its business plan. Whether it is in stripping away the needless bureaucracy that has swamped farmers, developing a strategy for balancing the needs of greater food production with protecting our environment, or helping to fund innovation and increased competitiveness, this Government are highly attuned to the need to increase high-quality food production domestically.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is personally driving a great deal of work with other countries to help to meet the food supply challenges set out in the Foresight report. We are investing time and energy to ensure that we are working hand in glove with others on that important challenge. Understandably, the effects of that will take time to be felt.

The fact is that there is no silver bullet. The Opposition should know better than to pretend that the adjudicator will be the cure-all for hard-pressed families. What families need now is for the Government to deliver real help right now to get living costs down to a manageable level. To that end, the Opposition should support freezing the council tax, cutting fuel duty, cutting income tax for 25 million people, extending free child care, increasing the child tax credit, taking action on energy prices and many other measures. They were strangely silent on those measures throughout the debate. That is the programme that the coalition Government will continue to deliver in parallel with our work to increase food security and keep food prices down.

I believe that the House is united in its concern for those who struggle to manage their food bills. That is as it should be. However, this debate has laid bare the absence of any ideas from the Opposition. That is in marked contrast to the practical steps that the coalition is taking to help hard-pressed families up and down the country. On that basis, the motion should be rejected.

Question put,

18:58

Division 435

Ayes: 223

---

Labour: 213
Scottish National Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 3
Alliance: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 293

---

Conservative: 249
Liberal Democrat: 42

Youth Unemployment and Bank Bonuses

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call the first speaker, may I say to both Front Benchers that a large number of Back Benchers have signified that they wish to take part in the debate? I ask them for some time constraint in their opening speeches to allow as many Back Benchers as possible an opportunity to speak.

19:13

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes with concern that unemployment has risen to its highest level for 17 years, youth unemployment has now reached a record level of 1.04 million and the number of young people claiming jobseeker’s allowance for over six months has more than doubled since January 2011; believes that cutting spending and raising taxes too far and too fast has choked off the recovery and pushed up unemployment and that it was a mistake for the Government to abolish the Future Jobs Fund; recognises that rising unemployment and the Government’s failing welfare to work programmes are leading to a higher benefits bill, which is contributing to the £158 billion of additional borrowing announced in the Autumn Statement; further notes reports that multi-million pound bank bonuses are set to be paid out this year, even in banks where the share price has almost halved; and in view of the most recent figures on unemployment, calls on the Government to take urgent action to kickstart the economy to promote jobs and growth and to reconsider its refusal to introduce a tax on bankers’ bonuses this year, in addition to the permanent bank levy, to fund 100,000 jobs for young people.

We have called the debate to raise the alarm on a crisis that is now on the verge of becoming a national disgrace—the disgrace of a few getting rewarded for failure while many more pay the heavy cost of the failure of the Government’s economic policies. However, the motion is not just a critique. It is also a call for action, a reminder to the Government that, despite the damage that has already been done, they still have a choice. There is an alternative—Labour’s five-point plan for jobs and growth could get people back into work, get our economy moving and get the deficit down in a balanced and sustainable way.

Every hon. Member who is present will have met victims of the unemployment crisis in their own constituency. They are families devastated by the arrival of the dreaded redundancy letter and afraid of what the future will bring, and parents determined to do the right thing and provide for their children but unable to make ends meet.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The hon. Lady mentions unemployment in Members’ constituencies. Does she recognise that, based on the claimant count, unemployment in Leeds West has fallen by 106 since the election? Which of the Government’s policies would she recommend as being to blame for that?

[Rachel Reeves]

Youth unemployment in my constituency, like in most of our constituencies, is rising fast, whereas it was falling at the time of the last election.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

May I share with the hon. Lady the figures for her own constituency? Youth unemployment rose by 625 between 2005 and 2010, which was a 103% rise, yet rose by 25 between 2010 and 2011, which was a 2% rise. Can she explain why it rose so much between 2005 and 2010?

[Rachel Reeves]

The hon. Gentleman might be aware of the global financial crisis that took place. Between 1997 and the start of the financial crisis, unemployment and youth unemployment were falling in my constituency and nationally, and at the time of the last general election unemployment was falling. Now, it is rising.

Government Members are in denial about what is happening. The reality is that, over the past year, long- term youth unemployment has more than doubled. It is a reality that the Opposition recognise and would do something about, whereas Government Members ignore it.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Is it not clear that what we have heard in the first moment or two of this debate is Conservative Members saying, “It’s all right, everything’s going great”? We have record youth unemployment, and all we hear from Government Members is laughter and complacency.

[Rachel Reeves]

I think many of our constituents watching this debate will say exactly that. The Government are in denial. Youth unemployment is at a record high, and Government Members say, “There’s not a problem. We don’t need to do anything about it. Everything is fine.” That is not the reality for our constituents.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Even if this is a laughing matter for the Government, it certainly is not for us. My constituency has among the highest levels of youth unemployment. It is a tragedy—there is no other way to describe it—when young people are simply unable to find work. I have been in touch with Jobcentre Plus, and there is no doubt about the difficulties and hardships for such young people. Yet for the Government, it is a laughing matter.

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend speaks for the many families and young people in all our constituencies who are experiencing a crisis, and I give him credit for recognising their challenges.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady feel at all positive about the Government’s steps to create new apprenticeships for young people to get them into real jobs that will endure?

[Rachel Reeves]

The reality is that the Office for Budget Responsibility has examined all the Government’s plans and predicts that unemployment will continue to rise all the way through this year, and the OECD predicts that it will rise next year as well. That is their verdict on the Government’s economic policy.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Rachel Reeves]

I will make a little progress, because we know that many Members want to speak. I will try to give way again later.

Although many of our constituents are very fearful about the future, not everyone is looking to the future with fear and trepidation—not for all the question of how their money will last until the end of the month, or whether they can afford to heat their homes and eat three meals a day. For the past week, we have been hearing stories of banks preparing to pay bonuses to a few hundred senior employees amounting to hundreds of thousands, even millions of pounds in another multi-billion pound bonus season.

The Opposition believe in rewarding hard work and encouraging enterprise that contributes to the prosperity of the economy, but this is about fairness, responsibility and proportion. It is about the difference between rewards for success and rewards for failure.

When millions of families are struggling to find work, businesses are having their loan applications turned down and banks are continuing to rely on taxpayers’ hard-earned money for their very survival, the vast majority of people in all our constituencies find the idea of such sums being paid to a small number of individuals unacceptable. People rightly feel that we did not bail out the banking system to perpetuate a business-as-usual model or to pay big bonuses when ordinary workers are losing jobs. Surely we bailed out the banks to protect the businesses and families that depend on banks serving and supporting the wider economy.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady explain why Labour Ministers accepted and approved such grotesque contracts for RBS, so that they now personify payment for failure?

[Rachel Reeves]

We introduced a bank bonus tax to get some money back from the banks. The Government refused to go ahead with it and, instead, gave the banks a tax cut this year. That is not acceptable, and that is what the motion is about.

While banks seemingly return to the business-as-usual model, aided and abetted by the current Government, last week the Office for National Statistics published another set of dreadful unemployment numbers. Total unemployment is now at its highest since the summer of 1994. Women’s unemployment is the highest it has been since autumn 1987. Youth unemployment is now the highest since comparable records began. The number of young people claiming jobseeker’s allowance for six months or more has doubled in just 12 months.

Those figures on their own are shocking enough and should be sufficient to end all debate and drive the Chief Secretary and the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), to urgent action. However, most worrying is the fact that, on every measure, and according to every forecast and to the Government’s Office for Budget Responsibility, unemployment is set not to fall, but to get worse.

The Office for Budget Responsibility’s projection, alongside last year’s autumn statement, showed unemployment rising to 2.8 million this year. The OECD expects unemployment to rise to 9% in 2013. If unemployment continues to rise at the rate that it has done in the past six months, it will reach 3 million this summer. The economy may well be headed back to recession—we will hear the grim reality on Wednesday.

However, it is clear that, although the situation is now perilously close to tipping point, and the Government’s failures are mounting, they could still take action. Yet since taking office in 2010, the backfiring of their attempts to cut too far and too fast has added a shocking £158 billion in extra borrowing.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the growing trend of extended unemployment—more than six months—for young people creates the real worry that we will have a lost generation unless the Government act?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is right that long-term youth unemployment has a scarring effect, which affects more and more people throughout the country. It is similar to the situation in the early 1980s and early 1990s—the last two times a Conservative Government presided over a recession.

With more people out of work and fewer businesses succeeding, the Government end up paying out more in benefits and getting less in through taxes. They are filling that gap with the £158 billion more borrowing. The inheritance that that leaves for the next Government will mean more tough decisions about taxation and spending—the unnecessary and avoidable cost of the Government’s failure.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Unemployment among all 16 to 24-year-olds on jobseeker’s allowance in the Bridgend constituency is 8.8%. Would one way forward be to grant a one-year national insurance holiday, so that small businesses could take on young people, give them employment and the opportunity to experience work?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. That is why, as part of Labour’s five-point plan for jobs and growth, we include a national insurance holiday for all small businesses taking on new workers—a policy that would help small businesses and the more than 1 million young people who are desperately searching for work.

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady accept responsibility for the failure to skill up our young people to take on jobs? For example, after the Labour party’s 13 years in office, we had the smallest proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds studying maths of any OECD country.

[Rachel Reeves]

People are not getting jobs at the moment not because they do not have skills but because the jobs are not available. In all our constituencies, five or 10 people are chasing every job. That is why unemployment is rising. Until the Government take responsibility for that, the numbers will get worse, not better.

The price that families struggling with the consequences of redundancy and young people forced to abandon their career plans pay is incalculable. We cannot go on like that. Maybe some hon. Members—we have already heard from many of them—greet the prospect of rising unemployment with a degree of fatalism, perhaps resignation. They may feel that the punishment being inflicted on innocent families and young people is the sad but inevitable consequence of austerity and economic adjustment. Indeed, as I said earlier, there is a grim familiarity about the figures, which bear a depressing resemblance to the record of previous Conservative Governments.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The hon. Lady talks about a grim familiarity. Does she acknowledge that every Labour Government in history ended with higher unemployment than they started with? After a 40% rise in youth unemployment under the previous Government, some humility is required on both sides of the House, but not least on hers.

[Rachel Reeves]

Unemployment has reached 3 million twice, both times under Conservative Governments. At the last election, unemployment was falling; today, it is rising.

[Mr Stuart]

That is because we are clearing up your mess.

[Rachel Reeves]

In the 1980s and early 1990s, unemployment reached 3 million. Was that because Conservative Governments were clearing up a Labour mess? Really? I think it was because of the policies that Conservative Governments always pursue—policies that hurt young people and put more people out of work. That is the reality of Conservative Governments.

Labour Members are not complacent. We do not say that it is inevitable, that it has got to happen and that 3 million unemployed is a price worth paying. Labour Members are not prepared to give up on young people and we urge the Government not to give up on them, either.

In the coalition agreement, the Government said that a fundamental goal would be to

“sustain the recovery and to protect jobs.”

Before the election, the Prime Minister told voters that jobs would be his top priority. He said:

“I understand if you leave people unemployed, and short term unemployment becomes long term, then it becomes a lifetime of unemployment. It’s a waste of life. I must stop it happening.”

He was right then, but he does nothing now. The Deputy Prime Minister said earlier this month that

“supporting people into work is my priority for 2012”.

He is right, yet he does nothing.

We must—and we will—hold the Government to their promises because we cannot allow the next generation to be denied the chance of expanded opportunities that has always been the promise of Britain.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that long-term youth unemployment is falling—and, indeed, has fallen by 5%? Will she also acknowledge that half a million new jobs have been created in the private sector in the past year? Currently, there are 90,000 vacancies in retail, 44,000 in hospitality and 11,000 in construction. What matters is that the Government, through the Work programme and so many other interventions, are maximising the skills and training for young people to get them into work.

[Rachel Reeves]

In the hon. Lady’s constituency, long-term youth unemployment has gone up by 25% in the past few months. I do not know what she says to her constituents—“There’s loads of jobs out there. Just go and get one”? More people are chasing jobs than there are jobs available. That is because the Government are pushing more and more people out of work. I am sorry that the hon. Lady does not know the numbers for her constituency, but we know.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

The hon. Lady talked about the scarring effect of the fast-buck culture. Will she condemn the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) for taking a consultancy with private equity?

[Rachel Reeves]

I will not condemn my right hon. Friend for taking a job. I am talking about the reality of the challenge that people in our constituencies face. More and more people are out of work. We should listen to them. They are saying that they are getting degrees, A-levels and vocational qualifications but that they cannot find work. As I have said, many would be shocked that many MPs say, “That’s just inevitable—it’s just what happens, and nothing can be done about it.” That is not acceptable. Our constituents see unemployment rising. The House should be taking action to address that challenge.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I would have intervened earlier, but I was trying to work out the arithmetic of Government Members. We are constantly told that 500,000 jobs were created last year, but we have been told about them for the past 20 months. Does my hon. Friend agree that Government Members cannot constantly refer to those same jobs, which were largely the result of the stimulus applied by the previous Labour Government?

[Rachel Reeves]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We have to look only at the forecasts from, for example, the independent OBR, which says that unemployment will continue to rise this year, or at the OECD numbers, which say that unemployment will continue to rise into 2013. That is the reality.

I am sure we will hear the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and others defend the Government’s inaction and talk about their various half-baked and half-hearted solutions. We look forward to hearing a report on the progress of those initiatives, and in particular what difference the Government expect them to make to future unemployment. As I have said, the OBR has said that there is no reason for it to revise its unemployment projections as a result of the Government’s measures.

The Government’s response is inadequate for the scale of the challenge. When the Prime Minister was challenged last week on his performance on unemployment, all he could do was admit with regret that youth unemployment is a problem. However, the Opposition are asking the Government not simply to acknowledge they have a problem—we all know that—but to do something about it. The Prime Minister says he takes responsibility for everything that happens in our economy, but taking responsibility means taking action.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

Unemployment in my constituency is creeping upwards and long-term unemployment is coming down, but in both my constituency and the hon. Lady’s constituency apprenticeship starts are increasing at an incredibly rapid rate. Can she and I agree on one thing: that the best way to get young people into work is to get them such opportunities with the private sector, and relentlessly to support them, as this Government are doing?

[Rachel Reeves]

I expect the hon. Lady’s constituents, like mine, regret that the Government cancelled the future jobs fund, which was helping young people back into work. Since that cancellation, long-term youth unemployment in her constituency has gone up not just by a little bit, but by 36%. That is the reality that her constituents face day in, day out.

I hope we will not hear the usual hand-wringing—although I might have to give up that hope—or the usual shoulder-shrugging or blame-shifting. The jobs crisis is not a fact of life or a force of nature, and the Government cannot play the innocent bystander, as they have tried to do. The jobs crisis is a result of the choices they have made. They chose to cut too far and too fast; to abolish employment programmes that were working; and to destroy job opportunities in both public and private sectors.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The hon. Lady approaches such matters very thoughtfully indeed, and as a future Labour leader I would expect nothing else of her, much to the shock and horror of the shadow Chancellor.

Does the hon. Lady accept that the economy needs to be rebalanced and that we need more tax producers than tax consumers? Surely we can all agree on that.

[Rachel Reeves]

I am not sure how the Government will rebalance the economy by throwing more people on the scrapheap. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I will just have to disagree, but that does not seem to me to be the way to rebalance the economy and to get it growing again.

Despite the Government’s mistakes, they still have choices open to them.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

None of the automated Government Members mentions the VAT tax bombshell, because they must know in their heart of hearts the absolute disgrace of the VAT increase for small companies. Does my hon. Friend agree that when Labour Members speak of a VAT cut for home improvements, we are speaking up for jobs in construction in a way that some Government Members will never understand?

[Rachel Reeves]

The cut in VAT to 17.5% is part of Labour’s five-point plan for jobs and growth. It would put £450 in the pockets of an average family, which is desperately needed to help people who are struggling with the rising cost of living—the rising train, energy and petrol prices.

We have rising unemployment and excessive bank bonuses, but it does not have to be that way. While millions of families up and down the country struggle with the effects of redundancy and millions of young people lose the hope of fulfilling their potential, very little is being asked of those with the broadest shoulders. Despite his pre-election promises to tackle the bonus culture, the Prime Minister will not take the measures recommended by the High Pay Commission to make a difference. Despite the Government’s call for more shareholder activism and engagement as a check on excessive remuneration, they wash their hands of the reported decision to award more than £1 million to the chief executive of RBS, in which they are a major shareholder.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady express some degree of regret, because bank bonuses under this Government are 40% lower than they were under the previous one? She must tell the House who it was who gave Sir Fred Goodwin his knighthood.

[Rachel Reeves]

The Leader of the Opposition has said that the knighthood for Fred Goodwin was not warranted, but I do not remember hearing Conservative Members saying that he should not get a knighthood when it was awarded.

Bank bonuses were taxed at 50% in the last year of the Labour Government. That brought in £3.5 billion, which was used to help to support families and to support young people back into work. Unlike Labour, which introduced a tax on bank bonuses, the Government are introducing a tax cut for banks this year. That tax cut is unwarranted and unjustified as unemployment and youth unemployment continue to rise.

The Opposition proposal is simple. While banks are still not doing their job—they are not supporting jobs or growth—the Government must step in to ensure that resources are put to better use. A 50% tax on bank bonuses above £25,000 would, on a cautious estimate, raise enough revenue to support the creation of 100,000 jobs for young people.

We know that such a measure would work because it has worked before. Labour’s 2010 bank bonus tax raised £3.5 billion, according the OBR. The future jobs fund, which was created by the previous Labour Government, supported more than 100,000 people back into work. That is a record of which Labour Members are proud. By contrast, the Government have chosen a tax cut for the banks and a belated, half-hearted and ineffective response to rising youth joblessness.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on Labour’s proposal to create 100,000 jobs for the young from a bankers’ bonus tax. The north-east is bucking the national trend in manufacturing, which is in the doldrums in the rest of the nation, but 7,000 private sector jobs were lost in the past three months of 2011, whereas 4,000 public sector jobs were lost. Given that clear disparity, what does my hon. Friend make of the Prime Minister’s rhetoric on the creation of private sector jobs?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend speaks passionately about his region of the north-east, and I know he does a huge amount of work for businesses, young people and families in his constituency.

The reality is that northern towns and cities are paying a particularly high price for this Government’s policies. In my city of Leeds, the local authority is losing more than 25% of its grant over the next four years. As a result, more people are losing their jobs and fewer services can be provided. It is people in the poorest areas who are paying the highest price for this Government’s policies.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Rachel Reeves]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who can perhaps try to justify the cuts in the grant to Leeds city council over the next four years.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

The hon. Lady talks about cuts to Leeds city council, but does she not remember that it was her Government who took away neighbourhood funding, stripping the city council of £118 million and, funnily enough, giving the money to Sedgefield?

[Rachel Reeves]

In Pudsey, which is my next-door constituency, long-term youth unemployment has increased by more than 20% in the last few months. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the cuts that Leeds city council is having to endure over the next few years are out of all proportion to any reduction in the neighbourhood grant under the Labour Government. His constituents and mine are the people paying the price.

I hope that we can show in this debate that the House is in touch with the problems of those who are paying the highest price for the failure of this Government’s policies. Hon. Members will know from their own constituencies the heart-breaking stories behind some of the statistics that we have already gone through today, and I am sure that we will hear some of those stories in the debate this evening. Most of all, I hope that this debate will be focused on action—effective and practical measures that can make a difference for the millions at the sharp end of this crisis. The Government have no excuse for inaction. A tax on bank bonuses would be fair and proportionate, and would enable us to address the immediate, pressing and growing challenge of getting young people back into the jobs that are so needed.

19:39

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)]

I welcome this opportunity to discuss youth unemployment and bank bonuses. Both matters are hugely important as we tackle this country’s extremely difficult economic circumstances. The recent youth unemployment figures demonstrate just how significant a challenge we face repairing the damage that the previous Government inflicted on the economy, restoring growth and creating new jobs in the recovery. This coalition Government will not let the young and the vulnerable bear the brunt of these difficult times, nor will we let them bear the consequences of the previous Government’s profligacy. Youth unemployment is not a price worth paying.

One thing that the shadow Chief Secretary failed to mention was the record of the Labour Government, who oversaw a 40% rise in youth unemployment.

[Meg Hillier]

rose—

[Danny Alexander]

I will give way to the hon. Lady, and then I will make some progress.

[Meg Hillier]

What would the right hon. Gentleman say to the young people in my constituency, where there has been a 12.5% increase in youth unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds from December 2010 to December 2011, on this Government’s watch?

[Danny Alexander]

I would say to them that in very difficult times we are doing everything we can to support them. Let me tell the House what we are already doing.

[David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)]

rose—

[Danny Alexander]

Hold on. I will give way to the former Foreign Secretary, but let me make just a little progress.

We are already providing more apprenticeship places than any previous Government, with an increase of 400,000 in the last year and a commitment to 1.2 million over the entire spending review period. That is at least 250,000 more than the previous Government’s commitment, although the shadow Chief Secretary seems to oppose that increase. As announced in the autumn statement, we are also launching a new £1 billion youth contract to help get young people into work, so that they can learn a trade and get equipped for their future career. Starting this spring, the youth contract will support up to 500,000 young people into education and employment opportunities. The youth contract wage subsidy is targeted at employers in the private sector, creating sustainable private sector jobs for the long term.

[Toby Perkins]

The Chief Secretary talks about the previous Government’s record, but I feel as if I am listening to a broken record, because when we are here to debate a motion about this Government’s policies, all we hear is him harking back to the last Government. Will he come up with something constructive about what he is going to do for the millions of people who are unemployed and looking to him for some guidance?

[Danny Alexander]

I fear that the hon. Gentleman was planning his question so carefully that he did not listen to my remarks about apprenticeships or the youth contract, which is a vast improvement on the wasteful future jobs fund, which offered subsidies almost three times as high as the youth contract and funded too many temporary jobs in the public sector. In fact, almost 50% of participants in that scheme were claiming benefits again within eight months of starting a future jobs fund job.

[David Miliband]

The right hon. Gentleman quoted the figure of 40% for the rise in youth unemployment under the previous Government. It is correct that youth unemployment started rising in 2004, but the allegation against the current Government is that they have made the situation much worse. In my constituency of South Shields there was a 210% increase in long-term youth unemployment in 2011 alone. That is what he has to answer for. It is not that he invented the problem, but his policies are making it worse.

[Danny Alexander]

The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) will address the statistical changes that the previous Government made. However, the right hon. Gentleman was in government during a boom, yet his Government presided over an increase in youth unemployment. We are facing serious economic challenges in this country, caused in large part by the actions of the previous Government, and we have to take steps to resolve those problems.

The youth contract offers young people the prospect of long-term private sector employment. It is a scheme that has the full backing of the private sector. As John Cridland, director general of the CBI, has said, it strikes at the “scourge of youth unemployment”.

[Sheila Gilmore]

McDonald’s, which is apparently getting £10 million a year for training people in the things that it normally trains them in and calls the process apprenticeships, said in The Sunday Times yesterday that it had not created a single extra job with that money. What is the Chief Secretary’s response to that?

[Danny Alexander]

I have visited companies around the country, in Scotland and England, that have created a significant number of new jobs and new apprenticeships, providing a significant increase in skills. That is the right way to go about it, and that is what we are trying to do with the increase in apprenticeships. I hope that the hon. Lady will welcome that. It is fair to say that the apprenticeships programme and the youth contract complement our Work programme, which is the biggest payment-by-results employment programme that this country has ever seen. The Work programme will provide personalised support to around 2.4 million people over the next five years, helping those most at risk of long-term unemployment.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

In Plymouth we are dependent on the public sector, and we are also a garrison town. As a result of the Government’s defence decisions, we are seeing a lot of young men, in particular, losing their positions in the services and becoming unemployed. Those coming out of the services are relatively highly skilled, putting pressure on the few vacancies that we have in Plymouth and cutting long-term unemployed young people out of the market. We have seen a 96% increase in the number of the long-term unemployed in Plymouth. What will this Government’s policies do for those young people? Absolutely nothing in Plymouth.

[Danny Alexander]

The youth contract, which I have mentioned, along with the Work programme and many other things that we are doing, will help the young people in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and I very much sympathise with the position that she has described.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that apprenticeships are an important part of the solution, by giving young people the opportunity to build their skills? We have record numbers of apprenticeships; indeed, the number of them in my constituency has doubled.

[Danny Alexander]

I agree with my hon. Friend: the apprenticeship programme is a vital part of tackling youth unemployment and lifting the skills in our work force. It is a real shame that the Opposition now seem to be opposing the extra investment in apprenticeships that we have made.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Danny Alexander]

I am going to make some progress, and I will give way again shortly.

Across the wider economy we are doing everything we can to foster renewed prosperity, create new jobs across the UK and return the country to sustainable growth. Whether we are talking about regulation, the planning system, reducing corporate taxation, our investment in infrastructure or the tax cuts that we are delivering for low-income workers, we are putting forward ambitious plans—plans that we need in these difficult times.

[Claire Perry]

rose—

[Danny Alexander]

I will give way in a moment.

We have plans that will help to foster a recovery led by our private sector, by entrepreneurs and by exporters, creating the kind of growth that the Opposition failed to deliver in over a decade in government. We face the monumental task of dealing with their legacy of unsustainable spending and debt-fuelled consumption, which left the coalition the task of dealing with the largest peacetime deficit on record.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

rose—

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[Danny Alexander]

I will give way in a moment.

The Opposition do not seem to realise that tackling that deficit is the vital precondition to sustainable growth. It is only by tackling the deficit that we can provide the certainty, stability and low interest rates that are critical to a recovery. The past 18 months have seen sovereign debt downgrades across the Europe, bail-outs of the weakest Eurozone economies, and countries racing to consolidate at the behest of the bond markets.

[Claire Perry]

I should like to bring a local business perspective to the debate. I had dinner last week with a group of people representing small businesses in the Wiltshire area, all of whom said that their businesses looked reasonable and they were thinking about hiring. Most importantly, they said that they had benefited enormously from the economic stability that the Government had created. Has my right hon. Friend heard anything from the Opposition that amounts to a coherent economic policy, or are they simply offering a wish list of chops and changes, and opposing for opposition’s sake?

[Danny Alexander]

I have heard nothing coherent from the Opposition, and I have heard nothing from the business community in this country but support for our policies to deal with the deficit and restore this country’s economic credibility. The coalition has never shirked its responsibility to take tough and sometimes unpopular decisions to tackle the deficit and pull the country out of the hole that the previous Government dug. Because we did not delay, and because we took action to get ahead of the curve, we can cut the deficit on our own terms and shelter the UK from the debt storm that has engulfed our nearest neighbours.

[Rachel Reeves]

The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government are tackling the deficit, but will he confirm how much extra borrowing there will be during this Parliament, compared with the prediction when they took office? Is that not a cost of their failed economic policies?

[Danny Alexander]

I can confirm that according to the latest forecast, there will be significantly increased borrowing compared with the previous one. The hon. Lady should have explained in her opening speech that her policies involve substantial further increases in borrowing, which would destroy this country’s economic credibility and the hard-won low interest rates that we have achieved.

As a result of our action, we have record low bond yields that feed through to record low interest rates, which benefit households paying mortgages and businesses refinancing loans right across the country. Whereas our bond yields are just 2.1%, those of Spain have risen to 5.5%, those of Italy remain over 6%, and those of Greece have climbed to a staggering 34%. Even a 1% rise in our market interest rates would force taxpayers to find an extra £21 billion in debt interest payments. A 1% rise in effective mortgage rates would result in an extra £10 billion for mortgage payments.

The Opposition have had 18 months to come to terms with the mess they created, but they still do not get it. It has taken them 18 months to move from the wrong place to all over the place. The Leader of the Opposition called the pay freeze an

“ideological attack on the public sector”,

but he now accepts it. The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury called the uprating of pensions with the consumer prices index an “ideologically driven move”, but it is a move that the Opposition have now accepted for their party’s own pension scheme. So let us be clear—financial discipline is not ideological; it is a necessary condition for effective government. In the past 10 days, members of the Labour shadow Cabinet have succeeded in proving that they cannot even convince themselves of the credibility of their economic policy.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain his idea of economic stability to my constituents? In my constituency the long-term youth unemployment rate has risen by 162% in the past year. Will he explain how his stability will affect the people of Stoke-on-Trent who are losing jobs hand over fist because of his policies?

[Danny Alexander]

If the hon. Gentleman looks around Europe at the countries that have failed to tackle their deficits, he will see much more serious economic problems—problems of the kind that we would have here if we followed Labour’s policies. He should start by apologising for the mess that his party made of the economy.

[John Cryer]

rose—

[Danny Alexander]

I am going to make some progress now.

As the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills outlined today, we will also take the tough decisions to tackle excessive executive pay. At a time when millions of workers face a pay freeze or worse, and when many businesses are confronting a difficult trading environment, the highest-paid cannot be disconnected from reality. That is why the Secretary of State announced new measures to drive through greater transparency on executive pay, to empower shareholders to deliver responsible pay, and to reform remuneration committees to break the old boys club.

It is for that same reason that the Government are leading efforts, domestically and internationally, to reform our banking sector fundamentally in order to protect our competitiveness while safeguarding our stability. We are abolishing the tripartite system of regulation that failed so dramatically in the run-up to the last crisis, and putting the Bank of England in charge of both micro and macro-financial supervision. We are reforming the sector itself, as recommended by the Independent Commission on Banking, to safeguard the UK’s position as host to a world-class financial services sector without putting UK taxpayers at risk.

We have implemented a permanent bank levy to ensure that banks make a fair contribution to tackling the deficit, reflecting the risks that they pose to the system while encouraging them to move away from riskier models of funding. As we announced in the autumn statement, we have increased the levy from 1 January this year to ensure that it yields at least £2.5 billion a year, which is more than the amount yielded by the previous Government’s one-off tax on bonuses—a tax that

“failed to change the industry’s behaviour over pay”.

Those are not my words, but those of the previous Chancellor, who was responsible for the policy in the first place.

Through the Financial Services Authority’s remuneration code, we have ensured that bonuses are deferred over at least three years, and linked to the performance of the employee and the firm. Through the disclosure regime, we have provided more transparency than ever on pay. And while the previous Government managed to get only four of the top 15 banks to sign up to the code of practice on taxation for banks that was introduced in 2009, we have ensured that all are signed up.

Our expectations of the banking sector are clear: banks should make a full and fair contribution. They must respect the spirit, not just the letter, of the law, and make a commitment not to use artificial schemes to avoid tax. The new Bank of England Financial Policy Committee, established as a result of this Government’s reforms, has warned that in these turbulent times it is capital levels, not bonus payments, that have to be the priority. Did the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) want to intervene?

[John Cryer]

I wanted to intervene while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking earlier.

[Danny Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman may intervene now if he wishes to.

[John Cryer]

Going back to the subject of unemployment rates, youth unemployment in my constituency has gone up by 140% since the election. That is what is happening now, not what happened under the previous Government. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury deal with the immediate issue and tell us why that is happening? Will he also tell us whether he thinks it is a price worth paying?

[Danny Alexander]

As I made clear earlier, I do not consider it to be a price worth paying. That is why the Government are doing everything possible, through investment in apprenticeships, in our youth contract and in the Work programme, to ensure that there are opportunities for people.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many jobs the Work programme has created?

[Danny Alexander]

I cannot give the hon. Lady that information—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I welcome her to her place and congratulate her on her election. In due course the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) will provide that information. I can tell her, however, that Work programme providers are making a difference across the country, helping people to come off all sorts of benefits and acquire the necessary skills and support to get back into work.

[Toby Perkins]

rose—

[Meg Hillier]

rose—

[Danny Alexander]

I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Lady, and I want to make some progress.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that while the living standards of those on low and medium incomes are going down, the wealth of the super-rich is going up. Will he give an undertaking that he will take action on this issue, and that the gap between rich and poor will be smaller by the next election?

[Danny Alexander]

The Government have taken on the issue of ensuring that the wealthiest pay a greater share, to ensure that there is fairness in our deficit reduction plans. For example, we have increased capital gains tax and put in place the new bank levy that I have mentioned. We have also maintained the 50p rate of income tax. We are making substantial changes to ensure that the wealthiest pay their fair share.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

On the point just raised in an intervention, we hear much crowing from Opposition Members, but does my right hon. Friend think that they might persuade their former leader and Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to pay more than £315,000 in tax on a £12 million income?

[Danny Alexander]

My hon. Friend has made his point, but I do not think that it is for me to comment on the tax affairs of any individual taxpayer.

[Meg Hillier]

Last week the right hon. Gentleman made a speech in which he talked about co-operatives, and ideas to bring them into the mainstream. When the Government had the choice and opportunity to remutualise Northern Rock, why did they sell it off to a private bank? Surely a mutual would have been fairer to all, particularly to the taxpayer, than a cheap sell-off.

[Danny Alexander]

I am quite confident that in that case we chose the option that was best for the taxpayer, best for Northern Rock customers and best for the many hard-working people who work for Northern Rock in the north-east of England. I think that was the right decision on all those bases.

[Toby Perkins]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Danny Alexander]

No, I will not.

I mentioned the Financial Policy Committee of the Bank of England and its comments. That is why the FSA will scrutinise all proposed bonuses to make sure that they are not paid at the expense of rebuilding capital. There has already been some progress, with levels of bonus payment down significantly. Hon. Members should consider how far they have fallen. When the shadow Chancellor was a City Minister in the Treasury, bonus levels were £11.6 billion, whereas last year they were almost half that, at £6.7 billion. We fully expect them to fall further this year.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider one more fact before he concludes on this subject? When youth unemployment rose under the previous Government, that was largely due to increases in labour supply, but since his Government took over, the massive increases in youth unemployment have been due to a collapse in labour demand. That is why the Opposition are so desperately asking his Government to change course. If the hon. Gentleman cares about this issue, as he has said that he does, will he confirm today that he will change course and prioritise growth over jobs?

[Danny Alexander]

I am not sure that one can prioritise growth over jobs—and that is the first explanation I have heard from Opposition Members of the reason why youth unemployment rose during Labour’s time in office. I do not know whether that opinion is shared by those on the Front Bench.

As I have made clear, we are prioritising tackling youth unemployment. We do not want to see young people blighted by long-term youth unemployment as they were in the 1980s. That is why the youth contract, our investment in apprenticeships and the Work programme are all necessary to help young people back into work.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Danny Alexander]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), who has not intervened before.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Chief Secretary is being very up-front with the House about the fact that he believes that he is doing everything in his power to tackle youth unemployment—yet according to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s own figures, unemployment is scheduled to rise in the coming period. Does he think that that rise is inevitable?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call Douglas Alexander.

[Danny Alexander]

I do not think that he is on the Government Front Bench any more, Mr Deputy Speaker.

A fair account of the OBR’s forecast would also reflect the fact that it says that unemployment will come down to 6.2% by the end of the forecast period. That is a fair reflection of the OBR’s forecast. Of course I wish that we had not inherited such desperate economic circumstances from the previous Government, I wish that they had not left us the largest budget deficit in peacetime history, and I wish that we had not inherited a situation in which, as the same OBR report to which the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness refers showed, the damage done to our economy by the bust was even deeper than expected. He should probably reflect on that point, too.

On bonuses, we fully expect them to fall further this year and, as we approach the season, let me be clear that this is just the start. Across the banking sector, Labour allowed a sense of bonus entitlement to grow. In no other industry is there such a distorted culture of bonus entitlement. Following 13 years of Labour Government we have come some way towards dismantling that culture in the banking sector, but we accept that we have a long way to go to make a fundamental change in attitudes to pay. The coming bonus round provides another chance for the banking sector and its shareholders to demonstrate leadership on pay. That message is already getting through. As Otto Thoresen, director general of the Association of British Insurers, wrote to bank chairs last December,

“it can no longer be business as usual for this remuneration round.”

I agree with that, and the Government will play our part.

We have already said that for RBS and Lloyds Banking Group there will be a limit of £2,000 on cash bonuses, as we also imposed last year.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

There is a lot of consensus on both sides of the House that people who are wealthy should be looking to see what they can do to help. Part of what the Opposition miss is the fact that one thing the Government have done—although they could do more—is to promote the enterprise investment scheme, which gives people the opportunity to invest directly in small businesses. Will my right hon. Friend tell me what he is doing to promote that scheme, and in particular, how small businesses that benefit from it can also take part in the youth contract?

[Danny Alexander]

The Government have made decisions to improve the benefits available through the enterprise investment scheme precisely to encourage more people to invest in small firms in such a way. The new seed enterprise investment scheme, which we announced in the autumn statement, will further help new businesses to be created through that route.

We have already said that for RBS and Lloyds Banking Group there will be a limit of £2,000 on cash bonuses, as was imposed last year, and let me reiterate that the bonus pool this year must be far, far lower than it was last year, and more transparent too. Tackling bank bonuses and youth unemployment is not just an economic challenge, but a challenge that is at the centre of the coalition’s purpose, which is to promote a sustainable and responsible banking sector that puts consumers’ needs at the centre of the financial system.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Danny Alexander]

I shall give way one last time, and then I shall finish my speech.

[Julie Hilling]

Is the right hon. Gentleman confirming, then, that the chief executive of RBS will only get a £2,000 bonus?

[Danny Alexander]

I am doing no such thing, because those announcements will be made in due course. I have said that bonuses in the banks that we own will have to be far lower than they were last year. The cash element of bonuses will be limited to £2,000 for all employees, but of course there are other parts to bonuses, too.

Returning our country to prosperity has been the founding purpose of the coalition Government, but in our determination to restore growth, we will put fairness at the very heart of our recovery, tackling gross inequity in senior pay and tackling the perils of youth unemployment to ensure that young people’s prospects are not blighted in the way that those of too many were in the 1980s.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Will the Chief Secretary give way?

[Danny Alexander]

No, I am going to make some progress now.

A fair and sustainable recovery demands leadership, and that is exactly what we are providing. Labour cannot be taken seriously on the economy until it admits the mistakes it made when it was in power. If Labour was really changing its position on the economy, the first thing it would do is say sorry. Sorry for letting youth unemployment get out of control, sorry for letting the banking sector get out of control, and sorry for letting the deficit and debt get out of—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Hon. Members should calm down, as a lot of Back-Benchers want to speak as well.

[Danny Alexander]

I do not think that those on the Opposition Front were trying to shout the apology that the country wants from them. They should say sorry, too, for letting the deficit and the country’s debt get out of control. Instead, all we have heard today is the apology of a speech made by the shadow Chief Secretary.

[Rachel Reeves]

I wonder when the electorate might get an apology from the Liberal Democrats for trebling university tuition fees and imposing a VAT bombshell.

[Danny Alexander]

I am sorry that the shadow Chief Secretary did not take the opportunity to offer an apology for the terrible mess made by her party and the Government of which the shadow Chancellor was a leading member.

It is the coalition Government who are investing in skills, infrastructure and innovation to create new opportunities in the recovery. It is this coalition that is reforming a broken financial sector to entrench greater stability and embed long-term sustainability. It is this coalition Government alone who are determined to face up to today’s economic challenges to build tomorrow’s fair, prosperous and sustainable economy.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I remind hon. Members that there is a six-minute limit on speeches.

19:59

[Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I want to raise three points. The hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), who has left the Chamber, said that all we were proposing was a wish list. It is a wish list and I cannot understand why the Government are opposing it. Regardless of how they view our performance and their performance on youth unemployment, not enough is being done, and the first wish in the motion is for £2 billion to be put in to help with youth unemployment. I think that is a decent thing to have on a wish list. Secondly, we are asking for that money to come from the people who caused the difficulty, and that would be a very good thing.

I heard some of the comments directed at my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and I think of parallel universes. I envy Government Members if they have the situation that they described in their constituencies. I have represented my constituency for 20 years as an MP and 20 years as a councillor and it is probably in its saddest state since the ’80s, which were a desperate time. Unemployment among youngsters then was along the levels we are seeing now, and as a result their lives were blighted and their self-esteem and confidence went. That situation affected families and communities, and it was one of the saddest times to represent a community. When the Labour Government came in they put in a lot of money and effort and they made a difference, but they did not finish the job and those issues remain. Communities are blighted by low self-esteem, low confidence and low ambition, and the real fear now is that that will be entrenched beyond any help or hope. I do not understand how anyone can abuse the shadow Chief Secretary when she raises the issue of youth unemployment, or read a speech with the kind of blandness we have just heard, as though they were describing a perfect world. This is about people’s lives and their families’ lives being ruined.

[Rehman Chishti]

Looking at what we are doing now, does the hon. Gentleman welcome the Government’s pledge to put £150 million towards the creation of university technical colleges, which will improve the skills of our young people?

[Mr Mudie]

I would rather the Government had not trebled tuition fees. I would rather that instead of spending £150 million they were taking the opportunity to raise £2 billion to put into youth employment. This is a very serious, non-political matter and people’s lives are going to be ruined unless they get urgent help. We should see that as a priority, and we should have no compunction about taking that money from the people who caused this difficulty. Governments, rating agencies and regulators also played a part but the sheer greed and irresponsibility of the banking and financial industry takes my breath away.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Mudie]

No, because I am short of time.

The people who caused the difficulty earn huge salaries because of gambling in the investment market, which has brought country after country and bank after bank to their knees, and which is now imperilling people’s standard of living—their homes, jobs and future. I find that unacceptable.

The shadow Minister has called for leadership, but real leadership would not involve avoiding questions about whether there is going to be a limit of £2,000 on bank bonuses. The senior director of RBS will be disappointed if he is not allowed to take his £4 million and the chief executive is expecting £2.5 million, but this is in a bank that the Government own. If we want leadership, it should come from the Chancellor and the Government, who should take the steps that are needed.

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Mudie]

No, I am sorry because I will be stopped quite soon.

The last point I want to make concerns the irresponsibility of the banks in refusing to operate Project Merlin, which would have brought jobs for younger and older people. The cynical and shoddy way that they got out of that agreement is totally unacceptable, as is the way they are refusing to fund small and medium-sized businesses. If we are going to rebalance the economy, that is the area that will provide the jobs. We need the Government to show some leadership because the banks must be forced to fund and put resources into that sector.

20:14

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

Youth unemployment and bankers’ bonuses are both too high, and the Opposition hope that by taxing the latter they can help the former. Let us first agree that help for the young unemployed is vital. The scar of joblessness destroys self-respect and will also damage the long-term economic growth rate of this country. What are the Government doing about it? They have already announced a record number of apprenticeships—440,000 in this Parliament—as well as a £1 billion youth contract and more than 250,000 more work experience places. The proposal for a tax on bankers’ bonuses is what I want to focus on. My starting point is that crony capitalism and big financial rewards for failure not only are morally offensive but they subvert the principles on which successful capitalism depends.

[Jake Berry]

Let me pick up on the point about things being morally offensive. We have heard about the Leader of the Opposition calling for Fred Goodwin’s knighthood to be removed. Does my hon. Friend agree that if that happened it would also make sense for former Labour Cabinet members who were part of the Government who led to this bankruptcy for Britain to give up their peerages in the other place?

[Mr Ruffley]

That is an interesting suggestion. I also think that the former Prime Minister should make a personal apology when our Prime Minister, who is an infinitely better one, strips Sir Fred Goodwin of that ill-deserved knighthood.

Currently, there are excessive bonuses within the sector that give capitalism a bad name. They have fostered the belief that there is a class of people who pay themselves pretty much what they like while the rest of the country has to deal with the consequences of what many of those people served up to this country by way of financial crisis. The idea that this is something that Conservatives are casual about is utterly false. The speculation by the Mayor of London about what the greatest pro-enterprise Prime Minister of the previous century would have thought of today’s sorry state of affairs was interesting. He said that we should ask

“what Margaret Thatcher would have thought of a system where directors sit on each other’s “remcoms”—remuneration committees—and defend each other’s expanding awards, even when the directors in question have presided over commercial disaster of one kind or another. She would have thought it was absurd.”

All Conservatives think that is absurd and that something must be done about it. We think that two things should be done. First, we want to encourage people of talent to come to the UK, stay here and make the City of London the greatest financial capital on planet Earth. The second thing we need to do is foster a regime in which performance is more closely tied to reward. Quite frankly, that is not extant.

I suggest that a new blanket tax on bankers’ bonuses would undermine those aims, or at best do nothing to advance them. It would do nothing to distinguish between cases in which an executive had genuinely earned a reward by turning around a failing organisation, increasing profitability or increasing returns to shareholders, and cases in which executives had taken advantage of lax scrutiny to take excessive rewards for their failure. There is a distinction between the rich and the undeserving rich, of whom Sir Fred Goodwin is a terrible exemplar.

[Geraint Davies]

The hon. Gentleman talks about bankers, but he will be aware that among the FTSE 100 companies, there has been an average 49% increase in directors’ pay, and many of those companies have not had a proportionate increase in share value or profitability. Is he saying that his Government should introduce specific measures to cap pay increases for non-banker directors of FTSE 100 companies? If he is not, he is saying nothing.

[Mr Ruffley]

I am not suggesting that for a minute, and if the hon. Gentleman bothered to read the motion, he would see that it relates to excessive bankers’ bonuses.

The fact remains that we have to be careful when we talk about a tax on banking. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor sensibly introduced a levy on bank balance sheets, something that the Labour party was not prepared to do. We were one of the first countries in the world to do that, and it will raise more than £2.5 billion a year. Instead of introducing another tax as the motion proposes, we should do more to discourage the granting of excessive bonuses in the first place. That would have a very happy by-product. When Robert Jenkins gave evidence to the Treasury Committee last week—for those who have not been initiated into these affairs, he is a member of the interim Financial Policy Committee, and a former banker—he said something very interesting:

“Every £1 billion of less bonus would support £20 billion of additional small business lending.”

I defy anyone on either side of the House to deny the wisdom of that.

I am talking about the unjustifiably excessive bonuses paid to executives in banks that have failed or are failing. Stephen Hester is, we are told, looking to accept a bonus for 2011, despite the fact that his bank’s share price has fallen out of bed. Eric Daniels, who was the chief executive of another failed business—Lloyds-HBOS—took seven-figure bonuses before he was booted out. What the Labour party needs to understand is that that culture, which we all deprecate, did not grow up in the past 18 months. I hope that Labour will show a bit more humility in this debate than it has done so far. It did not regulate the banks properly; it sat by while these bonuses were being paid, year after year; and it gave knighthoods to the miscreants who accepted them. Incidentally, it was the Labour Government who allowed some private equity bosses to pay very little tax—less tax than the cleaners in their offices. We shall therefore take no lessons from Labour on regulation and on what we do about a state of affairs that I think we all agree is unacceptable.

Shareholders are not doing their job sufficiently well; that is why I urge the Government to change the law so that the threshold for shareholder approval of remuneration packages is shifted from 50% to 75%. I know that Fidelity, one of the largest holders of shares in UK banks, strongly supports that. Also, fund managers do not have much incentive to think in a long-term fashion; that is why I hope that the Financial Policy Committee, when it is up and running, and the Prudential Regulation Authority—the new regulator—will ensure that the Financial Services Authority’s remuneration code, which covers only 2,500 firms, covers very many more. Bonus clawback—clawing back money given to executives who depart in disgrace and failure—is something that the Government need to talk about. Lloyds is apparently looking into that.

More tax is not the answer; better regulation, under this Government, is.

20:23

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I want to make the case as to why, at a time when not everything can be priority, this subject really ought to be one. It is not just because in my constituency of Wigan, one in four young people is not in education, employment or training, and it is not just because I have begun to detect a sense of hopelessness among them that really frightens me. It frightens me because for nearly a decade before I came to this place, I worked with some of the most disadvantaged children and young people in this country, and what I am detecting in my constituency is a ripple effect: the sense of hopelessness is spreading outwards from the most disadvantaged to groups of young people who previously had strong hope for the future and strong resilience within themselves and their families. It is because young people cannot wait that I want to make the case for the proposal in the motion.

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) about the wage-scarring effect, and we heard a powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) about the impact that youth unemployment has on young people’s confidence. I have seen for myself the levelling-down effect when jobs are scarce: graduates leave university with a sense of despair because they have to take jobs that they could have got three years earlier; 18-year-olds leave college with a sense of despair because they have to take jobs that they could have got two years earlier; and 16-year-olds are left with literally nowhere to go. That is why the issue should be our top priority: it is different, and it cannot wait.

I worked for five years for the Children’s Society, which has spoken out very powerfully about child poverty this week, and I saw what happened to young people who were put out of work in the 1980s. They never recovered resilience in the labour market and were forced to bring up their children in workless households. Twenty years later, we were still dealing with the impact of that, so I say to Ministers that they are storing up trouble for future generations if they do not take action now.

I am concerned about what I have heard, because the Government are tinkering when what we really need is a step change in approach to the wider economy and to this issue. Young people have a very, very strong sense of fairness, which is why the starting point that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West has chosen is exactly the right one. More than anyone else whom I represent, young people understand the concept of something for something. They have seen the education maintenance allowance, which they worked hard to get, axed; they have seen Aimhigher, which raised the number of young people in my constituency going to university by 40% in six years, axed; they have seen tuition fees hiked up way beyond anything they could even conceive of paying; and they have seen the future jobs fund, which was making a dramatic difference to their confidence and to their friends’ confidence, axed. At the same time, they see bankers’ bonuses and pay continue to rise, so it is no wonder that they are angry.

[Meg Hillier]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there may be poverty among young people—my constituency, unfortunately, was shown to have a high level of poverty by the excellent work that she referenced—but there is no poverty of aspiration, certainly not in my constituency? Will she comment on whether that is the case in hers?

[Lisa Nandy]

I share that sentiment, but I am concerned. Those young people are turning to a Government who said, “If you work hard and try hard, we will support you” but they see poverty of aspiration from the Government. They are angry, because the Government have broken the deal and the pact that, if young people tried hard, they would have the chance of a better future.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making a typically impassioned and impressive speech. On the question of whether the Government broke the deal, would she not, given her experience before coming to the House, acknowledge that youth unemployment has been rising consistently since 2004? In my constituency, unemployment trebled in the previous Parliament, so the Government need to be prepared to look at proposals and solutions other than those that did not work in previous Parliaments.

[Lisa Nandy]

I am afraid that the facts do not bear that out. I agree, however, about the stubborn problem of structural youth unemployment, which I shall come on to.

I want to use the last few minutes of my speech to discuss what more must be done if we are serious about giving young people hope for the future. I have made the case that, although the Work programme is a welcome step, it is tinkering when we need fundamental change in the system. Job preparation, while worth while and extremely important for some of my constituents, who need support, confidence and help to get a job, is not enough if there are no jobs to go to.

That is why I believe that growth, growth and growth have to be the Government’s priority. In my constituency, and across the country, as we have heard from my hon. Friends, there are simply no jobs to go to. I have argued that increases in youth unemployment under the previous Government were caused by an increase in labour supply. The increase in youth unemployment under this Government is the consequence of a collapse in labour demand. The focus on youth unemployment masks a rapid fall in youth employment, which is partly accounted for by the abolition of full-time education places. If Ministers are serious about this issue, they must speak to their hon. Friends in the Department for Education, and make the point that it does not make any sense to cut education places at a time like this.

Will Ministers commit today to using every lever at their disposal? There are so many things that a Government can do, and it is distressing for young people to hear that the economic situation dictates inaction, when in fact we could have action and we could have it now. The Government could use their procurement power to ensure that young people have apprenticeships—it is immoral to award public contracts to firms that will not give apprenticeships and opportunities to our young people. The Government could also use their procurement power to make sure that those contracts go to firms that provide real, lasting, paid jobs with a decent career structure, to give those young people the resilience in the labour market that they need. That is why I urge Ministers to think again about the future jobs fund. I know that that has become a political issue, but I and my colleagues have seen the dramatic long-term difference that it was beginning to make for young people in our constituencies.

Structural youth unemployment remained stubbornly at around 10% under the previous Government, despite huge efforts, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), to do something about it. The only way to tackle structural youth unemployment is through partnership working, with the public, the private and the third sectors. I have seen recently some attempts to focus on the most disadvantaged young people—for example, in young offenders institutions—and a focus on education to lead young people into employment.

Ministers should be very careful about how they set targets and measure progress. For some of the young people with whom I have worked, with the extremely serious problems that they have had, simply getting up in the morning and eating breakfast has been a challenge. Ministers must be careful not to throw away real progress for some of the most disadvantaged young people in this country, or they will not tackle the structural problem of youth unemployment, which we tried so hard to deal with. Ministers know that some young people—disabled young people, young carers, those with transport difficulties—need extra help. I am sure Ministers know that, and I hope that help will be forthcoming.

Inaction on this issue is a moral choice with lasting consequences for a group of young people whom those on the Government Benches may never meet, but to whom they owe a heavy responsibility.

20:32

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

It is clear to everybody in the House, regardless which side they sit on, that we are facing exceptionally difficult economic times in this country. I calculated that by the end of this speech, with a six-minute time limit in force and with no interventions, we will have spent in excess of £500,000 just on debt interest. Our national debt is like a credit card, and the sooner we get to grips with it, the better. I do not want to have to look the next generation of young people in the eye and say, “We were the Government, we were the group of MPs, who shoved our heads in the sand and refused to tackle our national debt,” so that we could pass it on to them.

We have seen a hugely unwelcome increase in unemployment, and an exacerbation of the existing problem of youth unemployment. The Leader of the Opposition admitted in November last year that youth unemployment was not invented by this Government, but was a problem under the previous Government. The motion seeks to link the problem of youth unemployment simplistically to a failed tax on bankers’ bonuses.

This truly is the tax that keeps on giving. So far, there have been proposals to use it to tackle unemployment among older people, to tackle unemployment among younger people, to fund capital projects, to reverse VAT increases, to cut taxes on fuel, to cut VAT on home improvements, to build 25,000 more houses, and today to create 100,000 new jobs. That clearly shows that the Labour party has no new ideas. It cannot be only today’s ICM/Guardian poll that is depressing them. It is also the fact that a party that claims to represent the workers has come to represent the something-for-nothing culture, a party that claims to fight inequality increased inequality in 13 years in government, and at the end of the largest economic boom that we have ever witnessed, Labour left 270,000 more young people out of work than when it came to office. That is an appalling legacy. The solution is not more of the same, not to pile debt on debt, not to try and spend ourselves rich.

The motion sounds like the Opposition are being advised by Charles Ponzi and has about as much credence as the claim by the captain of the Costa Concordia that he slipped and fell into the lifeboat. The Government, however, must take true steps to tackle youth unemployment, and there is no panacea.

One thing we must do is tackle the skills gap. The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), who is no longer in her place, said that she hoped MPs would today bring forward positive solutions on the question of what they can do. A little-known fact about the junction 4 retail park in Darwen—unless one is the MP for the area—is that it is the country’s specialist area for the creation of computer games. When I ask those businesses how many young people from the area they employ, they say none, because young people in Darwen are leaving our schools without the menu of skills that the businesses want when they recruit. That is why it is vital that we continue to increase the links between schools and local employers.

[Esther McVey]

It is not just computer games and electronics companies that say that. The Institute for Manufacturing, the Institute of Physics and the chemicals industry say that we have not produced enough people in science to be the technicians and engineers, that we have a dearth of those skills and that they have had to bring in people from outside the country to do those jobs, which is a crying shame.

[Jake Berry]

I agree. Of particular joy to me is the fact that my constituency has a new academy school, which has entrepreneurship and technology at its heart. We are starting to have those conversations with business in order to equip our young people for the jobs market.

I want to talk about what hon. Members can do positively in their constituencies to tackle youth unemployment. As we have heard, much of it is about leadership. At the start of next month I will launch the “100 in 100” campaign in my constituency, which is my pledge to get 100 people into 100 apprenticeships in 100 days. Building up to this, I have visited as many local companies as I can to talk with them about what we hope to do, and I have found that there is a huge appetite for giving young people a chance.

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the initiative he is leading in his constituency. I did the same thing only last year, and the companies in Burnley were delighted to take on 107 apprentices in 100 days, which shows that there are companies that are keen to take on young people. A vast number of skilled people working in the manufacturing sector in our area are now in excess of 40 years of age, and the companies recognise that in future they might not have the skills to deliver the products that the world wants.

[Jake Berry]

I thank my hon. Friend for making such an eloquent point. As my near neighbour, he is really throwing the gauntlet down, but I am confident that Rossendale and Darwen will more than beat 107 apprenticeships in 100 days.

I want to talk about some of the businesses that I have been to see that are going to support us and that, even before we started, pledged to give a young person a chance by taking on a new apprentice. Businesses from every section of the economy are involved, not just those in the biblical trades or manufacturing. They include Home Manor residential nursing home, Whitehead’s traditional butchers, DHJ Weisters Ltd, Aquasoft Solutions, which is a computer company, McCambridge Group, Crown Paints, WEC Group, which is an engineering company, Turnbull Prints and Anglo Recycling. We have across the entire constituency a commitment from business to give young people a chance.

When I talk with those businesses, they tell me that the Government’s signal that they want to rebalance the economy and will support apprenticeships has helped them to decide to take on apprentices. One thing in particular has changed their mind: the pledge to give a £1,500 incentive to smaller firms to take on a young person. We can get involved in the debate about what is right and wrong about the apprentice scheme and what else we should be doing, but I appeal to all hon. Members to go out there, speak to businesses in their constituencies, advocate why they should support young people, why they should invest in their work force, why young people would be good for their business, bringing fresh ideas and new skills, and ask them whether they will take a young person on and give them a chance.

If just throwing money at the problem solved youth unemployment, the previous Government would have done so, because they threw lots at it. The only way we can solve part of the youth unemployment problem is through training and leadership, and leadership should come from hon. Members, from employers and from the Government. There is nothing more important than getting our young people back to work.

20:40

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

At first glance it might seem as though youth unemployment and bank bonuses are separate issues, or that if they are linked it is only at the level of an argument about fairness or equity. But that is not the case. The level of reward at the very top of the financial services industry is not just an argument about fairness or equity, although it is certainly that; it is something that has a material effect on the functions carried out by our financial institutions, including the level of lending available to the economy and, thus, the capacity for job creation in it.

I should make it clear that I am talking about bonuses at the very top. We should not forget that the vast majority of people who work in the financial services industry receive ordinary salaries, and that if they do get a bonus it is of a modest amount to which no one would object.

Indeed, we all value the employment created by our financial services industry, but there is a broader problem, which we all know. In recent years we will have all met businesses that cannot find the funding that they need to keep going or, in some cases, to expand, grow and employ people. Sometimes that is because the price of credit rises so much that the business in question cannot afford it, but sometimes it is because the credit is not available on any terms.

No Government can second-guess every individual lending decision, but there is no doubt that access to finance has become a barrier to the creation of employment. This Government’s answer was to get together with the banks in the Merlin agreement, which was based on gross lending, not net. Let me give the House one politician’s verdict on such agreements. He said:

“This would be completely letting the banks off the hook. It’s perfectly possible for banks to achieve a gross lending target while withdrawing capital from small to medium-sized businesses.”

He went on to say that, in agreeing to gross lending targets, the previous Government allowed the banks to run rings around them. I am of course quoting the current Business Secretary, who had that opinion on gross lending agreements before he came into office—and then supported exactly the same thing.

The right hon. Gentleman subsequently pirouetted and said that the Merlin project had not worked, telling the House last month:

“The Merlin project certainly did not succeed in its central objective, which was to achieve growth in gross lending by banks.”—[Official Report, 8 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 397.]

The banks’ argument is that they are under conflicting pressure both to increase the amount of capital that they hold and to lend more to business. They tell the public and they tell us politicians that we can have either safe and secure banks or more lending, but not both; and that brings us back to bonuses.

The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), who is no longer in his place, referred to the evidence, given last week to the Treasury Committee by the new regulatory body responsible for financial stability, which suggested that that was not the case at all.

[Meg Hillier]

Does my right hon. Friend wish to comment on the sudden enthusiasm of Conservative Members for regulation, given that, when regulation was proposed by the previous Government, they were not keen on it at all?

[Mr McFadden]

There are many quotations from Conservative Members calling for less regulation during the previous Government’s period in office, but I refer to the Treasury Committee evidence from Mr Robert Jenkins, a former Credit Suisse trader who is now a member of the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee. He recently made a speech in which he said:

“The truth is that banks can strengthen their balance sheets without harming the economy. They can do so by cutting bonuses, by curtailing intra-financial risk-taking and by raising term debt and equity.”

As the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds said, last week Mr Jenkins told the Select Committee that if the banks reduced the bonus pot by £1 billion, that would make available £20 billion more for small businesses.

This weekend, the banks hit back at that estimate. The Sunday Times was briefed, by an industry insider who clearly has a thing or two to learn about rapid rebuttal, that the real figure if bonuses were cut would not be £20 billion but only £13.5 billion. That argument is based on whether we apply the capital and regulatory rules that exist at the moment or those that may come in future. But whether the figure is £13.5 billion in future or £20 billion at the moment, the argument is clear: reward is an issue not only about fairness, but about the function that we want the banks to have in the economy.

Of course it is galling for a nurse on a pay freeze to be paying for a crisis that they did not cause and then to see a seven-figure bonus, but it is more than galling—the truth is that we have been presented with a false choice between restoring the capital position of banks and supporting lending in the economy. There is not an automatic trade-off between levels of safety and levels of funding once we take into account issues of reward at the top. Put simply, less money in excessive pay at the top would make more available for the lending we need to create jobs. That is why youth unemployment and bank bonuses are linked.

I have one final thing to say. In the coming days, we are going to hear a lot about what top bankers are entitled to contractually; no doubt that argument will be wielded by Ministers. However, contracts are not the only thing that matters. Context matters too, and the context is the greatest squeeze on family living standards since the war. That should be taken into account by the bankers themselves as we decide on restraint on bonuses.

The banking industry is hugely important to this country, but its relationship with the public has been broken. It is time to repair that relationship, and there is no better place to start doing that than in striking a better balance between reward at the top and the job that we want the banks to do—to lend in the real economy.

20:47

[Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)]

The motion links the issue of bankers’ bonuses and youth unemployment. With my constituents in Bristol West, I agree that the levels of both are currently excessive.

I shall deal with bonuses first. Executive pay is meant to be the reward for company growth and shareholder return. Over the past decade, executive pay has gone up by an average of 13.6% each year, but the growth in the index of the top 100 companies on the London stock exchange has gone up by only 1.7% each year. Executive pay has vastly outstripped the underlying growth in the companies over which the directors have presided.

Bonuses, of course, are usually the worst manifestation of spectacular reward—sometimes for just modest return for the company’s shareholders, or even a paltry return. Even worse, they can be a pay-off for corporate failure. Today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills announced the Government’s action to deal with that excess in the boardroom. The boardroom is the place where that excessive behaviour should be tackled and reined in, and shareholders need to take action in shareholder meetings.

The coalition Government will implement or consult on 10 of the recommendations of the High Pay Commission. Taxes, of course, have a role to play, but it is a subsidiary one. The behaviour itself needs to change. Under the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), the bonus tax was a failure according to the terms that he used to describe it when he announced it in the Budget. It was meant to curtail behaviour in the boardrooms of banks, but it failed completely.

At that time, the underlying rate of income tax and national insurance on the recipients of bonuses was 41%; under the coalition Government, the figure is 52%. When we factor in employers’ national insurance, we see that roughly two thirds of the value of a bonus comes back to the Treasury. In addition, the permanent bank levy will raise £2.6 billion for each subsequent year of this Parliament, which is more in net terms than the bonus tax raised under the Labour Government.

The previous Government were, of course, in office for 13 years. They had ample opportunity to do something. I sat through five Queen’s Speeches, in each of which a raft of legislation was announced by Her Majesty, but not once did I hear of an attempt to tackle corporate greed. Indeed, I would say that the Labour Government, certainly for their first eight years, positively encouraged corporate greed. We just heard from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). The Cabinet Minister to whom he reported in the latter years of the Labour Government, Lord Mandelson, said famously that he and new Labour were

“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”.

It was the Labour Government who gave a knighthood to Mr Goodwin.

[Mr McFadden]

I have heard that quotation twice today and I think that it is time to complete it. Lord Mandelson went on to say,

“as long as people pay their taxes”.

[Stephen Williams]

That makes it all right, does it? Is it okay to encourage the culture of corporate greed and excessive behaviour as long as people pay their taxes? Of course, the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), reduced the rate of income tax that those people were paying. All that Labour promised for shareholders was an advisory role to rein in such behaviour, whereas the Government have today announced binding votes for shareholders so that they have some control over the executives who are supposed to report to them for the value of their companies.

Youth unemployment needs to be set in the overall context of unemployment in the United Kingdom and in other developed economies. The overall unemployment rate in the United Kingdom is 8.2% of the work force. In the United States it is 9.1% and in the eurozone it is 10.1%. In many eurozone states, the rate is much higher than the average. Youth unemployment tends to follow the same trend. It tends to be roughly double the rate in each country. What is happening in this country is not unique among our main competitors.

Youth unemployment is also not a new problem. At least the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband), who was with us earlier, has had the grace to acknowledge that under the Labour Government youth unemployment rose, even during times of strong economic growth and the longest sustained boom since the second world war. In the more than 20 years since 1992, the rate of youth unemployment among 16 and 17-year-olds has remained stubbornly flat and has barely changed, whatever the underlying economic conditions. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) is shaking her head. I suggest that she looks at the Library’s statistics on this matter, specifically for 16 and 17-year-olds.

[Sheila Gilmore]

In the early years of the Labour Government, did not youth unemployment fall far below the level inherited from the previous Conservative Government because measures were taken?

[Stephen Williams]

Before the hon. Lady intervened, I repeated that I was talking specifically about 16 and 17-year-olds. The Library’s youth unemployment statistics show that from 1992 to the current year the rate of youth unemployment has remained stubbornly at about 200,000, whatever the underlying economic conditions. For 16 to 24-year-olds, the broader group, the unemployment figure did not fall below 600,000, even at the height of the boom.

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Stephen Williams]

I will not give way again because the time would count against me.

Youth unemployment is a long-term problem and we need long-term reform to tackle it. That is why the coalition Government are right to introduce the pupil premium, which will enable young people from disadvantaged backgrounds who are on free school meals, as I was, to get a leg-up in life. It is right that the coalition Government are embarked on a programme of welfare reform. We already have in place the Work programme, which offers assistance to people who are unemployed after nine months or, for 18-year-olds, after six months. It is right that we are raising the threshold at which people start to pay income tax. It is when people enter the jobs market for the first time that they are likely to be on the minimum wage or on low average earnings if they are working part time. The rise in the income tax threshold will disproportionately affect young people who are entering the labour market. It is also right that the coalition Government are massively expanding the number of apprenticeships. However, we also need short-term help for people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unemployed because of the economic circumstances. I am therefore pleased that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has announced the youth contract, which will start in April, with 410,000 places over the rest of this Parliament, 160,000 of which will be wage subsidies of £275 per new job created.

What will help the young unemployed most is economic stability and recovery, together with the confidence that this coalition Government are putting in place the policies to deliver those two things. The low rate of interest that we currently have helps not only households but businesses that are seeking to expand. The Government have a clear focus on stable finances and growth. We should contrast that with Labour’s somersaults, U-turns and ever-elastic bonus tax, which has no credibility as it seems to have funded every single promise that the party has made since the general election.

As the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) said, unemployment is a tragedy for every young person who has experienced it. I grew up in a community scarred by youth unemployment. I witnessed it among my friends—I even experienced it myself at one point in my career—and I do not want another generation to be blighted by it. The Government are taking action, and credibility is a key part of that.

20:56

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

If I said that the Chief Secretary’s defence of the Government’s position was unconvincing, that would be generous.

I want to focus on bank bonuses and the impact that they have on the economy, particularly on youth unemployment. It is striking that this year the pig-fattening season in the City—otherwise known as bonus time—happens to coincide not only with unemployment among young people exceeding 1 million but with the rest of the population being informed, through research undertaken by Resolution Foundation, that the pay freeze is now expected to last until 2020. Last year the squeezed middle, which represents about a third of the population, suffered a big 4.2% real-terms fall in their incomes; now they are being told that by 2020 they will have £1,700 a year, or about £33 a week, less than they had in 2007—an 8% drop even before inflation kicks in. On the other hand, the City’s 1,200 code staff—the people who take and manage risk—will this year take home, on average, about £1.8 million. That is £34,500 a week or, to put it another way, 78 times the average wage.

Of course, those people are the elite—the risk takers. It is not a bad reward for those who took and managed risk so skilfully until 2008 that as a result, a gargantuan bail-out was required that has cost this country and the Government £70 billion, and torn a hole in the Government budget amounting to 8.5% of GDP, £120 billion. That is the difference between the deficit before the crash and 11.6%, which was the figure afterwards, and it is still projected to lead in 2013-14 to a national debt of about £1.4 trillion—slightly more than the nation’s entire income. That is not a bad achievement for just over 1,000 people. It is a pretty good thing that there were not a million of them, as that would have bankrupted the economy totally.

What makes this greed—and that it is what it is—so unconscionable is that it is so unrepentant. There has not been a shred of remorse or apology for what has been done to the country; indeed, it has been quite the opposite, with an arrogant decision that we should return to business as usual as though nothing has happened. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) rightly said, the banks have not even fulfilled the very modest requirements of them under Merlin to increase lending to businesses and home owners and contribute to the creation of jobs, especially for young people. Indeed, the opposite has happened. Lending to business has actually declined because of the degree of deleveraging, and the number of jobs going to young people has also declined, leading, of course, to a disastrous increase in unemployment.

The truth is that the bankers do not seem to get it. There is public outrage that a banking system that owes its continued existence to massive Government intervention can still pay itself mega increases in salary and bonuses, and that in an age of austerity 90% of investment bank profits are directed not at strengthening balance sheets, at shareholders’ dividends, at lowering costs to customers or at creating jobs for young people, but at a gigantic personal pay-off.

I simply ask this: what is the justification for bankers’ bonuses? Bonuses were what caused the reckless stampede into derivatives, securitisation and other new-fangled financial instruments that it turned out all those clever chaps in the City did not even understand. Even now, they still do not want to put their money into what the nation really needs, which is jobs for young people—that is what the debate is all about—and a massive revival of manufacturing industry. In 2010 the UK deficit on traded goods was a staggering £100 billion, which is the worst by far that this country has ever suffered, and 2011 is likely to be much the same, or possibly worse. That is unsustainable, and dealing with it should be our No. 1 priority.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that the other problem is that bankers are still obsessed with the short term? That is why they are not investing in such things as manufacturing. They are still obsessed with the short-term measures that deliver them large-scale bonuses.

[Mr Meacher]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. As I am sure everyone in the House realises, there is far too much short-term instinct, particularly in the City. What we need, and have not had, is the relational banking that exists in the mittelstand in Germany. Banks there spend a lot of time, effort and money producing a long-term relationship with manufacturing units that they can support. That is the type of model that we need in this country, but it is not what we have got.

The banks continue to put their money overwhelmingly into property, mortgages, offshore speculation and tax havens, all for their own enrichment, and stuff the rest of the economy and jobs for young people. I am putting it strongly, but there is huge bitterness outside, as one can see from the August riots, from the Occupy movement and from many other instances of anger beginning to bubble up.

[Esther McVey]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Meacher]

No, I will not give way now.

Bankers’ bonuses have already nearly proved the ruination of this country. What we need is a smaller banking sector that serves the real needs of this country, and particularly of its young people, if we are to avoid a lost generation. Saying no to bonuses, or at least taxing them, is certainly the right way to start.

21:03

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. I would like to make three points, but before I do I wish to put on record my grave concern about the issue of youth unemployment. It is most regrettable that when we have debates such as this, Opposition Members seek to label Government Members as being glib and unconcerned about the plight of their constituents who are in real difficulty.

I was put here by the people of Salisbury, and in my constituency 340 young people between the ages of 16 and 24 are unemployed. I readily concede that that number is significantly higher than it was in the previous year, but I do not accept the comments of the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), who is no longer in his place, that somehow my colleagues and I do not care. I am not complacent about the matter or unwilling to acknowledge the grave seriousness of the problem of youth unemployment, nor am I unwilling to listen to suggestions from Members of all parties of how to tackle it effectively.

I do not see the point of belabouring the fact that the trend from 2004 was in the wrong direction, or that there were 279,000 more unemployed young people when we came to power than there were in 1997. As the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) said, that trend started in 2004, well before any global banking crisis. Let us therefore be honest in the debate about the nature of the problem and how long we have faced it.

However, we must realise that we owe it to those young people to find a lasting and effective solution. The Opposition suggest that the Government’s cuts and tax increases have choked the economy, that our welfare-to-work programmes are failing and that borrowing has increased, so that the solution, very simply, is to tax bankers’ bonuses and introduce a permanent bank levy. That is supposed to sort everything out overnight.

I have three concerns about that. Fundamentally, I am worried about the economic literacy of such a proposal. One cannot just buy jobs. That logic led to the current ruinous situation. It is misguided on several levels. The Government are doing things to address the points that the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) legitimately highlighted: the grave frustration and anger about bankers’ bonuses. However, the banking levy that the Government introduced, which was effective from January 2011, will yield more than the one-off policy on bankers’ bonuses in the last year of the previous Government. That is factually correct.

The Government will take on board the Vickers commission’s conclusions, and reforms to the banking sector will be adopted. However, when the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), who is no longer in his place, worked alongside former Prime Minister Tony Blair in No. 10 Downing street, I wonder where the desire to reform the culture and the system of banking bonuses was then. We have all failed to address the creeping callus of immorality in our society.

However, the notion that the Government can somehow just kick-start things and buy a few jobs here and there does not do justice to the macro-economic realities. The financial systems—the markets—will not see more spending as a signal that the Government are serious about tackling the underlying problem of the debt in this country. Interest rates would rise. That would lead to mortgage payments rising and businesses losing confidence in making investments.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I do not want to impugn him or any of his colleagues who are genuinely concerned about, for example, the plight of young people in my constituency. I meet college students who are devastated because of the impact of withdrawing education maintenance allowance and trebling tuition fees, and the fact that 10 people are chasing every job. However, all the evidence shows that some of the measures, such as enterprise zones, that the Government have introduced have no effect. Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on that?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Can we have short interventions?

[John Glen]

The Government have not been complacent. They have made, and are making, relentless attempts to deal with the difficulty—the £1 billion investment in the youth contract, 250,000 work experience places and 440,000 apprenticeships demonstrate Government action. The effect is not immediate; things will not change overnight, or in the next three months. We must be realistic about what it takes to rebalance the economy. However, 20,000 extra apprenticeships with £1,500 attached to each will encourage people in the private sector, including small businesses, to take on new people.

We must recognise that there needs to be long-term fundamental change in our economy. We must pay down the debt, reduce the burden of regulations and develop schemes that incentivise private sector employers to make the leap and invest in our young people. We must recognise the reality that we are in an international scenario, and that simply pressing a few buttons in the Treasury will not deliver immediate outcomes. Reheating the flawed logic and instincts of the late 1970s, which said that we could press those buttons and jobs would appear, is flawed.

The most senior economic adviser to the former Prime Minister and Member for Sedgefield said in 1997 that the Government whom he served had a golden economic legacy. That is not what this Government had when they took power nearly two years ago. It will therefore take time, but there is no complacency. There is a determination to face up to the underlying economic challenges. Only when we have done that will we have a sustainable basis for dealing with the problem—the deep and desperate problem—of youth unemployment.

21:10

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is timely that I follow the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who lamented the increase in youth unemployment in his constituency, which is less than half the 1,305 people aged 24 and under claiming jobseeker’s allowance in my constituency—an increase of 12.5% on the same time last year.

In December 2011, 420 jobs were advertised in jobcentres in Hackney, which equates to around 14 claimants per vacancy. Young people who are just leaving school or college are competing for those jobs against people who have work experience on their CV, which is one reason why I lament some of the changes this Government have introduced—getting that experience is crucial to helping people to get on their career path.

Hackney is a very young borough—around a third of Hackney residents are under the age of 24—which means that youth unemployment is a particularly striking and important issue in my constituency. The percentage of 18 to 24-year-olds who have been unemployed for six months in Hackney is now higher than the national and London averages. In December 2011, 2.1% of young people in Hackney had been unemployed for six months, compared with 1.5% in London and 0.9% nationally. In Hackney, 1.2% young people were unemployed for more than 12 months, compared with 0.5% in London and 0.6% nationally. One of my concerns is that we are seeing a growing trend of longer-term unemployment for young people. They might be small in number, but the trend is in the wrong direction.

It is important that we hear from young people themselves. I have been talking to providers of the Work programme in my constituency that work with some of the hardest-to-reach people. The private companies take the easier-to-place people and give specialist agencies and organisations the harder-to-reach ones. Janet Usoro, the student contact co-ordinator at East London Advanced Technology Training, which is a third sector IT training company for young people based in my constituency, told me of a young man who comes from a troubled background. His mother has mental health issues and his father is unknown to him, and he had difficulties in the past with drugs that resulted in a prison sentence.

This young man decided to get his life back on the straight and narrow and at ELATT has achieved NVQ levels 1 and 2 in IT networking. He is progressing through level 3. He has gained confidence and found new personal self-discipline. He is on the right track, but with his background, his chosen career path will require a record of work experience and extra support, which, I worry, the Work programme is not entirely equipped to give him. I hope the Minister responds to that in his summing up.

Anthony Harmer, the chief executive of ELATT, tells me of his worries about long-term, sustainable funding for the high-level support work it does with such difficult-to-reach young people.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

As the hon. Lady has raised a specific point, may I put it to her that the Work programme providers have complete freedom to do what works to help people into work, including securing work experience places for them? It is my hope that the providers in her area find work experience places precisely for someone such as the young man she describes, even if they have not found work experience through the Government scheme or Jobcentre Plus.

[Meg Hillier]

If what the Minister says transpires, I will be a very happy Member of Parliament for Hackney South and Shoreditch, but I am picking up on the ground that that is not happening in the way that it should be. The bulk of the business is going to private providers, for the easier-to-place people, and they are taking the money, but the harder-to-reach people are going to the voluntary providers, which are struggling to make the packages work because their funding is crumbs from the bigger table. There may be a structural issue, which I hope the Minister will watch closely as the programme is rolled out, because we do not yet know about the success of the Work programme. Ministers herald it as a success, yet we have seen no figures or results, for all the reasons that have been well rehearsed. This is an issue that the Minister, if he is serious about his job, needs to monitor.

In my area, the third sector agencies are picking up the harder-to-place young people, after what we might call cherry-picking. However, I am not trying to be political; I am concerned that those young people should get that work. Ian Ashman, the principal of Hackney community college, has similar stories to tell. For example, he has told me about Kevin, a 23-year-old father of two with a baby on the way who had an accident going to work one day and, as a result, lost his job. After 100 job applications, he has not been able to find another job. When it comes to full-time college courses, although the college has a good relationship with the local jobcentre, the employment advisers there do not know enough about what colleges can provide. As the Minister is probably aware, that concern was shared by 44% of colleges in a recent Association of Colleges survey. Full-time courses such as those provided by Hackney community college are not always appropriate for young people such as Kevin, because of the impact on their benefits. Indeed, there is an issue with young people wanting to progress and improve their lives, but often being unable to undertake the extra qualification or study that they need. Where do they go in the meantime? As we have heard, some of the apprenticeships on offer are not really true apprenticeships. I am all for more apprenticeships if they are real apprenticeships, but not if they amount to cheap, unpaid work experience.

Agencies, job brokers and colleges need long-term sustainable funding to help their work with the most difficult-to-reach people, which is something we need to look at. The young people in my constituency are not interested in party politicking; they want to know that there is a career path for them. We have seen huge improvements in schools in my constituency, with more than 84% at one school alone getting A* to C grades at GCSE, and seven young people placed at Cambridge, including one young woman who had a baby at 15 and is now at the university with her child. There is real opportunity and a real desire to achieve in Hackney. There is no poverty of ambition among the young people in my area. Most of all, however, we need to get those young people on pathways into jobs. We need work experience available, so that they can get the experience they need to compete in the job market. I want to see the unemployment levels in my constituency fall dramatically.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There are still six speakers, and we have to bring on the Front Benchers at 9.40 pm. I am going to have to drop the time limit to four minutes, in order to get in all the Members who want to speak.

21:17

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I shall try to keep to four minutes.

I start by echoing what my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) said. I do not believe that there is anybody in the House who does not want to try to do as much as possible to help the youth unemployed, and I genuinely mean that about all parts of the House. It is easy to score cheap political points, but deep down, I think that there is probably no one in this House, on either side, for whom that is not true. We feel this to be such an important issue for many of the reasons that have been outlined today.

I will come to why I think the motion is not helpful in solving the problem, but let me say that no matter how we approach the issue, everyone wants to do something about it. That is the nature of party politics: the Opposition have a different approach to those of us in government. When I look around at the unemployed young people in my constituency, I think about how to help them. Equally, I have met young people on apprenticeships—16-year-olds—and seen the difference that being able to go out has made to their lives. There are children whom I have known over many years who have got an apprenticeship and who now go out to work. One sees them visibly maturing before one’s eyes, becoming more confident in themselves and thinking about what it means to get a career and move along that path. However, the flip side of the coin is the children and young people who have not been able to get an apprenticeship or get those jobs. We think, “Well, for every high there must a low,” and we worry deeply about the effect that that will have on young people. But is it fair to offer them false hope by suggesting that taxing bankers’ bonuses could create jobs for them?

I worry about the message that we send out from this place, because there is nothing worse than false hope. We have seen so many examples of it in the history of politics. During elections, people vote for something that they believe will give them x, y or z, only to be bitterly disappointed later. It is also easy for the Opposition to make promises—I mean this not as a comment on the Labour party but as a general remark—when the reality of changing circumstances means that those promises cannot be fulfilled. Another good example is that, following the austerity Budget, we were hoping to reduce the structural deficit by the end of this Parliament, but because of the changes in the world economy since then, it does not look as though we will achieve that until 2016 or possibly 2017.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a further way in which the coalition could help small to medium-sized businesses would be to reduce the heavy burden of bureaucracy that they have to deal with? A further area in which they could be helped is that of energy costs.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Bureaucracy has strangled small businesses over the past 13 years and made it almost impossible for the people running them to say, “Let’s go out and employ a few people. Let’s take a punt on it and see what happens. Let’s grow our business and see whether we can grow the economy.” If they tried to do that but did not succeed, the bureaucracy meant that it was very hard for them to scale back the business afterwards. I believe in protection for workers—I think we all do—but there has to be a reality check at some point. Just keeping people employed because of bureaucracy while watching a company go bust does not serve anybody.

That is why the Government have adopted a programme of tackling bureaucracy and some of the more nonsensical parts of the health and safety at work legislation. I have talked to the local businesses in my constituency and found that they have hired, on average, one full-time equivalent employee to deal with the increase in bureaucracy. That is not job creation; that is sapping the resources from a company that might be willing to go a step further.

I am exceptionally worried about creating false hope. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) made it quite clear how many promises have been made about a bankers’ bonus tax, including the suggestion that such a tax would create 100,000 jobs. Bankers are already paying 50% tax on those bonuses. Do I personally agree that the head of RBS should be getting the size of bonus that he is getting when its share price has halved? No, I do not, but I did not draw up his agreement and I do not know what the small print says. I do not know why he feels entitled to take that bonus. Do I think it right that he should do so? No, I do not, but we are not legally in a position to do anything about it. We have to look at the position that we have got ourselves into, and try not to make those mistakes again.

I do not want to get back into the same old hoo-hahs that we have across the Chamber on these issues. We see the same old faces on the other side, and we all have a history, in these ding-dongs, of talking about whether the austerity measures are working and what would happen if we did not do what we are doing. Whenever we introduce a policy to try to rebalance the economy, there will be a negative effect. There is a recession throughout Europe and the world, and growth is practically flat across the whole of the European Union. We have to do something about that. This Government are trying to do something. They are trying to invest in apprenticeships, for example. Their apprenticeship scheme has the advantage over the jobs scheme introduced by the previous Government in that it involves the private sector rather than the public sector. I hope that we can bring hope to the young unemployed in this country, without a false dawn.

21:24

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

It will come as no surprise that I want to focus on the UK unemployment blackspot that is Scotland. Scotland’s unemployment crisis has become a national tragedy with 250,000 people out of work, and our young people are one of the hardest hit groups. The number of young people claiming jobseeker’s allowance for more than six months has soared by 93% in my constituency and unemployment in Scotland has risen by 8.6%, with some 19,000 more people out of work this year. Scotland now has higher unemployment than the rest of the UK, with 200 Scots losing their job every day. Those figures only confirm what families in my constituency already know, which is that we are facing an unemployment emergency.

[Jake Berry]

As the hon. Gentleman is addressing his concerns to unemployment in Scotland, can he confirm whether it went up or down during the last quarter?

[Mr McKenzie]

Unemployment in Scotland is suffering the double-whammy of not only the UK Government but the Scottish Government. It is obvious where the Scottish National Members are tonight—they are not in the Chamber debating unemployment in Scotland.

For my constituents and millions of hard-pressed families, reports in the news that RBS is preparing to offer a bonus of more than £1 million to its chief executive look like nothing more than huge reward for failure. That leaves my young constituents to ask only one question: what about us? So, what about them? Labour has for some time argued for a tax on bank bonuses to fund 100,000 jobs for young people. Our country needs a new plan for jobs, so the Government should adopt Labour’s five-point plan for jobs, incorporating the tax on bankers’ bonuses to fund those 100,000 jobs for young people and a temporary VAT cut to help people struggling with rising prices, and kick-start the economy.

Jobs for young people in my constituency of Inverclyde are of the utmost importance, which is why we cannot wait for the UK or Scottish Government to act and have commenced putting in place our own plans. I acknowledge the efforts made by the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) in going around all the businesses in his constituency and I can tell him that I will be taking up that challenge over the coming weeks and months. Unfortunately, I might not have the handsome list of businesses that I have visited to quote, which is unfortunate and will make the challenge more difficult. I, along with my Labour-controlled council and my MSP, will commit to searching for jobs and, I hope, to attracting other businesses to the constituency.

I have highlighted in the House before the Labour-led council’s brave decision to go it alone with the future jobs fund after that initiative was scrapped such a short time ago by the Government. We are uniquely successful: we were the second best-performing local authority in the country as regards the future jobs fund, putting some 500 young people a year into employment, 80% of whom remained in those jobs. That again will prove successful. Now, after clever procurement by my council, which has delivered projects under budget, we are in a position to put more funds into alleviating the disgrace of youth unemployment.

As a small council we cannot continue to finance such projects indefinitely, so we need both the UK and Scottish Governments to act now and implement plans to alleviate youth unemployment. Getting people, and especially our young people, back to work is the best way to put the UK, Scotland and Inverclyde back on the right course. As the Deputy Prime Minister said:

“I think fairness starts with doing the right thing for our young people”.

He went on to outline a £1 billion plan to provide subsidised work and training placements to thousands of young people. That initiative has all the hallmarks of a watered-down version of Labour’s future jobs fund, which the coalition scrapped after coming to power. The initiative guaranteed under-24s out of work for six months or more a job or training. The young people in my constituency need work and they need opportunities. They do not wish to live on benefits, but they still await action from this Government and the one in Edinburgh on tackling youth unemployment.

Our young people cannot take another year of failure from Government to react to the crisis. They need, they deserve and they have the right to a job. It should be the duty of all Governments to eliminate unemployment.

21:29

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

It gives me huge pleasure to join this debate in which we can all surely agree with the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) that youth unemployment is too high and must be reduced. As many hon. Members have said, none of us is complacent on this issue, so what to do? The hon. Lady had three main suggestions: spend more, lower VAT, and bash the bankers. There was also a possible fourth suggestion of bringing back the future jobs fund or, as she put it, creating 100,000 jobs. The first of those suggestions has been utterly discredited and the second did not work. On the third suggestion, no Government except those of the ex-USSR and the current Democratic People’s Republic of Korea create jobs. We must be clear that the business of government is about setting the conditions in which businesses can create jobs. It simply does not work when Governments try to create jobs.

On the future jobs fund, the evidence we looked at in the Select Committee on Work and Pensions was absolutely clear: it was expensive and public sector-dominated. It was useful and it did give experience, but no future jobs came from it.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the future jobs fund—that it was basically about short-term jobs that did not last. Does he agree that this Government’s approach to apprenticeships and investing in young people and skills will give us sustainable, long-term jobs for the future?

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend is entirely right and brilliantly anticipates the thread of my argument.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

If the future jobs fund was not a success, why have the Government introduced the youth contract, and is it not simply a watered-down future jobs fund?

[Richard Graham]

Let me be clear that I was not writing off the future jobs fund—I did say that it was useful. However, there are better ways of dealing with these issues, which the Government have identified and are going ahead with.

I was coming to a point that will answer the hon. Gentleman’s query about our alternatives to the hon. Lady’s four main ideas about how the problem of youth unemployment can be solved. I believe that we need a mixture of different things. We need to allow manufacturers to thrive again by reducing corporate tax and the bureaucracy that surrounds their activities. We need to encourage their entrepreneurial spirit. Happily, and by chance, I can show hon. Members an excellent packet of tea that is made in Gloucester and exported to China. I also have in my pocket an aluminium pedal made on the Bristol road in Gloucester and exported to Australia. These examples show that the entrepreneurial spirit is alive and kicking in my constituency and I hope that all Members’ constituencies have similar companies doing great things. Both the companies I have mentioned are looking to take on apprenticeships this year. That speaks to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) about the heavy support and increased numbers of apprenticeships that the Government are delivering.

We also need incentives for small and medium-sized enterprises and I am very grateful that the debate I led in Westminster Hall last year, in which many hon. Members spoke up in favour of SMEs, was heard by the Government, who have introduced those incentives so that SMEs can take on apprentices. If every member of the Federation of Small Businesses in the land took on one apprentice, the largest part of the problem of youth unemployment would be solved. Similarly, we can all lead by example by taking on our own apprentice. I wonder how many Members from the Labour party have taken on an apprentice. We can also encourage businesses in our communities to take on apprentices and we can create apprenticeship fairs and job fairs. I am delighted to be welcoming the employment Minister to the skillsfest in Gloucester on 9 February, when he will see what we are doing to promote all aspects of the Government’s programme and will be quizzed by businesses on what more he can do to help them to grow.

The motion mixes an unacceptable fact—high youth unemployment—with an unpopular sector: banking. It is my strong belief that hammering our financial services sector, which is vital to this country, and destroying jobs in it will not help to create jobs elsewhere, so I propose, as an alternative, an idea that I believe would resonate across the land. It came to me when opening a regenerated bank branch in Gloucester two months ago. It would enable banks to reconnect with their customers and grow cost-efficiently, and it would support our communities by reducing youth unemployment. The idea is simple: every bank in the land should take on one apprentice in each of its branches. That would include the Co-operative Bank, which is shortly, I hope, to take over the Cheltenham & Gloucester branches from Lloyds. If the financial sector pursued that idea, Members in all parts of the House, instead of haranguing bankers, would be able to praise them for their role in solving the problem of youth unemployment. Some talks have already taken place; I hope that there will be more. I commend that policy, rather than the motion before us, to the Minister.

21:35

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

At the centre of this debate is the question of what the optimum balance should be between growth and cuts, and in what time scale we should bring down the deficit. I contend that the debate should not be some sort of auction about who will cut what when; it should be about who has the most creative, realistic growth strategy, predicated on what has happened in the past. Let us look at the Labour party’s record, to which people have referred. Post-1997, we created 2 million more jobs. We replaced interest rates of 10% to 15% with very low rates, thanks to the independence of the Bank of England. With those jobs and those taxpayers, we doubled our investment in the health service and reduced debt. We have a fine record to build on.

In 2008, as we all know, there was a financial tsunami, generated by sub-prime debt in the United States. Our then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), got together with Barack Obama to ensure that we delivered a fiscal stimulus, and that there was not a depression. We had a shallow recession, and then fragile growth. Then the Tories arrived, and immediately announced 500,000 job cuts. Consumer confidence and demand were thrown out with the bathwater. Immediately, people in the public sector thought that they were going to lose their jobs, and would not spend money. People in the private sector stopped taking on employees, and we ended up with the deficit rising. The deficit forecast is now £158 billion above what it was; when Labour came in, the deficit forecast was falling. The question is what we should do to bring back confidence.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether he agrees with the shadow Chancellor, who said the other day,

“we are going to have keep all these cuts”?

[Geraint Davies]

I am not opposing having to make savings and cuts. I am saying that the key is growth. As a business man in Swansea said to me, “It would be no good laying off my workers and selling my tools if I was making a loss; I would need to grow my sales while making savings.” That is the focus. That is why there is a five-point plan focused on national insurance for the building industry, on VAT for extra consumption, and on taxing banker bonuses to generate jobs and infrastructure growth.

In addition, we need a credible growth strategy focused on the growth opportunities in the global economy, namely the emerging consumer markets in India, China and south America. What are we doing to re-engineer our financial markets, our modern manufacturing, and our services, so that they are tailored to those markets? What will we do about getting capital opportunities from surplus-rich countries such as China, or oil-rich countries, so that they invest in our infrastructure? What are we doing to skill ourselves up for future markets? Those questions do not seem to be being asked or answered tonight.

In Swansea, I am talking with prospective manufacturers from India about linking up with the university and providing a manufacturing base to build on the cutting-edge life science research taking place there. I am talking with possible investors about investing in manufacturing facilities. There are companies such as Tata near Swansea, which are already investing in the modern manufacturing of steel, which will have six layers and can create its own energy and heat, so there are new global opportunities. This debate has been completely focused on who will cut most, when. That is going nowhere. We cannot cut ourselves out of this economic problem. We have to grow, invest and reposition our industry.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

I should like to give the hon. Gentleman another chance to support the Opposition’s policy of acknowledging both that they support the cuts programme introduced by the Government and that they made quite a few mistakes when they were in government.

[Geraint Davies]

We need a balance of savings—certainly not cuts against our productive capacity—with the main focus on growth and jobs, as has always been the case. The shadow Chancellor said that he cannot predict the future—he does not have a crystal ball—and in three years’ time, with the situation ruined by a Government who have destroyed industry and opportunity, it is likely that we will face an even worse situation, so promises cannot be made about reinstating things subject to Government cuts. The key point is that unless we have a growth strategy, as Barack Obama is trying to do—and Europe is trying to reskill in a global environment —we have no hope, given the Government mantra that all that they can do to save business is cut, cut, cut. All that that leads to is the death of industry. I shall leave it there, and let us focus on growth.

21:41

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

We have had a very good debate. In June last year, the Prime Minister told the House that cutting the deficit faster would revive private sector confidence. That was the basis of the strategy with which we were presented for private sector investment and jobs to surge. Tragically, that has not happened. The business confidence monitor from the Institute of Chartered Accountants says:

“UK Business confidence has collapsed”.

It says:

“Confidence has declined across all sectors and all regions.”

Nobody now claims that the coalition strategy is working to boost confidence. Confidence has evaporated, and the strategy has clearly not worked.

We are debating the consequences tonight: unemployment rocketing; youth unemployment of over 1 million, and becoming worse—the highest that it has ever been. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) drew attention to the growing sense of hopelessness and the long-term damage to our economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) pointed to the growth of long-term unemployment among young people as particularly damaging.

As a result of that failure, the Government have to spend a great deal more on benefits. It is worth comparing the latest forecast from the end of last year showing how much they intend to spend on benefits in the year after next with the forecast a year earlier. Projected benefit spending in the year after next has gone up by £5.4 billion. The overall estimate of borrowing has gone up by £158 billion—a figure at which the Chief Secretary to the Treasury balked at admitting. The Government are determined to press ahead with their version of the benefit cap, which the Department for Communities and Local Government says will add 20,000 to annual homelessness figures, with massive Exchequer costs. The ill-judged attack by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the bishops at the weekend has led to yet another defeat for him in the other place.

All along, we have been told that the solution to all these problems was the Work programme. Let me begin by welcoming the U-turn by the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). I welcome his change of heart, because until now he has refused to allow Work programme providers to publish any data on their performance. Today, he has announced that he is going to change his policy.

[Chris Grayling]

rose—

[Stephen Timms]

Perhaps the Minister will tell us when the guidance to which he referred will be published.

[Chris Grayling]

I am a little puzzled. I could be wrong, but I thought I heard the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) say that the Labour party supported the benefit cap, but the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has just said that they do not. Would he tell us which is right?

[Stephen Timms]

We do support the benefit cap. The version that the Minister is pressing through is, as the House of Lords has rightly pointed out, going to cause huge costs for the Exchequer. I hope that even now the Secretary of State will think again before returning to the House with the measure next week.

The Work programme was rushed, and badly prepared. As we pointed out at the time, there should have been a plan for transition to the new programme. There was no plan. We can glimpse how the Work programme has been going by looking at the number of people coming off benefit each month. The number plummeted last May, when the flexible new deal stopped, and it stayed low as the Work programme got going. I invite the Minister to compare the months after May with the same period the previous year, because he will see that poor Work programme performance resulted in 86,000 people not getting into work who should have done. That is probably a permanent unemployment rise. The damage will be with us for years.

The Government told us that the Work programme would enlist an army of voluntary organisations to give specialist help to jobseekers. To begin with, we were told that 508 voluntary sector organisations would be involved. By August, that number had fallen to 423. Next week the Government will count once again. Last week, apparently, at a crunch meeting, voluntary sector organisations told the Minister that they were being used as “bid candy” to win contracts. Some of them still have not had a single referral since the Work programme began last summer.

The “Open Public Services White Paper” promised, as I quoted to the Minister earlier:

“Providers of public services from all sectors will need to publish information on performance and user satisfaction.”

I welcome the Minister’s U-turn on performance. What about user satisfaction? Let me tell him about the satisfaction of one user, the father of a constituent of mine, who came to me to complain about his daughter’s experience on the Work programme. She received a letter referring her to mandatory work activity. It was completely incomprehensible; I will send the Minister a copy. She lives in my constituency in east London. The letter appeared to require her to report on an unspecified date to an address with a postcode in Sheffield, and the telephone number was given as 000. It was a shambles. It is no wonder the Work programme is not delivering and youth unemployment is rocketing.

[Esther McVey]

When I read the title of today’s Opposition day debate, which mentioned youth unemployment and bank bonuses, I thought it was a list of Labour’s worst failings—youth unemployment up by 40% and a banks bonus culture developed under Labour and signed, sealed and delivered with a knighthood under Labour—so will not the right hon. Gentleman concede that where Labour messed up, the coalition is cleaning up?

[Stephen Timms]

We had some discussion in the debate about the future jobs fund. The Minister has awarded a contract for the evaluation of the Work programme. I welcome the fact that he has done that. He should read the evaluation of the future jobs fund carried out by the same organisation that he has commissioned to evaluate the Work programme. It points out just how effective the future jobs fund was and the crucial value for young people of

“a real job with a real wage”.

We need a new approach. We should repeat the tax on bankers’ bonuses to bring in £2 billion, funding 100,000 real jobs for young people. We need, once again, a temporary cut in VAT to rebuild momentum in the economy, as the VAT cut did before the general election. A further VAT cut on home improvements would give the construction industry, which is in a desperate state, the chance that it needs. We should bring forward investment in schools, roads and transport, and we should listen to the Federation of Small Businesses and give small firms hiring new staff a break from paying national insurance—five points that would give us, at last, a chance.

21:49

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

Let me start by making it absolutely clear that tackling unemployment and youth unemployment is right at the top of the Government’s list of priorities. I share the frustration of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) at some of the comments from Opposition Members. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, to whom I pay tribute, is firmly of the view that the decline in the teaching of history in this country is a lamentable failing in our education system, and we realise precisely why when we listen to the Opposition. They have forgotten the history not of 10 or 100 years ago, but of two years ago: the mess they left behind for us.

Someone listening to Opposition Members tonight might think that youth unemployment had been created in the past 18 months, but the truth is that when Labour left office 18 months ago youth unemployment stood at 940,000. It has since risen by 100,000, which we wish had not happened. Half of that increase has come from students in full-time education looking for part-time work. The Opposition talk about surging youth unemployment, and I get increasingly frustrated by their use of figures, because they keep up the spurious claim that long-term youth unemployment under this Government has rocketed, but that is utterly untrue. A like-for-like comparison that removes all of the ways in which they massage the figures reveals that long-term youth unemployment today is actually lower than it was two years ago. There is one other fact that they do not mention: fewer people in this country are on out-of-work benefits today than were at the time of the general election. Let us hear nothing about the failures of the past 18 months, and let us never forget the failings of 13 years of Labour government.

We have had a thoughtful debate and heard some sensible contributions, including those from my hon. Friends the Members for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), for Salisbury (John Glen), for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) and for Gloucester (Richard Graham). We have also had a snapshot of the past, present and future of the Labour party. On the future of the party, I must say that the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) made some thoughtful contributions on things the Government might do, and I listened carefully to what she said. We also had a bit of a throwback from the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), who talked about bankers’ bonuses while conveniently forgetting that the bankers’ bonus pool in the City of London was twice as big under Labour as it is today.

I was also struck by the lack of ambition among Labour Members. When they went through their plans yet again—we have to bear it in mind that the money from their proposed bankers’ bonus tax has been announced for nine different things so far; another bit of history they have conveniently forgotten—we realised that the reality is that they are talking about creating 100,000 places in a replacement for the future jobs fund. I see that as rather unambitious, because the package of support we have put together will help, and is helping, far more young people into employment.

We have a clear strategy to support the creation of jobs in the economy and provide help for those people, older and younger, who are looking for work. We have set out some of those measures. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury team set out in the autumn statement a range of proposals to do everything we can to stimulate and support the growth of business. I am particularly pleased that in the last quarter private sector employment in the economy increased at a time when we face huge economic challenges that were described recently by the Governor of the Bank of England as probably the most difficult in modern peace time history, if not ever. Yet against that background we are determined to give business every opportunity to grow and develop through investment in infrastructure, measures in the tax system and the measures we are taking to deregulate—for example, in relation to health and safety—in order to support business growth. There is no other way of securing the future of our work force or job creation in the economy.

We cannot go back to the uncertainty and instability under the previous Government and under the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), who is chuntering away on the Front Bench and forgets the severe damage that he and his colleagues did to the economy when they were in office.

Alongside the work that we will do and are doing to ensure that business has the best possible opportunity to grow and to create jobs, however, we have put in place a package of support for the unemployed that I believe is more ambitious and more successful than anything that the previous Government did.

Let us start with our work experience scheme, which will double in size under the youth contract and is already helping large numbers of young people to move into work.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I am sure the Minister agrees that work experience programmes should give people skills that they do not already have, and perhaps confidence if they have not worked for a long time, so why has it been made compulsory for people who have already done the work or had the training to go into jobs such as shelf-stacking, on which I know the Conservative party is so keen? Why is that relevant to people who already have such experience?

[Chris Grayling]

I simply cannot understand the view that Opposition Members have of our retail sector. Our larger retailers are national and international businesses, with hugely varied career opportunities for young people. The manager of a single supermarket can run a £100 million business, so let nobody say that giving an unemployed young person the opportunity to show to a supermarket chain their ability to contribute to that organisation is nothing but a possible footstone for a long-term career.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, because more than half the young people who are going through our work experience scheme are moving off benefits quickly afterwards. When we make a comparison with the future jobs fund, from which about half moved off benefits immediately afterwards, we find the total cost of that scheme was between £5,000 and £6,000 per placement, whereas the total cost of our work experience scheme—of achieving a similar result—is about £300 per placement. Which do Opposition Members think represents better value for the taxpayer?

Alongside that, we are also delivering 170,000 wage subsidies, through the youth contract, to employers who take on young people, and that is the big difference between our philosophy and that of the Opposition, who simply want to recreate another scheme with artificial, six-month job placements in the public or voluntary sectors. We are trying to create a path to a long-term career for young people. That is what the wage subsidies in the youth contract will do, and it is also why we have expanded by so many the number of available apprenticeships. They are not about short-term placements; they are about building long-term career opportunities. Since we took office, we have increased massively the availability of apprenticeships in the economy, precisely because we believe that our young people are best served by creating a path that they can follow to a long-term career opportunity.

The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) talked about the Work programme, which is providing much better and more intensive support for the long-term unemployed than previous schemes, and about the flexible new deal, which we inherited last year. Let me, however, give him some statistics about that. It cost the Department for Work and Pensions £770 million, and it achieved 50,000 job outcomes in six months—at a cost of £14,000 per job outcome. Does that represent good value for money or a programme worth keeping? Does anybody seriously believe that that programme had the effect he describes?

I am confident that, by contrast, the Work programme will deliver results because it is based on payment by results, and because we have created an environment in which the organisations, large and small, that are delivering the programme are paid only when they succeed in getting somebody into long-term employment. Having now been around the country and visited almost all the providers, I have seen a team of people who are motivated, determined and succeeding in getting the unemployed back to work. I meet people who have not worked for years but who have got back into employment, and people who did not believe they could get back into work but are getting back into employment.

When we publish the figures, and we will, I look forward to demonstrating that that approach makes a difference to the prospects of the long-term unemployed in this country—

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question put accordingly.

21:59

Division 436

Ayes: 225

---

Labour: 215
Scottish National Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 3
Alliance: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 302

---

Conservative: 256
Liberal Democrat: 44

Business without Debate

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Education

That the draft Special Educational Needs (Direct Payments) (Pilot Scheme) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 7 December, be approved.—(Stephen Crabb.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Local Government

That the draft City of Birmingham (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 5 December, be approved.—(Stephen Crabb.)

The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 25 January (Standing Order No. 41A).

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Regulatory Reform

That the draft Local Better Regulation Office (Dissolution and Transfer of Functions, Etc.) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 6 December, be approved.—(Stephen Crabb.)

Question agreed to.

Administration

Ordered,

That Angela Smith be discharged from the Administration Committee and Mark Tami be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection..)

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Ordered,

That Tom Blenkinsop and Cathy Jamieson be discharged from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and Iain McKenzie and Ms Margaret Ritchie be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Scottish Affairs

Ordered,

That Graeme Morrice be discharged from the Scottish Affairs Committee and Pamela Nash be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Closure of Downhills Primary School, Tottenham

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

22:15

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

The petition is from the governors, parents, teachers and community of Downhills primary school in Tottenham.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Tottenham,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that there has been inadequate consultation about the Secretary of State for Education’s plans to close Downhills Primary School and re-open it as an academy; that the Petitioners value the links with the community that the school has maintained over the last 100 years; that the Petitioners believe that the Secretary of State’s plans are undemocratic and undermine the recent progress that has been made towards improving standards at the school and that the Petitioners oppose any attempts to change the status of the school without the consent of the community.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Education not to exercise his powers to close Downhills Primary School and re-open it as an academy.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P000998]

Gender Balance in Broadcasting

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stephen Crabb.)

22:16

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I was inspired to apply for this debate when, at a Christmas party, I met a very successful and very well-known BBC broadcaster who shall remain anonymous. What I was told shocked me, not least because that very famous individual told me that should he raise the issue within the BBC, life would be made so difficult for him that the end of his career would be just around the corner. I was given a quick resumé of how the BBC behaves with regard to women and female broadcasters, and the sexism inherent not only in the BBC but throughout the broadcasting arena and journalism in general. It was a shocking story.

What is even more shocking is that in the case of the BBC, the general public, 52% of whom are women, pay a licence fee to endorse the behaviour in question. According to the Library, the BBC receives £293 million a year in Government grants, £3.5 billion in licence fee revenue, £888 million from commercial business and £12 million from selling content overseas. It could not earn the last two figures without the Government’s subsidy and the licence fee.

Before I cite some of the examples that highlight the disparity in gender balance in the BBC, may I ask the Minister whether, when the next round of negotiations with the BBC begins and he decides whether to hand over another lump sum of taxpayers’ money and agree the licence fee settlement, he would like to tell the BBC that until it gets its house in order it will not be getting the dosh? In fact, may I go further? I think it is about time the Minister set up a parliamentary Committee to scrutinise the decision-making process within the BBC. Whatever it is doing at the moment, it is simply wrong.

I am not advocating degrading quotas; I am talking about basic commercial common sense. I have only half an hour, so I will cite just a few examples of what I am talking about. First, however, I wish to name-check Kira Cochrane and Alexander Campbell, as I have taken some of what I am about to say from work that they have researched and published, and Frances Rafferty from the National Union of Journalists, who has been very kind and helpful in sending me useful links and information.

Let us begin with radio, and Radio 2. The most listened-to music radio station in the world has not a single female daytime broadcaster. Is that not shameful? Radio 1 has one daytime female presenter. However, Radio 2 has “Sally Traffic”, whose job seems to be moving in and out of one studio after another to massage the egos of the male presenters who are there throughout the day. Although she outstrips most of the presenters in wit and rapport, I imagine that she earns a fraction of what the male egos that she massages do. Sally appears far more intellectual and witty than every male broadcaster whom she has to humour. However, the BBC bosses, whoever they may be, appear not to have noticed that.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

As far as I could see when preparing for this evening, there is not one woman with children in Radio 2’s management above assistant producer level. That includes the producers, the executive producers, the head of programmes and the controller of Radio 2. That situation may not come as a surprise.

[Nadine Dorries]

I thank the hon. Lady for that contribution. I have that table of figures, but I decided to concentrate on what the general public see from the BBC. However, I thank her very much for that intervention.

Even though the BBC is wholly funded, one way or another, by taxpayers, half of whom, as I said, are women, the BBC bosses seem to feel that the person who pays the piper does not need representing on daytime radio.

Mr Speaker, I am sure that you remember the amazing Annie Nightingale, and that you grew up, as I did, listening to her on Radio 1. She has more music knowledge in her little finger than the majority of radio presenters today on Radio 1. Do you know what Annie Nightingale does now, Mr Speaker? She presents one programme, one night a week, from 2 till 4 am. That is where the BBC has consigned Annie Nightingale. Jo Wiley is on Radio 2 three nights a week from 8 till 9.30 pm. That is as good as it gets. It is a double travesty. Vanessa Feltz is on Radio 2 weekday mornings from 5 till 6.30. Another music legend—I am sure you remember her name, too, Mr Speaker—Liz Kershaw, is on Radio 6 on Saturday afternoon from 1 till 4. That is where the BBC has placed those fantastic women.

Let us consider the male presenters on the BBC. Some of them are in their 70s and still in primetime spots, yet those women have been consigned to the graveyard. If the BBC placed a banner on top of Broadcasting House and wrote on it, “The BBC does not believe that women deserve to be represented on BBC radio”, that banner would be 100% accurate.

It is frankly amazing that Annie, Liz, Vanessa and Jo have kept hold of their jobs at all, because we all know what the BBC attitude is to women of a certain age. One female radio presenter was not so lucky. We have all heard about the treatment of Sarah Kennedy, who was harassed out of her Radio 2 early morning spot in the most appalling way after 17 years’ service. Mocked by Radio 1 male presenter Chris Moyles in a tribute evening to yet another male presenter, Terry Wogan, Sarah eventually threw in the towel, citing a campaign by two BBC male employees to get her out of her job. Sarah was not so lucky: someone was after her job. It is only because of the public outcry and anger that that graveyard spot, which was a good platform for a new male presenter trying to climb the ladder, is now hosted by Vanessa Feltz.

Let us move to news and current affairs. The “Today” programme on Radio 4 has 7 million listeners a day. Many of them are influential and decision makers. Yet only 16% of the voices heard on the “Today” programme—comprising both contributors and presenters—are women’s. As Jane Martinson states on the women’s blog, and as others have pointed out, if the female presenter is away from the presenting team, one can go two whole hours in the morning when listening to the “Today” programme without a single female voice, and have male voices speaking at you throughout all that time.

[Tessa Munt]

When we look at the structure of the radio system and the controllers of Radio 1, Radio 2, Radio 3, Radio 4 and Radio 5, we see that only Radio 4 has a female controller. The director of radio and the director-general are both male. I am sure that the hon. Lady agrees that in local radio, it is horrific that only one woman presents a breakfast show, out of 43 such flagship programmes.

[Nadine Dorries]

Perhaps the hon. Lady and I should apply for a joint Adjournment debate.

When questioned about the fact that there were no female voices on Radio 2 for two hours on one particular day, BBC editors said that that was okay because they did not receive any letters of complaint. I wonder whether they thought for a moment that the nation’s women are far too busy to write letters to male BBC editors. I suspect that most women believe that the BBC is so male dominated that there is no point in writing. Most women have read about the high-profile cases of Sarah Kennedy, Miriam O’Reilly, Anna Ford, Selina Scott, Moira Stuart, Arlene Phillips and others. Sensible women will think, “What’s the point of writing to such an ageist, sexist organisation—even if I am paying for it?”

If radio is not bad enough, one can only cringe at television, especially the BBC. Let us consider the more popular and highly rated programmes. It would appear that in the minds of TV bosses, the viewing public only enjoy watching ageing male hosts accompanied by young blonde females. I shall list some of the names: Forsyth and Daly, of “Strictly Come Dancing”; Chiles and Bleakley; Schofield and Willoughby; and Cowell and Holden. Even on sensible “Countdown”, we find Stelling and Riley. “Elderly male, young female” is an unchallenged formula.

It is not just that women’s representation on radio and TV is woeful, but that sexism and ageism are combined, and at their worst, in current affairs and politics. Only one in 10 women working in television are aged over 50. As the number of people that TV employs shrinks, the biggest losers are women, by two to one.

I note that on the day of this debate the “Daily Politics” show invited three female MPs as guests—a rare day indeed, and a sticking plaster over a gaping wound. At least this debate has had a tiny effect, even if for just one day. Perhaps it is time the BBC took a long hard look at its political news and current affairs programmes on both radio and TV, because the way in which they are presented says, to me and everyone else, that the BBC believes that women are not capable of presenting such programmes, and therefore by implication that they do not watch them.

Perhaps if women did watch such programmes, they could relate to the people presenting them. Let us forgive Andrew Marr’s line-up of the best 20 political moments of 2011, and the fact that each and every politician was male. Let us not include David Dimbleby or Jeremy Paxman or Jeremy Vine; let us give them an exemption, because all three are undeniable experts and silos of historical political knowledge, and considered to be more national treasures than presenters. I will do a quick round-up of the men who present TV news and current affairs: Robinson, Naughtie, Webb, Campbell, Marr, Craven, Davis, Snow, Stewart, Murnaghan, Boulton, Sopel, Mair, Simpson, Mason, Pienaar, Stourton, Portillo, Esler, Edwards, Matt Frei, Murphy, Austin, Gibbon, Crick, Thompson and Islam. That is just the top layer of news and current affairs. I challenge any hon. Member to start a list of women. They would get stuck at three names.

Hon. Members may have noticed that the name of Mr Andrew Neil was not in that list, but I will give him a quick mention. I have had an outburst against this particular gentleman; I am not proud of the fact that I described him as an ageing, overweight, orange toupee-wearing has-been. One could describe a number of male presenters in those terms. However, I made that outburst because of the outwardly sexist comments that that particularly rude man has made about female politicians on his “This Week” programme, which almost every week features three ageing men and a token woman. Why are we women paying for that? Not only do we not want to watch it; we object to paying for it. Mr Neil has a verbose style that is aggressive, abrasive and often rude, which massively turns women off. He uses the shadow public health Minister as his token female only to attack her on the programme, which he does frequently, including last week. Because she declined to appear, he again made unpleasant sexist comments about her.

I remember the first time I appeared on his programme. I was asked to appear on a Monday morning; all the MPs were on their way to the House of Commons and they could not get anyone else to speak. I ran over to College green and did a little piece to camera and gave a quick quote on David Cameron’s election campaign. Mr Neil thought I could not hear him as I finished, but I still had the earpiece in, and heard him say, “Well, she looked tired and out of breath there didn’t she?” Would he have said that about a male politician who had run over to College green to do that piece? No. It was another sexist, negative Mr Andrew Neil pearler, saved just for the women politicians. How can we possibly encourage more women into Parliament, when they see men like that, and the media in general, making sexist comments about female politicians? The Home Secretary was on the front of Total Politics magazine today, but all anyone has spoken about is how she looked and what she was wearing, not what she had to say or the substance of the article. Why would any woman want to join us in this place when that is how they are regarded and spoken about?

The BBC is seen as the holy grail by the left. I believe that an irrational desire by the left to protect the BBC and not attack it or highlight its faults has allowed the present situation to occur, under the prolonged former governance by Labour. It is a worrying theme that the left irrationally protects what it regards as the issues on its turf, sometimes to the detriment of women. MPs are also loth to challenge the BBC, for fear that they will no longer be invited to make their points on television or BBC programmes—and I will probably be living proof that they are right. However, such considerations are cowardly.

In conclusion, the left may have ignored the behaviour of the BBC while it was in government, but if the Minister continues that pattern of behaviour, I and others will view it as a dereliction of the duties of his office. I would like him to tell us in his response what steps he will take, apart from using the financial hammer—which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech—with which he can hit the BBC over the head. What else is he going to do to end the culture of ageism, sexism and poor-quality male-dominated programming that we women are paying for, and are subjected to?

22:30

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

I am grateful for the chance to respond to this important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) has a formidable reputation for bringing difficult issues to the House and raising subjects that others might fear to bring to public prominence. The representation of women across the media, but particularly at the BBC, is an important issue that is worth addressing.

Many of the statistics that my hon. Friend quoted are very much a cause for concern. Some of them came from a recently established campaign group called Sound Women that aims to support and celebrate the work of women in UK radio. It published an important report called “Tuning out”—which one can find on its website, soundwomen.co.uk—that was commissioned by the training agency Skillset, which I work with closely to promote skills in the creative industries. The report found that women are less likely to make it to the top of radio, making up just a third of senior managers and less than a fifth at board level. It will not surprise the House to hear that women in radio are more qualified than men, with three quarters having degrees, compared with less than two thirds of men. However, women are still paid less, by an average of £2,200 a year.

Older women with children are less well represented, as the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) said. In fact, a lot of women abandon the radio industry after the age of about 35. As was also pointed out by the hon. Lady, who supported my hon. Friend so ably in this debate, out of 50 BBC local radio breakfast shows, only one is presented by a woman. Some 84% of reporters and guests on Radio 4’s “Today” programme are men. Indeed, on 5 July 2011, one would have had to wait from 6.15 am until 8.20 am to hear one female contributor, alongside the 27 male contributors to that programme. My hon. Friend therefore raises an important point.

Having raised those issues of concern, let me make it clear that I am nevertheless an admirer and respecter of the BBC, which forms the cornerstone of public service broadcasting in this country. Personally, I for one think it is the finest public service broadcaster in the world today. We want to ensure that the BBC remains a national asset, but as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, if it is to maintain its pre-eminence and prominence, it must address the issue of gender imbalance. We are well aware of the criticism that too many of the presenters at the BBC are men, and of the calls for more women presenters.

I want to make an important point; I am sure that my hon. Friend will regard it as a cop-out, but I am going to make it anyway. It is that the BBC is independent of the Government, and I do not think that Members would want to have it any other way. I do not think that they would want politicians to use a particular issue as an excuse to interfere too closely with the operational or editorial independence of the BBC. There is therefore, quite rightly, no provision for the Government to become involved in the BBC’s day-to-day operational and editorial decisions. For the same reason, the Government are equally committed to the independence of other broadcasters, and will not seek to intervene directly in their on-screen or staff gender balance.

The BBC agreement does, however, place a duty on the BBC executive board to make arrangements for promoting the equality of opportunity between men and women. The BBC executive board is accountable to the BBC Trust, and it is the duty of the trust to ensure that the duty on equality of opportunity is met. The BBC, Channel 4 and S4C are all subject to the Equality Act 2010, which seeks to eliminate discrimination and harassment and to advance equality of opportunity. Under the terms of the Act, all those broadcasters must publish equality objectives every four years, and publish information to demonstrate compliance with the general equality duty.

[Tessa Munt]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I find myself amazed that, while six of the 39 DJs at Radio 1 are women—all those DJs form the opinions of young women and young men across the country—that station had a greater number of female DJs in 1987. Setting four-year objectives does not seem to be having any impact whatever, if nothing has improved in all the intervening years.

[Mr Vaizey]

The hon. Lady makes her point forcefully, and I shall come to the points that she and my hon. Friend have raised.

I have mentioned the editorial independence of the BBC, and it is important to point out that all broadcasters’ content and output services are exempt from the provisions of the Equality Act, to ensure that politicians do not interfere in the editorial independence of those broadcasters.

Ofcom, the independent regulator, also has a duty in regard to the promotion of equal opportunities, and we are in the process of reforming that. I must emphasise that that does not mean that we will take those obligations any less seriously. However, with the Equality Act 2010, we believe that equality duties will be undertaken more efficiently with legislation in one place. We will be consulting shortly on our proposals, and I hope that the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend will participate in the consultation.

I think that to talk about redressing the balance is to put it too strongly, but I want to use this opportunity to point out areas in which broadcasters have made progress. My hon. Friend and the hon. Lady have both, quite rightly, highlighted the imbalance that exists in broadcasting, but it is worth pointing out that 50% of BBC Trust members are women. The proportion of females on the BBC executive board is only 42%, but that is still a far higher proportion than is found on the majority of corporate boards. Within the whole staff of the BBC, women make up 49% of the total, and more women are joining the organisation than men at the moment.

[Nadine Dorries]

That is an interesting figure. If we were to look at the proportions of men and women among the total number of people in the House of Commons, we would probably find that they were about the same, taking into account the administrative and secretarial jobs. It does not actually mean anything to say that half the staff of the BBC are women. Those in the key jobs—the important, opinion-forming jobs; the ones that people listen to—are men. A bit like the House of Commons.

[Mr Vaizey]

Certainly as far as I am concerned, the people in the House of Commons who do the administrative and behind-the-scenes work are as important, if not more important, than those who do the front-of-house work. I take my hon. Friend’s point, however, which is to draw attention to the public face of the BBC and to ask how female-friendly it is. I shall come to that point later. Let me finish my short defence of the BBC, however. In BBC Vision, for example, 63% of the staff are women and, in the audio music division, 53% of the staff are women.

My hon. Friend talked about The Guardian’s recent interest in the number of female presenters on BBC radio and, of course, Jane Garvey has raised the issue on “Woman’s Hour”. I noticed that today a very rare event happened on “Woman’s Hour”, as a Conservative MP appeared and it was a woman, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley). That is, in a way, some progress. The BBC has some outstanding female presenters and it might amuse my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire to know that when the corporation sent us the list, at the top was Annie Nightingale. She can read into that what she likes. There were also Sarah Montague, Fearne Cotton, Shelagh Fogarty, who happens to be a personal favourite of mine, Jenni Murray, Lauren Laverne, Mariella Frostrup, Jo Whiley, Zoe Ball, Moira Stuart and, of course, Jane Garvey. If I might abuse my office, I am personally very disappointed that the BBC did not include Rachel Burden in that list. As hon. Members will be aware, she is the formidable female presenter on the BBC 5 Live Breakfast show, which is the show I listen to in the morning. There are some formidable presenters on the BBC.

In Channel 4, 58% of the employees are women, which represents a 1% increase on the previous year. Four out of seven of the executive team are women and so are six out of the 13 board members. Since we are trading names and numbers, as it were, Channel 4 also has a strong representation of women presenters, including Cathy Newman, obviously, who has recently joined Channel 4 News. Mary Portas, Kirstie Allsopp, Sarah Beeny, Katie Piper, Jo Frost, Anna Richardson and Davina McCall all lead their own shows.

There are also powerful women in the channel’s film and dramas: Vicky McClure in “This Is England”; Lauren Socha in “Misfits”; Meryl Streep in “The Iron Lady”, who won the 2012 Golden Globe award for best actress; and Olivia Colman in “Tyrannosaur”. Channel 4 has the formidable Baroness King leading its equality and diversity practice and, behind the scenes, it has also tried to tackle some aspects of production where women are under-represented. Channel 4 has placed a special emphasis through its online education projects on working with female writers and developers, a group still under-represented in the digital media.

Those are the statistics and the points that might balance the formidable case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire. I noticed her reference to her spat with Andrew Neil, and I do not know whether she has talked herself out of appearing on “The Daily Politics” in future. I hesitate to make any joke about that, because when I heard that she had described Andrew Neil as an orange, overweight, toupee-wearing has-been, I was going to say that almost all those adjectives probably apply to me.

My hon. Friend made some very serious points and this has been an ongoing issue in the media, which is why we have very good campaign groups such as Women in Film and Television. The organisation Sound Women would not have been created out of thin air—there must have been a problem with women appearing on radio as presenters.

My offer to the hon. Member for Wells and to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire is to broker a meeting with both of them—if that would be all right with you, Mr Speaker, as they both made formidable contributions to the debate—with the director-general of the BBC, Mark Thompson, and we will sit down and discuss this issue. It is an issue that we must keep pressing at. Some people might regard it as frivolous or something that makes good copy for a parliamentary sketch, but my hon. Friend made a valid and fundamental point: we want to hear a balance of voices on the radio and to see a balance of presenters on the television. We do not want to set quotas or diktats, but we do want to maintain a dialogue and pressure. I look forward to brokering that important meeting.

Question put and agreed to.

22:44

House adjourned.

Ministerial Correction

Monday 23rd January 2012 Ministerial Corrections

Monday 23 January 2012

Transport

Monday 23rd January 2012 Ministerial Corrections

Departmental Consultants

[Jonathan Ashworth]

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which consultants and advisers her Department has employed in respect of the (a) Thameslink programme, (b) Thameslink rolling stock procurement and (c) Intercity Express programme; how much she has budgeted in respect of each such contractor; and how much each contractor has invoiced to date.

[Official Report, 23 November 2011, Vol. 536, c. 411-12W.]

Letter of correction from Mrs Theresa Villiers:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) on 23 November 2011. The full answer given was as follows:

[Mrs Villiers]

[holding answer 21 October 2011]: The information requested can be found as follows.

[Mrs Villiers]

[holding answer 21 October 2011]: The information requested can be found as follows.

Written Ministerial Statements

Monday 23rd January 2012 Written Statements

Monday 23 January 2012

ECOFIN

Monday 23rd January 2012 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

The Economic and Financial Affairs Council will be held in Brussels on 24 January 2012. The Chancellor will attend. The following items are on the agenda to be discussed (as of 20 January 2012):

European Markets Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR)

Ministers will have an exchange of views on the outstanding issues on EMIR. Trialogues have been ongoing since ECOFIN reached general agreement on 4 October. The outstanding issues relate to the process for authorisation of central counterparties (CCPs), and provisions relating to third countries. The Danish presidency is seeking a solution that retains the key principles of the Council position while integrating a number of the European Parliament’s concerns.

On the authorisation of CCPs, the Government believe that the National Competent Authority must have a pre-eminent role. Therefore, any agreement should maintain the principles established at the 4 October ECOFIN. On third country provisions, the objective should be the smooth functioning of the global derivatives market while providing ex ante legal certainty to market participants. It is important that jurisdictions recognise the global nature of the derivatives market and ensure that legislation enables the smooth functioning of this market in a safe manner.

Proposals from the Commission on Economic Governance

ECOFIN will hold a first exchange of views on two Commission proposals to strengthen economic governance. There are no direct policy implications for the UK as these proposals apply to the euro area only. The first proposal concerns strengthening surveillance of budgetary policies. It would require: euro area member states to present their draft budgets at the same time each year and give the Commission the right to assess them; closer monitoring and reporting requirements for euro area countries in excessive deficit procedure; and that euro area member states have in place independent fiscal councils and base their budgets on independent forecasts.

The second proposal concerns strengthening economic and fiscal surveillance of euro area countries facing, or threatened with, serious financial instability. It aims to ensure that the surveillance of member states under a financial assistance programme, or facing a serious threat of financial instability, is: robust, follows clear procedures and is embedded in EU law. Under the proposal, the Commission would be able to decide whether a member state experiencing severe financial instability should be subject to enhanced surveillance. The Council would be able to issue a recommendation to such member states to request financial assistance.

The UK welcomes these proposals, as they will play an important role in improving fiscal stability in the euro area, which is a good outcome for the UK. The Government are however keen to ensure that, despite applying only to the euro area, these proposals maintain the role of the Council and EFC.

Presentation of the Presidency work programme

The presidency will present Ministers with its work programme. It has four priorities:

A responsible Europe—making progress on financial regulation dossiers and multi-annual financial framework (MFF) negotiations;

A dynamic Europe—revitalising the single market and encouraging policies which stimulate EU growth;

A green Europe—advancing energy efficiency and climate change initiatives; and

A safe Europe—including combating terrorism and ensuring the EU speaks with one voice on international affairs.

The Government agree that making progress on financial regulation dossiers is important, and will want to see budgetary restraint in the MFF negotiations. The Government support efforts to stimulate EU growth and strengthen the single market.

European Semester (incl. Annual Growth Survey and Euro-Plus Pact)

Ministers will have an exchange of views on the second European semester. The Government believe that the European semester should identify and prioritise policy measures that promote jobs and growth. To achieve this, ECOFIN Ministers need to ensure that fiscal consolidation and tackling macro-economic imbalances is pursued alongside growth-enhancing structural reforms. The Government do not agree with the focus on taxation in the annual growth survey; it is important that member states retain the flexibility to shape their own tax policies to suit their economic circumstances.

Follow-up to the G20 Meeting of Finance Deputies (Mexico, 19-20 January 2012)

The presidency will give a debrief of the G20 Finance Deputies’ meeting. Items include: the global economy and framework; strengthening of the international financial architecture; financial regulation including financial inclusion; and energy and commodities. This agenda item will provide further clarity on the direction that Mexico would like to take.

Implementation of Stability and Growth Pact

Ministers will discuss the Commission’s assessments of Belgium, Cyprus, Malta, Poland and Hungary’s progress on correcting their excessive deficits. The Commission has assessed that the first four member states have taken effective action and no further steps under the Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP) are necessary. For Hungary, the Commission proposes to move to the next stage of EDP and recommends that the Council decides that no effective action has been taken to bring the deficit below 3% of GDP in a sustainable manner. Subject to this decision, the Commission may then propose new recommendations, with a view to Hungary effectively addressing its excessive deficit. The Government believe that sound public finances are essential for sustainable economic growth.

Revised Code of Conduct of the Stability and Growth Pact

The presidency will ask Ministers to endorse a revised code of conduct. The code of conduct provides guidelines on: the implementation of the stability and growth pact and the content of stability and convergence programmes. The code of conduct has been updated in the light of the new economic governance legislation. The Government support the revised code of conduct.

Eurogroup-plus meeting on 23 January

Ministers will meet on 23 January, prior to ECOFIN. They will discuss the intergovernmental agreement and follow up to the December European Council. Ministers will also discuss the European stability mechanism. On growth and competitiveness, the Government are at the forefront of driving the EU growth agenda, and will continue to press for action. On the intergovernmental agreement, the Government will be engaging constructively in discussions. The UK will not be party to the new treaty.

School Travel Pathfinder Schemes

Monday 23rd January 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

I am required under section 80(1) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (EIA 2006) to prepare and publish, before 1 January 2012, an evaluation of the operation and effect of school travel schemes approved under schedule 35C to the Act.

The School Travel (Piloting of Schemes) (England) Regulations 2007 made provision for the piloting of the school travel schemes and listed the information which local authorities were required to include in their applications to pilot such schemes. As none of the schemes submitted fully met the criteria, none of the schemes was approved, and consequently there is no evaluation to publish. I am therefore proposing, by means of an order under s80(2) EIA 2006, to provide for the cessation of the school travel scheme provisions in section 508E and schedule 35C of the Education Act 1996. The order will specify 1 August 2012 or a date shortly after on which the provisions are to cease. 1 August 2012 is the earliest date cessation can be effected under s80(3) EIA 2006.

Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Improving Outcomes and Supporting Transparency

Monday 23rd January 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)]

Today I am publishing the new public health outcomes framework. “Healthy Lives, Healthy People, Improving outcomes and supporting transparency”. This will help enable Government, Public Health England, the NHS and local government to be held to account in how well we are doing in improving and protecting the nation’s health. To do this, we have focused on the most important things we want to do to improve and protect the nation’s health and wellbeing and improve the health of the poorest, fastest.



The White Paper “Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Our Strategy for public health in England” (Cm7985), described a new era for public health, with a higher priority and dedicated resources. We set out the scope for a new public health system refocused around achieving positive health outcomes for the population and reducing inequalities in health. This public health outcomes framework sets the context for the system, from local to national level. This is a national framework and local priorities and objectives will be set through local health improvement plans. The framework sets out indicators to measure how we are improving and protecting health at key stages in peoples’ lives and to reduce inequalities in health.



We will continue to work across Government and with our partners in public health, local government, the NHS, other public services and the third sector to improve the data we will rely upon to provide information on how we well we are doing to improve outcomes.



“Healthy Lives, Healthy People, Improving outcomes and supporting transparency” has been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.



The document is also available at: www.dh.gov.uk/health/2012/01/public-health-outcomes.

EU Treaties

Monday 23rd January 2012 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

The Home Office and the Ministry of Justice have prepared the second annual report to Parliament on the application of protocols 19 and 21 to the treaty on European Union (TEU) and the treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (“the treaties”) in relation to EU Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) matters. The report is submitted on behalf of both my own Department and that of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

On 9 June 2008 the right hon. Baroness Ashton, the then Leader of the House of Lords, made a statement setting out commitments by the Government to Parliament in respect of the scrutiny of decisions to be taken by the Government in accordance with protocol (No. 21) to the treaties on the position of the UK and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice (“the Justice and Home Affairs opt-in protocol”). These commitments were designed to ensure that the views of the Scrutiny Committees should inform the Government’s decision-making process.

This included a pledge that the Government would lay a report in Parliament each year and make it available for debate, both looking ahead to the Government’s approach to EU Justice and Home Affairs policy and forthcoming dossiers, including in relation to the opt-in, and providing a retrospective annual report on the UK’s application of the opt-in protocol.

On 20 January 2011, the Minister for Europe confirmed in his statement to Parliament on enhancing parliamentary scrutiny of decisions in the area of EU Justice and Home Affairs that the coalition Government have undertaken to maintain this commitment, and this is the second such report. It covers the period 1 December 2010 to 30 November 2011. For completeness the report also covers the application of protocol 19 to the treaties on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the EU (“the Schengen opt-out protocol”). The Government’s decision-making process for this protocol is the same as for the Justice and Home Affairs opt-in protocol.

Maritime Training Scheme

Monday 23rd January 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

Further to my announcement of 22 June 2011, I would like to inform Parliament of the outcome of the independent review into the requirement for Government support for merchant navy training and skills development and how best to spend any continuing Government funding.

I have concluded that continuing Government support for maritime training is required. The consultants’ findings, accepted by the independent panel, were that there was a good value for money case for the retention of Government funding. Evidence was presented to me showing that for each working year of a seafarer who has benefited from Government funding, approximately £14,500 in additional output is created relative to that of a UK worker displaying average productivity.

With over 90% of the UK’s import and export trade by weight transported by the maritime sector, I believe continuing Government support in this area will reflect our ongoing commitment to economic growth and will help to maintain the competitiveness of this sector.

I have therefore decided to provide a budget of £12 million a year for the support for maritime training scheme for the remainder of this Parliament. In view of the forecast national shortage of trained seafarers and the need to develop the next generation of UK officers and ratings, I intend that the majority of the budget be focused on supporting initial training for cadets studying at junior officer level with the remainder supporting ratings training and ratings to officer conversion training.

I will be making a number of minor changes to the current scheme to achieve greater value for money by maximising the intake of trainees while ensuring more rigorous accountability structures are in place.

These changes are consistent with the Government’s wider commitment to improve the transparency and accountability of public spending.

I will also be considering longer-term options to deliver merchant navy training within an overarching skills and apprenticeship framework.

A copy of the consultants’ findings and the recommendations made by the independent panel have been placed in the Library of the House.

Grand Committee

Monday 23rd January 2012 Grand Committee

Monday, 23 January 2012.

Arrangement of Business

Monday 23rd January 2012 Grand Committee

Announcement

15:30

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale)]

My Lords, before the first Motion is considered, I remind your Lordships that in respect of each item of business today the Motion before the Committee will be that the Committee do consider the statutory instrument in question. The Motions to approve the instruments will subsequently be moved in the Chamber in the usual way. I further remind your Lordships that if a Division is called in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.

Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Inspections etc.) Regulations 2012

Monday 23rd January 2012 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

15:31

Moved By

[Lord Marland]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Inspections etc.) Regulations 2012.

Relevant documents: 33rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)]

My Lords, the development of carbon capture and storage is a significant strand in my department’s work for decarbonising the UK’s energy supplies and therefore for the transition to a low-carbon economy. The Government are committed to making the UK a leading player in CCS. Creating an effective, fit-for-purpose licensing regime is necessary to ensure the safe, long-term storage of carbon dioxide and is a necessary condition for the effective deployment of CCS. The Energy Act 2008 provides for a licensing regime for carbon dioxide storage in the UK, for the appointment of inspectors, and for regulations to be made about their powers and duties.

In October 2010, the Government made the licensing regulations that transpose into UK law most of the requirements of the EU directive on the geological storage of carbon dioxide. These regulations are necessary to ensure compliance with Article 15 of the directive, which deals with inspections of storage sites, and put in place an important element of the licensing regime to ensure the safe, long-term storage of carbon dioxide. Article 15 requires that the competent authorities organise a system of routine and non-routine inspections of all storage complexes within the scope of the directive for the purposes of checking and promoting compliance with the requirements of the directive and of monitoring effects on the environment and on human health. It states that inspections should include activities such as visits to the surface installations, including the injection facilities, assessing the injection and monitoring operations carried out by the operator, and checking all relevant records kept by the operator. Article 15 further requires that routine inspections shall be carried out at least once a year until three years after the closure of a storage site, and subsequently every five years until responsibility for the relevant storage site is transferred to the competent authority.

These regulations amend the existing licensing regulations to implement those requirements. The form of the powers given to inspectors is the same as those that our inspectors have under other regimes to inspect and monitor offshore installations used for oil and gas activities. The bringing into effect of these regulations achieves these requirements and will essentially complete the transposition of the directive. I therefore commend them to the Committee and I beg to move.

[Lord Oxburgh]

My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association. Given that geological formations do not respect international boundaries, are protocols in place to handle the quite significant likelihood that some of the proposed repositories will cross the border between Scottish waters and English waters? This is a problem which the oil industry faces and solves regularly, and it is simply a matter of ensuring that appropriate protocols are in place in this area as well.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, having read through these regulations and the Explanatory Memorandum, I find that most of my questions have been answered. I had not thought of the point about Scotland which has just been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and I note that the Explanatory Memorandum states that this procedure fulfils the Hampton principles. I would like to be clear on that. The Explanatory Memorandum stated that this would require only one person for three days a week, and that that would probably be the same person who inspected oilfields. Does that mean that the regulatory authority is the same as the one that looks at oilfields, or is it a separate authority that uses someone from the other authority? It is important to understand what the Government's proposals are in that area.

I was also slightly surprised to see that there had been no consultation. Perhaps this is a minor area but it is always quite useful to learn from industry, and the directive will be three years old in April.

My other question perhaps falls outside the scope of the order. Is the safety of pipelines or other means of transport to the storage area covered by the directive or is it covered elsewhere? I would have thought that that was potentially more risky than the storage itself. Although carbon dioxide is not directly dangerous, if it excludes oxygen or air, it can cause death through overconcentration.

Lastly, I would like to get an understanding from the Minister. Inspection regimes are all very well, and the UK has a very high standard of inspection in these areas. What does he see as the smart areas of inspection of carbon dioxide storage? What are the things that will need to be looked at? Leakages are an obvious answer, but what work will go on to make sure that the inspectorate is active and forward-looking, and that it makes sure that problems do not arise rather than fixes them after they have arisen?

[The Duke of Montrose]

My Lords, perhaps I may ask a further question of my noble friend. Will he ensure that the Scottish Executive is up to speed? Presumably they will have to pass similar regulations for their area. On inspections, the areas that he outlined were mainly to do with the injection of carbon dioxide. Will the regime also look at leakage from the storage site, or is that not a worry?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, like other noble Lords I have a few questions and points of clarification. First, I welcome the Minister’s opening comments on CCS. He is looking puzzled and I am wondering what on earth I said. He reaffirmed the Government's commitment to a CCS project. He is nodding now, so I must be correct on that. Perhaps he could say something further. My concern is how, when the budget has been raided by the Chancellor and £1 million taken from it, the Government can fulfil that pledge. As the Minister has renewed the pledge, will he give us an idea of the timescale? We know that because Longannet was pulled there have been changes. Does the Minister have any idea of a timescale for when we will see the start of the first CCS project?

I will not labour the points on Scotland because they have been better made by other noble Lords. Have the Government given any consideration to the impact that a referendum on independence would have, and to whether the legislation would have to come back to this House or whether further legislation would have to be put in place? Do the Government have a plan B should that scenario come into effect?

The order distinguishes between routine and non-routine inspections. There will be regular, routine inspections, and if the regulatory authorities are made aware of potential problems, there will be non-routine inspections. I am not clear whether there will be a facility for spot checks: that is, unannounced inspections. If all inspections are announced, there will be time for facilities to get their house in order and make changes, whereas an inspector needs to see what is normal custom and practice in the association or organisation. If they are not aware of any specific problem and there is no routine inspection scheduled, can they make an unannounced spot check to ensure there are no problems?

The order talks about how an inspector would make a report and it would be made publicly available—in what format? Would local authorities in that area be informed that an inspection had taken place and what the results were? Would it be given to Ministers? How would we make the information about that inspection publicly available?

The order does not make clear how long it should take a company to comply with any requirement the inspector has made following an inspection. This is not an operation that can be shut down if there are any safety issues, so it seems very important that if requirements are placed on the operator, they should be undertaken as a matter of urgency. However, it does not say anywhere in the order what the timescale should be or if indeed the inspector would make a recommendation on the timescale. Given that the original inspection report would be made publicly available, would the requirement for compliance be made publicly available as well? If there were requirements made of a company and it had to fulfil certain conditions within a certain period of time, would that information be available in the same way—whether or not they had complied?

Finally, the bit that slightly puzzled me was under new Regulation 20, “Offences”, which says:

“It is an offence for a person … without reasonable excuse to fail to comply with a requirement imposed under Schedule 3”.

What is a reasonable excuse? How dangerous will it be not to comply with any requirements that are made? Should it therefore be an offence with strict liability; that is, whether somebody is mad, bad, ignorant or careless, it is still an offence not to comply with any requirement? I cannot think what would be a reasonable excuse not to comply with a requirement made following an inspection. If the Minister can say something on those points, it would help me to understand the order better.

[Lord Marland]

My Lords, thank you very much indeed for your excellent questions, and I am delighted that we have the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, who has more knowledge about this subject in his little finger than I do in my entire body.

As always, the noble Lord asked a very salient question, which of course we can answer. I would like him to understand—perhaps he will nod at me if he does—that we are talking about offshore storage because onshore storage is not contemplated at the moment. The Energy Act 2008 allows for either Scottish Ministers or the Secretary of State to license a site that is partly in the area of the authority and partly in the other. In that regard, there is a memorandum of understanding that will govern the co-operation, so I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord—and deals with one of the questions asked by the noble Baroness, which I will come on to in a second.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, invited us to consider who these inspectors are. Of course, they are the same people because they have significant expertise in the oil industry, where I believe we are a leading light in health and safety and have a very strong knowledge of inspectorates. I remind noble Lords that we are going slightly into the unknown here. A lot of good work has been carried out by friends of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, in this area. It is not a proven technology but we have got as close as we can and we are lucky to be able to borrow on the great expertise we have in the North Sea. We did not go into consultation because this is quite a simple subject. We do not really need to consult on it. I am afraid that our department consults far too much and this is something that we should reduce a bit. I hope he will be satisfied that, for a change, we are not consulting—it seems to go on forever and take up a lot of our officials’ time so this is one that we will miss.

Stress testing of the whole thing is the sort of factor we will look for in the inspection regime report. That goes from capture down through the pipelines, to ensure that there is no leakage, that the gas is being transmitted effectively all the way through the process and that it is working because there can be solidification. Then, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out, there may be leakage from offshore storage. We must vigilantly check that all the evidence supports the storage facility being able to contain it and that there is no seepage which inevitably leads to pollution. We are informed that that will not happen but we want to make absolutely sure. They will have to be vigilant in this, particularly, as I said, because it is a demonstration project at this point.

My noble friend the Duke of Montrose asked whether the Scottish Executive are up to speed. We have been working closely with the Scottish Executive. As my noble friend knows, the winner of the first competition was in Scotland. The Scottish Executive have been working closely with us on this throughout and harmoniously—you might say for a change. Our department has a very good relationship with Scotland.

That brings me to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. What more can I say than what I said the other day? The Government are committed to the CCS demonstration project. The Treasury has committed £1 billion. As the noble Baroness knows, I was responsible for negotiating if not achieving the outcome of the first demonstration project. It is important that we get the thing moving quickly. On Thursday last week, I went through the timelines by which we expect to achieve this. We set ourselves an exacting target of being able to appoint or acknowledge the winner of the new process in June or July of next year. That is a very exacting timescale. We had an industry day in December and are having another one this month to set out the framework within industry. We have a lot of interest—from small and large-scale companies. I will not go into that now because it is unfair on those that are competing. The competition starts by March and they have until the middle of June and July to put in their bids. Our current timeframe is that we will announce that winner by the end of September.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

So it is March 2012 that you will invite bids?

[Lord Marland]

It is all in 2012. I am sorry that I did not clarify that but that is the case. As I said, a lot of people are interested in competing—which is encouraging.

On the referendum issue, regulation is in place within Scottish powers so that that is dealt with. On the whole business of inspection, clearly an inspection is annual but the inspectors have—and should have, as the noble Baroness said—the right to carry out spot checks. As the noble Baroness indicated, that is to ensure that this should not be telegraphed and they think, “Ooh, we have to get ourselves ready for the inspection”. An awful lot of people will spend a lot of time on this because it is very important that the inspection is right. The noble Baroness then moved on to ask whether the information will be publicly available. The short answer is yes. The reports of any non-compliance with the recommendations will be put on the public register so that it will be there for all to see.

She then mentioned reasonable excuse and I had to invite a comment from my officials. I will quickly go through what they said. There is an existing regime to deal with operator failures to comply with licences directions of the Secretary of State. A reasonable excuse might be that there is a good safety reason for not complying during an inspection period with inspectors’ request, for example, to switch off the equipment. If the inspector has requested that the equipment is switched off, that would be a reasonable excuse. However, there will not be many reasonable excuses. I hope that that answers the many excellent questions asked.

[Lord Teverson]

I thank the noble Lord. Perhaps I may reassure him that I have consulted with the industry since he spoke. The industry is apparently very happy that he did not consult, so I think that that is fine. I want to come back to one question, because it is important to understand it. It would seem to me that on any CCS project, demonstration or otherwise, there has to be some sort of facility for temporary storage at the power station. It might go straight off on a pipeline, but if there is a problem there has to be some capacity for storage at a power station, whether temporary or permanent. Who is responsible for that sort of inspection? Although it is not envisaged that there should be large-scale onshore carbon dioxide storage, I cannot imagine that there will not be any. As the noble Lord, Lord Marland, says, this refers only to offshore, so I would be interested to understand how that is regulated.

[Lord Marland]

The noble Lord asks an interesting question. I am grateful that he should have given me an elephant trap—which I did not fall into—and dug me out of it. As he rightly says, the current thinking for the previous competition for the demonstration project was entirely for offshore. It could be that there is an onshore project in this competition. It is not thought to be likely at the moment, but it could happen. We would then have to recognise that problem. However, the issue here is not so much about onshore and offshore; it is whether we have the skill and the quality of inspectors. This is a unique process in the large scale; in the small scale it has been proven. All the way along the piece, therefore, we have to ensure that it is being inspected, managed and contained properly. That is why we are giving the inspectorate, which has been so successful in its oil activities, the opportunity as individuals to carry this out.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for answering the questions. Perhaps I may press him for clarification on one that he did not answer, which I am sure he just forgot. On reports of inspections being made publicly available, my question was not whether they would be—it is quite clear that they will be—but how they would be made publicly available. The noble Lord said that it would be by the public register. Is that a document that is easily available to local authorities and to those of us who have an interest? It is not something I have come across myself or read before. Secondly, if an inspector imposes conditions or requirements to be met within a certain timescale, will the information about whether and when the installation complies with any requirements for an inspection also be made publicly available? Otherwise it seems to me that the inspection report would be available, but the consequences from it would not be. I would like reassurance that both would be made publicly available.

[Lord Marland]

The information is readily available on the internet, of course; that is a standard practice for public information. The inspection will not stop there; there will be a further inspection to ensure safety and that practices are being followed. An update on that inspection will again be published on the internet, so it will be there to compare. This pre-supposes that an inspection will be carried out and that we will sit back and say that nothing has to be done about it. The whole point about these inspections is that there will be a public record so that people can see that there are issues that need to be dealt with. Of course, the public will expect us to deal competently with those issues. There will be a constant process of information available in relation to the storage, the problems that occur and whether they are being sorted out. We hope that there will not be a mass of problems, but we never know.

Motion agreed.

Immigration (Biometric Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2012

Monday 23rd January 2012 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

15:55

Moved By

[Lord Henley]

That the Grand Committee do Report to the House that it has considered the Immigration (Biometric Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2012.

Relevant documents: 36th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, on 25 November 2008, the UK Border Agency issued the first biometric residence permits, through regulations made under the previous Government’s UK Borders Act 2007, to foreign nationals granted further leave under student, marriage and partnership categories. Since then, the UK Border Agency has made significant progress by incrementally rolling out these highly secure immigration status documents, known in legislation as biometric immigration documents.

Identity-swapping threatens the integrity of immigration control and helps abusers to make multiple fraudulent immigration applications, to work illegally, and to access public funds and services to which they are not entitled. By recording fingerprints and digital facial images, we can check a person against our existing immigration database records and the police fingerprint database before deciding whether to allow someone to stay in the UK. We can then establish a reliable link between the holder and the document by linking the biographical details they give us to their unique biometric identifiers. Further rollouts since 2008 have incorporated points-based system applicants extending their stay in the UK for more than six months and a number of other immigration categories, and more than 600,000 biometric residence permits have been issued to date.

Approval of the Immigration (Biometric Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 will mean the UK Border Agency can complete the in-country rollout of biometric residence permits to all foreign nationals from outside the European Economic Area given permission to stay here for more than six months. The planned date for rollout to new applicants in the new categories, which include those applying for settlement or indefinite leave and asylum or protection, is 29 February 2012. All non-EEA nationals will need to enrol their fingerprints and facial image if applying to stay here for more than six months from this date and they will be issued with a biometric residence permit if successful.

The provision in the regulations for any migrant granted permission to stay for more than six months from 1 December 2012 to apply for a biometric residence permit if they have not done so already is intended to incorporate those who made an application to stay in the UK before a biometric requirement in their immigration category. This ensures that from this date the agency will only issue one format of document to non-EEA nationals permitted to stay here for more than six months.

Rolling out secure biometric residence permits to more foreign nationals helps the UK Border Agency to upgrade and streamline the documents it issues. Volumes of biometric residence permits in circulation will be significantly boosted by this phase of the rollout, which in turn helps employers and others who are becoming increasingly familiar with them. Feedback from employers, businesses and other government departments supports this. The documents provide the opportunity for fast and simple checking and lend themselves to a one-stop check of immigration status, identity and right to work or access public benefits.

As increased numbers of migrants will hold biometric residence permits, these regulations widen the circumstances when they must be presented, to include all immigration applications and also nationality or related applications. The regulations ensure that when presenting these biometric documents, foreign nationals may be compelled to provide their fingerprints for comparison against those in the document, and this is extended for employment purposes. We will trial technology to achieve this with a select number of external organisations during 2012.

In addition to streamlining the immigration documents issued in the UK, biometric permits meet the standardised format of documents set out in European legislation that the UK opted into: Regulation EC 1030/2002, as amended by EC 380/2008, with which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will be very familiar. Aligning with other member states ensures we are not a weak link in Europe for immigration abuse.

Rollout to overseas applicants coming to the United Kingdom for more than six months will require significant infrastructure and system changes, and we will return to Parliament with our plans, including policy proposals, for that final stage. This will be after the accreditation period for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, to ensure that the integrity and robustness of business-critical systems are maintained.

16:00

The infrastructure for enrolling biometrics and issuing permits is embedded, and successful applicants typically receive their permits within a few days. The agency is significantly expanding its biometric enrolment provision and, following a successful pilot with 17 Crown post offices and a full procurement exercise, the Post Office has been contracted to provide a network of more than 100 locations from spring this year for a walk-in service.

The regulations introduce other, minor amendments that are necessary to reflect the new categories that are being incorporated. Finally, they also make it clear that where a person has made an application for recognition as a refugee or stateless person, or where they are in need of humanitarian protection, the sanctions imposed for non-compliance will be limited. This is to ensure that there is no conflict with the United Kingdom’s obligations under international conventions and domestic human rights legislation.

We are satisfied that the biometric residence permit scheme complies with United Kingdom legislation on human rights and discrimination, provides legitimate migrants with convenient evidence of their immigration status and right to work, and facilitates access to services. Research with biometric residence permit holders has indicated that they find them effective and have confidence in them. That is what the regulations seek to achieve and I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble kinsman for his careful explanation of the effect of these regulations: namely, that all non-EEA country nationals applying for leave to remain for more than six months under any category of the immigration rules, or outside the rules from 29 February, will have to apply for a biometric immigration document. We do not object to this proposal, but there is a problem with its implementation that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency, and I hope that we will hear from my noble kinsman what the Government are doing to solve it.

The Public Enquiry Office network, where biometric measurements are taken, is not coping with current levels of demand and the situation is getting worse. At a meeting on 13 December last with officials of the UKBA, including the temporary acting deputy director of the facing teams asylum and business immigration section, and the temporary acting assistant director of the PEO, ILPA expressed grave concern about current processing delays in the PEO, pointing out that it was not meeting its service timelines even though applicants were paying a premium fee. The explanation given for the delays was even more worrying. The UKBA has 22 vacancies and is having difficulty filling the positions even in this era of high unemployment. Perhaps my noble kinsman will say what steps are being taken to ensure that the policies for recruitment, training and promotion within the UKBA will be adjusted to meet staffing needs.

Secondly, I understand that there are severe problems with part of the biometric enrolment IT system, which have led to adverse effects on the appointments system and on processing applications. Will my noble friend place a note in the Library of the House setting out the details of the IT contract for the work of the PEO, including the name of the contractor, the cost of the contract, the target dates, the penalty clauses and any remedial action being taken to deal with the problem? He mentioned the external organisation with which the UK is working to implement the system. It would be useful to have further details on all organisations involved, including the IT system contractor. Surely there ought to be enough experience in the IT industry to make the development of biometric identity systems a matter of routine. I hope that we can have an assurance that it will be fully operational before the extension now being proposed goes live on 29 February, but in a letter dated as recently as 12 January, the UKBA acknowledge that at the main Croydon site,

“the demand for PEO appointments is currently greater than our capacity”.

The letter adds that increased staffing levels are expected in the summer, without explaining why nothing is being done until then.

At some point in the not-specified future, the capacity to capture biometrics is being extended to the Post Office. My noble friend said that that would be some time in the spring but it would be useful if he could give further information about where and when these facilities will be available. Also, what is the earliest date for an appointment at the Croydon PEO for an application submitted today? What does he expect the earliest date to be for an appointment requested for somebody in the group now being required to have a biometric document for the first time on 1 March—or are they being allowed to lodge applications already for some point after 1 March?

On fees, the fee for a married tier 1 general worker and spouse applying together in person for an extension of leave to remain is £2,150. That is £600 more than if the application is made by post. Many people are prepared to pay these enormous sums because they do not want to risk sending in their passports and having them lost. At the moment I am dealing with a case where the holder’s passport was returned by the UKBA to the wrong address. When he made a special journey to that address to try to collect it, he found that the former tenant had moved to an unknown location and the new tenant was not able to help him about the former tenant’s whereabouts. Needless to say, the UKBA disclaimed responsibility for their error in sending the passport to the wrong address. Cases like that make people understandably reluctant to trust the UKBA to look after such an important document.

Finally, is this situation yet another example showing that, as I have pointed out in previous debates, the UKBA is not fit for purpose? It was a prime candidate for the bonfire of the quangos, and the right way to improve its accountability and reduce its overheads would be to subsume its functions in those of its parent department, the Home Office—as I have suggested before without getting an answer. I hope that my noble friend will be able to respond to that suggestion this afternoon but, if not, that he will kindly undertake to write to me about this and the several other points I have raised in the debate this afternoon.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for explaining the background to these regulations. To date, the UK has partially complied with the EU regulation by undertaking the rollout of the permit incrementally by immigration application category. We support the general thrust of the regulations, but it would be helpful if the noble Lord would give the Committee an outline of what further stages need to be gone through before the work is complete.

In his speech today, the noble Lord referred to the Written Statement of 6 December in which he said that, on the overseas rollout of biometric permits, the Government will return to Parliament with plans, including policy proposals, for the final stage. This will be after the accreditation period of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Will the noble Lord give a little more information about that, and about when he intends to return to Parliament with his plans? Will he also say what will be the nature of the legislation that he will bring to Parliament—is it primary or secondary legislation?

Perhaps I might also ask him about public consultation on the regulations. Page 5 of the impact assessment sets out the process of consultation in some detail, and also refers to two surveys launched by the UK Border Agency in 2011. The impact assessment says that these various consultations,

“have informed the high level policy”.

That is always reassuring to know. However, it is silent on the actual results of the consultation. It would be helpful to know what the main thrust of the results was and how that informed high-level policy.

I would be grateful if the Minister would answer three further questions. First, will he give me an idea of how many permits he expects will be issued under these provisions? The second follows what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said in relation to the UK Border Agency’s staff resource issues over the past 18 months. The Minister and his esteemed predecessors brought to your Lordships’ House a number of proposals and changes in policy that added to the responsibilities of the UK Border Agency. We know that the agency has had to bear its share of the cuts in funding to the Home Office. I echo the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the UKBA has been given additional responsibilities and fewer resources. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will talk about efficiencies that he hopes to drive through the system—which is a very fair point—but my experience is that when you do that, in the end the thing falls over. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has given examples of the impact on the time taken to process applications, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will come back to us on that.

Thirdly, on IT, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, suggested that this might be a routine application. My experience in government is that nothing in IT should ever be described as routine. One has to accept that these are very complex issues, but it would none the less be helpful to the Committee if the Minister would say something about the IT challenges that are being faced. Will the Minister also talk about the cost of implementation overseas? How does he anticipate that cost being met out of his budget?

However, in general, the Opposition support these proposals, which of course flow from the UK Borders Act introduced by the previous Government.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for finally getting to that crucial bit at the end and saying—as did his right honourable friend in the Commons—that the Opposition welcome these orders. After all, they simply follow from what his Government started as part of a continuous process of gradual rollout. The noble Lord asked what further stages were necessary for dealing with this. He will be more than happy that I can give him an assurance that—as I understand it; I will write to him if I am wrong—no further primary legislation will be necessary, although there will be a need to return to Parliament with some secondary legislation in due course.

For the overseas rollout of biometric permits, we are completing a very comprehensive analysis of our options to identify the most cost-effective solution that will have the least impact on our customers and will take account of our commitments under EU legislation. A number of factors are relevant, including the timing of the 2012 Olympic Games and the rollout of other new technology for the agency, and we will return to Parliament with this as soon as possible after the Games. For that reason, at this stage I cannot say anything more about what I think the noble Lord described as his third question—although there seemed to be more than three—on the cost of implementation overseas. If I have any further information, I will let the noble Lord know in due course.

The noble Lord also asked how many permits in total we would issue each year. Based on 2010’s published figures, we could expect around 550,000 permits a year to be issued. However, a reduction in this figure to around 400,000 could be expected given the significant number of grants made on a discretionary basis in 2010, mainly under measures aimed at clearing a backlog of outstanding unresolved cases and because of the impact of policy changes to the points-based system. I hope that that assists the noble Lord.

16:15

I turn to the more general issues that he raised about what is happening in the UKBA, particularly in relation to staffing. His points were echoed by what my noble kinsman Lord Avebury said about the problems that the UKBA faces. I confirm that the UKBA faced problems in the past. We appointed a new chief executive, Mr Rob Whiteman, in about September of last year, just before I came to the department. He has been quite open about the fact that the UKBA faces problems. He will address them and we will make sure that he has the ability to do so, but obviously it will take time. However, I would be more than happy to have a meeting with my noble kinsman, the noble Lord and Mr Whiteman if they would like to hear how he plans to set about filling posts that are vacant at the moment and tackling other such problems. As the noble Lord will be aware, whatever party has been in government has been carrying out this rollout since 2008. The purpose has been to do it bit by bit on an incremental basis so that the authorities can cope with it in due course.

My noble kinsman also asked detailed questions about, for example, the IT contract. I will certainly consider writing to him with whatever details I have. There may be problems relating to commercial confidentiality; I do not know. If I do write to him, I will be happy to place copies in the Library. That applies also to some of his other detailed questions. For example, he asked on what date an application made today to the Croydon PEO would be dealt with. I cannot answer that off the cuff but hope to address it, along with the other cases he raised, such as that of passports being sent to the wrong address. Perhaps it will be more appropriate to address those issues by correspondence.

I am grateful that both noble Lords do not object to the implementation of these rules. I think they both accept that we are pursuing the right policy, but have questions relating to its administration. I hope that we can address those matters, along with the other questions that were asked, in correspondence in due course. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 3) Rules 2012

Monday 23rd January 2012 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:18

Moved By

[Lord Henley]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 3) Rules 2012.

Relevant document: 37th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to the Rules of the Court of Judicature (Northern Ireland) (Amendment No. 4) 2012 order. The two statutory instruments introduce procedural rules for court proceedings under the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. They add a new part to the civil procedure rules for England and Wales, and a new order to the rules of the Court of Judicature for Northern Ireland. The rules came into force on 15 January last year—the same date that the Act came into force—because it was necessary for TPIM proceedings to take place soon after commencement. However, the Act requires subsequent approval of the rules by each House, which is why we are here today.

The rules substantively reflect the rules that are already in place for control order proceedings. They set out the procedures to be followed when the Secretary of State applies to the court for permission to impose a TPIM notice—or for the court to confirm, or quash, one imposed without prior permission—and for the subsequent directions hearings and review hearings that must be held. The rules also set out the process for an individual to appeal against decisions made by the Secretary of State in relation to a TPIM notice.

The guiding principles behind the court rules are that the decisions that are the subject of the proceedings are properly reviewed; and that the court must ensure that information is not disclosed contrary to the public interest. The rules provide that sensitive “closed material” may be relied upon and must be protected, although the requirements of a fair trial take precedence. They also make provision about the role and functions of special advocates, who may be appointed by the Attorney-General to represent the interests of the individual in closed proceedings.

In our recent debates on the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act, the use of closed material and special advocates was explored in some detail. Closed material proceedings are undoubtedly controversial, I accept that, but are necessary to ensure that there can be effective judicial oversight of TPIM decisions, which inevitably rely upon sensitive material.

I can assure the Committee that the use of closed material and special advocates in this type of context is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, a position that the courts have confirmed. Indeed, the Act expressly provides that the rules do not require the court to act in a way inconsistent with Article 6 of the ECHR, the right to a fair trial. This is also the effect of the Human Rights Act.

Notwithstanding that the system is ECHR compatible, we understand that concerns remain. The Green Paper on justice and security is looking carefully at the use of sensitive information in civil proceedings, including suggestions as to how the special advocate system can be improved.

The rules provide a framework within which the Secretary of State, legal representatives, special advocates and the court work. In line with those provisions, the Lord Chief Justices of England and Wales and of Northern Ireland were consulted on the draft rules. Moreover, the Civil Procedure Rules Committee was given the opportunity to comment on a draft. I commend the rules and I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of the two Motions that have been spoken to together. I also thank him for the invitation in our last debate for a meeting with the UK Border Agency chief executive. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would wish me to say that we would very much appreciate that opportunity.

We have had extensive debates about the TPIM legislation going through your Lordships’ House, and this is not the moment for me to engage with the noble Lord in another debate on the principle. However, I would like to ask the noble Lord a couple of questions. First, I understand that nine people are currently subject to control orders. Would he be able to confirm that? Can he confirm that all nine people will be the subject of applications in relation to TPIM notices? He will be aware that, of course, a high threshold is required for the imposition of a TPIM notice. The TPIM regime provides for more tightly prescribed powers than control orders. It is therefore reasonable to ask him whether the new regime is intended to apply to all these nine people currently subject to control orders. If it is considered that there are some people who will not meet the new threshold, can he provide some satisfaction in relation to the safeguarding of security interests in relation to those people? I understand that this is a sensitive issue and that the noble Lord may be somewhat restricted in what he has to say, but he will probably get the drift of the general principle that I am putting forward here, which essentially is this. What are the differences between the current control orders and the TPIM notices?

I should like the noble Lord to reassure me about the state of readiness of the police and the security services for the new regime. We have the transition period that will allow the new circumstances to be brought into operation. I shall not go over in great detail the evidence given by the Metropolitan Police to the Special Bill Committee which considered the Bill in the other place, but he will be aware that at that point, the representative of the Metropolitan Police said that it would take at least a year to get the right equipment, resources and people in place in order to be able to implement the new regime. In our debates on the Bill as it went through your Lordships’ House, the Minister and his predecessor were confident that the arrangements would be in place sooner than the period of 12 months. Is he satisfied that the appropriate people are in place, that they have been trained and that they have the right equipment so that the new regime can start in good order from the date set out in the order?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I cannot comment on whether the nine individuals referred to by the noble Lord will transfer to TPIM notices, but what lay behind the gist of his question was whether people, in terms of civil procedures, come under what used to be referred to as the White Book. We are not immediately repealing the old civil procedure, so any that were being dealt with in the courts using the old civil procedures, those procedures will still apply, but the new TPIM ones will be covered by what we are debating today, and they came into effect in December.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That is very helpful. I realise that it is difficult for the Minister to talk about individual people who are affected, but on a theoretical basis, if a person is currently under a control order, is it possible for them to continue under that order? Is that what the noble Lord is saying?

[Lord Henley]

What I am saying is that if they were still under a control order, they would be dealt with under the old control order civil procedings. I do not think that I can take the noble Lord much further. All I am saying is that we have not repealed the old orders. If they were being looked at under a control order, they will continue under the control order proceedings, and these broadly reflect those proceedings. As I have said, all we are dealing with here is the process of making amendments to civil procedure. It is therefore still possible to use the old procedure for those who are covered by it. But, obviously, control orders will not continue beyond 25 January, at which point it will be a TPIM. What we are debating here is the civil procedure. I hope that that deals with the noble Lord’s queries.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I do not want to be difficult. All I seek is a reassurance. I understand entirely what the noble Lord is saying about the basis for the civil procedure, but I am really looking for some reassurance that he is satisfied that as we move from a control order regime to the new regime, the people who were affected under the old control order regime and need to be subject to those provisions will, in the new circumstances of TPIM and given that the security provisions are paramount, indeed be subject to them.

[Lord Henley]

Obviously those provisions are of paramount importance, but as I made clear in my opening remarks, the right to a fair trial is also equally important.

The second major point made by the noble Lord was on the state of readiness of the police, which goes wider than the matter we are debating today. The noble Lord rightly said that when I introduced these rules, I made it clear that I was confident that that was the case, but before he even asked the question, he wrote down that I had moved from being confident to being satisfied, which formed the basis of the question he put to me. I can give the noble Lord an assurance that I am satisfied that everything is in place as it should be, and that I think the same is true of the police. With that, I hope that the Motion will be agreed.

Motion agreed.

Rules of the Court of Judicature (Northern Ireland) (Amendment No. 4) 2012

Monday 23rd January 2012 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:29

Moved By

[Lord Henley]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Rules of the Court of Judicature (Northern Ireland) (Amendment No. 4) 2012.

Relevant documents: 37th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Motion agreed.

Committee adjourned at 4.30 pm.

House of Lords

Monday 23rd January 2012 Lords Chamber

Monday, 23 January 2012.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

Armed Forces: Afghanistan

Monday 23rd January 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

14:35

Asked By

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their current estimate of the timetable for withdrawal of United Kingdom forces from Afghanistan.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)]

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering sincere condolences to the families and friends of Private Matthew Thornton, 4th Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment; Lance Corporal Peter Eustace, 2nd Battalion The Rifles; Lance Corporal Richard Scanlon, 1st The Queen's Dragoon Guards; Private Thomas Lake, 1st Battalion The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment; Rifleman Sheldon Steel, 5th Battalion The Rifles; Sapper Elijah Bond, 35 Engineer Regiment Royal Engineers; Captain Tom Jennings, Royal Marines; Squadron Leader Anthony Downing, Royal Air Force; Private John King, 1st Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment; and Rifleman Sachin Limbu, 1st Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles, who were all 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.

UK force levels in Afghanistan will reduce from 9,500 to 9,000 by the end of 2012. By the end of 2014, British troops will no longer be in a combat role and will not be in Afghanistan in the numbers that they now are. Some UK troops will remain after 2014, including in training roles at the UK-led Afghan national army officer academy. The UK and the international community are committed to Afghanistan in the long-term.

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

First of all, I join these Benches in the earlier tribute. It is clear that we have in Afghanistan at present a very substantial amount of equipment. Clearly, some will be left for the Afghan forces, and some will no doubt be retained for our onward training role. However, bringing out the majority will be a major, complex task. Could my noble friend tell the House which routes are planned to be used in this pull-out? What is the speed of the pull-out likely to be? Are we going to hire extra heavy airlift? Finally, is he satisfied that the Ministry of Defence will have the systems and software in place to record all that equipment being brought out?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, planning is still at an early stage, and the exact speed of recovery has not yet been set. It is too early to say what equipment we plan to retain, or its value, and what we will gift to the Afghans. We currently use a combination of surface and air routes to support operations in Afghanistan; work is ongoing to increase these to ensure that our drawdown is conducted in good order, and all equipment is consignment-tracked using an asset tracking system.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, on this side we also wish to express our sincere condolences to the families and friends of the 10 brave members of our Armed Forces who in the service of our country have been killed on operations in Afghanistan recently. British military personnel will continue to be in Afghanistan in a non-combat role after the withdrawal of our combat forces in less than three years’ time. Who will be responsible for their security, particularly in the light of the recent killing of four French soldiers and wounding of 15 others by an Afghan force soldier, when this was by no means the first such incident of this type? What test will the Government apply to determine whether or not the Afghan national security forces are able to provide the necessary level of security for our non-combat personnel in Afghanistan after 2014?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, UK and international forces are helping to build the strength and capability of the ANSF to allow them to lead security across Afghanistan by the end of 2014. They have responded professionally and effectively to several high-profile attacks and are ready and willing to take on increasing levels of responsibility. After 2014, UK troops will continue to support the ANSF by providing training at the new Afghan national army officer academy, and we will work with other NATO nations to ensure that the necessary force protection measures are in place.

[Lord Rotherwick]

My Lords, what is the situation regarding the Danish armour that is supporting our troops in Afghanistan at present?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, that is a very important question. The deployment of Danish tanks has proved essential to our activities in Helmand, and the commander of Task Force Helmand cannot sing their praises enough. We and our allies in Regional Command Southwest welcome the Danish decision to retain this tank capability in Helmand until 2014.

[Lord Stirrup]

My Lords, successful disengagement of NATO and partner nations in combat roles depends upon the existence of a political and security situation that can be managed by the Afghan Government. With that in mind, can the Minister say whether the United Kingdom is being consulted on the talks that are taking place between the United States and the Taliban, and if these talks are aimed at an outcome that can be managed by the Afghan Government or are a cover for a precipitate drawdown of US forces before 2014?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, we are clear that military means alone will not bring about a more secure country. We have always supported an Afghan-led political process to help bring peace and stability to Afghanistan, and we continue to encourage all parties to take forward reconciliation. We will continue to engage with our US colleagues on these important matters.

[Lord Sewel]

My Lords, given the fragility of state institutions in Afghanistan, does the Minister accept that a likely outcome following the withdrawal of combat troops will be the fragmentation of the state of Afghanistan, with the greatest losers being women?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I think that that is a very gloomy statement, and I do not share the noble Lord’s views on this.

[Lord Dannatt]

My Lords, would the Minister like to comment a little further on some of the equipment issues arising from our withdrawal from Afghanistan, in particular noting that many of the vehicles we use to provide protected mobility have been bought under the urgent operational requirement scheme specifically for Afghanistan? Would he comment about future protected mobility for the infantry in particular, given that the FRES utility programme has slipped from 2012 to about 2022?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, there never was an intention to deploy FRES to Afghanistan. The Government have deployed a range of protected mobility vehicles, including the Mastiff, which is highly valued by our troops. The new Foxhound lightweight protected vehicle is being delivered for training purposes now so that those deploying shortly will be able to use it on operations in Afghanistan from the spring.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, asked a rather important question. Would my noble friend the Minister care to give a slightly fuller answer than he has given so far?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend thinks that it was not a very full answer. I did say that we are in full discussions with our American allies, and I do not think that I can add anything to that.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, will we be asked to provide any aviation support post 2014?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I know that the Afghans have helicopters which have been very effective. They were deployed in direct support of troops recently in a very effective way.

Aviation: Passenger Duty

Monday 23rd January 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

14:45

Asked By

[Baroness Benjamin]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what criteria they took into account when deciding to increase the rate of air passenger duty, in particular in respect of flights to the Caribbean.

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)]

My Lords, the new rates of air passenger duty, or APD, which take effect from 1 April 2012, were confirmed in the Autumn Statement following a freeze in APD rates in 2011-12. Over the two-year period 2011-12 to 2012-13 APD rates, including those for flights to the Caribbean, will rise in line with the retail prices index. This increase, which does no more than keep pace with inflation, is necessary if the Government are to meet their overall fiscal projections.

[Baroness Benjamin]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, but he is aware that air passenger duty is less if you fly to Hawaii than to Barbados, even though that is nearly double the distance. However, the Caribbean is the most tourism-dependent region in the world and the distortions created by APD rates are damaging to Caribbean countries—loyal friends and supporters of Britain. Would the Government consider amending the rates of APD to the Caribbean islands if they nominated Bermuda, an associate member of CARICOM, as their capital, bringing their banding into line with the US, their major tourism competitor? If not, what plans do the Government have to provide economic support to the Caribbean now that its livelihood is threatened?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, in the current economic climate, air passenger duty is clearly a burden on all businesses whether in the Caribbean, the UK, or wherever else they are based. That is why we had a one-year freeze, although it is right that aviation should make a fair contribution. However a banding structure works, it is bound to have anomalies. It is the case, as many noble Lords will know, that because the banding works in essence on where the capital city is, the anomalies are indeed there, as my noble friend says, but whenever there are bandings there will be anomalies. We listened to the case that was made very well by the Caribbean authorities, including the tourist organisation, during our full consultation last year. We have no plans to make any further changes, other than those set out in the response to the consultation, but I hear very clearly what my noble friend says about how challenging the situation remains.

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal]

My Lords, do the Government accept that the Caribbean now has a number of very fragile economies and that these duties will have a disproportionate, deleterious effect on their well-being, and therefore will in many ways affect the United Kingdom too, which benefits greatly from many of those who hail from that region?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, although I do not underestimate for one moment the effect on the Caribbean, there will be very many businesses located there, here and in other places for which air passenger duty is a burden. The present system of four bands was introduced by the previous Government. We had a one-year freeze in order to recognise the difficult situation in which people were placed by this and we looked at it. However, the fact is that the APD raised approximately £2.5 billion in 2011-12 and is an important revenue-raising duty.

[Lord Campbell of Alloway]

My Lords—

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, what would be the effect of the suggestion that was made about Bermuda? Would it be possible for the Caribbean countries to reclassify themselves with Bermuda? What would that involve and would it make quite a difference to them, as has been claimed with regard to the United States?

[Lord Sassoon]

That is a hypothetical question because there is no live question about there being a way to reclassify the Caribbean somehow from band C to band B. To illustrate the broader point, however, many of the respondents to the consultation suggested that we should move back from four bands to two, but that would have resulted in all those in short-haul bands A and B paying more, so it would have increased the air passenger duty for 91 per cent of all passengers paying it. There is no easy way of moving places from one band to another.

[Lord Davies of Coity]

My Lords, the Minister has referred to a number of anomalies. Does he accept that the anomalies display unfairness, and what are the Government going to do about them?

[Lord Sassoon]

As I have explained, the previous Government moved from a two-band system to a four-band one, which raised in the order of £300 million when they came into office and, by the time they left office, was raising in the order of £1 billion. These things are not easy. Where there are real difficulties, however, the Government recognise them. For example, special arrangements have been put in place for long-haul flights out of Northern Ireland to recognise its very special circumstances—its land border with a country that has no APD—and to preserve its flights to the United States. We have said that we will also look at the possible devolution of APD to Wales and Scotland.

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, one of the ways in which the system deals with anomalies is to divide large countries such as the Russian Federation into two APD bands. Why has it not been possible to have such a solution for the United States and Canada, which remain in one band and which creates the injustice that my noble friend Lady Benjamin referred to?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, after reviewing this question at considerable length, a decision was taken to leave well alone on all this. As I have tried to explain, as soon as one moves one thing, that opens up the question of all sorts of other adjustments to maintain the revenue.

Transport Infrastructure: North-east England

Monday 23rd January 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

14:52

Asked By

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they considered including in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s autumn Statement funding for transport infrastructure projects in north-east England in addition to the proposed upgrade of the Tyne and Wear Metro; and, in particular, whether they considered funding improvements to the A1 trunk road.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the Government announced a range of transport proposals in the Chancellor’s autumn Statement on 29 November 2011 for accelerated delivery in this spending review period. Those proposals were selected because they can be accelerated to start construction and make significant progress in the next three years, therefore making the earliest possible contribution to stimulating economic growth.

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that almost 20 years ago, in response to questions from myself and the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, the then Conservative Minister in this House—the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—made a commitment on behalf of the Government that the whole of the A1 between Newcastle and Edinburgh would ultimately be dual? Is the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, aware that two schemes were in an advanced state of preparation in Northumberland to begin in 2009 but, when the previous Government downgraded that road to one of regional importance, they were postponed? Now that the coalition has upgraded the road to national importance, is it not time that these delayed schemes should be embarked upon and expedited?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord is correct in his description of the history of this project. The interim Regional Transport Board for the North East recommended to the Government in 2006 that proposals for the A1 Adderstone to Belford and Al Morpeth to Felton schemes were not funding priorities for the period up to 2016. The department therefore did not have a scheme to consider for the autumn Statement. However, it is good news that the Government have decided that that section of road is of national importance.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, as we rightly attach so much importance to the United Kingdom and its preservation, is there not an unanswerable case for making the high road to Scotland, and indeed the high road to England, a fully dual-carriageway road of national importance?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I thought that someone would ask me a devolution question. There are very good road connections from the highly developed conurbation on Tyneside—Newcastle upon Tyne and Gateshead—but that is via the M6 corridor up through Carlisle. The journey time by car is shorter via Carlisle than it is via Berwick-upon-Tweed.

[Baroness Maddock]

My Lords, given that Northumberland is a more dangerous place to drive in than London according to figures released by the BBC on 19 January—32 deaths per 10 million hours of driving, compared with 23 in London—will the Government prioritise the value of road safety in transport appraisal calculations? Also, given that single-carriageway A roads like the A1 in Northumberland have the most serious accidents, does that not strengthen the case for dualling particularly dangerous parts of the A1 such as the Mousen bends, especially as that scheme is ready to go?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, first of all, the schemes on the A1 north of Morpeth are not ready to go, because they have been abandoned since 2006. However, my noble friend is absolutely right when she describes the dangers of a single carriageway, and I asked my officials precisely those questions. Interestingly, though, the accident rate for this section of the A1 was 154 per billion vehicle miles. This compares with 306 accidents per billion vehicle miles on all rural A-class roads within England. The rate for the A1, therefore, is approximately half that for rural A-class roads nationally.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, the Minister will appreciate that very significant improvements were effected to the A1 south of Newcastle with the removal of some dangerous right-hand turns and roundabouts and effective control of traffic. All these improvements, however, are a considerable way south of Northumbria and Newcastle. Is there not a case for appreciating that the A1 now does need attention to the points further north, and that in fact he should look at that scheme further?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I re-emphasise that there is not a scheme at present that we can look at. The previous Administration also found, when they carefully analysed the situation, that there was not a business case for spending £10 per man, woman and child to dual all the way from Morpeth to Berwick-upon-Tweed.

[Lord Geddes]

My Lords, in relation to the Minister’s reply to my noble friend Lord Cormack, could I ask the Minister when he last tried to drive from Newcastle to Carlisle and thence to Scotland? I think he will find that it took a very long time indeed.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I did the best research I possibly could on behalf of your Lordships, but I confess that I did not actually drive the route. I did look on the map and I used the excellent AA Route Planner to see what the difference in time for the two would be, whether I went on the M6 or on the single-carriageway A1.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

My Lords, given that we have run out of questions before time, may I congratulate my noble friend on the comprehensiveness of his replies?

[Earl Attlee]

When my noble friend got to his feet, I thought, “Oh no, he is going to ask me one of those tricky questions to which I will have to agree to write”. On this occasion I shall just thank the noble Lord for his question.

National Planning Policy Framework

Monday 23rd January 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

14:59

Asked By

[Baroness Bakewell]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what safeguards are contained in the national planning policy framework to protect cultural institutions.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

The Government recognise the valuable role cultural institutions, such as theatres, museums and libraries, play in people’s everyday lives. As part of the simplification of planning policies under the national planning policy framework, it was decided to include cultural development under the general heading of leisure and community facilities, rather than setting out a long list of specific categories. Our policies are intended to support local authorities that want to include cultural institutions as an integral part of the vision for their areas.

[Baroness Bakewell]

I thank the Minister for the Answer but she will know that there has been concern for some time that cultural interests are not specifically mentioned in the national planning policy framework; and that last December the local government Select Committee recommended that they should be included. With the Redgrave Theatre in Farnham threatened with demolition and the Greenwich Playhouse closing its doors, will the Minister put on record the Government’s specific resolve to protect cultural interests?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, the Government intend to see protection for all cultural interests but, as I have explained to the noble Baroness, under the draft national planning policy framework, cultural interests have been included under community facilities, rather than under a specific heading of “cultural institutions”. If that needs reinterpreting, it will come about as a result of the consultation on the national policy planning framework that has taken place over the past three months.

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s statement in recognition of the important role that culture and cultural services play in the nation’s quality of life and well-being. Can she tell us when we will see the national planning policy framework in its final form so that we may judge the Government’s commitment to that?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, the Government are committed to producing the final version by the end of March. It is very much hoped that it will be ready before then. I am sure that the noble Lord will take a lively interest in it when it is.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall]

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness agrees with me that cultural institutions in most areas represent rather more than just community facilities. In particular, they have been very important in the regeneration of certain key urban areas that have suffered from the loss of manufacturing industries or where other kinds of activity have gone into decline. In view of that, will she consider how the language of the national planning policy framework might be strengthened to give a little more than just a nod in the direction of cultural institutions, as is presently apparently the case?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, there have been representations about this in the course of the consultation and I know that consideration is being given to them. We will see what comes out of the final result.

[The Lord Bishop of Lichfield]

My Lords, will the Minister explain how well assets of cultural, wildlife and landscape value will be protected in those non-designated areas that make up the greater part of the English countryside?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, it is not usual for me to be at a complete loss but I am afraid that I do not understand how the question relates to the Question. May I write to the right reverend Prelate?

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, may I ask the Minister an easy question? This is meant to be the year of not just the Olympics but the Cultural Olympiad, with an enormous amount of energy being invested in the development of cultural opportunities across the country. Does it not therefore behove the Government to be somewhat more positive about this aspect with regard to planning?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, the Government are very positive about cultural aspects. At the moment we are discussing whether that is properly put forward within the national planning policy framework. I can assure the noble Lord that it is very much at the heart of what the Government believe to be an important aspect, particularly of the Olympics and of people’s lives. There should be proper access to the institutions of the arts, such as museums and leisure centres, which people in this country value.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many important cultural events are held in Clapham Library, which is now threatened with closure? What help do the Government propose to give to important, historic libraries that are the subjects of national preservation orders, and to the local communities who wish to take them over and look after them?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, the funding of libraries and museums is a matter for, first, the local authority and secondly, by and large, the Arts Council. We have kept the budget of the Arts Council and the grant in aid at a level, with a reduction of just 11 per cent, which is not as much of a reduction as there has been in many other areas, and we expect support to be given. I do not have an answer to the specific matter raised by the noble Lord but, if required, I will write to him.

[Lord Colwyn]

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Live Music Bill of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones successfully passed through the House of Commons last Friday, and will certainly go a long way to protecting musical cultural institutions?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I am delighted to hear it.

[Lord Campbell of Alloway]

My Lords, is not the answer to the Question on the Order Paper “yes”?

[Baroness Hanham]

Yes.

[The Earl of Clancarty]

My Lords, developing on the supplementary question of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, will the Minister take particular note of recommendation number 5 of the Communities and Local Government Committee’s report, which recommends that the framework adopt a more inclusive definition of sustainable development, particularly considering that culture has previously been defined in planning policy as one of the four main components of sustainable growth, alongside economics, social inclusion and environment,?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, the answer to that is yes, again. As I say, the Government are seized of the importance of culture and of its value within sustainable development. There are questions about the interpretation of sustainable development, and that issue is being looked at with regard to the result of the consultation that has just taken place.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

My Lords, I recall that my noble friend rejected certain amendments to the Localism Bill which included culture and heritage in this context. Does she have a scintilla of sense—? I shall rephrase that. Does she have an inkling that this subject may be returned to quite frequently in the future?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, just that scintilla of sense would tell me that this is likely to reappear.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Monday 23rd January 2012 Lords Chamber

Order of Consideration Motion

15:07

Moved By

[Lord Henley]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 19, Schedule 1, Clauses 20 to 39, Schedule 2, Clauses 40 to 53, Schedule 3, Clauses 54 to 56, Schedule 4, Clauses 57 to 61, Schedule 5, Clauses 62 and 63, Schedule 6, Clauses 64 to 78, Schedule 7, Clauses 79 to 87, Schedule 8, Clauses 88 to 113, Schedules 9 and 10, Clauses 114 to 119.

Motion agreed.

Jobseeker’s Allowance (Jobseeking and Work for Your Benefit) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2012

Monday 23rd January 2012 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:08

Moved By

[Lord Freud]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 21 November 2011 be approved.

Relevant documents: 34th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 16 January.

Motion agreed.

Special Educational Needs (Direct Payments) (Pilot Scheme) Order 2012

Monday 23rd January 2012 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:08

Moved By

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 7 December 2011 be approved.

Relevant documents: 36th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 16 January.

Motion agreed.

Welfare Reform Bill

Monday 23rd January 2012 Lords Chamber

Report (5th Day)

15:08

Clause 94 : Benefit cap

Amendment 58C

Moved by

[Baroness Donaghy]

58C: Clause 94, page 63, line 22, at end insert “except for industrial injuries benefit awards”

[Baroness Donaghy]

My Lords, as I said in Committee, I appreciate that this is by way of an interval in the big picture, but it is on a subject that is work related. There has been insufficient consideration of work-related issues in the Bill and I have consistently raised issues such as: what happens to the self-employed; what happens with the redeployment of 20,000 local authority staff on housing benefits; and, the third area, what happens to those who have worked hard all their lives, have been injured at work and have received an industrial injuries compensation—a civilised scheme that is jointly agreed between trade unions and employers, where it is likely that the benefit cap will affect those in receipt of such compensation.

I think that this is about signals. If the Government want to emphasise that this is about concentrating on people at work and encouraging and giving incentives to those on work-related benefits, consideration should be given to my amendment, which covers those on industrial injuries disablement benefit. After Second Reading and Committee, the Minister was unable to say whether they would be exempt, so as far as we know they would still be included. The only part which would be exempt would be the constant attendance allowance within this benefit. However, that is only 1 per cent of the total figure. Although we are very grateful for that concession, it does not cover many people or much money.

Benefits under the industrial injuries scheme are different in character from the rest of the benefits system. Whereas other benefits are designed to prevent or ameliorate poverty, help people to cope with extra costs or substitute for lost income, the industrial injuries scheme is a system of no-fault compensation. In November 2010, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council wrote to the Minister to argue that the industrial injuries disablement benefit should not count towards the cap for just that reason. As I said, employers and unions both support the industrial injuries scheme, which eliminates the need for an adversarial approach to compensating a large number of injuries and diseases that are agreed to be a risk of employment. Damages won through civil litigation are a closer parallel to the industrial injuries scheme than disability or other benefits. Including damages awarded by the courts in the total that is subject to the cap would be plainly unfair, but industrial injuries disablement benefit is also a form of compensation, and including it is just as unfair. Payments under the vaccine damages payment scheme are not to count towards the cap, but they, too, are a form of compensation.

The Government have put forward three reasons for the benefit cap, and all of them are weak arguments for including the IIDB. They have said that they are introducing the cap partly to reduce the benefit expenditure, but IIDB accounts for a very small part of social security expenditure: 0.58 per cent of DWP annually managed expenditure last year. IIDB will account for an even smaller proportion of benefit cap savings, most of which will affect large younger families, especially those in receipt of housing benefit. Claimants of benefits from the industrial injuries scheme tend to be older—50.9 per cent of expenditure is on people over pension age—and will therefore account for significantly less than 0.58 per cent of the budget. It is unlikely that counting IIDB towards the benefit cap would save as much as £1 million a year.

The Government’s equality impact assessment states that a further purpose is to “improve work incentives” for those on benefits. It must be emphasised that industrial injuries disablement benefit does not create a work disincentive. Half of all spending on it is accounted for by pensioners, and working age claimants can continue to receive the benefit if they stay in or find work.

Ministers have given greatest prominence to the argument that it is not fair for a workless family to receive more in benefits than an average family would receive in wages. In last year's spending review, the Treasury listed the benefit cap under the heading:

“Fairness … Reducing the deficit fairly while protecting the vulnerable”,

but a working family one of whose members had suffered an industrial disease or injury would not be in a worse position than a workless family; they would have the same right to IIDB.

The Government have not said a good deal about why IIDB should count towards the cap. The Minister has made a distinction between recipients of disability living allowance and IIDB claimants. People do not get industrial injuries disablement benefit to meet extra costs, which can be dealt with by an award of DLA if necessary. He has used this difference to justify excluding DLA but not IIDB. The argument is not a sufficient rebuttal because it fails to address the point that I have made about the nature of the industrial injuries scheme. Furthermore, if having extra costs were the reason for excluding a benefit, how would we explain the decision to exclude retirement pension and pension credit?

15:15

Informally, officials sometimes argue that excluding IIDB would open the flood-gates for a long list of special cases that would complicate the benefit plan. I hope that tidiness is never the deciding factor in matters like this and that simplicity is not a sufficient reason for proceeding with an unfair change. I hope very much that the Government will agree with me that industrial injuries disablement benefit should not be counted towards the benefit cap. I beg to move.

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, I support my noble friend in her amendment, and also urge that industrial injuries disablement benefit should not count towards the cap. This benefit is not a cost benefit or an income-replacement benefit; it is a form of no-fault compensation for the victims of industrial diseases and accidents. Counting this benefit and other benefits paid under the industrial injuries scheme towards the cap would, in effect, reduce the compensation paid to the most needy and vulnerable victims. It is no more reasonable than counting criminal victims’ compensation would be, and it should certainly not be included. As my noble friend indicated, many employees who sustain industrial disease or injury often spend a lifetime in pain as a result. It is unreasonable to expect ordinary working people, who are caught in an environment that is not of their own making and in a situation for which they are not responsible, to have their compensation—an industrial injury disablement benefit—counted against the cap under welfare. I fully support everything said by my noble friend, and hope that the Government will respond benevolently to what we are saying.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I rise briefly to speak in support of the amendment. I do so against the background of the industrial injuries and diseases that we are very familiar with in Wales, from coal-mining, slate mining and many other industries. I know that all industrial parts of these islands have similar experience.

If the Government’s line on this whole issue is that it is unreasonable that people who are working earn less money than some people get in benefits and that the changes are justified for that reason, surely this exemption makes all good sense. People have an industrial disease or injury by virtue of the fact that they have been hardworking members of the community and get this as a result of their efforts of working. What is more, in all probability they will not be in a position to return to the workforce, so that argument disappears as well. I realise that special pleading for any one group will cause difficulties—and it may for the rest of today’s debates—but this instance stands out as clear-cut and deserves sympathy.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, this amendment, moved so ably by my noble friend Lady Donaghy, goes to the heart of fairness. It does not challenge the concept of a cap or indeed the level of the cap. As my noble friend clearly said, it does not undermine the stated aims of the Government for its introduction—whether we agree with them or not. We have heard that the industrial injuries scheme is a system of no-fault compensation. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, to qualify for the benefit, the claimant must have had a personal injury in an industrial accident or he must have a prescribed industrial disease. That must have arisen when the claimant was an employed earner. The amount of the benefit depends on the extent of disablement. An award is made for a period during which the claimant has suffered or may be expected to continue to suffer from the relevant loss of faculty.

On the rationale for the cap the Government alternate between reducing benefit expenditure and changing attitudes. The cost of the industrial benefits scheme, applicable to working-age claimants, as my noble friend said in moving the amendment, is below 0.5 per cent of DWP AME. As for encouraging the benefits of work, claimants would have had to have been in work in the first place to get the benefit. In a sense, they would have had to have been exposed to both the benefits and the risks of work. This raises broader questions about health and safety, but perhaps that is a topic for another day’s debate. The benefit would be payable to those able to return to or stay in work as well as to those whose loss of faculty prevents it. In essence, the Government are saying that the greater the suffering an individual endures from an accident doing what the Government want—being in work—the tighter the cap should bite. That does not have a ring of fairness.

In Committee, the Minister left the door slightly ajar and indicated the possibility of further consideration. It would be good to hear that the door remains open and that he will be able to make appropriate commitments today or at Third Reading.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, before I speak to the specific amendment, I would like to make some general points about the rationale for the household benefit cap. First, there is a principled point that households should not be able to receive more on benefits than the average working family in Great Britain earns in work. Secondly, people on benefits should face the same choices as working families, including about where they can afford to live. Thirdly, someone in work should always be better off than someone on benefits. The proposed cap of £500 a week is equivalent to an annual salary of £35,000 a year before tax. We have set the cap at the median earned income for working families after tax and national insurance. We think this is a reasonable representation of average household earnings.

I ask noble Lords to consider how well these principles are received by the public at large. They will have seen press reports of a YouGov survey that found that 76 per cent of the public are in favour of the benefits cap. The overwhelming majority of people think there should be a limit to the amount of benefit those out of work can receive. We have received many representations that we are pitching the level of the cap far too high. In fact, only 7 per cent of respondents in today’s YouGov survey think that the cap should be higher than £26,000. Another 9 per cent think there should be no cap, so of the people who answered the survey, 69 per cent thought that the cap as we have set it or below that amount is the right figure. Of those who expressed an opinion, the figure is above 80 per cent, or above four-fifths. The truth is that people do not understand why we pay claimants more money when they are out of work than they could reasonably expect to earn from working full time.

I accept that arguments can be made for special treatment for a whole range of groups and benefit payments. Indeed, many such arguments were eloquently expressed previously in Grand Committee, and this amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, is an example. However, we must be wary of such arguments clouding the bigger picture of the need to reform a complex benefits system, which is failing those people on benefit who want to work but, equally importantly, is placing a costly burden on the taxpayers in work who pay for it.

We have today published an updated impact assessment with more detailed and robust estimates for the numbers and characteristics of people who may be affected by the cap. The high-level figures are broadly in line with the figures in the previous assessment, but there are some important differences. In particular, we now estimate that in nearly 40 per cent of households the claimant will be subject to JSA conditionality. We also estimate that the proportion of social rented sector households is 44 per cent, which is substantially less than we thought previously. The new figures are derived from the administrative records held by the department on benefit recipients. Thus, they are much more robust than the previous survey-based estimates. They provide a much firmer basis than before for considering transitional measures. Crucially, the methodology here means that we know who is likely to be affected by the cap and can start working with them and local authorities to minimise the problems for individual households when the cap is introduced.

Amendment 58C would require us to disregard payments of industrial injuries disablement benefits when operating the benefit cap. The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, has argued that these payments are worthy of special consideration because they take the form of compensation payments in lieu of injury or disability caused at work. I recognise the nature in which these payments are made, but I am afraid that I do not believe that it should override the need for a limit to the amount of welfare payments households should receive. Disregarding payments of IIDB would serve only to undermine that fundamental principle and create a precedent for others to argue for such special treatment.

We have previously been asked to reconsider the position of IIDB recipients in light of the fact that we have announced that we will fully exempt from the cap recipients of disability living allowance, personal independence payment, attendance allowance and constant attendance allowance. I have to say that I do not find these groups analogous. DLA, PIP and equivalent benefits are paid to people to help with the extra costs arising from their disability. Their receipt provides an appropriate means of identifying those disabled people who should be exempted from the cap. Many people receiving industrial injuries benefits will be exempt because they get constant attendance allowance as part of their industrial injuries entitlement or DLA.

I take the point about vaccine damage payments raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy. These lump-sum payments will be taken into account as capital and not income in assessing means-tested benefits. In other words, vaccine damage payments are not comparable to weekly income payments through IIDB. But, as has been said in debate today, the basic IIDB payments are compensation payments and do not reflect whether the disability or illness necessarily brings extra financial costs. I cannot agree that there is any reason to provide an automatic exemption in these circumstances.

On the disincentive to work, any IIDB recipient in work who is entitled to working tax credit will be exempt from the cap, as will any households in receipt of working tax credit. The cap of course will not apply to pensioners. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Donaghy]

I thank the Minister for that reply. I was beginning to think that he had moved straight to the big picture and that my interval was not even going to be considered—that we were all off buying our popcorn and he had started the big picture. At least the last few minutes of his reply tackled the subject that I have raised. As I have said, this amendment is about signals and hard-working people who, through no fault of their own, have been injured at work and, with the support of unions and employers, have been given compensation. I do not suppose that that would have been easy to achieve or that the bureaucracy is particularly easy. Having achieved that compensation those people will now be told that it will not be exempt from the cap.

With all due respect, I think that the Minister is so concerned about undermining the principle of the big picture that these people are being victimised. I do not believe that any precedent whatever would be set as regards the debates that are going to take place later. They would probably be only too happy to go back to work, having spent their lives in work. If only the YouGov survey to which the Minister referred had asked a question about industrial injuries benefits, we might have got a clearer picture of what people really felt.

I am aware from a previous reply that there will be an opportunity to talk about regulations at some stage. In the circumstances, I shall withdraw the amendment, but we will come back to the issue when it comes to discussing regulations.

Amendment 58C withdrawn.

15:30

Amendment 58D

Moved by

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

58D: Clause 94, page 63, line 22, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations under this section must provide for an exemption from the application of the benefit cap for vulnerable individuals, and individuals and couples with children, who—
(a) as a result of the application of the benefit cap, the relevant local authority would consider threatened with homelessness and in priority need,(b) are owed a duty to be provided with interim or temporary accommodation under section 188, 190, 193 or 200 of the Housing Act 1996, or(c) which the local authority has accepted as homeless and in priority need.”

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, it seems that we are all, Lib Dems, Conservatives and ourselves, in favour of a benefit cap. Perhaps at some stage in the future, some analyst or academic might look back on these times and determine the origin of these policies, what analysis underpinned them and whether assuaging the court of public opinion played any role. It seems from what the Minister said a while ago that it played quite a considerable role.

But we are where we are. My party supports a benefit cap, but one based on fairness. A particular concern for us, as currently proposed, is its potential to drive increased homelessness, which is a major consequence of the cap—homelessness for vulnerable individuals, homelessness for families and homelessness for children. The way in which the cap is to be applied, albeit calculated by reference to a range of benefits, means that it is an effective second cap on housing support. It is a second cap on top of the range of reductions in housing support already introduced through the move to the 30th percentile of local market rents, uprating by CPI, a cap on rent levels and room sizes, and increases in scope of the shared room rate.

Not only will the overall cap dramatically increase the prospects of people becoming homeless but, in some cases, the Government will miss their target, and local authorities will bear the cost of the benefit cap, not the tenant. It will fall on council tax payers. If a family is already in accommodation provided for them under homelessness duties, no shortfall between housing benefit or housing allowance and actual rent will be payable by the tenant. Increasing the shortfall by the cap does not change this. There may be the opportunity to discharge the duty into cheaper accommodation, but this is increasingly unlikely to be available, certainly without significant migration to elsewhere in the UK, with all that that entails.

As Shelter points out, the reach of the household benefit cap goes way beyond the extreme cases generally associated with London, and it will be difficult for many households to afford to rent both in the private sector and at 80 per cent of market rents in the social sector across much of the south-east. It affects not only households with large families. Families in the private rented sector with just two children will be subject to the cap in all of central London. The DWP estimates that 50,000 households will be affected by this measure—I think that the estimate has been uprated to 75,000 households as a result of today’s news—and lose £83 a week on average, with 90,000 adults and 220,000 children affected by the measures. Fifteen per cent of those households will lose more than £150 a week. The Children’s Society has suggested that more than 82,000 children could lose their homes as a result of the cap. As the Children’s Commissioner pointed out in a recent report, the DWP’s own equality impact assessment sees homelessness, diversion of living costs benefits to housing costs and migration within the UK as primary effects of the cap. In a chillingly bland comment, the DWP states in the original impact assessment:

“The cap is likely to affect where different family types will be able to live”.

Housing benefit may no longer cover housing costs and some households may go into rent arrears. This will require expense and effort on the part of the landlords and the courts to evict and seek to recoup rent arrears. The impact assessment continues:

“Some households are likely to present as homeless, and may as a result need to move into more expensive temporary accommodation, at a cost to the local authority”.

It is an awful admission that by deliberate act of policy people are to be made homeless, are to run up rent arrears and are to be evicted; an admission also that reduced costs for the DWP will add cost to local authorities. Can the Minister say whether these increased burdens will be met by central government?

The Children’s Commissioner’s report concluded that the impact of the cap will be increased child poverty with associated poor health, educational and other outcomes. The report identified that in order to stay in their homes, parents who cannot or do not find work will have to divert large amounts of their living costs, the non-housing element of universal credit plus child benefit, to make up the shortfall. This will have obvious consequences for children’s well-being. For those who cannot bridge the loss of housing benefit, the loss of the family home will be severe. Local authorities may well have an obligation to rehouse but this may be in temporary accommodation and may require a move to cheaper areas, if they exist. As 70 per cent of those affected by the cap already live in social housing—that percentage may have been updated by today’s impact assessment—cheaper housing may not exist. Evicting families from such accommodation only to rehouse them in more expensive private sector or temporary accommodation would only add cost for local authorities.

The impact of such moves on families is traumatic, especially for children. We know that children from homeless and transient families are more likely to go missing from education. Uprooting families from support networks, friends and communities can have a severe impact on the emotional and physical well-being of parents and children, and for vulnerable people especially so.

There are a number of ways in which these dire consequences might be addressed and subsequent amendments cover a series of possible ameliorations. This amendment supports the amendment separately tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, concerning those owed a duty to be provided with interim or temporary accommodation as part of the homeless safety net. The amendment refers only to English legislation and I was advised today that it should also be extended to Scotland. We might bear that in mind for later stages. As the noble Lord explained in Committee, temporary accommodation tends to be more expensive than mainstream housing and local authorities will struggle to obtain suitable accommodation for homeless families. Our amendment goes further and seeks exemption from the cap for those accepted as homeless and in priority need and those threatened because of the cap with becoming homeless. This raises points of detail that would have to be settled in regulations.

If the cap was introduced, households for which a homeless duty has been assumed and which are in temporary accommodation face a shortfall in rent as well as council tax. Local authorities must either cover the shortfall from the general fund or secure alternative temporary accommodation elsewhere within the monetary limits. However, it takes a long time to procure temporary accommodation and some local authorities will be in longish contracts with owners. They will need a long transition and so it may not be possible. Any family in private accommodation entered into prior to the introduction of the household benefit cap that falls into arrears and is in priority need and threatened with homelessness will be able to apply as homeless to the local authority which can then discharge its duty into alternative private accommodation affordable for the family. In many areas there are already insufficient private rented homes that are affordable to people on the local housing allowance. But this does not relieve the local authority of its duty.

Any family with a secure assured tenancy and facing a shortfall—whether it is a council or housing association property—would in theory be able to ask the local authority to secure them affordable accommodation if they are threatened with homelessness due to arrears. However, as all local authorities have their own allocations procedure this would inevitably mean tenants in secure social housing exchanging these tenancies for assured shorthold private tenancies in cheaper parts of the country, again if they can be obtained. If not, the local authority will have to fund the shortfall.

What would be the effect of our amendment? It would relieve the pressure on local authorities currently housing homeless families which would face the cost of the shortfall in rent if there was no suitable cheaper alternative. It would avoid costs being transferred to the general fund, potentially costing some hard-pressed councils millions of pounds. It would stop some individuals and families being uprooted from their communities. This protection would apply not only to households with children but to vulnerable individuals; for example, those with mental health conditions, disabled people and people fleeing from domestic violence. It would not stop increased homelessness and migration within the UK driven by cuts already announced to housing benefits but it could help to stop it getting much worse. It would not facilitate people remaining in lavish up-market properties, so beloved of the press. The pre-cap housing support would be determined on the basis of the changes already being introduced.

The Minister will doubtless put another of his costings on this amendment. When he does, perhaps he will make sure that he includes the actual costs to local authorities in meeting rent shortfalls; the implications for a range of services in supporting the migration across the country which will flow from the cap; and, of course, the costs to landlords and the courts in pursuing evictions. Most of all, will he factor in the human misery that the cap will generate?

There are a range of other amendments suggesting carve outs for the cap, transitional measures and refining the basis of calculation which can sit perfectly well alongside this amendment. If for no other reason, this amendment can provide for those who seek, and have the leverage to encourage, concessions from the Government, but its primary purpose is to prevent the slide into further poverty and disadvantage that homelessness can bring and the multiple disadvantages that spring from poor housing to blight lives, particularly those of the young. I beg to move.

[Lord Best]

My Lords, I support the amendment. As we have heard, it would mean that families facing immediate homelessness because of the imposition of the benefit cap would be saved.

A major problem with the cap is that, as well as taking no account of the number of children in a family—a point which a later amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds and others will seek to address—it takes no account of the level of rent: that is, it takes no account of how much of the benefits within a £500 cap must go to the landlord not the tenant. The £500 cap looks relatively high in areas where housing costs are low. In Committee, I quoted £85 per week rent for a council house in the north-east or south Wales, leaving a headroom of £415 per week for benefits to cover all other expenditure. Indeed, the average cost of housing—the £500 is all about comparisons with average earnings—is some £87.50 per week. However, the same cap applies in all areas, including London and the south-east of England, where housing costs are much higher. I am not talking about the extreme cases of refugee families with 10 children living in Hampstead. A rent for a not very salubrious private sector flat in the east end of London can be £350 a week. A £500 cap will plunge a family with three children living there into poverty, with only, in this example, £150 per week left for food, clothing, ever rising fuel bills and the rest, instead of more than £300 as at present. It is not their fault that rents are so high in much of southern England, but clearly the family will have to move out if the application of the cap is not moderated as by this amendment.

However, it is very uncertain where those made homeless can be moved to. The logistics for local authorities of moving large numbers of families to cheaper areas will be extremely complex and expensive. Finding new homes for them, even in a much lower cost area, will not be easy. Most private landlords prefer not to take on tenants on housing benefit and local housing allowance, particularly those not known in the locality, not least because benefit is now seldom paid direct to the landlord. No one wants to send families to so-called benefit ghettos with the lowest quality housing which is bound to undermine the hopes, aspirations and life chances of those sent there. It should be remembered that the new benefits cap is in addition to the caps on rents in high-priced areas which have already been introduced and are now beginning to bite, as existing tenancies come to an end. Regrettably, we are just beginning to see a return to the use of expensive but seedy bed-and-breakfast hotels as the numbers of homeless families rise. The new cap will considerably compound the problem.

This morning on the radio I heard the Secretary of State, Iain Duncan Smith, suggesting that the definition of homelessness was that children would have to share a bedroom. That is a confusion with an earlier amendment which found favour with your Lordships concerning the underoccupation penalty—the so-called bedroom tax—which was not about homelessness at all. Families are deemed to be homeless if the local authority deems that unintentionally they have no place to go. That can happen if they can no longer pay the rent where they are because their benefits are cut drastically. The council is then required to step in to find them somewhere to live. Amendment 58D would avoid that miserable and expensive outcome for thousands of families and tens of thousands of children who will otherwise have to leave their current homes. Two later amendments in my name address two of the most extreme aspects of the imposition of the new cap. At this point, I am pleased to support Amendment 58D.

15:45

[The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 58D for a number of reasons. The figure of 80,000 people who could be made homeless—really homeless—by the cap must be alarming to us all, not least because it comes when homelessness is, in any case, increasing across our country, partly because of the increase in unemployment at the moment. The number of homeless people in west Yorkshire is rising steadily and churches and others in the county are increasingly involved in providing night shelter accommodation for the homeless. Any arrangement which seeks to find accommodation for people is liable, in practice, to see some of them slipping through the net and finding themselves with nowhere to go at all. Just this weekend, churches in Halifax have begun to offer that particular service but those who are providing the service are frightened that an already inadequate service, as they would say, will be made hopelessly so by extensive homelessness as a result of the cap.

In addition, I support Amendment 58D because, at last, it gets children into Clause 94. I retain that major concern for children whose parents are made redundant and become unemployed. Such children are in danger of losing not only their home, but also their school, their friendship groups and their local contacts. Schools are very concerned about the possibility of children being moved from one locality to another as a result of their parents becoming unemployed and as a result of the effects of the cap. There is not only an effect on those children but also on their friends and the whole life of the school. Later, we shall debate the issue of child benefit, but this amendment will defend a significant number of children. It is those who cannot speak for themselves who are likely to suffer as a result of the cap. This amendment will go some way to preventing a spiral of homelessness and it will relieve the pressure on some of those vulnerable people who are affected by the cap. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support it.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, I find it remarkable that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, says that the Labour Party in principle supports a cap, but in this particular instance thinks that somehow it should be alleviated. We face a considerable deficit in this country and the social security bill is certainly one of the largest elements of public spending. If we continue to find all sorts of ways of alleviating measures that the Government are taking, no savings whatever will be made to the social security bill.

This is also an opportunity to change attitudes completely. We are privileged in our House to have the right reverend Prelates on the Bishops’ Benches. I think it was Alastair Campbell who said of Tony Blair, “We don’t do God”, but in this House we do not have to be inhibited in that way. We can talk about the morality of a benefits system that encourages single mothers to have more children, because the more children they have the more benefit they get. Is that moral? I have my doubts. Is it moral for a Somali family to move down from the Birmingham area to Hampstead because they wanted to live in a more salubrious part of London where it was extremely expensive to house them? Is it moral to have a benefits system that pins people in their houses and prevents them going out and looking for work, given that underlying this is the Government’s intention that people should be encouraged to go and find work?

Of course people will have to move, but that is what people in the private sector do. I question the morality of having a benefits system that gives people infinitely more money than the take-home pay of people on average earnings in this country. It is the taxpayers who are paying for these very high levels of benefit. I support this cap and I hope that the House will vote against the amendment.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, in Committee when we addressed this question, there was a suggestion that as many as 200,000 people—I have not heard the figure gainsaid—may have to move from areas of high rents to areas of low rents. The noble Lord who has just spoken said that of course people will have to move. But where will they move to? We have heard mention of Middlesbrough in the north-east and Merthyr Tydfil in south Wales—areas where unemployment is high, the chances of getting a job are very low indeed and where local circumstances place tremendous pressures on social services departments. If not just the generality of those who cannot afford the rent in expensive areas such as the south-east but particularly those with special needs covered by the amendment are moved to areas that may not have the resources to cope with them, we will inevitably build up pressures when we should avoid doing so. We will build up pressures in the communities to which those people may move. Even more seriously, we will build up pressures for families who will essentially be forced to move away from their relatives, grandparents and friends in school. Is this really the sort of policy that our Government support? I urge the House to support this amendment.

[The Lord Bishop of Chichester]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for responding to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. I was feeling anxious abut what I should say but the noble Lord has largely made my case for me. One of the issues here is not just the moral and philosophical question of whether the benefits system needs to incentivise people to work and to take the initiative in their lives. We can all agree on that. The issue is that the Bill is going through the House at a time of unprecedented austerity when burdens are falling on families who are among the most vulnerable. There are times when one has the luxury of having a big social debate but this is not the time when we should burden poor families with more costs and burdens. We should debate these big philosophical questions on other occasions when we have more leisure to do so.

[Lord Winston]

I had not intended to intervene in this short debate, but I have just heard something that I feel is utterly wrong—the idea that people who are on benefit are having more children and thus keeping themselves on benefit. The evidence shows that this is simply not true. Populations expand when people are poor, women are ill educated and there is a lack of services to families. Surely, that argument cannot be used in this context in this Bill.

[Baroness Walmsley]

Like many of those who have spoken, I support the principle of the cap, and I think that public opinion is right to do so. I applaud the Government for grasping this particular nettle, which is a very difficult one and something that Labour has failed to do over 30 years. However, in my 12 years’ career in your Lordships' House, I have always stood for the interests of children. I am not about to change that position now. In some cases, there is the potential for innocent victims to emerge from the Bill as it stands. The noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Best, and the right reverend Prelate have put their finger on the really serious issue—that is, homelessness. I am not one who feels that a workless family should never be required to move, because families in work very often move to follow their jobs. However, your Lordships should remember that children in families who are dependent on benefits and therefore are relatively poor, and where there is no work, are already disadvantaged. For those children, changing their school can, in particular, be a lot more serious than it is for any other child, because for many of those children school is the only stable thing in their lives.

There has been a lot of discussion about how much homeless this measure has the potential to create. The Government say zero, because they are going to put plenty of measures in place to make sure that that does not happen—and I do hope they are right. A lot of other people say that there could be a great deal of homelessness. If the Government are right, the measures in this amendment will not need to be called into play at all. However, if others are right, it could cost a great deal of money. Local authorities will have the duty to rehouse those families, which will prevent the Government making the savings that they need to make to tackle the terrible economic situation that we have inherited. Indeed, it could also interfere with the Government’s very important and laudable objective of providing more affordable and social housing—another thing that Labour has failed to do.

It is for these reasons that, unhappily, I find myself having to speak and vote in a way that is at odds with my Front Bench, because I will support the amendment if it is put to the vote. I do not necessarily think that it is exactly the right amendment, but we need to send it back to another place and ask it to think again and tell us a little more about the measures that will be put in place—I hope that they will be, and know that the Government intend that they will be—to make sure that families with children are not made homeless. For those children who, as I said, are already disadvantaged, to be made roofless or overcrowded just adds to their disadvantage. It is going to be very bad for their education and is not going to be good for the Government. A life of dependency on benefits is also not good for those children, so I encourage the Government to do everything that they say that they will do to help workless families to get back into work. However, until those jobs are available and that work has been done, we need to be given more detail. If this amendment goes through your Lordships' House today, I hope that the Government will think carefully and come back to the House with a very clear strategy about what they will do to prevent innocent children being further disadvantaged by the life choices or life circumstances of their parents.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

I intend to support the Government on the amendment, because I really think that the situation is quite unbelievable at the present time. However, I would like the Minister to clarify two things. Those people—I hope there will be few of them, but there will certainly be some—who do become homeless should never be classified as voluntarily homeless. That is very important because if they are classified as voluntarily homeless they have no claim to any help at all with housing, but if they are not, there is a procedure that they can go through. The other thing I hope the Minister will tell us is that there will be sufficient transitional arrangements to cover the circumstances, so we do not have sudden and terrible disruption.

Years ago, when I was on Westminster council, we had an offer from outside London to send people to another area where there was masses of housing, and we gave them the offer. They all agreed to go, but only about two-thirds actually arrived. The other third we never heard from again, so clearly their needs cannot have been as great as they made out. That was a particular instance. No one knows at the moment what is going to happen, but the important thing is that no one should be made voluntarily homeless under this arrangement.

16:00

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, there is nothing inherently immoral or unjust in the concept of a cap. It all depends upon the way in which it is handled. It might be handled in an understanding, intelligent, sensible and equitable way, although it might not be so easy to save money in net terms or indeed eradicate a fundamental injustice; I accept that.

The Minister has quoted the court of public opinion, where there is, I accept, an overwhelming majority verdict in favour of the Government’s attitude to a cap. I say with humility and the utmost respect that this depends entirely on how well founded that decision on the part of the great public was. It is possible, and I respectfully suggest, that it is a fool’s gold concept of justice—and noble Lords will remember what fool’s gold is. As a small boy I remember being handed a large lump of quartz, and inside that quartz was a gleaming vein of dull metal that seemed to be the real thing, but it was iron pyrite—utterly worthless and totally misleading. I ask the Government to consider very deeply whether this is not a fool’s gold kind of justice.

If you deal with families that have arrived at a certain economic situation from very different directions in exactly the same way, are you doing justice? The Government’s policy draws no distinction between a family that is totally workshy and has had no one working for the past quarter of a century, and another family that had an excellent work record until the head of that family, through redundancy and no fault of his own, lost his job in the past six months. A family with a small number of children might not be affected by the cap even though it is totally workshy, while another family with every merit possible in its favour might be totally impoverished. That is the injustice.

I do not know the exact answer, but I suspect it is in this direction: that one should look not just at the totality of income that comes into a household but at how much of that income is disposable. That, to my mind, is a much more real and indeed equitable test. That is why I support this amendment. It may well not be perfect—likewise the other amendments for that purpose—but it has the ring of justice about it.

[Lord Fowler]

My Lords, it is not my habit to trample on the territory of my Conservative social security successors, but perhaps I could just intervene briefly. First, by common consent, we are at a time when public spending needs to be drawn back. The total social security and pensions bill at the moment is £200 billion. The truth is that if the social security budget is to be subject to all kinds of exceptions, we might as well not start the whole process of looking for social security economies. I say this as a former Secretary of State who worked closely with my noble friend Lord Newton, to whom I pay sincere and undying tribute. We spent six years fighting battles on the one hand with the Treasury and on the other with different welfare groups, not always successfully. Rummaging through my desk at the weekend, I found a badge that was distributed when I was Secretary of State, which says, “Action for benefits—more not less from DHSS. Stop Fowler’s cuts”, so this is not remotely the first Government who have sought to limit the social security bill. Nor is it remotely the first Government who have run into flak. I would claim, and I think that anyone with responsibility in a department for social security would confirm this, that it is almost impossible to make changes in the social security budget without running into controversy and flak.

One of the most extraordinary things about the proposal which the Government are now putting forward is that, first, the public seem to be overwhelmingly on the side of making this change. Secondly, on the cap that is being set, £26,000 per annum—the equal of £35,000 a year before tax—is a not ungenerous limit, and most people in this country would regard it in that way. On the cap itself, we tend to get into figures that rather overegg the number affected. I am not going to downplay this, but we should accept that the number is 67,000 households, or perhaps a little more than that on the latest figures: that is, only 1 per cent of the total claimant population.

As I say, everything must be done to prevent hardship to such people. One of the rather irritating things about how this debate is being organised is that the debate on the next amendment will be very similar to this one, so, if I may, I will discuss during the next debate some of the measures that can be taken to prevent that hardship. However, first and foremost, this change will be introduced in 2013, so we have the time to sort out the problems before that change takes place. We really cannot have the situation in which beneficiaries living in houses that they cannot afford, or could not afford when in work, will never be able to get back into work because of that situation.

Perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, who proposed this amendment. I am rather intrigued by where the Opposition stand on these issues. The noble Lord started with how much he supported the principle of the changes, but ended with words about human misery being caused by them. I had rather gathered from their Commons spokesman that the Opposition supported the changes and did not intend to try and vote them down. I simply point out to the House that they have so far supported amendments that, far from saving money, will cost, I am told, something like £5 billion over the next five years. I do not want to be offensive—or no more than usual—but their policy seems to be one of, “Now you see it, now you don't”, and, frankly, mostly we do not. Goodness knows how much they would have spent had they not supported the principle of the Government’s policies, so it would be fair for us to ask the noble Lord where precisely the Opposition stand on this issue.

Above all, I put it to the House that there is a very great prize in the Government's plans: that of universal credit, which both parties have been seeking to achieve for the past half-century. That prize is something worth fighting for and the benefit cap is a crucial part of it. There is no question that the Government’s own plans allow us to deal with the 1 per cent who will be adversely affected. The amendment should be opposed and the Government’s policy should be supported.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

Irresistibly, in view of what my noble friend Lord Fowler has said, I find it necessary to make what I hope will be a brief intervention.

This is a rather grandiose claim but I am going to make it: probably I alone, but certainly I and my noble friend together, have more experience of social security and its reform than any other people in history, let alone currently present in your Lordships’ House. We had our difficulties and our rows with the Treasury and, as my noble friend has just said, we would have given our eye teeth to have been able to bring forward this proposal for a universal credit, which is a huge achievement by the Secretary of State and the Minister on our Front Bench together. Everyone acknowledges that and supports it, yet now large numbers of people are trying to shoot it full of holes before it is even off the launch pad. That is not sensible.

I am not going to put a lot of weight on the point about deficit reduction. It is valid but others have made and will make it, and people can make up their own minds about how important it is. Personally, having caused some trouble for the Government on this on a number of occasions, I do not think it sensible or reasonable to go on voting twice a week, in whatever form, to make the deficit worse than it otherwise would be. That is all I will say; if people want to do it, they can.

I have a straightforward social security reason for being opposed to this and every other amendment on our agenda today. It is a great pity, as my noble friend said, that they are being debated in such a disorderly fashion; there are linkages between all of them. For example, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, on regional variations in housing clearly links with what we are discussing at the moment, and it would have been far better if these things had been discussed together.

For a long while as Social Security Minister—I was sometimes attacked for this—I made sure that social security legislation left wide powers in secondary legislation because you would never get it all right in primary legislation and you needed the flexibility to be able to respond to the things that you had not spotted in advance. However much work you do, that will happen. There is no doubt, though, that we have here a series of amendments, designed—some of them pretty hastily and off the cuff—to write requirements and restraints into the primary legislation that would certainly prove a drag when the detailed work was done.

As with the DLA last week, there is a right course for the House to take, and I will join it in taking it. Ministers know from me, privately and publicly, the importance that I attach to transitional measures and protection, but the place for that is in the secondary legislation. If the House wants to vote for enhanced affirmative procedures, as I said last week, I would be inclined to support that so that we would all get a proper opportunity to consider the detail when it had been done. However, I am not in favour of tying the Government’s hands and writing anything into the concrete of primary legislation that we shall regret in six or eight months’ time. I hope that the House will accept that and not vote to put this stuff in, in the way that is proposed today.

16:14

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

My Lords, I feel that this debate is probably drawing to a close, and I want to address particularly the last point made by my noble friend about transitional measures. I fear that I do not agree with him.

I speak as somebody who has voted consistently with this Government for every single one of the very tough benefit reform proposals. I think that Mr Duncan Smith and my good colleague Steve Webb in the other place are doing something extremely important. They are at last reforming the welfare system root and branch. I agree with the point made by my noble friend that there is a huge prize to be gained here, namely the universal credit and genuine reform. I am strongly in favour of that, as indeed I am in favour of a benefit cap, contrary to what was said in certain broadcasts yesterday which inaccurately reported comments that I had made. It is important and I strongly favour it. But I believe that, before we vote for this, it is important—for exactly the reasons that have been given earlier—to have a look, at least in outline, at some of the transitional mechanisms.

I hope that the Minister in answering this debate will address that, not least because that was what was promised by Mr Duncan Smith in the other place. I shall quote what he said:

“We recognise that there must be transitional arrangements … We will make sure”—

this is his promise—

“that families who need transitional support will receive it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/3/11; col. 922.]

When he answers this very important debate I hope that the Minister will tell us whether those measures have been advanced and whether any proposals have been made. If they have not, surely it would have been better to consider this with at least some outline of what those measures—to fulfil a promise made by the Secretary of State himself—will be. If he cannot do that now, will he at least tell us when he will be able to bring them forward?

Like my noble friend Lady Walmsley, who spoke from our Benches a moment ago, I believe that this should be passed. But I cannot pass it without at least some sight of the Government’s outline proposals for those transitional measures. If the Government cannot offer that to us now, let them at least say when those proposals will be published.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, may I ask the Minister a couple of questions, as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights? As I am sure he will have been briefed, the committee made a report on the Bill in which it raised a couple of questions which are in harmony with the points made by my noble friend Lady Walmsley about the effects on children.

The first proposal was to suggest to the Minister that instead of calculating the cap on the basis of all households, the fairer thing to do is to calculate on the basis of the income of households with children. Since we raised that in the committee, I would be grateful to know whether that idea has been pursued, and if so with what result. This proposal was in paragraph 1.59.

The second proposal that was made was to suggest that, where benefits are earmarked for children, this should be done in order to make sure that they are treated fairly. For example, it was suggested that,

“the Bill could be amended to allow payments intended for children to be labelled as such and be paid to the main carer”.

That was in paragraph 1.82. Again, I would be grateful, on behalf of the committee, to know whether that idea has been pursued.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I will be very brief, but I cannot resist the effrontery of trying to challenge some of the assumptions made by two people whose views on social security I very much respect, the noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord Newton.

The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said that the social security bill is pushing £200 billion and needs to be contained and cut. He is correct, but the biggest single group driving that increase in costs are of course pensioners. There is an increased number of pensioners, who are living longer, sometimes with poor health. These cuts do not—in my view, rightly—impinge on them at all. We are making other people pay for the demographics that are not their fault.

The second point I would like to address comes from the noble Lord, Lord Newton. He says that there is a big prize in this: universal credit. He is absolutely right. I defer to nobody in my support for universal credit and my support for the Minister on the structure of universal credit. However, that structure is being contaminated by where some of the cuts fall. If we can keep those two things separate in our minds, we can fully support the Minister on his structure, as we do, while trying to protect those who are most vulnerable and affected by where the cuts fall.

At the end of the day, it is about political and moral choices. Noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, said that we face a deficit and must bring it down—these cuts have to fall. May I gently suggest to him that I rather doubt that any of the cuts have affected him? Not one of them has affected me. Indeed, my council tax is being frozen at a cost of nearly £1 billion a year, which is very nice. Over five years, that equates to the very £5 billion that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, cited. I get my council tax frozen while disabled children, cancer patients and vulnerable children at risk of homelessness carry my bills for me, even though we in this House have broader shoulders on which to carry the cost. It is about choices and the choice of every Member in this House today. I hope they will make a choice that most of us would regard as the decent one.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I say bluntly that I came here uncertain as to which way I should vote on this amendment today. I remain uncertain but I endorse the suggestion that the Minister should explain what will be done for the most vulnerable by way of the transitional provisions. Like others, I strongly support the cap. The amendment goes too far in my view but it has a nugget of enormous importance. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, my main reason for being here today is because I support children. The transitional provisions may provide the answer but can the Minister tell us how the most vulnerable people will be protected? I should like to know that because it will have an enormous effect on which way I vote.

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, we have to be honest with ourselves in this House. There is no way that you can reform welfare without affecting one group or another in our community. I cannot think of any means or mechanism whereby you can leave people as they are and change the system at the same time.

There is a fundamental double standard running through some of our debate this afternoon. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, made the point that the demographics meant that older members of the community were taking up a larger slice of the social security budget. That is true. However, many Members here have said that they do not want to do anything to upset the housing situation because of the inevitable disruption that could arise, with implications for children. Yet we have no compunction—the welfare state has no compunction—in sequestrating the houses of older people to pay for their care. I put it to noble Lords that policy in the 1980s encouraged families to buy their homes. Indeed, we made enormous volumes of public sector properties available to encourage people to buy them. People scrimped and saved in the hope of perhaps passing on a small legacy to their children. They lived their lives, worked hard, saved and purchased a property. What are we saying now? “Oh, I’m sorry chaps. Well done. You did that but now that you’re frail and need to go into care, we will pay for that by taking that property and reducing its value by £550 a week until it is £16,000, and then the state will look after you.” What consistency is there in that?

I do not believe that any current Secretary of State has come into office more prepared, and having done more homework, than Iain Duncan Smith. I saw at first hand a lot of his work with his think tank. He went to the States. He studied carefully and learnt the situation on the ground. I therefore believe that the fundamental drive behind this is based not simply on an ideological rant but on experience and a thoughtful purpose as to how we are to improve our community.

The other thing we have to face up to is that we are not as wealthy as we once were and we have collectively allowed the social security situation to grow out of control. We allowed circumstances whereby people could pay unlimited rents for homes and then we throw our hands up in horror and say that perhaps we cannot afford to keep them in these properties any longer. Whose fault is that? It is the collective fault of parties and Governments over decades.

I support entirely the idea of national insurance, whereby we provide a safety net if we are down on our luck. I have so much of it in my own area, where for generations people have not had the opportunity to work, and I know—we all know—that people abuse the system. However, we should not allow that to make our decision for us. The question is: can any Government advance any proposal that will not upset one particular group or another in the community? I put it to the Minister that it cannot be done. You cannot make changes to welfare without upsetting people.

It is also misleading to gross up the total benefits paid and say that that is the equivalent to a salary of £35,000 a year. I disagree with that.

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but he appears to be making a Second Reading speech and this is Report stage. Would he kindly address the amendment?

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, I thank the noble Countess for the intervention, but because of the grouping I had thought that this was like a Second Reading and I am trying to address the issue of housing—the subject of the amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newton, that the grouping is unfortunate.

The point that I am trying to get to is: it will not be possible to change the welfare system without upsetting some group or other in our community. I therefore believe that if we put the amendment in the Bill, the Minister and the Government, including their successors, will be hidebound by it. However, the Minister has also heard the widespread view in the House that we are confronted with an area of concern, particularly when children are likely to be moved from their homes, lose their schools and all that goes with that. Secondary legislation is the right place in which to put this issue but, if we believe we can go through a process of changing the welfare system and not affect a particular group in the community, we are misleading it as well as ourselves.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

My Lords, I also came to the Chamber intending not to speak but to listen carefully to the arguments. I feel moved to speak because of my personal experience as a local councillor in inner city areas such as Islington and Hackney, where homelessness and poverty have gone hand in hand and where over several decades we have seen the decline of affordable housing that ordinary families can rent. The two previous Governments have to take responsibility for not building enough affordable housing. That is the fact of the matter and the elephant in the room that is not being addressed.

It therefore pains me when I hear people around this Chamber, whom I respect, saying, for example, that families are moving to upmarket areas such as Hampstead in order to live in a better area. I have never seen evidence of that. When families through no fault of their own lose their home, which might be because it has been repossessed or they have been unable to keep up with the mortgage payments, they naturally present themselves to the local authority. The local authority has to take a view in making an assessment of such families and, if the family is not dysfunctional enough, if the children or either parent do not have enough of a disability or they do not have enough points—because it is all done on a points system—there is not much that the local authority can do. Very often, those families or individuals are directed to the private sector. Local homelessness departments will usually give them a list of estate agents where they can go to find somewhere. Often, families who have lost their homes will end up in the private sector. The private sector has filled the gap, certainly where I come from in Islington, between the unaffordable private homes and social housing. It has taken up the slack there. Of course, prices have shot up because of demand. That is not the fault of people who have become unintentionally homeless.

I hear my noble friend saying that 76 per cent of the public support a cap. I do not think that anyone in your Lordships' House would disagree that there should be some form of cap and that it should not be an open-ended provision. It is the implementation, how this will work, that is worrying many of us here. We should not force out families from areas such as mine. People often think that Islington is a very rich area full of wealthy people, which it is, but it has the third-highest level of child poverty. We have the extremes: very rich people and very poor people. The very rich live in the houses that have become increasingly unaffordable for most people, and the rest live in social housing, apart from some in the middle who live in private accommodation. I want to live in a mixed community. I do not want to live in a Paris-style ghetto. I do not want ghettos such as in Paris, where the poorer families have been forced into the doughnut outside the city. We should support mixed communities. We want our children to have a healthy outlook and mix with people from all different backgrounds.

16:30

Where exactly are we saying that people should be moving out to? For example, even the less salubrious areas of Islington and the neighbouring borough of Hackney have become incredibly expensive. That is not the fault of people who still live there, whose children go to school there, whose families are there and who may have lived there for generations. All their support networks are there. We are asking people to move outside London—I have read that more than 50 per cent of those directly impacted would be living in London—but where would they go? They would move outside to areas where, as was said earlier, there is probably not much employment. Over the past 15 to 20 years, as a Londoner I have witnessed people moving to London to find work. Are we now saying that people should move away from any possibility of getting work to areas where there is very little work? That does not make sense. I do not think that the full consequences have been properly examined.

I get irritated when I hear unfortunate comments, such as that families are having children in order to get more benefits. We are talking about people with a lack of education and support. Some of the women from those communities are not in a position to make such choices. It is unfortunate that that has been mentioned. We have poorer families who are entitled to social housing—but there is a lack of social housing—and then we have families who are not. Until we hear from the Government—

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

I apologise for interrupting my noble friend, but I think that she is trespassing again on a Second Reading speech, and I invite her to bring her comments to a conclusion.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

I apologise. Although we have heard the assurances that there will be transitional arrangements, I have not yet heard what those protections will be for the families who will be most affected.

[Lord German]

My Lords, I start by making it clear that the concerns that have been expressed from these Benches are not around there being a cap. It is essential that there should be a cap; people find it manifestly unfair that claimants can receive in benefits more than the average working family gets in wages. The concerns expressed within the amendment are about two crucial issues: homelessness and housing; and the vulnerability of children. We are looking for discussion and reassurances from my noble friend the Minister on the issues raised by the cap. Our concern is about how those policies will be ameliorated—how to find a cap that fits.

I remind my noble friend the Minister that in Committee he said:

“The Government are looking at ways of easing the transition for families and providing assistance in hard cases. We recognise that there are households for which it would be inappropriate to restrict the amount of benefit that they can receive”.—[Official Report, 21/11/11; col. GC 346.]

The Government have already announced in another place and here that transition arrangements are to be made. This is the opportunity for my noble friend to express the Government’s views on those two crucial issues contained in the amendment. These details should emerge at this stage because it is appropriate that people know the Government’s direction of travel. It is not simply a question of us accepting that you need flexibility for the future. I understand that the Government’s regulations will follow from these debates, that there will be affirmative resolutions and that the House will have the opportunity to hear and vote on the detail. We need reassurances now in the broadest terms about the issues raised in the amendment.

I appreciate that by DWP standards—the noble Lord, Lord Fowler has said this already—the numbers captured by this policy are small. However, they are small only in respect of the DWP’s overall workload, not in terms of the 67,000 families or the 220,000 children who will be affected. We cannot put aside the fact that there is personal impact.

First, I turn to the issue of homelessness. I understand—we heard it this morning in a broadcast by the Secretary of State, and it has also been referred to in this debate—that the numbers of potential reported homeless households is based not on rooflessness but on the structure of how this is measured by the Department for Communities and Local Government. I wonder what reassurance my noble friend can give that we will not find families out on the street, that we will find homes for people and that they will be accommodated. If the numbers who are classed as homeless are those who are sharing rooms, which I heard from the Secretary of State, what methodologies and transition arrangements are being put in place? After all, if people are entitled to be classed as homeless by virtue of that definition, and are sharing a room, what is to prevent them presenting themselves to a local authority as homeless, thereby generating further cost to the public purse and creating no savings whatever? What transition arrangements will be put in place to ensure—what this House is asking for—that no one should be made roofless as a result of this policy. Any savings if they were to come by having to throw the balance to another department might be illusory. I am seeking reassurance from my noble friend the Minister. We want to hear the outline of the arrangements to be put in place to ensure that we do not sustain expenditure by simply passing costs from one department to another.

We are told that the department now has extensive information on the households that will be affected by the cap. I seek reassurance that there will always be a property available—not necessarily close to the same street in which the people have lived—for the people who will be displaced and that they will always have somewhere to live. Crucially, what help will be provided in the transitional period between now and April 2013 and perhaps, beyond, given the Minister’s comments in Committee. I also ask him to outline the processes to be put in place during this transition period and to provide the reassurances needed to demonstrate that rooflessness and overcrowding are not options that the Government are considering.

A second issue, which we will come back to in another debate, is that of children. This issue is mentioned in this amendment and has been raised before. It is indeed a powerful statement that children are not responsible for the decisions of their parents, but in workless households the worst disincentive is not to aspire to work. Those of us with experience representing the poorest areas—in my case, the poorest area—within our country know that it is a dreadful stigma which we place upon our young people. I wonder whether the Minister can provide some reassurance and tell us what arrangements he is making. What support will be given to the longer term aspirations towards work for our younger people? Alongside this is the impact of a parent becoming unemployed without suitable transition arrangements.

Perhaps all these issues need to be outlined in principle now, so that my noble friends on these Benches and noble colleagues around this Chamber can decide whether the Government are keen to ensure that the impacts are going to be ameliorated by this cap.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, closed his remarks on Amendment 58D by saying that it is designed to prevent a slide into poverty, particularly for those who are young. The benefit cap is about changing psychology. It is about trying to get a change of circumstances in those families. Let me remind noble Lords—I know that they do not need any reminder—that the worst thing for youngsters is to be in a workless household. We need to change behaviours, and this benefit cap is designed to do that.

We need to move towards the cap in a highly organised way, and we will have a year to work with those families that are going to be affected. As my noble friend Lord Fowler pointed out, this affects around 1 per cent of the population that we deal with and we know exactly who they are. In the new impact assessments, we were working on the particular families. We can spend a year with those families making sure that they respond in advance to what the cap implies for them. It is a very simple answer for the bulk of them: we need to get you into work.

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, I gather that there are now more than 3 million people unemployed. Something like 72 people apply for every job in some areas. How are the Government going to get these people into work?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I will deal with that straightaway because it is a point that has been raised more generally. Two things are confused here. Levels of employment are, regrettably, too high. We as a Government regret that, and we are throwing enormous resources at ameliorating that position, but this is a different issue. This is about people and families who are, and have been, excluded from the workforce entirely. They have been inactive. We need to put in place arrangements to get them able to move back into the workforce. It may take a bit of time for them to get in, but that is a completely different order of issue from helping people who are unemployed and are waiting to get a job. We must not confuse snapshot numbers of vacancies available with flows. The problem is that the flow of people going into work is, on a monthly basis, slightly less than those who are moving out. That is the problem. However, there are still large numbers of people going into work every month and finding jobs. We just need to make sure that the excluded communities become part of that process. This is one of the ways to do it.

We need to make sure that that transition is organised. We need to put jobcentre staff and caseworkers on it to help those families. That is by far the most important thing we can do to make sure that this benefit cap has the effect that it needs to have. Clearly, we need assistance in hard cases, which we plan to have, but that is a second-order issue in terms of trying to work with families to get them back into work. In the Bill, we have all the powers that we need to get into the detailed design of the cap and to make sure that those circumstances are picked up and dealt with.

Let me pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, about benefit ghettos. The reality is that 67,000 families could not create a benefit ghetto in this country. That would be 1 per cent of working-age recipients. We are not talking about massive numbers on any standards.

16:46

The amendment seeks to place in the Bill an exemption from the benefit cap for households provided with interim or temporary accommodation by a local authority. It also gives local authorities the discretion to apply an exemption to people who are either homeless and in priority need, or those who are at risk of becoming homeless and in priority need as a result of the cap. In looking at the wording of the amendment, it is easy to see that any local authority could consider people threatened with homelessness and in priority need as potentially meaning any household with children. In practice, that is the same as not having a cap at all. For that reason, the Government regard this amendment as a wrecking amendment.

In answer to the question on costings asked by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, this is not a matter of costing but a matter of rendering the policy in practice unworkable. The Opposition tell us that they support the principle of a benefit cap, but is that the reality? When we have a complicated amendment such as this, which undoes the ability to run a cap of any kind, one is driven to ask what form of cap the Opposition think is appropriate. From what we have heard in debate here and in the Commons, it appears that the only cap that they would consider to be appropriate would be so high or would have such broad exemptions that it would apply only to a few people and most households would be exempt.

As I said in my remarks introducing the first group of amendments, in the court of public opinion—as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, referred to it—only 7 per cent of those polled would set the cap higher than £26,000 a year and only 9 per cent believed that it should not apply at all. The Government are well within the court of public opinion. We are looking at a benefits system that is desperately in need of reform. Many households receiving benefits find themselves trapped in the benefits system because there is little financial incentive for them to move off benefits.

When we moved into office, more than 10.6 million working age people in this country did not work and around 2.6 million people had spent at least half of the previous 10 years on some form of out-of-work benefits. We find that situation unacceptable.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

I have listened to the Minister very carefully. I take it from his answer earlier on—he will forgive me for interrupting at this point; I just wanted to wait and see whether anything else was forthcoming—that the Government are not going to say anything more about transitional mechanisms at this stage. Is that correct? If it is, can he tell us when those details will be made available?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I was going to come on to what we were proposing with regard to temporary accommodation. That is currently out for consultation and is the particular area which this amendment looks at. We are going through the process and will come up with proposals in due course—I am not sure that I can measure the months too precisely. The general regulations will need to be in the April to May period. That is the time by which we are looking to get our arrangements for temporary accommodation sorted out so that those affected do not find themselves being double hit by going into very expensive temporary accommodation.

We are looking at the very high rental costs associated with temporary accommodation. We are looking at tackling those levels while ensuring that providers’ reasonable costs are met. Temporary accommodation rates, as your Lordships will know, are very often well above the market rate and the LHA rate due to the higher management costs. We are looking at stripping those management costs out of the temporary accommodation rates so that they do not impact within the cap. We have carried out an informal consultation with key stakeholders—local authorities, housing associations, government departments and some homelessness organisations—and their input will feed into the design of those temporary accommodation arrangements.

Perhaps I may pick up on one or two of the extra points that were made. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said that 200,000 people would have to move. I do not know where that figure comes from. The total number of households affected is only 67,000 and we do not expect that every household affected by the cap will need to move at all. We are aiming to get all these other options into shape.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

I am sorry that the Minister thinks that this is a wrecking amendment. I thought that it was an amendment to make it easier to pass the Bill. Can he deal with the two issues raised on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights as a means of alleviating the adverse impact on children?

[Lord Freud]

We have looked at the human rights issues, putting particular emphasis on households with children and making sure that the arrangements are effective. I shall speak later about payments for children being earmarked. The structure of the universal credit means that it is an overall payment and that there are not different segments going for different purposes. That will simply not be practicable in the universal credit world whereas it is practicable in today’s benefit world. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I should like to thank everyone who has participated in this very extensive debate. Given the time, I will not seek to answer each of the points raised but I will try to touch on some of them. I start with the noble Lord, Lord Freud, who talked about a change in psychology. A lot was said about the universal credit in the debate. We have made clear our support for the universal credit given that it can help people into the labour market but it is very unclear what extra benefit derives from this cap. If such a benefit exists, can the Minister explain the psychology that 54 per cent of the people affected by it are going to be in London and only 3 per cent will be in Wales? What is it about the psychology of those in London and Wales that causes such disparity? Is it possibly something to do with the cost of accommodation and nothing to do with a change in psychology?

The noble Lord, Lord German, asked for an assurance that there would always be a property available for someone who was not able to stay in their current home. I do not believe we heard one. I do not know whether the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, or the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, will be comforted by the transitional arrangements; I certainly was not. I thought they were weak and generalised and have not taken us forward at all. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that of course changes in the benefit system are bound to give rise to circumstances where somebody loses out. But the question is not whether you can avoid that; the question is who is losing out, is it fair, and is the construct of the change fair? We challenge whether it is, particularly in relation to homelessness.

The noble Lords, Lord Newton and Lord Fowler, focused on the universal credit. I have made our position clear on that. I was going to ask whether there were any spare badges, but possibly not. Of course, public spending needs to be addressed. We have made our position very clear both on that and on the cap. We support the cap and its level but it must be dealt with in a fair manner. We are perfectly entitled to probe when it is not and to challenge and seek change to its application in relation to homelessness.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, made a very powerful speech which differentiated between what actually happens on the ground and what affects people’s housing circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Best, gave us the benefit of his huge experience to say what is happening in the housing market and what these changes can give rise to. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds reminded us that, quite apart from these changes, homelessness is on the increase. Let us be clear. We are dealing with all those housing benefit changes which we have debated previously. This amendment does not seek to challenge those; it seeks to challenge the consequences of the cap in relation to homelessness.

The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, were very effectively addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Winston. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, questioned how it helps the economy if people move to areas that are cheaper because there are no jobs. Part of the problem is that the Government look at only one side of the equation. They look at what they see as benefit savings forgone, not at the costs generated by the policies they seek to implement. That is the fundamental flaw on this aspect of the cap. I have detained your Lordships long enough. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

16:59

Division 1

Ayes: 222

---

Labour: 153
Crossbench: 32
Liberal Democrat: 17
Bishops: 5
Independent: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2

Noes: 250

---

Conservative: 147
Crossbench: 49
Liberal Democrat: 41
Ulster Unionist Party: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Labour: 1
UK Independence Party: 1
Independent: 1

17:13

Amendment 59

Moved by

[The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds]

59: Clause 94, page 63, line 25, after “benefits” insert “with the exclusion of child benefit”

[The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds]

My Lords, Amendment 59 would allow families whose benefits have been capped to retain child benefit. It would do no more and no less than that. It does not challenge the basis of the cap. It does not challenge the amount of the cap. It is certainly no threat to the very welcome universal credit of which we have spoken a good deal this afternoon, but it would save some 80,000 children, according to government figures, from falling into poverty.

The Government’s assessment of the impact of the cap is that some 67,000 households will be affected. The Minister spoke of that earlier as not a massive number. It is pretty massive for those involved, but the fact that it is not massive in the overall terms of Welfare Reform Bill means that it ought to be possible for us to pass the amendment without seeing ourselves as fatally damaging the Bill itself. Those 67,000 families will lose on average £83 a week. Analysis from the Children’s Society shows that those households contain around 220,000 children. Three-quarters of those affected by the cap are children, yet Clause 94 says nothing about children at all.

The cap as it stands is not just, because it fails to differentiate between households with children and those without. It makes no provision for the additional cost of bringing up children, which is the purpose of our most successful and well targeted provision of family support: child benefit. The Government have decided that £500 a week should be the cap for a couple, and I have no quarrel with that; but if that is right, it cannot be right for the cap to be the same for a childless couple as for a couple with children. Child benefit is the most appropriate way in which to right that unfairness.

17:15

[Lord Mawhinney]

I and perhaps others in your Lordships' House would find it helpful if the right reverend Prelate would tell us the cost to the public purse if this amendment were approved.

[The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds]

Thank you very much. The answer to that question is £113 million, which is a minute proportion of the total cost of welfare benefit addressed in the Bill.

This cap is not simply targeted at wealthy families living in large houses. It will damage those who have to pay high rents, because often that rent has increased substantially in the course of occupancy of that house. An out-of-work couple with four children between five and 12 and with £250 a week rent, which is nothing out of the ordinary in many parts of the country, and £20 council tax, currently has an income under present arrangements of some £373 a week after housing costs are deducted. After the cap, that drops from £373 to £230, or £5.50 per person per day—not the £500 of the headlines that we have been seeing. That is much less than 40 per cent of median household income, and I do not understand what a family in those circumstances is meant to do. I do not believe that a child can have a good childhood in circumstances such as that.

I had a letter the other day from someone who disagreed fairly strongly with me and said that surely £500 a week should be enough to bring up a family in normal circumstances. I would not disagree if we were talking about £500 rather than £230. But those whose benefits are capped are not in normal circumstances; they have particular reasons for being in need. Often that will be a substantial rent, and sometimes there will be several children who may not be their own and who may have been taken into the family to avoid their costs falling on the state.

Child benefit is a non-means-tested benefit paid to both working and non-working families. In setting the cap, it has been ignored by the Government. It should also be ignored in calculating benefit income against the cap. Those who are suffering from the cap should be allowed to retain their child benefit. I know that, from 2013, higher taxpayers will not be entitled to child benefit—that is a different issue—but anyone taking home £26,000 will be entitled to it, as will many of those earning a good deal more than that. The intention of the benefit cap is to promote fairness between working families and those who, however hard they try, cannot find a job.

I admire and salute those who bring up families on low pay. I am very aware of poverty in working families and see it through my own working life. We need to defend the interests of those who are poorly paid, but we do not do so by refusing child benefit to those who are out of work. This amendment declares the importance of child benefit both for working families and for the unemployed. Both should receive state support in bringing up their children. Child benefit is paid for the needs not of adults but of children. It has a massively high take-up rate and is used to benefit children whatever their situation. We are rightly proud of its effect in helping the next generation.

This amendment is a compromise between the present situation and the cap as proposed in the Bill. Child benefit is paid at a rate of £20.30 for the first child and £13.40 for every subsequent child. At present, a child born into a family with benefit income of over £500 a week—that is, income over the cap—will receive £62.40 in benefit support through child benefit and child tax credits. Under the benefit cap as proposed, there is no support for that child at all. This amendment restores only £13.40 of the £62.40. In that sense it is an extremely modest amendment, but it does mean that there will be some money coming in for children in this pressurised and often suffering environment, as we discussed in the previous debate. It means that there is some help for children while maintaining the principle of the cap. All of us who have used child benefit or family allowance know just how crucial it has been in our own lives to bringing up our children. It is entirely inappropriate that the only people not allowed to receive child benefit should be those who are out of work and whose benefits are capped.

Quite a number of people have asked, especially over the past few days, why Members on this Bench have been particularly concerned about the needs of children in these welfare debates. Christianity, along with other faiths and beliefs, requires us to think most about those who have no voice of their own. Children who are in most need are one of the most evident examples of that, and the New Testament shows that Jesus had a very special concern for children. Children have no vote in our society; they probably do not answer YouGov questions.

This amendment goes some way towards protecting children by helping two groups especially. First, for children in families that are struggling to pay rent, it will mean fewer face homelessness—especially but not only in London. Secondly, it will help those in larger families. Children do not choose to be in large families and many are so because parents have taken in, and provided love for, those who would otherwise be a burden on the taxpayer. It cannot be right for someone who becomes unemployed not only to lose their job and have their assessed benefit cut but to be told that their children no longer have a right to child benefit.

This amendment declares our support for children, families and the next generation, and I beg to move.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I speak in support of this amendment, to which my name is attached. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds for tabling it, and I pay tribute to both his and the Children's Society's long-standing work in support of children. My concern about this amendment is that the measure has some very poor consequences, whether intended or unintended. Perhaps the Minister can tell us which they are.

I want to suggest three ways in which this cap, as the Government have put it together, is particularly badly constructed and three problems that it will cause. First, as we have heard, this measure will seriously and disproportionately affect children. A new DWP impact assessment came out today, which significantly changed the figures that we were working with previously. I have been able only to skim read it but I see from the headlines that the official impact assessment says that 220,000 children will be affected, and the losses in income those families will face are not small amounts. Initially, 67,000 households will lose an average of £83 a week, while 17 per cent of those affected will lose more than £150 a week. Those are very significant sums, so the behavioural impacts which the Minister wants to see happen will have to be very big indeed to address losses of that size, and I wonder what we can do about them.

I am not clear what steps those parents are meant to take to be able to avert those losses. That impact assessment says that 44 per cent of households affected are already living in social housing—in other words, in the cheapest accommodation available in their area. These are not families who are living it up in Kensington mansions, sipping cocktails by the pool before dinner. Forty-four per cent of them are already in social housing and most of the rest are in the kind of private housing that the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, described earlier. As anyone who has had cause to go knocking on doors in London will know, there is housing out there which is astonishingly expensive but of astonishingly poor quality. The nature of the private sector market in London and other very high-cost areas is such that it is depressingly easy to rack up rents of £350 a week if you have two or three children.

What will happen and what are those families to do? In Committee, I put down an amendment which sought to exempt from the cap specific groups of vulnerable children who, for example, had been the subject of child protection orders, and I asked the Minister what those families could do to avoid being forced to move. He gave me three ways in which families could avoid that. The first was that they could negotiate a reduced rent with their landlord, although he had the good grace to acknowledge that may not succeed. The second way that the Minister suggested was that they could move into work, but when we look at the figures, we find that some 60 per cent of the families affected—a majority—are not required to work, either because they have small children or because they are sick or disabled and have limited capacity to work. In fact the Government's own policy of not trying to push sick people or the parents of young children out into work is now suggesting that they do that, which does not seem like a great idea either.

The final suggestion which the Minister made was that families could use their savings to pay the shortfall. I believe that one of your Lordships mentioned in the previous debate that the average family in Britain had just £300-worth of savings. That would not go very far in paying shortfalls of this nature, and one has to suspect that these families are likely to have less than the average amount of savings. We therefore have to accept that what will happen is that these families will be forced to move.

Many children's charities have made representations to me, as I am sure to many noble Lords, saying that they fear that families would be forced to move not just once but repeatedly. If they move to a cheaper area and rents rise faster than the cap, they have to move again. What are the consequences of that for the children? Again, I looked into this in Committee. The initial DWP impact assessment highlighted the possible damage to children forced to move school repeatedly, and the evidence is quite clear of the impact—the negative impact, obviously—which that has on children's academic achievement. As I also pointed out in Committee, forced moves reduce the ability of child protection professionals to keep track of families where children are at risk of abuse. I asked the Minister to write to me on how the Government would address those particular categories, and he did. I am afraid that it was with no very satisfactory encouragement and, again, I hope to give him the opportunity to be more specific when he responds to this.

In research that looks into the case reviews that follow the serious events that happen to children who have faced abuse and sometimes death, certain themes come out again and again. One of them, and I have heard this said by Members of this House, is that when everyone gathers around the table for a serious case review, someone always says, “Do you know, I wish we’d all talked before. Maybe, if we’d all talked to each other, this wouldn’t have happened”. One of the things that make it less likely that that communication will happen regularly is if the families in question move house repeatedly. Are we really going to force more families to do so? I am very concerned about what will happen in that regard, but I can see no way around it. What else can we do? We have to press on.

17:30

The Minister’s next argument is that he is clear about what the policy is for. I am not at all clear about that. He said in Grand Committee that the purpose of the cap was to encourage work; the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has said many times in the media over the past 48 hours that he will ensure that people will never be better off on benefits than in work; and I have sat through all the stages of the Bill so far and lost count of the number of times that the Minister has told us that the universal credit will ensure that work always pays more than welfare. If that is the case, will he explain why this additional measure is needed? If work is always going to pay, we do not have a problem—so that cannot be the issue.

My final concern is whether the comparison is fair, a point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds. The Government—unintentionally, I am sure—are misrepresenting the impact of this amendment. They declare that no one should receive more in benefits than the average family will earn, yet surely they are wilfully ignoring the fact that that average family would themselves be entitled to claim child benefit for every child in the household. They are deliberately and intentionally putting child benefit on one side of the equation and leaving it out from the other, thereby constructing a test that cannot be fair. We have tried many times in Grand Committee to get the Minister to explain that anomaly. My noble friend Lady Lister put the point specifically to him on 23 November: how could he justify this? Clearly, she said,

“We are not comparing like with like”.

The Minister said:

“My Lords, I acknowledge that we are not comparing like with like. We are looking at a sensible level at which to put the maximum benefit payment … I think that one can overelaborate the logic, which I will not attempt to do here”.—[Official Report, 23/11/11; col. GC 419.]

There is not much danger of the logic being overelaborated. Rather, we have a logical deficit here, and I invite the Minister to explain it.

Thankfully, we have some mitigation here. The cavalry has appeared cantering over the horizon in the form of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, who has put down an amendment that allows us to address all these questions. In particular, he has pointed out that benefits specifically for children such as child benefit—a universal benefit, although recently some but not all families paying higher rates of tax have been excluded from it—are not means-tested. Originally it was a tax allowance, and it was always intended to be a transfer from the public in general to families with children, in recognition of the fact that children are a public benefit as well as a private one. Today’s kids will pay my pension—at least, if I am ever old enough to claim it, although the age at which I will be allowed to is receding into the distance. It therefore seems reasonable that we all make a contribution to that, hence the nature of universal child benefit.

Once we start to decide that some benefits are not really for everyone and that some benefits such as this one are excluded, we have to understand the rationale for that. I struggle to do so. To be in a position where some families earning over £80,000 a year would get child benefit but the families that we are talking about would not is simply unjust.

The Minister has said that this is a matter of principle. Frankly, that is the one thing it is not. He has decided on a cap but he has told us—and we already know—that certain types of payment will be exempt, such as disability living allowance, attendance allowance and some payments to war widows. All we are suggesting in the ame benefit to that list and saying that payments of child benefit specifically should be exempt as well. If we cannot do that for the children of our community, what can we do? I am pleased to support the amendment.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield]

My Lords, I support the amendment, to which my name is also attached. We have heard a lot today about fairness. It is important that people in work feel that there is fairness in terms of how much money can be received by those out of work and on benefits, and that there is a clear incentive for all those capable of work to do so in order to r themselves and their families. I place on record that I welcome the measures being taken by the Government, such as the work programme, to give intensive help and support to people needing a lot of help to get back into the jobs market.

There is another aspect to fairness, though: fairness to children, irrespective of the circumstances of their birth. I shall run through the reasons why I feel that child benefit should be exempt from the calculation of the benefit cap. First, as we have heard, it is a non-means-tested benefit paid to all households with children. We have already heard this question posed today, but is it fair that children born into small families with earnings in excess of £80,000 a year receive child benefit while those born into larger families with a benefit income of £26,000 a year do not? I do not think that that passes any fairness test.

Secondly, child benefit is paid to assist with the costs of raising children. In my view, it is not about sending signals or penalising adults who do not work—and I add that all adults who can work should do so. Thirdly, this measure would have a disproportionate impact on children. We have heard the figures from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the right reverend Prelate, and I do not intend to go through them again. Fourthly, it is a question of a compromise solution between children in large families receiving the full current level of state support and receiving nothing at all, which I perceive to be unfair. Fifthly, reducing the impact of this policy on large families would reduce the couples penalty that is currently built into the benefit cap.

The reason why I am concerned about the current situation is the issues raised compellingly in the debate earlier by my noble friend Lady Walmsley. This is about families having to move abruptly to cheaper areas and the disruption that that will cause to children’s schooling, often halfway through a school year. It is about families feeling, rightly or wrongly, that they will have to split up because if they created two households instead of one, parents would then be entitled to £26,000 a year in benefits. That cannot be right. Experts in the field have said that there is a substantial couples penalty built into the cap that is completely at odds with my own view, and that of the Government, of the need to support strong and stable families.

I am concerned about the impact on children who might find themselves homeless, perhaps in unsuitable and expensive temporary accommodation. With children and young people’s services already very overstretched, there is a real danger of children at risk simply disappearing from view below the radar, which raises child protection and safeguarding concerns.

I will summarise by saying, as was said earlier today, that children should not be the innocent victims of this policy. The vulnerability of children is very important to people on these Benches, and I look forward to hearing what safeguards the Minister has to offer in this area. I heard him say in the previous debate that he saw the transitional issues as a second-order issue. I do not consider the welfare of children to be a second-order issue at all.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I have not spoken in the Welfare Reform Bill debates so far and I will be brief now. On the specific issue of child benefit, the Government seem to have got it seriously wrong. What is being proposed undermines the whole principle on which child benefit—and before that, as many of us will remember, the family allowance—has been based. If the Government are going to do that, I fear that that is the beginning of a slippery slope, and they will have to explain to us very carefully why they think the basic principles no longer apply.

In illustration, I go back to the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Best, about typical, ordinary—perhaps very ordinary—accommodation in the East End. There has been lots of fancy new development in the East End in the past decade or two, but most of it is still not regarded as being the most desirable part of London. People living in other parts of London in particular usually find themselves paying a great deal more than £350 a week for an ordinary two or perhaps three-bedroom flat. According to the paper today, for a four-bedroom house in the least salubrious part of Kingston—I did not know that such places existed, but it appears that they do—£400 a week is not unusual. That is four times what you would pay for an ordinary, perfectly decent house in my part of the world, but there you go.

If as a family whose benefits are being capped you receive £500 a week, and you are paying out £400 a week for rent, that leaves you £100 for everything else. I challenge any Members of your Lordships’ House to tell us how well they would do at bringing up a family of two, three or four—or perhaps more—children, plus one or two adults in the house, on £100 a week. It can be done, and many people in many parts of the world survive on far less than that, but this country is now almost the most prosperous that it has even been, if you take away the last five years. We are still incredibly well-off. If Members of your Lordships’ House think back—most of us are getting on a bit—to our childhoods and the circumstances that we were brought up in, they will see that this country is now incredibly rich and well-off. To require families to bring children up on £100 a week for everything apart from their rent is unacceptable.

When the media are encouraged, I have to say by some politicians in this country, to rant and rave about how these people are getting £26,000 a week and that everyone ought to be able to live on that—I apologise, £26,000 a year; some people are on £26,000 a week, but they are rather different—the debate really ought to start at what you have left after your rent. The state of the private housing market, and indeed rents in the public sector, is not the fault of people who have to live in these houses. There is a scandalous situation in which commercial landlords are ripping off people—indeed, they are ripping off the state, if people are getting housing benefit—by charging ludicrously high rents that are not justified by the cost of maintaining those properties but that are what the market will bear. If the Government and the rest of us want to do something about the state of the private housing market, we should look at housing policy and perhaps at the way in which the private housing market works. But that is a different issue all together. It is not the fault of the people. To try to do this—to try to force rents down or to try to regulate the markets and move people around the country by capping the benefits of the people living in those houses so that they can no longer live there—is penalising the tenants when the people who ought to be penalised are the landlords.

I have digressed a little from child benefit. I apologise for that. Child benefit, as my noble friend and others have said, has always been a non-means-tested benefit that goes as of right to families with children. It has always been paid on a per capita, per child, basis. That is a fundamental principle. The first child gets more nowadays, then each child after that gets the same, in order to assist the work of bringing up that child. To abolish child benefit, which is what is actually being done in this Bill, for people who are at the benefit cap and who are getting other benefits that take them up and beyond that cap, as is highly likely, is a fundamental attack on the whole principle of child benefit.

This ought to be resisted. Your Lordships ought to resist it, and we really ought to ask the Government very seriously to think again on this particular issue.

17:44

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I had not planned to speak in this debate, but the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, put her name to this amendment, but has been detained and so cannot be in the Chamber. I think it is important to make the point that there is Cross-Bench support for this amendment.

I want to make one point. The Minister has made a great deal of the importance of fairness between those in and out of work. We know that there are problems in this Bill such as issues of fairness across geographical areas or between different sizes of household. I shall simply focus for a second on the fairness between those in and out of work. One thing that puzzles me is that not only will those who are in work get their average earnings—let us say, of £26,000 a year—they will of course also get child benefit. As I understand it, they will also, if they have three or four children, receive housing and other benefits under universal credit. The cap will not apply to those in work, so there is a discrepancy not only in that child benefit will go to those in work but not to those out of work but because it will be at the same level of net income. This applies to other benefits too.

I certainly do not want the cap to apply to those in work, but one does have to consider this. Presumably the argument for not applying the cap to those in work is that those families are really struggling—the so-called middle earners or middle-income people. It is very tough to live with three or four children on average earnings. Therefore, they need a whole range of benefits. If they need a whole range of benefits, it is very difficult to see how the Government and the Minister justify excluding any reference to all the benefits that those in work will have, and arguing that those out of work should be able to live on a level of income that no one in work would be expected to live on.

If you assumed, as I sometimes get the feeling the Government do, that anyone out of work can get back into work, and you really could find and get a job within a week, or two or three weeks, you could just about justify this. However, so many people who are on benefits are going to continue to be on benefits, and they have a range of disabilities that will not even entitle them to PIP in the future, because things are going to become very tough. The Minister knows the group of people I am most concerned about: people with a range of mental health problems. It is very difficult for those people to get any employer to take them on, yet they are going to be expected to live on a level of income that people in work will not be expected to live on. I would like to hear the Minister’s response on that point.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I totally understand why the Government require it to be said that not everyone should get child benefit. There are two groups of those who are not employed and to whom the cap will apply about whom I am particularly concerned. I should declare an interest as the president of the Grandparents’ Association.

A considerable number of grandparents, particularly grandmothers, have been in perfectly good employment over a number of years and then for one reason or another find themselves obliged to take on the care of children, who are sometimes extremely young, in addition to their own teenage children. As well as grandparents, there are also other kinship carers, as they call themselves, who take on the care of other people’s children, usually their nephews and nieces and sometimes their great nephews and great nieces. They give up their jobs. They have to, because they cannot care for these young children, who have in a sense been dumped on them without any prior warning on some occasions. They will give up their jobs for the care of their grandchildren or other kinship children, then find themselves in real difficulties with this cap.

We are not just talking about one or two children—this is my second point. There are families with a considerable number of children, not all of whom are their own. There are single mothers who have gone through a number of different partners by whom they have had a child. They end up sometimes with five different successive partners, and with more than five children. How on earth will that group of families cope if they are unable to have additional child benefit? I can understand their coping perhaps with one or two children but not three, four, five or six. Such families make up a smaller percentage; the figures were given in our previous debate. However, they do exist and they will be in real difficulty. Unless there is some sort of hardship allowance for families who cannot cope on this £26,000 cap without child benefit, I fear that I will go the way I would prefer not to go—against the Government.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My Lords, this is a very important subject and this is the most important amendment as it seeks to deal with some of the problems that will flow from Clause 94.

I want to make it clear that I am implacably opposed to a household benefit cap in principle. People’s eyes glaze over when I try to explain my main reasons. I tried it in Grand Committee and by the end people looked at me as though I was possessed. However, there is a point that has not been made and it is very important. I am talking to my own side as much as to anyone else. I have spent my entire life fighting for benefit entitlement to be enshrined in law. That is to say, if you meet the eligibility criteria you get the amount due. That has been hard fought for and it is a very important part of our social security set-up.

Clause 94 changes that. It is a ministerial override. The Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will decide, arbitrarily in my view, although the Minister says that it is to do with mean or median average income. These are not figures that are easily pinned down in our systems of legal entitlement in social security Acts. A Minister of the Crown now says that he can, by regulation, override who gets child benefit if it is counted in a cap and if they are over the arbitrary limit. That is a change. We are giving powers to Ministers that I do not think it is safe to grant them.

If the Government think that housing benefit is too high in some circumstances, let us reform housing benefit. I would be up for that. We have heard powerful speeches. My noble friend Lord Greaves just made a very powerful speech about the amount of money that is being diverted to landlords. It is £2 billion a year in housing benefit. Anyone sensible would want to take a look at that, but this is looking at it over too short a period and doing it in a technical way that strikes at some of the protections that we have in Parliament. When we set entitlements in the uprating Statement every year, we can be confident that if people meet those entitlements they will get that money. We cannot say that any more because a cap may be applied. Look at the regulations and look at Clause 94; it is very general. This is a very targeted debate, which it should be as it is about child benefit. I say to noble Lords that, in future, child benefit amounts can be attacked in a way that we will not be able to control. Local authorities will have to reduce child benefit entitlements to enforce this cap. That is not something that this House should accept casually.

What I should really like to do with Clause 94 is vote against the whole thing. However, my noble friend Lord German and one or two others took me into a dark room, sat me down and said, “That wouldn’t be sensible because the great British public know the square root of next to nothing at all about the detail of the technicalities”. He has persuaded me that I should mitigate Clause 94, and I am prepared to do that. This amendment is the best form of mitigation because it protects a universal benefit that people earning just shy of £80,000 a year will qualify for until we look at that. The Government say that they are on the case. Those people will get that benefit, while people subject to the housing cap in future may not. I do not see the equity in that situation and it would not be safe for us to run with the clause if unamended. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord German for showing me the error of my ways in getting the mitigation.

I want to say two other things as well. This does not attack universal credit. If I believed that the amendment did that, I would certainly vote against it. Why do I not believe that? The amendment is to Part 5 of the Bill, whereas universal credit is in Part 1. If this is an essential part of universal credit, why is it not in Part 1—in the first 43 clauses? It is not. It is there only because of something called the Treasury claw-back, which we discussed at great length in Grand Committee. I was absolutely persuaded that I would die in a ditch to save universal credit. I pay credit—universal and otherwise—to the Minister for achieving it. As someone said earlier, it is an achievement. It will transform and improve dramatically the way that the welfare and benefits system is rolled out. We will certainly be in a much better place when the economy recovers.

However, the Treasury claw-back is £18 billion over the CSR period. The amendment, give or take the new version of the impact assessment, which I have not yet studied, will save £113 million. My point is simply this: the deal was done by the department in 2010, when it was absolutely reasonable to expect that the green shoots of the economy would start to be seen in 2014. Is there anyone in this House who now believes that that will happen? The circumstances of 2010 are now changed, so we are not lashed to the mast. If you want to give some protection to the people at the lower end of household income distribution, this is the amendment to mitigate that affect.

There is a lot of misunderstanding in this debate about the difference between a poverty indicator before housing costs and a poverty indicator after housing costs. After housing costs, the families that will be hit by this household benefit cap will be as poor as church mice. When you measure the amount of income available to a household and divide it by the number of people in it—these are big households—they will get tiny sums of money. I saw an article in the Guardian today that referred to 62p per family member after the household benefit cap in one case that had been worked out. What are we doing here if we are approaching that kind of thing?

The Government will not be able to control this. The child benefit that will be withdrawn will be withdrawn by local authorities. Once the regulations are passed, we will lose control of what will happen to these households. I contrast that. Colleagues may know that the DCLG is running a very interesting programme on troubled families. The Prime Minister tells us that there are 120,000 troubled families—I am sure there are—just in England. We are spending just shy of £450 million on getting alongside them, getting them back into work and getting their kids into school. That is a much better way of dealing with some of this stuff. Why, on the one hand, are we helping troubled families? People who are hit by the housing benefit cap will very quickly become troubled. Maybe they will get help from this left-handed scheme. Meanwhile, they have to face the reductions that are being made by the right hand of the Government.

I am very worried about this. Child benefit is a universal benefit and a mitigation that is essential to protect the interests of children. It does not affect universal credit. If it did that, I would not vote for it. However, if it is pressed, I will vote for this amendment with enthusiasm.

18:00

[Baroness Corston]

My Lords, I want to speak briefly about child benefit. I was very proud of the fact that in 1977 the then Labour Government, under Jim Callaghan, brought in child benefit. At the time, there was a huge campaign saying that it was taking money out of the wallet and putting it in the handbag. We said, “Yes, that’s exactly what it is going to do and it is exactly what it should do”. My noble friend Lady Gould, who was my boss at the time as chief women’s officer for the Labour Party, and I played our part in making sure that Jim Callaghan knew what the women of the Labour Party thought about child benefit.

I want to address my comments to a particular part of this argument about child benefit being a benefit that is paid to the carer of the child. It is money that goes to women. In my work with women in prison, I have more than once come across a tragic phenomenon where a woman shoplifts. I know of a case in the south-west of England where a woman shoplifted 99 times in a year, each time for food for her children. Her husband had control of the family income—whatever that family’s income is, and it might be benefits. The only money she had was the child benefit and all of it went on feeding her children, but it was not enough and she therefore stole food. I say to the Government: you think very carefully about the effect that any incursion into child benefit—as a universal benefit payable to the carer of the child, irrespective of income—will have, and that is a hugely important principle. If people do not need the benefit, then use the income tax system to make sure that there is a redress, but please do not, without thinking very carefully, attack a benefit that is the only means whereby some women can feed their children.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, asked questions about the morality of the current situation. I should like to ask this House, following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood: is it moral that we are deliberately pushing families with children below the level of income that Parliament has decided is necessary to meet their most basic needs? Research shows that that money is not sufficient to meet those basic needs, as determined by the wider population.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on the government Benches, have asked questions about costs—I had a wonderful vision of the noble Lord wearing his “Action for benefits” badge in front of the mirror. In the other place, the Minister said that this is not primarily a cost-saving measure. What is it? He said it is primarily about changing behaviour, but my noble friend Lady Sherlock pretty well demolished those arguments.

The Minister also said that this is about restoring the credibility of the welfare benefits system. However, that credibility is being undermined by the misinformation being put out by Ministers about that system—in particular, the way that they slide between talking about average incomes and average earnings as if they are the same thing, when they are not. The median family in work receives £33.70 in child benefit as well as various other in-work benefits. The point was made that child benefit replaced child tax allowances. If that had not happened and we still had family allowances and child tax allowances, the median earnings of the average family would be that much higher because of the effect of child tax allowances. It is therefore really unfair that we are not comparing like with like and, as my noble friend pointed, when the Minister was pushed on this issue in Committee regarding how he could justify the fact that we are not comparing like with like, he simply did not have an answer.

[Baroness Wheatcroft]

My Lords, I did not join your Lordships' House in order to kick the underprivileged, particularly children, but I did believe that the Government were committed to healing the broken society. I do not think that any of us can doubt that society is broken, and we would all agree that there is a need to heal it and that dealing with the dependency culture is an important part of that. That is something that I believe in absolutely. That is at the heart of this legislation. To my mind, the worst sort of child poverty is poverty of aspiration.

[Baroness Whitaker]

I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness, but she used the term “broken society” and said “I think we all accept that it is”. I am really surprised to hear her say that. Can she give us her evidence for the broken society?

[Baroness Wheatcroft]

I would refer only to the recent riots as evidence of a society that was not entirely at ease with itself. If the noble Baroness is content and happy with the state of society, I am happy for her. I have qualms myself, particularly when I look at the number of children who have no aspiration to education or a career. That is one of the things that I believe the Ministers who are pushing this legislation through are committed to.

As I said, the worst sort of child poverty is poverty of aspiration, and in this country there are many households with no experience of paid employment. That is a terrible condemnation of what has been allowed to grow up in the name of a welfare system.

One of the greatest welfare benefits that we can bestow on children is an aspiration to acquire education and then a career. Growing up in a household where the concept of working for a living is understood and embraced is important for starting youngsters on the right path. A cap on benefits is a sensible step towards encouraging people into work. If we are going to have a cap, in the end we have to have a cap. There is no saying where child benefit is spent. It may go to the women but, I am afraid, not every woman devotes her time to spending her money on her children. That is what we might like to think, but there are others who have drug habits to fund and so on. Women are not infallible and I would be the first to agree with that.

The Government have assured us that they are not approaching welfare reform in a truly one-dimensional way. This is not just about cuts and saving money. The problem households that are locked in a cycle of benefits dependency are known to the authorities. We are told that the authorities are ready to work with those households between now and when this legislation comes into force. They can produce results. I can believe the Government when they say that they are committed to doing that. If they do, and they produce long-term benefits for children in those households, it will be a far more caring result than just handing out cash.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, I also had not intended to speak in this debate, but I have just been reminded that we are celebrating the work of Charles Dickens. I do not know why that came into my mind in the last few moments. Is it the deserving poor or the undeserving poor?

In answer to the noble Baroness, I actually stand in the middle as regards the broken society. To me, as an individual, parts of our society are broken, and the ones that are the most broken are those who lack empathy for those less fortunate than themselves. That is the root of our problem: whether the lack of empathy is the teenager who is incapable of understanding that the pensioner at the bus stop whose handbag he tries to take is a human being like his mother or grandmother; whether it is someone who has made it in life and believes, “It is all due to me and other people could be like me”; or whether it is the elderly person who says—and we are all in danger of doing this—“It was not like this when we were young”.

When I fought against the threat to what was then family allowance many years ago, some of the people who said, “I don’t agree with you, Josie”, were people who said, “I didn’t get it when my kids were young”. They then went on to tell me about the miseries they went through because they did not get it. Today, we are debating family needs and the issue of what makes a good society. I cannot understand how, on the same weekend when this debate was around in the media, someone suggested that we should give a new tax allowance to people who were working, given that any tax benefit, any cut in taxation, benefits those who earn most at the expense of those who have least.

We have a Prime Minister who has talked about the importance of marriage. That is a matter for him. To me, the important issue is that of families with children: how we provide a society in which the next generation has more empathy. I know that I am not alone in coming from a large family. There is among large sections of this country, certainly in focus groups, the view: “Why did they have all those children? They didn't need to”. Among some people, there is prejudice that there is something morally wrong about having children. You can argue that case, but the child born into the large family should not be penalised. My work as a councillor leads me to know that there will be those who will blame their children for the fact that their income has gone down. They will say, “If I had not had you little devils, I would have had more money to spend on us”. That is the harsh reality of some children's lives.

I cannot understand how the Minister is talking about fairness. We need to be fair to families with children. Anybody who believes, as was hinted at on the radio this morning by a member of the Government, that people have children in order to get money, has never brought up a child. Child benefit does not cover the cost, however little you give those children. We are facing a system that will penalise children to appease those who think that the children ought not to have been born. There, I have said it. That was what made me remember Charles Dickens. He knew that there were huge sections of society who believed that the undeserving poor ought not to have children.

The Minister has told us that large chunks of the people who will lose their child benefit are people who cannot work, by the Government's own admission, yet sweeping changes will affect them. I appeal to everyone who knows what is fair and what is right. We did not fight the issue of income tax allowance; we must fight to keep child benefit. We know that we are not dependent on those children for our old age, because they are too young to be supporting us; most of us will be long gone; but we need them for a good future and we do not want to inculcate in them grinding poverty, and grinding poverty is what we will be condemning them to. I remember in my childhood that the best meal of the week after Sunday was Tuesday night, when the family allowance was paid out. That was a very common experience. We need to ensure that those people who have children can provide the basic necessities—they are basic necessities—and support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds.

18:15

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak again, having had my say earlier, and will not repeat what I said, although I cleave to the view that this is not a sensible way to deal with these problems; they should be dealt with in secondary legislation. In that, I embrace the comments made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about people taking in other people's children and the need to be sensitive to issues that could arise there. Indeed, I remember noticing while I was in not another place but another location during the first week of discussion on the Bill that a lady in Huntingdon, I think, was reported to have taken in five children of friends of hers, both of whom had died in a short space of time. Others may have noticed the story. Such a case, and others raised in an amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, need consideration in detail, but we cannot do that on the Floor of the House in discussing amendments to primary legislation.

I need no encouragement in willingness to hold Ministers’ feet to the fire about addressing some of those detailed problems, but I question whether it can be done in this way. My noble friend Lord Kirkwood is a real friend. I cannot remember the last time that I disagreed with him. He is clearly out to be more reverend than the Bishops’ Bench in his defence of no benefit cap at all. He makes his case. He suggests that it is not incompatible with his support for universal credit. Fundamentally, his position is hostile to the intention of universal credit, which is to diminish the number of people who cannot afford to work.

I must say to the right reverend Prelate that the basic point about the amendment is that it raises the level of the benefit cap. There may be an argument for that, but that is what it does. There is a knock-on effect of that. It must increase the number of people who cannot afford to work. That is a matter of logic. It must do. The more children you have, the less likely it is that you will be able to afford to work, because you will not necessarily be able to command earnings which will replace the benefit. That is the core of the problem that we are seeking to address.

The right reverend Prelates may want to do that; they may think that it is right; but it needs to be straightforwardly stated, in the context in which many people have said—I do not make a judgment on this—that the worst thing that can happen to children is to be trapped in a household which cannot afford to work, in which they have never known anyone in the household in work. Keith Joseph used to have a phrase for that: the cycle of deprivation. We are not free of it. We need to take account of it. People can draw their own conclusions about the right level, but we need to know what we are doing.

As I said, I hesitate to challenge the right reverend Prelates, but they are making life easier for some in financial terms but worse in what I would regard as a sensible way to approach social policy. They may have put figures on that; they may not; but that is my view.

[Lord Greaves]

Does my noble friend accept that the logic of what he is saying is that child benefit should be abolished for everybody who does not have a job?

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

I meant to say at the beginning, but I do not think I did, that if anyone can be held responsible for the continued existence of child benefit in this country, it is me. In the late 1980s, it had not been uprated for two or three years. I became Secretary of State for Social Security. I fought tooth and nail to reintroduce the uprating of child benefit.

I had a lot of battles with a lot of colleagues and managed to do it in the form of introducing the increased rate for the eldest child—the first child—which was laughed at at the time but appears again to have stood the test of time. I yield to no one as a defender of child benefit and I certainly do not want to abolish it. I have reservations about the Government’s proposals on taxing it—they will come up at another time—but I will not be accused of being hostile to child benefit. I am simply saying that I support it but I also support the objective of ensuring that children are in households where it pays for the people involved to work if possible.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for making the point. Indeed, he deserves all the credit for child benefit—he does not claim it as he is not an immodest man—and millions in this country owe him a great debt. The question that puzzles me, and perhaps he can help, is: how is it right, morally or otherwise, to deny child benefit to somebody on £26,000 a year when they get it on £80,000?

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

The issue is at what level the benefit cap should be set, and whether to set a different level that automatically puts people with children, depending on the number, in a position in which fewer of them can afford to take jobs at the rates they are likely to be able to command. It is a matter of judgment not of fact. It is an issue that cannot be evaded, but it has been evaded in a lot of the discussion we have had tonight. I will not vote for the amendment but I will not dismiss the concerns, particularly those addressed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. They need to be addressed by Ministers in working out the detail. I repeat my phrase that I will join in on holding their feet to the fire but I will not join in on this rather hasty and ill considered amendment today.

[The Lord Bishop of Chichester]

My Lords, I was very tempted to intervene in the middle of what the noble Lord, Lord Newton, was saying when he accused the Bishops of suggesting that we wished to have no cap at all. I have not heard one of us say that, but I am glad that I did not intervene as he then admitted that he did not really mean that and talked about us trying to raise the level of the cap. I am glad that I was patient.

I do not want to intrude on what my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds will say later, but I want to address something that has not come up yet. Quite a lot has been said about the popularity of this Bill, particularly the cap. One has to be fairly careful about being too quick in response to vox pop when making legislation. If we were debating capital punishment, for example, I suspect that many of the same things would be said. If we were to tease out what public opinion was concerned about, I suspect that we would probably find a remarkable unanimity of view within the House about the end we want, but the question of limitation is important. There have to be limitations on benefits and there have to be limitations on all sorts of other things, such as rents, but that point has already been made. I suspect that there would be a remarkable degree of agreement about the need to incentivise people to work and encourage a culture in which society as a whole sees the point of work, and particularly that young people are educated with a vision and the desirability of a career.

Finally, I suspect that there would be considerable sympathy and recognition of the dependency culture that we have inadvertently allowed to develop, and out of which we need to enable society as a whole to grow. The question is: who bears the price of that change and in what time does it change? I agree entirely—I suspect that I have the mind of my colleagues on this—that we need to change the mind of society on how we address a number of things. This Bill, properly refined, could well contribute towards that. We also have to help to educate public opinion in the way in which it responds to vox pop surveys. I suspect that another thing on which people would agree—we might find a high degree of popular agreement—is that in the provision for children in their homes, their education, and the stability of their family lives lie the best possible foundation for the future. If you ask people that question rather than some others that get knee-jerk reactions, I suspect that we would find much greater unanimity in the country about what we are trying to achieve. I suggest caution on having too easy a reliance on popular opinion polls.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

This will be not a Second Reading speech but a Second Reading remark, I hope said quickly enough to save my noble friend the Whip getting up gently to rebuke me. It would not have been relevant on the previous amendment but it is on this one.

The noble Lord, Lord Best—I almost called him my noble friend—indicated that homelessness was already on the rise. This debate is about homelessness as much as it is about fairness to children, and will be used as a quarry for homelessness policy in the future. Homelessness can still occur under this amendment in the future where the previous amendment sought to prevent it.

I shall make a counterintuitive comment. For 24 years I represented in the other place what was almost certainly the most poverty-stricken Conservative seat in the country by the proportions of standard household criteria. A lot of my homeless constituents were moved from hotel to hotel, frequently outside my constituency, and often from constituency to constituency. I do not recall anyone talking before about this diaspora but there is no policy, no rule and no mutual convention as to who their MP is as they move to different places. If MPs are not agreed about who their MP is, the poor homeless family cannot be expected to know. In the process, beyond the price their children pay educationally and socially by moving, the whole family pays a democratic price in not knowing who represents them. Believe me, as a former inner-city MP, I know that they stand in considerable need of representation. As a London Member, the present Secretary of State can almost certainly recognise this problem but I reward my Whip’s silence by saying that I am in favour of the cap.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, this is an important amendment that we can wholeheartedly support. I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate for his leadership and support for this proposition that has come from many quarters, especially the faith communities. Far from being out of touch, we know that it is the faith communities that so often reach the most disadvantaged people and that statutory services, for all the want of trying, simply cannot reach them.

The debate is fundamentally about fairness. I do not propose to repeat or answer all the points that have been raised. That is the Minister’s job but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, that if this were about undermining universal credit we would not support it. That is not what it is about; it is a completely separate issue. It has become very confused in the debates we have had both before and now.

I shall speak a little about the dependency culture issue. As I said before, I thought that universal credit was the mechanism to encourage people into work, into the labour market, and to make it clear that being in work paid. That was the key government policy. If that is not sufficient and if it is a deficient policy that needs another component, as said by my noble friend Lady Sherlock, perhaps the Minister can explain that. If this is to drive everyone who is caught by the cap into employment, how does the Minister deal with the point that fewer than half the people on the updated analysis of those who will be caught by it are, on the Government’s own assessment, not required to work, not fit for work or have responsibilities for young children that place them outside the properly constructed category of those who should be expected to work and not rely on benefits? Does the Minister say that somehow the broad policy and all the assessments that have been put in place as a result of universal credit have to be torn up and rewritten for this specific category of 75,000 households? If so, perhaps he can tell us precisely why.

18:30

The new impact assessment, which we received just a few hours before this sitting, sets out the choices people must make: work more hours, even though most of them are deemed not fit for work; reduce their non-rent expenditure; or reduce their rent expenditure. We have just debated how, in large measure, reducing rent expenditure is not an easy option or an option at all for most people. What about reducing non-rent expenditure and what does that imply? Does the Minister accept that that concept means spending less on children too? As the new impact assessment identifies, the number of children to be affected by the cap is 220,000 by 2013-14. A third of those affected will lose £100 a week or more, so can the Minister tell us what sort of items he thinks can be excluded from the family budget to save even the average of £83 a month? Would he accept that, particularly as the cap will bite hardest on large families, children will be affected and caught up by that? What is his understanding of how these families affected by the cap spend their income? Where does he see the scope for this massive saving that is needed if this cap proceeds as is recommended? Removing child benefit from the cap would at least preserve a stream of funding for families and a source that is supposed to be focused on the needs of children.

As the right reverend Prelate has explained, this amendment would not remove all the savings that the Government wish to make from the cap. It does not fatally undermine the thrust of the Government’s argument, whether one subscribes to it or not, but it would provide some protection for children who are most affected by this measure. It would introduce greater fairness in the construction of the cap. It is not in conflict with a range of other amendments that we have yet to consider, but it will be supported with enthusiasm both by the Benches behind me and by my colleagues on the Front Bench.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds made the point that the job of a member of the church is to look after children in need, but one needs to ask the question about children in need at a slightly different level. For instance, if we leave families with rents that they could never afford in work, what does that do for the children? What does it do for the children in those families when there is no working role model in them? We know what happens to those children. What does it mean to leave them in workless families given the much higher level of poverty that we know exists in them? What does it mean for the generational worklessness that we see in those families? The question that, from a religious point of view, you need to come from is much wider—what is the best thing for those families?—rather than looking at it from a narrow financial basis.

Let me supply the figures because they were just slightly misquoted. We estimate that the savings generated by the cap will be £120 million in 2013-14 and £130 million in subsequent years. I think I heard £113 million. Putting those figures to one side for the moment, the reality is that the savings on this measure are not the core point. We are trying to change behaviours. If we do not cut the benefit bill by the amount we have in the estimate, that is a good thing because we will have got people into work and changed their behaviour.

This measure does something different: it cuts the number of families affected by the cap from 67,000 to about 40,000. That is the real cost of this amendment. It takes the pressure away from those 20,000 families that will go on in the same way that they have been going, and we will not have the behavioural change that we want and need from those families.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

The Minister is not dealing with the point. On the latest updated assessment, something like a quarter of the people who will be caught by this cap are on employment and support allowance. Depending on which category they are in, it requires people to move closer to the labour market, but does not require them to work. Why are the Government using this leverage on people in that group? Thirty-eight per cent of them are on income support, which is again a category of people who, for all the reasons we have debated, are not required to work. For people on JSA, you could see this might be an extra spur, but why does this measure cover those people who, under the Government’s assessment and on the basis on which they are going to construct universal credit, are not required to work?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, on the figures in that new impact assessment, the majority of people have full or partial conditionality in ESA, given the proportions of ESA. Most people on ESA in the support group will, in practice, be on DLA and therefore will not be affected by this cap, so we can look at the majority looking for work. Even if there is no formal conditionality, the message to families is that work is a solution in this circumstance. I need to remind the House that the coalition Government firmly believe that there has to be a limit on the overall level of benefit it is appropriate for the state to provide for those who are not working. Let me be absolutely clear about the structure because this is a point raised by several noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Corston, made the point most emphatically. The structure of this does not take money out of the carer’s pocket because we are not stopping payments of child benefits. Those families will still continue to obtain their child benefit, and there is an offset in the other benefits to get the cap to work. It will not work through child benefit. I know all money is fungible and households will operate within the same overall money, but there is no need for this concern that the money is taken away from the carer directly.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, will the Minister just give a categorical assurance to the House that those affected by this government proposal, who the Government assess as not able to work at that time, will keep their child benefit? Then we can all go home.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am obviously not going to make that commitment because that is not how this cap is structured. It is based on the premise that payment at unrestricted rates ultimately serves nobody. It does not serve those who are paying the taxes to fund it, and it does not help those who are trapped in dependence by providing little or no incentive to move off the benefit.

Let me answer a point about how it works that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. They asked why we need it when we have universal credit. Universal credit is designed to provide an incentive to get people back into work or to reduce the disincentive. The cap does two things. While UC is the carrot, the cap is the stick, but it also provides the message to people much more widely than the families that are affected that a life dependent on benefits is not the way to go. There are other solutions, work being the main one.

It is vital that the benefits system is seen to be fair. We do not believe that households getting out-of-work benefits should receive a greater income from benefits than the average weekly net wage for working households. That is why the cap is set at £26,000 a year net or £35,000 a year gross. Even there, significant amounts of financial assistance will be available from the state.

Like other welfare benefits, child benefit is provided by the state and funded by taxpayers. Therefore, we believe it is right that it is taken into account along with other state benefits when applying the cap. The effect of excluding child benefit would simply be that families on benefit would have an income higher than average earnings. There would be no upper limit to the amount of benefit a household could receive. Clearly, that would depend on the number of children. My noble friend Lord Newton hit on the head the point of why one would want to tell people that that is not a solution to a life on dependency.

We are trying to achieve a simple rule for the level of the cap and a simple set of exemptions. We have already recognised that there are some households for whom it would not be appropriate to restrict the amount of benefit that they can receive; that is, households in receipt of DLA, constant attendance allowance and PIP when it is introduced. We will also exempt war widows and widowers. These households do not need an exemption for child benefit as well.

For other households, work should be the way out of the cap. We have said that we will exempt households entitled to working tax credit and that there will be a similar exemption for working households on universal credit. This will encourage people who could be capped to seek work, reinforcing the improved incentives that will come with universal credit. Excluding child benefit will only dilute our aim that being in work, even part time, must always pay better than relying on benefits alone.

I want to pick up the important issue of kinship carers raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. In Committee, I made clear that I am looking at kinship carers in the round. In practice, the numbers affected are pretty small. In dealing with those issues, clearly, we need to get it right in regulations. The most effective point made by kinship carers, at least where I am concerned, is that when you take on a child or children, there is quite a period—a year is suggested—during which a big adjustment factor goes on because many children being taken on are quite troubled by the time they are transferred. I am very conscious of that issue, which needs addressing generally. That is what we propose to do.

When we introduce the cap we intend to use a method which looks at median earned income after tax and national insurance for all working families. We believe that this will strike the right balance between providing support for families, promoting fairness between those out of work on benefits and those in work, and ensuring clear financial incentives to work. In summary, I repeat the fact that this is the kind of figure that the general public see as appropriate.

18:45

My noble friend Lady Tyler raised family breakdown and splitting up. One of the key drivers of family breakdown is long-term unemployment, which puts considerable pressure on vulnerable families. One of the most supportive things we can do for these families is to make sure that work always pays and that the transition to work is as smooth as possible.

In this debate, we have talked a lot about children. I want to re-emphasise the point that children already have their life chances and opportunities damaged as a result of living in households where no one has worked for years and where no one considers work to be an option. Over the years, we have paid these families large and increasing amounts of benefit with the result that they have become dependent on the state to support their children and see no advantage to going out to work and supporting their children themselves. The cap, and the assistance to find work we will give households in the year leading up to the cap, will help towards freeing people from this benefit trap and giving their children a positive example. We will spend the next year putting an enormous amount of effort into helping these families move on and move out of dependency.

I know that the right reverend Prelate feels strongly on this issue but I would urge him to withdraw his amendment.

[The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have contributed to this debate and to the Minister for his comments. This amendment is not simply or even primarily concerned with generations of workless people. It will affect a significant number of people who have been put out of work in recent years, months and days. At times, it almost sounded as if the Minister thought that it was a bad thing to bring people out of poverty. But we are talking about children, and child benefit remains one of the great anchors, as the noble Lord, Lord Newton, reminded us, of the whole way in which we work with children and families.

I do not think we have heard any real response to the basic point that the Bill means that a childless couple has the same cap as a couple with a number of children. It does not seem logical to say that we have to put a lot more pressure on families with children than on those who do not have any. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in particular, and others, for speaking about the importance of universalism in terms of child benefit. We have ranged widely during these discussions but this matter is about children. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, said, this amendment is about children and the women and carers who care for those children. It is those who will be helped if noble Lords are prepared to back this amendment.

On that basis, I appeal to noble Lords to support the amendment or, if they cannot do that, at least to abstain. It would help children and I believe that it is right to test the opinion of the House.

18:49

Division 2

Ayes: 252

---

Labour: 170
Crossbench: 37
Liberal Democrat: 25
Bishops: 5
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 2
Independent: 2
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 237

---

Conservative: 151
Crossbench: 41
Liberal Democrat: 38
Ulster Unionist Party: 2
UK Independence Party: 1
Independent: 1

19:03

Amendment 59A

Moved by

[Baroness Flather]

59A: Clause 94, page 63, line 41, at end insert—
“(ea) make provision so that, prior to the application of the benefit cap, should the relevant amount include an award of universal credit under section 10(1) then the amount included for—(i) the third child shall be reduced to 75 per cent; and(ii) the fourth child shall be reduced to 50 per cent,of that included for the first child;”

[Baroness Flather]

My Lords, this is a very strange juxtaposition of amendments, because your Lordships have just had your heartstrings pulled at over children and here is my amendment, which suggests that there should be fewer benefits for children for various reasons that I shall try to explain.

I should like to make two apologies, with qualifications. The first is to the noble Lord McKenzie of Luton, who said that he did not want to hear about this matter again in this Chamber. Well, I am sorry, but he will have to. I would also ask him, with respect, to look at what is going on in Luton, since it forms part of his territorial designation. There are a lot of things to be looked at in Luton and I hope that he will do so.

My other apology is to Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, because I mentioned only them in my Second Reading speech. I did not mention many white families or many single mothers; nor did I mention the Somalis. There are people in this country who have many children, and it is innocent to think that they would keep having those children were they not helped by the benefits system. They might not stop having children, but they would certainly not have as many if they were not sure of getting the money to look after them. It is extremely important that children are brought into this world because they are wanted and not because it is convenient, because you get a bigger house and because you get more money, which it is absolute nonsense to think is not happening. Your Lordships are kind but also very innocent if you do not know what is going on in this country.

One of the reasons why I moved this amendment is the support I have received from ordinary working people. I have had so much mail—e-mails and letters—asking me to suggest that benefits should stop after two children, not after the fourth. They say, “We cannot afford to have more than two children; we are working and can just about manage. We care for our children, we care about their education, we care about their future and it upsets us greatly to see others having seven or eight. Would these people continue to have so many children if the state did not provide for them?”. It is a matter that should be seriously considered. The cap will take care of some of that, and I am pleased to say that it is time that it did so. I know there are many noble Lords, especially on the opposition Benches, who are against the cap and believe that we are moving in the wrong direction, but we have made this a country of people who rely on handouts and it is about time we stopped.

I was very pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Freud, talk about role models. There are no role models in families where there are six or seven children. There is no one who has worked and no one is expected to work. A lot of those parents do not even know which school their children go to; they do not know what they are doing at school. We have large numbers of young unskilled people, especially in places such as Yorkshire and Lancashire, and especially the boys. It is the boys we need to worry about; they need to be skilled and to attend courses that will teach them basic skills such as plumbing, electrics or carpentry; they must become skilled at something. They are neither educated nor skilled and they have no future. They will not work, their children will not work either, and it is very important that the cycle is broken at some stage. If we are to listen to people in this country, the sooner this happens the better it will be. Working people are fed up with the way some people manage to live on benefits.

In my Second Reading speech, I pointed to one other area that is not in this amendment: people being given money to pay for their drugs. That is disastrous. If you give money to people for drugs, why would they want to work? They are disabled because they use drugs, but they get money to buy their drugs, so why would they ever want to get off them and return to work? We are talking about getting people into work and I think we should look carefully at every area.

There is also a huge rise in polygamy in some Pakistani families. I was interviewed about this amendment on the radio and during the broadcast one man said that he had three wives. The interviewer asked him how he managed and he said, “On a rota basis”. I am afraid that a lot of men have more than one wife. The latest fashion is to go to southern Spain, cross over to Morocco and bring back girls. They marry according to Sharia law and the wives live as single mothers in homes of their own. We need to look at what we are doing to this country. How do they get away with it? They have three or four wives and they presumably visit them—as this man said—on a rota basis. This should not be happening. We do not need this kind of behaviour in this country.

Some people seem to think they have no choice when having children: that they just have them. Children are a choice and a responsibility. They need to be looked after and they need to be brought up. Not only that, there has to be fairness between those who work and those who live off taxes. This drastic situation calls for action. I hope the Government will take action and discourage people from having large families unless they are in a position to look after them.

I was privileged to receive a letter from the Prime Minister two days ago. I wish it had arrived earlier. It states that this issue will be looked at under the provisions of the cap. I knew the cap was coming but I did not know exactly what was likely to happen. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions but he did not reply. However, I sent a copy to the Prime Minister and he did reply—I felt very privileged by that—and he has put my mind at rest about the issues that are important to the people of this country.

The sooner we tackle this kind of disadvantage—and it is a disadvantage for these children—the better. If you have five children, and even if you get benefits you do not look after them and do not give them education, they are disadvantaged all the way through and they will never work.

I leave your Lordships with two comments that you might like to think about. First, the recent British social attitudes survey is very much against the benefits system. There has never been so much disquiet about the benefits system as there is this time. Secondly, the last time the children being born in this country were counted, 50 per cent were born to mothers born overseas. We need to think about that very seriously if we do not want this country to change totally in its attitudes. I beg to move.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, we are back again to groupings and, like the noble Lord, Lord Newton, I am very much in favour of them. Sadly, in this case it has meant that my amendment has been somewhat delayed. If it had been in the first group of amendments it would have been well and truly dealt with by now. However, I am pleased now to be in a group.

I listened with interest to what my noble friend Lady Flather has said and, although I cannot say that my sympathies are in the same direction, nevertheless it is her view that if you are paid less for the more children you have that will lead to a happier lifestyle. She may be right, but I do not agree with that approach.

[Baroness Flather]

I did not say that. I said that if people know that they will not continuously keep receiving benefits they might decide not to have so many children, and that if the benefit cap was to come, it would not come as a retrospective.

19:15

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

I am grateful for being put right. However, I still have differences of opinion with my noble friend Lady Flather.

However, my amendment was very much part, alas, of all the other amendments that have been debated. I have listened very carefully and, having had the benefit of being in the Chamber the entire time, I have been fully appraised before deciding which amendment to support and which not. The general impression that I have got from these debates is that there is a great feeling about families and about doing the best for children whatever household they are in. It is for that reason that I was happy to table the amendment for London—London Councils kindly provided me with the material—because London is such an obvious area where you have extremes of very expensive accommodation and fairly poor areas where it is not as easy to survive if you are living on benefits and are among some of the more disadvantaged and disabled.

All three of my amendments relate to the same issue which is why it is better to address them all together. If the Government want a benefit cap that fairly reflects average earnings, it would be logical and just for the cap to reflect geographical variations, not only in wages but in other important living costs such as those related to accommodation and childcare. The amendments would require the Secretary of State to take account of these variations: the average weekly cost of private rented accommodation, the average weekly cost of childcare and average weekly earnings.

By way of background, the most recent evidence regarding these factors shows that, as regards accommodation, London has the highest average private sector rents in the country at £222 per week. That is more than 36 per cent higher than the national average. Childcare in London and the south-east is at least 20 per cent higher than the national average. For example, a nursery place for a child costs an average of £113 per week in London and the south-east compared with the national average of £94 per week. Earnings in London are £31,935 compared with £26,133, a 20 per cent difference.

What would be the impact of the Government’s proposals on the benefit cap? Independent research by Navigant Consulting, commissioned by London Councils—I should emphasise that London Councils is a cross-party organisation speaking on behalf of all London boroughs and the City of London—has estimated that the impact on London of the proposed universal credit cap would be as follows. A total of 73,000 workless households would experience a shortfall in their benefits against living and housing costs. In aggregate, the cap would produce a loss of £8.2 million per week for workless households and more than £427 million per annum across London. There would be a significant impact on families with children and on larger families in particular. While less than 3 per cent of households without children will find their accommodation unaffordable, that rises to more than 30 per cent for families with children. The average weekly loss across London for households affected by the cap is £105.

The majority of the London boroughs are already reporting that a significant number of households are having to move home as a result of changes to housing benefit caps. That has led to an increase in the number of homeless households placed by boroughs in bed-and-breakfast temporary accommodation. The use of temporary accommodation recently reached a three-year high after 25 quarters of reduction since 2003. Now almost 1,500 families are living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in London. That effect will be replicated elsewhere and will undermine efforts to retain and build sustainable mixed communities, a point that has been made very effectively by others in other debates. There is a genuine concern that reductions in benefit entitlements for workless households may lead to an increase in child poverty and safeguarding issues. With children and young people's services already stretched, the fear is that vulnerable children might slip through the net.

The Government have argued that they need to cap household benefit entitlement in order to reduce the £20 billion deficit bill and to return fairness to the welfare state. Of course, both of those objectives are laudable and entirely understandable. However, simply fixing a national limit and attempting to apply it across all households, regardless of variation in individual circumstances, is not only unfair but it is also likely to usher in a host of unintended consequences. We have heard about many of them in previous debates so I shall not go into the detail of those.

The cost of life's essentials varies from place to place and family to family. One does not expect to pay the same to rent a two-bedroomed home as a four-bedroomed home. One does not expect to pay the same to rent a home in the south-east as one might in the north-west. If the welfare system is genuinely to support people and households, surely it is only fair that any support matches, in so far as it is possible, the scale of the challenges facing households, which, so often, through no fault of their own, find themselves in high-cost areas. I hope that the Government will agree to these very reasonable amendments.

I would like to stress that I hope that the Minister will agree to meet London Councils and go through some of its real concerns about this issue. That would reflect on whether I might wish to bring this matter back at Third Reading

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield]

My Lords, I would like to add some of my concerns about the impact of the benefit cap in London. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, has set out very clearly and eloquently all the facts and figures and I certainly do not wish to repeat them. I shall pick out one which is particularly relevant to me.

The level of rents in London means that families with just two children will be subject to the cap in many parts of inner London and also in some parts of outer London, including Newham, Haringey, where I live, and Hounslow. I am concerned about the impact of this on mixed communities, or looking at it the other way, one might refer to social segregation as poorer families are moved out of expensive areas. This is a very particular issue in London in terms of social cohesion. It also puts pressure on public services. I think that London Boroughs is right to be worried. The migration and concentrations of workless households in some areas will potentially have significant implications for the full range of local authority services. Boroughs with an inward migration of households are likely to face significantly increased service pressures very quickly and with very little time to plan for them in relation to unemployment, poverty, housing and so on. On the other side of the coin, boroughs that experience reduced demand for such services—again very quickly and without time for planning to adjust—will certainly face challenges and costs in adapting to different, if reduced, demands.

Families, particularly larger families, will be very much affected. In London it will also affect families with two children. I share the concerns that have already been voiced by the noble Baroness opposite. I also hope that there will be an opportunity to meet the Minister and London Councils to discuss further the sort of measures that could be put in place to mitigate some of the harsher implications that I have just set out.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I start with the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. I find them confused on a number of levels. I should explain that during Second Reading—the noble Baroness referred to my comments about not wishing to hear what she said again—she said that Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities have lots of children because of the money. I objected to that and I thought I objected in about as gentle a way as one can, without being rude, and that is consistent with how we do business in this House.

The noble Baroness has just made reference to Luton and supposed problems there. I know Luton well; I live there. One of the strengths of Luton is its great diversity. We have a range of communities and—I almost called him my noble friend—the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, would attest to that as well. Having diversity brings challenges but also joy and I believe that is a great strength of Luton. I do not believe the proposition that people in any community, particularly the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, have lots of children because they believe it will be beneficial in terms of child benefit. If people had children only on the basis of a cost benefit analysis, I suppose there would be no children at all, given all the challenges that come with them. My experience of communities in Luton, particularly the Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Indian community, is that there is great aspiration for their children. If you sit down with people, you hear them speak with pride about their children just having qualified as a doctor, or a lawyer, or even some as an accountant, which brings particular pleasure. I honestly do not see the picture painted by the noble Baroness.

Technically, it seems to me that the amendment that she moved is flawed. As I understand it, the “relevant amount” is that which is based on estimated average earnings and effectively sets the level of the cap. It does not, therefore, specifically include amounts in respect of children. If it were based on income, rather than earnings—depending on the definitions—of course it would. It could, for example, involve child benefit, but this is not how the Government wish to proceed and it is not how they have constructed the cap.

Universal credit will be, as we have discussed, an in-and-out-of-work benefit and we still do not know what the cut-off point will be for those treated as in work. Perhaps the Minister can give us an update on that. Presumably the calculation of earnings would not include any amount of universal credit. If the noble Baroness is arguing that an award of universal credit should involve reduced amounts for third and fourth children, in terms of the cap, of course, that would clearly lessen its impact. However, the family cap of £26,000 applies regardless of the number of children in the household, so larger families are likely to be particularly affected, as we have just discussed. Estimates are that 80 per cent of the households likely to be affected by the cap will include three or more children. We know from the DWP impact assessment—certainly the original one—that children from BME groups are more likely to be disproportionately hit by the cap. It would seem that what the noble Baroness intends would drive these families further into poverty and that is not something that we could countenance or support in any way.

The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, introduced some interesting amendments. Certainly the issue of the impact on London, particularly of high rents, featured in our earlier discussion and that is recognised. The broader issue of whether one could have benefits constructed on a regional basis is a very wide debate—we would be unwise to tick that through tonight—although we should recognise that it is done, for example in local housing allowances done on a local basis, structured by reference to local market areas.

19:30

I repeat that we support the cap. We support the £26,000 level, but the way it operates brings some perverse consequences, and high rent levels in London are a particular driver of some of the unfortunate outcomes. I think that I would just hang on to the point, to which the Minister has not given us an answer, that if this is about changing behaviours, what is it that makes proportionately more people in London—this is what the data show—in need of changing behaviours than people in other parts of the country? We know that is not to do with changing behaviours; it is about rent levels and how those impacts on the cap. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has advanced some interesting ideas and arguments, but before we embark more generally on a regional benefits system, we need a lot of discussion.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the effects of Amendments 59A and 61A would be to reduce the level of universal credit awarded in respect of children in larger families who would be subject to the benefit cap. Under this amendment, families who would not be subject to the cap would be able to receive the full amount of the child element of universal credit for their third child and any subsequent children. We recognise that families with more children do require more support and we believe that it is right that this is recognised in universal credit. However, as I have said, we also believe that there should be a limit to the overall amount of financial support that households on out-of-work benefits can expect to receive in welfare payments. That is why we intend introducing the benefit cap. We believe that this is the most appropriate way to address this issue as in future people will have to understand that there is a limit to the amount of benefit the state can afford to pay them.

I move now to Amendments 61ZB, 61ZC and 61ZD. These would require us to replace the national cap based on median earned income earnings with regional caps based on the local average weekly costs of private rented accommodation, the local average weekly cost of childcare and the local average weekly earnings. Given that we will not take childcare payments into account, this part of the amendment is obviously unnecessary. More generally, while the Chancellor may be asking the independent pay review bodies to consider how public sector pay can be made more responsive to local labour markets, we do not have a regionalised benefits system and it would not make sense to regionalise the cap without that. In addition, the approach suggested by the noble Baroness would be extremely expensive to administer, add considerable complexity to the benefits system and would be a recipe for confusion for claimants and staff.

On my noble friend Lady Tyler’s point that the cap disadvantages people living in London, given that many working age households with adults in work cannot afford to live in central London—or, indeed, central-ish London—it is not right for the taxpayer to subsidise households on out-of-work benefits who do so. In answer to the point raised by both my noble friend Lady Tyler and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, on whether I would see London Councils, I would be happy to see London Councils if it asks to see me—if it wants to see me—although it would probably be best to meet in the context of discussing the regulations that will implement this measure.

Both these sets of amendments are about how we set the maximum amount available to people. We believe our approach is fair and simple. When we introduce the cap, we intend to use a method that, by looking at median earned income after tax and national insurance for all working families, will strike the right balance between providing support for families—promoting fairness between those out of work on benefits and those in work—and ensuring clear financial incentives to work.

Before I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, I would like to make it clear that the Government see Amendment 61A as directly consequential on Amendment 59A and Amendments 61ZC and 61ZD as directly consequential on Amendment 61ZB. So, if we divide on Amendment 59A, a further Division would be required should the noble Baroness wish to press Amendments 61ZB, 61ZC or 61ZD to a vote. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Flather]

My Lords, I will just say a few words about what has been said about my amendment. I was very surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, say that the Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians all have the same aspirations. I am sorry to say that I do not agree with that. I am afraid the aspirations of Indians are very high, but the aspirations of Bangladeshis and Pakistanis do not come up to the same level, as they do not have as much interest in education as in Indian communities. The Indian communities are mostly in work—more in work than any other community except for the Poles. A survey by Channel 4 said that the highest number of taxpayers of the immigrant communities were the Indians and the Poles. I would like there to be a little more consideration of the fact that Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities in Tower Hamlets, in Yorkshire and in Lancashire are not doing well. Whatever way could be found to help them to do well would be a good thing.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

: My Lords, I do not wish to be unkind, but we do not have to subject ourselves to this nonsense, do we? This is absolutely outrageous.

[Baroness Flather]

My Lords, forgive me, but I thought I was a Peer here, and being a Peer means being equal.

Amendment 59A withdrawn.

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.38 pm.

Aviation: UK Civil Aviation

Monday 23rd January 2012 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

19:38

Asked By

[Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their plans for the future of the United Kingdom civil aviation industry.

[Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen]

My Lords, I am very pleased to introduce this short debate this evening on this important and indeed timely topic. I thank the Airport Operators Association for its assistance with my speech.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, will noble Lords leave the Chamber quietly so the noble Baroness can make her speech?

[Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen]

My Lords, in my capacity as a council member of the Air League, in my work with Youth in Aviation, as president of an air training corps, and as a member of the Air Cadet Council, I take a close interest in all matters relating to aviation. The civil aviation industry in the UK employs around a million people—352,000 directly, a further 344,000 people indirectly, and many more in its vital role in inbound tourism. It also contributes £50 billion to GDP and more than £8 billion to the Exchequer, according to a report published last year by Oxford Economics.

We are world leaders in designing and building aero-engines and airframes, in the design, construction and operation of airports, and in the safe and efficient management of scarce air space. Aviation is vital to any country and to any economy. However, it is especially vital to the United Kingdom for two clear reasons. First, and most obviously, it is because we are an island. It is the most efficient and sometimes the only way in which goods and people can get to and from the United Kingdom. Secondly, it is because we are and have been for many centuries a trading nation; a full 55 per cent of all our exports beyond Europe are carried by aeroplane, and we are all aware of the importance that the ever growing BRIC economies will have in the recovery of our nation.

All the nations and regions of the UK rely on good air links to connect them to the emerging world markets. Inward investors also need good air links not just to fly in essential parts and equipment but to ensure that their senior managers, executives and technicians have ready access to their offices and plants in the UK. Access to an airport with good global connections is vital, and there is another reason why we need to maintain and expand our aviation connectivity with the world. Tourism is already an important industry for the UK, with over 2.5 million jobs and £115 billion of GDP dependent on it. Shortly after he came to power, the Prime Minister expressed as one of his ambitions to make the UK one of the top five tourist destinations in the world. Given our heritage, our global positioning and the quality and quantity of the visitor attractions that we have to offer, this should not be an overambitious target. Indeed, the Tourism Alliance believes strongly that there is a need for aviation capacity to be expanded. It believes that that would support the goals that the Government have set for tourism growth, which should include consideration of current capacity, mid-term growth and an infrastructure for delivering long-term capacity.

Two big issues are preventing the aviation industry from playing its full part in helping to expand the economy and create more jobs. The first of these is taxation. I understand that the UK already has the highest level of aviation taxes in the world. The government standard or top rate of air passenger duty is up to 8.5 times the EU average, and the Chancellor has said that he proposes to raise it yet again by twice the rate of inflation during his Budget in March. This is at a time when aviation has just entered the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, which will add another layer of cost and complexity.

I urge the Government to think again about this tax rise. In the short term, it may raise extra revenue for the Treasury, but in the medium and long terms it will scare away airlines and routes and damage employment prospects for thousands of people. Other EU countries are lowering or scrapping their domestic aviation taxes as the EU Emissions Trading Scheme is phased in, and the Government should seriously consider doing the same.

The other big issue that is having a highly detrimental effect on UK civil aviation and preventing it playing its full role in boosting the economy and creating jobs is capacity. The whole of the UK and its regions rely on good air links to attract inward investment to facilitate the efficient deployment of key personnel, to open up access to new markets and to facilitate the export of goods. Airports are privately funded; they are looking not for government money, just for government support and permission to grow as and when extra capacity is required.

We are all aware that it is in the south-east of England that the problem is most acute. As European airports expand and plan for four, five or even six runways, Heathrow—currently our only hub airport—is stuck on just two. All three main parties have set their faces against additional hub runway capacity, but it is up to the Government to come up with a viable solution. There are a number of schemes requiring consideration relating to Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, through to a brand new airport in the Thames Estuary or, indeed, elsewhere. There are pros and cons associated with every solution and tonight I do not have a firm proposal to make. However, it is the job of the Government to examine all these options and come up with a speedy solution. The alternative will be that Schiphol becomes the UK’s hub airport, just as Europort became our capital’s seaport by default. This would result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and many billions of pounds of revenue, and all with no benefits to the environment.

Currently, flights and emissions are being displaced rather than obviated. Indeed, as people take connecting flights to Europe to avoid air passenger duty, the impact on the environment can be considerably greater. The Government need to take the lead on this issue, which is why the announcement last week that they will consult on the options for the creation of a new hub airport is welcome. A rapid and firm decision is needed that will ensure that the UK has a world-class hub airport fit for the 21st century.

We must support the UK’s aviation sector, in which we are world class and which employs so many people, contributing so much not just in GDP and tax but in what it enables other key sectors of the economy to do. Finally, I ask the Government again not to bring in further swingeing increases in air passenger duty and make the highest aviation taxes in the world even higher. Failure to address these issues—taxes that are too high and airport capacity that is too low—will send a sad signal to the world that we are not truly open for business.

19:47

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall]

I congratulate my noble friend Lady Gibson on introducing this debate. She is a very fine advocate for what we must all agree is a very important industry. That is about as far as she and I are going to agree in the course of this debate. Before I come to my rather more disobliging points, I recognise that a lot of what she says about the challenges facing the aviation industry and the necessity for government to be clear about its policies is absolutely right.

I have no expertise in aviation whatever, but I have some experience of the ups and downs of aviation policy, having serially harassed my own Government on the subject of airport capacity for a number of years, chiefly on environmental grounds, which my noble friend touched on, about which there is a great deal to say—but not by me in the little time that we have available this evening. I want to make just one point, or to ask one question of the Minister.

Despite welcome assurances from the Government early in their life that there would be no further runways at Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted—and I declare an interest as a long-term supporter of the Stop Stansted Expansion campaign—runway capacity is still a major live issue, as my noble friend said, and an important matter for the civil aviation industry. The credibility that is suddenly now being accorded to the proposal for a new airport in the Thames Estuary is interesting for a number of reasons. Although there are many attractions to a solution to our capacity problems that envisages most approaches and take-offs being over water, I am tempted to say to supporters of that scheme, “Good luck with that one, but if you think that the human population of Heathrow was a problem, try the birdlife of Kent”.

My reason for being intrigued by the timing of this latest proposition to build a whole new airport comes from my experience that Governments of all persuasions have, I am afraid, a tendency to speak with forked tongue on the matter of airport expansion. I mean no offence to present incumbents when I say that. I am not a natural conspiracy theorist, but I can see the possibility, once the estuary plan has once again bitten the dust, as I fear it will—or sunk under the waves—of whoever is then in power shrugging a collective governmental shoulder and saying, “Oh well, then, we’ll have to go back to Stansted, or Heathrow, or Gatwick, or maybe all three”. The problem is that if I can see this, so can the airport operators—notably BAA, which has spent a great deal of time and money in its so far unsuccessful efforts to get new runways at Heathrow and Stansted. In doing so, it has effectively blighted whole communities by buying up land and properties, most of which it retains, despite, in the case of Stansted, being under instruction from the Competition Commission to sell the airport.

My question to the Minister is this: when the Government say no more runways at Heathrow and Stansted, what do they mean: no more for 30 years, for 10 years, until the end of this Parliament, or just until we change our minds? I am sure the Minister would accept that uncertainty about this question still hangs over communities in these areas, which are grateful for the reprieve they have had but nervous that it may only be temporary. I would be very grateful if the Minister could put them out of their misery.

19:51

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bradshaw had hoped to speak on this issue and the House would have been very interested to hear him because he is clearly one of the leading experts in this field. I regret that I am only the understudy since he is unable to be here. I must also declare that I am a member of HACAN, the protest group that is made up primarily of residents but is now fairly international, which opposes further expansion at Heathrow and works closely with those of a similar view at both Stansted and Gatwick.

I am very pleased that the Government will be consulting, hopefully in the spring, on a sustainable framework for aviation, but it is absolutely crucial that green and environmental issues are at the forefront of that conversation. This House will be very aware that since 1990 the proportion of total UK carbon emissions from aviation has doubled and that we have serious climate change targets. Whether or not it is within the context of those targets or a broader context, climate change must surely be a real concern, and if we do not manage capacity in aviation as we look at those climate change issues, surely we make a mockery of being committed to the climate change problem at all. I stress that when we talk about airports, we are talking not just about carbon emissions from aviation itself but about the travel to and fro, which is overwhelmingly by car—and anyone who thinks that you can completely switch that in any circumstances to public transport has not looked at the behaviour of those who regularly use London’s current airports and who insist, when they have many bags, on using road services.

In reference to some of the comments that have been made on tax, surely now of all times, when we are all under pressure, aviation ought to be carrying more of its own weight. The very favourable tax climate that aviation enjoys dates back to when it was a new industry. Those new industry tax breaks, given a generation ago, in essence remain with aviation today and are only gradually being countered. Like many others, I would much rather that we were not doing this on a per-passenger basis and I hope very much that the Government will achieve their goals in Europe of shifting to a per-plane basis and getting the tax associated with the emission levels for each plane. The very notion that we should be giving further tax breaks to an industry that is already paying less than other transport rivals strikes me as absolutely extraordinary.

Perhaps I can join some of those who see the estuary airport as something of an election ploy. I suspect that this project will bite the dust by the time we get to mid-May, but I will make a couple of comments on it because it addresses one of the issues raised: that of capacity. Even in their most aggressive forecasts, the Government are basically saying that 470 million passengers will be flying by 2050, but the estuary airport plans and similar raise that capacity to 700 million—way beyond even the most aggressive forecast. If you are looking at this from a climate change perspective and you want both to shift to rail and to eliminate unnecessary travel through the use of new technology, some would say that 380 million passengers per year is a much better target to work towards. We are looking at a lot of capacity around the UK, not at places such as Heathrow, but we are a country not simply a city, which I think people sometimes do not notice. As we look at putting in new capacity, here we are talking about rebalancing an economy that is looking to the north to rebuild its industry, jobs, prosperity and growth. Yet how can we look seriously at a mechanism that seeks to put all that additional capacity back down into the London area? I would argue that that is illogical.

I will not even talk about the price because no one, I think, is able to put a price on it yet, but we have issues of safety such as bird migration and the wreckage of the community that currently serves Heathrow and that is based around Ealing and Harlesden. All those people will be unemployed or will perhaps move to some new city out near the new airport. There are all those issues, as well as the environmental ones.

I realise that I am running up against my four minutes, so I simply say this: most of the problems that people have with aviation are to do with the fact that some airports, and Heathrow is one of them, are not passenger-friendly or very well run, and you cannot get through immigration. That is what drives everyone absolutely insane. The better operation of what we have and making innovations in aircraft—these are the things that would make a real difference.

19:56

[Lord Monks]

My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as president of the British Airline Pilots Association, which organises for about four out of five of Britain’s pilots. Of course, the debates about civil aviation are very much moving centre stage in many ways. We have heard different views from different corners of the House during this debate. I put myself on the side of those who say this industry is a success story for Britain, or it has been so far. It represents 2 per cent of GDP and something like half a million jobs directly and indirectly depend upon it. When it is not working properly, whether that is due to snow or Icelandic volcanic eruptions, you can see the effects on our national life. My question to the Minister is: what more can be done to recognise the importance of the industry?

We know about the capacity constraints, which my noble friend Lady Gibson referred to. I am afraid that those who are opposed to airport development have got to recognise that the demand for air travel is going to grow substantially over the next period. Capacity is going to grow either here or in Amsterdam or maybe Paris or Frankfurt. Those airports are gearing up for this growth and are no less environmentally conscious than we are—probably more so, particularly as far as Schiphol is concerned—so let us not think that they are polluters or carefree people who would besmirch the environment. It is very important, in this exercise that the Government have started, that we get a clear idea of the timetable for decisions soon. Whether they are in favour of expanding Heathrow, which I tend to favour, or building a new airport elsewhere, the key thing is that somebody has got to bite the bullet and take decisions.

The other point I would like to make briefly is concern about pilot fatigue. As the pressure for turnarounds and on planes and crews becomes greater as demand for air travel grows, airlines are putting pressure on some staff, particularly the pilots at present. As some of you will know, proposals from the European Aviation Safety Agency on pilots’ hours would relax the present UK standards, which are pretty strict and I think exemplary, and align us with American standards. Usually I am on the pro-European side of these arguments, but on this particular one I do not want to see any watering down of the standards that have applied in Britain rather well. Pilot fatigue is still a problem. You hear some horrific stories when talking to pilots, and it is important that we take this issue seriously. I am interested in the Government’s view on these EU proposals and how the EU can be persuaded to level up rather than down.

20:00

[Lord Soley]

My Lords, in congratulating my noble friend Lady Gibson on securing this important debate I want to move on to make a prediction, if I may, which is that in due course the Government will reverse their position on airport expansion in the south-east. It is a matter of time. I do not expect the current Minister to do it today because he will stick rigidly to the government line, which I have discussed with him a number of times, but increasingly the Government are concerned about it. They ought to have been concerned about it before making that foolish promise before the election not to expand Heathrow, as the problem for Britain is now acute. Amsterdam, in effect, is our hub airport. Frankfurt is taking all the work from India and China. Madrid is taking it increasingly from South America and will increasingly move it from North America, which is why British Airways will eventually move more of its operations there than it has already. The situation is really serious.

I would simply say to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who to my mind has always had her head in the sand on this, that when I spoke at a meeting in her then constituency there were a couple of hundred people, mainly from the Green Party, the Liberal Party and the Conservatives. As she will know, I was not given a welcome when I was speaking in favour of the expansion of Heathrow but the chairman, to his infinite credit, suddenly asked everyone to indicate who had flown from Heathrow that year— and everybody put up their hands. That is the hypocrisy which lies behind this. I say to the noble Baroness and to other people, yes, we have to address the environmental issue—I will touch on that in a moment—but remember that all the polling in the 12 local authorities around Heathrow shows a much more divided opinion about whether people are in favour of or against expansion. Why is it divided fairly evenly? Precisely because so many people work at Heathrow: 76,000 on the airport and another 100,000 dependent on its remaining a premier hub airport. However, it is no longer a premier hub airport. It is great that Heathrow can fly you to seven British regional cities, but Amsterdam will fly you to 21.

People say to me, “Well, we are going to have the high-speed link”, but remember that the high-speed link is not coming until the end of the 2020s. Tell me what is environmentally good about producing millions of tons of concrete to create that line, each tonne requiring the production of one tonne of CO₂, and what is environmental about knocking 20 minutes off the journey time to Birmingham. I am in favour of the high-speed rail line, but do not kid yourself that it is an answer to the environmental issues or to the problem of airport expansion.

Let us come to the environmental issue. Aviation was slow to respond to the pressure. One of the things I said when, many years ago, I took on the job—which I no longer have—of campaign director for Future Heathrow was that unless people upped their game on the environmental issue, they would not win on this case. They needed to up it and they have. As I have reminded people before, we would not know half of what we know about climate change if it were not for the aerospace industry. How do your Lordships think we measure it, and why is Britain so advanced in climate change science? Because we have the aerospace industry, the second most advanced in the world, producing the technology that tells us about it. What is the answer? It is already happening. Most of our new airliners coming on-stream are better not only environmentally—much better in terms of fuel efficiency—but in terms of noise. I still have a room in London, not far from Kingston. When the A380 flies over my old constituency, where I have lived for 30-odd years, why is it so much quieter? You can hardly hear the A380 when it goes over, whereas you could really hear the old ones. They are getting quieter and more fuel efficient.

This is my final point. As the Minister knows, I referred him to the new developments in fuel. Algae is a hopeful one. Virgin airlines, New Zealand airlines, American Airlines, British Airways and a host of others are flying now with a fuel mix. They do not use kerosene. The noble Baroness is out of touch on this. Most of the United States Air Force in Afghanistan uses algae as a fuel in its aircraft. Why? It is because it has strategic needs for it. There are scientific answers to this problem, and if we do not use them we will throw thousands of people out of work just to satisfy some people who will want to go on flying and still complain about the noise or the pollution.

20:04

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, on securing this debate this evening. It is very timely.

First, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monks, about pilot fatigue. I have a son who is in that sector and his schedule over the past month frightened me. I have been in contact with the department on this issue for some months and I hope that when the EASA is considering this, it will not only follow much more closely the CAA guidelines but take into account the representations of the people who actually do this job, not the people who simply treat it as theory.

With regard to what the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, I would say to her that it will be the Thames estuary or Heathrow. We are not going to get both because airlines are not going to split their bases, their engineering, their back-up and so on. I suspect that they will be either at one or the other.

Following on from my introducing the Airports (Amendment) Bill to this House in December 2011, I want to draw the attention of your Lordships to the connectivity issues that exist in the United Kingdom, and to ensure efficient communications between our major regions and cities. We debated this issue in Grand Committee on 15 November, and I believe that there is a lot of support in this House to draw attention to the fact that, if you do not have adequate connectivity, it is not going to be possible significantly to build up your business efficiency and attract investment to the regions.

It is no use saying, “We can fly you to an airport in the basic region of the south-east or in London”, which under European directions you can give a public service obligation to do. It has to be between the major cities in the region and the hub airport, wherever that may be. The issue for me at the moment is that my Bill would give the Government a power which they currently do not have: to ensure that the CAA can pass judgment. I hope to go to Brussels next month to see the chairman of the transport committee of the European Parliament and to lobby there, because there is a significant European dimension to this.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Soley, I had a hub airport in what was my constituency and I have had issues with it over its opening hours and various other things, but we all use it. The fact is that the issue is not only the airport itself; it is how that airport is connected to the major centres of population. Unless you can get from the regions to the major hub airport, which for the foreseeable future is Heathrow, then we are doing a disservice to our country. We put large amounts of money, as does the European Union, into regional development. One of the key issues there is aviation connectivity. In Northern Ireland, for instance, we do not have a realistic alternative. We do not have rail connections. Yes, we have a ferry, but, realistically, that is not going to do the job.

As we move forward, I hope that the Minister will give us some guidance as to whether the Government will seriously consider the regional connectivity issue in the forthcoming consultation and the legislation that will be before both Houses later this year.

20:09

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, on initiating this debate at this opportune moment. The decision to look at expansion, including the “Boris Island” project, and to exclude a third runway at Heathrow, is the most disgraceful piece of misgovernance that I can remember in transport economics in my lifetime, and I did postgraduate work in transport economics after doing economics at Cambridge and have worked for the World Bank in this field.

With no cost-benefit or origin and destination analysis, this is banana republic demotics. Suddenly you have a so-called review of hub airports without being able to expand Heathrow. This is a disgraceful way to conduct business, and I ask the Minister how he can possibly justify it. Will he take note of some of the things that have been said in this debate that make it clear—if I can mix my metaphors—that this is no way to run a railway?

I have no axe to grind for the British Airports Authority, but Mr Colin Matthews, its chief executive, hit the nail on the head the other day when he said that London cannot have two hubs. How, other than by closing down Heathrow, can you say that Boris’s island is going to be the hub? It is absurd, ridiculous—I do not know how many more adjectives one needs to use to get the absurdity of this understood.

This is not a question of transport and economics versus the environment. I am going to be personal: I have always been involved both in transport economics and in the environment—I started a sustainable environment project—and for many years I have tried to see how the two can be reconciled. I think it was my noble friend Lord Soley who made the point that many people make these “green” remarks about terrible things going on with planes in the sky, but it is exactly like the car—when you ask people, “How many miles did you drive last year when middle-class people were opposing a bypass?”, the answer is normally 10,000 miles. That is how things are; there is a lot of middle-class versus working-class nimbyism regarding Heathrow and Richmond going on here.

My final remark is about how a proper inquiry should be carried out. The costs that have been mentioned in the press would mean that if the Government are going to claim—as a Conservative Government believing in the market economy—that we should have regard to commercial principles, how is it that they are not having regard to commercial principles about how to make a profit rather than trying to subsidise the outcome, if you are going to have a Thames estuary site with a cost as high as £70 billion, without any clue why these so-called sovereign wealth fund investments are more than just wishful thinking? Will the Government reconsider the basic fallacy of having two hubs or closing down Heathrow, and will they, even at this stage, put Heathrow and the expansion of its third runway—Schiphol and so on, as my noble friend Lord Monks and others have said—back into the mix?

20:13

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Gibson for initiating this important debate at this time, particularly in view of the state of our economy. I also declare that I am a board member of NATS air traffic control, although obviously I am not speaking for it today.

We talk about aviation as though it is something that belongs to the industry, but actually our aviation policy is for our economy. It is the conduit through which we have been able to carry our exports. We are an island—nothing will change that—so we need aviation. We are a trading nation as well; over one-third of our exports by value go by aviation. That helps our economy.

Heathrow has been mentioned a number of times today. It is our pre-eminent airport, and until recently it was regarded as number one in the world. Other nations have caught up with us, though, and a number have overtaken us. Schiphol now proudly presents itself as London’s fifth airport, with the runways that it has. Heathrow’s Terminal 5 was first talked about 25 years before it opened. What happens in France, Germany and Amsterdam and across Europe? Within five years they conceive of an idea and they build it.

There is no doubt that our economy needs our aviation, especially environmentally friendly aviation. I would go so far as to suggest that the airlines have gone a long way to try to meet that; indeed, British airlines led the discussions in Europe on emissions trading, which has been a substantial help.

It is important that we recognise where we are. The Government’s announcement about consulting on the proposed new airport in the Thames Estuary and on aviation is an important measure, and I welcome it for considering our long-term policy. However, with Heathrow working at in excess of 90 per cent of its capacity, I suggest that we cannot sit back and wait for the outcome of that commission’s work. When we get the consultation document in March, will it contain what the Government propose regarding the protection of our economy, our jobs and our exports for the short term? We need capacity expansion in the UK in the short and medium term, and we cannot wait another 20-odd years to get a long-term policy in place. I ask the Minister that direct question.

The third runway at Heathrow has been mentioned and it will not go away. We saw in excess of 30 Conservative MPs last week in another place sign a paper complaining about their Government’s policy. I join them in complaining about my own party’s policy; we, too, pulled away from a long-standing agreement that the third runway at Heathrow would be seriously considered. However, that would not provide all the capacity that we need. We have heard about Stansted, but what about Gatwick and Luton? I do not think that there would be opposition in Luton to expansion there.

We need a government policy that will answer these issues, not for the airline or airport industries but for our economy and our jobs. Two weeks ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in China. He wants us to do business with that country. In 2010, 3 million Chinese visited Europe. Do you know how many came to the UK? Four per cent. Therein we have the problem. Europe has direct flights from 22 cities to emerging markets; the UK has none. If we do not grasp this problem and do so quickly, we will see our economy go further into the mire. Aviation could certainly be a way of helping to pull us out of it.

20:18

[Lord Spicer]

My Lords, I had not intended to join in this debate, but I would like to make one point. As has been said already, Heathrow has, for the past 40 years—certainly since I was Minister for aviation—been the number one international interchange airport in the world. Gatwick, as it happens, has been number three for some time. Heathrow is now full up. There is no doubt about it. It is full. The only question before us is what we do about it.

Various ideas have been put forward. One is to run trains to Birmingham. That will take a bit of time, if it comes about, and is not going to do an awful lot for international travel. Heathrow is an international hub interchange airport. The idea that the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, called “Boris’s island” is a wonderful one, but has been around for the past 40 or 50 years. Maplin was the first attempt at it. Even if it is a good idea, it is going to mean a decision about shutting down Heathrow—the noble Lord was absolutely right about that—and it is not going to happen for the time being. It is not going to happen for another 30 or 40 years.

The solution to Heathrow, which is an immediate problem, has to be found pretty well immediately. The only solution available—and I have put this to Ministers in Questions several times in the past year or so—is that of a third runway. There is no alternative. I was the Minister who laid the first sod at Stansted. We attached to Stansted a 20 million air traffic movement condition, so Stansted is not available. Anyway, airlines do not want to fly to Stansted. They want to fly to Heathrow and change there.

The issue is, do we have an asset which is going to grow with the market, or do we allow ourselves to have the competition from Schiphol and all the other places that people have talked about? This is an immediate decision. It needs to be taken straight away and there really is no way round it, other than making a decision about the third runway.

20:20

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I also extend my thanks to my noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen for securing this all too brief debate on the future of our civil aviation industry, a subject which has been thrust back into the limelight by the Government’s announcement of a consultation looking at options for maintaining the UK’s aviation hub status, including the possibility of a major new hub airport in the Thames estuary.

It is an interesting announcement, since, assuming its birth was not related to the forthcoming London mayoral election campaign, it represents a considerable potential U-turn from previous statements of no new runways at any of the three largest airports in London and the south-east, and a lack of enthusiasm for an airport in the Thames estuary. The Government’s failure to set out a strategy for aviation which addresses capacity issues, among other things, is now putting jobs and growth at risk. The Government’s call for airports to be “better not bigger” is a slogan, not a policy. The Government have no established policy around the future of the UK’s civil aviation sector beyond a statement in the coalition agreement that the Government will refuse permission for new runways to be built at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. Perhaps the Minister could tell us when he responds whether, in the light of the consultation just announced, that is still the Government’s policy or not.

What we need is a strategy that works for the south-east as well as for our network of regional airports which are so crucial to our economy. The Government should have accepted our offer to work together on a cross-party basis to agree a long-term strategy for aviation. Setting an agreed long-term strategic direction for aviation is vital, particularly bearing in mind that our hub airport, Heathrow, is already working to virtually maximum capacity, that we are falling further behind our EU competitors, passenger numbers are projected to grow significantly, the industry needs to be able to plan with certainty for the future—not least to deliver investment to provide additional capacity—and the UK has 11 per cent of Europe’s airspace and 25 per cent of its traffic.

Any new capacity must go hand in hand with tougher targets on reducing CO₂ emissions from aviation to tackle the industry’s contribution to climate change. The industry can be proud of the huge advances that have been made in this direction already. However, with the significant growth in air passenger numbers forecast, we will not achieve, by 2050, the broader 80 per cent cut in emissions on 1990 levels to which we committed in the Climate Change Act 2008 without aviation playing a greater role. Future aviation growth must, we believe, go hand in hand with a greater cut in aviation emissions than we agreed, when in government, of reducing to below 2005 levels by 2050, a target to which the present Government have not affirmed their commitment. The industry’s own sustainable aviation road map makes clear that, by 2050, it is possible to get absolute levels of emissions down to levels seen at the turn of the century, even as passenger numbers are projected to grow very significantly, so there seems to be a measure of agreement that it is possible to do more.

The aviation industry contributes more than £11 billion to the UK’s gross domestic product. It supports up to 200,000 jobs directly and up to 600,000 indirectly across the UK. It is deeply worrying to the industry and the business world, among others, that while we know what the Government are against, there is still no credible strategy for aviation even on the horizon, which sets out the approach that this Government favour.

20:24

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, on securing this evening’s debate, in which we have heard articulated wildly opposing views. As all noble Lords know, aviation makes a huge contribution to our economy and our society as a trading nation, as pointed out by the noble Baroness. It generates economic output of up to £9 billion a year. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, suggested that it was £11 billion; I do not know which of us is right. It supports thousands of jobs, drives our tourism sector and gives British businesses a vital gateway to the global marketplace. If this country is to grow and prosper in the future, aviation must be able to grow and prosper. I think all noble Lords are agreed on that.

Aviation provides regular connections not only to today’s major world economies but to the emerging economies. However, we recognise that there is a price to pay for every flight—a price that is measured in noise, local air pollution and carbon. To continue enjoying the benefits of a growing aviation sector, we need to make sure that growth is sustainable. That is exactly why the Government are developing a new sustainable aviation strategy. However, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, we cannot do this overnight. From the very start, the Government made clear that unsustainable aviation growth was unacceptable. We have maxed out on what the people surrounding Heathrow Airport can tolerate.

Instead, we have been working hard to make our airports more effective. We have a range of initiatives under way to deliver that ambition. For example, last week the Civil Aviation Bill was introduced to Parliament. This will give the CAA more flexible powers to respond to passenger issues and better target issues such as airport resilience. Our South East Airports Task Force, which was set up to improve operations at major airports, has explored measures for improving punctuality, tackling delay and strengthening resilience at Heathrow, which are being trialled. It has also endorsed plans to improve the current aviation security regime, on which we have consulted and are developing. We are also looking at how we can tackle delays and reduce the need for aircraft stacking through the CAA’s Future Airspace Strategy and the Single European Sky.

As well as these initiatives, we still need to address the bigger question over future demand and future connectivity. The National Infrastructure Plan we published last year was clear that we must maintain the status of the UK as an international hub for aviation. We recognise that it is vital to maintain the UK’s connectivity to improve our links to the emerging economies and promote inward investment and inbound tourism. That is why we are planning to launch a call for evidence on options for maintaining the UK’s hub status alongside our draft framework. Through this we aim to reach an evidence-based conclusion on how to meet the UK’s long-term connectivity needs. The noble Baroness called for rapid and firm decisions. However, the Government will consider these matters very carefully and make the right decisions, not necessarily rapid ones.

In the shorter term, we welcome the recent launch of new routes from Gatwick to Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi, and the announcement that Air China will launch a Gatwick-Beijing route. These are the sort of global connections that British businesses need, and not just from London. We know how crucial our regional airports are in helping to balance growth across the country and to relieve crowding, where possible, at our south-east airports. We also recognise the importance of connecting the regions to London by air and rail to maximise the benefits.

To make this growth sustainable, we need to find new ways to decarbonise aviation. We will work with the industry to boost investment in and research into low-carbon technologies and fuels. For example, we welcome the research that countries such as the US have done in the use of algae-based sustainable fuels. Developing innovative fuel sources will be the key to enabling aviation to grow in a sustainable and successful way. We want to see Britain at the forefront of delivering greener air travel. The inclusion of aviation in the European emissions trading system from 1 January was an important step. Now we need to push for international agreement in ICAO on aviation emissions to get the level playing field that will ensure that aviation is able to grow globally in a balanced and fair way.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, urged the Government to reconsider the issue of aviation taxation. The Government accept that the current economic climate is very challenging both for consumers and the aviation sector. However, if the Government are to meet their overall fiscal projections, we must balance the risk of growing competition from abroad with the Government’s need to raise revenues from the sector. The rise in APD rates announced in the Autumn Statement does no more than keep pace with inflation and will give certainty to the industry for the two-year period to 2013. It is also worth remembering that it is important to look at the country’s taxation as a whole. Unlike other countries in the EU, the UK charges no VAT on flights. My noble friend Lady Kramer talked about the favourable taxation status of the aviation industry.

We continue to believe that tackling climate change is one of the most important challenges we face and that all sectors, including aviation, should contribute globally to the 2 degrees Celsius goal. The Government continue to support emissions trading as one of the key instruments for reducing CO₂ emissions from aviation.

Many noble Lords talked about the proposal for a Thames estuary airport. We are interested in innovative proposals for maintaining the UK’s aviation hub status and we will consider all proposals submitted that meet the criteria set out in our call for evidence. A new airport in the Thames estuary is one idea that has been put forward in response to our recent scoping exercise, but we need a much more detailed level of evidence, in particular on costs, funding and wider impacts, before we are in a position to develop which approach the Government should support. That is why we need the call for evidence.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I take it that he is not going to leave this point before answering the question: how can he possibly justify a review of the hub in Britain while excluding Heathrow? Is that not rather like, as someone said, reviewing the expansion of supermarkets without including Tesco?

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, the noble Lord has made his question clear.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

I have and I am sitting down.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, first, I have explained that we have already maxed out on what the local people around Heathrow can tolerate.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

That is not true.

[Earl Attlee]

Secondly, this Government have an open mind, which is the right way to go into a consultation. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, effectively asked whether we are going to do a U-turn on Stansted. The commitment in the coalition agreement still stands.

[Lord Rosser]

In the light of what he said about the Government having an open mind, will the noble Earl confirm that the previous government statements about no new runways at any of the three largest airports in London and the south-east no longer stand?

[Earl Attlee]

Definitely not, my Lords. The noble Lords knows perfectly well that that is in the coalition agreement and will stay.

The noble Lord, Lord Monks, asked me what more can be done to support industry and its people. The Government recognise the value that the aviation industry brings through supporting a network of highly skilled workers that adds value to the economy. The sector is at the forefront of technological progress, delivering R&D projects and large-scale investments that drive industry and the economy forwards. It is important that the trade union sector fully engages in the consultation process. The noble Lord also touched on the important issue of pilot fatigue. On the matter of flight-time limitations, we will support the proposed requirements only if the Civil Aviation Authority determines that they provide an appropriate level of protection against crew fatigue.

The noble Lord, Lord Soley, touched on the 76,000 employees at Heathrow, plus those in related service industries. We have to take their position into consideration as well. The noble Lord also talked about biofuels. The Government are clear that sustainable biofuels have a role to play in reducing CO₂ emissions from transport, particularly in sectors such as aviation where there are limited alternatives to fossil fuels. In recent years, the aviation industry has conducted research and carried out flight tests to help provide information on different fuels. This work has demonstrated that biofuels for aviation are technically feasible. However, there are currently a range of barriers to introducing biofuels, including sustainability, scalability of the feed stocks and commercial viability. The Government will continue to work with European partners, the wider international community and industry to explore how to bring about a significant increase in the use of biofuels in aviation. Advanced biofuels, such as those derived from algae, when commercialised, could offer particular advantages, such as reduced land use impact.

On UK connectivity with China, the Government recognise the importance of developing and maintaining good links between the UK and emerging economies. That is why this March we are calling for evidence on options for maintaining the UK's hub status. Heathrow currently has fewer scheduled flights to mainland China than Paris or Frankfurt, but more than Amsterdam. However, if flights from Heathrow to Hong Kong are included, there are more flights from Heathrow to China than from any other EU hub. Hong Kong serves around 45 destinations on the Chinese mainland.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, raised the issue of connectivity with the regions, particularly Northern Ireland. The Government recognise the vital contribution that air connections make to regional economies and acknowledge Northern Ireland's concerns about the air service between Northern Ireland and Heathrow should BMI be sold to British Airways. However, airlines operate in a competitive commercial environment, and it is for individual airlines to determine the routes that they operate. The options for supporting regional air services to London are limited. Member states can impose public service obligations to protect air services to remote airports, which could permit slots to be ring-fenced. However, they can be imposed only between specific cities, not specific airports, a difficulty identified by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. We have written to the EU Commission on that point, but there is no other mechanism for the Government to intervene in the allocation of slots at UK airports. The noble Lord introduced the Airports (Amendment) Bill, which would provide for the protection of air services between Heathrow and the UK regions. The Government are considering in detail the measures included in the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Lea, got quite excited about a number of points. Although we are committed to not authorising additional runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, we are looking at our aviation policy framework with an open mind. The aviation industry is vital to our country. Our next step is to publish the draft aviation strategy and call in March for evidence on hub connectivity. With that strategy, we want to move away from the polarised opinions that have dominated discussion in the past and develop a broader consensus for change.

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde]

I will detain the Minister for only a short time. Can he answer my question? Will the consultation document contain the Government's proposals for dealing with the short and medium-term issues on capacity?

[Earl Attlee]

I will have to write to the noble Baroness on that detail.

With the strategy, we want to move away from the polarised opinions that have dominated discussion in the past and develop a broader consensus for change, one that recognises aviation’s integral role in generating growth and jobs, in providing the global connections on which businesses rely, but also acknowledges the real need to address the impact of flights on local communities and on climate change, a consensus that supports both a flourishing and responsible UK air transport industry.

Welfare Reform Bill

Monday 23rd January 2012 Lords Chamber

Report (5th Day) (Continued)

20:38

Amendment 60

Moved by

[Lord Best]

60: Clause 94, page 64, line 5, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations under this section shall provide that the benefit cap shall not be applied for the first 26 weeks from the date on which the claimant’s total entitlement to welfare benefits exceeds the relevant amount.”

[Lord Best]

I shall speak to Amendments 60 and 61, which would constrain two of the more extreme aspects of the benefit cap proposed by the Bill. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear me say that I note that most of those pushed over the cap are in that position because of their housing costs. They are paying high rents in London or the south of England. Why the Government's effort to change people's behaviour and psychology is concentrated almost exclusively on this part of the UK remains a mystery.

Let me take the amendments in turn. First, Amendment 60 would provide a period of grace of 26 weeks for those suddenly affected by the total benefit cap. The noble Lord, Lord German, said in Committee:

“People need the breathing space to be able to find a new job and get themselves back into work. The rationale behind this Bill is making work pay ... giving people time to find another job … should be a first and not a last resort.—[Official Report, 21/11/11; GC 344.]

Such a breathing space is currently the pattern before housing benefit/local housing allowance is curtailed in other circumstances. If, by contrast, the new £500 cap kicks in instantly, the household will run into serious financial problems as soon as any savings they have are exhausted. Rather than having savings, many families may have loans and debts. Because of the new cap, many families in privately rented accommodation—or even some housing association accommodation—across the south of England who encounter unemployment or family breakdown that means loss of a breadwinner will run into difficulty immediately. They will find the safety net of benefits—the social security they have been paying for in national insurance contributions—is no longer there to see them through the transition. Without a period of grace, the cap will mean that the rent can no longer be paid and they are likely to face the prospect of having to leave their current home precipitously.

If people become homeless in this way, the savings the Treasury seeks will swiftly be absorbed by the extra costs for local authorities in finding them somewhere else, which, as we discussed earlier, will not be easy. If they are moved away to a low-cost area, say from Brighton to Bradford, job opportunities are likely to be few and far between. Long-term unemployment becomes much more likely than if they had had the chance to get a job in the locality they know. The move will disrupt children’s education, cut helpful links with grandparents, and all the other disadvantages we have heard of in earlier debates. The harm done can continue for another generation, all because of impatience in imposing the new cap too rapidly. Finding a new home, even in a cheaper area, will not be easy and it takes time to secure a rented property even if the council is trying to help. Surely the best approach is for the DWP to hold back on imposing the new cap long enough to enable the family that has run into difficulties to get back on their feet, rather than forcing them into a crisis with the double trauma of losing their job and losing their home in rapid succession.

I heard the Secretary of State say this morning—we hear it first on the “Today” programme—that hard-working families trying to get a new job would not be penalised. The Minister has dropped many hints that something will be done. I am hopeful, therefore, that the Minister will be able to accept Amendment 60. Colleagues from different parts of your Lordships’ House have told me that in today’s job market 26 weeks is not a long enough period of grace. They have urged me to press for 52 weeks before the total benefit cap takes effect. I have, however, stuck with 26 weeks in the hope that it will give the Minister less trouble. But, a shorter stay of execution would not seem either humane or sensible.

Amendment 61 also seeks to take the edge off one of the most extreme aspects of the total benefit cap. This amendment would exclude from the cap families placed by their local authority in temporary accommodation—normally a private rented flat when the council has struck a deal with the landlord. Rents for temporary accommodation, even though many local authorities send the homeless family some distance to the cheapest neighbourhoods they can find, are high and the housing benefit has to encompass an extra charge to cover the administration of the arrangements. A total bill for a family of three children could be £440 a week in London, even though a central London borough has despatched the family to the lowest-priced accommodation it can locate. If £440 goes on rent, a total benefit cap of £500 obviously leaves practically nothing for all the family’s other costs, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, noted earlier. There is no prospect of them surviving on the remaining income within the cap, but the family concerned cannot do anything to rectify the situation. They have not chosen the accommodation but have been sent there by the council because nowhere else can be found for them. Yet, if they stay there, and pay the rent, they face destitution. We could bring back the bed-and-breakfast hotels that are becoming extinct, not least because they are so much more expensive than keeping people in rented homes, or we could revert to building hostels for these households, separating women and children from the men in the true “Cathy Come Home” style once again, but I know the Government are not thinking in such draconian terms, and anyway the problem would hit us long before we could recreate such hostels.

20:45

By definition, temporary accommodation is a short-term solution to a crisis and has always been treated separately from payment for other accommodation. The restrictions of the cap should surely not be imposed in these circumstances, hence Amendment 61. In Committee, the Minister gave us some encouragement on both these issues. He told us that he would be looking at transitional arrangements and at ways of dealing with hard cases. He told us that he was exploring options for the treatment of housing benefit—help with housing costs within universal credit—for people sent to live in temporary accommodation. I was reassured by those remarks, and I am very hopeful that today he will be able to make an announcement, perhaps two announcements, about the idea of a period of grace of 26 weeks and about the exclusion from the cap of those placed in temporary accommodation. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, of whom I am a great admirer, thinks such matters should be dealt with through secondary legislation. If the Minister can be clear that such secondary legislation will be brought forward covering the points, as in these amendments, we would all be very much encouraged. I beg to move.

[Baroness Drake]

My Lords, I support Amendment 60, to which my name is attached. It would support hard-working people and their families with a clear work ethic to manage the challenges of today’s flexible labour market and the consequences of losing their job through no fault of their own by allowing a transition period of 26 weeks before the benefit cap is applied. In integrating in and out-of-work benefits, universal credit has to be applied to two different constituencies: those who are out of work for long or sustained periods and those who are regularly in work. A single system has to provide an experience fit for both. I accept that a modern welfare system has to incentivise people to work and to address benefit dependency, but it also has to support hard-working people with a clear work ethic and their families in managing difficult economic circumstances. A benefit cap immediately applied can have a very negative effect on hard-working people and their children when the wage earner loses their job or work involuntarily, even more so where the loss of work happens quickly.

The Government have made clear that a driving principle of the Bill is that work should always pay more than out-of-work benefits and that a benefit cap is, first, a clear message that there is a maximum level of financial support that claimants can expect and, secondly, necessary to provide incentives to work and to reduce benefit dependency. When my noble friend Lord McKenzie questioned the Minister in Committee about whether, if it were established that the cost of the cap outweighed the benefit savings, he would still support the cap, the Minister replied:

“Clearly the message that we are trying to get over is a behavioural one much more than a cost-based one”.—[Official Report, 23/11/11; col. GC 421.]

What is the change in behaviour that the immediate application of the cap is designed to achieve in hard-working people who have lost their job and are desperately seeking another one? Where someone has a clear work ethic and a clear pattern of working and is desperately seeking another job, a grace period of 26 weeks will give them a fighting chance of re-entering the labour force before the weight of penalties comes into play and the cap bites. When faced with job loss, normal working people do not clap their hands and say, “Oh goody goody, I'm off to a life on benefits”. They are more likely to be stressed, anxious and worried about their home, paying bills, their children and their future while they rush around trying to find another job, probably fighting feelings of depression while they do so.

It is higher housing costs that are most likely to push families over the cap. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, without a period of grace, many families in private rented accommodation, particularly those with children and living in the south, will see the benefits for their housing costs cut, potentially forcing them to look for alternative housing elsewhere.

The Government’s impact assessment of the cap said that those affected will need to choose between taking up work, reducing non-rent expenditure or cheaper accommodation, but where someone who loses their job is clearly choosing to take work, they need time to do that. Finding a new job rarely takes days. It is most likely to take quite some weeks and even longer in difficult economic circumstances. The welfare system should provide this safety net, otherwise at the very time when a person needs to put all their efforts into finding another job, their efforts may be redirected to relocating to cheaper accommodation and relocating their children to different schools. In moving, they may lose, as has been said, their contacts, their local knowledge and their networks—all the routes that would most frequently take them back into work. The ultimate irony is that lone parents could face having to relinquish their childcare arrangements—their nursery place or their childminder—just as they need to keep them in place so that they are available to make an early transition back to work.

Currently, approximately 50 per cent of people on JSA get back to work within six months, 75 per cent in nine months and 90 per cent within a year. They clearly want to work. I accept that these figures might have been overtaken because of the rise of unemployment that we are now experiencing whereby 10 people are chasing every job in London, but the underlying argument holds good. They are chasing them because they want to get back into work.

The immediate application of the benefit cap would penalise those who have just lost their jobs—decisions about their rental costs or family size were made while they were employed—before they had even been given time to find another job. Rather than penalise people who are trying to make a rapid return to employment, universal credit should be supporting them. A grace period of 26 weeks does not contradict the simple message, as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Freud, who said that,

“in the end, there is a limit to how much the state is prepared to support someone”.—[Official Report, 23/11/11; col. GC 422.]

Rather, a transition period would ensure that hard-working people faced with an involuntary loss of work are assisted in making an early move back into the labour force and getting their family’s lives back on track before the cap bites. That seems to be a fair, reasonable and decent thing to do.

The Government want to see an increase in private sector employment relative to the public sector to increase flexibility in the labour market through a reduction in employment rights and regulation, but they appear reluctant to transition the benefit cap to help hard-working people manage today’s labour markets and economic realities—realities that will become harsher as global competition intensifies. As currently drafted, the benefit cap would undermine the expectation that if you work hard, pay into the system and play by the rules, there will be a safety net available to you if you hit hard times so that you have a chance to recover.

This Bill also sets the welfare rules for people who have no record of benefit dependency and are paying their national insurance contributions. When I made that point in Committee, the Minister commented:

“I shall bear that point very much in mind as we go through the next stages”.—[Official Report, 23/11/11; col. GC 427.]

We are at the “next stages” and I encourage him to put flesh on that consideration. This amendment does not pose a principled challenge to the cap; it poses a 26-week transition for people who are rushing around urgently trying to find another job before the cap is imposed. I accept that the Minister has made a major contribution to welfare reform but I ask him to accept the case for a safety net. As I have said, that seems to me to be a fair, reasonable and decent thing to do.

[Lord Skelmersdale]

My Lords, would the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, accept that she is talking about those who have been earning more than cap and fallen on hard times rather than those with whom much of the legislation is involved: that is, those who in employment have been earning under the cap?

[Baroness Drake]

The Bill sets the welfare rules for people who do not have a record of benefit dependency. In the national insurance contribution system, one is trying to design something that gives people a cushion. Sometimes it will be because they will be earning higher than the cap; on other occasions it is because of the nature of their accommodation. Either way, instead of having a cushion so that they can concentrate on getting back into work as quickly as possible, which it is clear most of them want to do, there is a danger that the immediate way in which the cap will operate means that they will have to take defensive measures to bring down their level of expenditure rather than putting all their efforts into finding a job.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best. It is largely about the transitional arrangements, on which we are still working towards having more information. It would be helpful if the Government could spell out exactly how they are going to deal with the problem of the flow after April 2013—because everyone will have a year’s transition. If they become unemployed after April 2013, they will in certain circumstances be hit by the cap. I think that there is some sympathy in the House for people who have not had a history of benefit dependency. We are not trying to achieve behavioural change with them. How are we going to help them back into work when they are suddenly faced with high housing costs and a cap being imposed on them?

In our debate on children, insufficient attention was given to the fact that one of the biggest problems is the differential in housing costs between certain areas. Fortunately, those who have the highest housing costs will normally be in areas where they are likely to get a job quickly, rather than in areas where housing costs are lower. Even so, it takes much longer to get a job these days, particularly in this market, than it has in the past. People need some help with that transition.

We need more information from the Government on the transitional arrangements, which we on our Benches are concerned remain imprecise. This particular issue highlights that.

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 60A, which is perhaps slightly oddly grouped with the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Best. The amendment would prevent carer’s benefit claimants being subject to the proposed household benefit cap by exempting households including a carer’s allowance claimant and carers in receipt of the carer premium in universal credit.

There can be no doubt about the contribution made by carers in unpaid care—indeed, there was considerable discussion about this at a previous stage of the Bill and last week. Their contribution has been valued at some £119 billion by Carers UK and is of immeasurable value to the people they care for. Peers from all sides of the House have recognised this contribution with personal accounts of experiences of caring and moving stories from families struggling in what are often very difficult circumstances.

Carers’ contribution and the challenges they face set them apart as particularly deserving of support from the benefits system and as clear candidates for exemption from a cap which the Government have said is designed to penalise individuals who are failing to play a full part in society.

21:00

The Government have already outlined exemptions to the proposed household benefit cap for disabled people in receipt of disability living allowance. However, this will not protect certain groups of carers. Not only does it seem fundamentally unfair for carers to be affected by the cap, but it is at odds with the Government’s commitment to protect families affected by disability from the cap.

So which carers will be affected? The DLA exemption protects households including a DLA claimant, but what is considered to be a household for the purposes of universal credit includes children under 18 and partners and not adult children or other adult relatives. This will deliver some real inconsistencies. Families caring for disabled children under 18 will therefore be exempt from the cap, but those caring for adult disabled children will be subject to it because the DLA claimant, as an adult, will no longer be considered to live in the same benefits household even if they live together. Those caring for a disabled partner will be exempt, but people caring for other working-age relatives—siblings, cousins, neighbours or friends—will be subject to the cap. In addition, all carers supporting an elderly parent or other older relatives in receipt of attendance allowance—the equivalent benefit to DLA for older people—will also be subject to the cap.

It is disappointing that carers do not figure in the impact assessment for the cap, so we cannot know how many of the 560,000 carers in receipt of carers’ benefits might be affected. We can, however, know what the financial impact might be. Carers UK modelled what the impact would be on a single mother with three children, caring full-time for her elderly mother who has dementia and lives with them. She would currently receive carers’ allowance at £55 a week, child benefit and child tax credit totalling £204, housing allowance and council tax benefit totalling £362 and income support at £42. Technically, she does not live in the same household as a DLA claimant so she will be subject to the cap. Her income of £663 a week will be capped at £500, resulting in a loss of £163 a week, or £652 a month. I should say that these figures are based on estimates for somebody living in a four-bedroom house in London in council tax band C. Needless to say, this will be devastating. For many families it could lead to a breakdown in family care with huge personal costs to those families and great financial costs to local authorities who will have to step in to provide support. Given these risks and inconsistencies, to ensure that carers are not left potentially hundreds of pounds a month worse-off it is crucial that carers’ benefits act to exempt carers from the cap. Can the Minister explain the inconsistencies in the groups of carers who would and would not be affected?

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 60A. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has probably not had a chance to see the latest impact assessment, which hit our e-mail accounts only a few hours before this debate. There is now a section in it about carers and I would like to add to what she said. The assessment said that 5,000 carers are expected to be affected by the cap. It is a small number but it is 5,000 too many, in my view. The mean reduction in benefit as a result of the cap is £87 a week; the median is £65 a week. That is a lot of money for carers to lose. Can the Minister tell us what behavioural change the Government are looking for among carers?

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

I have a more specific question about disability living allowance and I think this may be the right place to ask it. If someone living in a high-cost rental area on local housing allowance has a serious accident or is diagnosed with a serious long-term condition, perhaps next March, and is placed in the ESA work-related activity group, they might apply for disability living allowance. They might have had a stroke that was not bad enough to take them out of the jobs market for a very long term but that would require them to take a long period of recovery, and they might have been quite badly affected. This person will have to be assessed and then wait for a qualifying period of three months. If during those three months the person in the household falls foul of the benefit cap, will they be penalised immediately or will their application for DLA be taken into account, which of course will then exempt them from the cap? This is an important matter which we have not heard anything about. It might be part of the transitional arrangements that we hope we will hear about, but I would hate that person, with all their difficulties, to have to think about having to look for another place to live when they are trying to recover from quite a serious illness.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, Amendment 60A seeks to protect carers from the impact of the benefit cap in cases in which they are not living with the person for whom they care. On the last day on which we debated the Bill, the Minister told us of the value that the Government place on carers and their work. However, the Bill is drafted in such a way that this work will be valued only when the carer lives with the person for whom they care and thus excluded from the benefit cap by virtue of that person’s eligibility for DLA or PIP. Carers who are not part of the DLA claimant’s household, as we have heard, will be subject to the benefit cap. They are therefore likely to lose their carer’s allowance, suggesting that the Government place no value on their care.

As we have heard, the latest impact assessment estimates that 5,000 carers will be affected by the cap—that is the number provided by my noble friend Lady Lister—and yet not only does such care save the taxpayer thousands of pounds but the carer will be almost unable to work—or at least full time—by virtue of their caring. So they may face the choice of ending their care role in order to live. This is not theoretical. One in six carers has made the difficult decision to give up work to care, leading to an average loss of £11,000 a year. Many such families struggle to make ends meet as they cope with both a drop in income and the increased costs of caring—for example, through buying extra support and equipment and travelling to hospital and doctors’ appointments.

The impact of the cap will be to make this struggle significantly more difficult. Carers affected could lose £87 a week. Indeed, it may mean that some carers are faced with a tough choice between giving up caring—imposing significant costs on health and social care services—or taking a significant financial hit.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions told the BBC on Friday that people were “not suffering” as a result of his welfare reforms. Perhaps he would like to reconsider whether carers are likely to suffer if the amendment is not passed.

The Secretary of State might also consider the case of some of our service personnel. War widows are excluded—quite rightly—from the benefit cap, but should a mother helping to look after her son, injured in Kabul or Iraq, and claiming carer’s allowance for this, still be subject to the cap? Is that fair? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Amendment 61, which relates to temporary accommodation, was to a degree dealt with in the first amendment we discussed today. It was a component of that broader amendment. We certainly support the amendment. I took it from what the Minister said in response to that general debate that something was afoot to address this issue but, without having had the chance to read Hansard yet, it was not totally clear what. Perhaps he will take the opportunity of saying it again, expanding, promising to write or whichever of those options he feels appropriate. It sounded as though there was a recognition of the need to address the issue that has been raised by the amendment. I certainly support the fact that there should be a move to address this and I look forward to receiving further information.

We very much support Amendment 60 and a period of grace. We would have been happy to support 52 weeks, but if 26 weeks is what the noble Lord, Lord Best, is pressing for, we would certainly support that should he wish to press the matter.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, that there are two things here. There are issues around transition. I see that the Lib Dem Benches are placing great faith in what might flow from transition and the offers that might come. However, I think that is different from an ongoing period of grace. The purpose of this, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend Lady Drake have enunciated, is to help people who fall out of work and to allow them a period of adjustment or a period of grace before the cap hits. There might be a transitional component to that, but this needs to be something of a permanent feature of the arrangements to make sense.

I suppose that six months corresponds with the contributory JSA period. My noble friend Lady Drake may be more up to date than I am on the data. It used to be 50 per cent back in work in three months and 75 per cent in six months. The data may have moved on. Certainly, given the unemployment figures that are around, I think even the longer period suggested by my noble friend must be somewhat difficult. The arguments in favour of a period of grace seem to be overwhelming. For someone to have to cope with all the traumas of losing their job and at the same time have to face changes in accommodation and moving to a new area, which could be a direct consequence of the cap, would be unforgivable. I hope that the Minister can say something positive on that as well.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, Amendment 60 would require us to provide for a period of 26 weeks during which we could not apply the benefit cap. The period would start from the date that a claimant’s welfare benefits first exceeded the level of the cap. It would therefore not only apply to new claimants, but also to existing claimants who have a change of circumstance that results in the level of the benefits that they receive exceeding that of the cap. We have said all along that we would look at ways of easing the transition for families. We do not want families to be taken by surprise by the cap or to create problems that people can avoid by taking appropriate steps. We want to ensure that people who might be affected by the cap know what to expect and can consider the options open to them.

There has been a lot of speculation in the press about whether a grace period is what the Government have in mind. Clearly, a grace period could be a way of easing transitions, especially for people who have recently been in work and can be expected to return to work within a short period. A grace period would mean that their benefit entitlement would not be affected when they first leave work. This would avoid the risk that they would be prevented from looking for work because of the need to adjust their circumstances because of the cap. That point has been made in the debate.

However, people who have recently enjoyed a high income are better able to deal with temporary shortfall and can and should be expected to have made their own provision if they know that there are limits on benefit entitlement. A grace period also carries the risk that people are likely to stay on benefits for longer than they would otherwise simply because a higher rate of benefit is temporarily available to them, so while the grace period approach is clearly one possible approach, it needs careful consideration. Issues with run-ons and things like that would need to be looked at very carefully. We also need to consider whether other approaches may be just as effective or indeed more effective for some groups. What I can say today, as I said in Grand Committee, is that we are well aware of the issues, we are confident that we have the powers we need to ease transitions and we will consider the case for a grace period along with the other options that might be available.

Amendment 60A seeks to exclude carers from the benefit cap. For carers the benefit system is designed to provide financial support where caring responsibilities prevent carers working full time and, as such, carer’s allowance should be treated in the same way for the purposes of the cap alongside other income maintenance benefits. However, households which include a member who is in receipt of DLA, PIP on its introduction, attendance allowance or constant attendance allowance, will be exempt from the impact of the benefits cap. Households where a member receives carer’s allowance but no members receive DLA, attendance allowance or constant attendance allowance, will not be so exempt. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who is a fast reader, pointed out, the revised impact assessment states that 5,000 claimants fall into this group. One of the reasons that the number is rather less than one might have expected—or that I suspect the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, expected—is because we are looking at two benefit units, so the disabled person retains all their disability benefits and the rest of the benefits are received by the other householder. That is one of the reasons why the figures net down to rather a small number.

21:15

I acknowledge and re-acknowledge the vital role that carers fulfil, but I must return to our belief that it is not right that those on benefit can receive more than the average family wage. In response to the question on behavioural change from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, one thing we are not looking to encourage is a change in the carer’s behaviour so that they stop caring. That is absolutely not where we want to go. However, if the person being cared for is in a separate household, there is no obvious reason why the cap should not apply. Many carers of working age want to retain a foothold in the labour market where possible, not just for their financial well-being but to enhance their lives and the lives of those for whom they care. Universal credit will provide support for carers and improve their opportunities to maintain links with the world of work. Carers who move into work and become eligible for working tax credit will be exempt from the cap.

Amendment 61 seeks to place in the Bill an exemption from the benefit cap for households who are provided with interim or temporary accommodation by a local authority. I have already said in my response to Amendment 58D that it is too early to say how we are going to treat people in temporary accommodation for housing costs purposes in 2013 and beyond. Following our informal consultation with key stakeholders last year, we are considering the policy design for temporary accommodation and will share more details about our plans before too long.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Can I ask the Minister whether “before too long” would be before Third Reading? We have had lots of debates in Committee on the words “too long”, “too soon”, “soon”, and “very soon”. Could the Minister help us? What sort of timescale does he have in mind on that?

[Lord Freud]

No, that will be beyond the Bill becoming an Act, so we are looking at how we do this in regulations.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Given that we are expecting a localism Bill next year—I guess—would it be incorporated in that, so the House would have a chance to amend? The trouble with regulations is that you cannot amend, whereas with primary legislation you can.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we are going to spend a lot of time on getting this right. It is not something we want frozen in primary legislation. In fact, it would be very uncomfortable to freeze these items in primary legislation. Regulation is the right place to do these things. We have a consultation paper out on how we may move forward with temporary accommodation. There are some very obvious solutions within that—I touched on them earlier this evening—comprising separating out service charges and housing costs rather than bundling them up; that is where the temporary accommodation becomes so expensive. We need to get a solution to this so that we do not have a ludicrous go-round of people moving into expensive temporary accommodation which they can no longer pay for because of the cap. We are absolutely aware of this and have measures in train to get a solution in the round to that issue. However, it is not a simple set of issues.

[Lord Greaves]

On the same point, the Localism Act 2011, which we recently passed, means that in many cases local authorities will carry out their duty to find accommodation for homeless families by putting them into privately rented accommodation, where they will have to pay the rent. How will that tie in with a benefit cap that might apply to the accommodation, to which the local authority directs them in order to fulfil its homelessness duty? Will the local authority be under some obligation to top up the rent, or something like that?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, one can very easily see circumstances in which a local authority considers that to be a very sensible use of the discretionary housing payments. That is one reason why we have ramped up that amount. I am not saying that it will be every time, but that might be a solution. We are looking to redesign the process of finding temporary accommodation, which is the immediate problem that local authorities are faced with, so that we do not get caught in some Catch-22, which would obviously not be smart at all. That is where we are with that; we are very conscious of those issues and very comfortable that we have the legislative powers to develop effective solutions.

I pick up the important point from my noble friend Lady Thomas on the DLA and how the cap interacts with it. The DLA is there for those in receipt of DLA. That is how we have worded the illustrative regulations. A person whose DLA award is pending and who is serving what is now, and will remain, a three-month qualifying period, would not be covered by the exemption. That is the point in the question raised by my noble friend. It shows why this issue and other similar issues need to be dealt with in secondary legislation, so that we do not have the inflexibility that we would have if it was in primary legislation.

We are conscious of the concerns around the introduction of the cap. I can assure noble Lords that we are listening. We have said all along that we will introduce measures to ease the transition for families and provide assistance in hard cases. We are still considering our plans, and it is essential that we get them right. The clause has been drafted so that we have all the powers that we need to ensure through regulations that we provide the appropriate protections. I hope that that gives the noble Lord, Lord Best, a measure of reassurance.

Before I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment, I would like to make it clear that the Government do not consider Amendments 60A and 61 to be directly consequential on Amendment 60. Further Divisions would be required should noble Lords wish to push those other two amendments in the group to a vote. I apologise for spelling that out, but we had a small frisson the other week. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Best]

My Lords, I am sure talk of further Divisions will be unnecessary at this late hour. I am very grateful to many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for supporting my amendment on the 26-week period of grace. She made the point that we cannot possibly require behavioural change from people who are already desperately seeking work, which is what we want them to do. I was also grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, in backing this amendment. People with no history of benefit dependency should surely be given a period of grace to find work.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, made the point that perhaps 52 weeks would be better than 26 as a period to allow people to get back into work, especially given the statistics we heard—that 50 per cent of people who go on to jobseeker’s allowance find a job within six months, but if we want to get 90 per cent back into work it may take a year in the current job market.

This remains a very important ingredient in the use of the cap. The Minister has promised that finding a solution is a priority and that a period of grace to ease the transition is one way of handling this, but there may be an even cleverer way. The Minister says that the issue still needs to be looked at very carefully but is confident that a way will be found. I must take this on trust, but with the expectation that there will indeed be measures that handle this transition and satisfy the House when the regulations, although those cannot be amended, are brought before us.

I am also grateful for noble Lords’ support on the amendment to make sure that temporary accommodation does not become a Catch-22 situation whereby homeless people are sent somewhere by the council, only to find when they get there that they are not able to pay the rent because the benefit cap has kicked in. That would be a calamity for them. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, for weighing in on that one and to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for asking for further clarification.

The Minister explained that we need to find a way, and he is confident we shall find one, of handling this exemption or exclusion, or in some way treating temporary accommodation differently and in a satisfactory way. I trust him to be as good as his word and I have pleasure in withdrawing these amendments.

Amendment 60 withdrawn.

Amendment 60A not moved.

Amendment 60B

Moved by

[Baroness Drake]

60B: Clause 94, page 64, line 5, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations under this section must provide for an exemption from the application of the benefit cap for family and friends carers where—
(a) the child comes to live with the carer as a result of plans made within a section 47 of the Children Act 1989 child protection enquiry or following enquiries under section 53 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and the local authority states that the child cannot remain with the parents in the current circumstances;(b) a child comes to live with the carer following a section 37 of the Children Act 1989 investigation and the local authority states that the child cannot remain with the parents in the current circumstances;(c) a carer has secured a residence order, including a residence order under section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, or special guardianship order to avoid a child being looked after, and there is professional evidence of the impairment of the parents’ ability to care for the child;(d) the carer has a residence order, including a residence order under section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, or special guardianship order arising out of care proceedings;(e) the carer has a residence order, including a residence order under section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, or special guardianship order following the accommodation of a child; (f) the carer has a residence order, including a residence order under section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 or special guardianship order following the death or serious illness of a parent;(g) the carer is an approved kinship carer under Part V of the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009.”

[Baroness Drake]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 60B, the purpose of which is to exempt from the benefit cap family and friends carers who are bringing up children whose parents cannot do so. These are children who would otherwise be in care and this community of carers is looking after a population well in excess of 200,000 children.

Family and friends carers may be disproportionately affected by the benefit cap as they are likely to be living in larger households because of taking in a sibling group, particularly if they have children of their own living at home. It is not uncommon for a kinship carer to be looking after four, five or six children. As a result these families could immediately be up against the cap. Grandparents Plus research finds that 10 per cent of kinship carer households consist of five or more people. While in most of the country carers receive benefits that are less than £500 a week, in parts of London people with larger families are already paying upwards of £400 a week in rent. The cap would leave these future kinship carers with less than £100 a week to cover all their family’s, including their new family’s, needs.

Around one in three kinship carers gives up work to care for children when they move in. Almost half of these children have emotional and behavioural problems or other special needs or disabilities. In about half of cases their parents are misusing drugs or alcohol. Bringing up someone else's children is enormously emotional and a big financial commitment, yet only a minority of carers—around a third—receive an allowance from the local authority. In the present financial climate, local authorities are even more reluctant to pay kinship carers allowances.

No one sets out in life to become a kinship carer. People do it because they do not want to see their grandchildren, their younger siblings or their nieces or nephews, or children who they know well, taken into care. Often, giving up work is not a choice for them. They are told by social workers or by other authorities that the children will be put in care or placed for adoption if they do not do this. Children who are cared for can be of any age, not just in their early years. Kinship carers are not entitled to an employment break when a child or children first move in and can face significant financial disadvantage as a result of having to give up work. If they are older, they may find it difficult subsequently to re-enter the labour market.

An unintended consequence of the benefit cap is that fewer family and friend carers may volunteer in difficult circumstances, increasing the number of children taken into care as a result. This would be more expensive from the point of view of the state and certainly not in the child's best interest. It costs £40,000 for one child to be in an independent foster care placement for one year and I understand that there is already a shortage of 10,000 foster carers.

The argument that imposing a benefit cap on larger families will discourage people from having more children has no resonance or behavioural leverage for family and friend carers, who are taking on other people's children. A benefit cap can have no positive incentive at all. Rather, it is a disincentive to kinship carers, who save the state significant amounts of money and provide a better solution for the child. Which of the three choices identified in the impact assessment do kinship carers take to mitigate the impact of the cap? Do they go to work, reduce their expenditure or move to cheaper accommodation?

Kinship carers may have to give up work as a condition of assuming responsibility for the child. Grandparents Plus has many examples of grandparents being told by social workers that unless they give up work, their grandchildren will be taken into care. They cannot mitigate the cap by going to work because they then hurt the child. Often, kinship carers want to stay in work, but this may not be an option if they want to take over the responsibility for the child. They may have their own children to support and moving to cheaper accommodation would seem to punish those who voluntarily embrace the responsibility for somebody else's children, often in difficult circumstances.

Children moving into kinship care because of serious family difficulties need stability, and if the carer has to move house to reduce housing costs that will be highly disruptive and mean that children have to change schools. It may mean that the local support networks, on which the kinship carers rely, will also be disrupted. This places further strain on carers, who are already under enormous stress because of the family difficulties that the children they are taking on have endured. Even more than for other parents, community links with families, neighbourhoods, friends, churches and community groups provide vital support to carers who are often bringing up children who may be traumatised.

The amendment covers only carers who are looking after children who would otherwise be in care and under a relevant order. There is no possibility that exempting these kinship carers would result in any sort of perverse incentive for people to go round sweeping up children in the hope of claiming that they are caring for them and accruing additional benefits.

At the risk of repeating myself, I will go back to what I said in Committee and quote the Secretary of State, Iain Duncan Smith. If his words are compelling, as I said in Committee, why should I use alternatives? He said:

“The state has become ambivalent about the importance of family structure … the role of the extended family … in a context of growing family breakdown, it is all the more important that we continue to support … and hold together these wider relationships”.

Unless family and friends carers are exempt from the effect of the cap, the state will move from ambivalence to antipathy. In referring to exempting people from the cap, the Minister said in Committee on 23 November:

“We have … been very careful in providing exemptions and deliberately kept the list short”.—[Official Report, 23/11/11; col. GC 415.]

I simply ask that the short list includes family and friends carers. That protects the children and certainly makes fiscal sense.

I acknowledge that the Minister has recognised the valuable role that kinship carers fulfil and that he has committed to looking at a range of issues affecting this group—an important commitment that I accept and I know that he will keep to it. But it remains uncertain as to what the noble Lord intends and this may be my last chance to argue the case for this community before the Bill leaves this House. It is important that a decision on whether individual carers are exempt from the cap should not be left to local discretion. People who are thinking of taking on something as significant as the care of vulnerable children need a degree of certainty about the support that they can expect.

In response to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the Minister used words to the effect that, “Kinship carers are a special case and we need to get it right in regulations. Families need a period to adjust to looking after troubled children”. I would like to push him on that sentiment. As I said, this may be my final chance to argue the case for the valuable job that this community of carers delivers. Will he accept the amendment or agree to include an exemption from the cap for family and friends carers under regulation? Not only is the case for the carers and the children compelling, but it also makes fiscal sense to exempt them.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield]

My Lords, I support the amendment that has just been moved so powerfully and comprehensively by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. Having myself moved a similar amendment in Committee, I do not wish to go over the same ground that she has, save to say that there is a powerful case for providing an exemption from the cap for grandparents, older siblings, aunts, uncles and other family members who are raising vulnerable children because of very difficult family circumstances such as parental death, alcohol or substance misuse, imprisonment, severe illness, disability, abuse or neglect—the list goes on and on. Children living in the care of family and friends are often exceptionally vulnerable and have already suffered huge disadvantages and traumas in life.

As the noble Baroness clearly put across, one consequence of the benefit cap that I am sure is unintended is that fewer family and friends may step forward as carers in these difficult circumstances, and the cost to the state, particularly if more children go into care as a result, would be considerable. To amplify that point, I shall mention a few statistics that the Family Rights Group was good enough to share with me from an internet survey that it has just conducted—the largest survey of family and friends carers in the UK—with 500 respondents. The survey’s findings show that: more than 16 per cent of respondents were raising three or more children, both kinship children and their own; 11 per cent of respondents were in private rented accommodation and 28 per cent in housing association or council rented accommodation; 29 per cent received housing benefit; 31 per cent had given up work permanently when taking on kinship children while 14 per cent had given up work temporarily; and 20 per cent of the children that they were raising had previously been in an unrelated foster care placement. I think this puts some flesh on the bones of this particular issue.

I know that my noble friend the Minister was very sympathetic in Committee to this issue and has written in very sympathetic terms to the charities which are most involved. I very much hope that he has some reassuring words to give us tonight.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, rather like the amendment which we discussed earlier on carers, this amendment will, as has been spelt out, protect another unappreciated group: grandparents and other family members or friends who take on the care of children. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, has just told the House, we know that the Minister is sympathetic to this group, which includes many children who have experienced significant traumas before their move to a new caring family.

The Who Cares? Trust estimates that a quarter of these children have lived with abuse, neglect and violence, and a quarter will have been deserted by their parents, often after drug and alcohol abuse. About 60 per cent go to grandparents after family breakdown, one in 10 after a parent’s illness—often mental illness—and one in 10 after the death of a parent. Applying the benefit cap to these families may leave them facing the difficult choices, of which we have already heard, about whether they can simply afford to carry on taking care of the child or children.

As we know, the impact assessment tells us that a family will lose about £93 a week. That is a substantial chunk of income. That may not be very much to Sir, or Mr, Fred Goodwin, but it is a fortune to some of these families. Should any of them decide that they can simply no longer afford to continue looking after the child, that will, as we have heard, create significant costs for the state. With regard to kinship carer allowance, there are estimates that if just 5 per cent of those currently in the care of family or friends were in formal foster care, that alone would add £500 million a year to the cost that the Minister would have to justify to his friends in the Treasury.

The Minister has spoken many warm words about the role played by kinship carers. He has also told us that the benefit cap is primarily intended not as a deficit reduction measure but to change behaviour. Indeed, his right honourable friend the Secretary of State told the BBC that the cap was aimed at making lives better by reducing dependency. We are not talking about dependent claimants here. We are talking about dependent children, who, after some great trauma or difficulty with their own parents, desperately need the kindness, care and homes offered by these grandparents, siblings, aunts or friends. We should be very careful that the Government’s laudable desire to reduce dependency for one group does not have dire effects on the well-being of another.

Given that the cap is not about deficit reduction, so we are not sending the Minister off to arm-wrestle with Her Majesty’s Treasury, we hope that he will try to turn those warm words into concrete protection. It has been suggested earlier this evening that maybe there is a little bit of movement to come. I look forward to hearing from him.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I ought to pick up the initial remark by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that this amendment was to protect another unappreciated group. I emphasise that, from my perspective, this is a most appreciated group. This is an amendment that I listened to with great interest.

It would require us to exempt all family and friends carers from the benefit cap where they have assumed care for a child in the circumstances set out in Amendment 60B. There are two main groups: those formally approved as a foster carer and those providing care on a more informal basis. As noble Lords will remember, in Grand Committee I discussed and recognised the valuable role that kinship carers fulfil. I have had some very useful and valuable meetings with organisations that represent kinship carers to try to get a handle on their priorities. As I said earlier, one of the main issues they are concerned about is that crucial initial period when a child joins a household. In many cases the carer needs to take time off to help the child settle into their new circumstances.

21:45

On the formal number in foster placements, figures from the Department for Education show that there are approximately 7,500 children in those placements. Although we do not have a precise number for how many of those might have their benefits capped, we believe that it will be very small. These carers are able to receive support for the children in their care through the benefits system since, unlike approved foster carers, they have access to child benefit and child tax credit on the same basis as parents. Any additional payments that they receive from the local authority are then disregarded as far as the cap is concerned. However, the parity of treatment with parents will continue with the introduction of universal credit. Kinship carers can expect equal treatment to parents from the benefits system, but that does not mean that I will not look very closely at the position of kinship carers in the benefits system as a whole to ensure that they are recognised and supported in the most appropriate way.

In the previous debate we discussed one of the options—that of a grace period in the transition. Clearly, as we develop those protections and transitional approaches, we will bear very much in mind how they affect kinship carers. Therefore, rather than have a specific exemption for a very small number in this way, we need to design something. It is not appropriate to put this into primary legislation. The trick will be to design the overall structure in a way that gives kinship carers the kind of protection that they need and deserve. However, as I say, my main interest here is in looking at how we can best fit kinship carers into the benefits system so that they slot in beside formal fostering arrangements and what we do for parents, including single parents.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

If the noble Lord were to combine child benefit, for example—given today’s decision by this House—with the guardian’s allowance, having each of those as a per capita sum for each child coming in through kinship caring, and take that out of the benefit cap, it would get him there.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as always, I am incredibly grateful to the noble Baroness for her suggestion. I am thinking of offering her a job. However, let us not redesign the benefits system on the Floor of the House, although we have gone into it on many occasions. Let me ask the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Drake]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their support and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, who also argued the case for family and friends carers in Committee. I accept that the noble Lord has shown a commitment to looking at the needs of this group and I think the charities would accept that.

My anxiety and that of the charities that articulate the interests of family and friends carers is that the Bill is going through the House without one having achieved clarity over the kind of protection that this community will get under the legislation. The Minister said that this community would be supported in the most appropriate way, and that it was necessary to get it right in regulation. It would be helpful if he confirmed that there will be regulatory provision to protect this group, notwithstanding what the precise solution may be, rather than leave the protection to discretion. It would be helpful if the regulatory route was being taken. I thank my noble friend Lady Hollis, as ever, for coming up with an excellent suggestion.

[Lord Freud]

Perhaps I may answer that straight on. I hope I made myself clear that when we get the regulations on handling the transitions and the options around it that we discussed earlier, we do it in a way that looks after this group. I am not committing here to specific exemptions for this group, but I am saying that we are looking at how to do it so that we meet its requirements, of which I am very conscious.

[Baroness Drake]

I thank the noble Lord for that response. In the earlier stages of the debate on this community, my particular concern was that the protection necessary for it is not dealt with solely as a matter of discretion and that there is clear guidance—whether or not as a consequence of dealing with the matter as part of a wider resolution—that it is not left solely to the individual discretion of advisers. I take the response of the Minister as meaning that it will not be left in that way. He is nodding.

[Lord Freud]

Hansard needs more than a nod. Without elaborating on a lot of transitional arrangements, I am not quite sure how this will work. I am not sure that I can give absolute assurance either way, although I would lean towards setting these things out formally without discretion; but I am not in a position to give any kind of assurance either way. There might be elements of discretion in any set of protections that we develop.

[Baroness Drake]

Obviously it would have been preferable if the Minister had said unequivocally that this matter will not be left to local discretion, but it is clear that I am not going to get that reassurance. However, the noble Lord has said quite a lot on record that he is committed to trying to resolve the needs of this particular group. Perhaps I may borrow a phrase from the noble Lord, Lord Newton, in a previous debate: I will hold the Minister’s feet to the fire on this issue. On that basis, I agree to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 60B withdrawn.

Amendment 61 not moved.

Amendment 61ZA had been retabled as Amendment 58D.

Amendments 61ZB to 61A not moved.

Clause 98 : Payments to joint claimants

Amendment 61B

Moved by

[Baroness Meacher]

61B: Clause 98, page 66, line 18, at end insert—
“(b) to determine that payment should be made to whichever of those persons is the responsible carer (as defined in clause 19(6) of the Welfare Reform Act 2011) in the case of any benefit awarded in respect of responsibility for children or young persons or any childcare element, or”

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, the amendment would ensure that within universal credit the elements of benefit awarded for children or young persons, and any child carer element, will be paid to the parent or person who is the primary carer of those children. The amendment is supported by Oxfam, Women’s Aid, the Children’s Society and Platform 51, whose experience makes clear that for millions of people living in poverty the way in which benefits and tax credits are paid is vital in enabling them to keep food on the table for their children day by day.

Recent government research shows that benefits that are labelled as being intended for children are much more likely to be used for that purpose. A study by Hall and Pettigrew for HM Revenue and Customs showed that child tax credit, for example, is commonly identified as money for children and is spent accordingly. A recent study of winter fuel allowance by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, published in 2010, also found,

“robust evidence of a behavioural effect”,

of the labelling of that benefit. A study for Save the Children, HelpAge International and the Institute of Development Studies, published in 2005, points to the value of targeting and delivery mechanisms.

Labelling is currently absent from the new system of universal credit. The amendment would rectify that apparently small but profoundly important fault in the system. I and many other noble Lords on all sides of the House have made clear that we support many of the principles behind universal credit. The amendment neither challenges those principles nor would increase the cost of the system, other than marginally, to cover the administrative costs of making two payments to some households or to those with children. I understand that all the amendment would require is a change to a few lines of code in the current IT system to mirror what already happens with child tax credit. It will be much cheaper to do that now, while the IT infrastructure is being constructed, than to leave it until much later to be dealt with under regulations.

Without the amendment, the universal credit system would deter couples from forming long-term, stable relationships, which I think the Minister would accept is an important point. For many single parents considering whether to form a joint family with a potential new partner by living together or getting married, the prospect of the entire benefit for the whole newly formed family being paid into one account will be a strong disincentive to forming a single unit, but the formation of such families holds out the best hope for those benefit claimants coping well with their children, becoming self-sufficient and coming off dependence on the taxpayer.

Another concern is that, once money reaches the household, it is often unequally distributed, particularly in low-income households, as the DWP and Ministers have acknowledged and as the research shows very clearly. Emergency powers in the Bill enable payments to be shifted in the event of abuse. That will not be a sufficient protection. Abuse is often hard to prove; it is often hidden within families and hard for the state to identify. In view of the pervasiveness of the financial vulnerability of primary carers, the aim of the system must surely be to prevent abuse, where it can, to protect children.

The Minister’s budgeting products, including jam-jar accounts provided by the financial services industry, might help with different problems, but they will not resolve the problems addressed by the amendment. We are trying here to deal with common family problems where the primary carer repeatedly finds themselves without money to feed the children. As the DWP knows from its research, many parents suffer from alcoholism, drug addiction and gambling addiction, and far greater numbers suffer from unhappy and often abusive relationships. In all those situations, the risks of the primary carer not receiving the money with which to feed and clothe the children are real. Those primary carers will continue to receive child benefit, but for them to receive the child elements of universal credit as well would go a long way to reducing their vulnerability in violent or otherwise abusive marriages.

The Children's Commissioner has expressed concern about the new single lump-sum payment arrangements. The amendment is not about the sex of the primary carer. A growing number of fathers take responsibility for children’s welfare if a mother is the one who is abusive, mentally ill or otherwise unable to take the primary carer responsibilities. I make the point that this is not about men versus women or women versus men.

The Government argue that putting universal credit into a joint account could guarantee access to both partners. That is not the answer. Of course, not all couples have joint accounts, especially those who might not have been together very long. In fact, joint savings, investments and debts are decreasing. Often, couples will have individual accounts and will have to opt for one or other for the payment of universal credit. That is our concern. In many cases, a joint account does not guarantee equal access to money for both partners anyway. Often one partner dominates the joint account, and there might be only one chequebook.

It is difficult to imagine that the Minister would disagree with the proposition that the payment of benefits for children to their main carer would be the best way to ensure that the money is spent on the children. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm his view on that matter. Further, does the Minister agree that for new couples where one or both partners has at least one child and one partner would have responsibility for housing costs—which is likely to be the case if the couple get together—the payment of the whole universal credit to one bank account is likely to be a disincentive to the partners to come together?

Again, I endorse the Government’s objective to simplify the benefit system and I realise that this is a tiny fly in the ointment of that simplification process. I hope that the Minister will recognise, however, that the costs and benefits of this amendment would come down very solidly on the side of our proposed small change to the Bill, and I hope that in view of that the Minister will be willing to table his own amendment—no doubt this one would not be perfect—on this apparently small but fundamentally important matter. I beg to move.

22:00

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 61B, to which my name is attached, and to Amendment 61C in my name. The amendments have a particular resonance for me. One of my clearest memories when I worked at the Child Poverty Action Group was sitting below the Bar during the passage of the then social security Bill under the Fowler review, of which we heard earlier, and literally jumping for joy when the Minister announced that the then Conservative Government would withdraw their proposal to pay family credit through the wage packet. I was given a severe warning by the attendant.

During my subsequent academic career I conducted Joseph Rowntree Foundation-funded research with Jackie Goode and Claire Callender that demonstrated the importance to the well-being of both children and women of paying benefits for children to the mother who was in all those families the parent with main responsibility for the day-to-day care of the children. This research helped to persuade the previous Labour Government of the error of their ways when they proposed to pay working tax credit through the wage packet. Now here we are again having to persuade the Government why it is so important to pay money for children direct to the parent who has the main responsibility for the day-to-day care of the children and for day-to-day budgeting. This time the stakes are higher, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has made clear because universal credit wraps up so much in it, including housing costs. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has already made the case very powerfully for why what is colloquially known as “wallet-purse” is such a crucial issue, particularly for children and women.

I want to pick up a couple of the arguments made by the Minister in Committee, some of which I have to admit I was not convinced by. First, I make reference back to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, earlier when he talked about the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which came out after our proceedings in Grand Committee. It commented on the reduction in the financial autonomy of women, resulting from the payment of universal credit to only one member in the household. In order to address that, the Committee suggested that the Bill could be amended to allow payments intended for children to be labelled as such and to be paid to the main carer.

One of the points made by the Minister was to try to reassure the Committee that making universal credit as a single payment will not now be a problem because the Government are committed to ensuring that people can access support to manage their payments and help them to budget effectively, including access to budgeting products, such as jam-jar accounts, as mentioned by the noble Baroness. I put that argument to an expert who understands jam-jar accounts much better than me, and who shares the Minister’s enthusiasm for them. Her response was that it was a bit of a smokescreen as there is no coherent link between budgeting accounts and the decision as to whom the benefit is paid. Moreover, what is at issue is not budgeting capabilities but financial autonomy. It is about ensuring that the parent with the every day care of children has control over the money allocated for them.

That brings me to another argument used by the Minister that the Government want to enable couples to decide where their payments should go. It is not for the Government to dictate how a family arrangements its finances. The only decision that the couple can make is between payment into one or other single account or a joint account. As the noble Baroness has already explained, joint accounts are not necessarily the answer. Research by Fran Bennett of Oxford University and others shows that the existence of a joint bank account does not guarantee access by both partners to the money held in it.

While I agree that it is not for the Government to dictate how a family arranges its finances, is it not the case that their belief in the power of nudge might point them to supporting this amendment? Presumably, the Government want the money allocated to meet the needs of children to be spent on children. As the noble Baroness pointed out, that is much more likely to happen if the money is clearly labelled for children.

If the Government refuse to countenance that approach, then I suggest that Amendment 61C might be the answer. It provides for a couple to choose for the payment to be split between accounts without earmarking any of the money for specific purposes. This would meet the Minister’s concern that universal credit should be seen as a single payment. In this case, it would be a single undifferentiated payment, but split between the two bank accounts when the couple so wished. It would allow for the variety that exists in the ways that couples organise their finances. I acknowledge that it is not a perfect solution for, as the Minister observed earlier in our proceedings, effective choice exists only when the balance of power is equal, and the gender balance of power is still often very unequal, but it would be more consistent with the Government’s position on choice and would be better than the only choice offered in the Bill, which potentially puts all the money into the hands of one partner.

As the noble Baroness emphasised, neither of these amendments would cost money, but they would help millions of women and children and address the very real problem of hidden poverty which can result when resources are not shared fairly within families.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My Lords, I shall add a few comments to the speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Lister. I learnt the importance of this subject a long time ago when I was involved in consistorial legal work in a provincial legal office in south-east Scotland. I was surprised by the importance of financial autonomy to people within quite troubled and tense family contexts, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned. I was then persuaded yet again, academically, by the exemplary work that she has done ever since with Fran Bennett and others to make this case consistently over the years. It is as apt in this benefit reform as it was in the Fowler reforms or at any time since. I guess I could be persuaded that this is a debate that needs to be conducted at regulation level and I am certainly up for continuing an interest through the primary legislation until the regulations are tabled. I will be happy to contribute to those discussions.

There is a real question that I want to be clear in my head about. We had some interesting discussions in Grand Committee and I am certainly sympathetic to the Minister’s search for innovative financial products. I think it is absolutely correct. However, if you separate out the politics from all this, I would like to understand whether it is factually possible for the agile computer system that we are developing with such care in Warrington to deliver the device suggested in Amendment 61C. That is a separate question from whether the Minister is prepared to deliver it. I want to know that we are not blocking off—this is the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, made—the opportunity to come back to this. If we cannot persuade the coalition in the short term, either tonight or in regulations, that this is the right thing to do, which I believe it is, it would comfort me if the Minister were able to say that the Government do not believe that this is right because there are other ways of dealing with it. I would go to my bed this evening and rest slightly easier if he were able to say that it is still possible and we would not need to buy a new computer system if we wanted to do this in future.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I am looking forward to the Minister’s reply, otherwise we will worry about the sleeping patterns of the noble Lord. These amendments, as has been clearly set out, seek to mitigate the risk of paying the entirety of universal credit to one person and, in particular, to provide protection for women who are more likely to be the main carer in a couple and less likely to have the power in the relationship to determine how money is managed.

The Government’s proposals suggest that universal credit payments would not, other than exceptionally, be split between a couple. Instead, they would be paid, as we have heard, entirely into one bank account. The DWP briefing note states that,

“the Government wishes to place responsibility for household budgeting with the household. It is not Government’s role to dictate how a household spends their money”.

However, these amendments are not about how households spend their money but how they receive it. They are about allowing households to decide to whom the money should be paid. This principle is long established in social security policy. Households receiving child benefit can nominate a main carer and those receiving working tax credit can receive child tax credit in the bank account of the main carer and working tax credit in the bank account of the other partner.

Concerns about the shift in policy from this have been voiced by a wide range of organisations, all of which have presented strong arguments in favour of ensuring that the part of universal credit intended for children is paid to the person who has the main care of them. As has already been spelt out, we know that benefits labelled as intended for children are more likely to be used for that purpose. This amendment would enable the Government to identify the parts of the credit intended to help with the costs of children.

Research for HMRC shows that child tax credit is commonly identified as money for children and more often spent accordingly. Again, as has been said, we know that money within the household is frequently unequally distributed, particularly in low-income families. An Oxfam study of black and minority ethnic women in low-income couples revealed cases where,

“women had so little access to money that their husbands were effectively in control of key aspects of their lives”.

Benefits for children are sometimes the sole source of independent income for vulnerable women.

As the Women’s Budget Group points out,

“putting benefits together is key to the design of UC; paying it into one account is not”.

There can already be exceptions. Sometimes, for example, there will be rent for certain categories of recipients. Support for mortgage interest may be paid to lenders and, as the Women’s Budget Group states,

“a sanctioned claimant could lose their UC, and the remainder … paid to their partner”.

The DWP briefing acknowledges:

“There may, however, be exceptional cases that require alternative arrangements: to ensure safeguards. The Government intends to retain powers to split payments between members of a couple in joint claim cases”.

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, will be able to sleep easy in his bed because it seems clear to me that the technology will exist to enable the Minister, if he so desires, to accept either or both of these amendments; that is, either paying the child elements of universal credit to the main carer or, in line with the Government’s assertion that they wish to enable choice, allowing families to choose to split their payments.

Resistance to these amendments would suggest that administrative simplicity is seen as more important than either ensuring that women have an independent income or encouraging money which is intended for children to reach them. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the argument for these changes.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, under universal credit, couples will make a joint claim for benefit payment. We have been clear that claimants will receive universal credit as a single payment, which will ensure that claimants can clearly see the effect of their decisions about work on total household income. The House debated this issue extensively in Committee. We also discussed direct monthly payments in another context when the House accepted the principle of a single payment. Couples will be able to choose which bank account the total universal credit award should go into. Once universal credit has been paid into that account, claimants will have the freedom to manage their money how they wish. They will have the opportunity to transfer some of that money into another account, or they may choose to have the universal credit paid into a joint account in the first place.

Giving people these choices to manage their money is in line with evidence that suggests that, in today’s world, the majority of couples pool their resources—

22:15

[Baroness Meacher]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister. How does he feel that that will work if the partner into whose bank account the money is paid is an alcoholic and likes to spend most of the money, on a Friday or whenever it is, on alcohol, or a gambler, or somebody with mental health problems who is controlling and dominant and therefore gets the money paid into their account?

[Lord Freud]

I was going to say that 7 per cent of cohabiting couples and 2 per cent of married couples manage their finances completely. However, we recognise that there are cases—the noble Baroness mentioned some of them—which will require alternative arrangements. The Government intend to retain powers to split payments to couples as a safeguard. We are looking at the precise circumstances of where and how that split will be made and we will produce further detail as we develop the regulations. The obvious example, as the noble Baroness has said, is where there is proven abuse of the money by one partner or where children are considered to be at risk. But there will be other circumstances as well. That general point is accepted. Where an intervention by the state is required, we will make it to ensure that money goes to the right people or is split in the right way.

However, in circumstances where a universal credit award is split, neither party will receive specific elements such as that for child care. They will receive a proportion of the total award and be responsible for their own budgeting. Therefore, in practice, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, Amendment 61C, is much closer to how we will manage such situations.

Universal credit is replacing a benefits system which in practice undermines personal responsibility by separating a person’s income into different streams for different circumstances. This does not reflect the world of work or encourage financial responsibility. We must trust that people know what is best for them and for their families, with the exception of those individuals and families who cannot handle that responsibility. In respect of those who can, it is not for government to dictate how a family manages its money. However, we are committed to ensuring that people can access support to manage their payments and help them budget effectively.

We are looking at a wide range of support. As noble Lords may remember, I think that one of the most exciting opportunities offered by universal credit is to enlarge the scope for financial inclusion which has been so lacking for many benefit recipients. We are looking at access to nationally available advice and guidance and at locally delivered, targeted support. We are talking to local authorities, housing associations and other stakeholders about how best to deliver this support. We are talking to the financial services sector about widening access to basic, including joint, bank accounts and developing improved budgeting accounts to help benefit recipients manage their money. We are looking to create valuable support mechanisms for a part of our community that simply has not had them. My aim is to have some quite specific new products that slot right under universal credit and give families much more flexibility to manage their money. I look forward to sharing more detailed proposals with your Lordships in due course.

With regard to my noble friend’s sleeping patterns, I think I can allow him to sleep at night. If we find that we need to make more splits than anticipated, the computer system will allow us to do that. We are designing that in. If he is right and I am wrong we will be able to make those changes, albeit more in the pattern of Amendment 61C than Amendment 61B. I can also assure him of a commitment to conduct intensive research on how universal credit works. We will make sure that what we are doing optimises the position for families. I hope with that second commitment my noble friend will not only sleep but sleep like a baby. With these explanations, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Meacher]

I thank those who have contributed to this debate and thank the Minister for his reply. I am interested in his suggestion that we are dealing here with normal families who are perfectly capable and reasonable about the allocation of their money. When I ran the Child Poverty Action Group campaign for the introduction of child benefit 40 years ago, I received 2,000 letters, most of them from normal families. The letters were from the wives of all sorts of people—vicars, doctors and members of the Army—whom I would have considered very normal. However, they wrote to say that they depended on family allowance, which was only some ridiculous amount like 90p for the first child, and would often have to survive on it for a week because their doctor husband or their vicar husband gave them nothing, having drank their money away or whatever else they were doing with it. There are too many “normal families” that one might see walking up and down the street who do not treat their other half in a normal and acceptable way, so I am very relieved to hear from the Minister that there will be a computer system that will enable more splits and more complexity and sensitivity in this system. I am absolutely sure that it will be necessary, not only for a handful but for vast numbers of people across this country.

I am also relieved that the Minister will look closely at not only how universal credit in general will work but how it will work in this particular regard. I think I understood him to say that, and I very much hope he will pay great attention to this issue. I am absolutely certain it is terribly important for an awful lot of families. After my experience of 40 years ago—and I do not think human nature changes in 40 years—I really believe that is the case. I very much respect his new products and I think they will be splendid, but they will not deal with the sort of issue we are throwing up in this debate. I am sad to withdraw this amendment, but I am pleased to have had some assurances that this issue will not be lost.

Amendment 61B withdrawn.

Amendment 61C not moved.

Amendment 62

Moved by

[Baroness Meacher]

62: After Clause 99, insert the following new Clause—
“Benefits payments to prisoners
(1) Regulations shall provide that a person undergoing imprisonment or detention in legal custody who, at the time that imprisonment or custody commences, is in receipt of any of the qualifying benefits, shall be assessed, during his time in imprisonment or custody, for eligibility for those benefits at the time of his release from imprisonment or custody.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the qualifying benefits are—
(a) universal credit;(b) jobseeker’s allowance;(c) employment and support allowance;(d) income support;(e) personal independence payment, to the extent provided for in regulations made under section 84 (prisoners) above; and(f) any other benefits provided for in regulations made under this section.(3) Regulations made under this section shall provide that the assessment required under subsection (1) shall commence as soon as a person is received into imprisonment or custody.
(4) Regulations shall in particular provide that a person appointed by the Secretary of State shall record, at the time a person is received into imprisonment or custody, details of any qualifying benefits which are in payment at that time, together with any personal information needed to establish the person’s identity, including but not limited to their national insurance number.
(5) An assessment of eligibility under subsection (1) shall be completed in such time as to ensure that the person assessed receives payment of any benefits for which he is assessed as being eligible no later than one week after his release from imprisonment or custody.
(6) Regulations under this section shall be made by the Secretary of State and shall be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I rise to move, very briefly, Amendment 62 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham, who apologises to the House for not being able to be in his place. As noble Lords will know, he generally speaks with little in the way of notes, so I shall do my best.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that regulations will provide for prisoners who were receiving benefit at the time of their imprisonment to be assessed during their time in prison or custody for their eligibility for benefit on their release from custody. I passionately agree with my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham that the amendment has huge merit. In Grand Committee the Minister outlined the arrangements that have been made to cover those who claim jobseeker’s allowance, which my noble friend accepts, but the Minister did not accept my noble friend’s proposal that all prisoners should have claims to other benefits processed before release.

Last week my noble friend had an extremely useful meeting with officials in the DWP, with whom he discussed the situation, reaching the following conclusion—that my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham would now table an amendment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, putting the onus on the Ministry of Justice to confirm a prisoner’s national insurance number and current entitlement to benefits on reception into prison. Before release, these should be processed in time for suspended benefits to be resumed and necessary arrangements made to cover the gap before any payment could otherwise be made, subject to payment in arrears. This will require protocols between the DWP and the MoJ to be established. The question is whether the Minister will be prepared to support this proposal.

The arguments in support of the amendment were put by my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham most forcefully in Committee and I shall not repeat them. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly. The thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is trying to achieve has considerable merit. I wonder how some of the detail in the amendment about assessments when people start their sentence would work in practice, particularly if someone is likely to be in prison for some while.

We dealt with regulations about a fortnight ago on the importance of people being able to get into the work programme on immediate release from prison. However, I was a little disturbed that, as the Minister explained, applying for JSA was voluntary but that once on JSA there was an inevitable path into the work programme. That of itself is fine, except that it may not take account of many good programmes that are already around in prisons where people are supported sometimes before they leave prison and certainly supported when they do. The route via the work programme might pre-empt and override all of that. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, was involved in that debate.

The thrust of trying to get as many benefits as possible sorted out for individuals before or at the point they leave prison must be helpful to them. The opportunity for them to have resource—presumably under the advance payment arrangements if it happens immediately, because typically benefits would be payable in arrears—is fine, but there is a concern about potentially damaging those good programmes in prison, where they exist, which help people to adjust to the world of work before they formally finish their sentence.

22:30

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, it is a shame that the noble Lord is not here to move the amendment. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for moving it so ably. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, was pretty surprised and somewhat impressed as he heard the developments that we are making in this area. He has been a long-term campaigner in this area. I think he was worried about the bits that we had not yet caught. I was not able to have a meeting with him on this matter, but he met with my officials, as did his colleagues from Unlock, and we were able to provide a lot of reassurance about positive intent to keep going in this area. There are some differences, which is the reason why we cannot support the entirety of this new clause. That is not because we are in any way against helping in the rehabilitation of prisoners and other detainees but because we are moving along with our own programme. We think that that will prove more beneficial in the long run than introducing this structure, which we think would be expensive and resource, intensive in prison assessments.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

Perhaps I could concur with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. I support these amendments. As I said in Grand Committee, the key thing—I am a non-executive director of the Wise Group and we run one of these projects very successfully—is that the people who do the work are ex-cons themselves. My suggestion is that more Jobcentre Plus staff should be recruited from ex-convicts in future so that these programmes can be run positively. That is a facetious way of putting it, but this is a serious point.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, it is a real point because we know that virtually all addiction treatment centres are manned by people who have gone through the experience of addiction. That is one of the reasons why they are able to help people. There is probably a very similar argument for convicts. Given the way in which we have incentivised the work programme, I would expect that that fairly basic knowledge will be picked up. I am in no position to instruct any work programme to do anything, but I hope that the way in which this has been structured financially will drive that logic.

[Baroness Meacher]

The Minister was talking about being unable to accept this amendment in full and referred to alternative arrangements. The whole point of this amendment tabled by my noble friend was to have clarity on the Floor of the House about acceptance of it. As I understand it, it seeks to ensure that the processing of claims goes on while prisoners are in custody so that when they come out the benefits can be paid very quickly. The idea is to avoid such people running straight off to recommit crimes. There is tremendous power behind this—logic, sense, cost-saving and so on—in terms of criminal justice costs. Perhaps the Minister could spell out what in the amendment the Government cannot accept and what the Government would put in instead. That would be very helpful.

[Lord Freud]

Last week, I think, we had a regulation on this. Time does not fly for the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, as he thought it was weeks ago. We have already announced that we are processing all JSA claimants in prison. It is hard to process everything. Clearly, housing cost is one element that is not there. I know the noble Lord is concerned about what we do with ESA claimants. The issue becomes real because as we move from universal credit, it is not just a question of not having JSA claimants but having universal credit claimants; we also have to look at how we will do that. We have to do that anyway. However, at the moment we have done JSA claimants and we have the issue of housing. We have support at the prison gate. When we discussed it in Committee, the noble Lord seemed almost shocked that we were doing that. We are moving very fast now. For the record, we will continue to work with the Prison Service, the Ministry of Justice and the other agencies to ensure that prisoners have all the necessary information about claiming benefits on release, and that benefit payments are made as quickly as possible on release. With these assurances, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment.

[Baroness Meacher]

I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, but also the Minister for that very helpful reply. It seems that the Government are doing everything they can to resolve what has been a ridiculous situation of prisoners coming out of prison and having virtually nothing to live on for some time. With that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 62 withdrawn.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I think that everybody is trying to be very constructive tonight. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, is ready to move her amendment. It may help the House if I indicate that there is an agreement that we need to be swift to ensure that the House concludes quickly. Therefore, I wonder if the noble Baroness on the Woolsack, the Deputy Chairman, might call Amendment 62ZA. That will, I hope, then be the last amendment and be concluded quite briefly.

Clause 100 : Power to require consideration of revision before appeal

Amendment 62ZA

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

62ZA: Clause 100, page 67, line 24, at end insert—
“( ) After subsection (8)(b) there is inserted—
“(c) shall consider the extent to which a claimant falling under section 22 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, and upon whom a sanction has been imposed under section 26 or 27 of that Act, had guaranteed and predictable access to childcare meeting the needs of any child for which the claimant was the responsible carer at the time when the decision appealed against was made.””

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 62ZA, I shall speak also to Amendment 62B. These amendments focus on the issue of sanctions, in particular where a claimant with a dependent child faces sanctions because they are unable to access work or work-related activity or to sustain work due to a lack of suitable childcare which meets the needs of any child for which the claimant is a responsible carer. Amendment 62ZA seeks to ensure that the appeal tribunal takes into account the extent to which a claimant with a dependent child had access to appropriate childcare when the decision was made to impose a sanction under Sections 26 or 27. Amendment 62B also focuses on this issue and would guarantee that a claimant would not face sanctions and the loss of benefit where they are unable to access work or work-related activities or to sustain work due to a lack of appropriate childcare.

These amendments are supported by more than 40 very widely spread organisations. The recent child impact assessment statement from the Children's Commissioner for England stated that sanctions should never be imposed on the main carers of children under Clauses 26 and 27 of the Bill, unless accessible, affordable childcare was available that would allow them to take up offers of work or training or attend interviews. These amendments would meet the commissioner’s concerns. Providing such safeguards would be consistent with the approach taken in the 2009 welfare reform legislation where at Report, my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton confirmed in response to a similar amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, that the then UK Government would introduce regulations to provide that claimants with a dependent child would not face sanctions in these circumstances.

Most lone parents want to have the opportunity to combine paid work with the vital job of being a parent once their children are old enough, but the Welfare Reform Bill fails adequately to recognise the significant barriers to paid work which lone parents often experience, in particular the availability of appropriate childcare. In Committee, the Minister outlined the kind of safeguards which would be put in place to protect lone parents from sanctions where they are unable to access childcare. I will not reiterate them now. Unfortunately, I have a whole lot of examples which I cannot now read out because of the time constraints. However, in those examples it is clear that lone parents are being put under pressure to work hours which are not consistent with their childcare responsibilities. I believe that the organisations have written to the Minister and I am very happy to provide those examples outside these proceedings.

I know that the Minister will say that it is not appropriate to put in the Bill the safeguards being sought to ensure that no one is sanctioned because of lack of available childcare. I am sure that the House would be very grateful if he could therefore give a commitment on the record to bring forward regulations in the same way that my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton did to provide safeguards for lone parents who are doing a very important job raising their children. I beg to move.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My Lords, I concur with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, for the sake of brevity, I can say that I also concur with my noble friend and with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. My noble friend is simply seeking to have the issue on the record.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 62ZA and 62B. I could almost do so like my noble friend Lord Kirkwood, but I will speak at slightly greater length.

I would like to assure noble Lords that we are in agreement on the need to ensure that a claimant’s childcare responsibilities are taken into account when setting work-related requirements and when determining whether a claimant has good reason for failing to meet a requirement. For the record, let me set out how we intend to do this.

The legislation will provide clear safeguards. When a child is under one, support will be unconditional. When a claimant’s child is under five, we will ask the claimant only to attend work-focused interviews. If claimants fail to meet this requirement for no good reason, they will be subject to the lowest level sanction; the sanctionable amount for these claimants will be limited to 40 per cent of the sanctionable amount for other claimants.

Secondly, advisers will take childcare responsibilities into account when setting work-related requirements, and we intend to set out some specific safeguards on this issue in regulations. Regulations will prescribe that claimants with a child under 13 will be able to limit their work search to jobs that fit around their children’s school hours. This is key. The best way to prevent the inappropriate application of sanctions is to ensure that requirements are reasonable in the first instance.

Amendment 62B seeks to introduce a blanket exemption from conditionality sanctions for claimants who can demonstrate that they did not have guaranteed and predictable access to suitable childcare. We do not think such a legislative exemption is needed. As I have previously explained, when a claimant fails to meet a requirement, a sanction will be imposed only if the claimant does not demonstrate that there was a good reason. In considering whether there is good reason, we will consider all relevant matters raised by the claimant, which could include the availability and cost of suitable childcare. This flexible, case-by-case approach is the right one, but to be absolutely clear, when a claimant demonstrates that a lack suitable childcare meant that the claimant was unable to meet a work-related requirement, a decision-maker should determine that the claimant has good reason and a sanction will not be applied.

Noble Lords have previously raised concerns about where the responsibilities lie in relation to the provision of good reason. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the position. We have a responsibility to ensure that claimants understand the decision-making process and that they have an opportunity to explain the reason for a failure to meet a requirement. The onus is then on the claimant to tell us the reasons and provide supporting evidence where necessary. The department must then determine whether the reasons raised are relevant and whether any of those reasons constitute a good reason. The current practice of visiting ESA claimants with a mental health condition or learning disability before the application of a sanction is a good example of the proactive process required to collect evidence of good reason in some cases. I can assure noble Lords that we will review our approach to collecting evidence of good reason for all claimants to ensure that we get this process right.

The final safeguard is the appeals system. Any decision to reduce an award as a result of a sanction can be appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. Amendment 62ZA seeks to require the tribunal to consider whether the claimant had guaranteed and predictable access to childcare. We do not want to go down the route of prescribing specific matters to be taken into account by an independent body; the existing legislation is clear and sufficient. The First-tier Tribunal must consider any issue or circumstance raised by the claimant that is relevant to a valid appeal, so in an appeal against a decision to reduce an award of benefit because of a sanction where a claimant cites lack of suitable childcare as a good reason for failure, this should be considered by the tribunal because it is plainly relevant to whether the award ought to have been reduced.

Given the safeguards we have in place and the commitment I have made to reviewing our processes for collecting evidence for good reasons, I hope I have provided the assurances on the record that were required by the noble Baroness and I urge her to withdraw this amendment.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his full response, given the lateness of the hour. I should have thanked One Parent Families Scotland for its help with this amendment. As this organisation has written to the Minister, if there is anything that it wishes to follow up, I wonder whether he would be willing to meet representatives of this and other organisations that have written to him just to go through in more detail what he has so kindly said to the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 62ZA withdrawn.

Consideration on Report adjourned.

Live Music Bill [HL]

Monday 23rd January 2012 Lords Chamber

Returned from the Commons

The Bill was returned from the Commons with amendments.

House adjourned at 10.47 pm.