House of Commons
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
1. How many offenders served part or all of their sentence working on community projects in Kettering constituency in 2011; and for which organisations work was carried out.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
Four hundred and five offenders completed all or some of their compulsory unpaid work or community payback in Kettering last year. Twelve organisations benefited, including the local wildlife trust, St Mary’s church, Mind and the British Heart Foundation.
Mr Hollobone
It is clearly beneficial for offenders and the local community for offenders to do constructive work in the community, but will my right hon. Friend agree to visit Kettering with me to see some of those offenders in action so that we can really see whether they are putting their backs to the wheel and doing this work properly?
Nick Herbert
I am happy to accept my hon. Friend’s invitation to visit Kettering and to see a scheme with him. It is important that community sentences are punitive and that they are properly enforced. We are increasing the maximum length of curfew requirements and making community payback more rigorous and demanding. We want to go further by seeing a clear punitive element in every sentence, and we are consulting about that.
Mr Speaker
Order. This question is about Kettering, from which Carshalton and Wallington and Manchester are a long way away.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
2. What steps he plans to take to support law centres.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
The Ministry of Justice does not provide direct support for law centres. However, law centres are able to bid for contracts issued by the Legal Services Commission to provide legal services in specified areas of law and will continue to be able to do so in the future.
My Department is also working closely with the Cabinet Office to support the cross-Government review into the funding of the not-for-profit sector announced on 21 November last year.
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the Minister for that reply, but what would he say to my local law centre in Nottingham, which, as a result of his legal aid changes, says it will no longer be able to offer specialist advice to people experiencing problems at work, with debts or with benefits? When our local citizens advice bureau is already hugely overstretched, does that not mean that hundreds of people—particularly vulnerable people—will be unable to get the advice they need and will be denied access to justice?
Mr Djanogly
Specifically, legal aid will be provided for a lot of debt advice after our changes. We are reducing our spend on legal aid, and law centres will be affected by that, but the Government recognise and highly value the important role of not-for-profit organisations such as law centres. That is why we launched a £107 million transition fund last year and the £20 million advice services fund this year. It is why the Cabinet Office has also announced a review of not-for-profit advice centres, which is a welcome and important development.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Is it not an assumption behind the Government’s reforms that the availability of advice needs to replace a great deal of litigation? If that is to be achieved, is it not necessary to ensure that there is a long-term, not merely a short-term, solution to some of the funding problems of law centres and citizens advice bureaux?
Mr Djanogly
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We are changing the way funding works and looking for alternatives to be taken up. However, we appreciate that, in the meantime, while the reorganisations are happening, there is a need to support law centres, which is why we are looking at transitional provisions to ease that passage.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Writing in yesterday’s Daily Mail, Matthew Elliott, the chief executive of the TaxPayers Alliance, pointed out that:
“advice costing £80 to deal with a housing problem can save thousands for councils who are legally required to house homeless families…cutting £10.5m for legal aid in clinical negligence cases will cause knock-on costs to the NHS of £28.5m.”
He says:
“Almost everyone who has looked at these particular cuts”—
even Norman Tebbit—
“thinks that too many of them will end up costing taxpayers more than they save.”
Is he right?
Mr Djanogly
No, he is not right. The figures have been repeated by the Law Society. The point is that legal help is not the same as legal aid. We certainly appreciate the strong need for legal help so that problems can be dealt with early, and that is why we are very supportive of not-for-profit organisations.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
3. What steps he is taking to promote reform of the European Court of Human Rights.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
The United Kingdom has made reform of the Court the top priority for our current chairmanship of the Council of Europe. Our aim is to secure agreement on a package of reform measures. We have been talking to many member states and to key figures in the Court and the Council of Europe, and we are reasonably confident that we can gain agreement.
Stephen Phillips
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. He will have seen that the Prime Minister rightly condemned the Court’s decision effectively blocking the deportation of Abu Qatada despite the assurances that the United Kingdom obtained from Jordan. How long does he expect this reform process to take, and what steps are being taken now to ensure that the Court does not torpedo decisions of the UK courts in a way that undermines rather than supports human rights?
Mr Clarke
My hon. and learned Friend is at least as good a lawyer as I am—and practised more recently too—and will know that cases are often more complicated than they appear. We actually won the Abu Qatada case on the question of the assurances that we got about his possible torture. Irritatingly, we then lost it on a separate issue about whether prosecution evidence against him had been obtained by torture. Obviously, the Government, led by the Home Secretary and advised by the Attorney-General, are considering what to do next to take the case further. The reform does not turn on one case. However, one of the key reforms that we are urging is that the Strasbourg Court should not just be regarded as a court of appeal after the full process has been gone through in this country’s courts and issues of human rights have been properly considered. The issue that my hon. Friend raises is at the heart of the case that we are arguing with our colleagues in the Council of Europe.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Does the Justice Secretary agree that much of the media speculation and attacks on the European Court of Human Rights are damaging to the interests of many people all over Europe who are suffering serious human rights abuses? This country, which prides itself on having a Human Rights Act, should support the European convention and the Court, and recognise that it is in everybody’s interest that we protect human rights in this country, as well as in Hungary, Russia or wherever else they are under threat.
Mr Clarke
This country is a great advocate of human rights throughout the world, and should continue to be so. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have confirmed in recent speeches at Strasbourg our commitment to the European convention on human rights and our desire to see human rights maintained all the way from this country to the Russian Federation, which is the furthest-east member. However, we seek to strengthen the Court by making it operate properly. It should concentrate on the important cases and those that raise serious issues of principle obtaining to the convention. At the moment, it has 150,000 cases in arrears. It takes years to get them heard, and it sometimes gives judgments despite the whole issue having been properly considered by national institutions and national courts.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend be visiting judges in the European Court of Human Rights to explain the agenda for the British chairmanship of the Council of Europe? When our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Strasbourg—very successfully—last Wednesday and gave a brilliant speech, delegates expressed concern that he did not have time to visit the Court itself.
Mr Clarke
First, I am delighted that my hon. Friend and I agree that the Prime Minister gave a brilliant speech in Strasbourg last week. It went down very well there. Yes, I meet judges. As I mentioned in an earlier answer, I hold discussions with judges. There is widespread acceptance in Strasbourg of the need for reform, so long as people are satisfied that we will continue to uphold the convention and we regard the Court as the right forum in which to consider serious issues of principle in all 47 member states. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was unable to meet judges, but I am sure that I can facilitate the opportunity for him to do so, if he or the judges wish it. However, the Foreign Secretary, the Attorney-General and I are in touch with the judges and our opposite numbers in all the relevant countries.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
May I ask the Justice Secretary for a short answer to a straightforward question? Does he share the apparent view of the Prime Minister and many of his Back Benchers that if the Government cannot persuade the other 46 Council of Europe members to reform the European Court of Human Rights, as set out last week, the UK should withdraw from the European convention on human rights?
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
4. What steps he is taking to transfer more foreign national prisoners to their home countries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
The Government are committed to removing more foreign national offenders at the earliest opportunity. Last week I met the European Union Commission, and the Justice Secretary met European Union Justice Ministers, to impress upon them the importance of member states implementing the new European Union prisoner transfer agreement promptly. We continue to negotiate prisoner transfer agreements with countries outside the European Union. We are also examining our offender management processes here in the United Kingdom, which will help to identify how more foreign national offenders can be transferred to their home countries.
Mr Spellar
Is not the reality that the number of foreign prisoners being removed is actually dropping, and that although we signed an agreement with Jamaica in 2007, Jamaica has still not got round to ratifying and acting on it? When is the Minister going to get a grip of the situation?
Mr Blunt
I regret that we are having to deal with the inheritance of the legal instruments that were negotiated and presented to us by the last Administration. The Jamaican prisoner transfer agreement is an example of that. Even if the Jamaican Parliament passed the legislation to implement and ratify that agreement—which is beyond the control of this Government, I might gently point out—it would still require the consent of the Jamaican prisoners in our prisons to go home under that agreement. That would not be forthcoming, so we need a rather more effective piece of negotiation, which is all part of the strategy that we are putting in place with the 20 countries from which the largest number of foreign national offenders in our prisons originate, to get some proper, joined-up governmental attention on this issue.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
When the sentencing judge orders an individual to be deported, why can that judge not make a finding of fact as to their nationality, so that, as of that moment, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice can make it clear to the high commission or embassy concerned that that prisoner will be returned to that country at the conclusion of their sentence?
Mr Blunt
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion, which is certainly one that I will be taking up in our ongoing examination and review, so that we improve the current, unsatisfactory state of affairs with foreign national offenders as quickly as we legally can.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
May I remind the Minister that it was the last, Labour Government who negotiated the groundbreaking EU prisoner transfer agreement, which came into force last December, to transfer foreign European prisoners back to their countries during their sentence? We have had lots of tough talk from the Minister and the Government, but what progress have the Government made on ensuring that the EU agreement is implemented across all EU states?
Mr Blunt
One of the reasons why I was visiting the European Union Commission on Friday and speaking to the official responsible for implementation of the agreement was to help deliver that. It is just a slight pity that in the negotiations undertaken by the last Administration, they managed to give Poland a five-year delay and Ireland a complete opt-out.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
In designing prisoner transfer agreements, will the Minister ensure that the legitimate expectations of the victims of crime in this country are satisfied? Too often we find them fearful that their natural desire for retributive justice is going unfulfilled.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
As the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said, the process for removal should begin at the time of sentence. That was one of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs in our last report. At the moment, the whole process starts far too late. We need better liaison between the UK Border Agency and the prison authorities.
Mr Blunt
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and to his Select Committee for its work in this area. He will know just how multi-faceted this all is, and I am grateful for the continuing attention of his Committee. The points he makes are entirely reasonable and I will be following them up.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
5. What assessment he has made of the availability of free legal advice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
The Ministry of Justice is responsible for legally-aided advice services through its relationship with the Legal Services Commission. This is publicly funded legal advice, rather than “free” legal advice. “Free”, or pro bono, legal advice is not within the scope of the Ministry’s ambit. Legally aided lawyers do not act for free; they act for money and are paid for by the taxpayer, so it is important that we get value for money for the taxpayer.
Stephen Timms
I am grateful to the Minister for his visit last year to the excellent advice service at Community Links that is used by my constituents. Is he aware that funding cuts mean that that service will stop providing all welfare benefits advice next year, shortly before the massive upheaval that will follow the introduction of universal credit? Is not that a recipe for disaster?
Mr Djanogly
The legal aid scope changes will not come in until April 2013, but that is indeed something that is on the horizon. I have visited the right hon. Gentleman’s local law centre, and it is a very good organisation. As I said to him the last time he asked about this issue, changes are going to have to take place, and that is why we are looking to put in place transitional arrangements.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The legal aid budget amounts to a spend of £39 per person in the UK, while it is nearer to £5 in Spain, France and Germany. Does the Minister agree that the present position in the UK is wholly unsustainable, and that savings have to be made in the light of the financial circumstances that we inherited from Labour?
Mr Djanogly
Savings do have to be made. A similar comparison can be made with a Commonwealth country such as New Zealand, where the figure is about £18 per head. We must ensure that the scarce resources are spent as well as possible, and that people do not go to court when they do not need to do so.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
6. What steps his Department is taking to support victims of crime.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
9. What steps his Department is taking to support victims of crime.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
11. What steps his Department is taking to support victims of crime.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
17. What steps his Department is taking to support victims of crime.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
Yesterday, in a statement to the House, I launched a consultation on far-reaching proposals on the support provided to victims and witnesses of crime.
Derek Twigg
The prisoner who murdered the husband of my constituent, Helen Hill, is coming to end of his tariff and is currently undergoing day release. The exclusion zone that my constituent has asked to be applied to the murderer has been ignored. If the Government are serious about giving full rights to the victims of crime, should they not ensure that victims’ wishes on exclusion zones are adhered to?
Mr Clarke
We are very serious about ensuring that the system works correctly. Victims should be given information—in this case, about the possibility of the offender being released—and consulted on their views. There are arrangements, through the probation service, for liaising with the victim. Of course, I cannot guarantee that the victim will always agree with the decisions that are taken, but they should be taken while keeping in mind the interests of the victim and, in this case, above all, the need to protect her. I will happily check on what has happened in this case, but I would say to the hon. Gentleman that we are trying to improve the present system to make it live up to his expectation that full regard will be given to victims’ interests.
Charlotte Leslie
Victims often feel that their rights are taken less seriously by the system than those of the perpetrator. What measures are the Government taking to ensure that victims, especially those of violent rape, and their families are financially compensated and supported following the often life-shattering traumas that they have experienced?
Mr Clarke
I announced yesterday that we were making changes to the compensation scheme, but we are making no changes whatever to the compensation for victims of rape and sexual offences at any level of the tariff. We accept that it is important to compensate those victims, and we are trying to strengthen the support that we give to the victims of sexual offences. We are also supporting outside bodies that give support to such victims. I think that my hon. Friend will find that nothing I said yesterday remotely reduces our commitment to the victims of rape and sexual offences, and that, since we have been in office, we have been steadily improving the services that we provide.
Rushanara Ali
Given that 61% of victims feel that the justice system is ineffective, and that the victims code will not be placed on a statutory basis, how will the rights of victims be properly protected by this Government?
Mr Clarke
I do not think that 51% of victims have a factual basis for saying that. I share the hon. Lady’s concern, however, that whenever questions are asked, if they are asked in the right way, we get that kind of answer. We have to get across to the public that the system does indeed punish offenders properly and attempt to reform them, and that we are steadily attempting to improve the support that we give to victims. It is extremely important that the criminal justice system should give the highest regard to victims, because protecting and giving justice to them and their families is one of the principal aims of the service.
Mr Burrowes
Will the implementation of the Government’s welcome victims strategy ensure that convicted offenders take personal responsibility for their crimes and make reparations to victims? Will it also, once and for all, take out of circulation the dreadful term “victimless crime”?
Mr Clarke
I share my hon. Friend’s view of the significance of this issue so that, wherever possible, criminals should make reparation for their crime and compensation should be paid to the victim. We are looking to take further action to reinforce the need for courts to try to make a compensation order whenever possible, and we are looking at ways of steadily improving how we collect the money from compensation orders when they are made. We are seeing steady improvement, but we need to go further.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Secretary of State may be aware of the tragic case of my constituent, Clare Wood, who was murdered by a violent partner. It turned out that he had a huge history of domestic violence against other women. Will the Secretary of State support amendments to the Bill in the other place to ensure that victims like Clare can in future know about the history of their violent partners and make an informed decision on whether to continue in the relationship?
Mr Clarke
That is a familiar subject, which I believe is being reviewed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The right of women to know whether their partner or intended husband has a long history of domestic violence sounds like a worthwhile cause. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will be looking to the practical issues that would be involved in introducing an effective system.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In opposition, we often made reference to the terrible effect on victims of crime of the fact that they thought the perpetrators had been sentenced to a certain term of imprisonment only to find them being released half way through it. Will the Secretary of State update the House on what progress we have made towards honesty in sentencing?
Mr Clarke
These conventions got worse when our opponents were in office. I say that before the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) starts attacking me. I, too, have expressed views in the past about honesty in sentencing. What happens currently is that for most sentences, half the term is served in prison; beyond that, prisoners become eligible for release, but they are on licence and liable to recall for the full term of their sentence if they do not adhere to it. There are measures in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, currently in the other place, that address the penalties to be imposed for various offences. In place of indeterminate sentences for public protection, for example, we are going back to how sentences used to be so that people will have long determinate sentences, and will normally serve two thirds of it before they are released. That is at least a step in the right direction for my hon. Friend.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
It is fair to say that, until she left her post in early October last year, the Victims’ Commissioner was a bit of a thorn in the side of this Government and this Justice Secretary in particular. The consultation paper on victims and witnesses, which was published yesterday, was completely silent on the future of that important post. Will the Justice Secretary reassure the House that he will not abolish this important advocate for victims and witnesses? When will the post be filled?
Mr Clarke
First, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I got on excellently with Louise Casey when she served in that role; it is a pity that she went away to carry out another even more important role in dealing with problem families. That can be checked with Louise Casey, but I would be surprised if she did not confirm my view. She made a contribution to policy. We are looking at this post again, and as I reminded the right hon. Gentleman the last time he raised the fact that we were still considering it, the last Government legislated for it in about 2004 and then took five years before they appointed anybody. There is a variety of views—from those responsible for victim support and others—on the best way to give proper force to victims’ views in government. We are considering those views before we make any announcement.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
7. What steps he is taking to encourage the inclusion of peer mentoring in prisons as part of the training of prison officers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
Prison officer training aims to give officers an awareness of the benefits of peer mentoring currently provided by voluntary sector and faith organisations, such as the Shannon Trust’s toe-by-toe reading plan and the Samaritan-trained listener scheme. Our rehabilitation policy will encourage and facilitate mentoring for offenders by ex-offenders and other members of the public, as all parts of the justice system focus more on outcomes than inputs. The early payment-by-results pilots at Doncaster and Peterborough prisons both use peer mentoring, and the experience of these and all other pilots will guide future training and practice.
Guy Opperman
Does the Minister believe that the expansion of private provision in prisons and the payment-by-results scheme will lead to more peer mentoring and better prison officer training, and that rehabilitation rates will improve as a result?
Mr Blunt
Yes, but the payment-by-results scheme is not limited to private sector prisons. We are piloting it in two public sector prisons as well. The National Offender Management Service is to contribute £1.4 million to eight voluntary sector organisations to help with mentoring, and is also involved in a Europe-funded project that is assessing the relative benefits of mentoring by peers and non-peers.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Will the Minister consider the effectiveness of training when it comes to security issues? Will he look into how on earth Bilal Zaheer Ahmad, who is serving 12 years in prison and was described as
“a viper in our midst”
by the judge who jailed him under the Terrorism Act 2000, managed to send a six-page letter from his Belmarsh cell that advised potential terrorists on the best way to outwit our police and security services? Will this latest lapse be investigated by the Justice Secretary?
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Following the tragic deaths of two teenagers at young offenders institutions in the last week, will the Minister examine the role of peer mentoring in helping people to detect those who are at risk of self-harm or suicide?
Mr Blunt
Of course our condolences go out to the families in question. However, I understand that this is the first time such a thing has happened on the under-18s estate since 2007, and the fact that there have been two tragic incidents in close succession does not mean that we should not recognise the good record that has been maintained in the intervening years. Every effort will be made to learn all the lessons from what has happened during the four different types of inquiry that will take place into each of the deaths.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
10. What steps he plans to take to maintain public safety when implementing his plans for the future of the Probation Service.
Martin Caton (Gower) (Lab)
12. What steps he plans to take to maintain public safety when implementing his plans for the future of the Probation Service.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
13. What steps he plans to take to maintain public safety when implementing his plans for the future of the Probation Service.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
15. What recent steps he has taken to review the work of the Probation Service; and what his policy is on the reform of the service.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
Public safety will always be of paramount importance when we are considering the way in which probation services are delivered. We are working on proposals to deliver more effective and efficient probation services, and will present them for consultation shortly.
Mr Clarke
We debated that at great length in the House. IPPs were regarded by most people in the field of criminal justice as a complete disaster when they were approved in the last Parliament, and our proposed reform of them was strongly welcomed by most who practised in that field. We are replacing them with tough determinate sentences, of which people will serve two thirds before they are eligible for release. Even then, they will not be released unless the Parole Board is satisfied that they have completed their sentences. We were acquiring an impossible system before that, under which thousands of people were accumulating in prison with no real prospect of a rational basis for their release.
Mr Speaker
No one enjoys listening to the Secretary of State more than I do, and I have been doing so for more than two decades, but we have a lot to get through, so economy is of the essence.
Martin Caton
There is a real fear both inside and outside the House that introducing a payment-by-results approach to our Probation Service risks denying adequate rehabilitation support to those with the most complex needs. What will the Secretary of State do to mitigate that risk?
Mr Clarke
I think that it is key to public service to concentrate on what we are delivering that is of value to the people we are trying to serve. Focusing our resources on programmes that succeed in reducing the reoffending rate, thereby reforming former offenders and ensuring that they do not create future victims of crime, will help us to ensure that we secure value for money, and will also stimulate innovation and best practice. I think it very reactionary to suggest that we should abandon the payment-by-results approach.
Toby Perkins
As the Secretary of State will know, when probation is seen to fail and ex-offenders reoffend, it is often because the various organisations involved have failed to work together. What steps will he take to ensure that the marketisation of probation services, with many different providers potentially doing different things, does not lead to more fragmentation and more tragedies?
Mr Clarke
I agree. We normally need people to co-operate quite closely to achieve successful outcomes if we are trying to reform offenders. Those who are trying to attract funds by achieving successful results in their programmes will, I hope, enter into collaborative arrangements with other providers. It must be a good thing that we are contemplating the possibility of bringing in more voluntary, charitable, private sector providers alongside the probation service and deciding where to channel most of our money on the basis of the success they achieve.
Karl Turner
I recently met Steve Hemming, chief executive of Humberside probation trust. He is due to retire in April after 30 years of long, loyal and patient service to the trust, but he is concerned that his patience might be about to run out. When will the Government publish their long-awaited probation review?
Mr Clarke
First, may I pay tribute to the retiring chief executive of the hon. Gentleman’s probation trust? There are many dedicated people in the probation service doing very valuable jobs on behalf of the public they serve. I am glad our consultation document is so eagerly awaited; we have been taking some time over it as we are trying to get it right, but we shall produce it soon.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the probation service has substantially been financially protected when taking into account the overall demands on the budget of the Justice Ministry?
Mr Clarke
I am not sure whether that is right, but I shall check. What my hon. Friend may have noticed is that this year we cut some other services’ budgets more sharply than we cut that of the probation service, but that is because the previous Government had been cutting the probation service budget pretty sharply, once they finally woke up to the fact that we were in a credit crunch and a financial crisis. They hit the probation service first.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
In the last year for which I have figures for the Department, 6,600 criminals deemed high or very high risk by the probation service were serving community sentences. Does my right hon. and learned Friend think public safety would be better improved if some—or, indeed, most—of those people were in prison?
Mr Clarke
Sentencing guidelines should ensure that those who deserve to go to prison because of the severity of their offence, and those who need to go to prison in order to protect the public properly, do go to prison. Those who get community sentences are graded according to risk. More attention must be paid to those who are near the risk threshold of needing to go to prison rather than those who pose quite a low risk of reoffending. With respect however, I think my hon. Friend is slightly misinterpreting what is called the risk assessment for people on community sentences. People who should go to prison should be sent to prison by the courts, and they are.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is ridiculous that unaccountable managers in the National Offender Management Service can undo all the good work done by probation officers by putting an ex-offender back in prison purely for having been a conscientious employee who was kept on late at work?
Mr Clarke
If those are the facts of the case, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He is obviously concerned about this case, and if he thinks something has gone badly wrong, I know him well enough to share his concern. I have had a word with the prisons Minister about this case, and we will investigate the facts and come back to him. The events as described obviously should not happen; that is not how the system is supposed to work.
Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I have listened to the Secretary of State’s responses on indeterminate sentences for public protection and payments by results and he is clearly feeling very optimistic. While we all like someone with a sunny disposition, when considering public protection issues it is also important to plan for failure. Does the Secretary of State plan to monitor the financial help given to providers of probation services in the community so that we avoid a criminal justice equivalent of Southern Cross?
Mr Clarke
When people provide services, of course it is necessary before giving them the contract to do one’s best to check on their financial health, but this issue has moved beyond arguments about whether a provider should be from the voluntary sector or a for-profit or not-for-profit provider. I wish to maximise the service given to the public by those who provide community-based sentences in this country, and we need to encourage innovation and best practice wherever we can.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
14. What arrangements his Department has put in place to deal with any future shortfall in prison places.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
On Friday 27 January, the prison population was 87,668 against a capacity of 89,399 places, providing headroom of 1,731 places, so there are sufficient places for those being remanded and sentenced to custody. We will keep the prison population under careful review to ensure that there is always sufficient capacity to accommodate all those committed to custody by the courts.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank the Secretary of State for that response. I understand that possible shortfalls are predicted in particular regions as opposed to on a national level. The Minister will know that maintaining family links during a period of imprisonment is a critical factor in reducing reoffending on release. Will he assure the House that steps will be taken to ensure that prisoners are kept as close to their family and their place of origin as possible?
Mr Clarke
In many cases, a high priority is given to trying to house prisoners in places where they are reasonably in contact with their family and home. Of course, the more pressure the service comes under, the more difficult it is to maintain that, but I am sure it remains an objective of those who allocate prisoners to the correct prison once they receive their sentence.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
16. What assessment his Department has made of the effect on women of his proposed changes to legal aid.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
The Government published an equality impact assessment alongside their response to the consultation, which set out the best assessment of the effects on women of the proposed changes to legal aid. This recognised the potential for the reforms to have an impact on women alongside those with other protected characteristics. We have taken the view that any such impacts would be justified in the light of the policy objectives, especially in the context of reducing the deficit.
Geraint Davies
The Minister knows that the courts are already in crisis due to a shortage of court and judge time. Will he accept that the removal of legal aid will encourage more and more women to provide their own defence, which will add to the crisis of delays and will mean further delay for children, bringing hardship to families and children?
Mr Djanogly
There is no shortage of court time or judge time. I simply do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I understand why my hon. Friend is bringing forward the changes, but is he aware of the perverse consequences on new entrants to the Bar, particularly women, given the opportunities in relation to being mobile and entering a legal profession in which one or one’s family have not been involved? Doors are being slammed in women’s faces.
Mr Djanogly
Certainly, as far as solicitors are concerned, the number of entries to the profession by women is now greater than by men. I believe the same is the case for barristers, but I will check and come back to my hon. Friend.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
18. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Greater Manchester intensive alternative to custody project in reducing reoffending and the use of short-term prison sentences.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
We are currently considering the feasibility of an evaluation of intensive alternative to custody projects by comparing reoffending rates with those for similar offenders receiving custodial sentences.
Paul Goggins
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. As he knows, the Manchester project is aimed at 18 to 25-year-olds who would otherwise go to prison. Those offenders have a reoffending rate of 18%, whereas the rate for offenders of a similar age who go to prison, which costs 10 times more, is 58%. Will he bear that evidence in mind and, as a Minister who believes in payment by results, make sure that funding goes to such projects as a priority?
Nick Herbert
I accept the force of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments and I have visited those responsible for running the scheme in Manchester as he knows—indeed, I think it was at his instigation. It is important that we evaluate these projects properly, and our general position is that we want to have more punitive community sentences, which are effective and combine rehabilitation with a punitive element. If possible, we want such schemes to be mainstreamed so that they can be taken beyond their pilots.
Mr Speaker
With reference to alternative to custody projects, Mr Paul Maynard.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
Thank you Mr Speaker, and indeed it is. If we are to increase public confidence in more intensive forms of community sentencing, we clearly need to link them, as we have just heard, to evidence showing how they reduce reoffending. In the commendable analysis of the pilot in Manchester published in July 2011 by the Ministry of Justice, the difficulty of calculating reoffending statistics is made clear. Will the Minister reassure me that he will do all he can to square this circle so that we can persuade members of the public that this is the way forward?
Nick Herbert
Yes, my hon. Friend makes a good point. There have been difficulties, which is why we are assessing the feasibility of evaluation. We need the data for the reasons he gives: it is important that the public know how effective the disposals are and, in the future, that will be important for proposals on payment by results. Where they are successful and reduce reoffending, which we have had great difficulty delivering through short-term custodial sentences, such measures should be considered.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
19. What assessment he has made of the effect of his reforms to conditional fee arrangements on people's ability to pursue civil cases against newspapers and other media organisations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
The Government are reforming the operation of conditional fee agreements through the provisions of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. The relevant impact assessments are published on the Ministry of Justice website. We believe that meritorious claims, including against media organisations, will still be able to secure representation under CFAs.
Kevin Brennan
Victims of phone hacking are absolutely clear that they would not have been able to take their cases forward were it not for no win, no fee arrangements being available; nor would the critical mass of cases been built up to break the scandal open. Why are the Minister and the Government on the side of powerful media moguls against vulnerable victims?
Mr Djanogly
Quite the opposite: in fact, the high and disproportionate costs in the present system hinder access to justice and can lead to a chilling effect on journalism and academic and scientific debate. In the Naomi Campbell case, the European Court of Human Rights found the existing CFA arrangements with recoverability in that case to be contrary to article 10 of the convention.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
May I update the House on the progress the Government have made toward implementing their proposals for payment by results, which I was defending a few moments ago? We have recently identified two probation trusts, one in Wales and the Staffordshire and West Midlands probation trust, to develop the community payment by results approach to probation services. We already have two well-established pilots in privately managed prisons and we hope to develop more; further pilots are being developed in public sector prisons. We are seeking proposals from the market for additional innovative contracts. We have selected a national framework of providers to support this work, which will assist us in meeting our commitment to roll out the principles of payment by results throughout the criminal justice system.
Andrew Stephenson
I hope the Secretary of State agrees with me that it is disgraceful that criminals who have created victims of crime are compensated under the criminal injuries compensation scheme. How much have criminals received over the past 10 years?
Mr Clarke
It is £75 million in the past 10 years, I think, and about 20,000 offenders have been compensated—I am remembering the brief for my statement yesterday. It is plainly insupportable that one week someone can commit a crime at his victims’ expense, and within a very short time claim that the taxpayer should compensate him because someone has committed a crime against him. We are bringing that to an end.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Last week, there were two tragic deaths of young people in custody: Jake Hardy, a 17-year-old held at Hindley, and 15-year-old Alex Kelly, a prisoner at Cookham Wood. Although, rightly, there will be investigations and inquests, urgent questions need to be answered. Had mental health assessments been undertaken? Were the boys receiving treatment? Had there been any fighting involving these children? Were any forms of restraint used? Will the Secretary of State make urgent inquiries into the circumstances of the deaths to address concerns that this may be a new systemic problem, and inform the House?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
Yes. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that four separate types of inquiry are to be conducted. Later today I will meet the chairman and chief executive of the Youth Justice Board and discuss those cases.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
T2. Following the horrific murder of my constituent Kynan Eldridge, I wonder whether the Minister can assure the House and Kynan’s family that the perpetrators of such crimes, if they are foreign nationals, will be deported after their sentence ends? What work is he doing to ensure that that happens?
Mr Blunt
My hon. Friend will have heard the exchanges earlier about foreign-national offenders. We are doing everything that we can to improve the legal situation, so that we have more powers to deport people and can improve the administrative process through proper co-operation between the UK Border Agency and the National Offender Management Service.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
T4. Last month, Welsh Women’s Aid surveyed 324 victims of domestic violence who were receiving specialist support, and it found that 46% of them would not be eligible for legal aid if the Government’s proposals were carried out. Why will the Government not listen to the evidence, which plainly points to the fact that many victims of domestic violence will be denied access to justice?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
We have had the Welsh report and are looking at it, but we dispute the figures in it. As I have said on many occasions, when it comes to legal aid, we are concentrating our efforts on helping to deal with domestic violence, and that will be the case following our reforms.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
T3. Do Ministers share my concerns about the unacceptable burdens placed on small businesses by ambulance-chasing lawyers, who pursue those businesses for spurious claims when they have no right to do so?
Mr Djanogly
The Government are taking firm, significant steps to address the burgeoning claims market, which, as my hon. Friend says, particularly encourages low-value claims against businesses and others—claims for which we all end up paying. That is why we are reforming no win, no fee conditional fee agreements and banning referral fees, and why we are countering illegal text advertising and consulting on banning inducement advertising.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
T6. I thank the Secretary of State for saying, following my earlier question, that he would look at the case that I mentioned, but will he examine, or get his Department to examine, whether there is consistency among parole boards and prison governors when it comes to licence conditions relating to exclusion zones? There is nothing worse than a family bumping into the murderer of a loved one in the street, or in the locality. Will he look at the consistency of parole boards’ and governors’ decisions?
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I will certainly look at that, because I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there should be consistency. That is why we have exclusion zones—precisely to make sure that the victims of a criminal do not find that they accidentally bump into him again, or even worse, are pestered by him when he is released from prison. We all take cases of the kind that he raises very seriously, and we will look into this one.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
T5. Devon Rape Crisis was launched last November and has already helped many victims of sexual violence across Devon, but it and Rape Crisis England and Wales are calling for changes to make it easier to identify the number of victims of crimes that are sexually motivated. Will the Secretary of State meet Rape Crisis and me to discuss how we can make such crimes more easily identifiable, and to hear about the excellent work of Rape Crisis?
Mr Blunt
My hon. Friend has raised an important issue, and I would be very pleased to meet her and colleagues from Rape Crisis to look at the linkages, and at the proper examination and analysis of data in this area. It is important that we continue to improve our knowledge.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
T7. Will the Secretary of State explain how he thinks that axing 1,000 posts at the Crown Prosecution Service will help him to bring more criminals to justice?
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has ensured that, in making changes to the budget and staffing of the Crown Prosecution Service, he is not reducing the quality of service that it provides. These things are not best measured by whether a body has ever-expanding payrolls or budgets; that tended to be the approach of the former Government, in which the hon. Gentleman served. We are trying to produce better value for money, in order to cope with the appalling financial crisis that we inherited from our predecessors.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
T8. The trade unions directly benefit from current no win, no fee arrangements, earning huge amounts via their legal arms through inflated success fees. What assessment has the Minister made of the amount of success fees paid to trade unions, particularly in personal injury cases?
Mr Djanogly
Unfortunately, the trade unions did not provide their lawyers’ success fee details, or their referral fee income details, to the consultation. However, given that they have received more than £550,000 in donations from personal injury lawyers, it seems that the unions’ lawyers are not entirely disinterested in the outcome of our attempt to rein in the compensation culture.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
How is it that an individual on remand for murder can hang himself while in custody? Will the Secretary of State hold an urgent inquiry?
Mr Blunt
Of course, in all these cases there are immediate operational inquiries, and then there are proper coroners’ inquiries. In all such cases, there will then be an inquiry by the prisons and probation ombudsman. These matters are taken extremely seriously. The number of self-inflicted deaths in custody has been falling, but there have been a number of tragic cases recently. Of course, we will look at all this extremely seriously.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
T9. This splendid Conservative-led coalition Government have done much in the fight against human trafficking. The poor women who are victims of human trafficking and sexual exploitation and who are then rescued go into the national referral mechanism, but what happens to them after 45 days? Are they thrown out if they do not qualify?
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
No, I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that that is certainly not the case. There is an ongoing process of assessment and support during the 45-day period, after which victims continue to receive support as necessary in Salvation Army outreach centres or from mainstream services. We are determined to improve the service provided to victims of these appalling crimes and have protected funding in order to do so.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
John Anslow is the first category A prisoner to escape for 17 years. Does the Secretary of State know why?
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
T10. Residents and organisations in my constituency will welcome the Government’s decision to update the law relating to scrap metal. When will the necessary amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill be brought forward?
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I share my hon. Friend’s concern to see the Government move on this matter as quickly as possible. I assure him that we are working carefully with colleagues on the drafting and hope to be able to table amendments to the Bill, which is currently before the House of Lords, as soon as possible.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Many innocent victims of crime feel isolated and dissatisfied at the end of the justice process. Will the Secretary of State assure me that protection of, and justice for, the victim will be fundamental to the reformed criminal justice system?
Mr Clarke
I hope that I can assure the hon. Gentleman and that he will have the opportunity to study the consultation document I published yesterday. I concede that there has been a steady process of improvement over the years, compared with the situation not too long ago, when victims were regarded simply as people who had to come to court if they were needed, but we still have not gone far enough. We must ensure that the experience of being in court does not add to a victim’s suffering, that all proper support is given to those who have been badly and lastingly affected by what has happened to them and that there is a proper system of compensation. The object of the criminal justice service must be to give proper service to the victims of crime.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
It has come to light that barrister David Friesner recently defended a fraudster, despite having just been convicted for stealing £81,000. We had an absurd situation in which a criminal was representing a criminal, which brings the legal system into disrepute. Will the Minister look into the actions of the Bar Standards Board and consider mandatory suspension for those guilty of serious crimes?
Mr Speaker
Order. My firm impression is that this matter is currently sub judice and, if I am correct in that surmise, I know that the Minister will exercise his customary lawyerly caution, and it might well be that silence is the best policy.
Mr Djanogly
I shall indeed be cautious, Mr Speaker, but I can say that I certainly agree with and understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. This is a regulatory matter, rather than a legislative loophole, but we are in contact with the BSB about it.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister recognise the effectiveness of multi-agency working, which is usually led by the probation service? I recently visited the Huddersfield probation office and was surprised by how effective such working is in cutting the levels of crime and reoffending.
Mr Blunt
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw the House’s attention to the benefits of more effective integrated offender management, which is another way of expressing the multi-agency working to which he draws attention. This good practice is widening across the whole system and, I am delighted to say, becoming the norm.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
One in four girls, some as young as 13, are hit by their boyfriend. What action will the Minister take to tackle violence among children?
Mr Djanogly
Tackling domestic violence is an absolute priority of this Government, and we are co-ordinating action with the Home Office. Indeed, my hon. Friend appeared in a debate that was held in Westminster Hall only a few days ago, and she will have seen the full picture at that time.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
In the Ministry of Justice’s own impact assessment of the cuts to civil legal aid, there are 15 statements that the Ministry does not have evidence for the savings and 30 admissions that the savings are based on speculation. Should not the Secretary of State listen to Citizens Advice and King’s college London, which can demonstrate that the cuts will cost the taxpayer more than they will save?
Mr Djanogly
We have seen the King’s college figures, and we do not agree with them. The fact of the matter is that we have published full impact assessments, and we stand by them.
Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
More than half of male prisoners and almost three quarters of female prisoners have no qualifications at all. What efforts are being made, through the training of prison officers, to raise awareness of the importance and availability of prison education in our prisons?
Mr Blunt
We have recently re-let the offender learning and skills contracts, which are funded through the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. That is about £157 million worth of education which is being put into skilling-up offenders, not least so that they can then take part in our work in prisons strategy and we can get much more effective and economic use of prisoner time in prison—with enormous benefits for them on release.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Is the Secretary of State aware that yesterday the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission registered profound concerns about the “Justice and Security” Green Paper’s proposals on closed material proceedings? Will he accept that moving to provide for secret trials and secret inquests has acute implications in the context of Northern Ireland, not least its impact on transitional justice and on the efforts to deal with the legacy of the past?
Mr Kenneth Clarke
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are consulting on those proposals in relation to that difficult subject. All I can say is that I certainly appreciate its special significance for Northern Ireland and the situation in Northern Ireland, and we will pay the most careful regard to the submissions that we receive from all those interested in Northern Ireland before we come to our conclusions.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Throughout the 18 months to the end of September 2011, consistently more than half of appeal cases relating to employment and support allowance took longer than six months to be decided by the Courts and Tribunals Service, meaning that more than twice as many people as the service’s own target are waiting that long. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that they receive their decisions in good time?
Mr Djanogly
The service is under pressure because of an increase in appeals, but I am very pleased to say that in five of the past six months more appeals have gone out the door than have come in.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Last week I met the family of Jake Hardy, a 17-year-old with learning difficulties who died last week after hanging himself in Hindley young offenders institute. The family tell me that Hindley was aware that Jake had been a victim of systematic bullying, was of low mental capacity and had self-harmed earlier in the week, yet it declined to place him on suicide watch. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that the full facts of the case emerge, and what will he do to prevent another family from feeling the grief felt by the Hardys?
Mr Speaker
Order. Again, I rather suspect—I am not a lawyer, and I say that as a matter of some very considerable pride, but as far as I am aware—the question is likely to be sub judice. I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman, but I exhort the Minister to be characteristically cautious in his response.
Mr Blunt
I am grateful, Mr Speaker. The case has been referred to several times in the course of today’s questions, and I do not have anything more to add to the answer that I have given. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am seeing the chairman and the chief executive of the Youth Justice Board later on today, and the case will of course be on the agenda for our discussions.
Informal European Council
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on yesterday’s informal European Council.
Countries right across Europe need bold action to recover their economic dynamism, to get to grips with their debts and to secure growth and jobs for the future, and that was rightly the focus of this Council. So, first, we agreed important measures needed to restore Europe’s competitiveness; next, we discussed the separate intergovernmental treaty on fiscal discipline in the eurozone; and, finally, we issued a statement on Iran, Syria and Burma. I am going to take each in turn.
Britain’s agenda in Europe is to promote growth, competitiveness and jobs. We have said repeatedly that the best way in which the EU can drive growth and create jobs is to complete the single market, establish trade deals with the fastest growing parts of the world and cut the regulatory burdens on business. At this Council we made important progress on all those issues.
We agreed to establish a fully functioning single market in services, where there are still 4,700 professions across Europe for which access is regulated by Government, and in digital, where there are more than a dozen copyright regimes in what should be one single market. We will take action to secure what should be a fast-growing area right across Europe. The changes on services and digital alone could add more than 6% to EU GDP within a decade. We also agreed to complete the energy single market, which has the potential to cut costs for businesses and consumers across Europe.
On free trade, we said that 2012 should be a “decisive year” in which to move ahead on trade agreements with major partners such as Japan, India, Canada and the United States. On regulation, we agreed to a growth test, for the first time, to ensure
“that all actions at the European Union level fully support economic growth and job creation.”
We also agreed to reduce regulatory burdens, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises and micro-enterprises, and to complete a patent package to support innovation. That has been discussed in Europe for more than a decade and finally we are making decisive progress.
We want the eurozone to sort out its problems, which are having a chilling effect on our economy. Tackling them is one of the best ways in which we can help to secure growth in Britain and right across Europe. As I have said repeatedly, short-term steps—the so-called October package—must be taken, and taken properly. Europe’s banks must be recapitalised properly, the uncertainty in Greece must be brought to a decisive end, and the firewall that needs to be constructed must be big enough to deal with the full scale of the crisis and the potential contagion. In the longer term, proper fiscal discipline in the eurozone is clearly an important part of the solution. Britain recognises that that is necessary. The question has never been whether there should be greater fiscal discipline in the eurozone, but how it should be achieved.
I went to the European Council last December prepared to agree a treaty of all 27 countries, but only if there were proper safeguards for Britain. I did not get those safeguards, so I vetoed the treaty. As a result, eurozone countries and others are now making separate arrangements outside the EU treaties for strengthening budgetary discipline, including by ensuring that there are much tougher rules on deficits. At this Council, 25 EU member states agreed a new treaty outside the EU. Britain and the Czech Republic have not signed up and we will not be taking part.
Let me deal directly with the issue of the institutions. The new agreement sets out roles for the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. Although some of those roles are permitted through existing treaties, there are legal questions about what is planned. As I have said, it is in Britain’s interests that the eurozone sorts out its problems. It is also in our interests that the new agreement outside the EU is restricted to issues of fiscal union and does not encroach on the single market. The new intergovernmental agreement is absolutely explicit and clear that it cannot encroach on the competences of the European Union and that measures must not be taken that in any way undermine the EU single market. Nevertheless, I made it clear that we will watch this matter closely and that, if necessary, we will take action, including legal action, if our national interests are threatened by the misuse of the institutions. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is a fine line between jollity and hysteria. I fear that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is in danger of having crossed it. He must calm himself, by whatever means necessary.
The Prime Minister
The principle that the EU institutions should act only with the explicit authorisation of all member states remains. Let me be clear: this is a treaty outside the EU. We are not signing it, we are not ratifying it, we are not part of it and it places no obligations on the UK. It does not have the force of EU law for us, nor does it for the EU institutions or for the countries that have signed it, and there will be no inner group of European countries distorting the single market from inside the EU treaty. That is the fundamental protection that we secured with our veto in December, and that protection remains.
We also made an important statement on developments in Iran, Burma and Syria. Britain has played a leading role in getting Europe to act together on each of those issues. On Iran, last week all EU countries agreed an unprecedented oil embargo, which shows our determination to keep up the pressure on the regime to turn away from any plans to develop nuclear weapons.
In Burma, for years Aung Sang Suu Kyi has been an inspiration to her people and to the world. Britain has supported her at every stage and has been at the forefront of EU sanctions. Now there are signs of a new moment of opportunity for democracy, and we should be prepared to relax those sanctions, but only in stages and only in response to reforms. When I spoke to Aung Sang Suu Kyi on Saturday, she emphasised the importance of credible and free by-elections in April. I can assure the House we will be watching that very closely.
On Syria, the Council condemned the continuing violence and the repression of the Syrian people. Reports suggest that more than 60 people were killed on the streets of Syria last week alone. In total, more than 5,000 people have been killed, 400 children murdered and tens of thousands of people detained. Today, the Foreign Secretary is in New York to support the Arab League’s call for Security Council action condemning repression and supporting a transition of power. All 27 EU member states backed that call for UN action, and if the violence does not end, we agreed that we would tighten EU sanctions further. Our message is clear: we will stand with the Syrian people. It is time for all members of the UN Security Council to live up to their responsibilities instead of shielding those who have blood on their hands. The killing must stop, and President Assad must stand aside.
This was an important Council for Britain. On competitiveness, the single market and trade, Britain is setting the agenda. On action to face down dictators and dangerous regimes in Iran and Syria, Britain is leading the way, and by saying no to a new EU treaty we have protected Britain’s interests. I commend this statement to the House.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and associate myself with his remarks about Iran, Syria and Burma. On those issues there has been a bipartisan approach, and the Government have our full support in the effort they are making.
Having heard the Prime Minister’s statement on Europe, the whole House now knows the truth—that with this Prime Minister, a veto is not for life, it is just for Christmas. He said—[Interruption.] Calm down, dear, calm down. He said that it was a real veto on the use of European institutions, and his Back Benchers believed him. Even his Cabinet believed him. What did the welfare Secretary—where is he?—say just this weekend? He could not have been clearer. He said:
“The fact is the Prime Minister vetoed them using the institutions”.
There was not a glimmer of doubt in his mind. He was asked whether the structures of the EU would be used for the fiscal compact, and he said:
“The Prime Minister has already made it clear…he vetoed any such possibility of that happening.”
It is no wonder the welfare Secretary said that, because it was what the Chancellor said the day after the summit. He said on the Saturday morning:
“If we had signed this treaty…we would have found the full force of the…European court, the European Commission, all of those institutions enforcing those treaties using that opportunity to undermine Britain’s interests…We were not prepared to let that happen.”
Can the Prime Minister now confirm that the treaty will be ruled on by the European Court of Justice? Article 8 of the treaty says yes. Can he tell us whether the European Commission will implement the treaty? Article 8 says yes.
What about the Prime Minister’s line in the sand? We know that at 4 am on that fateful Friday morning, he laid down the law to his fellow European leaders and said, “You won’t be able to use the buildings.” So can he now tell us whether the buildings of the European institutions will be used? Apparently, the answer to that is yes, too. On the European Court, the Commission and the buildings, the phantom veto of December is now exposed.
What does the Prime Minister cling to? What did he say at the press conference yesterday? He said:
“There isn’t an EU treaty because I vetoed it; it doesn’t exist.”
The agreement involves the European Court of Justice, the European Commission, the European buildings, 25 out of 27 countries, and he says that it is not really a treaty. [Interruption.] Here is the treaty. It talks like a European treaty, it walks like a European treaty—it is a European treaty.
For Britain, the Prime Minister has secured no protections at all. He says that he has secured protections about discussions on the single market, but the treaty says that the contracting parties shall take actions in the following areas:
“Fostering competitiveness. Promoting employment. Reinforcing financial stability.”
It sounds like the single market to me. Can he confirm that the United Kingdom will not even have observer status at the regular meetings of the 25 to find out what is going on and whether the single market is being discussed? The Prime Minister needs to answer the question: who will protect the British national interest at those meetings? I think his Back Benchers will be interested in that. [Interruption.] It is all right, Mr Speaker, Britain will not be represented at those meetings, but the Prime Minister has a last line of defence—the European Commission. You could not make it up: the Prime Minister reduced to relying on the people he calls “the bureaucrats from Brussels” to represent him at the meetings. In the Prime Minister’s topsy turvy world, that is all he has left: his thin blue line against the 25 countries exceeding their mandate.
Instead of ending up in that position, the Prime Minister should not have walked out of the meeting in December. [Interruption.] No, he should not. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for interrupting the Leader of the Opposition. I exhorted the Opposition Benches to some calm; I now do so to the Government Benches. I say to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) in the nicest, kindest and most public-spirited way possible that if he insists on gesticulating, which he should not, it is pretty silly to do it when he is standing next to me.
Edward Miliband
Instead of constructing phantom vetoes, the Prime Minister should have been getting a solution to the problems of the eurozone—our largest export market. Of course, he cannot do that. He is committed to failing austerity at home, so he cannot oppose collective austerity abroad. There are growing fears that the scale of austerity required under the treaty will not work. Will the Prime Minister therefore tell us whether the economic strategy in the fiscal compact will work? If he does not believe that it will work, why is he not arguing for change?
The summit has been bad for Britain. There is still no solution to the problems of growth in Europe. In the cold light of day, the Prime Minister’s veto that never was has been exposed. He made a grand promise, which turned out to be worthless. No wonder that even his Back Benchers say that they cannot believe a word he says.
Britain stands with less influence than we have had for a generation. It is bad for business, bad for jobs and bad for families. Britain deserves better.
The Prime Minister
I tell you what: I will deal with my Back Benchers, you deal with yours. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Ellis, you were apologising to me yesterday for losing your cool. You should not be a recidivist. I want to hear the Prime Minister even if you do not.
The Prime Minister
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition that there are two problems with the approach he is taking. The first is that he cannot actually tell us whether he is in favour of this treaty or against it. The Government are clear: we are not signing it and we do not agree with it. That is why we vetoed it being within the EU treaties. That is our position. What is his position? He has had all of his Christmas to make up his mind about whether he would sign the treaty or not.
Last night—[Interruption.] This is very important, so let me explain. Last night at the meeting of the European Council, every European country had to say whether it would sign up to the treaty or not. Britain and the Czech Republic said we would not. Everyone has to make a decision, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot do so. He has had 53 days to make up his mind.
The right hon. Gentleman’s second problem is that he keeps saying this is an EU treaty, but it is not an EU treaty. There was a treaty of Maastricht, a treaty of Nice, a treaty of Amsterdam and a treaty of Lisbon. On each occasion, the Labour party was in favour. There will be no EU treaty of Brussels because we vetoed it.
The right hon. Gentleman asked specifically what effect this treaty could have on the EU single market. The treaty is clear. Article 2 states:
“The provisions of this Treaty shall apply”
only “insofar”—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The House must now calm itself. With all that gesticulation and hand-waving from the shadow Chancellor, I thought he was playing with his cooking utensils—[Interruption.] Well, he was pointing somewhere. Like the House and the country, I genuinely want to hear the Prime Minister, as I hope they also wanted to hear the Leader of the Opposition. Let us hear the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister
Thank you, Mr Speaker. We know why the Opposition Benches are so depleted—Opposition Members have been eating the shadow Chancellor’s lasagne and are recovering. The point is absolutely clear in article 2, which states that the provisions
“shall not encroach upon the competences of the Union to act in the area of the economic union.”
The fact is that Labour always fails to stand up for Britain. That is what we know. The previous Labour Government gave away the EU rebate. What did they get in return? Nothing. They signed up to the bail-out mechanism. What did they get in return? [Hon. Members: “Nothing.”] They signed up to the social chapter. What did we get for that? [Hon. Members: “Nothing.”] The Opposition opposed our referendum lock, and even now they are telling us that Brussels does not have too much power, and that if the Leader of the Opposition were Prime Minister for long enough, he would join the single currency. He has had 53 days to make up his mind whether he wants to sign this treaty or not. As usual, he cannot make up his mind whether he is muddled or weak. The fact is he is both.
Mr Speaker
Order. There is enormous interest and I am keen to accommodate it. What is required is brevity, of which the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) is a past master.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
We will see whether your prediction is justified, Mr Speaker.
I begin by praising the pragmatism of the Prime Minister, although I confess to being somewhat surprised that my support for it is not shared throughout the Government Benches. It is especially welcome that he pursued over the weekend a policy of re-engagement with our European partners, which is essential to his long-term objectives of the promotion of growth and the extension of the single market.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. We must ask a simple question: what is in the interests of the UK? It is in our interests to let the eurozone get on with the job of sorting out its problems, and to ensure that this new treaty is restricted to the issues of fiscal union. It is therefore in our interests to use leverage over the institutions and the legal issues to keep them focused on fiscal union. That is the approach we have taken and it is entirely right.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
Every single article bar one of the treaty, which I have read, refers to institutions of the European Union, including the Commission and the Court of Justice. Leaving aside its form, how can the Prime Minister possibly say that, in substance, the treaty is not equivalent to a European Union treaty? Given the provisions of article 12—it provides for non-euro contracting parties to participate in discussions on competitiveness, but not those outside the treaty—what has been achieved by his veto except that we are outside the door?
The Prime Minister
It is not an EU treaty, because it does not amend EU law; it is not a treaty within all of the treaties of the EU, and that is very important, because it would have been wrong to sign up for that without the safeguards for the single market, financial services and the other things that I set out. Let me just explain how important article 2 is in this agreement of the other countries. Let me read it in full:
“The provisions of this Treaty shall apply insofar as they are compatible with the Treaties on which the Union is founded and with European Union law. They shall not encroach upon the competences of the Union to act in the area of the economic union”—
that is, this treaty is outside EU law. Why is it outside EU law? It is because I made it outside EU law.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will know that the European Scrutiny Committee is making an inquiry into the nature and lawfulness of the agreement otherwise known as this non-EU treaty. Will he accept that the problem we have in European policy making is that it is on a slippery slope towards a more coercive, more federal and less democratic Europe? Will he give us his assurance that never, while he is Prime Minister, will we fold this non-EU treaty into the treaties as a whole?
The Prime Minister
To answer my hon. Friend’s second question first, obviously this treaty cannot be folded back into the EU without the agreement of every EU member state. We did not sign this treaty, because we did not get the safeguards that we wanted, and that position absolutely remains. My hon. Friend is right to make the point about the danger of a slippery slope that can be created by signing EU treaties and the use of the EU institutions. The whole point is that because this is not an EU treaty—because it is outside EU law—we are not in danger of that happening.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
So, basically, the Prime Minister was afraid that if he went to the European Court of Justice and asked the European Court of Justice whether the European Court of Justice should have power to adjudicate on the so-called non-EU treaty, he would lose? That is basically the sum and total of it, is it not?
The Prime Minister
Let me explain again, because I know the hon. Gentleman takes great interest in European affairs. The point is that it is in our interest that these eurozone countries get on with the job they need to do. It is absolutely important that they stick to the fiscal union and do not encroach on the single market. Clearly, there are uses for the institutions they have set out in this treaty, some of which are legal under existing EU law and some of which are highly questionable. We are going to use that leverage and that legal position to make them stick to the position of sticking to the fiscal union. That is the most sensible thing to do, and I would have thought that, with all his experience in European politics, he understood that.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
May I welcome the Prime Minister’s confirmation that there is no provision in the treaty that allows the single market to be undermined? However, he will be aware that the President of France has been driven to impose a financial transaction tax on France alone. Does he agree that the dismay with which that was met by the financial services sector in Paris illustrates exactly why such a tax is a bad idea?
The Prime Minister
One does not need to look any further than the European Commission itself, which actually carried out an investigation into a financial transactions tax and found that it could cost 500,000 jobs in the European Union. That is why the whole idea of pursuing this at the moment is completely wrong. Of course, it would be different if the whole world was going to accept a financial transactions tax, but that is extremely unlikely to happen. That is why I do not think it is the right approach. But let us be clear: in this country, we do get our financial services to make a proper contribution. For instance, we have stamp duty on share transactions, which actually raises considerably more than the French are planning to raise with their early foray into this area.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister confirm what I think the Chancellor has said over the past couple of days, which is that when more money is required by the IMF, Britain will not fall short?
The Prime Minister
The Chancellor said that we are founder members of the IMF and strong supporters of it as an institution, but that the IMF must always lend to countries, not currencies; that we would not be part of an EU bail-out fund; that we would take part only if other countries came forward too; and that that would happen only after eurozone countries and eurozone institutions had done what they needed to do to stand up and support their currency. That is the position, and I think that it is right.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister say something about the nature of the EU of which we are now a member, given that a subset of member states can bypass a veto and hijack the institutions for their own purposes without the consent of the dissenting member states? He is entirely right to maintain a reservation to ensure that that does not happen.
The Prime Minister
The point is that, as my hon. Friend knows, there are organisations within the EU, such as the eurozone group and the Schengen group, of which we are not a part, that use the European institutions. The fact is that this treaty is outside the EU treaties, which gives us that extra protection. Furthermore, we have the ability to exercise leverage to ensure that they stick to fiscal union, rather than getting into the single market, which is what we want to protect. That is absolutely important and the approach that we should take.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
The Greek writer Aristophanes gave us the concept of cloud cuckoo land. I wonder whether some European leaders visited that mythical country on Monday. Will the Prime Minister tell us how on earth he thinks that a country such as Greece will regain competitiveness if it cannot devalue, which it cannot do within the euro?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady makes a serious point. I have read the agreement that these countries have come to, and I completely understand the need for fiscal discipline within the eurozone. Clearly, we cannot have countries building up excessive deficits year after year, and one can understand the concern of Germany and other northern countries, but on the text of the treaty, it is actually very concerning that some countries will struggle to meet it. Of course, Europe needs not only arrangements for fiscal discipline but, above all, arrangements for additional competitiveness, for opening up markets and for getting economies growing. That was the subject of the first half of the EU meeting, in which we were major participants, and we are very much driving that agenda to help Greece, Spain and other countries in the south of Europe.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
The eurozone crisis has now become a major global risk, but the member countries seem wholly incapable of addressing it and its root causes properly. Will the need for IMF intervention and direction of the crisis be discussed at the G20 summit that the Prime Minister will be attending on 25 February, and was it discussed at the summit from which he has just come?
The Prime Minister
There was not a discussion about IMF resources at the informal EU Council. To be fair to eurozone members, what they need to do is difficult for countries to do: they need to contribute huge amounts of money to a firewall to prevent contagion; they need to put capital into their banks to strengthen them at this time of stress; and they have to give up large areas of sovereignty to make sense of the eurozone. Those are all reasons we stayed out of the eurozone, and why I believe that we should not join the single currency. It is only fair, however, to explain that they have taken quite a few steps down that road. The argument that I made in Davos was that, as well as the short-term things that they need to do, they need a set-up that makes sense for the long term of the eurozone.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister said that he will watch closely and, if necessary, take action, including legal action, if our national interests are threatened by the treaty. Will that legal action be taken through the European Court of Justice, and how does that marry with his next statement that EU institutions should only act with the explicit authorisation of all member states? Will not other states refuse to allow that?
The Prime Minister
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands how these institutions work. The point is simple: it is clearly in our national interests to maintain the single market at the level of the 27 to make it work for us. As long as this treaty stays out of that area, and instead focuses on fiscal union and discusses the things that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) mentioned, it will not be a problem for Britain. If it encroaches on our national interests, however, we will have the ability to take action and the case to do so.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
After what was clearly a much more successful and satisfactory summit than the one in December—the Prime Minister came back with clear EU commitments to democracy around the world, and to the single market and the extra jobs that it can sustain, particularly in the energy industry at home—will he agree that his constituents, like mine, want the Government to concentrate, as Europe appears to be united in doing, on jobs, growth, training and skills, instead of obsessing about constitutional and treaty niceties? Those are not important.
The Prime Minister
I think the right hon. Gentleman is entirely right, and the refreshing thing about this Council is how much time was spent on the nitty-gritty of the single market—on digital, on services, on education and on energy markets. Having Mario Monti, the new Greek Prime Minister and others there with a real focus on the single market, including the new Spanish Prime Minister, gives us a much better prospect for making progress on this agenda than we have had for many years.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Is not the truth of the matter that throughout 2011 the Prime Minister marched his troops to the top of the anti-European hill, and now, like John Major before him, and with the help of the Deputy Prime Minister, he has marched them down again? I think there is a word for it: it is called appeasement. If this meeting had been held in Munich, the Prime Minister would have been coming back waving a piece of paper.
The Prime Minister
I always wonder whether practice is going to make perfect with the hon. Gentleman. At least he has been consistent: he has always voted against all EU treaties, and I am giving him the rare pleasure of not having an EU treaty to vote against.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Prime Minister has referred to the five European countries that are now less competitive than Iran. On competitiveness, his announcement today is welcome, but how quickly will those steps be taken to increase the competitiveness of the single market?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise the issue in this way. We have tended in the past in the European Union to sign up to Council conclusions or informal statements, like the one agreed late last night, that are full of good words about taking such steps but do not contain enough concrete dates. The difference last night is that dates have started to appear for when specific things should be done, whether it be completing EU free trade arrangements with other countries or completing deregulation or single market programmes. That is very welcome.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The position taken on Iran at the summit was clearly the right one. However, as the Prime Minister knows, there are 73,000 Iranians living in London. What provisions have been made to nominate a third country, so that British Iranians can go to visit Tehran, and their friends and relatives can come and visit here?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman asks an important question. Perhaps I can write to him about that. What I would say is that, in a move that may have surprised some people, the EU has been decisive—for instance, in creating the oil embargo when some members of the EU have been quite reliant on Iranian oil, which is a real step forward. However, on the issue of third countries and travel, perhaps I can write to the right hon. Gentleman.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
We have learned today that in Britain’s national interest the Prime Minister is prepared to use a veto to allow national agreements and to rule out for ever Britain’s membership of the euro. Does he or anyone else in this room have any idea what the Leader of the Opposition stands for?
The Prime Minister
It is going to be interesting. We are now going to have a period of days when the Leader of the Opposition is finally going to have to get off the fence and tell us: would he sign up to this treaty or not? The treaty is right here—I can give him a copy. It is a treaty that we will not be signing; he now has to make up his mind whether he is going to sign it or not.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
How does the Prime Minister feel about attending a European Council of a supposedly democratic EU when the leaders of two of the countries not only have not been elected, but were more or less imposed by the bureaucracy in Brussels? Does he not feel seriously that we are moving more and more away from a democratic Europe, and that this is why the people of this country, ultimately, will have to decide on our future?
The Prime Minister
The difference between the situation in this country, where we face great economic challenges, and countries in the eurozone is that we have been able to adopt a policy stance that, yes, combines a very tight fiscal policy with difficult public spending reductions, but can also be accompanied by a loose monetary policy, with the Bank of England standing behind the economy. The problem for many eurozone countries is that they do not have that policy mix. That is making life difficult for them, and I fully understand that. They want to stay in the euro; they want to make the euro work. Whatever our private views about the euro, we should do what we can to help them get on with the job of sorting out the single currency and its arrangements, because it is currently having such a bad effect on our economy.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Can the Prime Minister reassure the House that in exercising his veto, exhorting the eurozone to sort out its financial crisis and promoting growth through the single market, he is acting in Britain’s national interests? Does he also share my concern that the Leader of the Opposition does not seem to know where Britain’s interests lie?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right. At the end of the day, we have to decide whether we are going to agree to this treaty or not. The fact is that every European country had to make that decision, and we have made ours. I repeat that it is in our national interest for the eurozone to deal with its problems, to keep this treaty focused on fiscal union and then to maximise the potential of the single market. I think that Britain should be relaxed about being in those parts of Europe where we want action—just as we are a leading member of NATO, and just as we led that action in Libya—but that we should quite happily stay out of areas that we do not feel are in our interests, such as the Schengen no-borders agreement or the euro.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Given that Germany grew 3% last year, and has its lowest unemployment for 20 years and more manufacturing and a smaller pay gap than Britain, why is the Prime Minister so against the practice of worker representation on company boards?
The Prime Minister
One of the points about Germany is that it did not spend the last decade making its economy unbalanced with a massive boom and a massive bust. The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the IMF forecasts, however, because they are very instructive about what is happening in Europe this year. They are actually forecasting higher growth for Britain than for almost any other country in the European Union, but they have made very chilling forecasts for countries such as Spain and Italy, for which they are forecasting quite a steep decline.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister explain what it is that he has vetoed?
The Prime Minister
I have vetoed Britain’s involvement in a treaty. As a result, it is not an EU treaty. We had in front of this House the Maastricht EU treaty and the Lisbon EU treaty; we had Amsterdam and we had Nice. All of those were treaties that Britain was involved in as a member of the EU, and they were EU treaties with the full force of the law. This is not like that; this is outside the European Union. It is an arrangement that has been reached by 25 other countries and we are not involved. As a result, we have safeguarded Britain’s interests, which could have been put at risk by a new EU treaty.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
What indications did the Prime Minister receive from the German Government that if they want their political project of fiscal and monetary union in the eurozone to succeed, they will finally have to face the sad fact that they will have to put in the necessary resources, rather than just imposing greater austerity on countries that have been steadily stripped of their democracy?
The Prime Minister
I tried to set out what I think is the sensible view in my speech to the Davos summit. Look, I do understand the German concern. It sees countries across Europe that have run up huge debts and huge deficits, putting at risk the stability of the single currency. It does not want that to happen again, so it wants these assurances for the future. Just as everyone needs to understand the German position, however, we also need to show some understanding of those countries that are going to struggle in the years ahead. They are going to need extra help and assistance, and there is going to have to be solidarity across the eurozone, because the single currency requires that, as I explained in my Davos speech. We manage a single currency across the United Kingdom because we show solidarity with different areas of the country, and the eurozone has to understand that similar solidarity will be required there, to make the single currency work in the long run.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I was encouraged to see reference in the communiqué to this year being a decisive year for free trade agreements. Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to move ahead with the free trade agreement with Japan, which is vital to large parts of our motor manufacturing industry?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly do that. I have discussed this issue with the Japanese Prime Minister and with the European Union. One of the issues with Japan is non-tariff barriers, in regard to the access to Japanese markets that British goods and services want. There is a particular advantage for us, in an economy with such a high level of services and branded goods, in ensuring that we really secure progress on the free trade agreement, not only with Japan but with India. The Indian economy is fairly closed off to services, and we want to see it opened up.
Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has talked about competitiveness, growth and jobs, but he skated over the fiscal compact and its fiscal consolidation, which could have a severe effect on jobs and growth. Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), and given that the Prime Minister thinks the eurozone is so important to us, what influence does he think he can bring to bear, as he is not part of the 25?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman seems to be having his cake and eating it. On the one hand, he says that the treaty is tough in terms of fiscal discipline and consolidation, while on the other hand he is worried about the fact that we have not signed it and are not subject to it. I think it is right for this country to take measures to consolidate our fiscal position. These are difficult measures, but we can at least look the British people in the eye and say we are doing it for our own benefit and our own good. We are not doing it because we are instructed by some foreign body to get our budget under control; we are doing it in our own national interest.
Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Prime Minister will well remember that nearly 20 years ago, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain and the Irish Republic left the exchange rate mechanism—the precursor of the euro. There was an exit strategy. Now the crisis facing Europe seems to be one of solvency in some of these countries, there is no exit strategy and it appears that there is no money. Will the Prime Minister reassure the British public that no funds will be given to the IMF and that we will give no more money to the European Union?
The Prime Minister
I obviously remember very well the exchange rate mechanism experience. Indeed, it is that experience that makes me so passionate about not joining the single currency or the euro—because it is so difficult to exit from it if it does suit our needs or our arrangements. I believe that Britain is a big enough economy to have its own interest rates and its own monetary policy to suit our needs. My hon. Friend asks for guarantees. What we have done is already to have got out of the bail-out mechanism to which the last Government signed us up and, as I clarified a few moments ago, we have set out very clearly our conditions to the IMF.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister says that his veto has left the European Commission in the room to protect against encroachment on single market issues and competitiveness. Will he remind us of the name of the noble baroness who represents the UK on that Commission and of which party will therefore represent Britain’s last line of defence?
The Prime Minister
The point the hon. Gentleman has clearly not understood is that the treaty itself sets out that the treaty cannot be used to encroach on the single market; it is there in black and white. As I have said, if that is not the case we have the ability to take action, including legal action, to protect our national interest.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
My constituents really appreciate the Prime Minister’s straight talking on this issue, so will he answer the question that they want answering: if asked, will the Prime Minister stump up more money for Greece?
The Prime Minister
Our answer is very clear. We were not involved in the Greek bail-out, and we will not be involved in European bail-outs of Greece. We have got out of the EU mechanism that the last Government got us into, and we have set out our conditions on the IMF very clearly.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
In the last few days, the Greek Government have said that they refuse to have their economic governance taken over by the European Union. Does the Prime Minister support the Greeks in that, and if so, will he say so here and now?
The Prime Minister
The only way I can answer that question is to say that the Greeks have to decide themselves whether they want to stay in the euro. If they do, they have clearly got to meet some pretty exacting targets for reducing Government deficit, reducing Government debt and accepting a very austere approach. If Greece wants to stay in the euro, those are the conditions it will have to meet. I am not Greek; I am British. We have made our decision to stay out of the euro; this is their decision, and we should not tell them what to do.
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
It is clear that the Prime Minister has considerable support within Europe in seeking a more adaptable, flexible and competitive economy. Will he reassure businesses in my constituency and elsewhere that the casting of the veto will have done nothing to prevent his ability to drive forward that agenda in Europe?
The Prime Minister
What last night’s meeting proved is that there is a very strong and growing consensus for action around the European Council table on issues of competitiveness. British Ministers—and, to be fair to Labour, British Ministers for the last 20 years—have been going to Europe arguing for completing the single market, deregulation, lifting the burdens on business and all those issues, and we have always had strong supporters in the northern liberal countries, as it were, but we have come unstuck when it comes to other countries. I think we now see—partly because the centre right is in power in so much of Europe—really strong support for that sort of agenda, and we can certainly drive it forward.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The Joint Ministerial Committee memorandum of understanding on EU policy says that Ministers and officials from all the devolved Administrations should be involved in discussion with the UK Government on the formulation of UK policy. What discussions did the Prime Minister or his officials have with Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast before the European Council meeting?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are arrangements for these things. Actually, the Government have been very generous in ensuring that the Scottish Administration have been fully involved in, for instance, fishing quota negotiations. However, I thought that the hon. Gentleman wanted to leave the UK altogether. If that is the case, he will have to seek access to the European Union, and seek access to joining the euro as well. I think that he ought to read the treaty and work out whether he wants to sign it. Perhaps when he has made up his mind he will be able to tell the Labour leader what to do.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister said this afternoon that, if necessary, we would take legal action. What would trigger that legal action? Is not the problem for the majority the fact that if they stretch the European institutions to achieve greater compliance, the minority may be tempted to stretch them to achieve greater independence?
The Prime Minister
I think that the conditions are very straightforward. As I have said, we want those institutions to sort out the problems of the European Union, and we want them to stick to fiscal union and not go into single market issues. If they were to go into single market issues and threaten Britain’s national interests, of course we would act. That seems to me to be a much more sensible approach than taking an alternative path, because all the while we shall be maintaining some leverage over this organisation, outside the European Union, to ensure that it sticks to the job that it is meant to do.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
What, in terms of content, is not in the EU treaty as a result of the Prime Minister’s not signing it?
The Prime Minister
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has spotted this yet, but there is not an EU treaty.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Prime Minister will be aware that the latest report on Iran by the International Atomic Energy Authority contains no smoking gun whatsoever. Given that the sabre-rattling and sanctions from the west have served only to strengthen the position of the hardliners, and—as is illustrated by the fact that Iran is thinking of bringing forward the deadline for the oil embargo—have failed to date, is this not the time for a fresh approach, which should include ruling out the option of force?
The Prime Minister
I listened carefully to my hon. Friend’s question, and indeed I listened to him carefully when he made the same case on the radio this morning, I do not read the IAEA report in the same way as he does, and I do not altogether trust Iran’s motives in this area, but the easiest way for Iran to settle the issue is to open up and show everyone just what it is doing. If it is only pursuing nuclear power and is not pursuing nuclear weaponry, the world will be able to move on, but until those assurances are given, the world will not be able to move on. That is the reason for the tough action that we are taking, which shows that there are alternatives to military force. We want to ensure that we maximise the use of all those options before considering anything else.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister explain the difference between a veto and an opt-out?
The Prime Minister
There is a very important difference. Let us consider what happened with Maastricht, for instance. There was a European Union treaty to which Britain was a full signatory. We opted out of certain parts of it, but we were still subject to a huge amount of additional EU law. That is why there were so many agonised debates in the House about whether it was a good thing or a bad thing. The same can be said of all EU treaties. The difference in this case is that there is no EU treaty. We are not going to put something in front of the House, and nothing will be voted on, so it will not affect the UK.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the initiative for a free and prosperous Europe which was launched yesterday with the support of think-tanks and non-governmental organisations across the continent? In a nutshell, it asked the EU to stop centralising power, and instead to build prosperity on liberty and responsibility. There is an appetite throughout Europe for the kind of policies that my right hon. Friend’s Government are advocating. Does he share my hope that the leaders of the European nations may abandon their outdated ideology of centralisation and follow him instead?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, and I will certainly look at the report he mentions. We in this House must understand that 17 members of the European Union have opted for a single currency—that was the big moment, when different parts of Europe chose to take a slightly different path—and even in spite of the difficulties, those member states are fully committed to trying to make it work. We have to respect the view they have taken and allow them to go on and do some of the things that can make sense of the eurozone. It is not the choice that we are making; we are making a different choice. We want a competitive Europe, we want a trading Europe, we want an open Europe, but we do not want a more centralised Europe, and not signing this treaty—not having an EU treaty—helps us down that path.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
When the Ministers discussed the situation in Iran, was any concern expressed about the bombings and assassinations currently taking place and the military build-up in the area, which clearly leads to much greater tension? Will the Prime Minister think again about the suggestion of the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) that there should be a renewed diplomatic initiative by either Britain or the European Union to try to build relations with all the power structures in Iran, rather than head down this very dangerous road towards a war?
The Prime Minister
I am afraid I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman for this—reasonable, I hope—reason: Iran has been offered a normal diplomatic relationship. Indeed, it was offered many times by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) when he was Foreign Secretary. The fact is that that did not move Iran off the path of trying to acquire all it needs for nuclear weapons. So I think the path of sanctions, travel bans and asset freezes, and all the tough measures we are taking right across the EU, is the right path. It is the right alternative to the alternatives that I think the hon. Gentleman does not welcome, and hopefully it will make the Iranian regime change its strategy.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
In December, the Minister for Europe said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) that
“we understand why those countries want to use the institutions, but it is new territory and raises important issues that we will need to explore with our colleagues in those other European countries.”—[Official Report, 13 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 718.]
Further, today my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said there are legal implications as a result of the discussions he has had. Does he share my concern that by invoking the institutions we may well end up in a Jarndyce v. Jarndyce-type legal squabble with the European Court of Justice that will not go in our favour?
The Prime Minister
That is not my concern; instead, my concern is that although there are uses of the EU institutions that are already sanctioned by existing treaties and to which we could not possibly object, this agreement between the 25 countries goes further than that and raises legal concerns. So we are right to raise them and use the leverage to try to keep this new organisation on the straight and narrow path of fiscal union rather than moving over into the single currency. I do not really fear what my hon. Friend says, because of course people can take cases about what has been signed to the European Court, but that is not going to drag Britain into a treaty that we are not part of. That is another advantage of not having signed the treaty.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The Prime Minister was right to veto the treaty because it was against this country’s interests. The agreement arrived at between the 25 countries is fundamentally deflationary and will not lead to growth—it will lead to mass unemployment across Europe—and is also against this country’s interests. Rather than reneging on his original commitment to stop the 25 using European institutions, should not the Prime Minister now be using all the power of his office to stop them?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as at least we have at last got a clear Labour view. Clearly he, like me, would not have signed the treaty and thinks Britain is better off outside the treaty. Is that the Labour position? The Leader of the Opposition can just nod. That is not much to ask for. They have had 53 days to make up their minds. There are three options: yes, no or “I don’t know because I’m weak and indecisive.”
Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)
I welcome the reduction in regulation on small and medium-sized enterprises set out in the statement. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the constituents of Erewash that the priority throughout negotiations is the protection of jobs and businesses in Britain?
The Prime Minister
That is absolutely our priority. The more we can get the single market to work, the better it will be for British jobs, including in Derbyshire. There is an important agenda here, and it is not just about getting the European Commission and European Union to do things in terms of completing the single market. It is also, sometimes, about trying to get them not to do things—it is about rolling back some of the bureaucracy that has been placed on business that can cost jobs and mean extra regulation.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Figures released by the EU today reveal that one in 10 people in the EU is out of work, including 16 million people within the eurozone. Why has the Prime Minister not been more vocal about an increased role for the European Central Bank, including the use of eurobonds to help restore confidence to the markets and increase growth?
The Prime Minister
I always think it is the first sign of madness for a politician to say, “Please go and read one of my speeches,” but on this occasion I will make an exception. If the hon. Gentleman reads my speech at the Davos summit, he will see that that is exactly what I said.
The Prime Minister
Thank you very much—you are so charitable.
On unemployment, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) is absolutely right. There was a very good and strong discussion in the European Council and it is really worth looking in particular at examples of countries that have lower youth unemployment than Britain—there are many with higher youth unemployment —to see what lessons we can learn from them.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that the question of European bail-outs would be much less likely to arise if different countries with different economies had different currencies? Will he therefore recommend this tried-and-tested model for the eurozone countries?
The Prime Minister
We have a very strong view in this country that we should keep our own currency, but that does not let us off the need for fiscal discipline, proper monetary policy and keeping inflation under control. It is not a free lunch or a free ride. We have to take tough decisions, but clearly we have to show some respect for the 17 eurozone countries that want to make the euro work. It is no good wishing away what is there. The responsible thing to do is not to stand in their way when they are trying to put out the fire in their own house, but to ensure that they do so in a way that does not threaten our national interests. That is exactly what I have done.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I still do not know whether the Prime Minister thinks that he did not sign a treaty or just an agreement. Is not his real failure his commitment to austerity and his lack of a plan for jobs and growth either in the EU or in the UK?
The Prime Minister
In Europe, we have a plan for jobs and growth, which is called completing the single market. The question that the hon. Gentleman and his leader have to answer is about the new treaty being proposed, which 25 countries are going to sign and Britain is not. [Interruption.] I do not care how bad the lasagne is, at some stage the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition are going to have to make up their minds. Are they for it, are they against it, or are they weak and indecisive and cannot make up their minds?
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
Like many others, I welcome the commitment to cut the burden of regulation, but does the Prime Minister agree that there could be potential to revisit the way in which directives were transcribed into UK law by the previous Labour Government, with a view to removing some of the gold-plating that businesses complain about so much?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There have been occasions on which EU directives have been added to by Government Departments and implemented with more vigour than in other parts of the European Union. We have tried to put a stop to that under this Government.
The Prime Minister
Horse passports—that was a good one. I do not think we eat horses in this country, but the previous Government, in their wisdom, decided that every one needed a passport. That is just one example. In future we can ensure that we do only what is absolutely necessary, rather than gold-plating.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister share with the House and the country what influence, if any, his Back-Bench Eurosceptics have had on his thinking during these discussions?
The Prime Minister
I think the Conservative party is entirely united in thinking that Britain is not right to sign this treaty.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on defending Britain’s interests, and I note what he says about Iran and Syria. Does he think that if we had a common EU defence policy, HMS Dauntless would now be readying to sail to the south Atlantic?
The Prime Minister
The point is this: we should make sure that NATO is the cornerstone of our defence and we should be very clear about our own defence responsibilities—I have spoken about the Falklands. We need to win the argument in Europe that there is no point in having endless competing defence headquarters. What we need throughout NATO, particularly in Europe, is greater defence capacity, and we need to encourage other European partners to invest in that.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister explain how he will take action, as he says, if this non-EU treaty under which the 25 nations can take advantage of the full force of the EU institutions, encroached on our national interest and undermined the single market?
The Prime Minister
Let me explain: there are uses of the EU institutions set out in previous treaties—mostly put through this House by the Labour Government—but this treaty outside the EU goes further than that, and that raises legal issues. We have said very clearly, including in the EU Council last night, that if that were to encroach on the single market and threaten this country’s national interest, we could take action, including legal action.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
The UK is fortunate in having many excellent professional bodies—engineers, architects, surveyors, lawyers and so forth—but often they find it difficult to practise within the European Union because of a host of national barriers to professional practice. In the context of the single market, improving competitiveness and creating jobs, has the Council taken steps to remove some of those national barriers to professions being able to practise throughout the EU?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise that big gap in the single market. We passed the Single European Act all those years ago—more than 20 years ago—yet the professions and services have still not been properly opened up. The action we are taking is for all Governments to agree to open up those professions, and on this occasion the European Court of Justice may actually be helpful in that the Commission is taking infraction proceedings against a number of member states—Germany included, I think—to make sure that they genuinely open up their professions and complete the single market.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
On the radio today, the shadow Foreign Secretary claimed that Britain had lost influence in Europe. In the matters of the single market, competitiveness, Iran and Syria, what does the Prime Minister feel was achieved by the British presence at the European Council?
The Prime Minister
The specific foreign policy stances taken by the EU are all agreed by unanimity, which proves that agreement by unanimity is possible if there is political will and drive. Almost the entire approach to Iran and Syria and Burma was something that the British requested be discussed at the Council and we requested that there be a statement. I think that shows that with political will, but with unanimity, it is possible to get a lot done.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister realise that the more he denies that this is effectively a European treaty, the more he reminds us of comical Ali denying that an invasion had taken place while the tanks rolled by behind him?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is in for a big surprise. When no treaty arrives in the House of Commons, he will have to do a bit of explaining.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
On Iran, did the European summit discuss the planned regional conference on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and does the Prime Minister agree that it might offer a vital pathway out of an increasingly dangerous stand-off?
The Prime Minister
We did not discuss that specific matter. It is entirely right and worth while to try to bring regional neighbours into the debate, but I have to say that it is some of the regional powers that are the most concerned about Iranian activity, not only in their own countries but in stirring up trouble elsewhere, so it is probably only part of what needs to happen, which is to get the Iranian Government to change their strategic direction.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Prime Minister has highlighted a growth test to ensure that all actions at European Union level fully support growth and job creation. This new “I can’t believe it’s not an EU treaty” will prescribe prolonged and tight austerity for many economies, affecting not only services there but trade and commercial capacity more widely in Europe. Would this non-EU treaty pass any meaningful EU growth test?
The Prime Minister
If the hon. Gentleman is so against the treaty, I am surprised that he is not praising me for making sure that Britain is not involved in it; I would have thought that would be the first thing that he would say. We have to understand that the countries of the eurozone want to take an approach that prescribes rules on debt and deficit. We can all have our own views about whether it is the right approach or whether it is too tight, and all the rest of it, but that is what they want to do; I do not think that we should stand in their way as it is done, but it is better done outside the European Union.
Mr Speaker
Order. There is still a very significant number of colleagues seeking to get in. I would like to try to accommodate as many as I can, but if I am to do so, brevity is essential.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister outlined in his speech at the Council several criteria needed for a successful monetary union, none of which have really been met by the changes, however welcome, outlined there, so may I urge him to continue to plan, while doing everything that he can to co-operate constructively, for the likely eventual break-up of the eurozone?
The Prime Minister
We have to plan for all eventualities, but I would make two points. As I have said, I think we have to respect the fact that the countries of the eurozone want to make it work. They have taken quite a number of steps that are painful and difficult for individual sovereign countries to take, and it must be in our interests, because we want the European economy to grow, for them at least to take the short-term measures to take the heat out of the crisis. There were some signs of the crisis easing at the beginning of this year, as Italian and other bond spreads have come down, but we are far from through it.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend expand on the basis on which we were able to find common cause with our good friends in the Czech Republic?
The Prime Minister
The point came when different countries had to decide whether they wanted to sign up to the treaty or not; it is not a treaty within the EU, so there is no compulsion to do so. The Czechs, on 9 December, were not sure whether they wanted to sign it. They then considered whether they wanted to, and last night they decided what to do, as everyone had to; the only person who cannot seem to make a decision is the leader of the Labour party, who has no idea whether he is against it, in favour of it, or does not know. One day, he will have to decide.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
What message does my right hon. Friend have for the great manufacturers of this country, such as DCS Europe in my constituency, given that President Sarkozy says that Britain does not have much manufacturing left?
The Prime Minister
The point that I would make gently to my friend Nicolas Sarkozy is that, if one looks at the figures, Britain actually has a higher percentage of industry than France does, but we think that we need to rebalance even further; we want to see a growth in manufacturing, technology and aerospace, but we do not believe that we should do that by damaging the financial services industry, which employs many people not just in the City of London, but right across our country.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
The overwhelming majority of my constituents, and indeed the country, already believe that the European Union has far too much power over the United Kingdom. Does my right hon. Friend agree with that, and if he does, is he as amazed as me that the leader of any political party in this country that claimed to be in touch with public opinion could argue otherwise?
The Prime Minister
I think it is briefing note N, and there is plenty in it; it is full. I think the best one in briefing note N is on whether or not the leader of the Labour party would like to join the euro. I know that the House enjoys this, so I might share it one more time: when asked whether he would join the euro, he said,
“It depends how long I'm prime minister for.”
This is the one thing that the shadow Chancellor and I, who often disagree, have in common: we are not going to let it happen.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The German Chancellor was on the radio this morning saying that she firmly expected the fiscal union to be inside the EU treaties within five years. What part of the British veto is giving her such hope and encouragement?
The Prime Minister
The point is that the countries that have signed the agreement want to fold it into the EU. That cannot happen without the permission of every country, and those people who say that the veto did not have effect perhaps need to explain why they want to fold the treaty back into the European Union. It seems to me that that is a very powerful point.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I welcome the statement because of its focus on competition, the single market, and energy. It is great that the Prime Minister has demonstrated British leadership in those fields, and he has added useful advice to the discussions, but will he ensure that we continue to have dialogue with our European partners? It is absolutely essential that they know and understand where we are coming from and what we can contribute.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right. As I have said, last night’s meeting proved that it is perfectly possible to stay out of parts of agreements that other European countries want to go into, but have real influence on the things we care about, such as the single market.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I welcome the fact that the agreement places no new obligations on the UK, but is it not the case that the agreement, whatever its merits or disadvantages, should not distract us or our EU partners from the necessary task of ending the barriers in the single market and reducing regulation?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course the eurozone countries want to see rules on fiscal discipline, but as I have said many times, it is not just fiscal deficits that have to be addressed, but trade deficits, and that is where the single market agenda can help not only countries such as ours, but theirs too.
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to trade deals with fast-growing parts of the world. An ambitious trade deal between the EU and India, which would help us double our trade with India by 2015, has eluded negotiators since 2007. Does he agree that next week’s EU-India summit in Delhi should see a clear timetable for the delivery of an ambitious deal as soon as possible?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I know that he has a lot of experience in this sphere. We are totally committed to trying to get this free trade agreement going. I think that there are real opportunities for both sides. I have mentioned the fact that we want to open up retail and services in banking and insurance in India. Frankly, we will have to do quite a lot of work to convince the Indians that that is in their interests too, but I profoundly believe that it is, as they want to be a rapidly growing success story of the future.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
I welcome what the Prime Minister said about applying a growth test to everything that the EU does in future. Will he tell my constituents what prospect he thinks there is of applying that test retrospectively to existing EU regulations, which the British Chambers of Commerce says costs business £7.5 billion a year?
The Prime Minister
It is important to try to look at some of the existing stock of regulations, but I think that one of the things that badly needs to be done in Europe is making sure that it is not just when Economic Affairs Ministers get together that we think about growth, but that when Social Affairs Ministers and Environment Ministers get together we think about the potential costs of what they are signing up to. That does not happen at the moment and badly needs to.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. My question relates to the discussions held on Syria. What action will EU member states take to protect civilians if Russia vetoes any UN Security Council resolution on the matter?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to raise this matter. Clearly the Russians have taken a different view up to now and have not supported robust action at the Security Council. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is trying to build the strongest possible resolution with colleagues at the Security Council and to say to the Russians, “If you go on vetoing or preventing these motions, you will be completely outside not just world public opinion, but the very clearly expressed opinion of the Arab League itself.”
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Is not my right hon. Friend’s strategy of rejecting the fiscal union treaty, which would not be in Britain’s economic interests, and at the same time pushing for a free trade agreement with Canada, Japan and India, which has the potential to create thousands of jobs in this country, absolutely the right one?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that Britain is better off outside the eurozone, but clearly we need to get trade going with parts of the world that are growing faster, which is why these trade deals are so important to us.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The good folk of Brigg and Goole are under no illusions about how hopelessly out of touch this House, and the Opposition side in particular, is on the European Union, but they were heartened by the Prime Minister’s veto. They are similarly under no illusion about what happens in Europe: it is where assurances are given, but ultimately breached, and a whole new set of proposals come back. What can he say to my constituents to assure them that this will not become another treaty that we end up getting sucked into?
The Prime Minister
We cannot be sucked into this treaty because we are out of it, and we can only go into it if all 27—soon to be 28—EU member states agree. That is the effect of the veto.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I am happy to report that Mrs Bone was singing in the bath yesterday, congratulating the Prime Minister on standing up for British interests and keeping us away from German economic domination of Europe. But she was concerned, because it must be pretty miserable for the Prime Minister to go to Europe when his Deputy Prime Minister forces him to take with him an unelected left-wing Liberal. At the next conference, would it be possible for my right hon. Friend to take a moderate constituent from my constituency—perhaps Mrs Bone?
The Prime Minister
I am just relieved that my hon. Friend did not ask me what happens if I am run over by a bus, which I gather is the question that he has asked everybody else. I have been warming up for that one for some time. To be fair to the Deputy Prime Minister, I do not know whether there is room in the deposition for Mrs Bone, and I would not want to get her out of her bath.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
I welcome the Council’s statement on Iran, but does the Prime Minister agree that the sanctions that the EU has agreed on Iran really need to bite? Iran is in the last chance saloon, so at the European Council what systems and processes were agreed in relation to monitoring the implementation of those sanctions?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. The key part of the sanctions is the oil embargo, which is a very big step for European countries to take. There is a time lag before it comes in, but I believe that it does so in July, and it is a big step, because there are countries, such as Italy, Spain and others, that have been very reliant on Iranian crude in the past. It is an important step. Europe has quite a good record of making sure that the sanctions that it imposes are put in place, but I will make sure that that happens.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
My constituents warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s determination to protect our interests in Europe. Will he explain how the United Kingdom will, in practical terms, actually be able to prevent those countries that sign up to the fiscal union treaty utilising the European Commission and the European Court of Justice in a way that damages UK interests?
The Prime Minister
The guarantee that they will not damage UK interests is this. First, the treaty itself is clear that it has to be in line with EU law; it cannot override it, and it cannot get into areas such as the single market. Secondly, as I have said in answer to previous questions, if the institutions do things that are not permitted, there can be a challenge, including a legal challenge. But, above all, Britain is protected because, although others are going ahead with this treaty outside the European Union, we are not part of it.
Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for bringing greater clarity to Britain’s position, because these are complicated issues. My constituents in Dudley South were very grateful for his exercise of the veto last month, but is the ECJ, as an institution of the whole European Union, not now being unjustly used?
The Prime Minister
As I said, in pre-existing treaties there are ways in which the European institutions can be used by groups of member states. That is a fact, and those treaties, as I said, tend to be passed by the Labour party. But, if member states go beyond that, there are real legal issues, and legal issues that I have set out; and, if that were to happen, we would be able to take action to protect our national interest.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
I trust my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to do what is right for Britain, but I do not necessarily trust his successors. After all, we saw the previous Government give up our hard-fought opt-out from the social chapter and give up our hard-fought budget rebate. What guarantees are there that the UK will not be sucked into this new treaty?
The Prime Minister
One of the best guarantees is the referendum lock, which we have in place in this country, which this House of Commons passed, which the Labour party opposed and which says that, if we propose any passage of power from Westminster to Brussels, there has to be a referendum. That is absolutely key to protecting our interests and to making sure that future Governments cannot give away powers that they should not.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
The Prime Minister has made clear his determination to secure free trade agreements with, among others, India, but will he agree to pursue with equal vigour similar opportunities in the emerging markets of Africa?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. If we look at which continents are going to grow over the next decade, we find that Africa has a very healthy growth rate and that countries such as Nigeria, South Africa, Ghana and others will grow rapidly. We already have very low tariff access from African countries to the European Union, and one thing we ought to try to encourage and look at is a pan-African free trade area, so that more of their trade can take place within Africa and they can have an effective single market, as we do in the European Union.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
Given that EU regulations account for 70% of the regulatory burden on businesses, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what steps are being taken to exempt micro-businesses from EU legislation?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. This is a breakthrough in Europe. We have been arguing for a moratorium on new EU regulations for micro-businesses—those employing fewer than 10 people—and that was agreed to at the European Council. We need to ensure that it is put in place rapidly.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister is to be congratulated on what he and others achieved with the sanctions on Iran. Will he tell the House whether there have been discussions between the European Union and Asian countries so that Iran cannot sell to Asia the oil that it is now not selling to Europe? Otherwise, we will be back to where we were before.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. There are two things that we need to do. First, we must ensure that countries that can increase production, such as Saudi Arabia, sell more oil to the countries in Europe that were reliant on Iranian crude. We then need to persuade Asian countries that might buy Iranian crude not to do the deals that they might otherwise have planned. We need to take action on both fronts.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
I strongly welcome the agreement to reduce regulatory burdens on SMEs and micro-enterprises. Although I do not expect the Prime Minister to give us a list today, will he tell the House when we can expect to see more detail on precisely which regulatory burdens small businesses in my constituency might see reduced and when?
The Prime Minister
The formal European Council on the single market, competitiveness and the economy is in March. This was a special European Council to kick-start progress on the single market. I hope that after the March Council we will have a specific list for my hon. Friend.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I welcome the commitments to bring down trade barriers and encourage trade outside the European Union. Will my right hon. Friend expand on the opportunities that British business will have for increased jobs, trade and commerce throughout the world?
The Prime Minister
This is an important point. In our trade with India and China over the past couple of years, we have seen increases of more than 20%. As there is a difficult situation in European markets, we have to look to the faster-growing markets of the world to grow our exports. That means great challenges for businesses. They have to get out there and sell. The Government have to get behind them. We need to help by opening up those markets, and particularly by allowing services full access to those markets. That is why the free trade deals are so important.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend say whether there were any discussions about the cost of oil and the geopolitical threats that might increase that cost? Will any action be taken by the EU to reduce the cost of oil and thereby reduce the price at the pump for motorists?
The Prime Minister
We did not discuss the cost of oil. As I have said, Saudi Arabian production is an important issue. The completion of the energy single market should help to bring energy prices down, because it will make the energy markets in Europe more efficient and ensure that there is a proper networked energy grid around Europe.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
More than 1 million people are employed in the financial services sector across the United Kingdom. Does the Prime Minister agree that many of those jobs could have been exposed to a significant degree if he had not used his veto in December and secured the agreement yesterday?
The Prime Minister
It is important to remember that the financial services industry is not just the City of London; it employs 100,000 people in Birmingham and more than 100,000 people in Scotland. It is important that we stand up for those people. Obviously, there is still the danger of eurozone countries going ahead with financial transactions taxes. However, Britain is making the case strongly that there are ways to ensure that the financial services industry pays its fair share through bank levies and the stamp duty on share transactions, without having a financial transactions tax, which would drive these activities to areas of the world that do not apply it. It does not work and the European Commission has said that it does not work. That is why we should reject it.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Prime Minister and the House for their succinctness, which enabled 72 Back Benchers to question the Prime Minister in 66 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time. That shows what we can do when we put our minds to it. I am grateful to colleagues.
Points of Order
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will know that the ministerial code of conduct makes it clear that Ministers have to provide timely answers to written questions tabled by Members of the House, which is underlined by a motion of the House.
Last December, I tabled three questions to the Secretary of State for the Home Department for named day answer on 14 December, and then another two on 20 December for answer on 10 January. I have still had no reply, so last week I decided that I would table a question asking when I was going to get an answer to those questions. I was very excited yesterday to get a reply, which said, “I will reply as soon as possible.” Surely the ministerial code means that we must get substantive replies, not evasive ones that make it look as though a question has been answered when it has not actually been answered.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and I would say two things in response to him. First, he is of course right that the reply that is forthcoming should be not only timely but substantive. It is not good enough for Ministers to provide holding replies in such circumstances, particularly when they are provided very late, simply saying, “I will reply as soon as possible.” It must be a substantive reply.
Secondly, moderately vivid imagination though I possess, a fact to which I made reference in responding to someone last week, I really cannot imagine a colleague whom it is more impolitic or foolish to fail timeously to answer than the hon. Gentleman, for there is no colleague more absolutely certain to make a very substantial and justified fuss about it for some considerable period after the non-event.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman should take his compliments when they come to him. It was.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the course of oral questions earlier, there were a number of questions about the deaths of Alex Kelly and Jake Hardy in youth custody, and in my replies I said that there had not been a death in custody of such a kind since 2007. Of course, that overlooked the case of Ryan Clark, who died in April 2011 and for whom an inquest verdict is still awaited. I should like to take this opportunity to correct the record.
Mr Speaker
I am most grateful to the Minister for doing so, and for doing so as promptly as he has. It will be noted and appreciated by the House.
Bills Presented
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Relocation to Bristol) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Mann presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to relocate the headquarters of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to Bristol; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 279).
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Relocation to Sheffield) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Mann presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to relocate the headquarters of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to Sheffield; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 280).
Department for Transport (Relocation to Birmingham) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Mann presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to relocate the headquarters of the Department for Transport to Birmingham; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 281).
Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Relocation to Manchester) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Mann presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to relocate the headquarters of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to Manchester; and for connected purposes,
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 282).
Department for Education (Relocation to Nottingham) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Mann presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to relocate the headquarters of the Department for Education to Nottingham; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 283).
Department for International Development (Relocation to Newcastle) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Mann presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to relocate the headquarters of the Department for International Development to Newcastle; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 284).
Department for Work and Pensions (Relocation to Leeds) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Mann presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to relocate the headquarters of the Department for Work and Pensions to Leeds; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 285).
Department for Communities and Local Government (Relocation to Liverpool) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Mann presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to relocate the headquarters of the Department for Communities and Local Government to Liverpool; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 286).
English Police Forces Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Mann presented a Bill to reduce the number of police forces in England to ten; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 287).
Local Government (Amendment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Mann presented a Bill to amend the Local Government Act 1992 to allow for the establishment of unitary authorities throughout England; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 288).
Armed Forces (Germany) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Mann presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to repatriate to the United Kingdom before the end of 2015 all British military personnel serving on British military bases in Germany; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 289).
Child Benefit (Amendment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Mann presented a Bill to amend the Child Benefit Act 2005 to disqualify nationals of European Union member states other than the United Kingdom who are resident in the United Kingdom with children living overseas from eligibility for child benefit payments; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 290).
Parliament (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Mann presented a Bill to make provision to limit the membership of the House of Lords to 300 unpaid members; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 291).
Local Government Finance (Amendment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Mann presented a Bill to amend the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to provide for an additional council tax band applicable to second homes; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 292).
Local Government Finance (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Mann presented a Bill to amend the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to provide for three additional council tax bands applicable to homes valued at over £500,000, £1 million and £1.5 million respectively; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 293).
Public Sector Salaries Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Mann presented a Bill to stipulate a maximum salary for public sector employees; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 294).
Public Sector Bonuses Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Mann presented a Bill to prohibit the payment of bonus payments to higher rate taxpayers working in the public sector; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 295).
Corporate Tax Reductions Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Mann presented a Bill to require the authorisation by Parliament of corporate tax reductions by amounts exceeding £100,000 by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 296).
Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries (Amendment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Mann presented a Bill to abolish the payment of grants to persons ceasing to hold Ministerial and other offices; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 297).
Parliamentary Standards (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Mann presented a Bill to provide that Ministerial salaries shall not exceed the basic salary paid to Members of Parliament by more than 25 per cent.; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 298).
Mr Speaker
Hon. Members have a date for their diaries, and it is clear that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is an exceptionally busy bee.
Mr Speaker
Order. We will come to the right hon. Gentleman. We are saving him up and we will keep the best until last.
Recall of Elected Representatives (no. 2) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Zac Goldsmith presented a Bill to permit voters to recall their elected representatives in specified circumstances; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 300).
Mr George Howarth
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you assist the House by letting us know whether somebody has amended the number of hours in the day on Friday 27 April?
Mr Speaker
Not yet, but don’t encourage them—[Laughter.] I am glad that the House is in such an upbeat and buoyant mood.
Electricity Generation (Wales)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
17:22 - The House divided: - Ayes: 44 / Noes: 239 - Question accordingly negatived.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that powers relating to energy generation in Wales be devolved to the National Assembly for Wales; and for connected purposes.
The Welsh people are very protective of their natural resources. It was the UK Government’s decision in the 1960s to allow Liverpool Corporation to drown a Welsh valley and the Welsh-speaking village of Capel Celyn that led to my party, Plaid Cymru, winning the historic Carmarthen by-election in 1966. That seismic moment in the history of these isles also led to our Scottish sister party’s securing representation in the House, and the speeding up of the political dynamic that led to the creation of devolved Government and legislatures in Scotland and Wales.
We are living in historic times, and if the British state is to survive there needs to be a radical realignment that appeases the aspirations of the Celtic peoples of these islands to govern themselves and shape their own future. In the case of Scotland, it is probably too late.
Wales is an energy-rich nation. According to the Welsh Government, we have the potential to produce twice the electricity we require for our needs. According to the Department of Energy and Climate Change here in London, we are a net exporter of electricity. Yet in Wales, energy prices are among the highest in the British state, and we have some of the highest energy poverty levels. Clearly, something is going wrong somewhere. Unfortunately, some Unionist politicians seem happy to accept that unjust situation.
The topic of my maiden speech was fuel poverty. Having worked for the CAB movement before entering the House, I became acutely aware of the blight of fuel poverty on our communities. I remember doing a radio phone-in interview for the BBC, when somebody phoned in to explain that he depended on using a hairdryer to heat his flat during the winter. The fact that using such a device is more costly than orthodox heating methods misses the point. It shows the desperation that many households face in my country.
With, according to the campaign group National Energy Action Wales, a quarter of Welsh households in fuel poverty, we need radical solutions. I would like to put it on record that I am disappointed to read reports in the press this week that the Welsh Government have decided to scrap their fuel poverty advisory body, on which I once served.
Nobody in an energy-rich nation should suffer from fuel poverty so my party and I view control of our natural resources, energy-generation planning policy and energy policy as a whole as a key element of dealing with some of the major social justice issues we face.
Control over energy policy is also a key element of our vision of creating a new, dynamic economy for our country. Indeed, sustainable development is written into the constitution of Wales as a legislative country. We reject the vision of dependence and fiscal transfers from a self-serving London elite that some of our opponents accept as an article of faith. We want a future for Wales in which we can stand on our own two feet and chart our own course in history.
Our natural resources offer huge opportunities for our country, but if those opportunities are to be realised, those resources need to be utilised in the interests of our country and our people. We cannot allow our natural resources to be pillaged for the benefit of others as our iron, coal and gold reserves were. This will be a major political dividing line for the future, and there are clear dangers for politicians who continue to treat Wales as a second-class nation.
Although responsibility for energy generating stations is completely devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland, we in Wales have responsibility only for energy generation stations that generate up to a risible 50 MW. Where I come from politically, what is good enough for Northern Ireland and Scotland is good enough for Wales. We were given no reason in the debate I introduced last September why Wales had received such inferior status.
In the past 12 months, all three Unionist parties pledged in the National Assembly elections in Wales to increase the arbitrary 50 MW level to 100 MW for renewables. Is that progress? It is, but perhaps not at the speed I want. When given the opportunity to introduce that policy in the Localism Act 2011—schedule 13 to the Act, to be precise—the UK Government failed to introduce the pledges of their Welsh branches.
I thank the hon. Members for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) and for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) for supporting my Bill and for displaying consistency with the promises made to the people of Wales last year by their respective parties. I had hoped to amend the Act with a new clause, but alas it was not debated, so I am grateful for the opportunity to present this Bill.
There is no stronger message in Welsh politics than equality with Scotland and I look forward to using that battle cry in a different context after autumn 2014, certainly in respect of energy powers. The previous Welsh Government were in favour of increasing the limit to 100 MW, as are the Labour Government in Wales in relation to renewables. Civic and environmental organisations also support the policy—the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales and Friend of the Earth included it in their National Assembly manifestos.
The communities I represent in Carmarthen East and Dinefwr also support the policy. My constituency contains two of the seven strategic search areas earmarked for renewables developments in Wales in the Welsh Government’s 2005 technical advice note 8—TAN 8—policy document. That was a crude exercise if the truth be told, with lines drawn on a map, mostly on Forestry Commission land, to earmark where onshore wind developments would henceforth be located.
The major problem is that developments above and below the 50 MW threshold are decided by different planning criteria. Those below the limit are processed by the local planning authority, which in this case is Carmarthenshire country council, and those above the limit are, for the next few months, the preserve of the Infrastructure Planning Commission. They will be the preserve of UK Government Ministers thereafter.
I am delighted that the UK Government scrapped the IPC in the Act. Indeed, scrapping that body was one of my major pledges during the last Westminster elections. I am delighted that the coalition Government have delivered for me on that one, but the key question of where those powers should reside has left me and my constituents extremely disappointed. Instead of devolving the powers to Wales, the UK Government have retained them within the Department of Energy and Climate Change here in London, in the hands of Ministers far removed from the issues in the communities that I represent.
TAN 8 area G is located in the Brechfa forest in north Carmarthenshire, an area that is world famous for its rally car stages. At least three major developments are to be located within the area. The first—the Alltwalis scheme—was below the 50 MW level. As a result of a string of problems associated with that development, my party’s councillors on the local authority have been presenting mitigating measures to improve the local planning authority’s policies to protect the communities of the affected area,. They include introducing a substantial buffer zone and operating conditions. This is called democracy—when local politicians react to the problems faced by those they serve.
However, the remaining developments are above the 50 MW level and will be determined by Ministers in London. The improvements to planning policy that we are working on in Carmarthenshire will not be adopted here. Development will be very much a free-for-all, with no protection for local residents. Indeed, in answer to a written question from me, the Secretary of State has not even bothered to visit the development in my constituency to gauge the concerns of those affected. That is clearly unsatisfactory. What faith can my constituents have in a system that gives them absolutely no control over developments on their doorstep? How can a system under which major planning decisions are taken by an alien Westminster Government, and not by democratic bodies in Wales, be just?
The Bill will mean the people of Wales gaining control over the Crown Estate in Wales so that the huge potential of tidal and wave power on the Welsh coastline is utilised as part of our energy strategy. Control over our energy resources matters because, without it, we are limited in what we can do to reach our potential as a country, to grow a new economy for Wales and to help the vulnerable.
I would like to finish by quoting that great Welsh political philosopher D. J. Williams, from Rhydcymerau, in my constituency. This is a translation, and I hope the great man will forgive me:
“It may be said that there is a divine right to anything on earth. The right over the land of Wales belongs to the Welsh nation, and no alien, whoever he be.”
Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I rise to oppose the motion and do so as someone who is pro-devolution, pro-Welsh and pro-UK, and I can hardly be called the London elite.
Albert Owen
I will come to somersaults in a minute.
I believe in practical devolution. Less than 12 months ago, a referendum was held on giving the National Assembly for Wales extra powers in areas that were already devolved. I and the Labour party supported that, and I worked alongside the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). That referendum gave the National Assembly for Wales the tools to carry out and deliver, which is the Welsh Government’s priority, and rightly so. They are delivering in the areas of health, education and economic development, and I want to see them work in partnership with the UK Government and local government.
In no area is it more important to work in partnership than on energy, where responsibilities for large infrastructure reside at the UK level, while planning and environmental issues are shared between the Welsh Government and local government. The present balance is right. Energy security is one of the biggest issues facing the UK. We need a proper UK strategy on generation, transmission and developing new technologies as we move—I think this is the aim of everybody in the House—towards a low-carbon economy.
The hon. Gentleman often says that Wales is a net exporter of electricity, and he did so again today. However, he often fails to mention—he did so again today—that between 32% and 40% of the electricity used in Wales is produced from nuclear power at Wylfa in my constituency. My constituency is in line for a new Wylfa B power station, which could produce three times the current level of nuclear power and make Wales self-sufficient in low-carbon nuclear power, as well as creating hundreds of jobs.
Plaid Cymru’s policy on nuclear power is as clear as mud. Its leader—my Assembly Member—supports nuclear power on Anglesey. Its president told me on Friday that she and her party were against it. I believe that the party’s parliamentary leader, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), is in favour of it. Talk about mixed messages!
What is needed on energy policy is clarity and stability to attract the right investment and deliver a low-carbon economy. Whichever Government are in power in Westminster, electricity market reform is needed to deliver investment in grid infrastructure, transmission, generation and new and established technologies for the future. As a member of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, I hear regularly from experts and academics, the industry and environmentalists about the need for clear policies at the UK level.
The Labour party supports increasing the Assembly’s devolved powers over renewable energy. We put that in our Assembly manifesto and argued for it in the House when we debated the Energy Bill—my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) did so—but unfortunately it was not taken up. Nevertheless, this House is the place to debate energy issues, and there will be opportunities for that in the future. My party will argue that line consistently. However, some renewable technologies, such as biomass and wind technology, are growing considerably, and we need to consider devolving to the Welsh Assembly Government powers in respect of larger megawatt capacities.
As the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) knows, my area aspires to be an energy island—it has adopted that concept—and in partnership with the Welsh Assembly Government is working to become an energy enterprise zone in order to create jobs and encourage the technologies and research and development in Anglesey. All levels of government are working together on that. That is a microcosm of how the UK is developing its technologies to meet its low-carbon objectives. And yes, nuclear energy is at the core of that.
That case is a good example of partnership working between the Welsh Government, all levels of government and stakeholders, and I believe that it strikes the right balance. Such a clear demarcation line is what is needed, and it is what businesses, including international businesses wanting to develop and invest in Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom, say that they want. However, the ten-minute rule motion is far from clear and sends the wrong messages to investors who want to invest in my constituency, in Wales and in the rest of the United Kingdom. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to oppose it.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23).
Local Government Finance Bill
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
19:44 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 233 / Noes: 291 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:40 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 233 / Noes: 294 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:00 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 305 / Noes: 227 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:14 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 225 / Noes: 309 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 79, page 4, line 35, at end insert—
‘(1) Each local authority in preparing its council tax reduction scheme should start on the basis that, all other factors being the same, the total cost should be no greater or less than in the previous financial year.’.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 85, page 5, line 19, at end insert—
‘(5A) Any grant payable to a local authority in England in support of a council tax reduction scheme for a financial year beginning with 1 April 2013 shall not be less than the amount paid in council tax benefit subsidy for the financial year beginning with 1 April 2012.
(5B) The total amount of any grant payable to a local authority in England will be assessed each year or financial year beginning with 1 April 2013 in line with the Government’s New Burdens Doctrine.’.
Amendment 80, line 31, at end insert—
‘(5A) The Secretary of State must ensure that local authorities receive no less in subsidies under the council tax reduction schemes than they would have expected to receive under the earlier scheme.’.
Amendment 78, in schedule 4, page 49, line 39, at end insert—
‘(2A) In circumstances where a deficit arises in the billing authority’s collection fund the authority shall be able to make an application to the Secretary of State for a payment to cover that deficit.’.
New clause 11—Payment of additional grant
‘The Secretary of State shall be required to pay an additional grant to a local authority if, at the end of any financial year, the total expenditure incurred by the authority under any scheme approved pursuant to Schedule 4 of this Act is greater than the amount of grant received from the Secretary of State to fund the scheme. The amount paid to the authority shall be the difference between the sum originally received and the total cost to the authority of the scheme.’.
Mr Raynsford
Amendment 79 and the linked amendments, 78 and 80, aim to put this part of the Bill, which devolves responsibility for council tax rebates to local authorities, on the same basis as the earlier parts of the Bill, which we have debated over the past two weeks. Those parts sought to localise business rate revenue. Hon. Members will recall that, during the debates on the business rate localisation, Ministers were emphatic in insisting that the baseline from which the new business rate arrangements would operate should not involve any local authority losing revenue. In other words, the scheme was designed to be revenue neutral in year 1. That is precisely what the amendments seek to achieve for the new local council tax reduction schemes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chair of the Select Committee, seeks to achieve a similar result through his amendment 85, which is linked to this group. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) has tabled new clause 11, also linked to this group, which seeks to protect local authorities from any additional costs that might fall on them during the course of a year. That might happen, for example, as a consequence of more people becoming eligible to claim benefits if a local factory were to close, or if more people were to lose their jobs for other reasons. Currently, local authorities are reimbursed for unforeseen expenditure, and Government grant meets the full cost of the benefit scheme, which is of course an integral part of the overall national scheme of welfare benefits, including housing benefits, that are the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions.
Some would query the logic of separating council tax benefit from the other benefits at a time when the Government are arguing for simplifying the whole benefit structure through the universal credit. However, I do not propose to pursue that argument today. There are good reasons for localising this aspect of benefits to local authorities, but there is no justification for doing it in a way that imposes harsh cuts in benefits from the outset and leaves local authorities, and therefore benefit recipients, vulnerable to further cuts because they have to take the downside risk of any increased expenditure caused by additional benefit claims in-year.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Do not the Government’s proposals introduce some quite substantial financial risks for local authorities, not least that there are no real needs-based criteria for authorities, as we discussed in earlier sittings of the Committee? Every local authority is different in its make-up and economic circumstances might change within financial years, so there needs to be a mechanism to reflect that need.
Mr Raynsford
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the assessment of need. The framework imposed by the Government will certainly require local authorities to make very deep cuts in benefit payments to certain categories of people. We will go on to explore some of the implications in later debates; suffice it to say for now that it really is a travesty of localism to say to local authorities, “We are giving you this new responsibility, but we are shackling your ability to do the job properly by imposing, first, an immediate 10% budget cut and, secondly, a total transfer of risk for any future increases in cost; and, thirdly, by requiring you to do this to a rushed timetable that does not allow you adequate time to consult local residents to test the impact of different models for the new scheme, posing a serious risk that the software will not be ready in time to allow orderly implementation.” I am afraid to say that this is a very sad example of a badly conceived scheme being rushed through by a Government who are not themselves going to face the consequences. Local authorities will face the consequences of a lot of very angry and very unhappy residents.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
On that point, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government know exactly what they are doing and that they are doing it so that when people get angry locally, the Secretary of State can stand by and say that it is not his fault, but the local council’s fault?
Mr Raynsford
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Frankly, I am very surprised indeed that Lib Dem members of the coalition are going along with this—[Interruption.] I am pleased to hear the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) say what he does; I hope he will demonstrate that in the Division Lobby later.
I am surprised that Conservative Members who have experience of local government, and who must be well aware of the pressures that the Government’s measures will impose on their local government colleagues, are prepared to support such a draconian and ill-thought-out package. Cutting 10% of the cost of council tax benefits at the outset is bad enough, but obliging councils to take the downside risk of a further rise in costs in-year, and imposing conditions that will inevitably force heavier cuts on some categories of recipient, adds insult to injury.
To cap it all, imposing an unreasonably tight implementation timetable without allowing adequate time for local authorities to prepare demonstrates a cavalier disregard for the interests of those authorities, which, not surprisingly, are demonstrating growing alarm. The Government should pause to think about why local authorities, which ought to be welcoming a measure whose intention is localist, are expressing such grave reservations about the implications of this scheme.
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)
Let me first declare my interest as one who is still a member of a local authority.
Is the right hon. Gentleman, like me, aware that some authorities have expressed the fear that they will have to make cuts in this year’s expenditure to prepare the ground for the implementation of the measure? Once again, the Government are showing no semblance of care about what they are imposing on such authorities.
Mr Raynsford
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Any prudent local authority treasurer who takes account of the element of risk that is being transferred will inevitably say that there must be cuts in addition to those required by the Government, to provide a cushion against possible circumstances that cannot yet be anticipated.
Amendment 79 requires local authorities, in planning their council tax rebate schemes, to start from the premise that, all other factors being equal, the overall cost of the new scheme should be no more and no less than the cost in the previous year. In other words, it requires a neutral baseline that avoids arbitrary cuts, but also protects Government against the risk that local largesse will increase their own costs. That arrangement is utterly fair, and will operate in just the same way as the arrangement that we all agreed was appropriate for the introduction of the localisation of the retention of business rates.
The system that I propose will not inhibit local authorities from making changes in the current rebate scheme to reflect their local circumstances or priorities. Provided that the overall effect is cost-neutral, they will be free to make as many changes as they wish. This is a truly localist approach, allowing local discretion without imposing unreasonable and arbitrary central diktats.
Amendment 80 refers to central Government support for local expenditure on council tax rebates. It requires the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities receive no less subsidy than they would have expected under the previous scheme. Again there will be a neutral baseline: a starting point at which the Government will not be exposed to higher costs, but equally local authorities will not be exposed to the risks that are implicit in the Government’s proposals. Amendment 78 is designed to cover the risk of unforeseen increases in expenditure in-year if the number of claims increases by making it clear that authorities may apply for reimbursement of those costs.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Having read amendment 78, I assume that if it were passed any losses on collection of council tax would enable a local authority to apply to the Secretary of State for reimbursement. As the right hon. Gentleman will know from his long experience, the effect would be to cause virtually every local authority in the country to suffer losses on council tax collection. His amendment would open the door for every local authority to apply for reimbursement.
Mr Raynsford
If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at the wording of the amendment, he will see that it allows local authorities to apply, but does not require the Secretary of State to pay. In new clause 11, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) proposes to go further by requiring the Secretary of State to reimburse. I can see the logic of that, but it is open to the criticism that the hon. Gentleman has advanced. I hope he will accept that I have framed my amendment in an extremely moderate way, in order to make it clear that there should be a presumption that if costs are increased through no fault of the authority involved—not as a result of a failure to collect the money owed to it, but because of circumstances outside its control such as an increase in the number of unemployed people in the area—it should be able to seek reimbursement. The amendments are silent on the obligation of the Secretary of State to meet such applications. Some might say my proposals are rather too moderate, and that I should have shackled the Secretary of State, but I hope Members on the Government Benches will realise that I have tried to frame a very moderate series of amendments that simply seeks to create a neutral starting baseline and to avoid the draconian cuts that will otherwise be imposed on local authorities.
These are sensible amendments that should command the support of the Committee, and certainly of everyone who understands, and sympathises with, the needs of local government.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I support the amendments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), and I also agree with what he said. Amendment 85 stands in my name and seeks to achieve similar ends to my right hon. Friend’s amendment 79 and consequent amendments. My amendment seeks to localise council tax on the basis that local authorities will have the same amount of money in 2013 as in 2012-13, so that we have a consistent base from which to develop and implement the new scheme.
I am in favour of localising council benefits and of not incorporating the reduction scheme into the universal credit scheme. I know that there are differences of view on that even within parties, but linking council tax benefits with the term “benefit” has discouraged many people from applying for something to which they are entitled. In the previous Parliament, the Select Committee conducted an inquiry into the council tax benefit system and suggested that it should, perhaps, be renamed precisely because the word “benefit” discouraged some people—especially those who applied for nothing else and who were not entitled to anything else—from applying for it. After all, it has one of the lowest take-ups of any benefit, particularly among pensioners. Often, they are forgoing merely £2, £3 or £4 a week, but that can be a relatively important sum for people on relatively low incomes.
As I have said, I support the introduction of this reduction scheme and its both being clearly outside universal credit and being linked to council tax in such a way that people pay a reduced amount of that tax. I should point out that earlier today the Minister defended the imposition of an unwanted referendum for local mayors in Sheffield by his Lib Dem colleagues on the city’s council, yet he will now extol the benefits of council tax. That is a somewhat different position from the one he would have adopted only a few months ago.
Although there is general support for the Government’s proposed change, there is also a problem. If one of the aspirations of renaming the council tax benefit as the council tax reduction is to encourage more people to take it up, the consequences for local government are clear. Previously if councillors had gone out on a publicity drive to improve the take-up of what is currently known as this benefit, central Government would have paid for that. Furthermore, if more people take up the benefit—or reduction—there is a cost in that that also fully falls on local authorities. That is a perverse impact of the Government’s proposal.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm my understanding that in a rural coastal area such as the one I represent, which has a high number of elderly people and quite a low take-up of this benefit, if there is a big increase in take-up and there is protection for the elderly, the impact on the council or on the other people entitled to the benefit would be rather large and profound?
Mr Betts
I could not have put it better myself; that is precisely right—there will be a perverse incentive. If a council gets the older people who are entitled to claim to do so in greater numbers, other council services will be cut, council tax might increase at some point or, if no more money is spent on the scheme, the benefits of people who are not pensioners will be affected. That is precisely the point.
The problem is not with the Government’s attempt to rebadge the scheme or to localise it, but with the 10% reduction at the beginning, all in one go, and the way in which the Government have framed the restrictions on the extent to which local authorities can implement the reduction. Local authorities can always find extra money to increase the cost of the scheme, but is the Minister really suggesting that it will be possible for any local authority in the current circumstances to find extra resources at a time when services all round are being cut for reasons we all know about?
The 10% restriction or cut in the available Government funding comes in from day one in 2013. Pensioners are going to be protected, and no one in the Opposition is going to argue about protecting pensioners because we want to increase the number of pensioners taking up their entitlements, but that obviously means that the 10% reduction will fall on other people who claim the reduction. That is self-evident. I asked the Minister about this yesterday, because the Local Government Association has kindly put forward the information that about half those claiming the benefit are pensioners, which means that half are not pensioners. So if pensioners are protected, that means a reduction of about 20% for other claimants, does it not?
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Is it not worrying that if one section of society is to be prioritised, another, very needy, section is to be penalised, and does not that place councils in the very tough position of deciding who are the deserving poor and who are not?
Mr Betts
Absolutely. We are told that vulnerable people—perhaps people on very low incomes with children—are going to be protected, or have to be protected, by councils under the scheme, but are they going to be or not? Are the Government going to insist on that? We are not quite sure. We are told that local authorities have to take account of the tapers under universal credit, but what does that mean? Are they obliged to respect completely the 65% taper element within universal credit or not? If so, will that mean that a smaller and smaller number of people will have the totality of the cuts in benefits imposed on them? That is the reality. Will the Government explain what they think is going to happen?
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that one problem that the Government seem to ignore is that a lot of the people affected will not be on benefits but will be in low-paid work and that this will be a disincentive for them to work?
Mr Betts
Of course it will, unless the Government are saying that those people should be exempt as well. To what extent will councils be obliged to take account of the tapers in universal credit in the system they devise? Will Ministers give a clear answer on that? If councils have to take account of it, full stop, that will really throw the onus back on attacking benefits and on reductions for the unemployed. Is that the situation? Is that what Ministers are trying to achieve?
The LGA has done some calculations to the best of its knowledge and information. It says that because of the exemptions for pensioners and others for whom the Government say local authorities cannot make reductions under the scheme, those who are left whose benefits can be reduced—the 1.3 million claimants out of the 5 million who currently claim—will lose, on average, £320 each a year. That is £6 a week being lost by people who are already on low incomes—that is why they are claiming benefits in the first place. That will be on top of any other benefit losses from any other benefit reductions the Government intend. Have the Government analysed whether that £320 figure is right? Do they contest it?
Mr Mike Hancock
The information from the LGA is very helpful, but it is an average. In some areas, the cut will be far worse than £6 a week because the number of pensioners and others who are protected will be greater. In some local authority areas in my constituency, people could lose upwards of £10 a week.
Mr Betts
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—the figure of £320 a year or £6 a week is an average, and there will be people who lose significantly more than that. Have the Government done any calculations to show whether the LGA figure is right or wrong? If it is wrong, will they tell us what they believe the correct figure to be? Have they done any analysis regarding the multiple withdrawal of benefits and situations when the council tax benefit reductions that come as a result of this scheme are laid on top of any other benefit reductions that hit the same families? Have they done any calculations of the total losses that such families may face?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) was absolutely right the other day when he said that local authorities are getting a hospital pass here. They are getting a Government scheme with complications, in terms of the totality of the financial arrangements, of which most people will have no understanding. All that people will see is that their council’s scheme will impose cuts in their benefits. It will be councils that get the blame, and no doubt that is where Ministers will firmly put the blame, but it will be grossly and totally unfair.
Another problem is the time scales involved, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has pointed out. Local authorities will not be able to work at this over a period of time. They have just over 12 months in which to consult on a new scheme, introduce it and explain it to people in their area. There is also the issue of the technology that will come with it, and we know that the technology in new systems being brought in quickly has a habit of going wrong. So not only will many people be faced with the abrupt introduction of these changes affecting their income overnight, but there will be major failings in service delivery as systems do not deliver on time and people end up without any benefit at all.
Mr Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, as I have to leave the Chamber in a moment to meet the chairman of the Commission for Rural Communities. People in rural areas earn on average less than people in urban areas, pay £100 a head more in council tax and see urban areas getting 50% more in central Government grant than rural areas. There is also a higher average age of population in rural areas, so the impact on the rural poor of further skewing could be particularly profound. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that?
Mr Betts
I do not want to get into a debate about whether people in rural areas or urban areas suffer most. The reality is that people throughout the country are likely to suffer and that it will be councils, whether they are Conservative councils in rural areas or Labour councils in metropolitan areas, that get the blame, but it will not be the fault of local councillors, whichever party they represent.
Coming back to my point about speed, I say to the Minister that this is an accident waiting to happen. Some of us have been through significant benefit changes before. When Sheffield outsourced its benefits administration to Capita a few years ago there was complete chaos for 18 months. Some of us have experienced elderly people coming into our surgeries and breaking down in tears because although they have always paid their bills on time they have been unable to do so owing to the fact that their benefit application had not been dealt with appropriately. That is what will happen in the rush that the Government are embarking on. Some councils will get it right but others’ systems will fail because of the speed at which this is being done.
Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman amplify his comments about universal credit, because I understood that with universal credit as someone went into work the taper arrangements were such that they would always be considerably better off than they were on benefits? If that is the case and those taper arrangements are to be respected by councils, surely he is wrong to say that people who are just over the limit—those who are in work and on the lowest levels of income—will be worse off.
Mr Betts
I am sure the Minister is far better able than I am to explain, because it was his consultation and his response that I have been trying to read. I understand that the council tax reduction scheme is separate from universal credit. The Government do not want withdrawal of council tax reduction as people get into work to affect their income as they earn more to the extent that it increases the tapers by 65% in total and therefore undermines the principle of universal credit. The Government intend the council tax reduction scheme to have regard to that, so it is likely that it will not be possible for the changes to the scheme—the worsening of the scheme—to affect people in work. More of the change and reductions in the benefits available will therefore hit non-working people of non-pensionable age. That is the explanation of the Government’s position, I think, but it would be helpful if Ministers set out their understanding.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
It was interesting to hear my hon. Friend mention Capita, which was at the wrong end of the car crash of IT failings in Sheffield. Capita has stated publicly that it has concerns about this proposal and the speed at which it is being pushed forward. I am sure my hon. Friend will reinforce those concerns in his questions to Ministers.
Mr Betts
Absolutely. Anyone involved in developing a new system, consulting on it, explaining it and getting the technology right will have real concerns. I just hope that Ministers listen to local councils and the LGA and are prepared to say, even if they go ahead with this flawed scheme, that they will at least delay it by another year, to allow time for further thought to be given to producing a scheme that might deliver without the problems that I have identified arising.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks about the tight time scale and the argument for the Government seriously considering putting implementation back for a year. Does he accept that although it is a year today that councils have to have an approved scheme in place—otherwise they will have to use the present scheme—we do not yet know when the Government will require schemes to be submitted for approval, or how quickly they undertake to turn those decisions round, or the principles by which they will require the schemes to operate and therefore be able to get approval—
The Temporary Chair (Mr Edward Leigh)
Order. We are in danger of straying into the next group. Please keep in order, Mr Betts.
Mr Betts
My right hon. Friend is right to say that the time scale is incredibly tight and there are so many potential problems associated with the measure that Ministers really ought to think them through. In the end, the problems will be created not for councils, but for people on low incomes who need benefits simply to sustain themselves. They are the ones who will be damaged if this is got wrong.
Altering the responsibility for any future changes in the number of people claiming council tax reductions is a fundamental shift. Now, if more people claim the reductions, the Government pick up the bill; in future, councils will. The present arrangements, with the Government picking up the bill, make council tax revenue very stable for local authorities. One of my criticisms of previous Lib Dem proposals to scrap council tax and introduce local income tax was that it would make local councils’ revenue unstable, putting them at risk in times of recession, as we had in 2008, and undermining their financial base if unemployment rises. That is a real problem.
Some of us went on a parliamentary trip to the United States after the recession. We talked not only to local authorities, but to states whose budgets were cut to shreds by the recession and the associated decline in their income tax and sales tax revenues. They became unstable because they could not borrow for revenue, just as our local authorities cannot. The current compact between central and local government is that although local authorities cannot borrow for revenue, they know that their revenue will be stable. They set their council tax and they know they will receive the money—council tax has a very low rate of non-collection. That is why I understand the amendment tabled by Labour Front Benchers to compensate councils for changing revenue in-year. There is a real risk not only of longer-term instability for councils, especially those in areas that start to experience economic decline because of the collapse of a particular industry and more people therefore claiming reductions, but in the increased uncertainty for councils year on year. Councils will no longer have certainty. If they do not know whether unemployment will rise in their area and they do not know how successful a campaign to persuade more people to take up the reduction scheme will be, councils cannot forecast their revenue with the normal degree of accuracy.
Ministers do not appear to understand that. Until now, there has been a clear system in this country in which councils cannot borrow for revenue, but they can be sure that revenue will come in so they do not have to borrow. They can set their budget for the year with a good degree of certainty. Ministers appear not to have tackled that issue at all. Local government in this country has been absolutely sound and stable throughout all the recent economic difficulties. The proposed scheme introduces an element of doubt at a time of great turbulence in local authority revenues, when grants are being cut and there is great pressure on services. The Government should think carefully before adding this extra potential for loss of revenue—this extra risk—by pursuing the scheme in such a short time scale.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I do not support amendment 79, but think it a useful vehicle for debate on an important subject. In my experience, local government is good at adapting to change, provided that it is given sufficient time to do so. I am sure that local authorities will be able to adapt to the Government’s timetable, but there are many pressures in different areas. First, most authorities are cutting spending; secondly, they will have to grapple with the 10% reduction; and thirdly, the Government have stated clearly that that should not affect pensioners. In an area such as Poole, with a heavy preponderance of pensioners, the burden will fall on a small minority of those claiming that benefit. Fourthly, as most local authorities will have to freeze their council tax, or will freeze it anyway, and have limited balances, they may well err on the side of trying to ensure that they get their figures correct and that there is no cross-subsidy in terms of the benefit falling on the council tax payer. A perverse incentive may arise to make larger reductions in support for the vulnerable than the figures necessarily entail, because authorities do not want to take the risk.
The current system is predictable in the sense that it is running and the Department for Work and Pensions can transfer money equally on a monthly basis. The direction of travel in localisation is fine and I am sure that many local authorities can draw up good schemes, but in year one the new arrangements will not be as predictable. Some authorities will draw up schemes that turn out to be more generous than they thought, and others will draw up schemes that are less generous than expected. Ministers have to consider what will happen when a scheme is got wrong, because as sure as eggs are eggs, there will be one authority that gets its figures substantially wrong and has a problem.
Mr Kevan Jones
The problem for authorities such as mine in County Durham, where a large number of people receive council tax benefit, will perhaps be bigger than for some of the smaller authorities, where there are relatively few council tax benefit recipients.
Mr Syms
I am certain that the measure will have a different effect on different authorities. We need a little bit more clarity from Ministers: will there be emergency funds that can be drawn on if there is a difficulty in the short term?
Of course, what makes it complicated is the fact that the Government are looking for savings because of the overall economic situation. We have to make savings; we are looking to make savings of £420 million, and that makes things much more difficult. Again, speaking from my experience of local government, it is sometimes in a position to deliver savings, given a chance, but as we have heard in this debate, if there is pressure on council tax and council tax benefits, something will have to give. I therefore have concerns about the Government’s direction of travel, and I hope that the Minister can reassure us that they have thought about what would happen in an emergency.
Clearly, if a local authority has to deal with a reduction and is given maximum flexibility to do so, sometimes it can deal with it, but if it is initially told, “You must protect pensioners,” the impact of the reductions may fall on a smaller number of people. We recently heard exchanges across the Chamber about universal credit; that credit may offset some of that, but that might mean that the non-working faced the worst situations. The issue needs careful thought. I am sure that the Government’s timetable can be kept to, but we have to think very carefully; if lots of new schemes are invented following consultation, some people will get them right, some will get them wrong, and some will over-egg the savings, and that may well have an impact on our communities.
The Library briefing says that the reduction might partly be an incentive for local authorities to create jobs, but I am not sure that local authorities can wave a magic wand and create jobs in six months, a year or two years. Over a period of time, if authorities have active economic development departments, build capacity on industrial estates and try to attract firms, they might be able to have some impact. However, from a practical point of view, when it comes to dealing with the problems that arise when the measures are implemented—and perhaps in the year or two after that, in what we all know will be quite difficult economic circumstances—I do not think that councils have the ability to change the number of people in or out of work in their area. That is a long-term thing, not a short-term change that can be made in months, so I have some concerns.
Poole borough council, my authority, is having to deal manfully with the need for a number of savings; dealing with the measure, on top of that, will be difficult. I hope that we get the scheme right in Poole, but if we do not, I hope that the Government have thought about how they will deal with the consequences.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to be under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. We have heard hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House express real concerns about how the scheme will work in practice, and particularly about what will happen in authorities with a large number of pensioners. Hon. Friends have spoken about the need to start the scheme on the right basis—a neutral basis—and to ensure that councils are adequately funded for the scheme that they are being asked to bring in.
I want to speak about new clause 11 in particular, which seeks to address some of the real financial risks that are being transferred to local authorities. Many hon. Members will remember that last week we debated clause 3, which changed the requirement to pay a grant to a power to do so. In that debate, as in all our debates so far on the Bill, the Government refused to clarify how they would distribute money, fund local authorities and meet the costs of the duties that they seek to impose on them. That is exactly what the Government are trying to do with the localisation of council tax benefit. We are back to the old game of ensuring that the blame for their cuts is taken elsewhere. New clause 11 attempts to ensure that local authorities are reimbursed for expenses incurred as part of the council tax reduction scheme.
The 10% cut in funding that many hon. Members have referred to, along with protection for pensioners, which the Government rightly want to ensure, means that others will face much larger cuts in their benefit. We will debate many of those issues under the next group of amendments.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that that includes the 1.9 million people in receipt of council tax benefit who do not have passported benefits?
Helen Jones
Yes, I agree, and we will consider those people as we proceed with discussions this evening. That is the group most often forgotten about in these discussions, and the most at risk.
John Healey
My hon. Friend is making the clear and strong case that the new scheme will increase the financial risks to local authorities. Does she accept that local authorities will therefore have to increase their financial reserves, and to do that, they will have to increase the cuts that they make to expenditure, and possibly to services?
Helen Jones
My right hon. Friend has got it exactly right. In fact, throughout the passage of the Bill, we have seen that much more instability will be built into the system, whether that is on business rates or council tax localisation. The inevitable consequence is local authorities building up bigger reserves, because no local authority finance officer would advise their authority to do anything else; it has to be prepared for the worst-case scenario.
John Healey
My hon. Friend is making the case very cogently that council treasurers will take a prudent view; does she agree that that runs completely counter to the advice that councillors are getting from the Secretary of State, who is talking about reserves being “piggy banks”, and who says:
“These untapped funds exist to ensure councils can respond to unexpected situations like the pressing need to tackle the nation’s unprecedented level of debt”?
That advice clearly runs contrary to the principles of good local government, and it simply will not and cannot be followed by councils.
Helen Jones
My right hon. Friend is again absolutely right. The Government are a little schizophrenic on this, saying to local authorities, “Don’t build up big reserves,” while at the same time building instability into the system, which will require local authorities to build up bigger reserves.
Mr Mike Hancock
I agree entirely with the point made by the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). The real problem is that local authorities that cut their reserves will be penalised by their district auditor, who will say that cutting reserves below a certain level is not stable local government. The right hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that the Government cannot have it both ways. This is putting pressure where it is simply not needed.
Helen Jones
That is a very fair point. The problem is that instability is being built into the system. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said that one of the things about local government finance in this country is that it has always been relatively stable and did not have those risks—
Helen Jones
It is no good the Parliamentary Private Secretary chuntering away—it will have no effect. I spent years dealing with stroppy 15-year-olds on wet Friday afternoons, and he is no different.
Let us really look at this. If the Government are serious when they say, as the Housing Minister did when he spoke to the Communities and Local Government Committee, that councils should not avoid paying those who really need it, then they have to be prepared to meet the unforeseen costs. Why should a person living in a particular authority be penalised simply because a major employer in the area closes down or more pensioners claim? My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East said that it is estimated that only between 57% and 66% of pensioners claim because council tax benefit is classed as a benefit. All those who are experienced in this area say that, once it is seen simply as a reduction in the bill, claims from pensioners are likely to rise. That is a good thing, but the costs have to be met, and it is unreasonable that entitlement for other people should depend on how many pensioners live in their area. They will be penalised because of an increase in council tax, cuts in other services or cuts in benefit to working-age people when the scheme is later revised. It makes no logical sense.
George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)
Purely for the purposes of investigation, does the hon. Lady have any figures—I understand that there will be a wide variety across councils—for the percentage of spending power that is represented by the 10% cut?
Helen Jones
I could give such figures to the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that I do not have them at the moment, and they vary greatly from council to council. He raises an important issue. Local authorities that have many council tax benefit claimants will see a bigger cut in their spending power, and that is part of the problem.
Mr Kevan Jones
Although £55.1 million a year is paid out in council tax benefit in County Durham, less than £3 million is paid out in Hart district council in Hampshire.
George Hollingbery
Does the hon. Lady agree that the spending power of each of those councils is incredibly different and that the percentage change in their spending power represented by a 10% cut in the council tax bill, despite the varying levels of council tax bills, might be roughly similar? We do not know.
Helen Jones
I do not think that is correct. We will debate that with the next group of amendments, but I will make a little progress now.
The point of a national scheme is that risk is spread. If we move to a localised scheme, we must have some way of dealing with risk, but there is no way of doing that in this scheme. The Government cannot seriously argue that the closure of a major employer, for example, is a council’s responsibility. I know that, according to the Government’s “not me, guv” approach, nothing is their responsibility, but even they must accept that they are responsible for the national economy, not Warrington borough council, Nottingham, Carlisle or anywhere else. If a major employer closes, the local authority must have some way of dealing with it.
Our new clause would ensure that the Government’s power to pay a grant is used to meet any shortfall if a scheme costs more in benefit than the Government had originally agreed to pay to a local authority. Ministers ought not to be too concerned about this, because after all they have to approve the schemes, and they are not being asked to make an open-ended commitment. They approve the scheme and how it works, but a cash-limited budget cannot cope with sudden surges in demand. In fact, the Government admit that in their own impact assessment, which states:
“If demographic changes or economic circumstances mean that eligibility for council tax support increases significantly then the consequence of switching”—
from annually managed expenditure to departmental expenditure limits—
“will be that authorities bear more of the risk of a shortfall in funds.”
The risk of a shortfall or serious economic turbulence destabilising a local authority’s finances and, what is more, the poorest people in the area having to pay the price is not something that any Opposition Member, or I suspect a few Government Members, can accept. We have tabled new clause 11 because we believe that it would deal with the problem, and it might be helpful if I let you know, Mr Crausby, that we will seek to divide the Committee on that when the time comes.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby.
On the first string of amendments, we are focusing on the 10% cut, which leads to all the other problems identified in subsequent strings. I accept that in addition to the 10% cut there are unexpected changes in the number of claimants and that apparently there is no cushion for that situation. Although I do not support the amendments that have been put forward, it is important to flag up the problems, which must not be ignored.
Let us consider the situation for a council faced with setting up a new system. Any savings it will be able to make through localisation of council tax benefit will need to be offset against the administrative costs it will incur. I accept that there must be some savings, because otherwise there would not be the same need for external audit when money is sent to the council to cover payments, but will the Minister state explicitly where the money will come from for the inevitably large cost of setting up individual schemes, particularly in the first year. There is of course the possibility that councils will work together, which would reduce the administrative costs of setting up new schemes, but they would then lose the advantage of localisation, because even an adjoining local authority will have a different demographic make-up. As soon as we focus on the 10% cut, we think about the demographic make-up.
I share some of the concerns that have been raised across the House. Once we ring-fence pensioners—we probably all agree that they should be protected—we effectively put a gearing effect on everyone else. By the time we have picked out families with a disabled member and other vulnerable groups, the reduction in council tax benefit, which might have started as an average of £2 a week, will start escalating on the backs of just a few people to £6, then £10, all depending on the make-up of the local authority area.
Mr Raynsford
I am finding it a little difficult to reconcile most of the hon. Lady’s speech and, in particular, her point about the impact of the 10% cut, which she clearly sees as damaging, with her earlier statement that she cannot support the proposed changes. Amendment 79 would quite simply allow the scheme to start on a revenue-neutral basis without the 10% cut, so what objection can she possibly have to it?
Annette Brooke
At this point in time, it is easy to put such amendments forward, but one has to identify where the money is going to come from, and I shall touch on that in a moment, because there are two sides to the issue: first, what needs to be addressed, but, secondly, how we finance it. That is quite important.
Returning to the point I was making, I wish to emphasise that we all have constituents who come to us with a breakdown of their weekly expenditure, and we all know how little there is to spare in some of those budgets, so the possibility of losing £6 to £10 of benefit is truly frightening.
Mr Kevan Jones
The hon. Lady talks about constituents going to her surgery. When they start going in 2013, after their benefits have been reduced, will she tell them not just that she voted in support of the measure, but that it was brought in only because the Liberal Democrats supported the Secretary of State?
Annette Brooke
At this stage, we are debating, and I hope all trying to be constructive about, the direction in which we would like the Bill to go, and it is important to be constructive, rather than to look for an immediate political hit.
Returning to the point I was making—
Annette Brooke
I have given way several times, and I shall proceed in order to retain the flow of my speech. There are concerns, and it is right that we discuss how we address them.
A further concern is how the burden of the proposal is to be shared between the billing authority and any other authority that might be involved, such as a district or county council. I give the example of East Dorset district council, which last year had a revenue support grant of just £29 per head, meaning that it has very little flexibility with which to pick up any extra costs. So this is a matter not only of working with other councils, but of coming up with a clear solution to the issue.
I share the concern about whether the scheme can be introduced within the proposed time frame, which looks tight. The major software companies say that it cannot be done, but we know the timetable we are on: July for the Bill, October for the regulations and then the consultation on schemes. Can it be done? I want Ministers to address those questions and to give more thought to how the issue is going to be handled.
Mr Syms
There also needs to be consultation between local authorities. The hon. Lady represents two or three districts, and we in Dorset know that somebody can move from a home in Poole to one in Bournemouth or in east Dorset, but, if there are totally different housing benefit and council tax schemes in those areas, that too could have a perverse effect, so local authorities next door to each other will have to talk as well.
Annette Brooke
Yes, indeed. Such local authorities will need to talk to one another, and it will be difficult to get the right balance between a truly local scheme and work with adjoining authorities—I suppose I am talking about working across, horizontally and vertically. It is not clear from the Bill how a district council will cope with the issue
The string of amendments under discussion is about funding, and the concern all comes from the 10% cut. There are potential extra revenue streams, however, and they need to be addressed. I appreciate that point, given the modifications to the second homes and empty homes premiums, but it is unlikely that we will get an absolute match between the money that is lost and any money that might be gained, so we need to look at that aspect.
Helen Jones
Does the hon. Lady accept, however, that the second homes premium and, even, the empty homes premium do not apply in many local authorities? There are very few second homes in Warrington, so there will be no extra revenue going to the local authority from that premium.
Annette Brooke
The very point I was making is that there are variations throughout the whole country, so there needs to be some sort of stabilisation, contingency, transition—whatever we want to call it—because of the differences throughout the country and the possibility that the measure in the Bill will hit some very vulnerable people very hard. I make a plea to the Minister, even if he cannot give me the answers that I might want to hear today, to go away and look at all those issues, which have been raised on both sides of the House.
Mr Kevan Jones
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby.
What we have seen from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) is a classic Liberal Democrat tactic: sit on the fence, give an impression—obviously with a leaflet out this weekend—of how she opposes and spoke against the proposal, and then go along and vote with the Government. I remind her, however, that if she and her Liberal Democrat colleagues choose to vote against the Bill, this Government will not get it through. Although she raises articulately the issues that will affect her local council, she cannot get away from the fact that, when these draconian proposals come in and affect many councils, including her own, there will only be one person whom they have to blame, and that will be her for voting for them.
I hope that, come the general election, people reflect on that point, because this is not about the Conservatives doing nasty things to Dorset, but about the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats doing nasty things to local government, and the hon. Lady is taking part in it. I am sorry, but I am not prepared to see her shed crocodile tears for the proposals and then troop through the Division Lobby. If she believed in what she was saying, she would vote against the measures and stand up for local government, a sector that I understand she comes from herself.
It was said last week that what local government requires is stability, and it does, but this is another example—we had one last week with the localisation of the business rate—of massive instability being introduced to local government. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said that there was nothing wrong in principle with devolving council tax benefits to local councils, and I totally agree, but if it is brought in with a 10% cut, as the Bill proposes, and on the current time scale, it will have a massive effect on many local councils and individual recipients of council tax benefit.
Mr Mike Hancock
I do not agree with the benefits being devolved to local authorities, so what does the hon. Gentleman, who is arguing against localising the benefits under discussion, see as the real benefit of doing so?
Mr Jones
I would have no problem with a national scheme that was administered locally. The current system with the DWP is cumbersome, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman, because the Bill is going to create an absolute technicolour dreamcoat of schemes throughout the country, including some next door to one another, as we have just heard, in Poole, where two local authorities could have two completely different schemes because of their local circumstances.
However, this is a cleverly construed proposal, and we have to keep exposing what the Secretary of State is up to, because he talks about the devolution of decision making, which is what the measure is, but it is the devolution of decision making—with blame. He is instigating a cut of 10% in council tax benefits and saying to local councils, “Right, you decide how it will actually be administered.” Then, when they take those tough decisions, he will stand back and say, “It’s not my fault, it’s the local council’s fault.” I remind Government Members that that will include Liberal Democrat and Conservative councils. They will have to make tough decisions. The Secretary of State is prepared to hide behind those councils. I accept that he has written off most Liberal Democrats and does not care about them, but the effect will also be felt by local Conservatives.
Amendment 79 is actually quite modest. It states that if we are going to introduce the new scheme, we should start on a neutral basis. It asks for a level playing field so that everybody knows where they are, with no 10% cut. We will talk later about time limits. The fact that this all has to be done by 31 January 2013 will scare many local authority treasurers to death. They are having to second-guess what contingency they will need to bring the scheme in.
The Bill makes no assessment of the differences between councils. Councils with a large number of council tax benefit recipients, which are mainly in the north of England, will not only have the problem of administering such large numbers of people, but will be disproportionately affected. I will give some examples. County Durham has 63,494 council tax benefit claimants, which is 15% of the population. That costs £55.1 million. In comparison, Hart in Hampshire has only 3,029 council tax benefit claimants, which is 4.2% of the population. That costs a mere 3% of expenditure. Likewise, the famous Wokingham, which we cited last week, has only 5,159 claimants, which is 3.9% of the population. That makes up 5.3% of the council’s total expenditure. The 10% cut and the administrative nightmare of bringing it in will be a lot easier to manage for councils with a small number of council tax benefit recipients.
The Secretary of State talks about localism and devolving matters to local councils, but if we read the Bill carefully, we see that he has kept back powers for himself. If he is not happy with the scheme or a council does not implement it by 31 January 2013, he has the power, by order, to implement it. It is not clear whether he will intervene in that way if he is not happy with how a council implements the scheme.
The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole is correct that the problem with the scheme is that it comes with the 10% cut. It is important to look at the people who are in receipt of council tax benefit. The myth peddled in the media and by the Conservative party is that they are largely people on benefits. The statistics to September 2011 show that 5.9 million people are in receipt of council tax benefit in Great Britain. Of those people, 2.2 million are pensioners, who will not be affected by the scheme. Of the people who will be affected, 1.9 million or 33% are in receipt of standard non-passported benefits—that is, they are not claiming benefits—and the remaining 3.9 million or 67% are on various benefits. Of the people on benefits, 1.3 million receive income support, 600,000 receive jobseeker’s allowance, 300,000 receive employment and support allowance, and 1.7 million receive pension credit. A large number of people, through no fault of their own, will see their incomes squeezed.
George Hollingbery
Some persuasive points have been made in the debate so far and I urge the Government to take them on board. However, I also find the Minister persuasive and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
I wish to speak briefly about a funding issue that is not strictly related to the amendments. I hope that you will allow me to stray slightly off the selection list, Mr Crausby, on the basis that we are unlikely to have a stand part debate. I wish to talk briefly about parish councils. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) talked about horizontal and vertical integration, but I want to go downwards to look at parish councils and where their funding comes from.
At the moment, certainly in my constituency of Meon Valley, several parish councils take in council tax—or rather in precept—pretty much the same as the district council. As far as I can see from the Bill and the consultation on the Bill, there is no provision to pay any of the grant for reducing council tax to parish councils. There is mention of district councils, first-tier councils and precepting authorities such as fire authorities and the police, but as far as I can see there are no arrangements to compensate councils at parish council level for moneys they might forgo because people require council tax benefit. It seems to me that this issue needs to be dealt with.
In my area, Bishop’s Waltham and Denmead parish councils would rely entirely on the beneficence and good nature of the city council to fund their activities if they were not directly grant-aided. I would love to hear the Minister’s thoughts.
John Healey
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby.
I rise to support the amendments and new clause in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) and my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and for Warrington North (Helen Jones). The problem, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich hits on directly in his amendment 79, is that council tax reduction schemes will be undermined from the start by the 10% funding cut and the constraints that the Government are putting in place to compensate for the problem that it will create.
Throughout the part of the Bill dealing with council tax, we consistently see hallmarks of the scheme that run contrary to the Government’s declared aims. It shows a lack of true localism and a transfer of considerable financial risk from central Government to local government, which promises to have a severe impact on support for many current recipients of council tax benefit. The Bill also sets out an unrealistically and unfeasibly tight time scale.
The Secretary of State is more sophisticated than the image and manner that he often cultivates would suggest, but his politics on this matter are brutal and brutish. In my view, the intention is simply to transfer to local authorities the financial risk of the increasing cost of support for council tax costs. The Government want to get local authorities to take the blame for the cuts being imposed by central Government.
Financial risk is crucial for any local authority when it considers the future. Authorities are being asked to take on the new risk without the flexibility to allow them to discharge the responsibilities that they are taking on fairly, effectively or appropriately for their area. Whether the 10% cut leads to pressure on councils’ funding, pressure for them to find cash from other sources or greater cuts for those who are not protected will depend on how the cut is distributed across local authorities, local decisions on the design of the scheme, the make-up of the population within an authority’s area, the proportion of people who are protected by central Government and the degree to which the move from a council tax benefit to a council tax discount encourages take-up among people who are already entitled to support but do not claim it.
Central Government would not make this move if it affected themselves. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North said, they are transferring what is currently annually managed expenditure—the current costs of the council tax benefit scheme are driven by factors that are not under the control of councils—to funding that is covered by the local government departmental expenditure limit. That will put an unrealistic and unfair funding noose around the neck of local government, because the year one base level will involve a 10% cut. My fear is that what could and should be a good move for local government and the people it serves—a locally designed council tax support scheme—is damaged and discredited before it starts by the design of the scheme.
Mr Mike Hancock
May I say how nice it is to see you in the Chair, Mr Crausby?
I wish to raise my concern about the fact that we are approaching 7 o’clock and will hardly get halfway down the selection list. The time available is totally inadequate. Goodness knows what the Government were thinking about, giving us just three days in Committee. It is an absolute travesty. I only hope that they will give us at least one whole day, and possibly two, on Report to allow debate on many of the matters that have not been discussed in Committee.
If the House is to do justice to the Bill, we should at least get a chance to discuss some of the very important amendments that have been tabled. I see them not as wrecking amendments but as helpful, creative amendments that would show the Government the strength of feeling in the House. Legitimate concerns have been raised from both sides of the House on this group of amendments alone, and if I were the Minister leading the Bill I would like to give the House more time to discuss them properly. If we are not careful, we will end up with a dog’s dinner, which cannot be right or fair to local authorities.
The most important issue in this group of amendments is raised in new clause 11, with which I agree entirely. It gets to the very essence of what the Committee has discussed on previous days. It is about the stability and sustainability of local government and its ability to stay clearly focused on its task. Support for new clause 11 is essential to give local authorities a fair chance of implementing the scheme.
The Government have expressed no clear and positive view about what they can do to help local authorities. I ask Ministers what is wrong with new clause 11 if they believe in fairness and in giving local authorities a proper opportunity to get the scheme right. Who will benefit if it is got wrong? No one, least of all the people who claim benefits. Most of the blame will fall on local authorities, and once again we are going down the well trodden path whereby the Government decide to disrobe themselves of their responsibilities and pass them off to local government, but forget to put the resources in place to help things happen.
I do not suppose that at the end of this debate the Minister will dish out to Members a scheme that has already been concocted, so that they can take it back to their local authorities and say, “This is the scheme we want you to use. We’ve paid for it, we’ve got it in place, and all you’ve got to do is tweak it a little. It’s tried and tested, and we’re prepared to give it to you.” That is not going to happen, is it?
Mr Kevan Jones
Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that the Secretary of State is a highly political individual who knows exactly what he is doing? He knows that he is going to save money by making this change, and he will give constituents in Portsmouth and Durham the impression that it is nothing to do with him but is down to the nasty councillors who are making the tough decisions.
Mr Hancock
The Secretary of State will be making a grave error of judgment if he thinks he is going to get away with that in Portsmouth, because I will be telling people there loud and clear where the responsibility for the change lies. Above all, I am disappointed that a Secretary of State who was groomed in politics in local authorities and who, having led one, has a fundamental understanding of their problems is not being more responsible towards something that I thought he cherished and cared for. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am disappointed, but I can assure him that people in Portsmouth will not have any illusions about where the blame lies.
Portsmouth is a local authority that is making reductions, and many hon. Members’ local authorities are in the same position. People are losing their jobs, and here we are contemplating another burden that will be placed on them with not even an indication of what it will cost to put in place. I know from bitter personal experience, having led a local authority, how much money can be lost when authorities get the wrong advice on a system. Hampshire county council squandered literally tens of millions of pounds over a 20-year period on schemes that failed in one way or another, and I do not want that to happen again.
Where is the inspiration that we ought to be getting from the Minister about how we can resolve the problem easily? Where is the offer to meet the House halfway on this issue? Nowhere. That is disappointing. If there are to be localised benefit systems, I want us to find a way to get a scheme in place in good time, but in proper time. That cannot happen in the time scale before us. If we are to have a change in the system, it must be seen to be fair and properly implementable. The scheme cannot punish those who desperately try to get into work but are on low pay.
Mr Syms
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s passionate speech. Clearly, apart from potential costs for software and computers, a scheme will have to be drawn up and publicised. All the schemes will be different, which means that there will have to be a lot of publicity locally to ascertain what people are entitled to. We need some answers.
Mr Hancock
I agree entirely. Some hon. Members like me, have close-knit communities that are right next to communities in other local authorities. People on one side of the road will have a different scheme from those on the other side. It will be horrendously difficult to explain why one scheme prevails in Fareham and another in Portsmouth. Indeed, the hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) will have great problems, given the different districts that his constituency abuts. I therefore ask Ministers to consider seriously coming back on Report with something that shows they have heard the cry from local authorities. It is heartfelt and not just for effect. The Local Government Association has not done all that work to sustain its arguments without a great deal of effort.
In the spirit of trying to be constructive, I hope that if we are to have a day—or even two—on Report, creative thinking in the Department will soften some of the provision’s effects. Otherwise, I shall vote against it not only tonight but on Third Reading.
Mr Howarth
George—not only a different party, but an entirely different politics, Miss McIntosh.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock). Both he and the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) made a plea for constructive suggestions. I tried to intervene on the hon. Lady’s contribution with a constructive suggestion, but I think she thought that I was going to be disagreeable, and she refused to accept my intervention.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the consequences of protecting pensioners in the overall scheme, and I will not labour the point. It is important to say at the outset that nobody on the Opposition Benches and, I am sure, elsewhere, disagrees with the principle that pensioners should be protected. It is an important principle, to which we all subscribe. The difficulty that we are trying to address is not the Government’s decree that pensioners should be protected but their failure to deal with the consequences of that in the context of a 10% overall cut.
Some contributions have referred to the impact. For example, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms) wanted more information about how the proposal would work in practice. I would like to rely on a briefing that the special interest group of municipal authorities—SIGOMA—has given me. It is a local government representative group, but of a particular set of local authorities. It concludes that, to protect pensioners’ council tax credit, the rest of council tax payers nationally will face a reduction of 17% rather than 10%. We are talking about averages, and we discussed the problem of averages earlier. The range means that, at the bottom end, the figure will be 13.4%, and at the high end, it will be 25.2%. Those who have concerns should take those figures into account.
I will talk about Knowsley shortly. It is a Knowsley problem—there is a distinct flavour of Knowsley to it—but every hon. Member will be confronted with it if the scheme is implemented in its current form.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the scheme will disproportionately affect constituencies such as his and mine in Durham, which not only have many people in receipt of council tax benefit, but a growing elderly population?
Mr Howarth
Yes. There might occasionally be disputes about the scale, but every demographer recognises that people are living longer and that there are therefore many more elderly people in the system.
Mr Howarth
The hon. Gentleman is right. That underscores the point that he and others made earlier: to some extent, we are taking a leap in the dark. Several hon. Members have said that one of the difficulties with local government finance is that, when you change it, the impact is unpredictable. I do not need to rehearse the history of the poll tax to show that. The position that we are considering is exactly the same in that it is unpredictable and volatile.
John Healey
The effect is uncertain, but it is possible to make some projections. In my authority of Rotherham—a member of the SIGOMA group—if the pensioners are protected in the way in which the Government clearly believe that they will be, everyone else who is currently entitled to support, including many who work but get low wages, and therefore require and have a right to that support, will take a cut of not 10% but 19.5%.
Mr Howarth
My right hon. Friend makes a strong point, which I hope to tackle shortly.
Currently, many people, especially young people, have to accept jobs, often well below the level of their qualifications, on a minimum wage, at the same time as having to forge an independent existence from their families. I fear that they, or young couples with families, in which the principal earner is on a low wage, will be most affected and put in an impossible position, unless the discretionary powers that the Bill describes are spelled out clearly so that the outcomes cannot be arbitrary. We deserve to know at least what the Government are planning, and that should appear on the face of the Bill. Who are the classes of people? There are vague descriptions in schedule 4, but nothing is spelled out clearly.
I said I wanted to talk about Knowsley and the Liverpool city region. I am indebted to the director of finance in Knowsley for the impartial briefing he has given to me—it is a Labour authority, but he has provided advice on the basis of his financial experience and qualifications. His view is that the 10% cut combined with pensioner protection means that the benefit of other claimants will have to be cut by 18%. If there is provision for others in a local scheme—they could be singled out or ring-fenced—that 18% cut could increase to as much as a 100%, because people could be excluded altogether, as the hon. Member for Poole said.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my right hon. Friend agree that those same people will also be affected by the Welfare Reform Bill? For example, some will lose money under the under-occupancy rule in addition to their losing their council tax reduction. Many such people are in work.
Mr Howarth
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If he bears with me, I will cover precisely that point shortly in the context of the Liverpool city region, but I am sure the same trend applies in his constituency.
Mr Syms
Another question is whether we can differentiate council tax payers from non-council tax payers. What happens when there is a split household, in which one person is a pensioner and one is not? What happens when someone becomes a pensioner in-year? There will be so many months when they are not a pensioner and so many when they are. That also needs to be explained.
Mr Howarth
The hon. Gentleman, who is always fair and reasonable, makes a fair and reasonable point. I hope that the Ministers, who represent the two parties in the coalition, will at least take notice of the concerns that have been expressed from the Government Back Benches, even if they do not take notice of what Opposition Members say.
The Office for National Statistics estimates that pensioner take-up of Knowsley council tax benefit could be as low as 53%, but there could be a significant increase in take-up as a result of a localised scheme, which would place a disproportionate burden on other categories of people. If a greater number of pensioners take up the scheme, which is perfectly possible, the 18% I mentioned could be still higher.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has been patient, so I shall speak about the effects of other measures. It is important that the changes are not taken entirely in isolation. We will talk about welfare reforms tomorrow, but a series of measures will combine to hit some of the poorest in society.
When Labour was in government, I remember the Opposition hammering us by saying, “Well, the Institute for Fiscal Studies says something different from what the Government say.” If that is good for Conservatives and Liberal Democrats when they are in opposition, it is good for Labour Members. “The Impact of Austerity Measures on Households with Children”—an IFS report published this month and produced on behalf of the Family and Parenting Institute—found that the planned changes in the tax and benefit system, including those to council tax benefit, will hit the incomes of families with children the hardest. The IFS estimates that the measures will increase child poverty by 2014-15, with the poorest families being around 10% worse off.
Mr Howarth
I will give way in a minute. I just want to finish my point. The measure in the Bill combined with other measures will have a devastating effect on some of the poorest families in our communities.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
This morning at the Select Committee on Education, I asked the Secretary of State for Education whether his Department had done an impact assessment of the benefit changes on children’s welfare and educational prospects. He said that as far as he was concerned, that had not been done but it should be done. Is that a good idea?
Mr Howarth
My hon. Friend makes his point well with his experience of that Committee sitting. I absolutely agree with the sentiment behind his question.
I want to return to what the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole said on that point. She is respected on both sides of the Committee for her long and distinguished record of campaigning on behalf of children. I hope she reflects on the fact that child poverty is likely to increase because of the combined effects of the Bill and the other measures that are currently trundling their way unevenly through the benefits system.
Liberal Democrats who have spoken in the debate, and the hon. Member for Poole, made sensible suggestions to get around that problem. The problem, as many Opposition Members and others have highlighted, is that we are being asked to support a measure that contains massive uncertainty. If we get it wrong, some of the poorest in our communities will suffer the most.
My intention in speaking to the amendments is to support amendment 79, which is in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), amendment 85, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), and new clause 11, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), but I have a serious suggestion that I believe would command support on both sides of the Committee. I suggest that the provisions should be delayed until they can be aligned with the universal credit system. At that point, a realistic estimate can be made of the impact of the combined changes on those poorest families. That is the only way in which we can ensure that there is fairness in the system, and that those who stand to lose the most are not the most penalised.
I should tell Ministers, one of whom will respond to the debate shortly, that all the evidence from reputable sources suggests that the poorest people in our communities will suffer the most, and that child poverty will increase. I am sure they do not want that to happen. My suggestion is therefore reasonable. I doubt they are briefed to accept it today, but I hope they will reflect on it.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
We are in the same position as we were in last week, in that we are discussing a measure to which most Members agree in principle. Perhaps not all Members agreed on business rates, but we are discussing consequences.
My understanding—we have been told—is that the sums show that the measure balances itself out nationally, whether at £420 million or £500 million.
Mr Ward
It does not really matter because we are talking about local ramifications—how the measure affects each area and what each area will be required to do to make up for lost council tax benefit.
The question is where the money will come from to make up the gap, and there are a couple of answers. First, there are the new freedoms that will be extended to local authorities, and locally determined schemes will generate a lot of additional funding. Members have raised the issue of pensioners being protected, and that will pass the burden on to other people.
The Temporary Chair (Miss Anne McIntosh)
Order. Will the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) contain himself?
Mr Ward
I sincerely doubt it, but thank you, Miss McIntosh.
Members have noted that if pensioners are protected, the burden will have to be picked up by others, who may be on low incomes. [Interruption.] That is not necessarily the case, because we do not know what the new freedoms will generate, and they may generate sufficient funds to make up the gap.
As a result of the proposals, Bradford faces a £4 million loss in council tax. The figure for the funding that will be generated from the new-found freedoms, if they are extended to new areas, is actually very substantial, and it is not far off that £4 million figure.
Mr Ward
No.
However, that is not really the point. It does not really matter whether those two figures equate. If they do, it will be pure fluke and pure coincidence. If a local authority can generate sufficient funding from the new freedoms to cover the loss in council tax, it will be sheer fluke, and a policy cannot be based on fluke. The certainty of loss will be there, without the certainty of gain. The certainty of the Government withdrawing the 10% will be there; the uncertainty of what can be generated at this time is clear for all to see.
In addition, the collection costs for the alternative sources of funding for the exemptions on classes A, C and L could be enormous. We must take account of the cost of the arrears and the cost of collecting those additional sources of funding. The Government’s position is, “Don’t worry. You may be losing council tax, but your new-found freedoms will easily generate the funds required to balance that.” However, that is simply not guaranteed authority by authority, and it is based on sources of funds that it will be difficult to collect in some cases. There are huge differences when it comes to residents telling their council, “I’ve got an empty property. Give me a discount” and residents saying, “I’ve got a second home. Please tax me.”
Mr Ward
There are, actually, several hundred second homes in Bradford.
If authorities cannot generate funding from the new-found freedoms, the other answer is for them to find it somewhere else in their budget. They have this wonderful freedom to find other areas where they can balance the books. The problem is that council tax is likely to be high in areas of high need. Areas of high need will have high formula grant, and areas of high formula grant will have suffered a large cut in the local government settlement. All those things together mean that the risk, or the uncertainty people have talked about, is disproportionately likely to hit more deprived communities.
I think it was the hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) who said that 10% is 10%. There may be a lot more council tax in monetary terms in Durham or Bradford than in Meon Valley, but 10% is 10%. However, that is not really the issue, because more deprived, less affluent areas will be disproportionately harmed, given that they have disproportionately more council tax recipients. That is not fair, but the issue of fairness cannot be assessed until the thing has run its course, and we have developed all the possible ways that an authority may have of generating funds.
Of course, there is the issue of whether the software can be introduced, but there are also the unanswered questions. How will the future growth in claimant numbers affect the 90% base in terms of eligibility? Opposition Members talked about the low level of claims by certain groups, such as pensioners, where 65% of those who are eligible actually claim. What will the scheme do to protect authorities from the growth in claimant numbers as a result of increased take-up or deteriorating economic circumstances? What is the situation with the administration grant for council tax support? When will authorities know about that? Where is the evidence that has been collected about the relative difficulty of collecting some of the income from the new potential sources of income? Where is the evidence that that will be done?
Finally, the proposals are clearly Treasury driven. Most people here have at heart local government and the local government system. That is why we have a generally positive response to localisation measures as they affect local authorities, although we understand that local government must make a contribution to tackling the deficit, as it has through the local government settlement. However, instead of treating local authorities as cash cows, why could we not have treated them as partners in deficit reduction? Why could we not have gone go them and said, “We will keep the council tax, and we intend to reduce council tax benefit over a period of time. In the first year, having given you that warning, we will extend new powers and freedoms to you to collect tax and remove some exemptions. You will yield the money that is generated from them to the Exchequer, so you will keep your council tax, and there will be no 10% cut, but it is on its way. In the meantime, you should generate additional funds from the new freedoms you will be given and yield those funds to the Exchequer in the first year. You will then be weaned off that over a period of time.” In the spirit of the business rates, why do we not do that, with some reward to those authorities that take up the challenge of extending the council tax base by generating money from new sources?
There was a different way to tackle this issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
We have had a wide-ranging debate, and I shall do my best to respond to the key arguments made, quite a few of which spilt over into subsequent groups of amendments, if I may say so. If, as a result, I miss out some of the points, I hope that hon. Members will return to them later. I look forward to it.
The amendments have one fundamental problem: they make it impossible to secure a reduction in Government expenditure on council tax support. Even the Opposition have conceded that those savings must be made in order to tackle the deficit. Spending on council tax benefit has risen from £2 billion in 1997 to £4 billion, and it is essential to bring that back under control. The savings from localisation are a vital contribution to deficit reduction, and it is essential that we have a credible deficit reduction plan. I understand the points of view expressed. It would be much easier to have this scheme without deficit reduction, but it is an unavoidable part of the scheme.
Helen Jones
First, does the Minister accept that the increases in council tax benefit have been driven not by an increase in claims but by increases in council tax? Secondly, will he explain why he believes that the burden of deficit reduction should fall on the poorest people?
Andrew Stunell
On the first point, I agree that it was due to the fact that council tax doubled while Labour was in government. On the second point, as I shall demonstrate—I hope that this expands on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) made—the Bill not only deals with deficit reduction but creates opportunities for local authorities to collect more council tax in other areas. I will come to that in a minute or two.
Taken overall, our reforms will give local authorities a stake in providing support for council tax, which they have not had before, and will strengthen the incentive for local authorities to support residents back into employment, which in turn will reduce demand for support. Localisation gives local authorities significant control over how that reduction in funding is achieved, and it enables councils to design schemes reflecting local priorities.
I want to pick up on a point made a couple of times about whether the Secretary of State would approve schemes. The Secretary of State is not required to approve schemes, and local authorities do not have to submit schemes for approval. The important points are that the schemes should be transparent and that local authorities should be accountable to the law and local areas but not to the Secretary of State.
Amendments 79, 80 and 85 would, in effect, guarantee that there would be no reduction in funding to local authorities and leave authorities with no plan to reduce that funding. In the context of the wider deficit reduction programme, that is neither affordable nor sustainable.
Andrew Stunell
I give way to the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth).
Mr Howarth
The Minister just asserted that the Secretary of State does not have any locus in this system. Will he explain, therefore, why paragraph 2(8) of schedule 4 reads:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe other requirements for schemes”?
What is that if not the power to intervene?
Andrew Stunell
It is a power to intervene but the Secretary of State does not propose to intervene on schemes. [Hon. Members: “Why’s it in there then?] The Secretary of State always has reserve powers. Right hon. and hon. Members have asked what is the system of checking, of feedback and of amendment to the scheme, and that is always provided for in regulations. That is the basis on which we are proceeding.
Andrew Stunell
I want to make some progress.
It is essential that local authorities plan their schemes carefully and take account of possible changes in demand, as pointed out in the debate. As we have set out previously, we believe that those in-year pressures that hon. Members have mentioned can be managed by enabling any deficit in the collection fund to be shared between billing and major precepting authorities. Our scheme will do that. We are taking powers in the Bill to allow billing authorities to make arrangements with major precepting authorities and to vary the amount of precept to be paid to the major precepting authorities in-year to rectify any shortfall in council tax receipts. That could help to protect billing authorities, which could include small district councils—my hon. Friends mentioned that some district councils are indeed small organisations.
Amendment 85 would require the Government to carry out a new burdens assessment on their allocation of grant, but the Government have already committed to consult on their proposals for distributing the grant. We must be clear that local authorities have to make choices, but they will be able to choose whether to pass on the reduction to council tax payers, to use the flexibility over council tax, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East mentioned, or to manage the reductions within their budgets.
To the best of my reckoning, 12 local authorities come within the constituencies of Members who have spoken in this debate, and 10 of those local authorities are in a position whereby if they were to take advantage of the new flexibilities over second homes and empty homes, they would achieve an income increase exceeding the 10% reduction in their council tax benefit grant. I am not saying that it is right for local authorities simply to gobble up all that money, but I want to make the point—
Andrew Stunell
In a moment. I realise that I failed to give way to the right hon. Gentleman earlier. I will do so in a moment.
As the impact assessment makes clear, the reduction in the council tax benefit fund to local authorities in England is in the order of £420 million. Furthermore, as is also set out clearly in the impact assessment, the total of both the discounts and the other arrangements recoverable from the local tax changes also equal about £420 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East is right that there is not an exact match between the increase and the decrease, but it remains the case that three quarters of local authorities find themselves in a position whereby should they go down that route, they would have the funding.
It is also open to local authorities, however, to look elsewhere and to put additional money into their council tax reduction funding, and of course they can change the basis on which they allocate that funding.
Mr Raynsford
I thank the Minister for finally giving way. He previously said that the Secretary of State did not intend to use his powers to define schemes. That extraordinary claim was the reason I wanted to intervene. We will shortly come to a group of amendments dealing with the Secretary of State’s default powers and his power to impose a scheme if a local authority does not have one in place. Will the Minister tell us whether the Secretary of State does not intend to use those powers either? If so, why on earth are they in the Bill?
Andrew Stunell
Of course, it would be sensible to debate that matter when we come to the next group of amendments, and I look forward to it. I want to make it clear, however, that the Bill states that if a local authority has failed by 31 January next year to put in place a scheme, by default the existing scheme will continue, and that is what the Secretary of State has the power to ensure happens.
Amendment 85 would require the Government to carry out the new burdens assessment, but we are already committed to doing that. We must be clear that local authorities do the job that they have been set. They have the opportunities to raise money in alternative ways and to devise a scheme that is suitable to their circumstances. As for the administrative cost, we have already made it clear that we will be fully following the new burdens doctrine that this Government have set out. The Government will therefore be working with local authorities to assess the net impact of housing benefit centralisation and the localisation of support for council tax, including the transitional costs, which will be covered, where necessary, by the new burdens doctrine.
Mr Betts
The Minister talks about working with local authorities. Presumably the Government have a view about that, despite what they say local authorities might be able to achieve by way of extra revenue generation. He has already admitted that at least a quarter of authorities cannot raise enough money to offset what they have lost under the scheme that we are discussing. Does he therefore accept that non-pensioners in those authorities—which are likely to be the poor authorities, with the highest percentage of people claiming council tax benefit—are going to suffer what the Local Government Association predicts will be cuts of around £6 a week?
Andrew Stunell
No, I absolutely do not accept that. The average reduction if local authorities do not put any extra funding into the pot, from any source at all, is £2.64 per household per week. Every local authority—even those that do not have complete recompense of the one pot of money from the other—will still get significant inputs from the discount scheme, which local authorities can, if they choose, take into account. I therefore ask the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) to withdraw his amendment, and I ask my hon. Friends to vote against it if he does not.
Mr Raynsford
We have just heard an absolutely lamentable performance from a Minister who is trying to wash his hands of responsibility for an outrageous scheme that has been designed in a way that reflects very poorly indeed on the members of the parties that comprise the coalition. This is a crude scheme which is seriously cutting the benefits that, at the moment, go to literally millions of poorer people—some in work, some over pension age, some not in work but under pension age. All those people—about 6 million nationally—are dependent on the existing scheme. The Government, in their wisdom, have suddenly imposed the idea that the scheme can be cut immediately, from year one, by 10%. They are then imposing further rules that involve a much larger cut on all those people who will not be protected by the Government’s diktat.
The Minister tries to weasel away from all that by using the figure of £2.40 or so for the average loss. He knows very well that, in proportion to the average claim that people receive at the moment, that means an average cut of 16.7% in benefits to poor people. On top of that, there are the other appalling features: all the risk being transferred to local authorities, which will have to cope with unexpected increases in cost without any Government support whatever; the possibility of an increased number of claims, because, perfectly rightly, people who currently do not claim the benefit may do so when it is no longer called a benefit and they can feel more comfortable about making a claim. Who bears the cost? Not the Government: once again, it is the local authority that has to bear the cost.
On top of that, we have the appalling timetable for implementation. The Government have not got their regulations ready. They will not have them ready, we are told, until late summer; and yet local authorities will be expected to implement this—a whole new scheme, requiring new software, new application forms and new procedures—in a matter of months. All the experts are telling the Government that it will not work and that it will be a catastrophe. Against all that advice, coming from authorities all over the country and here in the Chamber—virtually every Member who has spoken has expressed serious reservations and called on the Government to think again, delay and allow time for this scheme to be got right—the Minister just tries to dismiss it. This is a lamentable performance, and I intend to press amendment 79 to a vote, so that we can say that to the Government.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Temporary Chair (Miss Anne McIntosh)
In view of the debate that we have just had, and the nature of the next two groups of amendments, I inform the Committee that I am unlikely to allow a separate debate on clause 8 stand part.
Helen Jones
I beg to move amendment 66, page 5, line 6, at end insert—
‘(1A) In exercising its powers under section 1(b) the authority must have regard to the impact of the scheme on—
(a) those persons in the area who are in employment or actively seeking employment, and
(b) the levels of poverty in the area, including the levels of child poverty.’.
The Temporary Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 49, page 5, line 17, at end insert—
‘(4A) In exercising its powers under subsection (1)(b), each authority must have regard to the impact of its scheme on the living standards of those persons in its area who, prior to the introduction of the scheme, were receiving council tax benefit.
(4B) In exercising its powers under subsection (1)(b), each authority must have regard to the impact of its scheme on the living standards of those persons in its area, below pensionable age, who are in employment or are actively seeking employment.’.
Amendment 59, page 5, line 28, leave out ‘2013’ and insert ‘2014’.
Amendment 60, page 5, line 29, leave out ‘2013’ and insert ‘2014’.
Amendment 67, in schedule 4, page 47, line 6, at end insert ‘and set out the steps which the local authority will take to ensure that—
(a) persons entitled to a reduction will be made aware of their entitlement, and
(b) assistance is available to such persons who wish to make an application.’.
Amendment 56, in schedule 4, page 48, line 7, at end insert—
(e) require authorities to have regard to the impact of its scheme on—
(i) the numbers of persons in its area expected to receive a greater or lesser reduction in council tax than that which they had been entitled to receive under council tax benefit, and the amounts by which their entitlement are likely to increase or reduce,
(ii) the living standards of such persons,
(iii) the financial incentive on persons below pensionable age to seek or maintain employment.’.
Amendment 68, in schedule 4, page 48, line 15, at end insert—
‘including local charities, organisations providing advice on benefits and organisations representing older people.’.
Amendment 54, page 48, line 39, at end insert—
(f) include estimates of the likely impact of its scheme on the living standards of those persons in its area who have been receiving council tax benefit.’.
Amendment 57, page 48, line 44, leave out ‘2013’ and insert ‘2014’.
Amendment 58, page 49, line 5, leave out ‘2013’ and insert ‘2014’.
Amendment 70, page 49, line 13, at end insert—
‘In considering the need for replacement or revision of the scheme the authority must have regard to the impact of any such revision or replacement on the living standards of people in the area including—
(a) those of working age in employment and actively seeking work,
(b) those in receipt of benefits including disability benefits, and
(c) persons of pensionable age.’.
Amendment 71, page 50, line 23, at end insert—
‘Before issuing such guidance the Secretary of State must have regard to the impact on—
(a) those of working age in employment and actively seeking work,
(b) those in receipt of benefits including disability benefits, and
(c) persons of pensionable age.’.
Helen Jones
This group of amendments deals with the impact of the proposed changes in council tax benefit on some of the poorest people in the country. One of the keys to this issue is something that we started to debate when discussing the previous group of amendments—the fact that people in the same circumstances will no longer receive the same type of benefit. Entitlement will depend on where a person lives and on the population of that area. That is a major change to the way that we treat people in this country. The circumstances of someone who lives in Birmingham could be exactly the same as those of someone living in Bradford, but their benefit could now be different. Someone who lives in Chichester could be treated differently from someone who lives in Carlisle.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that, contrary to the impression given by the Minister in his winding-up speech on the previous group of amendments—that use of the flexibility on second homes, and growing the economy, could make up the difference—the only option available to most councils is to raise council tax and that councils with a high proportion of band A properties will be at a severe disadvantage when it comes to the amount of money they will be able to raise?
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend is, of course, right. In trying to remedy the problem, the most disadvantaged councils will be those with the lowest tax bases. That has been true throughout all our discussions on the Bill. If demand goes up, councils will be faced under this scheme with either bearing the extra cost or, more likely, redesigning their schemes to restrict the number of those eligible. The Chartered Institute of Housing said it very clearly: council tax benefit awards will be
“squeezed precisely at the point at which there is the most need for help amongst low income households.”
London Councils estimated that if this scheme had been in place earlier, a shortfall of £400 million would have been faced in the five years to 2009-10.
The Government say that councils can do something about this. The Minister for Housing and Local Government says, in what I have to say reads like a rather garbled piece of evidence to the Select Committee, that considering whether to pass on the 10% reduction to claimants or to find the money elsewhere was “old-school thinking”—or what the rest of us might call “doing your sums”. I am sure that councils facing these cuts will have been relieved to hear that they could reduce the bill
“not by unfairly not paying people who are vulnerable and need it”,
which seems to me to be the precise effect of this scheme; no, he said, councils should be ensuring that there is
“a definite interest in starting up that new industrial estate, business park and getting economic activity going so there are jobs.”
Let me say this slowly, so that Ministers can understand it. If a firm closes down or lays off staff, a new business park does not open up the next day. People are out of work; they claim benefit; and if there is not enough money to pay that benefit, councils either have to cut what is available or find the money somewhere else from budgets already facing massive cuts. It is staggering to hear a Government who have presided over a rise in unemployment to 2.6 million and who have seen the economy flatline lecturing local councils about the need to open business parks. Only the Minister for Housing and Local Government, whose overwhelming self-confidence is matched only by the staggering depths of his ignorance, could come out with such nonsense.
It is not surprising that the Select Committee was unimpressed, saying:
“We have seen little evidence to support the hope that the new and better-paying jobs for individuals, immediately sufficient to offset the 10% reduction in the benefit budget will inevitably follow from these incentives.”
It continued to stress what we have talked about throughout this Committee stage—that
“the means of economic growth are never solely in the gift of individual local authorities.”
It is, of course, precisely the authorities that have already borne the brunt of the Government’s cuts that will find themselves in most difficulty with this council tax scheme.
The New Policy Institute estimated that five out of the 10 hardest-hit local authorities are among the top 10 most deprived areas in the country: Hackney, Newham, Liverpool, Islington and Knowsley. In the Liverpool city region, for example, the current proposals would result in cuts of between 17% and 23% for people of working age—those who are not pensioners. Let me give one example. A single person in Halton in a band A property would have to find £179.92 a year extra. In Sefton, which has a higher than average number of pensioners, a minimum reduction of 23% will be required for people of working age. A couple living in a band A property would have to find an extra £226.72 a year.
Those might not seem large sums to Government Members, but to people who have to count every penny, who sometimes run out of money before the end of the week, they are simply impossible to find. That is why we have tabled these amendments—to ensure that the needs of people of working age and those in poverty are taken into account. Where is this extra money going to come from? Do Government Members believe that it can be somehow magicked out of thin air? This does not even provide incentives to work, even if there were jobs to go to. The Government are not clear about the vulnerable households that should be protected. They have made it clear that they want to protect pensioners, but they are singularly unclear about other vulnerable groups. If, as is likely, local authorities will have to protect those on employment and support allowance, jobseeker’s allowance and income support, there will have to be an even bigger cut for the unprotected group—overwhelmingly the working poor. We have a Government who claim that they are freezing council tax, but they are actually increasing it for those least able to pay.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Some people who pay no council tax at present may find themselves paying it for the first time, while others who pay some at present may find themselves paying more. It is hugely, and sadly, ironic that, while claiming that they are enabling councils to freeze tax, the Government are increasing it for the poorest members of our communities.
Helen Jones
I could not have put it better myself. An especially ridiculous aspect of the proposals is that the extent to which a council is hit will depend largely on the number of pensioners who live in the area. It is essentially a matter of chance. Moreover, if people on passported benefits are protected, it is possible that those in work will face a cut of up to 40%, which would wipe out any gains from the raising of personal allowances. The Government have absolutely no right to boast about a tax cut when they give with one hand and take with the other.
We are attempting to ensure that at least the needs of those of working age are not forgotten when councils draw up the scheme. I fully accept that Labour councils will try to do that anyway, although they have been hamstrung by the Government, but I do not believe that Government Members have demonstrated during our debates on the Bill that they understand how much these sums mean to the very poorest people. If I may use the Prime Minister’s words, they do not get it. They do not understand what it is like to run out of money before the next wage packet or benefit payment. They do not understand what it is like to have to choose between paying a bill and buying the children a new pair of shoes.
Mr Kevan Jones
Did the Minister not make it clear earlier that he “did not get it” when he dismissed a 16% decrease in council tax benefit as though it were loose change?
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. The problem is a lack of understanding of the fact that trying to find even an extra couple of pounds a week is simply impossible for those on such tight budgets.
This ill-thought-out scheme, which even Government Members agree is being rushed through, is full of holes. First, the Government have failed to align it with their much-hyped universal credit. Most of us would assume that a universal credit would be—well—universal, but that is not the case in this instance. Council tax benefit is to be split from universal credit: there will be one national scheme, another local scheme, two sets of administrative costs, and a huge scope for anomalies. Secondly, the Government are introducing a 10% cut while protecting pensioners. Thirdly, they want schemes that will not create work disincentives.
In a parliamentary answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) on 17 June, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) said:
“The Government intend that the general principles of supporting work incentives will be set out in guidance”
—guidance that the Secretary of State will provide, although the Minister tells us that he did not want to interfere in the schemes—
“which will help local authorities to design support.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 629W.]
How on earth can that work? Families will face two means tests, one for universal credit and one for council tax benefit, along with one set of national rules and goodness knows how many local rules. There will be one taper for universal credit; if councils fix a different taper for council tax, how can there be an integrated benefits system? If the taper is fixed at the same rate, when will it be calculated, before or after the calculation for universal credit? It simply will not work, and the people who will pay the price are the most vulnerable members of society: people who have lost their jobs, and families who are trying to do the right thing by going out to work for poverty wages. They will find themselves in an absolute mire.
Mr Jones
As was pointed out earlier, different councils may operate myriad different schemes. Would that not make people’s search for work more difficult? In central London, for example, some schemes might be advantageous while others would make it hard for people to move around to find work.
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend is right; indeed, Government Members expressed similar reservations during our earlier debate. Such a disincentive is precisely the opposite of what the Government say they want.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
It is the people my hon. Friend has mentioned—those who are on the poverty line and do not have any spare cash—who will be in arrears with their council tax. Every day in our surgeries we see people who tell us that the bailiffs are about to arrive. How can the Government’s proposals possibly help?
Helen Jones
They will not help those people, and they will not help councils. We discussed the financial risks for councils earlier, but one of the main financial risks is an increase in the number of defaults because people are simply unable to pay—and, indeed, there is no evenness in that situation. In North-East Derbyshire 49.4% of recipients of council tax benefit are pensioners, while in North Kesteven the proportion is 53.2%. People living there face a bigger cut than people living in, say, Luton, where the proportion is only 28.2%. The scheme will subject people to cuts that are entirely arbitrary and unfair, while transferring the risk to local authorities. Many people will find themselves in real financial difficulty, while councils’ collection rates will fall.
Amendment 67 would require local authorities to make people aware of their entitlement to council tax benefit, and to give the necessary assistance to those who wish to make an application. I believe that good councils will do that anyway, but the Bill puts such pressure on local authorities that some—albeit, I believe, very few—will be deterred from seeking out claimants and informing them of their rights. Authorities are currently reimbursed monthly for expenditure that they actually incur, but the Government intend to pay grants, and we do not know what methodology they will use to set the level of those grants. Although they have promised to set allocations annually for the first two years, there is no certainty about what will happen after that.
The Government have already said, in their response to the consultation, that
“multi-year allocations would provide greater certainty and better allow local authorities to benefit financially where demand for support was reduced over several years.”
I think my hon. Friends will see immediately where that is going, because we have seen it before. I am talking about the creation of incentives for councils to reduce claims. In a time of economic uncertainty, and when the economy is flatlining, we cannot reduce those claims by bringing in lots of jobs, because the jobs are simply not there for people to get. Not only will local authorities that are experiencing increasing unemployment or falling wages leading to new claims be penalised, but the Government are already considering how to build in incentives to reduce claims.
There will clearly be pressures on local authorities. They will take all the financial risks associated with the possibility of demand exceeding supply, and they will also have to deal with the extra costs of setting up the scheme—which may or may not be fully reimbursed—as well as the costs of revising it regularly, of notifying people about it and of appeals. That final subject has hardly been mentioned so far in our debate, but appeals could well be considerable when people find that their entitlement is being cut. If we add in the Government’s desire to move to multi-year settlements, we can all see that there is a genuine risk of the number of claims being driven down.
That is why we have tabled the amendment. We want to ensure that local authorities must take proper steps to publicise their schemes, and also that they assist those facing difficulties in applying, perhaps because of disability or because they are not sufficiently literate or numerate and do not understand the forms. We have all come across such constituency cases. Having rights is of no use if people are ignorant of them or cannot exercise them, so it is only fair and reasonable that these safeguards should be built into the Bill from the start. Through them, we hope to counter the Government’s incentives to reduce the number of claims from people who have an entitlement to benefit.
Amendment 68 seeks to ensure that before a scheme is drawn up there is consultation not only with precepting authorities and what the Bill vaguely refers to as “others” with an interest, but with organisations that assist and represent people on the receiving end of this Government’s cuts. In respect of this Bill, it is fair to say that so far such organisations have been largely ignored. The big society clearly does not include those who give up their time to assist some of our most vulnerable citizens, and who deal every day with the impact of job losses and the consequences of child poverty and try to help those for whom every day is a struggle. Any redesign of the scheme ought to take account of the views of those who will be dealing with its impact.
As has been said, the impact will be extremely severe because it will come on top of the Government’s other changes to welfare benefits. Let me give an example of a one-parent family living in a three-bedroom house in Knowsley. Assuming that they can stay in their home even though they will be more than £800 a year worse off under the Government’s changes, they will then be hit again by this scheme because in Knowsley there is likely to be a 20% council tax benefit cut. They will therefore have to find a further £170 per year. Those who deal with people in our welfare system and who give advice to people in poverty should be consulted on the design of these schemes.
We often forget the great number of children who will be forced further into poverty by this scheme. In the Liverpool city region, 14.8% of children in poverty are in working families—those claiming working family tax credit or child tax credit. Those families will also be reliant on council tax benefit. What will happen to them when this scheme comes into force is very clear. More people will be unable to pay, so there will be more pressure, more debt and quite possibly more people falling into the hands of loan sharks. Anyone who does not think that will happen has never walked around a big estate and seen how these people operate. They often wait outside the place where people collect their benefit, and take the money straight off them. That is the reality of life on the edge. That is what many of our charitable organisations and benefit advice agencies deal with every day. It is only right that they should be consulted.
Amendments 70 and 71 seek to ensure—[Interruption.] Yes, it is the same story, I say to the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), and it will be the same story for many of my constituents, and his, when this scheme comes into effect. I am terribly sorry the hon. Gentleman does not want to hear about the reality of the impact this scheme will have. That is hard luck for him, but it is even worse luck for the people who will be on the receiving end.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend also agree that the Bill’s provisions will hit a lot of northern cities—including Burnley, perhaps—much harder than some of the leafier suburbs of the south?
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend is right, but many different authorities will be affected. We heard earlier from Members on the Government Benches who represent south coast constituencies where there are lots of elderly people. They and their colleagues will be very surprised when they begin to realise the impact in their own constituencies of what they have voted for.
Amendments 70 and 71 seek to ensure that in any revision of the scheme by the Secretary of State the impact on all those who may receive, or be entitled to, benefit is considered. We therefore state that it is not only those of pensionable age who need to be considered, but those in employment or seeking work and people in receipt of other benefits, such as disability benefit. We do so because although under the current scheme 5.9 million people receive council tax benefit and 38% of them are over 65, 62%—3.7 million people—are under 65. These amendments seek to put their needs on the agenda, as they appear to have been forgotten by the Government. Also, 67% of claims are passported claims—they are from people receiving income support, jobseeker’s allowance or employment support allowance, for instance. Only 1.7 million of the 3.9 million on passported benefits are receiving pension credit, so most of these people are also of working age.
Other claims—the standard claims—are decided following a means test. Crucially, people who are working may get council tax benefit, subject to an income taper. Claimants lose 20p in council tax benefit for each additional pound they earn over the applicable amount. No one knows what the position will be for those people under localised schemes. The Government may issue guidance but, as usual in respect of this Bill, we are debating this topic without knowing what the guidance will say or even if the Government’s preferred options will be affordable for local councils. All local councils will be forced to cut the benefits available to non-pensioners and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) said, they could cease payment entirely to certain groups.
We believe it is right to protect pensioners but, as we are making clear in the amendments, we also believe that others’ needs have to be considered. The Government seem to want to ignore those people as they have done with every other measure they have introduced. They strive to paint a picture of people on benefits as feckless and workshy. They talk about the price paid by hard-working taxpayers as though they were somehow a different species from those receiving benefits. I have to say, as someone who would clamp down ruthlessly on benefit fraud, that the vast majority of people on benefit receive it legitimately, and that most unemployed people receiving council tax benefit have paid taxes and would like nothing better than to be in work paying them again, as would all the disabled people I meet. Those in employment who receive council tax benefit are precisely the hard-working taxpayers—people who go out every day to work in low-paid jobs—whom the Government will penalise for doing the right thing by going out to work for poverty wages.
Annette Brooke
I wish to make some brief comments and refer to the impact assessment on the localisation of council tax benefit, which looks at many of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones). I note in particular that the impact assessment flags up some local authority responsibilities. The Child Poverty Act 2010 imposes a duty on local authorities to have regard to and address child poverty and, with their partners, to reduce and mitigate the effects of child poverty in their local area. The Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 and the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 include a range of duties relating to the welfare needs of disabled people. The Housing Act 1996 places on local authorities a duty to prevent homelessness, with special regard to vulnerable groups.
Given that local authorities have those duties on them, is there any need to propose the amendments? These issues are important for the very reasons that have been identified—the 10% cut, the different numbers and proportions of pensioners in different authorities and the different balances that mean that some authorities could get more money through the changes to discounts for second homes and empty homes. Some authorities will have great difficulty in protecting vulnerable people. The number could be quite small, but that possibility is there because of the different demographics of different areas.
I understand that local authorities might have to go through an equality needs assessment and I should like to know from the Minister how they should address these issues, which are in the impact assessment on the localisation of council tax benefit. Will there be any question of councils having to go through judicial review? It seems to me that there are going to be protections in the detail of the schemes to be introduced, but also some challenges for local authorities given the difficulties that we are outlining over and over again—the 10% cut, the different proportions of pensioners, and authorities’ different abilities to raise money with the new freedoms and flexibilities. With all those differences across areas, could some areas be faced with judicial review if they cannot address the duties placed on them by existing legislation?
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I support the amendments on the impact of the scheme. This debate is about people’s lives, about families and people who live on the edge financially, but it is also about local authorities’ ability to deliver services at the standards we have come to expect in our communities. It is a debacle: the Government’s proposals on council tax benefit will simply heap greater burdens on the most vulnerable households and families at a time when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is already making life tougher for them. I would have hoped that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government had at least talked to his counterpart at the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that their policies did not conflict in the way they clearly do. The amendments would help to deal with some of that conflict.
“Make work pay.” That is what the Prime Minister has said over and over again, and he is determined to make that happen. No one could or should argue with that statement, but it is vital to create incentives so that it is always better to be in employment than on benefits. The Government’s proposals on council tax benefits will totally undermine that objective. They are simply yet another attack on hard-working families.
I know that council tax benefit is available to those on low incomes who need financial help to pay their council tax bill, but I am shocked that Ministers appear to believe that a 10% cut to the benefit will somehow—perhaps magically; we talked about magic earlier on—reduce the number of people who need it. In these harsh economic times, with high and rising unemployment as well as rising energy and food bills, this tax relief is to be squeezed precisely at the point when there is the greatest need for help among low-income households. As others have said, pensioners and vulnerable households are to be protected, and rightly so, from the cuts, but that means that the whole of the 10% saving that local authorities must make will fall on the unprotected group—mainly the working poor.
Mr Kevan Jones
In his response to the previous debate, the Minister suggested that gap could be filled by councils being able to levy extra tax on second homes, and his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) said there were plenty of those in Bradford. How many does my hon. Friend think there are in Stockton?
Alex Cunningham
That is an interesting question, which I wish I could answer. I do not see many empty homes, never mind second homes, in our area, so I think it might be a challenge for us to find some. I am sure we have a few, but I doubt they would fill the gap as the Minister suggests they could. In an authority such as Stockton, with high numbers of older people, the burden on the people the measure hits will be tremendous.
The burden will get higher and higher on ever fewer people. In many cases, the gains made by the working poor from the recent £1,000 increase in the income tax personal allowance will be completely wiped out by the reduction in council tax benefit and the knock-on effects. Surely that is exactly the opposite of what the DWP says it is trying to do? Are the Secretaries of State talking to each other? I wonder. Alongside the rise in VAT and other benefit changes, we are faced with these regressive policies that will hit some people extremely hard—people who already work hard for little reward. These proposals are simply a slap in the face for their efforts to improve their lives.
The Local Government Association has calculated that councils are being asked to share the £500 million cut among 1.3 million claimants, which works out at an average loss of £320 each. That is a significant sum for low earners, especially when the Government claim they are trying to protect work incentives for them. It has been estimated that council tax support for pensioners makes up 50% of the total funding, and roughly a further 25% recipients would also be exempt from the reductions in support because of councils’ duties to support vulnerable groups and tackle child poverty. Such people should of course be exempt, but that could lead to the 10% budget cut falling on the remaining 25% of recipients—on the support provided to low-paid people in work. Those people are working hard for their families, trying to do their best. They have pride in what they are doing, yet this Government are just kicking them.
Ian Mearns
I have just had a brainwave about where an awful lot of these second homes that will fill the gap will come from. When the housing benefit changes kick in, and people are evicted from their properties because they can no longer afford the rent as the property was under-occupied, those empty properties that belong to private sector landlords will be empty second homes. Of course we can raise the revenue from them. Does my hon. Friend think that is a possibility?
Alex Cunningham
I have known my hon. Friend for many years, and I am used to his brainwaves, which normally apply to education. Of course, he is perfectly right.
The people who will be affected already face higher food and energy bills. Sadly, however hard they work, they are unlikely to get any of the fancy bonuses that will be pouring into the coffers of bankers and everybody else over the next few weeks and months. Quite simply, the proposals merely transfer one of the national costs of rising unemployment to councils and local taxpayers, creating a serious risk that every resident will see further service cuts beyond those already threatened.
In my constituency of Stockton North, the theoretical 10% reduction in council tax benefit will equate to around £1.2 million; within the Stockton borough, the figure is £1.7 million. In reality, as pensioners are excluded from the change, those affected are likely to suffer a 20%, rather than a 10%, reduction. I must add that Stockton-on-Tees borough council’s revenue budget, along with that of every other council across the country, already faces tremendous reductions. In Stockton, there is to be a reduction of £26.5 million. Where will it find the extra money to bolster this budget, when it will need to pay out to an increasing number of people who will have to claim council tax benefit? The cuts that the council is suffering are in addition to cuts of £12.3 million to specific grants; the early intervention grant was cut by £3 million, and of course there was the future jobs fund, which the Government do not appreciate.
Frankly, the Government are giving to those on low incomes with one hand, and taking away with the other. There is no regard at all for the implications for people’s standard of living, and people are living on the edge. I know; I see these people at my surgeries. They do not have that extra £2, £3, £4, £5 or £6 a week to spend on council tax. They need to spend that money on feeding their children. The money to pay extra council tax is not there.
The amendments would save the Government from themselves. They would help the Government to fulfil their commitment to joined-up government—that is if the Secretaries of State bother to talk to each other. The amendments would also ensure that the huge hit to the working poor did not happen. If the Government accept the amendments, they will be recognising the real need, and will have the opportunity to do something about it. Without the amendments, many more people will be plunged into poverty, undoing much of the good work that the Labour party did in government to improve the living standards of the poorest in society. The Government may well find that they have not made work pay; instead, some families will find themselves better off back on benefits and out of work. Where is the pride in that?
Furthermore, the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that as a result of the changes in council tax benefit, individual councils could reduce the benefits to such an extent that it would encourage low-income people to move out of the area. The think-tank also points out that the changes would create a complex, two-tier benefit system, with both local and central Government setting policy. That runs counter to the idea of the streamlined universal credit to which my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) referred, which is being introduced by the Work and Pensions Secretary.
The incentive that changes to council tax benefit will give local authorities to encourage low-income people to move elsewhere is totally undesirable and unacceptable, yet the Government seem intent on banishing the poorest in our society from our towns and cities. Let me give one example of the chaos that could result from the council tax changes and other changes: it is estimated that 20,000 families could move out of central London to find accommodation elsewhere. What an effect that could have on jobs, children and services. If several thousand children move out of central London, inner-city schools may no longer be viable, and other areas may not have the capacity to take them in. We know that the plans of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will have that effect, but surely the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government does not need to help him.
Removing council tax benefit from vulnerable people is not the answer. In-work poverty is getting worse as wages are frozen and the cost of living rises sharply. Around 61% of children living in poverty live in working households with parents who are working hard to feed them, clothe them and send them to school. The figure in 2005-06 was 50%, so more people are now working to support their families, but they are doing so on paltry incomes. Surely no one in this Committee believes that that number should go any higher. That is why the Government must think again about these damaging changes to council tax benefit and adopt the amendments that will protect, if no one else, the working poor.
Mr Ward
Those Members who sat on the Localism Bill Committee will not be too surprised by what I have to say. Before us is a series of amendments that seek to impose on local authorities an obligation to have regard to different categories and groups when coming up with their new schemes. The Opposition seem to be oscillating between complete outrage that the Secretary of State is using powers to impose various things on local authorities and seeking to impose through legislation requirements that local authorities do certain things before introducing their schemes.
Helen Jones
Is the hon. Gentleman seriously arguing that local authorities should not have regard to people employed on low wages, people actively seeking work or levels of poverty in their areas? What is the reason for that?
Mr Ward
Not at all. I anticipate that any local authority worth its salt would have regard to all the things proposed in the amendments. In fact, that will differentiate good local authorities from bad ones, but it is not for the Secretary of State to specify those things, or indeed for us to do so through legislation, which frankly would be patronising and very centralist. As we said many times in relation to the Localism Bill, people have a right to judge at the ballot box whether their authorities are doing what they should be doing—it is not for this House to tell them.
Mr Kevan Jones
I was going to say that it was a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward), but his contribution kept getting worse.
Clause 8 of the Bill, headed “Council tax reduction schemes”, sets out the provisions for local councils to draw up their local council tax schemes. Proposed new subsection (2) states:
“Each billing authority in England must make a scheme specifying the reductions which are to apply to amounts of council tax payable, in respect of dwellings situated in its area, by—
(a) persons whom the authority considers to be in financial need, or
(b) persons in classes consisting of persons whom the authority considers to be, in general, in financial need.”
However, the Bill gives no guidance on what local authorities should take into consideration when drawing up their schemes. We could have a plethora of different schemes up and down the country and, as was referred to earlier by Government Members, neighbouring authorities could have completely different schemes and criteria for how people apply for council tax benefit. We know that the Secretary of State will exclude pensioners, but the amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends would add some criteria or at least set out what the baseline should be.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bradford East does not seem to care and trusts that every local authority, good or bad, will consider every single thing, including child poverty. If he had any experience of the Secretary of State’s time in charge of Bradford council, for example—clearly he had—he would know that he had little concern for the poor and the needy.
The Temporary Chair (Mr Jim Hood)
Order. That intervention is not relevant to the amendments.
Mr Jones
Interventions have to be relevant, as Mr Hood points out, but I would not stand for election, as the hon. Member for Bradford East and other Liberal Democrats did, on the idea of supporting the poor by increasing income tax thresholds, and then support the Conservatives in pushing through this Bill, which is going to affect some of the poorest and neediest in our society—and somehow turn a blind eye to that. As I said earlier in response to his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), none of this legislation could go through without the Liberal Democrats, and I am sure that in Bradford at the next general election the Labour party and others will remind the hon. Gentleman’s electorate that he and his party were the ones who put through this Bill, which takes away council tax benefits from the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. So he cannot have it both ways.
The amendment would take unemployment into consideration, and it is important to look at unemployment and how it affects local councils’ claimants for council tax benefit. As you will know, Mr Hood, unemployment in the north-east stands at 11.7%, 3.4 percentage points higher than the national average, while unemployment rates in the south-east are just 6.3%. If we look across the constituencies, we find that the most recent claimant count in my constituency was 2,674 people, or 5% of the population; in Beaconsfield, it was 903 people, or 1.5% of the population; in Aldershot, it was 1,749 people, or 2.6%; and in Wokingham—I have to say to the people of Wokingham that I have nothing against their town, but it is always a good example to cite in such debates—it was just 936 people, or 1.3%.
That shows the disproportionate effect of council tax benefit in different areas, and if there is nothing in the Bill to say that unemployment needs to be taken into consideration, it prompts the question, will those councils where unemployment is relatively low take it into consideration when fixing their council tax scheme? The Minister said that the Secretary of State will not need to intervene, but that is not the case, because as my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) points out, the right hon. Gentleman will intervene if he does not agree with a scheme. He has the power to do so, and to change the financial year of a scheme, so what the Minister has said is not the case.
Ian Mearns
In the light of the Minister’s reflection that the Secretary of State is highly unlikely to use his powers of intervention, on what date does my hon. Friend think the right hon. Gentleman became such a shrinking violet that he would not use the powers that were open to him?
Mr Jones
The Secretary of State’s track record is there to see. On his edicts, he talks very much about localism, but in this Bill we already see that he has kept for himself swingeing powers to intervene. Over the past 18 months, we have had diktats to councils on weekly elections, including the idea that to save money they should have fewer pot plants, and lectures on the size of their balances, so I do not accept that he is a born-again devolutionist who is giving powers to local authorities. He will quite clearly intervene when he needs to.
Helen Jones
Does my hon. Friend also agree that the Secretary of State’s attitude to poorer people in our communities can be seen clearly from when he ran Bradford city council? We do not have to look into the crystal ball when we can read the book.
Mr Jones
Exactly. But the Secretary of State is also highly political, and the Bill does not take into account unemployment and other things because, again, that is part of its general sweep. It is about giving local councils not only responsibilities, but blame, because if a local council comes up with a certain scheme, the right hon. Gentleman can say, “It’s not my problem, it’s your local authority dealing with it,” even though he has poisoned the pill that he has given them with a 10% cut in the grant for council tax benefit.
The Secretary of State is also political in saying that councils are free to not put up council tax because they will get grant for three years, but that he can give no guarantee for the year before the next general election. That is because he wants to shift the blame for the decisions that this Government are taking—both Liberal Democrats and Conservatives—on to local councils. Slowly but surely, local councils and councillors of all persuasions are waking up to the fact that they will have to make tough decisions. They will have to not only divide the smaller cake after the 10% reduction in council tax benefit, but invent a scheme that is seen to be fair.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) spoke about people who are in receipt of council tax benefit. There is a misnomer that is repeated on a number of occasions. Reading the press, one would think that every single person who gets housing benefit or council tax benefit is in receipt of unemployment benefit. They are not. Some of the poorest people in society are working very hard to keep a roof over their head. These changes will affect their ability to keep that roof over their head.
Another concern is that if there are no criteria for the various schemes, there will be a plethora of different schemes up and down the country.
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman says that that is localism, but it will lead to real issues, especially if the Secretary of State is of the Norman Tebbit variety and thinks that people should get on their bike and work. If there are disincentives because of the different schemes in different parts of the country, it will be difficult for people to do that.
The chaos that will ensue in London will be something to behold. Potentially, there will be 33 different schemes for the administration of council tax benefit in London. From talking to colleagues in London, I know that people move across the council boundaries freely. They do not take into consideration the fact that they are moving from one council to another. Some colleagues tell me that 25% or more of their local electoral register churns over every single year. How will people be clear about what the scheme is in one borough as opposed to another? If we add to this the changes in the Welfare Reform Bill, which will have a disproportionate effect in London and drive people out of higher-cost rental areas, there will be administrative chaos.
Individuals will not be clear about which scheme applies to them and some people will get into arrears with their council tax, as my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) said when he intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North. We will get to a situation where the number of evictions increases and where people and their children face insecurity about their homes. It will be very difficult for councils that have a large turnover of individuals to collect council tax. There is nothing to compensate authorities that have a large turnover for that effect. There will be a double whammy for those councils: they will face the 10% cut and it will be difficult for them to collect council tax.
We must also consider the difference in the number of people who claim council tax benefit in different authorities. As I said earlier, County Durham has 63,494 claimants, which is 15% of people aged 16 and above. Last year, that cost £55.1 million. The situation will be the same in other large councils in the north-east, and in other areas such as the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). There are a large number of people on either unemployment benefits or low wages who receive council tax benefits. We can compare that with some southern councils, and I will give a few examples. Wokingham—
The Temporary Chair (Mr Jim Hood)
Order. I am sure second home preferences are a matter for some other debate, but not for this one.
Mr Jones
In the 2010-11 financial year, Wokingham had 5,159 people claiming council tax benefit, which was 3.9% of the population and cost £5.3 million. That authority covers the constituencies of Wokingham, Maidenhead, Reading East and Bracknell. Hart, in Hampshire, had 3,029 claimants, which was 4.2% of the population and cost £3 million. It covers the Aldershot and North East Hampshire constituencies.
South Buckinghamshire council had 3,024 claimants for the year 2010-11, which equated to 5.6% of the population aged over 16 and led to expenditure of £3.4 million. South Oxfordshire had 5,848 claimants, which represented 5.6% of the population aged over 16 and cost £6.1 million. That area covers the constituencies of Henley and Wantage. Finally, Vale of White Horse council in Oxfordshire had 5,578 claimants, which was 5.8% of the over-16 population and cost £5.7 million. It covers the constituencies of Wantage and Oxford West and Abingdon.
Ian Mearns
My hon. Friend emphasises the differences between local authority areas, and he has compared Durham and Wokingham. A prime indicator of levels of deprivation is the number of looked-after children per 10,000 population, and I just happen to have that statistic for Wokingham. The number there is 22 per 10,000 population, whereas in Middlesbrough it is 104 per 10,000 population. That illustrates the contrast between the levels of deprivation and need in different areas, and I hope he will bear it in mind.
Mr Jones
I will, and that is why it is important to have in the Bill the criteria by which authorities will draw up their local schemes.
The reason why I give the differences between areas is that it is quite clear that Durham will have to draw up its scheme very differently from the other authorities that I have mentioned. They also indicate that, as I said in last week’s debate, the Bill will favour southern councils over northern ones such as Durham. It is not a coincidence that all the constituencies that I read out happen to be Conservative.
Helen Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that councils will face a further penalty through the cost of appeals once the scheme comes in, which again will be worse for councils with more claimants? I suspect that there will be a lot of appeals, and there will be a cost in both staff time and legal representation. Councils will also face the cost of chasing up unpaid council tax, which will increase hugely.
Mr Jones
I agree, and that will have a disproportionate effect on northern councils such as County Durham. It will also be a complete nightmare for local authorities in London. I know that the Bill allows for data sharing between local councils and the Department for Work and Pensions, but given the movement of people in London it will be very difficult indeed for councils to chase people up.
What are the options open to councils such as Durham, given the 10% cut, to make up the difference? The Minister and the hon. Member for Bradford East said that it would be made up by charging a different rate on second homes.
Mr George Howarth
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) just made the point that councils could be bogged down in appeals. Does my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) believe that it is also conceivable that the Bill could be deemed discriminatory under the Human Rights Act 1998? The Bill contains a declaration—as do all Bills, for purposes of the Human Rights Act—that the Secretary of State says that
“the provisions of the Local Government Finance Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.”
Does my hon. Friend think that that might slightly overstate the case?
Mr Jones
My right hon. Friend raises a very good point, because we will have different schemes in different areas. I wonder whether there will be challenges to the criteria that are used to draw them up. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole said that various equality Acts applied to the measure. They may well do, but that is not stated in the Bill. If people who find that they are not in receipt of council tax benefit after the measure is introduced feel that their local authority has discriminated against them, that will doubtless lead to court cases. Again, the costs will fall on local authorities, and again, no doubt the Secretary of State will be nowhere to be seen and will blame councils for not implementing the scheme properly.
The hole could be plugged by further cutting benefits for those who are in work and others. Second homes give another method—obviously, there are a plethora of second homes in Bradford.
John Healey
My hon. Friend is talking about plugging the hole caused by the 10% cut and highlighting the feeble arguments from Ministers about the flexibility around the second home discount. Has he asked himself why the Government have not considered the single person’s discount, which is worth £2.4 billion in total—more than five times the 10% cut?
Mr Jones
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. The Bill is being rushed through. If we were considering a root and branch, proper review of local government finance, we could examine my right hon. Friend’s suggestion. I suspect that the Government do not want to do that because it affects a lot of pensioners and they think that pensioners may be more interested in voting Conservative than not. For the same reason, they will not go anywhere near revaluation of domestic properties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North made a very good point about the comments of the Minister for Housing and Local Government, who seems to think that people can somehow magic up economic development in local areas to increase revenues. That is supposedly the entire basis of the Bill: that councils will be free to create extra demand instantly through economic development. It is a damn sight harder to attract businesses to the north-east than it is to the south-east of England.
There is a problem with who is consulted about the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North made a good point about the mess caused by the system having to be tackled by the charitable sector, local credit unions, which will have to sort people out when they get into debt, local branches of Age Concern, citizens advice bureaux and others. It is only right that they are statutorily consulted on the drawing up of the scheme. If they are not, at the end of the process they will have further burdens because they will have to try to sort out the mess created by the Bill—many are having their grants cut already.
I am sure the Minister, in his feeble way, will refuse to accept the amendments because the Bill is part of a strategy. He is part of that strategy, even if he does not understand it. In effect, the Secretary of State wants to give as many freedoms as possible to local government so that he can wash his hands of it and stand up to the electorate and say, “It’s your local council’s fault.” I hope local councillors of all political persuasions are waking up to what the Secretary of State is up to. He is blaming them for his decisions. Until they wake up to that fact and start protesting—some Liberal Democrats bravely voted against the Bill tonight—we will end up with confusion and mess in local government and blame, and some of the poorest and weakest in our society will be affected.
Mr Mike Hancock
Once again, I am concerned about the lack of time, because I would have loved to have had a proper debate on amendments 59 and 60, which go to the heart of the problems we face. The amendments, which were tabled by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), would defer the scheme for a year. Unfortunately, he is not in the Chamber to move the amendments, so it looks like we will not have the chance to pursue the matter. The need to give local authorities more time was one of the things about which Members spoke most eloquently when we debated the previous group of amendments.
It is disappointing that the Minister did not give even a hint that the problems exposed by hon. Members would be given consideration. I have a lot of sympathy for the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), who spoke of the problems of “outsourcing” 20,000 people from London. He said that that would have an effect on London’s infrastructure and mean impending problems for receiving authorities. Any authority that has received large numbers of people after population movements will know only too well of the struggle to put in place the infrastructure needed to absorb them. Suggesting that 20,000 people leaving London will be easy is an easy soundbite, but I simply do not believe it. The Government need to think again if they are suggesting that that is a ground for supporting the Bill, because it cannot be right.
The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) mentioned the cost of appeals and how long they will take. When do they kick in? For how long must people appeal? What would the regime be? Would it be a simple paper exercise or could people appear and give details of their circumstances in front of, say, a group of councillors or officials? We need to know. How will they be resolved?
Why should local authorities take into account the impact of the scheme on the aspects outlined in amendment 66? That is a key question. The hon. Member for Stockton North made the point that we cannot ask local authorities to exclude so many people and not ask them to consider the effects on the poorest groups of working people. If they do not consider that, they would be doing a great disservice to the people. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was in the Chamber just now, but it is sad that he has not heard more of the debate, because the points being made are relevant for his Department.
However, if the Bill goes through without the amendment, it will cause local authorities serious problems. Any local authority worth its salt would want to take the issues I mentioned into consideration and would like to have some flexibility to help the groups affected. Why not say that in the Bill? Is anyone seriously saying that that would be an unreasonable expectation for local people to have? [Interruption.] I am getting a signal that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) might be of a different opinion from me. I happen to think that setting out those matters in the Bill is the right thing to do, and I have yet to hear a coherent argument to suggest that we should not take that into consideration. Once again, that is why, when we vote tonight, I will vote to support the amendment.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does the hon. Gentleman think I should get a sponsorship deal with the borough of Wokingham?
Mr Hancock
I honestly believe that the hon. Gentleman is in the market for a property in Wokingham, or if not Wokingham, Hart.
Mr Hancock
I am sure the hon. Gentleman could; he is being far too modest.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about income tax and higher income tax payers, I am disappointed that we will not get anywhere near the amendments that I and others tabled on excluding higher income tax payers from the 25% discount. I would hope that the Government would give local authorities the ability totally to restrict people on higher income tax from having the 25% discount.
Once again, I am disappointed that we will not have the opportunity to pursue many of these issues, and I implore the Minister to try to secure the maximum amount of time on Report to allow us properly to discuss the amendments that we have not reached.
Andrew Stunell
Again, we have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I have to say that the amendments we have discussed cut across the approach we set out for reforming support for the council tax and the whole localisation agenda. In the first debate, there seemed to be broad support for the view that the localisation part of the proposals was the right way forward, and I particularly welcomed the words of the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Select Committee Chairman, who made it clear that that was his view. In the event, that turned out to be rather a contrast with the views of the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), who argued strongly against localisation. Then, rather puzzlingly, she said that some of us did not know what was going on in the real world. Perhaps that is not a puzzling thing to say, but I have to say that it is not the reality. With my wife, I brought up five children on family income supplement for two years, so I think I do know what it means when there is not enough money to buy things.
Andrew Stunell
No, I will not give way. I am just going to make a little progress.
The hon. Lady said that we did not understand the leeches on the estate who collected the money on payday, but at the same time she seems to be in favour of channelling money through universal benefit, rather than localising it through a council tax reduction scheme. As the Select Committee Chairman rightly said, that is not only localist, but helpful in securing income for local authorities. The hon. Lady reinforced the point with her story of the leeches on the estate.
Helen Jones
I am sorry, but the Minister cannot have it both ways either. The Secretary of State is taking the power to give guidance on what should be included in the scheme, and the Government have already said that pensioners must be protected under the scheme—we agree with that—so the Minister cannot then argue that he wants everything left to local councils, because that is exactly what he is not doing.
Andrew Stunell
Unfortunately, the hon. Lady has partly misread the scheme. Paragraph 2(8) of schedule 4 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations in relation to the requirements of schemes, and he intends to use this power to require authorities to provide support for pensioners. The purpose of that provision is precisely to safeguard pensioners—a point on which, it would appear, there is cross-party support. It does not require the Secretary of State to approve schemes, and it is not a power to intervene in schemes. I think that I have made that point clear to the House, and if I have not, I repeat it now to make it so.
Several rather whacky points have been made. The hon. Gentleman for Stockport North said—[Hon. Members: “Stockton North”] Sorry, I should know better. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) said that Labour had worked hard to close the gap between the rich and poor. Well, I do not know how hard it worked, but it certainly did not work, because the gap between the rich and the poor widened in that time. It did not narrow. He seemed extremely sceptical about whether it was possible for authorities such as Stockton to generate the additional income from discounts and exemptions to compensate them for the loss of council tax benefit grant.
By my count, 18 local authorities have been drawn into the debate in one way or another—all of them by Opposition Members praying in aid councils that they believed would be at a disadvantage. Of those 18, 14 could in fact generate from the discounts and exemptions in their areas more money than they would lose from the loss of council tax benefit grant. Among those authorities is Stockton, which would have a surplus, if it extinguished all the discounts. The hon. Member for Stockton North referred to second homes, but an important part of the new flexibility—and part of the reason Stockton could have a surplus—relates to empty homes. Empty homes discounts provide another potential source of revenue.
When one considers the generality of local authorities, one discovers that were all those discounts and exemptions to be extinguished—as I said in the previous debate, I am not arguing that they should be, but I want the House to understand that the flexibility is there—it would result in an additional income to local authorities in England of £420 million. By what my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) called a fluke, that happens to be the same amount as the 10% reduction. The Government are not arguing that every local authority should simply extinguish those discounts and exemptions. We are simply pointing out that that provides for a significant flexibility, and I would be surprised if a large majority of councils did not choose to make that flexibility a part of the mix when devising a scheme.
Local authorities need to plan carefully to ensure that they can meet demand through the funding that they make available to local schemes. As the hon. Member for Warrington North acknowledged, however, funding for the first two years of localised schemes is derived from the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast for spending on council tax benefit, which reflects existing spending and, therefore, assumptions about underlying demographic changes, including growth in the pensioner population, and council tax increases. Thereafter, of course, the spending review process will provide further opportunities to consider cost pressures.
Local authorities are already well accustomed to using these powers to determine in what circumstances council tax liability should be reduced, whether in individual cases or a class of cases. Local authorities are best placed to understand local needs, including those of low-income families. Paragraph 2(5) of proposed new schedule 1A to the Local Government Finance Act 1992, which is inserted by schedule 4, already requires local authorities to set out the procedures for making an application for a reduction under the scheme.
Amendments 56 and 70 would require local authorities to take into account the impact of their schemes on the living standards and work incentives of taxpayers, and on poverty levels when designing or revising their schemes. However, local authorities already have clearly defined responsibilities in relation to, and for their awareness of, the most vulnerable groups and individuals in their areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) made the point that there are statutory responsibilities on local government when drawing up such schemes, or indeed taking any of its functions forward. An important example is the public sector equality duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which requires authorities in the exercise of their functions to have due regard to the promotion of equality between persons who share a protected characteristic, while the Child Poverty Act 2010 imposes a duty on local authorities to have regard to, and to address, child poverty. She referred, quite properly, to the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 and the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, both of which include a range of duties relating to the welfare needs of disabled people. She also referred to the Housing Act 1996, which gives local authorities a duty to prevent homelessness.
Putting all that together, it is quite clear that every local authority is familiar with the need to ensure that any scheme it draws up complies with existing statutory guidelines. That is a continuous process that requires all the relevant decision makers to consider equality, disability and other issues, in forming policy and making decisions. We expect to continue with that sensible approach. There is no reason for unnecessary additional bureaucracy to be imposed on local authorities.
Heidi Alexander
With the best will in the world, is not the problem that, with £490 million less to administer in council tax benefit—a reduction that will come about as a result of the proposals in the Bill—councils will be simply unable to meet the needs of the rising numbers of people who will be unemployed in future?
Andrew Stunell
If I can correct just one small point, the figure is £420 million for England, although the sum for the United Kingdom as a whole is larger. The hon. Lady is quite right that there is to be a reduction in the funding of council tax benefit support. That is not in dispute. My point—and the point the Government are making—is that local authorities have additional income streams open to them in later parts of the Bill. They also have the opportunity to tailor their schemes to suit their local circumstances, and if they choose to draw resources from other parts of their income streams, it is open to them to do that.
Let me turn to amendments 49 and 56. It is unclear how a local authority could take into account the impact of claimants who were receiving council tax benefit before the introduction of a local scheme. For example, that would require a local authority to know, several years after the implementation of the reform, whether a person would have been entitled to claim council tax benefit under the old system and whether a change in circumstances meant that a person would no longer be eligible at all. The Bill already provides for local authorities to make transitional provision as they see fit, following changes to their schemes or the introduction of a new scheme. That seems a far better way of proceeding.
Amendment 67 would require authorities to publish, as part of the scheme, the steps that they would take to ensure that people were informed of their entitlement and what assistance they would be offered. That is a sensible requirement, but paragraphs 2(1) and 2(5) of new schedule 1A to the Local Government Finance Act 1992, inserted by schedule 4 to the Bill, already require the authority to set out the classes of persons who are entitled to a reduction, and the procedure for making an application. The provision that the amendment seeks to introduce is therefore already part of the legislation.
John Healey
The Minister talked about the IT suppliers and working to ensure that their new systems are in place by April next year, but they are going to need to be ready, fully designed, tested and operational well before the end of this year during the period when local authorities will be consulting on and designing their schemes and reassuring themselves that they can be put in place. Is not the reality more likely to be that the options on schemes will be restricted by the designs that the software suppliers will have ready to go?
Andrew Stunell
That is an important consideration for local authorities when they look at the speed and pace of change in the schemes they devise, but I have to say that practically everything that Labour Members have contributed to the debate has been on the basis of trying to preserve the existing scheme and associated costs. [Interruption.] I think that local authorities will probably take a cautious approach to changing their local schemes in the first year. I have to say, however, that we believe it is absolutely the case that those that wish to make a more radical change will be able to do so. I am encouraged to hear that IT suppliers are considering the possible changes to existing software and are working with local authorities to—[Interruption.]
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. It is getting very noisy. If Members wish to speak to each other, it would be a good idea to go outside and do it.
Andrew Stunell
Thank you, Ms Primarolo.
As I was saying, IT suppliers are considering possible changes to existing software and they are working with local authorities. I recognise, of course, that local authorities and suppliers need as much information as possible as soon as possible. For that reason, we intend to publish draft regulations while the Bill is still before the House. We shall shortly make available a design tool to make it easier for local authorities to model their case load and the impacts of any changes to the framework, which should also clarify the extent of any IT changes that the design of their scheme might require.
John Healey
I must say that it is welcome to hear the Minister say that the Government are committing themselves to draft regulations published while the Bill is before the House. Will he make it clear whether that means this House or the other House?
Andrew Stunell
I am looking for a nod somewhere, but let us stick with this House.
Amendment 71 states that the Secretary of State should have regard to the impact of any guidance on those of pensionable and working ages and those on benefits, particularly disability benefits. However, the Government have already made clear their intention to use the guidance to set out the importance of supporting work incentives through the design of local schemes and will consider how to ensure that local authorities are aware of their duties in respect of vulnerable groups. It is unclear whether amendment 71 would add to the Government’s commitment in this regard.
There are things that councils can begin to do now to help in their preparation—in understanding the circumstances of those in their area who currently claim support, in ensuring that elected members are aware of the decisions they need to take and in engaging with precepting authorities such as police and fire authorities. The Government have been clear that local authorities must ensure that they are on the front foot in preparing for this reform.
In summary, I must recommend that the Committee reject the Opposition amendment on this occasion.
Helen Jones
Yet again we have heard a reply of the most astonishing complacency from the Minister, which appears to have been prepared so long before the debate that he did not realise that he was responding to amendments that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) was not even present to speak to. Yet again we have heard him dismiss the concerns of local authorities and Members, dismiss our concerns about the poorest people in the poorest communities, and, in particular, dismiss concerns about those who work for low wages and the effects that this scheme will have on them.
Let me warn the Minister that he has been put up to respond to the amendments in order to provide a human shield for the Tories in the Government, and that it will come back to haunt him. I wish to press amendment 66 to a vote, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
George Hollingbery
I beg to move amendment 72, page 5, line 26, at end insert—
‘(3A) Local authorities will have the right to pool schemes for council tax refund purposes both in terms of administrative arrangements and the pooling of funds.’.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 52, in schedule 4, page 47, line 16, at end insert—
(f) the number of persons estimated to be eligible to make an application, and estimated to be entitled to a reduction under the scheme.’.
Amendment 74, line 43, at end insert—
‘(8A) Before making regulations under sub-paragraph (8), the Secretary of State must consult with local authorities regarding any proposed requirements for schemes.’.
Amendment 55, page 48, line 15, at end insert—
(d) notify all persons within their area receiving council tax benefit on or immediately following 1 April 2012, of the implications of the draft scheme, including the estimated impact of that scheme on their living standards.’.
Amendment 75, line 22, leave out sub-paragraphs (4) and (5).
Amendment 53, line 37, leave out ‘about the making of reasonable charges’.
Amendment 76, page 49, line 14, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).
Amendment 77, line 28, leave out section (6).
Government amendments 86 and 87.
George Hollingbery
It is a great pleasure finally to be able to speak to amendment 72. I have missed a Select Committee visit to the Netherlands to do so—my furthest trip so far has been to Manchester.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Primarolo. Let me make it clear to the Committee at the outset that the amendment is probing. I do not intend to press it to a vote. My aim is to give the Government an opportunity to clarify their thinking on administrative arrangements for distribution of council tax reduction schemes. There is clearly some sense in local authorities being able to pool their sovereignty—[Interruption.]
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means
Order. The Committee needs to be a little quieter, so that we can hear Mr Hollingbery moving his amendment.
George Hollingbery
I am grateful, Ms Primarolo. As I was saying, there is clearly some sense in local authorities being able to pool their sovereignty in relation to their schemes to administer council tax rebates, especially in two-tier areas such as mine in Meon Valley. If one accepts that local conditions in, say, Hampshire will be at least somewhat similar, it makes sense for a uniform scheme to be adopted by all councils in the county. That may well allow schemes to be run more cost-effectively: for example, not only could one processing centre rather than many be used, but it would create one point of contact with other agencies that need to be consulted. Furthermore, assuming that fraud investigation is to be run locally, such an arrangement would allow the accumulation of expertise and critical mass that would otherwise be diffused between many offices.
That type of arrangement would also greatly assist the achievement of a commonality of expectation and understanding of a scheme across a wider area. Several right hon. and hon. Members this evening have talked about the potential for confusion in very localised council tax schemes.
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is making a persuasive case, which is consistent with pooling principles elsewhere in the Bill, and I hope he makes some headway with Ministers. Does he not agree that, with only four minutes left when we started this group of amendments, only the third of 10 on the selection paper, there are some important issues that we have not reached, and that if they are to be aired we will have to return to them on Report?
George Hollingbery
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, in which he makes a reasonable point. However, if I may, I shall continue to develop my theme a little further.
I believe we would achieve a commonality of expectation across a pooled area, such that people could begin to understand what they would get from a council tax rebate scheme. Simply put, we would avoid the strange situations where streets are split in such a way that there is one expectation of the scheme on one side of the street and a different expectation on the other. The Bill makes no mention of such schemes, but chapter 3 of the Government’s response to the consultation on localising support covers the issue, and it makes the case that such schemes are possible under existing powers. It would be useful if the Minister briefly outlined his thoughts on how that would work, and which existing powers might allow local authorities to draw up schemes—assuming, of course, that he will have the time to do so, which is unlikely.
Even if legislation allows such schemes to be put together, it might be useful for there to be a standard, approved scheme, produced by Government, to reduce cost still further.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that Mr Speaker is very keen to defend the rights of Back Benchers. Tomorrow, as you know, we will debate Lords amendments to the Welfare Reform Bill. The first amendment, on employment and support allowance, deals with cancer patients and others. Obviously, I do not want to go into its merits or otherwise now. I have checked with the Clerks, and I am concerned because, whatever time that debate starts, it must end at half-past two. After Prime Minister’s questions and the ten-minute rule Bill, there would be an opportunity to debate the amendment for nearly two hours. However, if there is a statement or other parliamentary business, a matter that concerns many of our constituents could be debated for just half an hour. I therefore ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether anything can be done to give at least nearly two hours to debating such a crucial issue.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
The hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced Member, is correct to say that Mr Speaker takes defending Back Benchers’ rights very seriously. However, he also knows that timetabling Bills is not a matter for the Chair, but for the House. I am sure that all those present will bear his comments in mind.
Business without Debate
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Early Intervention
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Last year’s riots were unprecedented in their violence and in the damage done to our society. We saw headlines such as “Mob Rule” and “Flaming Morons”. I hope never to see such things again. We owe a debt of gratitude to the police, who had to clear up under such difficult circumstances.
No one made those young people loot and steal and cause so much damage and fear, and there can be no excuse. The punishments meted out were right and I fully support them, but since those days the headlines have changed. We are not talking about the riots and the problems caused by those people, but asking why they did it. What caused that disorder? Is it moral decline, that the young have no respect, the benefit society or something more fundamental?
I want to prevent that type of appalling activity from becoming the norm in Britain or any other society, as I am sure all hon. Members do. To do that, we need to look seriously at prevention. I want to put the case that prevention is not just kinder than cure but incredibly cheaper.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Does she welcome the “searching for answers” conference, which will commence tomorrow under the auspices of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, and which will be about the riotous situation that occurred in this land? Is that a welcome opportunity to try to get some of the important answers to the problems that she is describing in the House tonight?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Anything that helps to prevent a repeat is to be welcomed.
I want to focus on a topic that we do not often discuss in the Chamber: the importance of love. Love in a prevention context begins with conception. It needs to go on throughout the baby’s life, but the critical period is conception to the age of two years. There is a very important reason for that: a loved baby who has his needs met will generally learn that the world is a good place and that people are generally kind. That baby will grow up expecting to be able to form secure bonds, make friends and hold down a job, and will generally have more capacity to lead a normal life.
On the other hand, the baby who is neglected or abused, or inconsistently treated, suffers two profound impacts. First, the baby who is left to scream is unable to control or regulate his or her feelings. When a baby knows something is wrong, he does not know whether it is because he is too hot, too cold, bored, tried or hungry—he just knows something is wrong, and he looks to an adult carer to sooth his feelings, relax him and get him back off to sleep.
When a baby is left to scream all the time, the stress hormone in the baby’s body—cortisol—rises to a level where it harms his immune system, and that harm can be permanent. What is more, if the baby constantly experiences raised stress levels, he becomes tolerant of his own stress level. You or I, Madam Deputy Speaker, might be excited by a scary episode of “Doctor Who”, but somebody with a high tolerance of their own stress level might need to go out to stab somebody to get the same level of excitement. Being permanently left to scream therefore has a profound impact on a baby.
The second impact is even more amazing. When a baby is born, his brain is barely developed; he simply has the amygdala, with the fight or flight instinct. Between six and 18 months old, the frontal cortex—the social part of the brain—starts to develop and puts on its peak growth spurt. That growth is literally stimulated by a loving relationship between baby and carer. Playing games such as peek-a-boo or gazing into baby’s eyes and saying, “I love you” and “Aren’t you beautiful?” literally stimulates the development of the baby’s brain. Conversely, as we saw from the appalling situation in Romanian orphanages, the orphans, who had no human contact at all, literally suffered brain damage; they were unable to communicate in any way, because they had had so little human contact.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the debate and on all the sensible things she is saying with great passion and clear knowledge. Does she agree that it is imperative if children born into the most terrible circumstances are to be adopted, we make sure they are adopted as quickly as possible, given the excellent evidence she has placed before us this evening?
Andrea Leadsom
I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and I will come to it later.
If someone does not love their baby, and they do not bond properly with him in those first two crucial years, they are literally impairing their capacity to lead a normal life. The sad truth is that research shows that 40% of children in Britain are not securely attached by the age of five. That does not mean that they all go on to become criminals, psychopaths, sociopaths, paedophiles or drug addicts, but it does mean that their capacity to deal with the things life throws at them and the problems they will encounter is much lessened. They are less likely to be able to cope with holding down a job, making friends, and forming and keeping a relationship. At the extreme end, a baby will have been severely neglected or abused, and that is where we will find sociopaths. Sociopaths are not born, but made by their earliest experiences in the first two years of life.
Before we all go out and throw up our hands in despair, I want to make the case that there is a huge amount that can be done. Things do not have to be like this. If we as a society committed to making the very earliest intervention to provide the support needed for families, we could do so much in the first two years of life, when the baby’s brain has the ability to reach its full potential. We could turn things around and do great things.
The Oxford Parent Infant Project—a charity that I chaired for nine years, and of which I have been a trustee for 12 years—does precisely that work in Oxfordshire. In the past few months, I have launched a sister charity, the Northamptonshire Parent Infant Project, to do the same work. We work together with families—normally the mum, but it can be the dad or the grandparents—and the baby to help the carers understand, first, their own feelings about caring and parenting, and, secondly, the baby’s needs. We literally enable the adult to love the baby; we reintroduce them to each other, with astonishing results.
When Oxpip and Norpip get their referrals, the parents are desperate—they are about to commit suicide, infanticide or both. We have referrals from health workers, midwives and social services, which, in Oxfordshire, certainly often use Oxpip as their emergency service. If they have tried everything else, they will come to us to see what we can do. As I said, the results have been astonishing. An enormous amount can be done, therefore, to reverse this cycle of deprivation. The problem is that so often a failure to attach in those early years is the result of the parents’ own terribly unhappy lives.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In Northern Ireland, an organisation called Home Start—it probably covers the whole of the United Kingdom—provides that level of support when it is needed most. I know of many ladies in my constituency and across the whole of Northern Ireland who benefited greatly from Home Start. Is that an example of what we need to do everywhere in the United Kingdom?
Andrea Leadsom
I completely agree that Home Start does some excellent work—in my constituency, it is actually based directly below Norpip—and we work together with it. But I am talking about psycho-therapeutic support for the most difficult early relationships. Often it is parents’ own unhappy lives that give them problems bonding with their babies.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I hugely congratulate my hon. Friend on the mature way in which she is discussing issues that politicians often find hard to discuss. Does she agree that it is often easier to give children this incredibly important love if both parents are loving and committed to each other? That can be hugely helpful.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Of course, as I said, it is often parents’ own unhappy lives that cause them to struggle to bond with their baby. For example, a mother who did not form a bond with her own mum as a baby will struggle to bond with her own baby. Her capacity to love her baby will be impaired. Often, relationship or marital breakdown, extreme poverty, drug abuse, perhaps domestic violence and other such issues make it incredibly difficult for the mum and the family to find the love that the baby desperately needs. Often, the baby becomes the last person whom anybody thinks about.
In truth, of course, early intervention and early attachment is no respecter of class or wealth. One can be extremely poor and extremely securely attached to one’s baby, but equally one can be extremely wealthy, with all the privileges it brings, and bring up the least happy child in our society. It simply does not go with the turf.
I urge the Government, in the light of our correct decision to turn to localism in the early intervention agenda, to allow local communities, in as many ways as possible, to make decisions for themselves. We must educate people much more on the importance of early attachment and the need for that early bond. Oxpip, for example, trains social workers, health visitors and midwives, and on the evaluation forms almost everyone says, “If only I had known this sooner.”
In the case of baby Peter, I remember thinking, “How could any mother allow someone to stub out a cigarette on her baby? How poorly attached was she to that baby!”, but then my next thought was, “What if he had survived?” All the talk was about how physically damaged he was, but what about how mentally damaged he was? This is the problem. We have to educate people, particularly in the perinatal, infant health care and mental health care professions on the crucial importance of early attachment.
That requires, first, proper training for social workers, health visitors and midwives on understanding early attachment itself. We need proper training of the sort that Oxpip provides. Secondly, sadly we often find that schools say to a young girl, “Well, if you’re not going to make it as a hairdresser, have you thought of child care?” Too many nurses, therefore, are very young people—often girls—who themselves have not had a happy childhood and who are looking for love with somebody else’s baby, but of course it does not work that way. To be a proper nursery worker, somebody needs to have the empathy skills, not simply the right national vocational qualification or GCSEs. That is incredibly important.
Thirdly, on another call to action for the Government, we desperately need to ensure that children themselves understand this point. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) has talked of children entering school who do not recognise their own name unless it is yelled at them with real hatred—and probably with some stinking epithet attached at the end. The point is not that the child is not school-ready but that massive damage has already been done. If we do not intervene until school age, therefore, we are just dealing with the consequences—but that is not prevention; it is firefighting. What I would like to see, therefore, is all children in their science GSCE being taught about early brain development—being taught that the brain is not fully developed at birth and that the earliest relationship will have profound consequences for the healthiness of the brain as people grow up.
Finally—this is the other call to action—the protocols in nursery care often mean that someone will do the nappies for the morning run, while someone else will do the noon run and someone else the after-lunch run. That has to stop. Nurseries need to understand that for attachment to take place, there must be a bond between the nursery worker and the baby, so that that person can make a genuine contribution to the baby’s attachment ability, rather than detracting from it. Nursery protocols can therefore be either extraordinarily helpful or extraordinarily harmful in improving the quality of attachment.
There is an awful lot of understanding about the issue now. Most people would accept that early intervention is crucial, but when I go and talk at conferences, or even when I talk to colleagues in the House, people understand “early intervention” to mean different things. I have had councillors saying, “We do early intervention to prevent people from having house fires. We go round and advise them on smoke detectors, and so on.” Other people say, “Of course, early intervention is stopping teenage girls getting pregnant.” Others think that early intervention is about sports clubs to stop boys joining gangs. The terminology has become so confused that people do not really understand what early intervention is. All those other interventions have their place. They are all critical in repairing the damage that has been done. However, if we are serious about creating a better society for our children and our children’s children, “early years prevention” must mean just that: from conception to the age of two. We can do no better than that for our children.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on giving an absolutely fascinating speech. I always respect what she says, and I am always grateful for her contributions on these issues. It is good to hear someone who has so much interest, expertise and passion speak on this subject. I share her passion for this subject, which is incredibly important.
Early intervention is a hugely important issue, and the term refers to many of the things that she described. However, I should say that I am the Minister with responsibility for early years, so I have a particular bias towards ensuring that early intervention really focuses on early years issues. The point about attachment is gathering pace in debate, as well as in the knowledge among professionals on the ground. The work that Oxpip has done, along with the hon. Lady’s work in continuously raising this issue, is important in ensuring that professionals understand the importance of attachment and that the Government consider it when we develop our early years policies.
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady’s points about the importance of warm parenting and bonding. Those issues go to the heart of many of the things that we have been trying to do over the last 18 months. She will be aware that I and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), who has responsibility for public health, jointly published a document in the summer called “Families in the Foundation Years”, which covers many of the things that she picked up. There is a lot more work to do in this area—some of it is just beginning—but some of the themes that the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire picked up are being addressed by what is very much work in progress, across both the Department for Education and the Department of Health. In a sense, the things that she has talked about go right to the heart of the intersection between those two Departments. Indeed, it was a toss-up as to whether it would be me or my colleague the Minister with responsibility for public health responding this evening. We both take such issues incredibly seriously, which is why we are collaborating on much of the work on the nought-to-five age group.
The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire outlined the impact that insecure attachment can have on neurodevelopment and, in particular, the ways in which it affects levels of cortisol and the long-lasting impact that this can have on brain development. That is worth emphasising. Not all the research is concrete enough for us to be able to tell in retrospect whether somebody’s difficulties are a result of attachment issues, but there is good evidence that stress in early years results in attachment issues later. It is not always possible to bring that back retrospectively, when somebody’s behaviour is difficult, but there is certainly good correlative evidence that the lack of a warm bond from the beginning can result in serious behavioural problems later.
The issues that the hon. Lady has raised go to the heart of a number of matters that are a priority for the Government in the areas of family policy, health policy and child development. We have many of the systems in place that will begin to pick up on those issues. This is about universal and targeted services. She made the powerful point that issues of attachment are no respecter of class or income, which is precisely why we need children’s centres that are universal, but that can focus on those who are in the most need. They must have a universal front door through which anyone can walk, and they must not stigmatise those people who walk in and ask for the services. They must then focus their resources on the most difficult and challenging problems, including those that the hon. Lady mentioned. That is exactly what we have been trying to achieve.
Regarding the statement that we published in the summer, a number of things will be key if we are going to get this right. First, it is about identifying need early and putting in place the support to help the families that need it. Frankly, the first problem that we need to get over is that of data sharing. As I have said, this problem goes to the heart of issues covered by the Department for Education and the Department of Health, and data sharing is one of the big nubs that the previous Government tried to get to grips with. My colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Health and I are determined to pick up on this issue, because until the information about which families are most in need can be passed between the different professionals, it will be difficult to put in place the help that we know is available.
Over the past six months, I have seen some really good examples of where the services are working really well, and it is worth taking a minute to talk about them. The most exciting of the examples was in Manchester. I visited the Clayton Sure Start children’s centre just after the riots to find out about the work that it had been doing in this area. As part of a drive to improve the integration of services with GPs in the area with the most deprived wards, the GPs themselves had arranged for junior doctors who were training to become GPs to spend time at children’s centres to see the services that were being delivered. Among the messages that they were trying to get across was that, when a woman presents with post-natal depression, it is not just the woman whom they need to treat. They need to look beyond the patient and to understand that a newborn child is also involved and that, unless they get the services right, there could be a risk of attachment disorder later. That is not to say that every woman who presents with post-natal depression will have a child who ends up with attachment disorder, but GPs need to be aware of these issues.
The hon. Lady made a point about training for professionals. Health visitors are trained to understand these things, as are early years workers, although I think that there is much that we can do to improve on that. I will come back to that in a moment. Many GPs have very little knowledge of child development and attachment issues. That was a really exciting project on social prescribing, and I will be fascinated to see the results. I hope that many other areas will follow Manchester’s example, and learn just what can be done.
Similarly, some really good work has been done in Hull, involving an agreement to share information between local health services and children’s centres. The project has been led by one inspirational woman who is absolutely determined to ensure that the information was shared. The result of the agreement was that health visitors and family outreach workers were not duplicating each other’s work. They were sharing information and getting to the families in need quickly. They were also able to put in place the kind of support that the children’s centres offer, to help parents to understand the need to speak to their children in a particular way, and to understand about the warm parenting styles and firm parenting styles that are important right from the beginning.
The hon. Lady will be aware that the Government have committed to significantly increasing the number of health visitors. We plan to increase the health visitor work force by 4,200 by 2015 to ensure that the healthy child programme is fully and consistently implemented. At the moment, because of the patchy availability of health visitors, not everyone gets the support that they need. Ensuring that that service is well linked to the work that we are doing with children’s centres is at the heart of what we are trying to do.
Similarly, the Government have doubled the amount of funding available for the family nurse partnership—a programme that works intensively with particularly vulnerable young mothers and young parents to make sure that they get support right from conception, as the hon. Lady said, so that we do not pick up problems several months down the line when some of the problems have already begun to cement. It is an important programme, which we know makes an enormous difference to families at what is often a particularly difficult time. The nurses are very experienced and receive additional training in motivational interviewing, neurological development, attachment, mental health and strength-based working in a therapeutic relationship. Those are important skills, which help to ensure that the nurses are able to support mothers at that time.
Andrea Leadsom
I agree that the family nurse partnership is excellent, but does the Minister agree with me that it is entirely possible to come up with other strategies that would be less expensive and less prescriptive, including different therapies that might be more appropriate for certain types of parents rather than a prescribed particular programme that costs the taxpayer a lot of money to implement?
Sarah Teather
As the hon. Lady says, the family nurse partnership is one of our more expensive programmes. It is focused on very young mothers, and the doubling of the programme has been aimed primarily at expanding the help available to young, mostly teenage mothers who we are know are vulnerable. That is not to say, however, that other forms of help cannot also be extremely effective. The hon. Lady speaks with great passion about the work of the charity with which she is involved. Children’s centres have other models for helping to support women, particularly in areas where data sharing is working well and someone might be brought into a children’s centre before they give birth. It does not necessarily mean that the support they get is through the FNP system. There may be other ways of supporting those women. It is important for children’s centres to build on the best evidence available, but they must also be left free to innovate and develop their own work—based on what is known works.
Let me provide an example—outreach work. We are trying to improve the quality of the work done on outreach and family support. At the moment, there is a great variety of types of work on outreach. We have been working with the National College for School Leadership to develop some leaders in this area so we can draw together the evidence of best practice and disseminate it to encourage all areas to adopt the elements that we know work. That is not to say that every programme has to be badged or that everybody has to call their family support worker—sometimes called something slightly different. We know that certain key components of this work make a difference, so the key components of best practice will make a difference to families in difficulty.
I have only a few minutes left, so I would like to pick up some other points raised in the debate. The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) raised a point about relationship support. I think that is critical for both the reasons the hon. Gentleman suggested, but also because when parents are in conflict, it is incredibly damaging for children as they grow up. That is the main reason why the Government are providing support for relationships—formal face-to-face relationship support, but we have also provided money for telephone counselling. This is an important feature of parenting programmes that work well. If we are to support parenting, we know that it is key to support the parents’ relationship and get them to talk to one another. They must have some support to ensure that the relationship is solid; parents should have the skills to negotiate with one another, not just with the child. Working with only one parent in such circumstances tends to be less effective. It may not have no good results, but the results will be much better if a component of relationship support is included.
Last September the Government announced a trial of a new offer of universal parenting support, which will take place in three areas for parents with a child under five. That was a response to evidence that parents’ relationships with their children was critical to the home learning environment—the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire mentioned children aged between nought and two, but in fact the relationship is critical throughout, and is one of the most important factors that determine how well a child does—but also a response to what parents tell us, which is that they want more support in this regard.
We will begin the trial, and we will see what happens. We will see whether parents take up the offer, whether it is popular, and whether it has an impact on parenting style. It is one of the things that we will need to evaluate at a later stage. We will want to know whether it deals with some of the points that have been raised this evening about harsh parenting styles that have an impact on children’s development and on discipline, but we also want to test the theory that if we provide this—
Petitions
Free Fruit for Young Children
Teachers' Pension Scheme
Westminster Hall
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Falkland Islands
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I thank colleagues for attending the debate, given Select Committees and various other activities; I will take interventions.
In 1982, the Falkland Islands war saw the loss of 255 British troops; also lost were 650 Argentine troops and three female islanders. Today is a good day to begin with remembering each and every one whose lives were lost. We remember the families who lost their husbands, the children who lost their fathers and those who were left with severe disabilities because of their wounds. There is no such thing as a good war, and people died in 1982 because politics, Governments and individual people failed them. Our job in this House is to ensure that that does not happen again. I also welcome the efforts made on behalf of the islanders by the various Foreign Office departments to improve the lot of the islanders.
The purpose of the debate is fundamentally fourfold. First, we need to reiterate the House’s united position that the Falkland Islands has our full support in every way. Secondly, I wish to see a self-determination law, confirming that all overseas territories with a settled population have an unambiguous right to remain British. Thirdly, I wish the Minister to update the House on the efforts of our diplomats who are fighting the trade blockade that has been ongoing for some time. Finally, I will attempt a brief analysis of the legitimacy of the Argentine arguments under the various United Nations conventions and the agreements between the countries.
Many would argue that the 1982 conflict happened because a weak Argentine junta decided to try and regain popularity at home. The junta lost the war and power. The underequipped and poorly trained Argentines were clearly men governed by lambs.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Actually, some of the Argentines were not that poorly trained. The Mirage pilots who flew in across San Carlos water and took out our ships were, in everyone’s estimation, not only brave but well trained. The Argentines, therefore, were not entirely poorly trained—some of the marines were not bad either.
Guy Opperman
It is a brave man who tells the colonel whether troops were good or indifferent at a particular time, and I bow to my hon. Friend’s greater knowledge.
Thomas Mann, however, was right when he said:
“War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace.”
Among the almost 3,000 inhabitants of the Falklands, there is an overwhelming desire to remain a British overseas territory. It is not up to Great Britain to decide on the fate of the Falkland Islanders; it is their own right to decide where their sovereignty lies, and that will not change.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
After all that has gone on in our recent history, does my hon. Friend agree that it is regrettable that the US State Department wants to classify the Falkland Islands as the Malvinas Islands?
Guy Opperman
I have great respect for President Obama, and he is truly a groundbreaking politician and a leader of men; he is taking things forward tremendously in America. On this particular issue, however, I do not respect his decision, and am most concerned that it appears to have been made without full assessment of the UN rules on self-determination.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Britain asserted her sovereignty over the Falklands in the 1830s, about 50 years after she had been forced out of her sovereign territory in certain parts of north America. Despite the US stance on the Falklands, one very much doubts whether the US Government regard their administration of the east coast of America as simply de facto.
Guy Opperman
One could ask whether the Americans will return Hawaii or other places such as Diego Garcia to the original occupants. Ongoing, I do not believe that President Obama’s holiday home will stop being part of America.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
My hon. Friend referred to Hawaii and its original occupants, but one of the differences that I am sure he will confirm is that, in the Falkland Islands, the original occupants were not Argentine. In fact, throughout the whole history of the islands, only about three people from mainland Argentina have lived there. Does that not prove the point, but from a different angle?
Guy Opperman
I entirely agree, of course. We could get into a detailed and lengthy historical analysis of the origins of Argentina and its various provinces, as well as of the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands. It is worth remarking, however, that the ninth generation of the people of the Falkland Islands was recently born on the islands. Although the population is immigrant, that is also true in Argentina, and I will come to that at a later stage.
Returning to my point about sovereignty, it is not up to the House of Commons or Great Britain to give the Falklands away; it is the inalienable right of the Falkland Islanders to decide where sovereignty lies. That will not change today, tomorrow or for however long they choose to remain part of Great Britain.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Would my hon. Friend agree that, if there were greater and less aggressive integration between the Argentine and Falkland Islands populations, whether at the education or business level and over a period of 30 to 40 years, or perhaps longer, the hostilities would dissipate to some extent?
Guy Opperman
All of us would like to see the individual countries getting on to a greater degree, and one of my themes in the debate is to make it crystal clear that we regard Argentina, fundamentally, as a potential friend. It would be good if trade relations were better, fishing were better harmonised or hydrocarbons work was done together. At present, however, the Argentine stance is blocking that route. If the Argentine President is claiming a “hearts and minds” approach, I am sad to say that her argument is deeply flawed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
We have said that there is a need to increase and improve trade relations, but what about the 13,000 people who were murdered and disappeared in Argentina between 1976 and 1983, under the regime that fought the Falklands war? Is it not time for a human rights inquiry into that? Let us look at the bad things as well as the good things.
Guy Opperman
With no disrespect to the hon. Gentleman, I will not go down that route. One of the few good things to emerge from the Falklands war was the return of democracy to Argentina in 1983. It is entirely right that there have been various analyses of the history of Argentina but, with respect, it is not for me to lecture the Argentines on that history and on what they were involved with. Instead of looking to the past, I hope that we can look to a future of co-operation between these two countries, which already have plenty of trade and many common grounds. The Foreign Secretary, 10 days ago, wrote:
“There are many areas on which we can cooperate—on joint management of fish stocks, on hydrocarbon exploration, and on strengthening air and sea links between the Falklands and South America, as we used to do in the 1990s and ought to be able to be able to so again.”
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and a good case, but does he agree that one of the problems with the uncertainty currently surrounding the Falkland Islands is that it is extraordinarily difficult for business people to get on and make sensible business decisions? I draw his attention to a British oil exploration company, which I know, that wants to invest but is unwilling to do so until the political uncertainty has been clarified.
Guy Opperman
I accept that there is a need for greater economic certainty, but we must understand that the islands have a strong economy and a profitable business community, and that they are effectively self-sustaining. I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the 1995 agreement between the Argentine and British Governments on oil exploration. In 1995, they signed a deal that identified a discrete area where there was to be joint hydrocarbon exploration. In 2007, the Argentines scrapped that deal to share oil found in that area. They effectively ripped it up, and there has been some uncertainty on development of the way forward on hydrocarbons and oil, but I believe that a robust approach from our Government will provide a better future for companies that want to invest there.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we are in a superb position to work jointly with Argentina on fisheries around the Falkland Islands because it does not have the complicated interference of the common fisheries policy? We can work jointly with such nations, when we cannot do so around our own waters.
Guy Opperman
I never thought that in a debate about the Falkland Islands I would become such an expert on squid and European fish embargoes, or that I would be trying to respond to an acknowledged expert on all fish matters, but I agree with my hon. Friend and accept entirely that there is great scope for the two countries to work together. If they do not, the story of some European waters will, sadly, be repeated in the south Atlantic, because fish stocks will decline.
Argentina claims sovereignty of the islands on an ongoing basis. Others may discuss in detail the historical argument, which is weak, but what would happen if Argentina retook the islands? Does it propose to throw the native islanders out? Does it propose to expel them by force from their homes and the land that they have tended and harvested, or to move them to a distant corner of one island? Let us be in no doubt that annexation of any small, peaceful and prosperous neighbour has no place in the 21st century. Whether that is done by negotiation or conquest, it equals colonisation, and occupation by a foreign power.
Many islanders trace their history, as others have said, back to the 1840s. They are men and women who were born on the Falkland Islands and have lived there for generations, had children there and made their lives there. Like most countries in Latin America, including Argentina, the population has grown through a natural flow of migration. The Falkland Islands now constitutes a nation of immigrants who have developed their own distinctive culture and identity. For Argentina to deny its right to self-determination is to question its claim to that self-same right. It would be surprising if the Argentines handed their land back to the Indian tribes who lived in the country before they arrived, and I doubt that that will happen. I will not attempt to pronounce the names of the Indian tribes who lived in Argentina before the immigrants settled there.
On the legal argument, the Falkland Islanders’ rights are recognised by international law. I never thought that I would cite favourably and support the Lisbon treaty, but I am pleased that it confirms that the European Union recognises the islands as a “full” associated territory, just like our other overseas territories, in part 4 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. Apparently, our decision to sign the Lisbon treaty upset the Argentines, and some would argue that they joined a large club. On this issue, I am a confirmed Europhile—I knew that the Lisbon treaty was good for something. The truth is that we should be proud that a group of islands thousands of miles from our shores, and fully 700 km from Argentina’s, wants to remain part of our great nation, and shares our values and culture.
James Wharton
As my hon. Friend has touched on the European dimension and with the Minister in his place, is this an appropriate opportunity to reinforce the view of many hon. Members that our consistent approach to the people of the Falkland Islands should apply to the people of Gibraltar, who must not see their sovereignty negotiated behind their backs?
Guy Opperman
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. We are no longer a colonial power. Those days are, rightly, distant history. As such, we will never force any dependent territory to remain part of our country, but we will also not let down a dependent territory. Let us take Scotland as an example. I would not, of course, call Scotland a dependent territory, notwithstanding the subsidy and the inequity of the Barnett formula, but the Scottish referendum is a prime example of the fundamental principle that it is for the native people to decide their fate. Rightly, we will always welcome and defend those who wish to remain part of Great Britain.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is being generous. Is it not vital that Argentina recognises the determination of this Government and this Parliament to defend the right of the Falklands people to remain British?
Guy Opperman
I am pleased that there is a cross-party selection of Members in the Chamber early on this Tuesday morning when they have many other matters to attend to. We are presenting a united front across parties and throughout the House to show adamant support for the individual rights of people who live in the Falkland Islands. I welcome my hon. Friend’s comment, and the support from his party.
I want a self-determination law. It is well known that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—to be fair, it has done excellent work in support of the Falkland Islands—is planning to introduce a White Paper in 2012 covering all aspects of the Government’s policies on the overseas territories. That is pending. I want all overseas territories with a settled population to have an unambiguous right to remain British, and to be defended from oppression in the absence of a majority voting for secession. All the 293,000 people in the Caribbean islands of Anguilla, Bermuda and Montserrat and the south Atlantic islands of St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, and the plucky 48 people who live a precarious existence on Pitcairn Island, need to know that self-determination will always be recognised by this country.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
My hon. Friend is right to put self-determination at the centre of his speech. Some 255 British personnel died when trying to ensure that self-determination prevailed for the Falkland Islanders. Does he agree that anything other than self-determination would be an affront to the memory of those men and women?
Guy Opperman
My hon. Friend makes his point eloquently. I pay tribute to all our servicemen and women who are serving overseas, protecting our interests and striving to preserve other people’s freedoms. Most importantly, I pay tribute to the thousands of troops, led by the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, who are working on the Islands at this time. I know that many hon. Members here today represent constituencies with regiments that served or are still serving in the Falkland Islands.
Penny Mordaunt
People in Portsmouth whom I represent would want no hesitation in marking the 30th anniversary of the British victory in the Falklands war, and the posting of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge to the Falkland Islands should not be underplayed. He will be there to do a job, but his destiny as a future king and the man to whom the Islanders will one day owe their allegiance, should not go unacknowledged in Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee year.
Guy Opperman
Argentina has described the royal visit as an inflammatory act, which is ridiculous. The gentleman involved, who happens to be the future king, is going as a search and rescue pilot. Were he to save the life of some hapless Argentine sailor, I hope that Argentina would be equally as grateful as, I am sure, the individual saved by the presence of the Duke would be. I support the fact that the Duke of Cambridge has been asked to go and that he intends to do just that.
I pay tribute to Able Seaman Derek Armstrong from my constituency who was a pupil at Prudhoe community high school. At 9 o’clock this morning I met with students from that school who are visiting the House of Commons today—all hon. Members know of schools that visit the House in order to understand its history. On 22 May 1982, Derek Armstrong was 22 years old and serving on HMS Ardent. He was sadly killed in the attack that sunk that ship, and Prudhoe community high school now presents a Derek Armstrong memorial award each year to the best sportsperson at that school. It was amazing to see the students this morning as that living history, and the relevance of the Falklands war to individuals and to their school, was explained to them.
When the Duke of Cambridge goes to the Falkland Islands later this year, I regret that he will find an island that is under a degree of trade blockade. The Argentine President has upped that blockade by taking the slightly unbelievable step of blocking ships that are flying the Falkland Islands flag from their ports, and she has persuaded other members of the south American trading bloc, which includes Brazil and Uruguay, to do the same. A ship is not allowed access if it shows the so-called “defaced” Falkland Islands red ensign. Provided it removes its flag, however, and denies its true origins, it is given access. Such denying of a recognised international ship that is carrying a recognised international flag runs contrary to international law and is, I suggest, a protectionist and retrograde step. There is no justification for such petty actions that are done only to intimidate a small civilian population and, with respect, such things are beneath the Argentine people. Let us be blunt: such actions merely harden the resolve of this House, strengthen that of the Islanders, and do nothing to endear the Argentines to the Islanders. It is hardly about hearts and minds.
Are we in 2012 really going down a route that sees civilised countries make ever increasing efforts to block free trade? This is about protectionism. Will the Minister update the House on the efforts made by our diplomats to end the trade blockade? I accept that the Foreign Office has done—and continues to do—a great deal to support the Falkland Islands over the past few years, but I hope that it will do yet more to increase support, both financially and in terms of manpower, in the Foreign Office itself and on the Falkland Islands.
I will attempt to address the principle of self-determination, which is set out in article 1.2 of the charter of the United Nations, and article 1 of the international covenant on civil and political rights. The Argentines continue to say that we should negotiate on sovereignty, but about what?
Let us analyse the claims. In 1965, UN resolution 2065 noted
“the existence of a dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the said Islands.”
It invited the Governments involved
“to proceed without delay with the negotiations...with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly UN Resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands.”
UN resolution 2065 must therefore be read in line with UN resolution 1514, which states:
“The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.”
It adds—and this is key—that all peoples have
“the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
The argument that anything other than self-determination is supported by the UN agreements is completely wrong. Self-determination is enshrined within the resolutions and supports our case.
UN resolution 1514 continues:
“All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected…Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”
I could continue with an analysis of the various UN conventions and protocols, but under any interpretation, the argument supports the right to self-determination for the Falkland Islanders.
Thirty years after the Falklands war, we should be celebrating the culture of those special islands and investing in them in a variety of ways. We should also be promoting the fantastic tourism opportunities they could provide. The Mercosur countries of the south American bloc are our friends, just as we would like Argentina to be. We wish President Fernandez a full recovery from her operation. I am an MP from the north-east and my local football team, Newcastle United, is led by one Argentine and includes another, and those players are revered by thousands of people who support that team. In no way is Argentina our enemy; we wish to be trading partners and friends, and to take the relationship forward. This world has so much strife, but I say to the Argentines: let us work together for prosperity, not fall apart as fools.
The Argentine Government must understand that the future of the islanders does not lie with Argentina.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman says about the right to self-determination, and his analysis of how those rights are enshrined by the UN. I understood, however, that he was calling for such a measure to be encapsulated in British law. He has said that we need a law of self-determination for the overseas territories, but he has not explained why he feels that that is needed as an add-on measure.
Guy Opperman
Such a measure would confirm the rights of those individual islanders who live in overseas territories that have a settled population, and show the United Kingdom’s strong intention to recognise self-determination. There are references to that in the various United Nations conventions that have considered such matters repeatedly, and in what are called colonisation committees that sit from time to time. Such a measure would send out a strong message and signal from this country that the self-determination of individual peoples, where they choose to remain part of Great Britain, is paramount.
As I was saying, the future of the Falkland Islands does not lie with Argentina or with Britain as such, and such arguments are a futile war of words. The decision rests, and will always rest, with the settled inhabitants of the Falkland Islands. Gone are the days when colonial possessions could be disposed of by giving away power, regardless of the views of the inhabitants. Instead, let us celebrate the unique history and culture of a small island people that still choose to remain British—and so they shall, suitably supported by this country. That position, and their choice in the matter, is non-negotiable.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in a debate under your stewardship, Mr Crausby. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) for securing this important debate at this critical juncture for the Falkland Islands. I could not reasonably expect to be allowed to set foot back in my Gosport constituency if I did not take part in the debate, because the history of my town is indelibly linked in many ways with that of the Falkland Islands. We have many veterans of the Falklands war. Indeed, I share my constituency office with the indomitable Derek “Smokey” Cole, who runs the Falklands Veterans Foundation and who was responsible in part for raising the money to build Liberty lodge in the Falkland Islands. Even the iconic Gosport ferry is operated by Falkland Islands Holdings. We therefore have a very strong link to the Falklands.
As we approach the 30th anniversary of the Falklands war, there should be cause for joy in many ways. The Islanders should be able to celebrate their freedom, safe in the knowledge that their right to self-determination was protected by this country and always will be. The servicemen, many of whom lost so much, should remember the conflict secure in the belief that their sacrifices were not in vain.
This commemoration is marred by disappointment, given that it is taking place in the face of Argentine aggression. The islanders are suffering increased hostility and blocks on trade from neighbouring countries, while Argentina continues to misrepresent the situation on the world stage. I do not intend to recount again the challenges that Britain and the islanders face and that my hon. Friend so eloquently and fully outlined. Instead, I want to underline what I see as the most vital point in today’s debate—the islanders’ right to determine their own future should be absolutely respected by Britain, Argentina and the rest of the international community.
Bob Stewart
I intervene at this stage just to make one point. The Falkland Islands are defended by hugely capable royal naval assets at the moment. It is no secret that the Typhoon, one of the best multi-role aircraft in the world, operates from the all-weather airstrip. I will not go into the Army assets deployed. Let us be clear and send a message from this Chamber today—keep your hands off the Falklands; they are British and they will remain British.
Caroline Dinenage
My hon. Friend, as always, makes a very strong and valid point. A number of us in the Chamber were in the Falklands last year and got to meet many of our brave service personnel who work daily to keep the Falklands safe and independent.
The sacrifices and memories of the war are indelibly marked on the fabric of my constituency. Gosport’s role in the conflict was significant, with a great number of sailors and submariners coming from the town. Indeed, the Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Fieldhouse, is a local boy. The town proudly commemorates that in the Falklands memorial garden.
This year, we will again pay tribute in Gosport to those who served and, in 2005, were honoured with the freedom of the borough. As their Member of Parliament, I feel immense pride for what my constituents sacrificed for people living thousands of miles away from them. They were brought together by their desire to be British. Ultimately, both then and now, the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands want to be British. With not a single islander fighting to renounce its status as a British dependent territory, neither the British nor the Argentines have any right to dictate their fate.
As I have mentioned, I was fortunate enough to witness for myself the powerful connection that the islanders feel with Britain last year, when I visited the Falklands with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. It is a remarkably beautiful place, yet one in which the scars of war are still very apparent. Minefields are still cordoned off. On Mount Tumbledown, where some of the battle took place, there is an Argentine bunker with personal belongings still in it.
Unquestionably, however, the most striking aspect of the trip was the regard in which the Islanders held those British who fought for them. At the memorial site at Bluff cove for the 48 people killed when Royal Fleet Auxiliary Sir Galahad was attacked, I bumped into veterans from HMS Fearless, two of whom were from my constituency. When I got over the shock of meeting so far away from home people who were my neighbours, they told me of the experiences that they had had during their visit to the Falklands. When they had gone to pay in restaurants, their bills were waived. When they had gone to hand over their fare in a taxi, the taxi driver had said, “No charge.” Everywhere they went, the ongoing gratitude of the Islanders 30 years later for their role in securing freedom was indelibly marked in every aspect of what they did.
It is that freedom that we are again called upon to safeguard today. I reiterate the desire expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham to see the House united in full support of the islanders and I urge the Minister to commit to a self-determination law confirming the right of all our overseas territories to remain British for as long as they want to.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Crausby, for chairing the debate so well. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), who never misses an opportunity to speak up for the Royal Navy and for Gosport. I am delighted that she is serving as chairman of the sub-committee of the all-party group on the armed forces, of which I am chairman. In that capacity, she is looking after the Royal Navy and doing a very good job, too. I thank her for that.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who has laid out with barristeresque detail and clarity the case for the continuing independence and right to self-determination of the Falkland Islands. I will not attempt to repeat or to disagree with anything that he said, which was absolutely right. I will expand on it a little, but without the learned qualities that he was able to bring to his contribution.
My hon. Friend was right to start by paying tribute to the 255 British servicemen whose bodies lie in cemeteries in the Falklands to this day. I think that that was the last war in which the bodies of servicemen were not returned to the United Kingdom. In remembering them and the sacrifice that they made for the freedom and independence of the Falklands Islands, one should also remember the very many servicemen who came home but who suffer, because of the terrible injuries that they sustained as a result of their service, to this day. It was a great pleasure recently to welcome Simon Weston to Wootton Bassett town hall to turn on the Christmas lights in the high street. One need only think of the sacrifice and the efforts that Simon Weston and others have made to help servicemen like themselves.
Of course, in Wiltshire, we are very fortunate to have the home of Help for Heroes and, in Tedworth, the excellent home for servicemen injured in war, which is in the process of being completed and which I visited last week. At a time such as this, it is terribly important not only that we remember the 255 servicemen who gave their lives for the freedom of the Falkland Islanders, but that we think about and make efforts to help the very many servicemen—52,000 altogether in the United Kingdom—who will suffer for the rest of the lives as a result of the service that they have given.
In that context, I will, if I may, make a slight deviation to my own constituency. I am thinking particularly of the servicemen from RAF Lyneham, as it was. Sadly, thanks to the previous Government, it is no longer RAF Lyneham; it is to become a cross-service training depot. In those days, the Hercules fleet was based at RAF Lyneham and performed a magnificent service in ferrying people up and down to Ascension Island and onwards to the Falklands.
Also in my constituency, we were delighted last Thursday to give the freedom of the town of Chippenham to 9 Supply Regiment, the Royal Logistic Corps, which is the largest regiment in the British Army. Colonel Bob, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), might be interested to hear that 9 Supply Regiment, based at Hullavington, was given the freedom of Chippenham. Its predecessor also made significant contributions in supplying all that was needed during the great conflict 30 years ago this year.
The thrust of the debate today is plain. People in dependent territories and, indeed, elsewhere according to the United Nations, must have the right of self-determination. There can no question about that whatever. Most of the wars that we have fought in the past 100 years have been in the interests of freedom and of self-determination. It is right that people should be able to say for themselves whom they wish to run their country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham mentioned, that principle lies behind the current debate about a referendum in Scotland, although that is beyond the scope of this debate.
It is right that people should be able to say that they wish to remain one way or another. I suggest that if we challenged the 3,000 people who currently live in the Falklands to do so, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would receive 3,000 letters tomorrow morning indicating that every single one of them wished to remain British, to retain the British passport, to be part of Great Britain and to be a dependent territory of the United Kingdom. There is no question whatever about the unanimity and strength of desire of the people of the Falklands to do that.
With that background, it is only right that our nation should send the clearest possible messages to the Argentine Government that in no circumstances will we countenance anything like military action towards the Falklands. I must say in passing that military action against the Falklands is extraordinarily unlikely. There is not the remotest possibility that the Argentines will consider a replay of the war. None the less, they are choosing at this time for political reasons to make sabre-rattling noises, suggesting that they might do so. We should say that we will defend the Falklands to the last man—of course we would; there is no question about it, and it is impossible to imagine we would not. However, what is more important than that is what lies behind it, which is that we should be ready to say firmly and clearly to the Argentines—in saying this, we should echo it with messages to other parts of the world—that we do not believe it is right to say that the Falklands are part of Argentina, or to use the name the Malvinas. Just saying that and just making those noises undermines the right to self-determination of the people of the Falklands. It should not be allowed under international law. We should make it plain to them that we will not allow them to continue to do it.
Of course there are all sorts of ways in which we could persuade the Argentine Government of the wisdom of that view. They depend on us for all kinds of things. They want a sensible relationship with the rest of the world. The rude noises that they make about the Falklands should form an important part of negotiations that they might have with us about other things. It is outside the scope of this debate, but we heard this morning about strange remarks from Spain about Gibraltar’s independence and freedom. What we say in this debate about the Falklands is exactly mirrored in our approach to the independence and freedom of the people of Gibraltar, who have the right to decide whether they want to remain British—I am certain, having visited recently, that they do, to a gigantic extent. We must say to the Government of Spain, no matter what our relationship may be, that precisely what we did in the Falklands we would do with regard to Gibraltar, if they were to be foolish enough to tread on our toes in that way. We should reiterate the principle of independence and self-determination.
In congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham on calling the debate, I have only one slight regret. He may not realise that to this day 10 January is celebrated in the Falkland Islands as Thatcher day—and a good thing, too. It is a shame we could not have this debate on Thatcher day, the day on which she visited the Falkland Islands six months or so after the war was over. We should remember the part that she—a great woman—played in maintaining the freedom and independence of the Falkland Islands. Let us not forget it. I do not like “The Iron Lady”. It is not a particularly tasteful thing to have done. On an occasion such as this it is right that we should pay tribute to the great Margaret Thatcher for the wonderful work that she did in preserving the freedom and independence of the people of the Falkland Islands.
The question whether there is a risk of military intervention in the Falklands has already been touched on. I do not believe that there is a risk, or that the Argentines are foolish enough even to contemplate doing anything of the sort. I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham that the quality and strength of the defence that we have in the Falklands—my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport saw the evidence when she visited with the armed forces parliamentary scheme last year—is such that no one, whether the Argentines or anyone else, would possibly consider it.
I have a couple of minor concerns about the outlying islands. I am very much involved with South Georgia, which is of course the place where the Argentines first landed all those years ago. To this day, it remains exposed to some degree. It is of course a quite remote place, entirely populated by rats, which we are doing our best to eradicate at the moment. It is a place that we have to keep our eye on to ensure that no intervention is possible there. The Argentines have also made some foolish remarks about Antarctica. It is covered by the treaty and is no part of Argentina. We should preserve the international nature of Antarctica from any possible encroachment by the Argentines or anyone else. There are not only diplomatic reasons, but important commercial reasons for that. Mention has been made of oil, and Rockhopper is a fine Wiltshire oil company, which is currently considering what it can do in the south Atlantic. I am delighted to help in any way that I can to ensure that its rights of exploration—if, indeed, it decides to use them—are preserved against a possible commercial objection by the Argentines or anyone else.
Our forces in the Falklands, as has been said, are second to none. They are ready to repel any boarder. However, I have one concern. This matter was raised in the Chamber on Thursday, during the defence debate. By the end of the current strategic defence review, we shall have an Army of 82,000 people. In many parts of the world, and under many definitions, that is not an army but a defence force. The number above which a force is considered to be an army is normally 100,000. Our Army is now the smallest that we have had since the Crimean war. Our Navy has been decimated and the RAF has been cut in half. If there were to be an encroachment today of the kind that happened before, we would not be able to produce a taskforce as we did then, because we simply do not have the resources. As I said in Thursday’s debate, that is entirely wrong. If we have a moral duty as a nation, whether in the Falklands, Gibraltar or elsewhere in the world, we must have the resources to carry it out. I fear that the strategic defence and security review has resulted in a defence force for this country that is not sufficient to carry out the tasks that the Foreign Office requires. The Minister may want to consider whether the Foreign Office could make stronger representations to the Treasury about the amount of money available for the defence of the realm, so that if we ever have to, we can once again send a taskforce of the kind that we are remembering today.
We are sending a clear message to the people of the Falklands, and to the United Nations, the United States and the rest of the world, that we believe that the people of the Falklands have every right to self-determination. The people of the Falklands must be allowed to decide their future, and we will use military force if necessary—certainly military defensive force—to ensure that that happens. However, we should send a stronger message that we are determined to do the same elsewhere in the world. We are determined that people’s right to make up their minds about their future, a free and independent liberal economy and democracy are the things that our nation stands for. We demonstrated that we stood for them during the Falklands war, and we stand for them elsewhere in the world; but to do so we need sufficient defence forces and investment.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I want to thank my room mate, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), for this important debate. As I take every opportunity to say, I like to think I taught him everything he knows.
Many of today’s speeches have been poignant to me. I want to convey a feeling of what it was like in 1982, when I was 15—nearly 16—years old. My father, Captain Alan Lewis Morris, who retired many years ago, was then the age I am now. He was in the reserves and was due to command a minesweeper that was stationed in Liverpool, out to the Falkland Islands. As it happened, it was his 25th wedding anniversary year, and he had already booked a cruise on the Queen Elizabeth 2; we all know what happened there. As a young man at that time, watching what was happening on television, with both excitement and apprehension at what was unfolding before my eyes, I had a bit of a moral and patriotic insight, which was part of my wanting to be here in the House of Commons today. My father never went in the end, because the day he was called up was the day the conflict ended. However, I remember wondering whether, if he went away, he would come back. The conflict was very hard on both sides. The fact that we travelled to the other side of the world and fought off an aggressor on a small outpost speaks volumes about the spirit of the British people.
Bob Stewart
Such action also speaks volumes for the spirit and the quality of our armed forces who always multiply up their small numbers when they go into combat. In Afghanistan, their morale is outstanding despite what is happening out there. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) outlined the situation in his admirable plea for more money for defence. If necessary, our forces will fight a superior force and retake the Falklands, because of the quality of the people that we have in our armed forces.
David Morris
I thank my hon. Friend for that eloquent and powerful statement. I agree with everything that he says.
Thirty years on, the Falklands Islands is still, quite rightly, being protected by British troops. It is regrettable that the US State Department referred to the Falklands as the Malvinas. Coming from a shipping family, I was enlightened to learn that racketeering in world trade is still going on against Britain in that sphere of the globe. We have even had to drop the red ensign, which I find insulting as an English man, never mind as a Member of Parliament.
We must look to the future. There is oil in the region, although I have no idea whether that has anything to do with the fact that Argentina has started rattling sabres again. The oil, which might explain this reawakening of interest in the Falklands Islands, is hard to get at and extremely difficult to drill and mine for. The nitty gritty of this debate is people. Nine generations of people who have settled and lived in the Falklands want to be part of the British people; they are the British people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) so powerfully stated, the Falkland Islands is British. We shall defend the Falkland Islands just as we shall defend any other area of the globe that we represent. The islanders want to stay with us. We protect them and we are trading prosperously from their islands. Such facts speak more about our people, our sovereignty, their sovereignty and this Parliament.
I would like to have powerfully summed up this speech by saying how we would defend the Falkland Islands, but my hon. Friend, the colonel, has already said it for me and in a better way than I ever could. It is absolutely imperative that we protect our interests in the Falklands. We must protect the Falkland Islanders because the Falklands will always, and should always, remain British.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Crausby. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) on securing this debate.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) said, she and I went to the Falklands earlier this year with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. For the avoidance of doubt, I hasten to add that, unlike my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), we were not room mates on this trip.
The excellent armed forces parliamentary scheme enables Members such as me who have no military experience or history to get a feel for what life is like in the forces. When we were in the Falklands, we visited the RAF, the Army and the Navy and we did exercises with them all. We also met the islanders, whose message to us was clear and consistent. Everywhere we went, they said, “We are British and we want to stay British for ever.” We must defend the rights of those islanders and send a clear message back to Argentina.
At one point on the visit, we spent the night on HMS York, which was an experience in itself. We were with the sailors, and not in the officers’ mess. I was with the stokers. [Interruption.] Yes, it was quite appropriate. It was an interesting experience. The ship was due to leave the Falklands and sail up the west coast of South America. As part of that detail, HMS York was due to dock in Chile to refuel and to give the guys some shore leave. While we were on the ship, though, the crew received notice that their shore leave had been cancelled because Chile would not allow them to dock or to go ashore. We can only surmise the reasons for that, but I suspect that it was due to the pressure that Argentina has been applying on the nations in South America. In particular, it has been using economic pressure. It has realised that military pressure will not work and so it has now turned to economic means. We were told that taxes are now being levied on companies that operate in and around the Falkland Islands if they want to operate in Argentina. Again, it is more economic pressure on the economic community that could help the Falkland Islands to survive and grow.
We have heard about the claims of inflammatory acts. The Argentines say that sending Prince William to the Falklands was an inflammatory act, but what about the pressures that it is applying to the other nations in South America? As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) said, we need to send a clear message to the Argentines. This is a case not of posturing but of being clear and firm. The Falkland Islanders are British and they want to remain so. For as long as they wish to remain British, we will defend them and we will not sit back while Argentina gets up to its old games. At the risk of being controversial, I ask the Minister to take a look at our foreign aid budget and see how much is given to Argentina, because there is a tool by which we may exercise a little bit of extra pressure.
It is 30 years since the Falklands war. Simon Weston has been mentioned previously. By complete fluke, I had the pleasure of having lunch with Simon many years ago and I found his tales of the Falklands war both fascinating and harrowing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport said, while we were in the Falklands, we visited the Argentine outpost on Mount Tumbledown, which was remarkably well preserved and still carries personal artefacts. I saw a training shoe and other such things. It was a very sobering experience. We must remember that war 30 years ago. I was 19 when it happened; slightly older than my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale. Thirty years seems a long time ago, but we must never forget that many British soldiers gave their lives for the Falklands. The islanders respect, remember and appreciate that. We must maintain our level of defence for them. It is their right to remain British and we must defend them.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) on securing this debate. The good turnout today is a testament to the desire in this House to reiterate our support for the people of the Falkland Islands. As we mark the 30 years since the Falklands war, it is important to remember not only those who fought but the sacrifice of the 255 Britons who lost their lives. As we approach the anniversary, the increasing tension and the greater focus on the Falkland Islands must be particularly difficult for the families of those who died during the conflict. It is important that we use occasions such as this to reiterate our gratitude to them for their sacrifice and our commitment to protecting the Falkland Islands.
As I made clear earlier, Labour continues to support the islanders’ right to self-determination. It is a long-established principle that has been recognised by successive Governments and by the Falkland Islands constitution. Moreover, as we have discussed, it is set out in article 1.2 of the UN charter and in article 1 of the international covenant on civil and political rights. As the hon. Member for Hexham said, it has been reinforced by UN resolutions that deal specifically with the Falkland Islands and by the many other UN resolutions that reaffirm the commitment to the right of people to determine for themselves what their future should be. Therefore, I am not persuaded by him that there is a need to enshrine that principle in UK law. He has said that it would send out a signal that we are absolutely committed to upholding the right to self-determination, but I do not think that the purpose of legislation is simply to send out signals when the position is already clear. Indeed, I thought that the ideology that underpins his Government is that we should not go down the path of unnecessary legislation; that we should legislate only when there is an absolute need for it. Also, I am concerned that, if there were an attempt to enshrine that principle in UK law, it could be seen to undermine other principles of international and UN law that are not enshrined in UK law; it could seem that the principle were of a different status.
Mr Gray
I agree with the hon. Lady about small government, but does she recall the occasion when her right hon. Friend, the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) entered into negotiations with the Government of Spain on the future of Gibraltar without consulting the people of Gibraltar? That shows that, on occasion, such things can slip. Is that not a reason for writing the principle into law?
Kerry McCarthy
I do not think that entering into negotiations or discussions with another country necessarily thwarts or flouts the right to self-determination. It is fairly well established that we will respect the right of the people in the overseas territories to determine their fate, and we have reiterated that over and again.
Mr Gray
If the hon. Lady is saying that she could see no reason why the right hon. Member for Blackburn should not have discussed with Spain the future of Gibraltar without consulting the people of Gibraltar, is she saying that it would be perfectly reasonable for any other Foreign Secretary to enter into discussions with the Government of Argentina about the future of the Falklands without consulting the people there?
Kerry McCarthy
I am obviously not saying that at all. If we were having bilateral meetings with Argentina, or if there were a state visit to Argentina, and the issue of the future of the Falkland Islands were raised by the Argentine Government, we would of course have discussions with them about that. That is not the same as entering into negotiations or in any way at all committing to signing away the rights of the Falklands Islands without respecting its residents’ right to self-determination. As has already been mentioned, given that the Falkland Islanders are unanimous in their desire to remain British, I cannot see that as something that would in any way, shape or form be on the table in a serious way at any such discussions.
Guy Opperman
For the avoidance of doubt, I shall try to clarify the point that I was seeking to make, which I believe was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray).
There have, down the generations, been examples—whether it is Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands in the late 1960s—where successive Governments have sought to negotiate on sovereignty in circumstances where that has palpably not been the will of the people. My proposal would allow the House of Commons and Parliament to send out a crystal-clear message that self-determination is part of the law of this country, and negotiations cannot be entered into without observation of the individual rights of those persons. That does not currently exist, and that is the right reason why we seek a law on self-determination out of the Foreign Office White Paper that will be discussed in the House this year.
Kerry McCarthy
Perhaps we can agree to differ on that matter, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say and whether he feels there is a need for the principle to be enshrined in UK law.
We share the Foreign Office’s disappointment about the decision to block ships that carry the Falklands flag. Developments since December have been particularly troubling, and we welcome the robust response from the Foreign Office. Although it is reassuring that ships have been able to get around that policy and continue to enter ports by carrying the British flag, it is obviously not acceptable for the Argentine Government, because they object to the Falkland Islanders’ choice to remain British, to seek to impose an economic blockade or to inhibit the Islanders’ way of carrying on their economic life.
It is also worrying that other south American countries have been brought on board in that decision. Will the Minister confirm which countries and representatives from south America have had direct discussions with the Foreign Secretary, who visited Latin America earlier this month, about the Falkland Islands? Was the blockade discussed with other countries? What was the outcome of the talks? Will the Minister assure us that the Foreign Office is using all diplomatic options to encourage Latin America to respect the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination? What assessment has the Foreign Office made of the impact of the tension with Argentina over the Falkland Islands on the UK Government’s efforts to strengthen the relationship with the rest of south America? Will the Minister explain to us what representations the Government have made to counterparts in Chile about protecting the one flight a week from Chile to the Falkland Islands, which President Fernandez has sought to stop?
We appreciate—I have reiterated this today—the need for a robust and unambiguous stance from the UK Government on our determination to protect the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination and, consequential to that, their British status. Is the Foreign Office concerned, however, that the Prime Minister’s choice of language might have unnecessarily inflamed the situation? I welcome the Prime Minister’s clear assertion in the House that the future of the Falkland Islands is a matter for the people themselves and that they will remain British for as long as they choose to do so, and we also agree that Argentina cannot disregard the Falkland Islanders’ right to choose. However, accusing the Argentine Government of colonialism, which was clearly an emotive choice of words, provoked a strong reaction from the Government and the Argentine people. Does the Minister think, with hindsight, that that was a wise choice of words? We are also concerned about the march on the embassy in Buenos Aires, in which protestors burned the Union flag. Will the Minister assure us that the welfare of the embassy staff is being protected?
Some suggestions have been made, not in this Chamber, but in the media, that the defence of the Falkland Islands would not be secure if there were attempts by Argentina to invade—although we note that the Argentine President has ruled out any military action. For example, in a recent piece in The Daily Telegraph, General Sir Michael Jackson said that Britain would not be able to reclaim the Falklands if Argentina invaded. I note that earlier in the debate the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who is well informed on such matters, assured us that that was not the case and that there was no threat, but I would be grateful to receive some reassurance.
Mr Gray
It is absolutely the case that we would not be able to send a taskforce tomorrow in the way that we did 30 years ago; we simply do not have the resources to do that. That is quite different from saying that we have no resources to defend the Falklands—of course we do. In particular, the building of a runway at the airport has made defending the Falklands an entirely different matter from what it was 30 years ago, when that did not exist. Of course we can do it today, but we would not be able to lay on a task force as we did then.
Kerry McCarthy
Indeed.
Argentina has now named an ambassador to the UK, which is a step in the right direction. Will the Minister tell us whether he has had any contact with Alicia Castro since her appointment? Does he intend to meet her soon? Have his officials in the Foreign Office had any contact with her? We are all keen to hear from the Minister his response to the various points that have been raised in the debate, so I will hand over to him.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)
Thank you, Mr Crausby, for presiding effectively over this morning’s important debate. I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) for giving the House the opportunity to discuss in detail what is not only a topical issue, but a core issue of national importance, which has been receiving considerable media attention recently. It is quite right that we are discussing the matter in the House, and I pay tribute to all Members who have contributed to our deliberations.
In addition, Mr Crausby, I do not know whether this is improper in procedural terms, but I want to welcome Dick Sawle, a Member of the Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly, who is in Westminster Hall to witness our debate today. Other Members have quite rightly paid tribute to the British soldiers and Falkland Islanders who died almost 30 years ago in the Falkland Islands war, as well as to those who suffered lifelong physical and mental trauma as a result of the war. And as we approach the 30th anniversary of the war, it is also appropriate to reflect, as others have already done, on the deaths of Argentines during the conflict.
The Falkland Islanders have faced successive challenges from Argentina to their democratic right to decide how and by whom they are governed, but the British Government’s support for the Falkland Islands is unequivocal. So, for the avoidance of doubt, I say to the House today that we—the British Government—believe in the principle of self-determination for the Falkland Islanders, and our position has not changed and will not change. Our strong response to the statement by the Latin American bloc, Mercosur, last month, a statement which purportedly banned vessels that fly the Falkland Islands flag, was a clear demonstration of our position, and to Argentina itself we expressed our deep disappointment at its attempts to intimidate the Falkland Islanders. We condemned Argentina’s actions both in London and through our ambassador in Buenos Aires. From Argentina’s attempts to harass Falklands-bound shipping or its attempts to close south American ports to Falklands vessels, to its threats to cut off the air links between Chile and the Falklands or to damage companies that do legitimate business in the Falklands, there is a pattern of behaviour designed to blockade the Falklands economically, which is unacceptable and utterly counter-productive if the objective is to make the Falkland Islands part of Argentina.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
I visited the Falklands in November, and I have been listening to the debate this morning with interest. I am slightly concerned that in this debate we are perhaps giving too much merit to the present-day posturing of the Argentines. I welcome the Government’s actions, which the Minister has been setting out, but does he recognise that it is important that we ourselves do not fall back on posturing or indeed on inflammatory statements?
Mr Browne
I want to start my response to the hon. Lady by thanking her for going to the Falklands; we had a good meeting on her return to discuss her experiences and what she learned from that visit. I take her point that we should not exaggerate the effectiveness of the Argentines’ actions, and I will discuss that point later in my speech. At the same time, however, it is important that, without being inflammatory in our language, we are very clear and unequivocal in this debate about the position of the British Government and, I believe, the British Parliament, and do not leave any room for misinterpretation.
I want to reassure the hon. Member for Hexham and others who have contributed to the debate that the Government have been extremely active in condemning any attempts by Argentina to erect an economic blockade of the Falklands, and it is right that we call it what it is, which is an economic blockade. It is designed to try to hurt the Falkland Islanders economically, to disadvantage them and to reduce their standard of living. As I have already said, we have been very clear that we regard that course of action by Argentina as wrong. We want vital trade links to be maintained.
We are not in any way complacent about what is happening at the moment. We understand the tactics being adopted by the Argentine Government, and they may yet seek in the months ahead to intensify the pressure that they are applying. However, to expand on the point that I was just making to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle), we should not exaggerate the success that Argentina has had. The Falklands economy continues to grow strongly, with a budget surplus and very healthy reserves. If the objective of the Argentine Government is to weaken the resolve of the Falkland Islanders through economic means, it is not an objective that they have achieved.
The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who speaks for the Opposition, asked what representations the British Government are making to countries across south America. The answer is that we make frequent representations at a very high level. As she said, the Foreign Secretary has just been to Brazil, where he specifically raised the issue of the Falklands at the highest levels of the Brazilian Government. We have also made unambiguous representations to the other Mercosur countries, Uruguay and Paraguay, and to Chile, which is associated with Mercosur. Indeed, right across Latin America, we have made our position clear, and I have made direct representations to Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia and other countries right across Latin America, some of which instinctively support the Argentine position however many representations we make. Nevertheless, it is still important for us to make our position clear and unambiguous, and I think that other Latin American countries are more susceptible to reasoned argument than those that instinctively support the Argentine position.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
I apologise for coming in late; I was detained, but I have been watching the debate downstairs. The Foreign Secretary was in Brazil, which is not a natural ally of Argentina, and yet Brazil is lining up with Argentina on the Falklands question. Did the Foreign Secretary obtain any reassurance that Brazil, which is now a major world power, is going to distance itself from what is, frankly, the very wrong position that Argentina is taking and that it would line up with the world’s democracies, including our own, or did he return empty-handed?
Mr Browne
No, I would not see it in terms of the Foreign Secretary returning “empty-handed”. Brazil is keen to have a constructive relationship with its neighbour, Argentina—the relationship with Argentina is important commercially and politically for Brazil. At the same time, we are very pleased that Brazil is keen to have a growing relationship with the UK. The Foreign Secretary had an extremely valuable and productive visit to Brazil, and he had extensive talks in Brasilia with the Brazilian Foreign Secretary. The subject of the Falklands was not the only subject that was raised in the discussions between the two Foreign Secretaries, but it was raised. Not all of our diplomacy is so visible, because some of it is more discreet than that. I assure my hon. Friends and all Members present for this debate that we attach a very high priority to the issue of the Falklands, that the Brazilians and others understand our position and that, like ourselves, the Brazilians and others do not wish to see an economic blockade of the Falklands.
The hon. Member for Bristol East, who speaks for the Opposition, asked whether I thought that the Prime Minister’s position was appropriate. It is right that the Prime Minister is clear in this House—in Parliament—about the strong support that the British Government give to the status of the Falkland Islands. And on the military point that was raised by a number of Members, I assure the House that the Government continue to take necessary steps to maintain the security of the Falkland Islands.
More broadly, Members have talked about our wider relationship with Argentina. We have made it clear to Argentina that we are enthusiastic about having a more productive relationship and about addressing global issues together, including climate change or the global economy. Argentina, of course, is a member of the G20, so we have another opportunity in that forum to raise and discuss issues with it, and to build alliances with it where it is appropriate and in our shared interests to do so.
We want to work with Argentina constructively. There are areas where we share interests. We not only share economic interests, but wider trade issues, energy issues, transport issues, cultural issues, sporting issues and educational issues. There are lots of areas where we want to work more productively with Argentina than we are sometimes able to do at the moment, but only so long as Argentina understands that that process is not in some way part of a negotiation on the Falkland Islands. The status of the Falkland Islands is non-negotiable for us, but in other regards we wish to have a helpful and productive dialogue with Argentina.
I have not yet had the opportunity to meet Argentina’s new ambassador to the UK—I do not think that she has arrived in London yet. However, I certainly will meet her when she arrives and at the moment I have regular and perfectly amicable engagement with the Argentine chargé d’affaires, who will be replaced by the ambassador when she arrives.
Dr McCrea
I accept all that the Minister says concerning the desire of the UK Government to work hand in hand on so many issues with the Argentines. However, does he agree that no threat of conflict from any Argentine Government will pressure the British Government into any negotiations that would undermine the will and determination of the Falklands people to remain British?
Mr Browne
Yes. I hoped that I had made that clear, but I will make the point again for the avoidance of doubt. Our position on the self-determination of the Falkland Islands is and remains non-negotiable. We have secured assurances from countries elsewhere in south America that they have no appetite for joining Argentina in attempts to damage the islands’ economy.
We have asserted our commitment to deepening and broadening Britain’s engagement with Latin America as a whole. To the Falkland Islanders, we have offered reassurance of our enduring commitment to their security and to their well-being. More than that, we have ensured that both in south America and in the UK their views are heard and their wishes are, increasingly I hope, respected.
The Prime Minister and others have voiced their support, and our embassies have worked tirelessly across Latin America and more widely in other countries around the world, to support the position of the Falkland Islanders. In some regards, that is already yielding dividends. At the recent UK-Caribbean Forum, for example, the Foreign Secretary and I were personally involved in making the case for the people of the Falkland Islands, and I am pleased that Caribbean Governments gave their unanimous backing to the rights of the islanders to self-determination.
The point has been made in this debate on whether we should have a self-determination law in the UK. The right to self-determination is already enshrined in law, as hon. Members know, via article 1.2 of the UN charter, and article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and it is worth emphasising that it is also written into the Falkland Islands constitution. The British Government already have a legal obligation to uphold both the principle and the practical consequences of self-determination, so we do not see the need for additional work in that area. We believe that point is clearly established.
We will continue all our work throughout 2012 and beyond in all those regards. The cornerstone of our policy will always be the islanders and their clearly expressed wishes. I have had many opportunities to meet representatives of the Falkland Islanders to discuss their concerns and to work closely with them. It is fair to say that I devote as much attention to the Falkland Islands as to any other part of the world. Despite the small population it is a part of the world of extreme importance to the FCO. We work closely with representatives of the Falkland Islands to ensure as best we can that their interests are met.
Indeed, I have been honoured with an invitation from the Falkland Islands Government, and I can announce this morning that I will visit the Falkland Islands in June as it commemorates the 30th anniversary of its liberation. The Government feel it is important to have a Foreign Office Minister present for that anniversary event. I am pleased to attend what will be an important and sombre occasion. I am also looking forward to taking the opportunity to get to know better the islanders and their home.
Mr Gray
The House will welcome the fact that the Minister intends to visit the Falkland Islands in June, which is an important symbol of our support. While he is there, will he take the opportunity to nip down to South Georgia and have a look at the excellent work done by the South Georgia Preservation Trust to eradicate rats?
Mr Browne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. My programme has yet to be finalised, apart from the anniversary date, when I will participate in the commemorations. I am in the Falkland Islands for a number of days, so I will be taking the opportunity to gain a wider understanding of a range of issues that affect the Falkland Islands and possibly other islands in the area. I had in mind more clear-cut economic and social issues, but I am open to any suggestions that my hon. Friend wishes to send to my office.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way, and I apologise for not being present at the start of the debate. May I second the invitation to South Georgia offered by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) It makes a lovely canoeing trip: perhaps he could take the journey from the Falklands to South Georgia by canoe and see what the way of life is like.
On a more serious point, the Minister has gone through the relationships developed through the Foreign Secretary going to Brazil and through representatives here in the UK. However, will he put on record the contribution that the Falkland Islands representative in Britain, Sukey Cameron, makes to the agenda, and the work that she does through her office to ensure that the Falkland Islands stays at the top of the political agenda in the UK, and to ensure that trips, such as the one the Minister is to make in June, are well-organised and well-informed?
Mr Browne
I am happy to pay tribute to Ms Cameron in the way that the hon. Gentleman asks. I meet her frequently, and she is a great champion of the Falkland Islands and islanders and makes an extremely compelling case for their interests. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who visited the Falkland Islands last year and brings extra knowledge to the debate as a result.
It is understandable that this anniversary year will see much focus on the past. It is right, of course, that we remember and give thanks for the sacrifice of those who fought and died in defence of the islands. Their sacrifice secured the islanders’ future. Now, in 2012, that future looks brighter than ever for the people of the Falkland Islands. The economy of the Falklands is on a secure footing and the islanders will continue to build new enterprises and to explore new markets. Tourism is on the increase—around 65,000 cruise-ship passengers visited the islands last year—and the figure is set to increase in future years.
Oil exploration is continuing apace. Let me be clear, as the issue arose during our deliberations, that the resources around the Falkland Islands belong to the islanders. It is absolutely right that they should develop that aspect of their economy and they enjoy our full support in doing so in the future. It is not for us in Westminster to set out what the future holds for the Falkland Islands. That is the preserve of their people. They have that right to self-determination about which we have spoken at length in this debate. Only they can decide how to respond to the opportunities and challenges of the years ahead. The British Government are determined to ensure that they have the right to self-determination but they make their own choices about how to order their affairs. That is quite right and proper.
While is it for the islanders to determine their own future, it is for the UK to enable them to do so in a secure environment and without pressure or interference from others. That is why, apart from a range of wider considerations across Latin America to do with trade, politics and working together on matters such as climate change or cultural exchanges, we are very keen to ensure that the position of the Falkland Islands is understood in Latin America and further afield.
I also pay tribute to the members of the Legislative Assembly, who have been extremely effective in their meetings with other countries at explaining their position, in a way that many countries find compelling when they hear it directly from representatives of the Falkland Islands rather than just the British Government. I know those efforts are intensifying, and I welcome them.
The Falkland Islands will face many challenges in the future, ranging from the economic to the environmental. It is a remote part of the world and has a small population, which can present difficulties. However, one thing will not change: the UK will always be forthright in support of the islanders’ wishes and relentless in upholding their rights.
I finish by drawing attention to what the Foreign Secretary said recently on the matter. It will leave the House completely clear about the Government’s intentions and reassure hon. Members who have spoken before me:
“The future of the Falkland Islands is about people…Thirty years after the Argentine invasion, their right to self-determination remains, and will always remain, the cornerstone of our policy.”
Thank you, Mr Crausby, for chairing the debate so effectively, and thank you to all hon. Members who contributed to discussing this important issue in the 30th anniversary year of the Falklands war.
Policing (North Wales)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Crausby, and to see so many colleagues from north Wales here to debate this important issue.
It is not often that I can begin such a debate by saying that we can learn something from the Welsh Conservatives, but today I am privileged to be able to do so. The Welsh Conservatives have cancelled their Llandudno conference this year, apparently because of security costs. I am not sure whether they think extra security is needed to hold back the crowds or to ensure that none of their politicians get out to hear what local people think. Wherever they plan to skulk off to instead, I hope they face the full weight of the law for non-payment of the £20,000 that the Imperial hotel is likely to lose because of their bad business practice in cancelling so late. Leaving aside their cowboy capitalism—I see that the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) does not wish to intervene—the Conservatives’ decision has betrayed a fact they have been trying to deny since the general election, which is that good security costs money, and without enough funding, security will suffer.
That principle brings me to today’s debate, ahead of next week’s vote on more cuts to the North Wales police force. The first duty of any Government is to protect their citizens, or to put in place the brave men and women who do that for us. We all rely on our police forces to keep us safe, and we in north Wales are extremely lucky to have an excellent force, which provides a top-class, professional service to our communities. Our police force, however, is being let down, and law and order—cyfraith a threfn—is being woefully let down in the process.
Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary was asked to advise the Government on possible efficiency savings in the police force, and said that
“cost cutting and improvements in productivity could, if relentlessly pursued, generate a saving of 12% in central government funding without affecting police availability—but only if there was a fundamental ‘re-design’ of the system”.
Despite that advice, the Government are pursuing a 20% cut in police funding, stripping the police of 8% more of their funding than the experts said could be removed safely.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, and I congratulate her on securing this debate. Is it not the case that the Labour Welsh Government are cutting funding to police forces by 6.3%, compared with 6.9% from central Government? Would she defend that difference?
Susan Elan Jones
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s crib sheet comment, but I remind him that the Welsh Government, who are dealing with a very difficult situation from the UK Government, are increasing the number of police community support officers by 500. I urge him to reflect on that. I also note his non-comment on his party’s lack of funding in his own constituency, Aberconwy, thanks to the cancellation of its Llandudno conference.
Despite HMIC’s advice, the Government are pursuing a 20% cut in police funding. On the ground, that means that since the last general election, North Wales police has lost 85 police officers, or more than 5% of its whole force. By 2015, it is forecast that more than 360 staff could go—179 officers and 186 civilian staff. After years of steadily rising numbers of police officers, so many are now being cut that already we have fewer officers in north Wales than we did a decade ago. Meanwhile, the population of north Wales has increased by over 12,000.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a very powerful case, which exposes the Government’s ludicrous argument that somehow they can cut some mythical back room—and even the middle room, whatever that is—without affecting front-line services. In north Wales, front-line police officers are being cut.
Susan Elan Jones
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend, and I will go on later to mention some aspects of policing, such as forensics, that are covered by the description of back-room policing.
Ministers say repeatedly that police chiefs are the only ones responsible for cutting back on numbers. Despite the inspectorate’s advice, they say:
“By the end of the spending review period, the police will still have the resources to do their important work.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 September 2011; Vol. 730, c. WA28.]
In fact, no fewer than nine times in the past six months, Ministers have given the same answer to various questions in Parliament about falling police numbers. The mantra goes a bit like this:
“we have set a challenging but manageable funding settlement for the police service. It is for the chief constable and the police authority in each force to determine the number of police officers that are deployed given the available resources.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 16.]
Perhaps we will hear that again from the Minister today, to round it off to a nice, even and decimal 10.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
In my constituency, the practical effect of the Government’s policy in terms of reduction is that dedicated community police officers, who have been hugely effective and successful in policing local areas, have been taken away from particular geographical areas, which is causing great concern among councillors and having a huge impact on the ground. Will my hon. Friend urge the Government to look again at the impact, not in the back room but on the streets?
Susan Elan Jones
I agree totally with my hon. Friend and share his concern about the impact in Wrexham county borough.
If the Government know how police chiefs can keep all their people and premises on 20% less money, with a rising population and fewer back-office resources, I hope that the Minister will tell us. North Wales police knows its own organisation’s needs better than anyone, and it has made it clear that it cannot keep all its officers under the budget cut. Our excellent chief constable Mark Polin made his position perfectly clear, saying:
“If I am going to keep the organisation in balance, we are going to have to lose a significant number of staff…I have no wish to reduce any of our staff, but I have got to. I have no choice whatsoever”.
No choice whatsoever—Ministers know that that is true. Now is the time for them to stop passing the buck and take responsibility for the chaos that they have created.
North Wales’ policing needs will be hit particularly hard because of the rural nature of our area and the loss, on top of the 20% budget cut, of the payment that used to be awarded to help cope with that. One hidden change brought in alongside the headline cuts to budgets is the merging of the rural police grant into the core settlement. It is effectively being abolished for police forces such as North Wales, which used to benefit from it directly.
Our rural communities have specific policing needs, and the rural grant was introduced by the Labour Government to address them. A sparse and scattered population cannot be policed in the same way as an urban centre. Police have to cover huge distances, incurring extra costs in fuel or infrastructure such as buildings that urban police forces need not budget for. That is why the Home Office’s police allocation formula working group considered and rejected the recommendation that the rural grant should be rolled in with other categories of grant and effectively lost. Again, however, that expert opinion was ignored, and north Wales will have to do without.
Why does it matter? Let me give an example. Last year, part of my constituency suffered some worrying arson-related attacks on cars. That kind of crime requires exactly the same kinds of police resources in a rural village as it would if it happened in an inner-city area, but rural police are spread more thinly and need to travel further to reach the trouble when it happens. No amount of so-called efficiency savings can mitigate the geography, unless Ministers would like all of my constituents and others in north Wales to relocate together to one place in order to make things easier. The Countryside Alliance rightly makes the point that the proposed levels of police cuts would be “a free-for-all” for those who would commit crime in the countryside.
I am delighted to see the Labour-led Welsh Government fund an additional 500 community support officers across Wales, but the loss of the rural police grant is a double whammy for us. The official figures show that vehicle crime is up in north Wales by 84% over the past year—from about 130 incidents in November 2010 to 250 in November 2011. Burglary and other crimes, including theft, shoplifting, criminal damage and public disorder have also increased during that time frame.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
I am sure that the hon. Lady will acknowledge that crime is a reality in every part of the United Kingdom. She mentions statistics regarding increases of burglaries and robberies in Wales, and sex crime is also an issue. Does she agree that we as Members of Parliament need to remember that behind every one of these crimes are horrifying stories of lives that have been blighted—many of them changed, never to be the same again—and that it is therefore necessary to have the police available to stop crime?
Susan Elan Jones
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman that behind each statistic there is often a human tragedy. I am grateful to him for raising that point.
Ian Lucas
My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Throughout the ’90s and the past 10 years, there was a consensus among all the political parties on the need to confront crime by increasing the number of officers. Is it not a profound shame that that consensus has been broken, and that the impact that that will have on individual people’s lives is being ignored by this Government?
Susan Elan Jones
That is correct, and it is especially true of our scattered rural communities.
Susan Elan Jones
In a moment—I must make progress. The offences that I have listed are exactly the kinds that tend to increase when police numbers fall. HMIC published research last summer that acknowledged that lots of factors affect crime rates, but it also stated that
“there is relatively strong evidence for the potential of an effect of police numbers on crime, particularly with regard to property and other acquisitive forms of offending.”
It also noted:
“Research suggests that frontline officer numbers are one factor in a force’s ability to fight crime.”
In north Wales, official statistics obtained by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) show that since 2001, crime broadly decreased as officer numbers rose. It is good common sense—more police officers can fight more crime—but, sadly, the Government parties seem determined to ignore the links. Their line is to quote one sentence from last year’s Home Affairs Committee report. I suspect that the Minister may wish to do that today, so I will save him the task. It says that
“there is no simple relationship between numbers of police officers and levels of crime”,
but that line has been carefully cherry-picked. The rest of the report is full of evidence to the contrary. In the same paragraph as the quotation that the Government like, the Committee offers a clarification:
“However, the loss of posts will have an impact on the range of services that the police provide and the way in which they are provided.”
The report also notes the evidence of Mr McKeever, the chairman of the Police Federation, who said in his evidence that
“there is a clear trend in the relationship between police officer numbers and crime.”
The report also references Councillor Burns-Williamson, deputy chair of the Association of Police Authorities, who told the inquiry:
“My guess is that, given the cuts over the four-year period…probably crime levels will start to rise.”
Elsewhere, even the Conservative Mayor of London agrees that “numbers matter”.
Susan Elan Jones
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised that subject—something told me it would appear. The position is clear. Before the last election, the Labour Government made it plain that, in common with the police, they would agree to 12% cuts in order to reduce back-office costs. I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to what a future Labour Government may have to do with the so-called deficit plans of this Government, which appear to mean total cuts but very little growth. It would be dishonest of me to offer a prediction in such circumstances, but let me be clear: if there was a Labour Government in office now, we would be sticking to 12%. The hon. Gentleman is incorrect in what he says from his central office crib sheet.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Those calculations of 12% were given at a time when the economy was improving—GDP was going up, unemployment was going down and confidence was going up. At that point, things were on the mend. Since this Government have been in power, they have added an extra £158 billion to the bill. We have to recognise that.
Susan Elan Jones
That is absolutely correct. There is no question about what the previous Labour Government did, or about what a Labour Government would do if they were in power now.
The Government speak about back-office costs, but they seem to forget that forensics, family liaison and call-handlers, among others, fall within that definition. Surely no one in the 21st century can define front-line policing as a few Dixon of Dock Greens plodding amiably around the patch. In fact, it seems that everyone, except for the Ministers in charge of the policy, agrees that there is some link between the number of officers available and crime levels. In other words, fewer police officers will find it more difficult to police crime.
If crime increases in the coming months and years, I am sure that it will be blamed on snow, an extra bank holiday, the eurozone or, for all we know, on Britain not quite making it in the Eurovision song contest. The victims of crime, however, will ask why the Government did not listen when the experts told them that a 20% cut was too much. We need to act now to stop that happening.
The only officers whom the Minister seems to think are important are the ones who do not yet exist—the elected police commissioners. There is not one shred of evidence that imposing these outside managers on police forces will cut crime by one iota. The policy is a gimmick, pure and simple. It is totally unfounded on fact or previous best practice. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Police Authorities of Wales has recommended that the establishment of police commissioners—or, in their words, the “bureaucratic web” and a
“poor model of police governance”—
should be deferred. The Government, however, continue to press forward regardless.
The plan will not come free. Incredibly, even though North Wales police, like other police forces, is losing police officers because it has not been given enough funds to pay for them, the Government have still found £100 million—the cost of 600 full-time officers—to pay for these new positions. They argue that the plan will connect the public to the police service, but the idea that the public see more elected officials—bureaucrats by any other name—as the answer to crime, rather than more policemen and women, is totally absurd.
The creation of the new commissioner posts will bring politics into policing like never before, providing yet another difficulty and distraction for chief constables trying to do their jobs to protect law-abiding citizens in the midst of a funding crisis. Operational independence will be threatened as electioneering takes the place of long-term planning. Collaboration between forces could be threatened as commissioners from different political parties prefer to compete with each other, with an eye on the next election. That is not the way to run a police force. I imagine that most of our political parties will field candidates for the positions and that some of the victors will do the best job they can if they are elected, but that is not the point. The point is that the policy itself is a total shambles.
Next week, Parliament will be asked to vote on the police grant report, which will seek to cut a further 7% from North Wales police’s budget—£3.4 million. I see that the Minister appears to be working his electronic device. Perhaps he could throw this calculation in: £3.4 million. North Wales cannot afford these cuts. If we want to support our police and our communities, we must stand up against the reckless cuts that the Government are trying to push through. It would be totally irresponsible to go ahead when officer numbers have already had to fall and when communities are losing their police stations. Instead, our officers should get the backing they deserve and the funding they need to stay in their jobs and do them without interference.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us why he thinks he knows better than Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, better than the Association of Police Authorities and better than the Police Federation of England and Wales. I hope that he will tell us what he thinks North Wales police should do differently to avoid losing officers, how they can make our large rural areas more efficient to police and what possible reason Members have for voting through a further 7% budget cut next week. However, I hope even more that Ministers will listen to the evidence and hear how it affects north Wales and other parts of the UK, and that they will have the courage to think again.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) on securing the debate.
I am still hoping that the debate will be an opportunity not for a display of new Labour, but for a display of new realism. Perhaps the hon. Lady might like to explain why the Welsh Assembly has cut police funding. I understand that the Labour party supports the budget reductions because its economic credibility depends on it and it cannot guarantee to reverse any of the funding cuts that the Government are going to make. Yet, at the same time, Labour opposes every step that the coalition Government take.
In fact, we have heard in the debate today that one of the cuts Labour Members think they can support is a 12% reduction in the police budget. If that is the case, perhaps the hon. Lady or the official spokesman for the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) when he responds, would like to tell hon. Members exactly how many officers that will equate to, because the hon. Lady is in cloud cuckoo land if she thinks that a 12% cut does not relate to a reduction in staffing numbers.
Ian Lucas
Just to clarify the position for the right hon. Gentleman, the budget for the Welsh Assembly is provided by the UK Government, who cut the budget. The Welsh Assembly has less money because the UK Government cut the funding. That is why there are cuts taking place in the Welsh Assembly.
Susan Elan Jones
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is rather better versed in matters in Carshalton than he is in those in Wales. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) has made clear, the reason for that situation is a reduction in funding from Westminster. I also made it clear that, partly to mitigate what has happened, the Welsh Assembly Government have increased the number of PCSOs by 500. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of wishing for a new realism and a lack of partisanship but, quite honestly, I find his comments totally partisan, totally unhelpful and showing a total lack of knowledge of the people of north Wales.
Chris Ruane
On that partisan point, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what happened to the 3,000 extra police officers that his party promised before the last election during the middle of the economic crisis?
Tom Brake
I am very happy to respond to that; indeed, I have responded to similar points in a number of debates since the new Government were elected. The financial circumstances do not allow such pledges to be funded. It is as simple as that. What this discussion has revealed is that we need to have an important debate—perhaps if we set aside partisanship, we could have that debate—about using police officers effectively. For example, if we recruit more police officers and put them in a call centre, it might add to police officer numbers, but it does not necessarily equate to a more effective police force.
Tom Brake
If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I need to make a little progress, having taken four or five interventions already.
I hope that this morning’s debate will not be totally partisan. Clearly, there are some very challenging circumstances for the police in north Wales. I understand that, prior to the election, they had lost 85 officers and that, under the previous Government, there were some issues that needed to be addressed. There has since been a further reduction in officer numbers. As the hon. Lady said, I acknowledge that, for rural forces, there are clearly bigger challenges than for forces in urban areas, where, for instance, it is easier to call on support from neighbouring forces because the distances are smaller. I acknowledge those points.
In those circumstances, it was right that the chief constable, Mark Polin, undertook the reorganisation proposals that he has instigated in terms of setting up the hubs, reducing senior management numbers and merging three divisions into one. It is perfectly appropriate that, having undertaken that reorganisation, the matter should be looked at again to see what the impact has been. We need to consider whether such an approach has been effective and whether it has perhaps had unintended consequences that the chief constable may be able to address.
In the past, the chief constable has criticised partnerships, so I hope that he will not go down the line of saying that partnerships get in the way of the police working effectively. Certainly, my experience is that partnerships—particularly those with the local authority, the voluntary sector and other partners—are an effective way of reducing crime in an area, not a hindrance. I do not consider officers who are allocated to a partnership role as being officers who are badly allocated in that respect.
Another point that the chief constable’s review may touch on is the issue of overtime payments because, clearly, there has been an increase in north Wales. I accept that there will be circumstances in which overtime payments allow officers to be specially tasked for a particular initiative. However, at the same time, there needs to be a balance between an acceptable reliance on overtime and police officer numbers.
Susan Elan Jones
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us his experience of living in north Wales?
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I have no experience of living in north Wales. I am not purporting to have the very local knowledge that she and other Welsh Members here have. Clearly, that is not the case. If she takes part in a debate about London policing matters in the future, I may throw that comment back at her to see what her experience has been and whether she has lived in London, as I have for the past 30 years. She may be able to comment in some detail on that matter.
I want to move on to what might in the longer term present a solution to these problems. I—and I think many hon. Members present—would like the Welsh Assembly to take on greater responsibility for policing and justice issues. I see that some Members are not in agreement with me, but others may well be. In the longer term, if Wales wants to have total control of its policing and therefore have responsibility for deciding what the appropriate level of policing is and what percentage of its budget should be allocated to policing issues, that is an ambition I support.
Clearly, I accept that there would be enormous challenges to achieving that and that we would have to try to unpick the funding arrangements that apply to policing. I, and many hon. Members here, know that that is extremely controversial. Depending on which part of the country someone comes from, the funding arrangements either work for or against them. Clearly, that issue would require long and detailed negotiations. However, in the longer term, I cannot see any other solution to providing the policing that Wales feels is acceptable for Wales. As long as the UK Government—in whatever shape or form—continue to provide funding for policing, we will always have rather sterile debates about central Government not allocating enough money, and the Welsh Assembly not being able to deploy the resources that it would like to deploy.
On that final point, which I hope will provide a longer term solution to these funding issues, I conclude my remarks. As I said, I hope that this debate will not be entirely partisan. I had 13 years’ experience in opposition and I always felt that it was clearly my role to attack the previous Government, which I did, hopefully with some vigour. At the same time, I always felt that as an Opposition Member it was incumbent on me to reflect the reality of the circumstances, and deploy some solutions for the Government to consider.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) on securing time for this important debate.
I know a thing or two about north Wales, as we all do in the Chamber, unlike the previous speaker, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). I begin by quoting that esteemed organ of truth, the Daily Post:
“Overtime spending by North Wales Police rocketed to £3.6m in 2011. The news comes as the force struggles to keep as many front-line positions as possible intact while facing the need to make major budget cuts under the national public spending squeeze.”
It then refers to overtime payment soaring—
“from £3,591 in 2010 to £5,314”—
in one month. It goes on:
“A Freedom of Information request revealed that the force had increased its spending from £2.7m in 2010 to £3.6m in 2011”
on overtime. Perhaps that is an inevitable consequence of having too few officers on the ground. I can understand that fully. I am a huge supporter of the North Wales police. Close members of my family have been police officers and I am not here to detract from the work that they do, which is often dangerous and thankless. Without them, heaven knows where we would be.
Nine months ago, the chief constable of North Wales police announced that there would be a radical shake-up of policing in north Wales. There would be a given number of hubs—nine in all—from which rapid response vehicles and personnel would be dispatched when the need arose. The chief constable vowed that emergency calls to serious crime would not be compromised after the changes, but he warned that it was inevitable that police reaction to some low-level crime would be affected, as they coped with losing 121 uniformed officers and at least the same number of civilian staff. On the nine response hubs, he said:
“These will not improve response times but will keep them the same.”
That is not even an assurance that there would be an improvement in response times; there would merely be an effort to keep them the same. The hubs may be perfectly acceptable in areas where travelling is reasonably easy. I am sure that those areas bordering the A55 think it is a useful idea, given that a vehicle exhibiting blue lights can travel a long distance on that road in a relatively short time.
Mr Llwyd
The hon. Gentleman refers to Rhyl. That also surprises me. There has been a fairly high crime rate there for some years. Of course, we understand that this policy will be reviewed in the coming weeks. I hope sincerely that those who will be making the decisions will have some regard to what is being argued here today. I support fully what the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) said.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman has a deep knowledge of north-west Wales and, indeed, Anglesey. The creation of hubs has actually led to the closure of local police stations, so policing is not even coming nearer to the people; it is moving away from local communities. Does he agree that that is an issue?
Mr Llwyd
I agree fully. My late father was a station officer once on Anglesey, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Clearly, things have changed and the nature of policing has changed, but he is right. There is now a shake-up that has the potential to be very damaging, particularly in rural areas, as the hon. Member for Clwyd South pointed out. Further west, in my constituency of Dwyfor Meirionnydd, this policy does not make a great deal of sense, and there have been complaints about it in the past few months. For example, Pwllheli town council has written to the chief constable about its concerns, and I support fully its contentions. Furthermore, members of Tywyn town council have likewise had cause to complain, and I understand fully their reason for doing so as well.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Glyn Davies
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. I congratulate him on making a very thoughtful speech about the management of North Wales police, an issue that is hugely important to us all. He is clearly unhappy with the arrangements that have been proposed for north Wales. Does he agree that this is exactly the sort of issue that will feature in the campaign for the election of a police commissioner? The public will then have the chance to express their view in the campaign.
Mr Llwyd
Indeed, but if there is no money in the kitty, it is a waste of time discussing it. The budget cuts are the problem—the core problem is that we are all meant to do much more with less. If there is no money to pay for it, it does not make any sense, however clever any candidate might be, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s point.
I referred to Tywyn, which is a town of approximately 2,500 inhabitants. There is now one community officer stationed there. The nearest hub would be Dolgellau, which is some 18 to 19 rather tortuous miles away. I wonder what the result would be if there were a major disturbance in the town, leaving only one officer to deal with it for at least 20 to 30 minutes before back-up arrived—it does not bear thinking about. It is no wonder that the Police Federation in north Wales is gravely concerned about the situation. It is unfair on individual police officers who face a difficult and dangerous job at the best of times, but it is equally unfair on the citizens of Tywyn and Meirionnydd, who pay the same level of taxes as everybody else and can therefore reasonably expect the same level of service.
The same is true of Pwllheli, where there are approximately 2,760 inhabitants. The nearest hub is Porthmadog. Again, it is a difficult drive to get there quickly, but the situation in Dwyfor is possibly even worse when we consider that the hub is meant to service Aberdaron at the tip of the Llyn peninsula. With the best will in the world, I do not know how any rapid response vehicle is possibly expected to reach Aberdaron from Porthmadog in less than 40 minutes. The situation is therefore critical, and we are almost waiting for something drastic to happen before the plan is scrapped. I will also mention the town of Blaenau Ffestiniog, which has again been denuded of police officers. Again, a town of 3,600 inhabitants is to be served by the hub in Porthmadog.
This looks like an exercise that has been dreamt up in an office, rather than by anyone who knows the geography of north-west Wales generally, and of Dwyfor Meirionnydd in particular. I am pleased to be able to use this debate to voice deeply held worries and concerns on behalf of my constituents. I understand that the scheme was put in place for a trial period and is now due for review. I urge the chief constable and the police authority to reconsider it urgently in light of the fact that, to my knowledge, on some weekends, the old county of Meirionnydd may have as few as three police officers on duty in the winter months. In the summer months, the population rises eight to tenfold. This is unacceptable and dangerous during the winter. It is dangerous during the summer—I would say scandalous. The authority must go back to the drawing board and reconsider the plans.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby.
This has been an interesting debate, but it did start out in an extremely partisan manner. Indeed, many hoteliers in Llandudno in my constituency would be amazed at the glee with which their loss of business is seen by Labour Opposition Members. To return to the issue that we are debating today, we need to consider the comments made by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). The new plans have had teething problems. They are clearly not working in his constituency, and I accept his comments. But it must be stated that the chief constable’s decision to change the way that the service operated in north Wales has been positive in some parts. In my constituency—I have visited the police station in Llandudno and Llanrwst, for example—the response to the changes has been positive, with the view of the officers being that they are spending less time on paperwork and getting more support across north Wales. That is important, because previously north Wales was, for some bizarre reason, split into three almost independent sections—east, central and west—and little or no support passed between them.
The changes have ensured that the police are able to serve north Wales as an entity. From my position, representing Aberconwy in the centre region, there has been an improvement, with support officers coming from Corwen, for example, to support officers from Llanrwst. We should welcome that effort to ensure that we make best use of the resources. I pay tribute to the chief constable, who is doing a difficult task in trying to deal with cuts to the budget, which are not being denied by Labour Members. We have heard the shadow Chancellor comment that he cannot guarantee a reversal of any cuts. Yet in a debate such as this we get opportunistic chants from Opposition Members claiming that things would be significantly different if they were in power.
It is important that we consider the way that police numbers grew in north Wales during Labour’s time in office. It is true that the number of police numbers in north Wales increased by 13% between 1997 and 2000—I pay tribute to the Labour Government for increasing police numbers—but in the same period the number of civilian officers working for north Wales police increased by 84%, so it is debatable whether resources were put on to the front line.
Chris Ruane
Does the hon. Gentleman think that the increase in resources is a prime reason why north Wales was one of the safest places to live in the whole UK?
Guto Bebb
It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman says that the increase in resources is necessarily the reason why North Wales police have performed well. The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) said that higher police numbers equated to falling crime. It is tempting to say that that must be so, but during Labour’s time in office there was a significant period when the number of police officers in north Wales increased but crime increased and a period when the number of police officers declined and crime declined.
There is a perception that more officers working will have an impact on crime levels, but statistics from the Labour party’s period in office do not necessarily support that view. My view is that the use made of those officers is just as important as the number of officers. Similarly, getting rid of waste and double practices, such as having three areas in north Wales that did not work together, is just as important as the numbers.
The number of police officers in north Wales has been reduced by 108, according to statistics that I have seen from North Wales police, but the chief constable has also said that it is looking to recruit an extra 72 officers in the next financial year. There is a tendency for the Opposition to portray everything as bad and fragile, when in the year to September 2011 there was a 1% decline in the total number of crimes committed in north Wales.
It is dispiriting for officers in north Wales, who are working hard to try to deal with these issues, to be told that the police service in north Wales is failing, when we have seen a decline in police numbers.
Guto Bebb
Again, I am surprised by that comment, because throughout this debate I have heard Opposition Members saying that we must put the resources on the front line. There is a choice to be made. If the number of officers increased by 13% in the Labour years, is there a justification for an increase of 84% in non-police officer staff at that point? That question should be asked. This is not an attack, in any way, shape or form, on any individuals working within the system, but we need to ask whether an 84% increase in those numbers was justified, when the number of front-line police officers increased by only 13%.
Albert Owen
The hon. Gentleman is using selective statistics. In addition to the police officers going, the number of police community support officers was increased. People wanted policing in the community. As a consequence of investing in those PCSOs in the communities, crime came down in local communities across north Wales.
Guto Bebb
I accept that comment. But if we include PCSOs and special constables in the totals, North Wales police are better served now than they were during the period the Labour party were in government.
It is important that we discuss the context of this debate, which is that we are facing a severe financial crisis. This Government are willing to get to grips with that issue. The chief constable in north Wales is willing to challenge the way that things worked in the past and to take difficult decisions to try to ensure that the allocated funding goes further.
It is important to mention the unacceptable degree of hypocrisy from Opposition Members on funding. They say that a 6.9% cut from Westminster is unacceptable in this financial year, but that a cut of 6.3% from the Welsh Assembly can be defended on the basis that the Assembly’s funding has also been reduced. This is the crux of the issue. Choices and priorities have to be made by the Government. We see in the Opposition, and in the performance of the Welsh Assembly, a complete and utter abdication of responsibility and willingness to take hard, difficult decisions.
When I get a full explanation from the shadow Chancellor about why and how he can save the North Wales police service, although he will not reverse a single cut that we have made, I will take the arguments of Opposition Members more seriously.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby.
Two hon. Members have mentioned the Conservative party’s cancellation of the Llandudno conference on security grounds and that, somehow, Labour Members are gleeful about that. I spent Saturday with my mother-in-law in Llandudno, helping the local economy and the local hotels and hostelries. I put my money where my mouth is, in many ways.
I am proud of Labour’s record on policing over the past 13 years. It can be said—hon. Members will know—that I have not always been on message and did not always agree with what the previous Government said, but on law and order they did what the people wanted. Every constituency Member of Parliament was asked about reducing crime and improving resources for policing in their area, and the Labour Government delivered. Those extra resources were funded in the communities. For the first time, we saw police support officers on the beat, making a difference in many areas, including prevention, detection and processing crimes. The whole police family was strengthened and one complemented the other.
I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) tried to pick off civilians versus front-line police officers, because the police family was delivering for communities. The back-room people have an important role to play in processing crimes to ensure that we get criminals into the courts. They are not semi-detached from front-line policing; they complement it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who is not in his seat at the moment, said rightly that under the previous Government—I am proud of this—north-west Wales had the highest detection rates not only in Wales but in the United Kingdom. A large rural area is difficult to police—the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and the hon. Member for Aberconwy know the area that I am talking about—but the police overcame those difficulties and, in a rural area, reduced crime faster and kept it down lower than in many parts of the UK. It was no surprise that that happened because of the increase in resources, which communities were asking for.
High and low-level crimes were increasing and the record of the previous Conservative Government—[Interruption.] The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), said that he was not being partisan, but he made probably the most partisan speech this morning and said that my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), whom I congratulate, knew nothing about London policing and that he would take exception if she intervened. She was a London councillor in the borough of Southwark for many years and was involved in the crime and disorder partnership in Peckham, so she knows a little bit more about London policing than the hon. Gentleman knows about north Wales policing. The title of this debate is “Policing in North Wales”, so my hon. Friend is more than qualified to talk about that.
There would have been cuts whichever Government were in office, but they would have been far more selective had there been a Labour Government. Our manifesto commitment was to prioritise policing and to protect its funding—the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington smiles at that, but he wanted an extra 3,000 police officers in his manifesto although, along with student tuition fees, that commitment was dropped immediately. The economic climate is difficult, and deficit reduction and bringing down debt are important, but politics is about priorities, and priorities are different between the parties. Before we went into the general election, the priorities of the Liberal Democrats were similar to those of the Labour party. The Labour party in government would have taken different decisions and, I believe, would have strengthened policing and kept the levels of crime down, though, yes, they would have had to get rid of some posts.
I want to talk about north Wales in particular. We have seen a huge reduction in central funds for policing, but I want to remind Members in the Chamber that much of the extra policing that occurred in north Wales between 2001 and 2010 was from the council tax payer. The controversial chief constable, with the police authority, put up the precept in order to have extra police on the beat. The choice of the local police authority was backed by the people, and each of the town and community councils put up their police precept to pay for what was originally known as the 10p bobby. Those extra police have been taken away by central Government, which is an important point.
Albert Owen
Absolutely. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have changed their view. Priorities have to be set, and our priority would have been to keep policing levels high.
We have seen central Government cuts, but that cut has been across the board. We paid for the extra policing, but central Government have robbed it from us. We are seeing a depletion in the police whom we, the council tax payers of north Wales, specifically paid for. We took a decision in that period that other local police authorities in Wales did not, yet the cut across the board of up to 20% will affect north Wales as much as other police authorities in Wales and England. That is grossly unfair to the taxpayers and constituents of north Wales. That important point is often overlooked.
I am pleased that the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice is present to respond, but I would have liked to see the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who has certain responsibilities. He was a doughty campaigner for increased funding in north Wales, including a prison for north Wales, because he wanted to see more police on the beat and more criminals in jail—in local jails—and he and I stood shoulder to shoulder to get an extra prison in Wales located in north Wales. Now, apparently, he is no longer standing up for north Wales but for the Westminster Government cuts. It is a shame that he is not in the Chamber, because I would have liked to look him in the eye and told him that myself, but I will give way to his spokesperson.
Glyn Davies
I always very much enjoy the hon. Gentleman’s speeches and take great note of them. The one difficulty that I have in listening is the seemingly total blank refusal to accept that there should be a reduction in the cost of policing in north Wales. Is his party’s policy that there should be no cuts in the cost of policing? What impact will that have on other budgets, bearing in mind that the shadow Chancellor has accepted that the cuts proposed by the current Government cannot be reversed because of the economic situation?
Albert Owen
I am certainly not saying that there should be no cuts. As the hon. Member for Aberconwy has said, there was without doubt a reduction in police numbers between 2008 and 2010, but that was achieved through efficiency savings. Also, the police authority in my area made it clear what it was doing, and the local people supported it because they understood it. What local people do not accept—if the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire is not aware of this, he needs to talk to people in his constituency—is the across-the-board cut to policing just because of the Government deficit reduction plan, coupling the savage cuts with police cuts. People wanted to make a choice, and that is the difficulty.
I will deal with the shadow Chancellor, because obviously the papers from the Conservative Whips keep rolling out that line. What he said was that in 2015 he will be left with higher debts and higher borrowing than we would have had in 2010, which will be a difficult situation and he will have to make difficult choices. However, I assure the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire that I will be fighting within my party to ensure that policing has a priority. I ask him and the hon. Member for Aberconwy to do the same, because rather than having this knockabout, they should stand up for policing in their local communities.
Albert Owen
Front-line police officers, yes, but the total amount including PCSOs and special constables rose. The police authority made that choice, which the people of north Wales accepted because they saw extra policing on the street. Prevention of crime and reducing the fear of crime are as important as police officers tackling criminals, and the Government have overlooked that with their “one-cap-fits-all” cuts throughout the country.
Opposition politicians are not the only ones whingeing. The Police Federation chairman has said that we are going back to the policing levels of the 1970s, with fewer than “215 officers per 100,000”, which is a difficult level for the future. The reduction in the number of staff in north Wales has been by more than 200 but, even worse, it is projected to be 360 by 2015. It is no use blaming the police authority, as Ministers suggest. The chief constable of Gloucestershire, in many ways a similar area to north Wales and to north-west Wales in particular, has said that policing is on “a cliff-edge”. He is not an Opposition politician, and he cites closed police stations, sold-off vehicles and the departure of senior managers and a third of the police.
What else can go in the future to make the projected cuts that are being talked about? The answer is obviously the front line. However the front, middle and back are defined: if we do not have the resource in the first place, we cannot put it on the front line. I worry, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd pointed out, about when there are serious incidents. Since I have been a Member of Parliament, there have unfortunately been a number of murders and serious crimes in my area; I know the amount of police resources used in such circumstances, when they are taken from elsewhere. If we have a thin blue line and then take police away to serious crime or incidents for many months, communities face a difficult period. That is why it is no coincidence that robbery figures have gone up by more than 60% and burglaries by some 12%; there is a link between the number of such opportunist crimes and a time of high unemployment and social deprivation in many areas. Those crimes are worrying to the individual because of the theft and the damage to property, but also because of the damage to people. People’s confidence goes, as does business confidence in towns and communities throughout the country. Those factors cannot be separated out.
Mark Tami
My hon. Friend has mentioned the increase in the burglary rate of 12%. Within that, particularly worrying is the number of first-time offenders—their first offence is burglary, whereas in the past that crime was seen as something people perhaps graduated to, so we are seeing a worrying trend.
Albert Owen
I understand that other people want to speak, so I will draw to a close. Such crimes are serious and they have gone up out of proportion to the others. I accept the figures of an overall reduction in serious crimes, but some figures are worrying, because there are now more victims of crime, who have had their property attacked, burgled and robbed, with theft and fraud going up. Many people are now feeling the effects of the reduction in policing, so one cannot just say that reported crime is down.
[Mr Edward Leigh in the Chair]
I shall conclude on that important point. Like many astute Members of Parliament, I go into communities and talk to people. Many people in rural communities say that it is a waste of time calling the police because by the time they arrive, the perpetrator of the crime has disappeared. People tell me that it is pointless calling the police and reporting incidents to them. That is worrying, and we should all be concerned about it. Reported crime may fall, but coupled with that there will be an increase in robberies and burglaries because of the scale of resources that have been taken away.
I urge the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice to consider the matter seriously. Instead of imposing across-the-board cuts next week, he should consider rurality as a special case, and put the rural grant back into the policing figures. In north-west Wales we have one of the best records, and the Government are snatching that away from us because of how they are imposing the cuts across the board. I appeal to the Minister to stand up for rural areas because crime is out of kilter with the rest of the country, and areas such as mine are going from best to worst through no fault of the police on the ground, who do an excellent job. I pay tribute to them and to the chief constable in these challenging times.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) on securing this important debate on an issue that is dear to our hearts as elected politicians and to our constituents. I will not be police-bashing. The police in north Wales have done an excellent job over the years, including the former chief constable, Richard Brunstrom. Despite all the shenanigans and publicity-seeking, he put the extra funding that we provided into front-line services. Mark Polin, the new chief constable who replaced him, is also doing an excellent job.
However, things are not right in north Wales. The latest statistics show that there was a 1% drop in crime, but if one drills down and looks at the areas of crime, there has been a 12% increase in household burglaries, a 30% increase in fraud, a 10% increase in theft, and a 60% increase in robbery. Those increases are directly attributable to the cuts in the number of police officers and back-office staff. North Wales used to be the safest place to live in the United Kingdom, and if we are too complacent and do not stand up and be counted, and if we do not challenge the coalition Government, we will not be doing our job as Opposition MPs. The Opposition have been told not to be party political about the matter, but it was a political party that made the cuts. That political party stood on a manifesto of putting 3,000 extra police officers on the beat, but it cut the number by 16,000. Those political decisions were made by political parties, and Labour MPs in opposition will hold the Government to account.
Chris Ruane
I will not give way yet. I have a few more messages for the right hon. Gentleman. He stood up and said that he was party political for 13 years, and that he hoped he had done a good job in holding the then Government to account. We are going to be party political, and we will hold the right hon. Gentleman and his party and the other coalition party to account.
Chris Ruane
I will provide solutions. I will come to them. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), the shadow Minister, announced an inquiry into the future of policing, the Minister said that that was political abdication. Now is the time to have an inquiry, as we are going into a double-dip recession with massive cuts. Now is the time to analyse the issues facing a modern police force in the 21st century, but the Minister called that political abdication.
Another issue is the decline in the number of criminals caught and prosecuted. In north Wales, there was a drop of 11.5% between April and November last year. I do not believe that that is the fault of the police. North Wales is a big geographical area. It requires a lot of policing and resources, and a lot of funding.
I have given the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), a bit of a roasting, and the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) deserves the same. He did not stand up for his constituency when his party pulled out of holding its spring conference at Llandudno, and he has not stood up for policing in north Wales. The cuts are dangerous, and are having a dangerous impact in our communities. All he can say is to ask what the Labour party did. He and his Government are in power now, and they are implementing cuts too far and too fast.
Guto Bebb
I said that it is easy to spout platitudes from the Opposition Benches. The truth of the matter is that the Labour party has not explained how it would deal with the current deficit and ensure that the cuts in north Wales would be avoided in view of the shadow Chancellor’s comments that he would change any spending cuts undertaken by the Government.
Chris Ruane
The hon. Gentleman’s complacency is unbelievable, as is that from his colleague, the junior Minister at the Wales Office, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales. When faced with these horrendous statistics, he said that it was most important that crime continues to fall in Wales, and that the latest figures showed that recorded crime is down 7%, which is even better than the 4% fall for England and Wales. That is complacency.
The Home Secretary did not stand up for policing during the cuts review. Other Ministers stood up for their Departments and their cuts were lowered. The chief police officers said they could cope with 12% cuts, and that was what the Labour agreed to. Our answer was to listen to what the professionals had to say, and to back them with 12% cuts. That was our answer then, and that is our answer now. The Tory and Liberal cuts are too far, too fast. There are also cuts in court costs. Denbigh magistrates court and Rhyl family court have both closed in my constituency. The prison population is at an all-time high. We are coming to a double-dip recession, and we know that crime patterns follow employment patterns.
The cuts are wrong; the pacing is wrong; the timing is wrong; and the scale is wrong. The pacing is wrong because the cuts are front-loaded. All the cuts are coming to suit the political timetable of a general election in 2015. The Government are front-loading the cuts and introducing them thick and fast to avoid the political consequences in 2015. The timing is wrong. We may be going into a double-dip recession when crime rates will rise, but the policing cuts are bigger than ever. The scale is wrong, because 12% is acceptable, but 20% is not.
Hon. Members have asked what Labour would do. When Labour left power, unemployment was coming down, confidence was going up, and growth was going up. Since then, all three have gone in the opposite direction. That has led to £158 billion of extra deficit, which is the responsibility of the coalition parties. That is what the shadow Chancellor meant when he made his comments. He cannot plan for 2015 and say that he will not cut this or that. We do not know how much more of a pig’s ear the coalition Government will make. How high will the £158 billion go? Will it perhaps go to £258 billion? Our solution would not have been to have an extra £158 billion of extra deficit.
Mr Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. Could we please have less mumbling from hon. Members. They may try to intervene if they wish.
Chris Ruane
Hear, hear. That is excellent chairing, Mr Leigh. I agree with every word you said.
In other areas, such as youth unemployment and youth crime, the Rhyl city strategy in my constituency put 420 young people back to work in 18 months, but that was ended within three weeks of the coalition Government coming to power because of political spite. It was an effective Labour interventionist policy, and it was ended because of political spite. Since then, we have been promised a Work programme but, as I suggested to the Prime Minister last week, it is a doesn’t work programme, because the number of people the Government said would go back to work will not do so. We have massive youth unemployment and massive police cuts in north Wales. We have seen what happened in the inner cities—riots—and the coalition parties should be very careful about making such cuts.
I pay tribute to the coverage of this issue by the Daily Post, in both its reporting and its political commentary, and I will conclude with an editorial from 8 December:
“The blame for any fall in standards arising from these budget cuts will rest with the Government, not the chief constable.”
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Leigh, and I thank the previous Chair, Mr Crausby, for his chairmanship in the early part of the debate. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones). She has raised an important issue and generated a significant debate.
Contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), and for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) have highlighted the concerns felt by their communities, and I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) for his concern about western north Wales. We have also heard interesting contributions from the hon. Members for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) and for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), and from the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). He was helpfully reminded of his election pledge to support 3,000 extra officers during this Parliament, although he has since voted for cuts that over the past 18 months have led to a reduction in police numbers of some 8,000 officers.
I pay tribute to the chair and members of North Wales police authority, and to Chief Constable Mark Polin and his team. They have done a professional job over many years to ensure that north Wales is still one of the safest places in the UK in which to live. There has been great police support, good detection rates and sound community-based policing, and the engagement at levels of inspector, constable, sergeant and police community support officer has been helpful to Members of Parliament and to my constituents.
North Wales is a challenging area to police. It contains large rural areas, two languages and strong urban areas where crime is driven by urban challenges. There is also the cross-border challenge involving crime that potentially enters north Wales from parts of north-west England. There are the ports of Holyhead and Mostyn, which is in my constituency, and a range of other issues that create a complex and challenging model with which North Wales police authority must deal. I speak today as shadow Police Minister, but also, proudly, as the Member of Parliament for Delyn, which falls within the area of North Wales police authority.
The partnership of North Wales police authority with local councils and Members of the Welsh Assembly—who, as has been mentioned, were re-elected in May last year on a pledge to support 500 police community support officers—is important, and the authority’s co-operation with neighbouring forces has led to a reduction in crime over the past 10 years. At the start of the last Labour Government’s term in office, there were around 65,000 crimes each year in north Wales. By the last year of the Labour Government, that had fallen to 44,919 crimes—a reduction of over 30% that meant 21,000 fewer victims per year. As has been mentioned, victims feel 100% of the crime committed against them, and to have 21,000 fewer crimes is a compliment to the efforts of North Wales police authority and the Labour Government.
That reduction in crime was due to a range of issues such as new ways of working, innovation, the previous Government’s approach to community safety and attempts to make authorities work with the police, better co-operation and prevention, closer working partnerships, improvements in CCTV, an increase in DNA testing, automatic police number plate recognition to look at cars crossing the border, improvements in vehicle safety, station improvements, a whole range of criminal justice measures, and increased confidence in policing and co-operation with the communities as a whole. I contend, however—this is the central argument of the debate—that one of the biggest issues in helping to support policing and reduce crime over that period concerned the number of officers who were on the beat and visibly engaged with their communities.
In 1996, the last year of the previous Conservative Government, 1,378 officers walked the beat and worked in North Wales police authority. By the last year of the last Labour Government, 1,578 officers were in place—there were 200 additional officers in north Wales. Additionally, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friends and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, 159 PCSOs were put in place in north Wales during the last five years of the Labour Government, to help to support levels of policing and visibility on the ground. That was coupled with a rise in the number of special constables, which again helped to increase police visibility. There was a major increase in police numbers at the same time as a major reduction in crime, and 21,000 victims of crime were saved.
Mr Hanson
I would contend that. When I was the Minister responsible for policing, I encouraged and set a target for an increase in the number of special constables over the course of this Parliament. The hon. Gentleman cannot escape the fact that, during the last Labour Government, there were 200 more police officers and 159 PCSOs in north Wales. After the first year of this Government we have seen a worrying fall in police numbers for the first time, and we are likely to see a further fall over the next few years.
Chris Ruane
The only way to get rid of a police officer is to force them out after 30 years under regulation A19. When those police officers retire, however, they are on a pension that is two-thirds of their pay. Will my right hon. Friend say how that is a saving?
Mr Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. Before he replies, I will ask Mr Hanson to conclude his remarks by 12.20 pm in order to give the Minister a chance to reply.
Mr Hanson
I can assure you of that, Mr Leigh. Thirty police officers in north Wales have been forced to leave under regulation A19 because of reductions in policing in the Budget. That is worrying, but I am most concerned that between March 2010 and September 2011 we have lost 85 police officers in north Wales. I am also worried because Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary—these are not my figures—suggests that we will lose 207 officers during the course of this Parliament. The grant settlement for 2011-12 is £49.6 million but, if approved next week, that will drop to £46.2 million by 2012-13. Projections for North Wales police authority mean that by 2015 the grant will be £43.7 million a year—a cut of almost £6 million.
I challenge anybody to explain how we can cut £6 million from policing budgets in north Wales and make that up solely from back-office savings and other efficiencies. When in government I supported efficiency measures in procurement, overtime, improving back-office support, adopting single uniforms, IT systems and a range of other issues. However, the level of cuts that we now face, and which we will vote on next week in the House, is dramatic. The cuts will impact on police morale and, more importantly, on the ability of the police to fight crime in north Wales.
Police spending per capita over the past year in north Wales has reduced from £148 to £137. The changes now being implemented have led to consultations on police station closures—including at Mostyn, Flint, Holywell, and Mold in my constituency—due to officer numbers. Now, for the first time, crime is rising. The figures presided over by the Minister last week showed an 11% overall rise in levels of personal crime. In 2011, north Wales saw worrying increases in crime: a 60% rise in cases of robbery, a 12% rise in instances of burglary, and an 11% rise in sexual offences.
As well as cuts to the budget, there is the uncertainty caused by the elections of police commissioners on 15 November this year. We will participate in that experiment as it is the law of the land, and we will fight that election, but I still worry about the future of policing.
I believe, however, that there is another way. The Labour party agrees with HMRC’s projection that a 12% cut is realistic when looking at overtime, procurement, modernisation, collaboration and back-office procedures and, as the Minister knows, we would have done that were we in government. The figures he produces for north Wales, however, show a cut in funding of £5.9 million over the next two years. That will lead to further pressures on the chief constable, further difficulties in fighting crime and, in my view, a poorer service for my constituents and people in north Wales.
The Minister needs to think again. He has an opportunity. This very day, he has announced an extra £90 million for the police force in London—coincidentally, just before a London election this year. If he can do it for London, he can review the position of north Wales for next week, and I will urge my hon. Friends next week to scrutinise seriously the Minister’s proposals.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) on securing the debate. She referred to the fact that she asked me a number of questions on the Floor of the House about police funding. On the most recent occasion, she referred to me as the Prime Minister. That is the only nice thing that has been said to me since I became the Police Minister. I was grateful to her for the brief compliment that she paid me, even though it was done in error. That said, I regret the way in which she chose to introduce the debate. She kicked off with a partisan attack on the Conservative party.
Nick Herbert
No, the hon. Lady kicked off with an attack on the Conservative party and she made it clear that that was to be the tenor of her speech.
I would like to deal with a few factual matters. The hon. Lady kept talking about 20% cuts. She said that there would be 20% less money; she talked about 20% budget cuts. That is, of course, the persistent implication of those on the Opposition Benches. It is correct that in the spending review there has been a 20% reduction in central Government funding, but all the Opposition Members know perfectly well that police forces are not funded just by central Government and therefore it is simply not the case that there are 20% budget cuts in the North Wales force or any other force in the country. It is important that I make that clear, because the difference is very substantial.
I wonder how many hon. Members think that there will be no precept rise in north Wales in the next three years. I ask them to intervene on me if they think that there will be no precept rises. There is no intervention. Clearly, none of the Opposition Members thinks that there will be no rises.
Chris Ruane
Can the Minister answer the intervention that I made on my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn? How is it a saving if an officer who has been employed for 30 years is forced out of his job and paid a pension that is two thirds of his pay to sit at home doing nothing? For an extra third, he could have been kept in his job.
Nick Herbert
That is a completely different point, but the hon. Gentleman should ask himself why chief constables are taking decisions about the early retirement of a minority of officers if they think that that will not save them money.
Let me return to the point that I was making, because it was important. I was asking hon. Members whether they thought that in north Wales there would be no precept rises in the next three years. No hon. Member appears to think that there will be no precept rises. Clearly, they all think that there will be precept rises. Even if there are no precept rises in the next three years, the real-terms reduction in funding is just over 15%—not 20%, but just over 15%. That is a cash reduction of 7%.
Nick Herbert
Let me complete the point and then I will give way to the hon. Lady. Let us say that there are precept rises in line with the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast. That is entirely a matter for the police authorities, so we do not know, but if there is a precept increase along those lines in the next three years, the real-terms reduction in funding in that period will be just over 10%. Translated into cash terms, that means that the force will have 1.2% less cash at the end of that period than it does now. That is the devastating impact that hon. Members are claiming for force funding.
Susan Elan Jones
The right hon. Gentleman is right: I once made a slip of the tongue and referred to him as the Prime Minister. I think that that is probably because I confused his complacency and arrogance with that of the current incumbent. Will the Minister please answer the point that I raised and the point that Chief Constable Mark Polin raised—that people had no choice whatever in the decisions that were made? Can I bring the Minister back to some of the real questions that people have asked, rather than the Tory partisan sophistry that he is giving us today?
Nick Herbert
I withdraw my kind remarks to the hon. Lady. She dished it up and she should expect to get it back. I can assure her, if she wants a serious debate about police funding, police organisation and how police forces can rise to the challenge, that no one is more anxious to engage in that serious, measured debate than I am. Indeed, I think that it is too absent from the House of Commons. It is, however, going on in policing in the real world, because out there, people are having to deal with that challenge. She, however, chose to introduce this debate in an entirely different manner—in a partisan, often cheap manner. She started off in those terms, and I will therefore give her back what she dished up to Government Members, without apology.
I was, however, making a serious point. I was making the point that the spending reduction—
Nick Herbert
Hang on a minute. The spending reduction that this force confronts ranges in the field of a real-terms reduction of 10% to 15%, or a cash reduction of 1.2% to 7%.
Nick Herbert
I will come to the issue of—[Interruption.] I will come directly to that issue. We have always said that the reductions in spending will mean that there will be a smaller work force. No one has ever disputed that. The issue is how those reductions are managed and what the impact then is on policing. I completely reject, and have consistently rejected, the binary link that hon. Members make that suggests that any reduction in public spending will mean a reduction in the quality of the service or that any reduction in headcount will mean a reduction in the quality of the service. That is the fundamental difference between Government Members and Opposition Members. We do not make that binary link. We are interested in the quality of the service and how well resources are deployed. Until Opposition Members understand that point and start talking about value for money and wise spending rather than big spending, they will continue to be in the position that they are in.
Albert Owen
The Minister is generous about giving way. He talked about the precept and council tax. Does he think it fair that the people of north Wales, through their council taxes, have paid extra into other forces but are getting the same level of cuts from central Government? Does he want to balance the situation? If north Wales taxpayers paid less through their council tax, would he increase the central Government allocation to them in the interest of fairness?
Nick Herbert
The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. We can discuss it further in the forthcoming funding debate. I am happy to answer it. In taking decisions about damping, we had to consider whether to make an adjustment for those forces that raise more from council tax. I considered that matter very carefully and it was a difficult decision, but in the end we decided that it was not fair to penalise those local populations that are already raising more from local taxpayers by saying that they would receive even less central grant than would otherwise be the case. The expectation of all chief constables and police authorities at the time was that there would be an even reduction in funding. We decided to apply an even cut as a consequence. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand—he may shake his head in disagreement—that that was a proper justification for that decision. It would have been unfair to penalise local taxpayers even more for the fact that they were contributing higher amounts than was the case in many other areas.
I want to make another point to the hon. Member for Clwyd South, in the short time left to me, on the facts of what is happening. There was a reduction in police officers in north Wales of 3.4%, according to the latest figures, in the year to September 2011. That is slightly lower than the national reduction. The reduction in staff is greater than that; staff are often overlooked in relation to these decisions. The hon. Lady’s case is that any reduction in funding is bound to produce an increase in crime, but of course the facts have not been going with her. The facts would not support the case that she makes even if it were intellectually a consistent case. On the latest figures, total recorded offences in north Wales in exactly the same period—to September 2011—were down 1%. There are, of course, particular crime categories within that where that is not the case, but equally there are other categories where crime levels have gone down by bigger margins than that.
It is very important that the force keeps on top of crime. I spoke to the chief constable this morning, and he reassured me. I will quote him. He believes that the force is
“on track to hit a three-year reduction target of 6.3%.”
That is the right ambition. The simple point is this: there is no simple link between spending levels, officer numbers and our ability to fight crime. It depends on effective organisation, good management and effective deployment of resources. It is about—
Social Mobility
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to bring this debate to the House today and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh.
Social mobility, the advancement of the individual irrespective of birth, gender, colour or class, was the underlying reason I entered politics. My inspiration for that was not so much politicians, I am sorry to say, but the great industrial philanthropists of the 18th and 19th centuries, with their business ethics, worker engagement and strong principles. I grew up in Liverpool, so for me one person stood out above all others: William Hesketh Lever, the founder of Lever Brothers, who, incidentally, did go into politics. William started work at his father’s grocery business in Bolton, working his way up the ranks before setting up his own business. Perhaps it was that journey, from shop floor to business ownership, that shaped his outlook on life, which was that anyone could achieve, given the right support and conditions.
Lever’s belief in others and his ability to achieve inspired me, and it is that notion of support allowing social mobility that we need to engender in society, allowing for personal fulfilment and opportunities for all. Business at its best can do it, and so can politicians. That said, everyone has a role to play: parents, teachers and community leaders. All can offer support, encouragement, hope and advice. In Britain today social mobility has never been so remote for so many people, with only one in five young people from the poorest backgrounds achieving five good GCSEs including maths and English, compared with three quarters of those from the richest families. Only one in four boys from working class backgrounds gets a professional or managerial job, and just one in nine of those from low-income backgrounds reaches the top income quartile, whereas almost 50% of those with parents in the top income quartile stay there.
Such lack of social mobility is damaging for those individuals, who are never able or allowed to fulfil their potential, for their families, the community and the country. The personal waste is tragic and, in the cold light of day, to a number-crunching statistician, so is the economic waste, which must surely act as a wake-up call to politicians of all parties to do something. One study has estimated the economic benefits of creating a more highly skilled work force at £150 billion a year by 2050—an additional 4% of GDP; and there is evidence that the demand for skilled workers currently outstrips supply, so there are jobs out there at the top that cannot be filled.
I have personal knowledge on the matter in question, coming from an area where I saw only too clearly the extra hurdles that put achievement a pace or two further away from people—although I also lived among a few startling exceptions who managed to defy the odds and become socially mobile. It was for that reason that I went back to university to study corporate governance and wrote a paper on the character types and personality traits of those who succeeded, irrespective of background, as well as interviewing more than 500 school kids from tough areas, to see what support and guidance they felt they needed to succeed. I hope today that I can bring some personal knowledge to the debate.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
My hon. Friend has done far more than she has said, and has produced a book, “If Chloe Can”, a careers book to help inspire people. It was turned into a theatre production, which is now touring the country, and I and several of our hon. Friends went to the premiere. I saw at first hand how many children from poorer backgrounds were inspired by the role models on stage that day, whom my hon. Friend brought along. Does she therefore agree that a key to introducing social mobility is to get great role models to inspire people and show them that people from their background can achieve success in life?
Esther McVey
My hon. Friend makes a strong point. That was one of the key things that came up when I went round schools on Merseyside, asking children what they needed to know, and what answers they wanted. Some asked, “How did you ever know what you wanted to become?” or “How do you know what jobs and opportunities are out there?” More importantly, they said they wanted to see people like them, from their backgrounds, who had achieved. I put together a magazine and distributed it free to more than 5,000 girls in Merseyside, and the people in it were role models such as Jo Salter, the first lady from the UK to become a fighter pilot; Louise Greenhalgh, the first to become a bomb disposal officer; Debbie Moore, the first woman to set up a plc; Lucinda Ellery, a single mum of three kids who has an international company; Jayne Torvill, the ice skater; and Emily Cummins, the inventor. All those people managed to overcome personal adversity to achieve, irrespective of where they came from. That was what made me look into character types and personality traits, which seemed so much more influential on where someone ended up than background or grades. Ambition, focus, being a team player, being positive and being able to complete a task, were key, and we need to tell children about those things, which give them hope. They do not need to know that they came from a certain background. They need to know that they need inner strength to achieve.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter to the House. I hope she will comment on social mobility for people who are disabled, and on the need for public transport to enable them to go where they want to be. Does she agree, and will she comment?
Esther McVey
I will make one comment, because I worked with people who were able-bodied, and with others who were not so able-bodied. One in particular who was a huge inspiration to me was a young girl called Shelly Woods, who I hope will get an Olympic gold in the Paralympics. She was supported by other people and thought she could achieve, even though she had always wanted to do sport as an able-bodied person. She became paralysed in an accident playing hide and seek, when she fell out of a tree, and has lived both as an able-bodied person and as someone who is not able-bodied. Her story was poignant, and she talked about the vital strength and support of teachers and family members. I do not know whether I can give a clear answer to the hon. Gentleman’s point—I am sure that the Minister can—but I hear what he says; the support he speaks of is needed.
It is important to look in the round at what can be achieved. The coalition Government are doing that, because social mobility will not be achieved by a single initiative. It is a question of a host of interventions, providing small steps at various stages in someone’s life, to enable them to climb up. Social mobility appears to have stagnated in the UK in the past 30 years. Children’s educational outcomes are still overwhelmingly tied to their parents’ income. The OECD published “A Family Affair: Intergenerational Social Mobility across OECD Countries” as part of “Going for Growth 2010”; it shows the United Kingdom as among the countries where socio-economic background appears to have the largest influence on students’ performance. Although initiatives have been introduced in the past 30 years, it appears there has been little success.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing the debate to the House. Does she agree that more effort needs to be put into boosting self-confidence and self-esteem in children? As she knows, those are prerequisites for mobility, success, and the goal that she is describing. Assuming that the importance of self-confidence is accepted, does she perhaps also believe that school subjects such as music, drama, art, sport and reading out loud in class may need to be given upward value? That is not at all to put a negative slant on the baccalaureate idea or the education policies that we are putting forward, but to underline the importance of the issues in question.
Esther McVey
I do indeed believe that self confidence is crucial. In fact, I led a debate on confidence for girls in particular. There is a lot of evidence, both academic and from Ofsted, that we need to encourage that, which is why I am so impressed with our national citizenship service in which kids from all backgrounds come together to get involved in team play and outdoor pursuits. The 30 children from the Wirral who participated last year said that it was a life-changing experience and that it really boosted their confidence. Yes, confidence needs to be developed both inside and outside school.
We need to look at social mobility as a whole and consider the various interventions that can be made over a life cycle. I welcome the fact that the social justice agenda and the social mobility agenda have come together with an emphasis on fairness and life fairness. Family support and support growing up are crucial.
The Department for Communities and Local Government found that 120,000 families in England have complex social, health and economic problems and it has designated an early family intervention programme. Yes, I know that it will cost £448 million to support such families, but it is in an attempt to break up a never-ending cycle of dependency and under-achievement that ultimately costs the country £9 billion a year. We therefore have not only the evidence to show that we need to take up such a programme to help the lives of people, which so often can be forgotten when we look at numbers, but the economic imperative to ensure that we push it through.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that even beyond the 120,000 most troubled families throughout our society, the gap between rich and poor appears by the age three, which puts into sharp relief the need for support for parenting in the family?
Esther McVey
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. The coalition Government are right to introduce new nursery care for toddlers. There will be 15 hours of free early education a week for all two-year-olds from poor homes, which will help 240,000 disadvantaged children. The pupil premium for disadvantaged children in England’s schools will be worth £600 per pupil per year.
Today, I want to dwell on the sciences not just because the Minister for Universities and Science is present but because it is a passion of mine. An education in the sciences can promote social mobility. As chair of the Chemical Industries Association, I hear on a daily basis about the need for more science students, technicians, engineers and scientists. The jobs are there, but we do not have the children to fill them. Moreover, they are high-paying, life-long jobs with futures. Only last week, I was promoting science in schools with the Chemical Industry Education Centre and one of the companies present admitted that it had taken on 10 post-graduate chemistry places, and, sadly, only one of them went to somebody from the UK—such is the lack of those in the UK with suitable qualifications.
I hear such stories on a weekly and even a daily basis. People comment not just about what is happening on the jobs front but about science education itself. David Braben, who is known for computer games such as Elite and Rollercoaster Tycoon, said:
“We have become a nation of consumers rather than creators in terms of technology in education, and this has implications further down the line.”
Eric Schmidt of Google had a withering summation of the British system, saying that it has forgone teaching computer programmes in schools. He said:
“I was flabbergasted to learn that today computer science isn’t even taught as standard in UK schools...Your IT curriculum focuses on teaching how to use software, but gives no insight into how it’s made.”
The president of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Moshe Kam, said that there were systematic failures in the UK education system, which has serious knock-on effects for the economy.
The fact that our nation, which created and advanced the computer, has now become a nation of consumers is absolutely outrageous. Therefore, how we teach the subject is vital, which is why I welcome the determination of the Secretary of State for Education to have five core subjects taught to everyone in school. We have to start off by pushing five core subjects to everybody from every background, and not just to those who come from a slightly wiser professional background. There must be an imperative in the school system.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I know that my hon. Friend is a doughty fighter on this subject. Does she remember from our conversations after her “Workhouse to Westminster” paper that I too can claim to have descended from people who were in a workhouse? On the issue of the E-bac, she is right to say that we must ensure that we spread these core subjects as widely as possible. However, does she also agree that we must accept that a lot of these kids who will take on these subjects go back to very disturbed backgrounds and difficult home lives? They do not get the same support that someone in a more middle class school might get. We must be careful about what we wish for and we must ensure that proper support is available to those kids to do their best in those subjects.
Esther McVey
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. We must ensure that we give those children the support that they need. I am delighted with the new university technical colleges that Lord Baker, Lord Adonis and Peter Mitchell are fighting for because they could provide people with a startling difference in their life. The timetable starts at 8.30 in the morning and ends at 5 o’clock. It does not matter whether someone comes from a difficult background or has a difficult home life, because they do their homework in school.
I know so many bright children who need an application for their education. For so long, we have learned a subject in isolation without really knowing where it is going. The university technical colleges are addressing that issue. Yes, they are academic, which is excellent, but the fact that they have a longer day and a longer week means that the pupils will have 30% extra time to do projects for companies and to mix with people whom they had never mixed with before, which goes back to the issue of those vital real life role models.
I am glad that we are at last having a discussion about going to university and encouraging people to ask, “Is that really best for me or is an apprenticeship better? Do I really need to get a job?” The Office for National Statistics reports that we now have more than 1.3 million graduates who earn less than the average wage for someone who has been educated to A-level standard. Did university really benefit those people, or did they feel pushed into going to university by quotas for schools? Did a lack of knowledge lead them on to that journey to university? Did university support them in the way that it should?
According to the recruitment agency Adecco, one in five employers says that school leavers make better workers than university graduates. It is crucial to be able to stop for just a second and think, “What is it that I want out of life? What can I do and have the support there?” We should not limit our options at a young age because we did not take the subjects that we would need later on in life. When I was at school, if we did not know what to do, our teachers would say, “Study science for as long as you can because you can do anything with a science O-level”— I am giving my age away now. If youngsters study science at GCSE or A-level, they can always do something. By the way, the lynchpin is chemistry, which is something that we are not always told.
University technical colleges are brilliant. I have read the JCB college booklet and seen what the very first university technical college in Staffordshire is doing. For the children, the experience has been life changing. Some were not doing well in school and feel that they have been given a second opportunity. A life sciences university technical college is coming to north Liverpool, which is associated with the university of Liverpool. Therefore, it will be linked with the university and with business, including Unilever, Novartis, Redx Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb and Provexis. Hot on the heels of the Liverpool university technical college will be the Wirral university technical college. [Interruption.] I notice that the Minister is smiling there. All that is key.
I want to mention, as an aside, the significant effect that Brian Cox has had on the uptake of physics and maths, so much so that the president of the Institute of Physics, Professor Sir Peter Knight, has talked about the Cox effect. He has inspired new physicists and new mathematicians, so much so that applications to Surrey university this year for physics have gone up by 40%. I mention that because how we communicate our message is key. Brian Cox had a platform: television and the media. People found him exciting, innovative and interesting, and they went and did it.
Mr Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. It is entirely up to the hon. Lady for how long she speaks, but there is only 10 minutes left for this debate, and she may want to leave some time for the Minister.
Esther McVey
Thank you, Mr Leigh, for pointing that out. I am just about to come to my questions.
I want to know about our communication strategy. How are we going to reach out to the kids whom we want to help and support, not just to the people who are already going to get it? It is key that we talk about it not only in policy—it is not just about words, but about deeds and actions. I want to mention the Speaker, who will hold an event for me on social mobility tonight, for 150 different people who have all turned their lives around, from business, drama and the arts. He is also giving Back Benchers a voice—he has introduced the Speaker’s parliamentary placement scheme, in which 10 people from different backgrounds are having a new look on life. I have one, and I want him to be known here: Luke Shaw Harvey from Stoke. He is working with me, and I think it is important.
How will we co-ordinate what we are doing? How are we following it through? How are we looking at the impact? What is our media strategy? How are we going to promote science to children? I see science as a great enabler for everyone. What are our careers advice and opportunities? How will we know about and promote the success stories, so that they are part of the cycle of social mobility?
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
Thank you, Mr Leigh, for protecting the Government’s interests by giving me an opportunity to respond to the large number of extremely pertinent questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey). We all know how committed she personally is to the cause of social mobility. I have read the accounts of “If Chloe Can”, and clearly that is exactly the type of initiative that is needed to raise aspirations and for young people to know what they can achieve regardless of their background, and I congratulate her on that.
I also welcome the interventions from my hon. Friends. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on social mobility, and it is great to see him present in the Chamber. My hon. Friends the Members for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) also made important interventions. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole suggested the exciting sub-heading of “Workhouse to Westminster”—it is good to see that the Minister responsible for the workhouse, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), has just arrived in the Chamber. “Workhouse to Westminster” is the motif for our debate today.
The challenge that we have in improving social mobility, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West painted vividly, is one that the coalition is committed to addressing. Probably the most important single document in which we have set out our policies is “Opening Doors, Breaking Barriers: A Strategy for Social Mobility”, which was published last April. It had the important feature of tackling all the different stages of a life cycle, and it showed that at each stage, we had to raise our performance. We have already heard, from the interventions, about the importance of the early years, and we recognise that. That is why we are committed to a new entitlement of 15 hours a week of free early education for two-year-olds, in order to try to tackle the problem in that area.
Coming to school years, the coalition is delivering the pupil premium, which for next year will be worth £600 a year for pupils from tougher backgrounds. The excellent free schools policy is already working, with new free schools being set up. Rising to my hon. Friend’s specific challenge of communication, we also have “Speakers for Schools” and a related programme, “Inspiring Futures”, which aim to get 100,000 people into schools and colleges to talk about their jobs and career routes. The challenge is not just about aspiration—sometimes people have the aspiration, but they do not know how to fulfil their aspiration or understand the routes to get from where they are to what they want to be. Having people who have taken a route through to achieving their ambition in a certain career arrive in a school or college to describe it with practical examples is important to tackle the communication challenge that she identified.
I recognise that universities, which are my particular responsibility, are only one of the routes into a well-paid job, a career and a fulfilling life. It is equally important that people have the opportunity of apprenticeships, which is why the coalition is delivering 100,000 extra apprenticeships. We have achieved that in our first year, and with the excellent leadership of my colleague, the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), we are ahead of that target; we will deliver even more.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West asked about universities. One of the encouraging things about universities is that whereas in the earlier stages of the education process, people from disadvantaged backgrounds, sadly, fall further and further behind, getting to university is the first stage of the process in which it looks as if—the evidence is controversial, but I think the majority of evidence is pretty clear on this—young people from more disadvantaged backgrounds over-achieve compared with others. It is the first stage in which instead of falling further behind, they start catching up. That is why it is important that we do everything we can to ensure access to university, which the coalition is committed to.
Although the decision to go to university or not has to be for an individual, and we want more information for young people as they make their choice, so that they can decide whether going is the right thing for them, nevertheless, I offer to my hon. Friend some figures: on average, graduates earn £32,000 a year, while on average, non-graduates earn £19,000 a year. The averages are pretty compelling.
My hon. Friend referred particularly to science and asked me what we could do on that. There is an excellent initiative of STEMNET ambassadors. These are people who have made practical careers in the sciences, who may have built up a business or may be working as scientists. There are 28,000 of them, 40% of whom are women; it is important to get the gender mix. Again, they go around to schools, science fairs and elsewhere to explain what they have achieved as engineers, scientists or managers, drawing on their expertise and communicating it to young people.
There was an intervention particularly about disabled people. While we sometimes focus exclusively on social background and access to university, we have made it clear in the letters that we have sent to the Office for Fair Access that it should look at other things as well. One that we specifically identified is proper arrangements for disabled students, so that they have an opportunity to learn and do not suffer from excessive drop-out rates.
My hon. Friend also talked about other examples of what could be achieved. She was right to refer to the Speaker’s parliamentary placement scheme. It is important that people have a fair opportunity of internships. We are clear that if young people are in employment, they should be properly paid for it. The Government attach a lot of importance to that.
As well as the Speaker’s parliamentary placement scheme, we should also remember—I suspect that this also applies to several Members present—the Social Mobility Foundation, which also finances people to come to work in the House of Commons if they would not otherwise have been able to afford to do so.
The lesson that the coalition takes from the debate is that yes, we need to intervene at every stage of the life cycle: early years, school, apprenticeships, university and opportunities afterwards. However, nothing beats the personal experience of seeing people who have overcome barriers. What my hon. Friend describes and promotes, not least through the excellent play to which she referred earlier, is fundamental to providing young people with opportunities. I very much support and welcome the efforts that she is personally making.
Inflammatory Bowel Disease
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Leigh.
I called for this debate to draw attention to the crippling effects of one of the country’s most common health conditions and the problems that people living with it face in their working lives. I will be honest: before securing this debate, I knew very little about inflammatory bowel disease. I knew the bare facts, but I did not know the impact that IBD has on sufferers in their daily lives. For example, I did not know that there are more people with IBD than people with multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease. However, if we asked the person on the street about either of those two terrible conditions, I am sure that they would know at least the barest details. By contrast, if we mentioned IBD to someone, it is quite possible that there would be some confused looks and silence. Indeed, when I mentioned this debate to people over the weekend, I had to explain what it was about.
Perhaps the problem comes down to the fact that many of those who live with IBD are often too embarrassed by the symptoms or are afraid to speak out about what they have to go through daily. Living with IBD is particularly difficult as the condition is known to fluctuate and can flare up at any time without warning. What is more, unlike the impact of many debilitating illnesses, the impact of IBD is not always obvious to other people, making it difficult for them to understand what a sufferer is going through.
The problem is particularly acute in the work environment, as someone who is suffering from IBD can find it difficult to tell their employer what is wrong with them. In a survey by Crohn’s and Colitis UK, 78% of people with IBD said they worry about their ability to manage their symptoms in the workplace. In addition, 62% said they worry about not being able to carry out their responsibilities adequately and 36% said they fear losing their job as a result of their condition.
Those of us with a long commute may worry or moan about traffic on the roads or finding a seat on a train, but few of us have to worry about where the nearest toilet is, which really is the difference between being in or out of work for someone with IBD.
Those fears are particularly prevalent among young people with IBD who are about to enter the workplace for the first time. When young people with IBD were asked about their condition, 56% of them said that their condition causes them to rule out some career options that they might otherwise have considered.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I am sorry for not giving the hon. Gentleman notice that I wanted to speak; I had not realised that he had secured this debate. I just want to emphasise the point that he is making. My mother suffers from Crohn’s disease and has twice had operations to remove part of her bowel. On both occasions, she nearly died. I have seen her symptoms daily and growing up as a kid I actually saw her cry because she was unable to get to a public toilet after being refused the use of a toilet—a private toilet—in a shop. This condition really impacts on people’s lives. It changes the whole way in which they have to live and work, and sadly a lot of workplaces are not set up at all for people who have it.
Chris Evans
I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman, and I will develop that point about workplaces further as I go through my speech. I am glad that he has raised it. Very often in this place, we quote statistics and sometimes we use them to bash the Government, but in the middle of all those statistics there are real human tragedies and stories that are taking place. As I have said, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point and I hope that his mother is dealing with life a bit better now.
I want to return to the point that I was making about young people with IBD. At a time when more and more of our young people are struggling to find work, the last thing that we need is for them to rule out career options. Since becoming involved in the campaign to raise awareness of IBD, I have heard story after story from young people who are unable to fulfil their potential because of the problems that the condition causes. This story is particularly common:
“Leanne is a full time foundation degree student from Crewe and has a part time job in a local pub. As a 19 year old she finds it especially hard having an illness which isn’t highly understood or visible. Having a condition which includes side effects like fatigue means not all employers or educational institutions understand the challenges she faces, and she even says that most people mistake this fatigue for laziness. She has had bad experiences in the past with employers and teachers who do not fully understand her condition and what it can mean on a daily basis. She describes herself as a passionate individual who wants to commit to jobs and her education, but finds it difficult on bad days. She has in the past been called “unreliable” during a flare-up of her illness. This ignorance can be damaging and can have a lasting effect on someone so young.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) for bringing this matter to the House. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who spoke earlier, has illustrated very clearly the issues involved. As elected representatives, every one of us has to deal with these issues every day with our constituents.
The hon. Member for Islwyn has referred to work. The civil service in particular seems to have issues with its “early warning scheme”, as it calls it, and there is no flexibility in that system. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that it is time for the civil service to address that issue, so that people who want employment in the civil service can stay in it and not have to leave?
Chris Evans
Yes, absolutely, and that is really the crux of the issue. IBD is not a condition that causes symptoms all the time; there are flare-ups, and then the condition goes back down and people go back to normal life. If there is a problem in the civil service, I hope that the Minister will address it when he responds to the debate.
In today’s economic climate, with youth unemployment at the level that it is, we cannot allow someone with IBD to believe that their condition bars them from the job market. I heard another story of a young person, James, who was diagnosed with IBD in his early teens. James is currently studying for a degree at the university of Sheffield, but he is worried about managing his symptoms in the workplace when he graduates and begins to look for work in what is already a challenging job market. James has said:
“I think the use of the toilet without restrictions has to be paramount. I also think employers should give employees the opportunity to confidentially declare any illnesses which may affect the efficiency of their work. I think employees, regardless of what illness they have, should be allowed to use the facilities, so people who are ill do not feel isolated. Also, I think there should be no stigma attached to having the sudden urge to use the toilet. This is often the case, I would have thought, if you work/live with the same people for a long time. I am concerned that, after having worked so hard to get my first job after I graduate, if I have to have time off for illness or procedures I will be under more pressure in my job. The job market is so competitive and if someone is less ill than me, I will be placed under more pressure due to a situation beyond my control. It is pretty inevitable that I may need time off while working, but due to the competitiveness of the job market there will always someone who will be able to take my place.”
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I congratulate him on securing this debate. In my own company, which I have registered in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, we have experienced this problem, as it affected one of our management team. As a company, we decided that we would facilitate that individual because they were a good worker; they were enthusiastic in what they did. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has raised the issue of the civil service, surely the private sector needs to take a grip of this issue and a company ought to overlook the difficulties that a person—old or young—may have and see the potential benefits they can offer.
Chris Evans
I commend the hon. Gentleman for putting that policy in place in his company. As I have said, when I have spoken to people about IBD there is a real fear of being embarrassed about it and not being able to tell someone about it. If a company creates a culture or an environment where an employee can go to their boss and say, “I’ve got this condition,” in many cases the problem can be overcome and resolved. As the hon. Gentleman has this example of something that has worked, I hope that it can be passed on to the Minister, perhaps to solve the problem that the hon. Member for Strangford raised about the civil service.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene on him, and I do so to support the point that he is making. I have had a colostomy, having suffered from bowel cancer. As an individual, I made a huge point of being very public about that fact, including about the ways that I have dealt with the disease. And I must say that that approach has given a lot of people in my constituency hope. A disease such as bowel cancer is not something that is embarrassing any more. People talk about bowel cancer and bowel issues now as part of normal life, and it is hugely important that people in the public eye—as we used to call it—talk about these conditions and do not hide them away, so that they become more accepted by everybody else.
Chris Evans
I remember the hon. Gentleman in his previous life as a Welsh Assembly Member, and I also remember the good work that he did to raise awareness about this issue. I hope that more people follow his example and raise awareness of what is a really serious situation.
Returning to my example, when they graduate, people such as James may be too embarrassed to ask for help from careers advisers or Jobcentre Plus staff, who are already feeling the strain caused by the sheer volume of people whom they are trying to get back into work.
Some people do not even make it to university due to the challenges that they face in their teenage years from IBD. Here is an example of such a person:
“Because of immune suppressants which I take to manage my IBD, I have a very low immune system and become very ill, very quickly. I have already missed one year and I have had to re-sit my A levels. I feel a complete failure. I wanted to become an architect but I just cannot keep up with my studies. I feel I have let myself and my family down and my career is only just supposed to be starting.”
There are endless stories of young people with IBD who are worried and concerned about their future. A diagnosis of IBD should not mean that a person has to restrict their ambitions, whatever those ambitions are. The prospect of starting work is particularly daunting for anybody leaving school or university, but it is made even harder for those who are simultaneously coming to terms with a long-term health condition.
Many employers lack knowledge of IBD, which complicates the problem further. A study undertaken by Crohn’s and Colitis UK found that two thirds of employers admitted to knowing very little or nothing at all about the needs of employees with IBD. When asked to name some of the symptoms of IBD, most were unable to name any, while others displayed a misunderstanding of the condition. One even attributed IBD to a lack of “work passion”. That could not be further from the truth, as we see from the example of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies). Half of people with the condition revealed that they feel they need to put in additional effort to compensate for the time they take off for hospital or doctor’s appointments.
There are steps that employers can take to provide extra support for employees who suffer with IBD. There are simple adjustments, such as allowing an employee with IBD to visit the toilet when needed and, if possible, sit near a bathroom. That can help an IBD sufferer stay in employment and not feel awkward about the condition when they are in work. Some 65% of people with IBD believe that the opportunity to work flexible hours could maximise their productivity.
I do not want anyone to think that young people are the only group to be affected by the condition, as we have seen with examples today.
Andrew Percy
On the issue of work ability, there needs to be an acceptance not only that sufferers need to use the toilet, but that a lot of people rely on vitamin B12 injections. As one gets nearer the time for the injection, energy levels drop. Employers need to recognise that there could well be a change in work patterns as the time for the injection approaches.
Chris Evans
That was the point that I was trying to make. All we are looking for is a little understanding from employers. We are not asking for a great change in legislation. We want them to foster an environment where people do not feel embarrassed about going to their employers about their condition and that, when they do have to take medication, they are allowed time to do so. That will not affect anyone’s productivity; if anything, it will improve it.
As I have said, I do not want anyone to think that only young people face this problem. Some are forced to take early retirement due to the unpredictable nature of their disease. Until last year, John was a university lecturer. He found that working and living with a chronic condition such as inflammatory bowel disease was too much to cope with. He was unable to rely on the stability of his bowels while giving lectures. He chose to take early retirement without much of a fight. It took 18 months to get his pension released early on partial incapacity grounds, which took a toll, as his condition was going through a flare-up. Even though he has come to terms with his current medication, in order to help keep his symptoms under control, the IBD is difficult to live with and dictates how much travel he can do on a daily basis. It has been financially tough on John and his family, as he was the sole source of income, which has now been halved. The majority of his lump-sum payment made on retirement had to be used to fit a downstairs toilet.
I do not have to tell anyone how important it is to keep people in work, particularly in this economic climate. However, we have to accept that people with fluctuating health conditions may be in or out of work, and employers have to adapt to the different needs of those with the illness.
Jim Shannon
One clear issue is the disability living allowance and the benefits system. Does the hon. Gentleman feel there are occasions—I am aware of them—when the benefits system is not flexible enough to enable someone to achieve disability living allowance and to return to work later, if they have to?
Chris Evans
That is why we need flexibility in the benefits system. When people have this debilitating disease that very often stops them from working—they cannot do anything, they cannot leave the house—they cannot claim benefit. They do not even slip into the system or anything like that. That has to be borne in mind.
In the week that we are debating the remaining stages of the Welfare Reform Bill, it is important that the benefits system reflects the different needs and requirements of those with fluctuating health conditions. It is crucial that those with IBD do not struggle to cope at work through illness, or live in poverty when they are unable to work. I have heard stories about people with the disease having no income, which forces them out to work. Take this testimony:
“As my symptoms are not regular, I do not qualify for any benefits. So when I am actually too ill to work, I must simply either choose not to work or lose money. It is stressful having to explain the situation without going into too much detail.”
The Government need to recognise the disabling elements of long-term fluctuating conditions such as IBD and include provision for those in the benefits system. The importance of that is underlined by the Government’s introduction of universal credit, and the need to attend back-to-work interviews. The unpredictable nature of IBD means that people with the condition, who are required to attend interviews and undertake other work-related activities, may at times require flexibility, should they experience a flare-up of their condition.
Ultimately, IBD does not have to hinder someone’s work potential. People live with the condition and make a positive impact in the world of work every day. All they ask for is sensitivity and understanding. I do not think that is too much. Therefore, I believe that employers, health professionals and policy makers have a duty to ensure that there is a greater understanding for those with fluctuating conditions such as IBD.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh. I congratulate the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing the debate. What we have heard in the past 15 minutes is an example of this House at its best, where we all seek in as positive a way as possible to have an influence on the lives of people who are struggling with very challenging circumstances. There is no doubt that that applies to those who suffer from the two main conditions we are discussing in this debate, Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, both known as inflammatory bowel disease. We understand that they are serious conditions. In severe cases they require hospital treatment and surgery, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), and they make life extremely difficult for those who suffer from them.
I would like to deal with the hon. Gentleman’s questions in two parts. In the latter part of his remarks he referred to how we treat people with the conditions in the benefit system. I would like to touch on that first, and then on employment and universal credit, which I believe will help people with fluctuating conditions.
I start with the question of ensuring that we provide appropriate support through the benefit system for those unable to work because of the scale of their condition. We seek through the work capability assessment to take sensible decisions about those with fluctuating conditions. I hope and believe that the work we have put in place over the past 18 months will improve the way the WCA works and responds to fluctuating conditions. We are continuing to look at how to improve the process in relation to fluctuating conditions.
Where the effects of the condition are such that an individual is unable to work, they will and should receive appropriate support by way of employment and support allowance. Individuals with IBD are most likely to score under the incontinence descriptor of the WCA, which recognises that in the workplace an important consideration is personal dignity. It looks at continence in relation to the ability to maintain continence of bladder or bowel or prevent leakage from a collecting device. Additionally, individuals who are either moderately or severely affected by the disease may also have restrictions in a number of other work capability assessment areas, for example, where there is low body weight, malnutrition, persistent pain and fatigue.
As a result of the hon. Gentleman initiating the debate and a number of other people raising concerns with my office recently about these particular fluctuating conditions, we have looked again at how we are handling people with the conditions who are going through the work capability assessment, because I want to ensure that we get it right. In fact, all we have identified is that people with a primary diagnosis of the two different IBDs we are talking about are more likely than other groups to be allowed employment and support allowance, to reflect the high level of debilitation experienced by many individuals with such conditions.
The majority of people with IBD who have completed their work capability assessment are allowed employment and support allowance. The statistics show that they are more likely by around a third to be placed in the support group or the work-related activity group than the employment and support allowance client group as a whole. I think we see a picture of a system that is reflective of the nature of the challenges that these people face. We will not always get it right; I never pretend that that will be the case. From what I can establish, we are already reflecting, in the way we handle people with IBD, a recognition of the severe and significant issues it can pose for sufferers.
The work capability assessment considers each case on its merits. Alongside that, it is important to state that, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, many people can and should continue to work. There is a duty to ensure that employers understand, help, and work with people to make sure that they stay in the workplace, and I praise him for his comments on that. We have therefore ensured that the work capability assessment recognises that some people can manage their conditions successfully and return to work. In some cases, symptoms might be less severe, or might fluctuate so that they are unable to work for only short periods. Others might respond well to medication and be unlikely to have any long-term functional restrictions. For those people, it is important that we provide them either with appropriate support to stay in the workplace or with help to get back to work.
We can all play a role, as the hon. Gentleman is doing today. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) for his comments. One great strength of the House is that we can take a lead. Sometimes we might be frustrated that individually, as Members of Parliament, we cannot wave a wand and change something overnight, but we have the ability to access, influence, create platforms and shape the way people think. Within our constituencies and beyond, we have the ability to influence the way employers think, as the hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly seeking to do today. I commend the message that he is sending out. It is one that I hope Members will continue to send in relation not only to IBD but to the many fluctuating conditions that make people’s lives more difficult, although they should not and need not make it impossible for people to stay in the workplace. A bit of understanding from an employer can go a long way in preserving skills important to the organisation while giving employees the flexibility to deal with the challenges that they face.
However, for those who are struggling and finding that their employers are less supportive, which is bound to happen, we seek to personalise support for each individual through the work done by Jobcentre Plus and the Work programme. Along with both sets of organisations delivering support for the unemployed— our Jobcentre Plus offices up and down the country, and the different organisations working with the Work programme—we seek to individualise support as much as possible and ensure that we match individuals to employers.
One great way to overcome the challenges that people with different disabilities and health problems face in the workplace is by matching individuals to employers who understand, respect and support them. We encourage our Work programme providers and Jobcentre Plus offices to work closely with charitable groups for people who face different health challenges in order to ensure that organisations have the best possible understanding of the support that they need, so that we can do job-matching work to the best of our abilities.
In addition, where mainstay provision is not appropriate, we provide specialist support through Access to Work and Work Choice, which are available to the individuals with the most complex support needs. Each year, Work Choice aims to help about 9,000 people with disability and health problems into work, and Access to Work provides support to about 35,000 individuals.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole that it is essential for employers to make reasonable adjustments, which might include unrestricted access to toilets for people with IBD. It is common decency, and there is no earthly reason not to. I know we have not always moved beyond the world in which we have lived, but one would hope that in today’s world, not many employers would deny someone access to a toilet. I believe that in most of our economy—ideally, in all of it—that should be a management practice of the past. Employers now have a duty under the Equality Act 2010, and they are putting themselves at risk if they do not pay attention to an individual’s needs, if those needs are reasonable and sensible. I certainly regard unrestricted access to a toilet as being entirely that.
We are also trying to ensure that all those who work with us in the Department for Work and Pensions networks and who have a responsibility for health care—particularly health care professionals working with people undergoing the WCA and, in due course and Parliament permitting, the assessment for the new personal independence payment—have an understanding of the nature of the health conditions that they will confront in their work. The doctors and nurses working with us and Atos Healthcare on the assessments, for example, already have a knowledge of IBD from their professional training. However, those who are not from such a background—physiotherapists, for example—undertake a training module on inflammatory bowel disease as part of their work capability assessment induction. A learning set on continence, including a focus on IBD, is offered to health care professionals as part of the Atos Healthcare continuing medical education programme. To assist them in their knowledge of such conditions, health care professionals also have access to an evidence-based repository.
We try hard to ensure that we provide the people who work for us with access to information about fluctuating conditions, mental health problems and other issues that they will come across in their duties, so that they are as well placed as possible to be responsive in their decision-making and to get those decisions right. We have no interest whatever in getting such decisions about people wrong. This is about taking the right decisions and providing support for people who have the potential or are perfectly able to continue to work, and then finding the right employers for them. However, it is also about understanding the limits of an individual’s ability to work and ensuring that we do not end up making someone work who cannot realistically do so.
We are continuing to work to improve our knowledge, understanding and processes, and the responsiveness of those processes, for people with fluctuating conditions. In the past few months, our adviser on the work capability assessment, Professor Malcolm Harrington, has carried out a project in partnership with organisations that represent people with Crohn’s disease, IBD and other fluctuating conditions to enable us to understand better how we can improve our processes to ensure that we take well-informed, appropriate decisions. The group has made a number of recommendations to us through Professor Harrington. We are considering our response, but I have given a clear commitment that the Government will do everything that we realistically and reasonably can to improve the way we work and ensure that we take the right decisions.
It is important, too, to find the dividing line. That will always be a difficult challenge for any Government, because, as the hon. Gentleman has said, there are two sets of points. The first is about employment and the need to get things right for those in work, and the second is about the need to get things right in our benefits system for those who cannot work. Finding a dividing line between the two is very difficult. There is no simple black-and-white answer to the two sides of that problem. The Government must do everything we can in our assessments and judgments to make our decision-making as accurate as possible. There is no exact science, of course. When we come to that grey area, no individual on the borderline is definitely able or unable to work.
I give the hon. Gentleman every commitment that our goal is to get right what we do. In all our reforms, including the reforms coming through Parliament this week to which he referred, it is not our wish or intention to do the wrong thing by people who find themselves in a difficult position in their lives. We have to find the correct approach in one of two different routes. It might involve finding the right support to get them into work; it might involve getting them into the benefit system. However, what we are trying to avoid is sending people down the wrong route: for example, somebody with the potential to work who is not asked to do so, or somebody who has the potential to work but is not encouraged to do so.
All of our reforms are about taking the right decisions, as far as we possibly can, by those individuals, and providing support, knowledge, and understanding for people with such conditions. We will not always get it right, but we will do our best to do so, and to deepen knowledge and understanding right across the workings of the DWP about IBD and other fluctuating conditions suffered by the people whom we seek to help.
Offshore Renewable Energy (East Anglia)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh. I am very pleased to have secured this debate, because it provides an opportunity to focus on the East Anglia offshore renewable energy industry at a particularly important time in its fledgling life. Much work has already been carried out, both by the Government and industry, and exciting times lie ahead, if the right policy and investment decisions are made and seen through.
The future can be bright; thousands of new jobs can be created; the economy can be rebalanced towards the regions and towards engineering and specialist manufacturing; and the country can have a source of energy that is secure, stable in terms of price and environmentally friendly. Looking further ahead, we can build an industry that can compete on a global stage, with firms taking their services and skills around the world, and in due course we can become net exporters of electricity, instead of being importers vulnerable to fluctuations in fossil fuel prices.
We are at the dawn of a new era. The two largest wind farm developers off the coast of East Anglia—Scottish and Southern Energy and East Anglia Offshore Wind—are about to enter important stages in the process of obtaining the necessary statutory approvals for their developments. Moreover, the Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth enterprise zone, which is focused on the offshore energy sector, will come into operation on 1 April.
These are exciting times, but it is important that we ensure that we realise the full potential that this opportunity presents for the East Anglia economy. The Thanet wind farm is a great engineering feat, but much of the value generated by that project went to companies outside the UK. Non-UK ports have been large beneficiaries of the round 1 and 2 offshore wind farm projects. Lessons must be learned so that we can ensure that our coastal communities, such as that in Lowestoft in Waveney, which I represent, benefit fully from this opportunity.
Much good work has already been done and the foundations have been laid. The original foundation stone, which has been there since time immemorial, is the North sea, one of this island’s most vital assets. It is a great resource, out of which the fishing industry in Lowestoft and other ports was created, only to be reduced to a shadow of its former self by the common fisheries policy. The North sea also gave us the oil and gas industry, which has many features that are transferrable to the renewable energy sector—skills, a supply chain of approximately 500 businesses employing more than 10,000 people across Suffolk and Norfolk, and the best health and safety regime in the world. Now the North sea offers another dividend, in the form of wind in the immediate future and, in due course and with the right nurturing, wave and tidal power.
I should emphasise that, while I want to ensure that we realise the full potential that the North sea has to offer, I am conscious that it is an asset, a treasure that we should nurture for future generations. The role of guardian is played by organisations such as the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, which is based in Lowestoft, has a long track record of applying science in the management of fisheries and provides sound impartial advice to support the green economy.
The OrbisEnergy centre in Lowestoft has become a centre of excellence for the offshore renewables sector. Six sites in and around Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft form part of the enterprise zone. The New Anglia local enterprise partnership is a green economy pathfinder, and Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth ports have been granted CORE status as one of five centres for offshore renewable engineering.
All that work is to be applauded, but various challenges need to be addressed if the industry’s full potential is to be realised in East Anglia, and I shall outline those challenges in the time remaining. The first is the policy framework. The offshore renewable industry is highly mobile—investment will flow to the most attractive destinations. It is, therefore, important that the Government send out the right message that there is a stable fiscal regime and a secure support mechanism to encourage the necessary investment in new technologies.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) addressed the need for a stable fiscal regime when he referred to the oil and gas sector during his Adjournment debate last week. On the need for a reliable support mechanism, the Government’s proposals in the consultation on renewables obligation banding for offshore wind and wave and tidal technologies are acceptable to the industry, but it is vital that those for offshore wind are not reduced any further, because that could delay the projects, and wind supply chain companies might be tempted towards competing European nations.
It is also important that electricity market reform mechanisms are delivered quickly and at a level that gives confidence to developers, investors, manufacturers and contractors to invest in the post-2017 opportunities that will come from the round 3 wind farms.
On the wave and tidal sector, the proposed five renewables obligation certificates per megawatt-hour will help the UK maintain its lead over the other competing nations in this emerging sector, and that can be reinforced if support is forthcoming from the green investment bank. It is also important that the UK takes a lead role in developing transparent European market rules that in due course will allow us to export surplus renewable energy to Europe and vice versa.
The second challenge is planning. As I have said, both SSE and EAOW are at crucial stages in obtaining consent for their developments. There is a concern that the consent process is taking too long, that statutory bodies are not showing sufficient flexibility in considering applications and that they should adopt what the developers call the Rochdale envelope approach.
Delays could have a negative knock-on effect on investment decisions in relation to the wind farms themselves, in terms of the creation and reinforcement of supply chains and in relation to grid connections. That could lead to a loss of confidence in the UK sector just as it has become a world leader. It is important that decisions are made promptly and that statutory consultees are properly funded to cope with the number of planning applications, which will increase dramatically with round 3 applications.
RenweableUK, the trade body for the wind and marine industry, has recommended the establishment of a stakeholder resource fund to build capacity and expertise among statutory consulting bodies. It recommends a total spend over the next three years of £12 million and that the industry should be open to considering the possibility of making contributions itself.
Further down the line—although this is already concentrating people’s minds in Suffolk and Norfolk—is how best to connect the East Anglia Array, which will generate electricity equivalent to five Sizewell C power stations, to the national grid.
Traditionally in Britain, electricity has been generated in the north and the midlands and has been transported up and down the spine of the country. We are now looking to change this axis so as to transmit power in an east-west direction. It is important that, if possible, use is made of the existing infrastructure. At present, the National Grid Company is establishing whether that will be possible. If not, it will be necessary to provide a new transmission route. In doing so, open dialogue will be vital from the outset between communities, the National Grid Company and councils, to ensure that all factors are taken into account when determining the most appropriate and best means of transmission, whether overground or underground, and when determining cost—both immediate and whole life—and environmental impact.
All parties must face up to this challenge. With 25% of the current electricity generating capacity due to be retired by 2016, it is important to move quickly to ensure that the lights do not go out. At the same time, however, we must not unnecessarily blight what is a special landscape.
Thirdly, it is important that we ensure that people in Suffolk and Norfolk have the necessary skills to take up the many jobs that will be created. At a recent seminar on supporting young people in Waveney, which I held jointly with Jobcentre Plus, Mark Jones, the managing director of Lowestoft-based AKD Engineering, spoke graphically about the importance of doing this and the fact that, if we do not, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to bring prosperity back to the Lowestoft and Yarmouth area will be lost, with work going elsewhere. The further education and apprenticeship policies that have been enthusiastically promoted by the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning provide an ideal basis on which to build, but we also need to promote the teaching of science, technology, engineering and maths in our schools.
The technology and innovation centre for renewable energy needs to be up and running as soon as possible, and I hope that organisations such as OrbisEnergy and CEFAS in my constituency will play an important role in that project. The private sector and the East of England Energy Group, through its skills for energy programme, also have a key role to play, and it is important that national and local government work with them.
Fourthly, it is important that the supply chain is reinforced. The enterprise zone and CORE designations will help do that. We should promote manufacturing processes, whether they involve turbine manufacturing, foundation manufacturing or the provision of sleeves for turbines. If we can encourage those to take place in East Anglian ports, it will help to support supply chain businesses. That will lead to costs being driven down, which will make offshore wind more affordable and, in turn, will consolidate the UK’s position as a world leader in this sector.
A problem that supply chain companies often face is that they need three types of contract to come together at the same time: the contract with the wind farm developer for the provision of a piece of equipment, the contracts with sub-contractors for component parts, and, finally, a financing agreement with their bank. At present, securing any one of those three types of contract requires certainty on at least one of the other two. That leads to an unenviable chicken and egg problem. A means of addressing that dilemma would be for the green investment bank to offer loan guarantees to offshore wind projects entering the construction phase. I would be grateful if the Minister could look into that.
Finally, I come to infrastructure. Good infrastructure is vital. In previous debates, I have emphasised the importance of improving road, rail and broadband links to the East Anglian coast, which is very much at the end of a line. I will not restate that case here, other than to repeat the need for investment in the road network in and around Lowestoft, which is currently gridlocked as a result of sewer repairs taking place in Station square.
Instead, I want to emphasise the importance of two other types of infrastructure investment—first, ports and, secondly, the grid. The enterprise zone and the CORE initiatives will help Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth ports, but they are at a disadvantage both when compared with other British ports that are in assisted areas and that benefit from capital allowances and the £60 million UK ports competition, and when compared with European ports that are in public ownership. I wholeheartedly support the tradition of private sector investment in UK ports and the advantages of innovation and dynamism brought to the industry by a market-based approach. However, East Anglian ports need to be able to compete on a level playing field. I therefore urge the Government to consider the provision of a three-year replacement fund that would act as the equivalent of the capital allowances and port infrastructure funding that is available elsewhere.
With regard to the grid, there is the need not only for upgrading with additional transmission and distribution capacity, as I have mentioned, but for a smart grid and a European supergrid. That would allow peaks and troughs in electricity generation to be smoothed out while enhancing security of supply and, in due course, enabling Britain to export electricity, thereby helping the balance of payments.
In conclusion, this is not a plea for a blank cheque, although the coastal communities fund should recognise the contribution of offshore wind farms to the UK economy. The Government have already made a significant investment and are pursuing the right policies. However, we need to ensure that such policies come to fruition and that they hit their two targets: first, to achieve a secure low-carbon energy supply with less price volatility and, secondly, to build a new industry in which Britain is a world leader and to create new jobs.
East Anglian people and businesses want to be at the forefront of this drive. On their behalf, I conclude by saying this to the Minister: work with us and together we can not only hit these targets, but achieve the economic growth that this country so urgently needs at the current time.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh. I am delighted to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing the debate. He has shown a long-term interest in the scope for East Anglia to become a leader in renewable technologies and, within the Department of Energy and Climate Change, we are very grateful indeed for his constant support. I am delighted that he is supported today by some of my hon. Friends who represent Suffolk constituencies. They share his ambitions for East Anglia and how it can take advantage of the opportunities that are clearly there.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there are bright prospects for East Anglia and that this is an area where international opportunities could develop for the businesses setting up and operating within Norfolk and Suffolk. The expertise they can gather is something they can certainly take overseas as well. Earlier on in this Government, the Prime Minister said that we would be the greenest Government ever. The actions that we in DECC have since taken have shown how seriously we take that commitment.
I well remember my visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency a year ago, when I had the chance to go with him to the OrbisEnergy centre to meet some local business leaders to try to understand the commitment, enthusiasm and excellence that they can bring to this area. On that visit, I was also pleased to have a chance to go to Great Yarmouth, Sizewell and Norwich to see for myself how well poised East Anglia is to take forward opportunities in the low-carbon sector. I have also had opportunities since then to talk to the New Anglia local enterprise partnership. I am very encouraged by its enthusiasm and commitment to make the best case for businesses in East Anglia and to address the skills issue, which my hon. Friend rightly mentioned.
As my hon. Friend said, since my visit, both Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth have been designated centres for offshore renewable engineering, or COREs. That is a great achievement and a tribute to the skills that are already based in those areas. Both towns are home to an impressive energy sector supply chain, with some 500 businesses employing more than 10,000 staff directly within the two port areas, and many times more people in the wider supply chain spread across East Anglia more generally.
My hon. Friend raised the issue about supply chain opportunities. I want to reassure him that the Government are not neutral about that. We are sending a clear message to those who are developing the offshore facilities that we would like them to give British companies every opportunity to pitch for their business. My concern is that sometimes they are not even on the tender list. We are going to great lengths to ensure that they get the chance to pitch. At the end of the day, it is a commercial decision, but we are very happy to call up the chairman and the chief executives of those companies investing here to highlight to them the strengths of British companies and those companies operating out of the United Kingdom in this area.
My hon. Friend also raised the issue of the UK ports funding scheme. As he will be aware, that shifted from being a ports project across the whole of the United Kingdom to an economic development scheme, because we felt it was important to link the development of the port to a specific economic activity. As a result, under EU state aid rules, the funding can go only to assisted areas. However, it is encouraging to note the extent to which companies are willing to look outside the assisted areas for where they see the right port facilities and the rights skills base. We are seeing some good, encouraging interest from companies looking at the United Kingdom more generally.
Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft are home to some of the leading offshore wind companies, including ScottishPower Renewables, Vattenfall, SSE, Seajacks, ODE, Gardline, SLP Smulders, CLS, Petrofac and AMEC, among others. Lowestoft is already the operations base for the Greater Gabbard wind farm and is well positioned to take advantage of future developments. Later this year, we expect the first offshore wind project from the East Anglia zone—East Anglia ONE—to submit its application for development consent to the Infrastructure Planning Commission. East Anglia is well positioned to take advantage of future wind farm developments.
My hon. Friend understandably picked up the issue of planning. During this year, those decision-making powers will be transferred from the Infrastructure Planning Commission, where such decisions are currently taken, directly to Ministers. The one thing we have been absolutely clear to enshrine in that is the time scale. The final decision will be taken by Ministers, which means there will be no extra delays as a result of the process. Somebody can be sure that, within just over a year of submitting their application, they will have a determination. What frustrates people most is not being turned down; it is the absence of a decision at all. People want to know whether their investment is likely to go ahead and therefore we are keen to ensure that they have that clarity.
I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the future of the UK’s energy supply has to be secure, flexible and low carbon. We envisage a mix of low-carbon generation made up of new nuclear, carbon capture and storage, and renewable sources. We must also combine that with energy efficiency, as the cheapest energy of all is the energy not used. In all those areas—nuclear, carbon capture and storage and renewable sources—East Anglia has an extremely important role to play. The skills base and expertise that are already there are very encouraging and the ambitions of the companies involved to take this forward is something we can truly celebrate.
Renewable energy, and offshore renewables in particular, are set to be a major part of our future energy supply. Some technologies, such as onshore and offshore wind, are already established and some, such as wave and tidal, are still emerging, which is why we have given the higher level of ROC support to them. It is absolutely clear that offshore wind will play an important part in the UK’s energy future. It is a low-carbon energy source. It is also a domestic energy source, which means that it will play a role in securing our long-term energy security.
The UK is already the world’s biggest offshore wind market. We are working hard to maintain that position, and are determined to do so. We already have the most installed capacity and this is only the beginning. We also have the biggest pipeline of projects to 2020 of any country. Deployment of offshore wind will require an investment of tens of billions of pounds. For that huge sum to be invested by industry, we need to do all we can to ensure that developers, investors and manufacturers have confidence in the market and see the UK as the No.1 destination for their money.
Electricity market reform, as my hon. Friend rightly says, will give confidence and long-term visibility to investors, and will encourage the investment we need to renew our generating infrastructure. We have seen great progress in just a year-and-a-half, since the Government were elected. It was not even on the agenda before the election. In the course of just more than a year-and-a-half, we have established the structure of an entirely new electricity market—massive progress that we will shortly enshrine in legislation, but with ongoing discussions with developers to ensure that, if they need to make earlier decisions, they will understand how the funding will work to secure their investments.
Our reforms to the planning system will ensure faster, more efficient consenting, while retaining democratic accountability. We are currently considering the responses to the consultation on the bands for the renewables obligation to ensure appropriate levels of support for renewable technologies and value for the taxpayer and consumers. We are creating the green investment bank, to which my hon. Friend referred, to deliver financial interventions that address market failures specific to green investment needs, thereby supporting growth and environmental objectives. One of the priority areas for the green investment bank will be offshore wind.
We are working with Ofgem to ensure cheaper and timelier offshore grid connections, to encourage innovation through competition, and to enable new entrants to compete in the market. Ofgem has already run one successful tender round for offshore transmission and is in the process of running a second.
My hon. Friend rightly raised the issue of onshore grid issues. This week, the Institute of Engineering and Technology publishes a very authoritative report, which goes into more detail than anything I have ever seen before, about the comparative costs of undergrounding and overgrounding. Where it is possible to use existing infrastructure, that should of course be part of the process, because significant concerns have been raised.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on all his work in pushing Suffolk to be the greenest county and for Waveney to develop a national leading hub, and I acknowledge the support given by the Minister.
The issue of where cabling goes is very important. Suffolk wants to be the greenest county, just as the Government want to be the greenest Government, but it would be a contradiction in terms if developing the green hub means putting pylons all over the countryside. I ask for the Minister’s support in pushing those energy companies hard to ensure that pylons are not installed in a way that will destroy the beautiful Suffolk countryside.
Charles Hendry
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest and for the recent event he hosted for businesses in East Anglia to talk about that matter. He raises an issue that is current and important. We face the absolute fact that when electricity is generated we need to find ways of getting it to market, and that requires a massive upgrading of our grid infrastructure. We have made changes to how that is dealt with. In a national policy statement on grid, we talked about the need to explore alternatives to overgrounding. The report published this week by the IET is a further example of our determination to get a clear understanding of the facts. The companies involved—National Grid, in particular—are in no doubt whatever about the public anxiety that this can create, and they are looking at ways of ameliorating that. I am encouraged from my discussions with them that they are keen to explore how best to ensure that a new generation comes through in a way that is harmonious with the communities through which that electricity will pass.
Offshore wind is quickly making the jump from an emerging technology to a major part of the UK’s electricity supply. Through the industry-led Offshore Wind Cost Reduction Task Force, we are working to create an action plan to bring down the costs of offshore wind to make it cost-competitive with other forms of low-carbon generation. The task force will report to Ministers in spring. It is clear that industry and investors recognise our commitment to offshore wind. Many companies, including those in East Anglia, are gaining access to that new market. I want the UK to benefit from the jobs associated with offshore wind, not just from the low-carbon electricity. I want UK companies not just to supply UK wind farms, but to start supplying other countries, too.
The supply chain is already building up to support the wind sector, and it is doing good business. As this debate is focused upon East Anglia, let me just pick a few recent examples since April 2011. Gaoh Energy, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, has secured a met mast order for the Moray Firth offshore wind development. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), there is a new energy skills centre, where courses will be offered to support the UK offshore wind industry from early 2012. It will eventually be able to accommodate more than 200 young people a year on engineering and welding courses. Wells Harbour, in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), has secured contracts for work at Sheringham Shoal offshore wind farm.
We are therefore already seeing some key investments coming forward, and not just in the domestic market. Seajacks, which is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), has won a £100 million order to supply the Meerwind offshore wind farm in Germany. There is no doubt that the levels of deployment we are likely to see in the UK and in Europe are far in excess of current production capacity—rapid scaling up will be needed. That offers the potential for significant employment and economic benefit for the UK, with the opportunity to create a broad manufacturing base in a high-value-added sector that, partly as a result of the sheer size of the turbines, really needs to be somewhere close by. I intend it to be here in the UK.
The industry is at an early stage of development, but is set for huge growth. The UK is well placed to make the most of it, and the Government intend to do so. We have a strong research and development capability, and some excellent engineering, technology and manufacturing opportunities. In East Anglia, I have seen for myself some of the outstanding examples of businesses that are ready and able to take advantage of those opportunities. I have met the people in the local authorities who are determined to ensure that the educational provision is there to bring forward the skill set. I have met with the local enterprise partnership, too. That, combined with the immense commitment and enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, and my hon. Friends from other parts of the county, shows that this is an area with immense potential and we look forward to it being realised.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Trade Policy (Opt-ins)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)
I wish to inform the House that the Government have opted in to the following trade policy measures:
(i) the Council decisions relating to the accession of Russia and Samoa to the World Trade Organisation;
(ii) the Council decisions on the signing, provisional application and conclusion of a side agreement with Russia, preserving commitments in the current EU-Russia partnership and co-operation agreement, following Russia’s accession to the WTO; and
(iii) the Council decisions on the signing and conclusion of the trade agreement between the European Union and Colombia and Peru.
In each case, opting in will help to achieve the Government’s trade policy objectives of expanding the WTO’s membership and pursuing trade liberalisation through the conclusion of EU free trade agreements with third countries.
The Government have supported the accession of Russia to the WTO on the right terms. In acceding to the WTO, Russia will embrace a series of rules and commitments which form the foundation of an open, transparent and non-discriminatory global trading system and which will provide important guarantees for Russia and for the other WTO members. Accession to the WTO will bring Russia more firmly into the global economy and make it a more attractive place to do business.
The Government have supported the accession of least developed countries (LDCs) such as Samoa to the WTO. Becoming a member of the WTO will allow Samoa to benefit from WTO market access and global trading rules and the transparency of the WTO trading system. It will also be able to use the WTO dispute settlement mechanism to solve its differences with other members and fully participate in the ongoing negotiations to design the trade rules of the future.
The intention of the side agreement with Russia is to maintain commitments in maritime transport services and in mode 4—the temporary movement of natural persons for business purposes—offered by Russia to the EU bilaterally which would otherwise fall away on Russia’s accession to the WTO.
The Government have supported the EU trade agreement with Colombia and Peru. This agreement will provide a range of benefits and reassurances for UK trade and investment in Peru and Colombia, including liberalisation of Peruvian and Colombian tariffs in key sectors for UK exports. It also includes a robust essential elements clause which covers both human rights and weapons of mass destruction, either of which can be invoked as reason for suspension of trade preferences.
In each case, the Council decisions extended in some way the UK’s commitments in mode 4. These commitments are an integral part of our trade commitments at the WTO and of the trade agreement with Colombia and Peru. It is the presence of these commitments in the relevant instruments which triggers the UK Justice and Home Affairs opt-in.
In the case of the decisions on the accessions of Russia and Samoa and the related side agreement with Russia, I regret that it was not possible to allow the normal eight weeks for parliamentary scrutiny. This was due to the late conclusion of the negotiations, particularly with Russia, and the consequent late presentation by the Commission of the relevant draft Council decisions, while we still needed to agree positions in Council ahead of the WTO ministerial on 15 to 17 December.
Bilateral Loan (Ireland)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
I would like to update Parliament on the loan to Ireland.
Ireland completed the fourth quarterly review of its International Monetary Fund and European Union programme of financial assistance on 14 December 2011, at which point the utilisation period for the second instalment of the UK bilateral loan began.
Upon request, the Treasury has disbursed the second instalment of £403.37 million on 30 January 2012, with a maturity date of 30 July 2019.
HM Treasury will provide a further report to Parliament, as required under the Loans to Ireland Act 2010, at the end of this reporting period.
The Government believe that it is in our national interest that the Irish economy is successful and its banking system is stable. The Government continue to support Ireland’s efforts to improve its economic situation.
Changes to the Building Regulations
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
I am today announcing a consultation on changes to the building regulations regime in England. I believe the proposals, by seizing the opportunity to deregulate where possible while delivering even better levels of compliance and energy efficiency in buildings, will support our commitment ensuring that our buildings are safe and sustainable whilst helping to secure future growth and employment by means of a robust and effective bedrock of regulation.
Our proposals build on ideas and suggestions provided by our external partners. We will continue to engage with partners and will also take into account the contributions to the current red tape challenge exercise as we finalise these proposals.
The Government are committed to reducing the burden that falls on business as a result of regulation. The consultation we are publishing today includes proposals which provide annual net savings to business of £63.1 million:
Proposals which respond to concerns about the burdens associated with part P (electrical safety—dwellings) and the costs which fall on electricians, local authorities and ultimately the consumer. We are consulting on two changes to reduce these costs while not undermining safety. First, we propose to extend the range of simple jobs that can be carried out without notifying building control. Secondly, we propose to allow DIY-ers and other unregistered installers to use a competent electrician rather than a building inspector to certify work.
Clarifying the guidance on access statements in Approved Document M (access to and use of buildings) so as to promote a proportionate, risk-based approach to communicating compliance and avoid production of statements unnecessarily.
Rationalising the guidance supporting parts M, K and N (access, protection from falling, collision and impact and glazing respectively) to address areas of conflict and overlap and which impose unnecessary costs on business.
Making minor changes to the technical guidance in the Approved Document B (Fire safety) which seeks to restrict the spread of flame and heat release rate of the products used in lining ceilings, walls and other internal structures.
In addition, given the consultation relates to the regulation of buildings, I am also using this opportunity to announce our intention to take forward the repeal of the fire protection provisions in the Local Acts. This will free-up businesses from the costs of fire protection requirements contained in some Local Acts which apply inconsistently across the country. The decision has been taken in the light of previous consultation which found no evidence to justify maintaining requirements which go beyond the necessary protection already afforded nationally through the building regulations.
The consultation includes proposals which deliver on our commitment to increase energy efficiency standards through part L (conservation of fuel and power) of the building regulations. For new buildings, the changes represent the next step towards zero carbon by tightening carbon dioxide compliance targets and for new homes they also introduce a new mandatory target for fabric energy efficiency and proposals to further improve compliance and as built performance. They also contain proposals to strengthen energy efficiency standards for existing properties and introduce requirements for additional—consequential—energy efficiency improvements where work is already planned, and the Green Deal is available to meet up-front costs. Given the current economic conditions, I have considered carefully the timing and ambition of these proposals and sought to tailor the proposals accordingly, for example, through the phased introduction of the part L provisions.
The Government also have a separate commitment to reduce the total regulatory burden on the house building industry during this spending review period. The energy efficiency improvements for new homes proposed therefore will need to be compensated by extra deregulatory proposals. Work is currently in hand to identify compensating regulatory “outs” and Government will set out where these will be found when they bring forward their response to this consultation. If sufficient “outs” cannot be found, the Government will adjust its final package accordingly.
We are consulting on two further changes. First, to align the existing guidance in Approved Document C (site preparation and resistance to contaminants and moisture) on radon safety with the most up-to-date radon maps thus ensuring that these safety provisions are targeted at the appropriate parts of the country. Secondly, to replace the currently-referenced structural standards in Approved Document A (Structure) with the updated British standards that are based on eurocodes.
Although the majority of the proposals relate to the technical building standards, I also propose a number of changes to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the building control system. The proposals will reduce costs and burdens by simplifying or improving processes for both local authorities and approved inspectors. We are helping building control to focus resources where they have the most impact by removing a number of statutory notification stages and introducing a service plan approach based on risk assessment and helping improve competition between building control bodies by removing the warranty link rule. We are also helping incentivise businesses to improve compliance by introducing additional voluntary mechanisms, such as extending the competent person self-certification schemes framework and introducing specialist third-party certification schemes; and introducing “Appointed Persons” to act as compliance co-ordinators on construction sites, as well as strengthening existing enforcement mechanisms.
The Government have also been considering whether there is a role for regulation to ensure suitable toilet and changing provisions for people with multiple and profound disabilities—often referred to as “Changing Places” toilets. Work undertaken so far suggests that a collaborative approach between external partners has the potential to deliver a better alternative to regulation. I have asked my officials to help facilitate this. However, I hold open the possibility of returning to the issue of regulation in the future should this not prove successful.
Secondly, I also wanted to explore further the case for regulation in relation to minimum standards for security in homes. Our initial analysis suggests that current industry practice provide a reasonable balance between the costs of security measures and the protection they provide. However, we will continue work to understand how applying higher standards locally without the need to regulate might work. We also intend to work with the Home Office and industry to develop a consumer-friendly, industry led rating system for security products.
Alongside the consultation proposals the Department for Communities and Local Government is also today publishing on its website nine impact assessments which provide information on the costs and benefits associated with the consultation proposals and the repeal of the Local Acts and seven research reports which have informed the proposals and impact assessments. I am placing copies of these documents, as well as the consultation documents, in the Library of the House.
Taken together, I believe the proposals being published today demonstrate our continuing commitment to be the greenest Government ever, helping business and consumers by reducing fuel bills and so helping reduce fuel poverty, whilst regulating proportionately to avoid imposing unnecessary costs and supporting growth and employment.
Local Government Finance
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)
I have today laid before the House the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2012-13 and the Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2012-13.
The Local Government Finance Report (England) 2012-13 establishes the amounts of revenue support grant and non-domestic rates to be paid to local authorities in 2012-13, and the basis of their distribution. A draft of this report was issued for consultation on 8 December 2011.
We received written responses from individual authorities, representative bodies and local authority groupings during the consultation, and Ministers met delegations from the Local Government Association, London Councils and a number of individual local authorities and their representatives.
Having considered the views of all those who have commented on the provisional settlement, I have decided to confirm the proposals set out for consultation on 8 December 2011.
The 2010 spending review set out how the coalition Government are tackling the budget deficit inherited from the last Administration and putting the public finances back in order. Every bit of the public sector needs to do its bit to help pay off the deficit, including local government, which accounts for a quarter of all public spending. Our decisions on 2011-12 and 2012-13 achieve fair and sustainable settlements for local government between different parts of the country, from urban to rural and metropolitan to shire.
We have continued to focus resources in a way that gives more weight to those parts of the country with the highest levels of need. These are often the areas which are most reliant on central Government grant. As in 2011-12, in calculating the grant distributions we have acted to insulate them by giving more weight to the levels of need within different areas. We have also grouped councils into four bands and set different ‘floors’ for their grant reductions. This continues to be a fairer and more progressive system of calculating grant than before.
This year’s settlement means that the average spending power reduction for 2012-13 is limited to 3.3% (£34 per capita, or £75 per household), less than last year’s comparable figure of 4.5%. We have also again made sure that no council will see their overall spending power fall by more than 8.8%) through the transfer of £20 million of my Department’s budget to local government for 2012-13. This additional funding will smooth the impact of this year’s settlement. Councils will have an average spending power of £2,186 per household (£972 per capita) at their disposal in 2012-13. Reflecting the fairness of the settlement, the average spending power per household in Hackney will be £3,050 (£1435 per capita) compared with £1,537 (£656 per capita) in Windsor and Maidenhead.
Many councils have successfully shown that they can deliver significant efficiencies, but there is still more to be done. Smarter procurement, reducing management and support services costs, greater transparency to cut waste, sharing services and tackling fraud can all deliver significant savings to help protect frontline services and taxpayers’ interests. And to support councils the Localism Act will trigger the biggest transfer of power in a generation to local communities. The Local Government Finance Bill, currently before the House, will devolve further powers and flexibilities.
This settlement is supported by our extension of the successful council tax freeze scheme to a second year, building on the 2011-12 freeze offer taken up by all eligible councils. The offer being made to local authorities for 2012-13 is set out in the written statement of 14 November 2011, Official Report, column 27-28WS. Council tax has more than doubled since 1997 and the freeze will offer real help to hardworking families and once again save up to £72 compared to a 5% rise in council tax on top of this year’s saving of up to £72. By offering their local residents a council tax freeze again this year, councils will offer real help now with the cost of living to local residents, including pensioners, private sector workers and public sector workers.
The Localism Act also abolished Whitehall capping of council tax in England and allows local residents to approve or veto any council tax rise that exceeds principles endorsed by the House of Commons. The Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2012-13 sets out the principles which the Secretary of State has now determined will apply to local authorities in England in 2012-13, having considered representations following my written ministerial statement of 8 December 2011, Official Report, column 38-41WS.
A local authority will be required to seek the approval of their local electorate in a referendum if, compared with 2011-12, they set council tax increases that exceed:
4% for police authorities, and single purpose fire & rescue authorities;
3.75% for the City of London; and
3.5% for other principal authorities.
In the case of the Greater London authority, which sets two precepts, it will be required to hold a referendum if, compared with 2011-12, it sets increases that exceed either or both of:
4% for its adjusted relevant basic amount
3.75% for its unadjusted relevant basic amount
With the exception of the principle for the Greater London authority’s unadjusted relevant basic amount, which the Secretary of State changed after careful consideration, these principles are the same as those that he was minded to set at the time of my written ministerial statement on 8 December 2011.
The Secretary of State will not determine principles for local precepting authorities for 2012-13. However, he wishes to make it clear that he intends to revisit this issue next year, having considered the extent to which local precepting authorities have exercised restraint in relation to council tax this year.
Of course, should all eligible local authorities choose to take up the new council tax freeze there will be no need for council tax referendums in 2012-13. However, any town hall that turns down the council tax freeze offer and tries to burden hardworking families and pensioners with an excessive increase will now have to seek their approval at the ballot box.
I shall be sending copies of the Local Government Finance Report to all local authorities in England, and making available full supporting information on the Communities and Local Government website at:
http://www.local.communities.gov.uk?finance?1213/grant.htm
Copies of both reports, and related tables showing each authority’s allocation of formula grant and other supporting material, have been placed in the Library of the House.
Key Stage 4 Performance Tables
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
Professor Alison Wolfs’ wide-ranging review was published on 3 March 2011. She found that too many young people are studying courses that offer no basis for progression to further study or to meaningful employment. Some of these courses “counted” in Performance Tables as being equivalent to a number of GCSEs and were being taken at the expense of core subjects, valued most by employers, colleges and universities.
Professor Wolf concluded that incentives provided through the school performance tables were, at least in part, responsible for this situation and recommended that the tables be reformed. The Government accepted these recommendations. In future, school performance tables will:
include only those qualifications that are of a high quality, are rigorous and enable progression to a range of study and employment opportunities; and
count each of those qualifications as equivalent to one GCSE only and exclude qualifications that are smaller than GCSEs.
The Department for Education consulted extensively on the characteristics and process to be used to identify qualifications for inclusion in school performance tables. The Department’s response to this consultation, setting out Technical Guidance for awarding organisations, was published on 27 October 2011. Today the Department will announce which of the qualifications awarding organisations submitted for review meet the new standards. These are listed below.
In addition to GCSEs, established iGCSEs, and AS level qualifications and their equivalents, which will continue to be included in Performance Tables, a further 125 qualifications have also been approved as meeting the required standards. Of these, 70 are at level 2 and are included in the 5+A*-C GCSEs (or equivalent) including English and Maths measure of performance. The remaining 55 are at level 1. The latter will not be included within this measure, but do count towards a number of other indicators.
These changes will apply to courses taught from September 2012 and first reported in school Performance Tables in 2014.
The reforms represent a significant change to the measurement of school performance. The number of non-GCSE/iGCSE qualifications that will count in the 2014 Performance Tables will fall by 96%.
Focusing on a core of high quality and rigorous qualifications will also free up curriculum time. Teachers will have more freedom to exercise professional judgment in developing a broad and balanced curriculum and ensuring that this reflects the particular needs and abilities of their pupils. A wide range of other qualifications have been accredited by Ofqual for teaching to 14 to 16 year olds and approved for use in schools.
In March 2012, the Department will publish an updated version of this list. This is likely to include a small number of additional qualifications accredited by Ofqual by the beginning of March. An equalities impact assessment will be published alongside this. Both will be subject to annual review and the list of qualifications that will be included in the 2015 Performance Tables will be published in November 2012.
Key Stage 4 Performance Tables: Inclusion of 14-16 Qualifications From 2014 |
|---|
From 2014, and in line with the Technical Guidance published by the Department for Education on 27 October 2011, the key stage 4 Performance Tables will be restricted to qualifications that are high quality, rigorous and enable progression to a range of study and employment opportunities. Qualifications will only be included if they are the same size as a GCSE or larger and each qualification will count for one in the tables irrespective of its size. The changes apply to courses taught from September 2012 and schools are advised to take these changes into account when planning their timetables. Schools may offer qualifications that are not included in the Performance Tables and in all cases should act as they judge to be in the best interests of their students. |
Qualifications which will count in Key Stage 4 Performance Tables
The Level 1 qualifications will count towards all existing Performance Tables’ measures except for 5+A*-C GCSEs (or equivalent) including English and maths, the English Baccalaureate and A*-C English and maths measure.
The Level 2 qualifications listed will count towards all existing Performance Tables’ measures1.
The Level 3 qualifications listed, if taken by the end of KS4, will count towards all existing Performance Tables’ measures except for the English Baccalaureate and A*-C English and maths measure.
Full course GCSEs (at Level 1 and 2)
Established iGCSEs2 (at Level 1 and 2)
AS levels (at Level 3)
Level 3 Asset Language Ladder qualifications
Level 3 Free-Standing Maths Qualifications (FSMQs)
Graded music examinations at grade 6 and above (at Level 3)
a) Qualifications which fully demonstrate the characteristics set out in DFE Guidance
Qualification Title |
|---|
Level 2 Principal Learning in Construction and the Built Environment |
Level 2 Principal Learning in Creative and Media |
Level 2 Principal Learning in Engineering |
Level 2 Principal Learning in IT |
Level 2 Principal Learning in Society, Health and Development |
Due to the nature of Principal Learning qualifications, their inclusion is not specific to individual awarding organisations.
b) Qualifications that will be included in the 2014 Performance Tables, but will be subject to a review of their performance3. These qualifications may or may not be included in Performance Tables in future years, depending on the outcome of the review.
QAN | Qualification title | Review date |
|---|---|---|
Level 2 Principal Learning in Business, Administration and Finance | Autumn 2012 | |
Level 2 Principal Learning in Environmental and Land-based studies | Autumn 2012 | |
Level 2 Principal Learning in Hair and Beauty Studies | Autumn 2012 | |
Level 2 Principal Learning in Hospitality | Autumn 2012 | |
Level 2 Principal Learning in Manufacturing and Product Design | Autumn 2012 | |
Level 2 Principal Learning in Public Services | Autumn 2012 | |
Level 2 Principal Learning in Retail Business | Autumn 2012 | |
Level 2 Principal Learning in Sport and Active Leisure | Autumn 2012 | |
Level 2 Principal Learning in Travel and Tourism | Autumn 2012 | |
500/9480/4 | AQA Level 1/Level 2 Certificate in Use of Mathematics4 | Autumn 2014 |
600/2123/8 | AQA Level 2 Certificate in Further Mathematics | Autumn 2013 |
500/6787/4 | WJEC Level 2 Certificate in Latin Language | Autumn 2012 |
500/6788/6 | WJEC Level 2 Certificate in Latin Language and Roman Civilisation | Autumn 2012 |
500/6791/6 | WJEC Level 2 Certificate in Latin Literature | Autumn 2012 |
600/1999/2 | AQA Level 1/Level 2 Certificate in English Language | Autumn 2013 |
600/2190/1 | AQA Level 1/Level 2 Certificate in English Literature | Autumn 2013 |
600/1358/8 | WJEC Level 1/ Level 2 Certificate in English Language | Autumn 2013 |
600/1822/7 | WJEC Level 1/ Level 2 Certificate in English Literature | Autumn 2013 |
c) Qualifications that will be included in Performance Tables for the final time in 20145. These qualifications are being redeveloped and the new versions would be included in Performance Tables if they fully demonstrate the required characteristics.
QAN | Qualification title |
|---|---|
500/6242/6 | BCS Level 2 Certificate in IT User Skills (ECDL Extra) (ITQ) (QCF) |
500/6175/6 | BCS Level 2 Certificate in IT User Skills (ITQ) (QCF) |
500/1887/5 | CACHE Level 2 Award in Child Care and Education |
500/6724/2 | City & Guilds Level 2 Certificate for IT Users (ITQ) (QCF) |
600/0880/5 | City & Guilds Level 2 Certificate in Engineering (QCF) |
500/6760/6 | City & Guilds Level 2 Diploma for IT Users (ITQ) (QCF) |
500/1729/9 | City & Guilds Level 2 Diploma for Software Developers |
501/1859/6 | City & Guilds Level 2 Diploma in ICT Systems and Principles for IT Professionals (QCF) |
500/7595/0 | EAL Level 2 Diploma in Engineering Technology (QCF) |
500/7453/2 | Edexcel BTEC Level 2 Extended Certificate in Applied Science (QCF) |
500/6671/7 | Edexcel BTEC Level 2 Diploma in Applied Science (QCF) |
500/7105/1 | Edexcel BTEC Level 2 Extended Certificate in Art and Design (QCF) |
500/7104/X | Edexcel BTEC Level 2 Diploma in Art and Design (QCF) |
500/6745/X | Edexcel BTEC Level 2 Extended Certificate in Business (QCF) |
500/6789/8 | Edexcel BTEC Level 2 Diploma in Business (QCF) |
QAN | Qualification title |
|---|---|
500/7239/0 | Edexcel BTEC Level 2 Extended Certificate in Construction (QCF) |
500/7240/7 | Edexcel BTEC Level 2 Diploma in Construction (QCF) |
500/7880/X | Edexcel BTEC Level 2 Extended Certificate in Creative Media Production (QCF) |
500/7930/X | Edexcel BTEC Level 2 Diploma in Creative Media Production (QCF) |
500/7577/9 | Edexcel BTEC Level 2 Extended Certificate in Engineering (QCF) |
500/7576/7 | Edexcel BTEC Level 2 Diploma in Engineering (QCF) |
500/8217/6 | Edexcel BTEC Level 2 Extended Certificate in Health and Social Care (QCF) |
500/8223/1 | Edexcel BTEC Level 2 Diploma in Health and Social Care (QCF) |
500/9550/X | Edexcel BTEC Level 2 Extended Certificate in IT (QCF) |
500/9552/3 | Edexcel BTEC Level 2 Diploma in IT (QCF) |
500/7774/0 | Edexcel BTEC Level 2 Extended Certificate in Music (QCF) |
500/7775/2 | Edexcel BTEC Level 2 Diploma in Music (QCF) |
500/7141/5 | Edexcel BTEC Level 2 Extended Certificate in Performing Arts (QCF) |
500/7143/9 | Edexcel BTEC Level 2 Diploma in Performing Arts (QCF) |
500/7658/9 | Edexcel BTEC Level 2 Extended Certificate in Sport (QCF) |
500/7660/7 | Edexcel BTEC Level 2 Diploma in Sport (QCF) |
500/8016/7 | Edexcel BTEC Level 2 Extended Certificate in Travel and Tourism (QCF) |
500/8060/X | Edexcel BTEC Level 2 Diploma in Travel and Tourism (QCF) |
100/5326/8 | Edexcel Level 2 Certificate in Digital Applications for IT Users |
100/5327/X | Edexcel Level 2 Diploma in Digital Applications for IT Users |
100/6442/4 | Edexcel Level 2 Extended Certificate in Digital Applications for IT Users |
500/8379/X | NCFE Level 2 Award in Graphic Design (QCF) |
500/8988/2 | NCFE Level 2 Certificate in Art and Design (QCF) |
500/8456/2 | NCFE Level 2 Certificate in Interactive Media (QCF) |
500/9918/8 | NCFE Level 2 Certificate in Performance Skills (QCF) |
501/1226/0 | NCFE Level 2 Extended Certificate in Music Technology (QCF) |
500/8529/3 | OCR Level 2 Certificate for Creative iMedia (QCF) |
500/8531/1 | OCR Level 2 Diploma for Creative iMedia (QCF) |
500/6743/6 | OCR Level 2 Certificate in IT User Skills (ITQ) (QCF) |
OCR Level 2 National Certificate in Business6 | |
OCR Level 2 National Award in Business6 | |
OCR Level 2 National Certificate in Health and Social Care6 | |
OCR Level 2 National Award in Health and Social Care6 | |
OCR Level 2 National Certificate in ICT6 | |
OCR Level 2 National Award in ICT6 | |
OCR Level 2 National First Certificate in ICT6 | |
OCR Level 2 National Certificate in Science6 | |
OCR Level 2 National Award in Science6 | |
OCR Level 2 National Award in Sport6 | |
OCR Level 2 National Certificate in Sport6 | |
501/0598/X | RSL Level 2 Certificate for Music Practitioners (QCF) |
501/0665/X | RSL Level 2 Extended Certificate for Music Practitioners (QCF) |
500/8073/8 | TLM Level 2 Certificate in IT User Skills in Open Systems and Enterprise (ITQ) |
Qualifications which are approved but will not be counted in the 5+A*-C GCSEs (or equivalent) including English and Maths measure7.
a) Precursors to Level 2 qualifications which fully demonstrate the characteristics set out in DfE Guidance.
Qualification title |
|---|
Level 1 Principal Learning in Construction and the Built Environment |
Level 1 Principal Learning in Creative and Media |
Level 1 Principal Learning in Engineering |
Level 1 Principal Learning in IT |
Level 1 Principal Learning in Society, Health and Development |
Due to the nature of Principal Learning qualifications, their inclusion is not specific to individual awarding organisations.
b) Qualifications that will be included in performance tables for the final time in 20148. These qualifications are being redeveloped and the new versions would be included in Performance Tables if they fully demonstrate the required characteristics.
QAN | Qualification title |
|---|---|
600/3089/6 | AQA Level 1 Certificate in French (FCSE) Full Course9 |
600/3092/6 | AQA Level 1 Certificate in German (FCSE) Full Course9 |
600/3155/4 | AQA Level 1 Certificate in Spanish (FCSE) Full Course9 |
c) Precursors to Level 2 qualifications that will be included in 2014 Performance Tables. The linked Level 2 qualifications are either subject to a review of their performance10 or are being redeveloped so that the new versions fully demonstrate the required characteristics11. The future inclusion of the Level 1 precursor is dependent on the future inclusion of the Level 2 qualification.
Qualification title |
|---|
Level 1 Principal Learning in Business, Administration and Finance |
Level 1 Principal Learning in Environmental and Land-based studies |
Level 1 Principal Learning in Hospitality |
Level 1 Principal Learning in Manufacturing and Product Design |
Level 1 Principal Learning in Public Services |
Level 1 Principal Learning in Retail Business |
Level 1 Principal Learning in Sport and Active Leisure |
Level 1 Principal Learning in Travel and Tourism |
QAN | Qualification title |
|---|---|
500/6177/X | BCS Level 1 Certificate in IT User Skills (Digital Creator) (ITQ) (QCF) |
600/0879/9 | City & Guilds Level 1 Certificate in Engineering (QCF) |
501/0075/0 | Edexcel BTEC Level 1 Certificate in Applied Science (QCF) |
501/0073/7 | Edexcel BTEC Level 1 Diploma in Applied Science (QCF) |
500/6540/3 | Edexcel BTEC Level 1 Certificate in Art and Design (QCF) |
500/6607/9 | Edexcel BTEC Level 1 Diploma in Art and Design (QCF) |
500/4991/4 | Edexcel BTEC Level 1 Certificate in Business Administration (QCF) |
500/6536/1 | Edexcel BTEC Level 1 Diploma in Business Administration (QCF) |
500/6591/9 | Edexcel BTEC Level 1 Certificate in Construction (QCF) |
500/6668/7 | Edexcel BTEC Level 1 Diploma in Construction (QCF) |
500/8423/9 | Edexcel BTEC Level 1 Certificate in Creative Media Production (QCF) |
500/8544/X | Edexcel BTEC Level 1 Diploma in Creative Media Production (QCF) |
501/0305/2 | Edexcel BTEC Level 1 Certificate in Engineering (QCF) |
500/9859/7 | Edexcel BTEC Level 1 Diploma in Engineering (QCF) |
500/5458/2 | Edexcel BTEC Level 1 Certificate in Health and Social Care (QCF) |
500/6642/0 | Edexcel BTEC Level 1 Diploma in Health and Social Care (QCF) |
600/1238/9 | Edexcel BTEC Level 1 Certificate in Introduction to the Travel and Tourism Industry (QCF)12 |
600/1231/6 | Edexcel BTEC Level 1 Diploma in Introduction to the Travel and Tourism Industry (QCF)12 |
500/6606/7 | Edexcel BTEC Level 1 Certificate in Performing Arts (QCF) |
500/6669/9 | Edexcel BTEC Level 1 Diploma in Performing Arts (QCF) |
500/4989/6 | Edexcel BTEC Level 1 Certificate in Sport and Active Leisure (QCF) |
500/6495/2 | Edexcel BTEC Level 1 Diploma in Sport and Active Leisure (QCF) |
100/5323/2 | Edexcel Level 1 Certificate in Digital Applications for IT Users |
100/6441/2 | Edexcel Level 1 Extended Certificate in Digital Applications for IT Users |
100/5324/4 | Edexcel Level 1 Diploma in Digital Applications for IT Users |
500/5959/2 | NCFE Level 1 Award in Creative Craft using Art and Design (QCF) |
500/8454/9 | NCFE Level 1 Award in Graphic Design (QCF) |
500/8053/2 | NCFE Level 1 Certificate in Interactive Media (QCF) |
501/1234/X | NCFE Level 1 Certificate in Music Technology (QCF) |
500/9177/3 | NCFE Level 1 Certificate in Performance Skills (QCF) |
500/8533/5 | OCR Level 1 Certificate for Creative iMedia (QCF) |
500/8534/7 | OCR Level 1 Diploma for Creative iMedia (QCF) |
500/6742/4 | OCR Level 1 Diploma in IT User Skills (ITQ) (QCF) |
501/0656/9 | RSL Level 1 Certificate for Music Practitioners (QCF) |
501/0655/7 | RSL Level 1 Extended Certificate for Music Practitioners (QCF) |
500/8080/5 | TLM Level 1 Certificate in IT User Skills in Open Systems and Enterprise (ITQ) (QCF) |
500/6787/4 | WJEC Level 1 Certificate in Latin Language |
500/6788/6 | WJEC Level 1 Certificate in Latin Language and Roman Civilisation |
500/6791/6 | WJEC Level 1 Certificate in Latin Literature |
1Where a performance measure requires achievement of specific qualifications in specific subjects, e.g. percentage achieving 5 or more GCSEs including English and maths, pupils will need to achieve those qualifications and subjects.
2Accredited versions of qualifications which were being offered as “iGCSE” and were being taken in independent and/or international schools before June 2010.
3Reviews of performance will examine evidence of pupil take up and progression in education or employment.
4Approved subject to Section 96 approval by the DFE for teaching pre-16 (pending).
5Qualifications will have demonstrated all required characteristics except one or more of those that relate to assessment.
6Approved subject of Ofqual accreditation (pending).
7They will be included within other performance measures e.g. 5+A*-G. These are Level 1 qualifications which either demonstrate the characteristics in their own right or are precursors of Level 2 qualifications which are included.
8Qualifications will have demonstrated all required characteristics except one or more of those that relate to assessment.
9Approved subject to Section 96 approval by the DFE for teaching pre-16 (pending).
10Reviews of performance will examine evidence of pupil take up and progression in education or employment.
11Qualifications will have demonstrated all required characteristics except one or more of those that relate to assessment.
12Approved subject to Section 96 approval by the DFE for teaching pre-16 (pending).
Transmission Power Cable Costs
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)
The Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) has today published a comprehensive study on the whole-life costs of installing new high voltage transmission lines under the ground, under the sea and over ground.
This study has been undertaken at the Government’s request in order to provide an authoritative and independent point of reference for the Infrastructure Planning Commission in evaluating planning applications for new transmission connections and reinforcements.
Research and production of the study has been carried out by international engineering consultancy Parsons Brinckerhoff, in association with Cable Consulting International. It draws on a broad range of data from manufacturers, installers, operators and other parties. National Grid has funded the work, and the IET has provided independent quality assurance.
Main findings are as follows:
the cost of new power infrastructure varies considerably but installing new power circuits underground is always more expensive than installing overhead lines;
the study also identifies factors that have an impact on costs—such as terrain, distances and energy loss;
the study’s remit purely relates to engineering costs, although it does acknowledge the aesthetic, human and environmental impacts, it makes no analysis of these areas.
Over the coming years major transmission reinforcements will be needed to connect Britain’s new power stations. Many people are concerned about the impact that new transmission lines can have on the landscape and on local communities, and it is therefore essential that these reinforcements are taken forward on the basis of informed discussion and the best available knowledge. The Government welcome this authoritative study which will provide a well-informed and objective baseline when considering the costs and impacts of different transmission line solutions.
Copies of the study have been placed in Libraries of both House and can be obtained from the IET website.
www.theiet.org/factfiles/transmission.cfm.
Canal & River Trust (Government Funding)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
I am pleased to announce to the House that I have concluded a long-term funding deal with the trustees of the Canal & River Trust (CRT), which will, subject to parliamentary approval, take over the ownership and management of the inland waterways in England and Wales from British Waterways later this year.
The Government have already announced that the £460 million commercial property endowment historically built up from surplus network property and used by British Waterways to fund the network infrastructure will be transferred to CRT for the same purposes, along with the rest of the network in England and Wales. In order to get the Canal & River Trust off to the best possible start, DEFRA will also commit grant funding of some £800 million over the next 15 years (from 2012-13 to the end of 2026-27).
The funding deal has the following major components:
A core grant of £39 million per year (index linked to inflation from 2015-16 onwards).
From 2015-16, an additional grant of £10 million per year (reduced gradually over the last five years of the grant agreement), conditional on the Canal & River Trust’s performance against three standards:
satisfactory condition of principal assets,
satisfactory condition of towpaths, and
satisfactory flood risk management measures.
A £25 million one-off grant to be spread across the next few months, and a capped “last resort” Government guarantee in relation to the historic public sector pension liability.
A review will take place in 2021-22 to examine the case for the Government’s funding of public benefits from the waterways beyond 2026-27.
The CRT will also be required to publish annually a range of data about the public benefits it delivers, to enable stakeholders and the public to hold the charity to account.
This is a very good deal for the taxpayer, the waterways, the boaters and enthusiasts who care so passionately about them, and for the many millions of people who visit them every year. The trustees have welcomed the deal, which provides a firm financial footing for the trust. The trust will seize new opportunities to generate revenue through donations, charitable grants and legacies, increased borrowing powers, efficiencies and volunteering activity.
The Canal & River Trust will inherit British Waterways’ responsibilities for maintaining heritage sites, wildlife habitats and open spaces, so that all can enjoy them for generations to come. It will help realise public benefits such as green travel to work, health and well-being, support to the inner cities and rural regeneration.
This deal is a further expression of our commitment to building up the big society. The new charity will involve local communities and volunteers in shaping the future of our waterways.
Subject to satisfactory conclusion of outstanding issues, the Government plan to lay the order to transfer statutory functions from British Waterways to the Canal & River Trust in Parliament at the end of February. Subject to Parliament’s approval, we hope to see the new charity launched in June.
Afghanistan Progress Report (December 2011)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I wish to inform the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, is today publishing the thirteenth progress report on developments in Afghanistan since November 2010.
At the Bonn conference the international community agreed in principle to provide financial support to Afghanistan for the decade after transition in 2014. For their part, the Government of Afghanistan committed to continue to progress with vital economic and governance reform. In support of this, the UK is helping local government deliver better services for local people by assisting provincial governors’ offices with management training, and by supporting the implementation of development projects identified by communities in previously insecure districts. The new DFID funded Afghanistan Business Innovation Fund opened in December, inviting proposals for business ideas that will create sustainable jobs.
Nationwide the security situation in Afghanistan is improving and 2011 marked the first time that year-on-year violence levels decreased since the International Security Assistance Force mission was expanded in 2006. This nationwide view of Afghanistan, while positive and a good indication of overall progress, should not distract our attention from a varied regional picture.
In 2011, recorded violence levels fell significantly in Regional Command South West, the UK’s area of operations. However, these gains have been tempered by a notable increase in security incidents in the east of the country and a smaller rise in violence levels in Regional Command South. The uneven regional picture reminds us that the insurgency remains resilient, but they are also under significant and sustained pressure in the areas where the Afghan National Security Forces and ISAF are focusing their efforts. In this context we have seen the insurgency increasingly deploy less conventional methods to execute their campaign: the use of IEDs has increased and they have focused their efforts on a series of high-profile assassinations and ‘spectacular’ attacks intended to undermine local perceptions of security. From a security perspective 2012 is likely to see further challenges as the insurgency attempts to regain its momentum. However, our resolve to achieve our stated aims in Afghanistan endures, and we will continue to work alongside the Afghans to consolidate the gains of 2011.
I am placing the report in the Library of the House. It will also be published on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk).
Police Grant Report in England and Wales 2012-13
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
My right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, has today laid before the House the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2012-13 (HC 1797). The report sets out my right hon. Friend’s determination for 2012-13 of the aggregate amount of grant that she proposes to pay under section 46(2) of the Police Act 1996, and the amount to be paid to the Greater London authority for the Mayor’s office for policing and crime.
At the time the provisional police grant report was laid on 8 December 2011, respondents to the subsequent consultation were asked specifically to comment on whether a top-slice of capital grant should be made in order to fund the National Police Air Service. The responses to the consultation have been carefully considered, and the decision has been taken to top-slice the police capital grant in order to provide the necessary funding for the service.
After careful consideration of the consultation responses, all other funding allocations set out in my written ministerial statement of 8 December 2011, Official Report, columns 50-55WS, remain unchanged.
In addition to this, a one-off additional payment of £90 million will be made to the Mayor’s office for policing and crime in 2012-13. This payment will help to maintain operational capabilities while policing the Olympics, Paralympics, World Pride and the Queen’s diamond jubilee. This funding will help to maintain resilience during this period and comes on top of the police spending review settlement.
2012-13 | |
|---|---|
£m | |
Total Formula Funding: | |
Comprising: | |
Home Office Police Main Grant | 4,251 |
National, International and Capital City Grant (MOPC only) | 189 |
DCLG General Grant | 3,213 |
Of which council tax (11-12) freeze grant | 75 |
WAG General Grant | 151 |
Total Home Office Specific Grants: | |
Comprising: | |
Welsh Top-up | 13 |
Neighbourhood Policing Fund (NPF) | 338 |
Counter Terrorism Specific Grant | 564 |
PCC Elections | 50* |
PFI Grant | 54 |
Total Government Funding | 8,830** |
% cash change in Total Government Funding | -5% |
*Any additional funding required will be provided from outside the police settlement **This includes a small amount of funding that will form part of a contingency fund, which is not shown in the table above. |
2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | |
|---|---|---|---|
£m | £m | £m | |
Capital Grant | 118 | 106 | 109 |
National Police Air Service | 11 | 13 | 10 |
Special Grant Capital | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Total | 130 | 120 | 120 |
Police Authority/PCC | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HO Core | NPF | Welsh Top-up | WG | CLG (including CT freeze) | |
£m | £m | £m | £m | £m | |
Avon & Somerset | 112.7 | 7.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 62.5 |
Bedfordshire | 40.8 | 2.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 28.2 |
Cambridgeshire | 50.0 | 3.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 29.0 |
Cheshire | 64.3 | 4.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 51.6 |
City of London | 30.2 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 27.3 |
Cleveland | 47.5 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 44.4 |
Cumbria | 30.5 | 2.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 34.9 |
Derbyshire | 65.0 | 3.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 44.5 |
Devon & Cornwall | 110.5 | 7.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 70.3 |
Dorset | 42.4 | 3.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 21.3 |
Durham | 44.3 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 42.4 |
Dyfed-Powys | 32.1 | 1.6 | 6.3 | 15.7 | 0.0 |
Essex | 109.5 | 7.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 63.6 |
Gloucestershire | 36.2 | 3.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 22.2 |
Greater London authority | 1,051.6 | 101.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 854.5 |
Greater Manchester | 230.2 | 17.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 209.8 |
Gwent | 44.7 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 33.0 | 0.0 |
Hampshire | 128.1 | 7.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 72.4 |
Hertfordshire | 73.9 | 5.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 43.5 |
Humberside | 69.5 | 4.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 53.3 |
Kent | 109.5 | 8.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 78.8 |
Lancashire | 105.7 | 8.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 89.2 |
Leicestershire | 67.3 | 4.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 46.4 |
Lincolnshire | 39.8 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 24.2 |
Merseyside | 127.0 | 9.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 127.6 |
Norfolk | 53.7 | 3.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 32.4 |
North Wales | 46.2 | 3.3 | 6.5 | 24.8 | 0.0 |
North Yorkshire | 43.9 | 3.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 31.3 |
Northamptonshire | 45.2 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 28.1 |
Northumbria | 115.0 | 8.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 120.1 |
Nottinghamshire | 80.7 | 5.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 54.9 |
South Wales | 92.7 | 6.7 | 0.0 | 77.6 | 0.0 |
South Yorkshire | 102.7 | 6.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 90.1 |
Staffordshire | 68.6 | 4.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 47.8 |
Suffolk | 42.8 | 3.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 26.5 |
Surrey | 65.0 | 4.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 35.7 |
Sussex | 101.1 | 7.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 64.2 |
Thames Valley | 147.0 | 9.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 87.4 |
Warwickshire | 32.7 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 19.8 |
West Mercia | 68.6 | 5.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 51.1 |
West Midlands | 252.9 | 15.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 213.5 |
West Yorkshire | 179.3 | 14.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 143.4 |
Wiltshire | 38.7 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 24.8 |
Total England & Wales | 4,440.1 | 338.0 | 12.8 | 151.0 | 3,213.2 |
Police Authority/PCC | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 |
|---|---|---|---|
£m | £m | £m | |
Avon & Somerset | 2.6 | 2.3 | 2.4 |
Bedfordshire | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Cambridgeshire | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.2 |
Cheshire | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.5 |
City of London | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.9 |
Cleveland | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.2 |
Cumbria | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.9 |
Derbyshire | 1.6 | 1.4 | 1.5 |
Devon & Cornwall | 2.8 | 2.5 | 2.6 |
Dorset | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Durham | 1.3 | 1.1 | 1.2 |
Dyfed-Powys | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
Essex | 2.4 | 2.2 | 2.2 |
Gloucestershire | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.9 |
Greater Manchester | 6.0 | 5.4 | 5.5 |
Gwent | 1.2 | 1.0 | 1.1 |
Hampshire | 3.0 | 2.7 | 2.8 |
Hertfordshire | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.4 |
Humberside | 1.8 | 1.6 | 1.7 |
Kent | 2.8 | 2.5 | 2.5 |
Lancashire | 2.8 | 2.5 | 2.6 |
Leicestershire | 1.8 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
Lincolnshire | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.9 |
Merseyside | 3.5 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
Metropolitan | 31.3 | 28.1 | 29.0 |
Norfolk | 1.4 | 1.2 | 1.3 |
North Wales | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
North Yorkshire | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Northamptonshire | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Northumbria | 3.3 | 2.9 | 3.0 |
Nottinghamshire | 1.9 | 1.7 | 1.8 |
South Wales | 2.5 | 2.3 | 2.3 |
South Yorkshire | 2.8 | 2.5 | 2.6 |
Staffordshire | 1.8 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
Suffolk | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Surrey | 1.6 | 1.4 | 1.5 |
Sussex | 2.3 | 2.1 | 2.2 |
Thames Valley | 3.8 | 3.4 | 3.5 |
Warwickshire | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
West Mercia | 1.9 | 1.7 | 1.7 |
West Midlands | 6.3 | 5.7 | 5.9 |
West Yorkshire | 4.6 | 4.2 | 4.3 |
Wiltshire | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.0 |
Total England & Wales | 118.2 | 106.0 | 109.3 |
UK Border Agency (Report)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Following the resignation of Brodie Clark, a senior UK Border Agency official, last November, I asked John Vine, the Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency, to carry out an independent investigation into border checks conducted by the UK Border Agency. Mr Vine has asked for more time to complete his investigation. Once I have received his final report I will update the House after constituency recess on both the findings of the report and on the action the Government will take.
Inquests (Service Personnel Overseas)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I wish to make the latest of our quarterly statements to the House giving details of the inquests of service personnel who have died overseas. We would also like to express our sincere gratitude to all of our service personnel who have served, or are now serving, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
To the families of the service personnel who have given their lives for their country, in connection with the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would like to convey our sincere condolences and particularly to those families of the 12 service personnel who have died since our last statement in October. These families, and all the bereaved families who have lost loved ones during these operations, continue to be in our thoughts.
Today we are announcing the current status of inquests conducted by the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner, the Oxfordshire coroner, and other coroners in England and Wales. This statement gives the position at 24 January 2012.
To supplement this statement I have placed tables in the Libraries of both Houses. These tables outline the status of all current cases and show the date of death in each case. They also include information about cases where a board of inquiry or a service inquiry has been held.
Our Departments will continue to work closely together to improve our processes and continue the Government’s support for coroners who are conducting inquests into operational deaths. With that in mind, we wish to express further thanks to all the coroners, and their staff, for their dedicated work as well as to all those who provide support and information, both throughout the inquest process and afterwards.
Since October 2007 both Departments have provided additional resources to ensure that there is no backlog of operational inquests. These resources have been provided to the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner, Mr David Ridley, as prior to 1 September 2011 repatriation of service personnel took place within his district at RAF Lyneham. We are also providing additional resources to the Oxfordshire coroner, Mr Nicholas Gardiner, as repatriation ceremonies for those killed on operations overseas now take place within his district at RAF Brize Norton.
Current status of inquests
Since the last statement there have been 17 inquests into the deaths of service personnel on operations in Iraq or Afghanistan.
A total of 515 inquests have been held into the deaths of service personnel who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, including 19 service personnel who died in the UK of their injuries. In three further cases, no formal inquest was held. In two of these cases the deaths were taken into consideration during inquest proceedings for those who died in the same incident. In the third case, where the serviceman died of his injuries in Scotland, it was decided not to hold a fatal accident inquiry.
Open inquests
Fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan
There are currently 57 open inquests to be concluded into the deaths of service personnel who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Twenty-one of these involve deaths in the last six months.
The Wiltshire and Swindon coroner has retained 14 of the remaining open inquests, the Oxfordshire coroner has retained six of the open inquests, and 29 are being conducted by coroners closer to the next-of-kin. Hearing dates have been set in 11 cases.
There is one remaining open inquest into deaths from operations in Iraq.
Inquests into the deaths of service personnel who returned home injured
Eight inquests remain to be held of service personnel who returned home injured and subsequently died of their injuries. Two hearing dates have been set. The remaining six cases will be listed for hearing when the continuing investigations are completed.
We shall continue to inform the House of progress with the remaining inquests.
Local Major Transport Schemes (Consultation)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Justine Greening)
Today I am launching a consultation paper to take forward discussions for deciding a new devolved system for prioritising and funding local major transport schemes for the next spending review period—schemes which have cost over £5 million.
The previous Government’s regional funding allocation process failed to give local people and communities proper transparency for decisions, and control over spending—investment decisions were taken centrally and it was a bureaucratic and inefficient system which hampered local enterprise and delivery. The Government have already made efficiencies on the programme of schemes inherited from this process. In total, schemes commencing construction in this spending review period are forecast to deliver benefits of around £8 for every £1 of public money spent, with a 34% reduction in the central Government contribution compared to previous plans.
We now have the opportunity of developing a new system for beyond 2015. A system which ensures that the best outcomes are achieved for the economy while balancing the need for developing sustainably and reducing carbon emissions; a system which hands real power to local communities; and a system which is fit for purpose in practical delivery terms.
As local major transport schemes can take on average four years to move from business case to the start of construction, it is vital that we begin to develop a new system now. And to fully empower local areas means giving them freedoms and flexibilities they have not had before.
Proposals set out in the consultation paper include: using a population based formula to allocate funding rather than putting in place a costly bidding process; a locally led assessment process for prioritising schemes, reducing the role of central Government which many local areas perceive as costly, time-consuming and autocratic; and putting Local Enterprise Partnership areas in the driving seat over which transport schemes are delivered.
The Government are proposing to devolve decisions to democratically accountable local transport bodies involving Local Enterprise Partnerships and local authorities, which are given responsibility for establishing a prioritised programme of schemes for investment. These local transport bodies would oversee the delivery of individual schemes, but would not be the vehicle for delivery, which would remain with individual local authorities or other relevant delivery agencies.
Local Enterprise Partnerships would be central to decisions, to ensure that transport investment is fully aligned with plans for economic development. Local Enterprise Partnerships can play a strong role in helping to make the tough trade-offs between competing priorities and will have a say in investment financing. Transport authorities, however, would also be crucial given their expertise, responsibilities and leadership role on transport matters.
The new system would encourage decision-making across Local Enterprise Partnership boundaries to local transport consortia—groupings of Local Enterprise Partnership areas—in order to manage a handful of big schemes, which were experienced under previous systems.
However, the Government will not force consortia formations, which would risk creating ineffective and artificial partnerships that lack legitimacy.
Instead it will be for local areas to decide what collaborations are right for them and to prioritise eligible transport interventions, which they collectively agree to deliver local growth.
In return for greater devolution, central Government will need assurances on effective governance, financial management, accountability and the achievement of value for money—matters which businesses and local authorities do every day.
In particular, the Government propose that while local areas will have the freedom to decide their own priorities and appraise individual schemes, all schemes would need to follow the Transport Business Case framework and be appraised in line with webTAG, the Department’s best practice and well-evidenced guidance on transport appraisal and evaluation.
Individual schemes would also be expected to be dealt with transparently, in particular through the publication of business cases at each stage of scheme development, individual schemes meeting minimum value for money thresholds, ongoing review and monitoring, and pre and post delivery evaluation of scheme benefits.
The offer of devolution will be available to all, but different local areas will have different challenges and ambitions. The Government will take an individual approach with each local transport body to put in place a tailored system that is fit for purpose and secures value for money for the taxpayer.
I welcome responses to the consultation paper. The consultation runs from 31 January 2012 until 2 April 2012. This is shorter than the usual 12 weeks but will help ensure there is a system in place which enables local areas to begin to construct schemes by 2015.
Following the end of the consultation, my Department will consider all responses and produce a summary report alongside setting out the next steps. I will make a further statement to the House at that point.
NEST (Revised Auto-enrolment Timetable)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
on 25 January, the Government published a revised timetable for the roll-out of the automatic enrolment duties from 2012.
The statement associated with the new timetable included the following paragraph:
“Medium sized employers will be re-allocated automatic enrolment dates between 1st April 2014 and 1st April 2015. This means that the implementation dates of some of these employers will be up to nine months later. However, this still means that around 70% of eligible workers will be automatically enrolled before the end of this Parliament compared with around 75% under previous arrangements.”
Since publishing this statement the modelling assumptions have been revisited. This affects the analysis of the existing implementation profile as well as the impact of the proposals outlined last week. Existing participation in workplace pensions is higher in large and medium-sized firms than in small and micro firms. This means that a lower proportion of workers in large and medium-sized firms will need to be automatically enrolled. A lower proportion of the 9 to 10 million workers eligible for automatic enrolment will therefore be enrolled in this Parliament.
As a result of this, the paragraph above should now read as follows:
“Medium sized employers will be re-allocated automatic enrolment dates between 1st April 2014 and 1st April 2015. This means that the implementation dates of some of these employers will be up to nine months later. However, this still means that around 55% of eligible workers will be automatically enrolled before the end of this Parliament compared with around 65% under previous arrangements.”
I apologise for this revision and for any confusion this may cause.
House of Lords
Rail: Great Western Passenger Franchise
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will ensure that the new Great Western passenger franchise provides the capacity and service quality to meet the expected growth in passenger numbers.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, on 22 December, the Department for Transport launched a consultation on the new Great Western franchise. The consultation document contains the Government’s objectives for the new franchise. These include: providing appropriate capacity for passenger services that is both affordable and delivers value for money for the taxpayer within defined infrastructure and rolling stock constraints on the Great Western network; and ensuring that the overall passenger experience improves throughout the life of the franchise.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to the noble Earl for that Answer. I have read the document to which he referred and good things are certainly said about the problem of overcrowding. However, he will be aware that according to government statistics eight of the 10 most crowded trains are on First Great Western, and there have been serious overcrowding problems at Bristol and in Cornwall. Given that there will be a long franchise and that the number of passengers may greatly increase, how will the Government incentivise the successful franchisee to run more coaches or trains so that it does not have to go to the Treasury begging for more money?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord on his analysis of the overcrowding problems on the current franchise. He will be aware that the difficulty with the current franchise is that it does not incentivise the operator to increase capacity. However, there will be significant capacity increases, especially with the introduction of the IEP train.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, will the successful bidder for the franchise be required to provide new rolling stock? As a regular user of the service, I can testify to delayed and cancelled trains because of mechanical failure, sweltering or freezing carriages because air conditioning does not work, lavatories blocked or flooded, and on one train that I travelled on recently the brakes seized and part of the train had to be evacuated because of appalling fumes that filled the carriages. The one redeeming feature of the present operator is that it has excellent on-train staff, who have a difficult job working for a company that for many of us is still known as “Late Western”.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the bidders are able to take into account the condition of the rolling stock when they bid, with the exception of the IEP rolling stock, which they have to adopt. We need to avoid telling the bidders which rolling stock they have to use because otherwise that would compromise their negotiations with the ROSCOs.
Lord Snape
My Lords, will the Minister consider something revolutionary so far as this and other franchises are concerned? The franchisee should set the fares, tackle overcrowding and run a proper financial risk for the length of the franchise; under the present system, the Government set the fares, the leasing companies own the trains and, if anything goes wrong, the so-called franchisee hands in the keys and the taxpayer picks up the Bill. Does he agree that, whatever system we have at the moment for running trains, franchising it certainly ain’t?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord contributes to the consultation, because he makes some valid points.
Lord Bradshaw
My Lords, will the Minister address his mind to the fact that, on many of the franchises throughout the kingdom, the carriages in use are full to overflowing, but the Department for Transport holds the trump card in the acquisition of new rolling stock, because it has to give permission before that can be done? Under the new franchise, does he envisage that whoever wins it or other franchises will have reasonable freedom to negotiate, without the dead hand of the department?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the reason why it is necessary for the department to have the final say is so that it could take over the franchise and run the rolling stock. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, talked about the franchisee handing in the keys. Franchisees might want to do that if they negotiated a rolling stock agreement that had a balloon payment right at the end. Obviously, the department would refuse that. We are very keen that bidders are able to negotiate freely with the rolling stock companies, with the exception of the IEP, on this franchise.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, will the electrification proposals have an adverse temporary effect on capacity on the lines? In that context, will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will still consider electrification of the Great Western line through to Swansea?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point, he is absolutely right that there will be disruption on services from Paddington due to the electrification, but it is obviously worth doing. On the wider point about electrification from Cardiff to Swansea, we shall have to wait to see.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, an issue raised by train operators is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, if they want to increase rolling stock capacity to meet extra demand, they have to secure the approval of the Department for Transport either to use existing rolling stock more intensively or to lease additional rolling stock from the leasing companies. The approval of the Department for Transport is also required before train operators can speed up scheduled services following improvements to the infrastructure. Will the Government make provision in the new Great Western passenger franchise and in existing and other new franchises to enable the train operator to make such changes in future, subject to the other terms of the franchise remaining the same, without having to go through the, at times, time-consuming and lengthy procedure for obtaining prior approval from the Department for Transport?
Earl Attlee
I think that the noble Lord broadly describes some of the difficulties of franchising. We will have to see what the result of the consultation is.
Baroness O'Cathain
My Lords, in view of the disconnect that seems to exist between the passenger experience and the views of the Department for Transport, would it not be a good idea if the 50 most senior members of the Department for Transport had it within their remit that they have to travel on the “Late Western” line at least once a month?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I do not think that would be a practical requirement. However, one objective of this franchising round is to ensure that the overall passenger experience improves throughout the lifetime of the franchise.
Individual Savings Accounts: AIM Shares
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Northbrook
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will reconsider their decision not to allow shares traded on the Alternative Investment Market to be eligible for Individual Savings Accounts.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, individual savings accounts, or ISAs, are the Government’s main tax incentive for non-pensions savings, and they offer a simple, straightforward and trusted brand. The Government believe it is important that ISAs continue to hold these characteristics. AIM shares tend to present a higher level of risk, and can be less liquid. For those reasons, the Government do not intend to make them an eligible investment for the ISA wrapper.
Lord Northbrook
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, which once again is disappointing. I thought that the policy of the coalition Government was to encourage personal choice and, indeed, investment in our smaller and growing companies. The arguments for including AIM stocks in ISAs are very strong. They are supported by the Stock Exchange and the Quoted Companies Alliance, as they were by noble Lords on all sides of the House when the question was raised a year ago. Their eligibility would widen the shareholder base, improve liquidity and facilitate fund-raising. What is the logic of AIM stocks being included in SIPPs but not in ISAs?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, this is a Question that we come back to on a regular basis and my answers are going to sound boringly repetitive. I see the noble Lord, Lord Myners, in his place. He answered this Question in the dying days of the previous Government. The simple fact is that the ISA is a trusted brand in which more than 23 million adults—45 per cent of the adult population—hold shares, and we need to protect that trusted brand and the suite of products within it. On the other hand, the Government have taken a range of measures to support small businesses. In relation to SIPPs, the liquidity requirements of an ISA with a 30-day withdrawal period, in particular, are very different from what might be the case when locking up shares for the long term in a pension savings product.
Lord Peston
My Lords, I think that I understand the noble Lord’s answer but surely the main criterion that ought to be applied to ISAs is: do we have a system that maximises people’s propensity to save using ISAs? If it can be demonstrated that the Alternative Investment Market will do that, even if it is more risky—and, incidentally, people ought to know that all investments are risky—surely it still makes sense for the Government to widen the range of assets, assuming that that encourages people to save.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am very happy to confirm that ISAs have indeed been a very successful product. As I said, 45 per cent of the population over the age of 16 hold them. On the latest numbers that I have seen, the total value of ISAs is £350 billion. It was a successful initiative of the previous Government. It is the main savings product of a large part of the population and we should not do anything to undermine the value of that brand.
Lord Lee of Trafford
Can my noble friend name any organisation, any professional body or any serious investment commentator that supports the Government’s policy?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, it depends what question they are asked and what the considerations are. I can see that lots of people have an interest in wanting AIM shares to be eligible for ISAs. However, I suspect that if they were also asked whether they wished to see AIM shares lose some of the tax benefits that they have in the way of eligibility for enterprise investment schemes and venture capital trusts and particularly the inheritance tax advantage that comes with their status as business property relief, they might not be so keen on this change.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, would the Minister care to remind the House of the scale of the collapse of companies on the AIM market? Perhaps I may say that I support the Government’s position.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, the AIM market has been very successful, and I do not want to say anything to suggest that it is not. However, it is true that the number of shares on that market has come down from a peak of about 1,700 to the current figure of about 1,140, and of course there has been a similar decline in the value of the market. Therefore, it is a successful market but one that has a range of much smaller shares within it.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I should declare my interest as a director of an AIM-listed company. Is not the cost the real reason that my noble friend is not prepared to agree to this proposal? How is that consistent with the Government’s declared policy of wanting to encourage investment in small businesses and start-up companies in order to get the growth in our economy which is desperately needed?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, first, I explained the reasons why the Government decided—as the previous Government rightly did—not to make AIM shares eligible. On the other hand, I am happy to summarise some of the measures to support small businesses that the Government are taking—for instance, credit easing, with up to £20 billion of lower-cost lending; £1 billion through the business finance partnership for mid-sized companies through non-bank lending channels; greater tax relief for EIS and VCT schemes; more than £500 million going into venture capital funds, including through business angel co-investment funds; and the extension of the enterprise finance guarantee. I could go on.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the problem of devaluing the brand by including riskier assets. To what degree was the brand devalued when ISAs were extended from cash ISAs to share ISAs?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, it is entirely appropriate, because ISAs are the main savings vehicle for people in this country, that a range of products, both cash and equity and debt products, should be eligible for an ISA. As I explained, there is an appropriate line to be drawn, and it is where the previous Government and this Government drew it. This Government are fully continuing on AIM with the previous Government's policy.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, I declare an interest as a holder of ISAs who has no desire to invest in AIM. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, made a major point to which the Minister did not reply. It is totally inadequate to keep saying that the Government are not going to do it. Will the Minister not at least reconsider it?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, there are no plans to reconsider it. My noble friend Lord Forsyth put up another possible reason why the Government might not want to make the change. I said that the Government were not making the change for the reasons that I first gave.
Legal Aid
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the equality impact assessments lay out the best estimates of the likely costs and benefits of the reforms. The equality impact assessment considers the financial implications for not-for-profit providers, of which law centres are an example.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Everyone agrees what a vital and civilising role law centres perform around our country. Everyone agrees that early legal advice solves problems, helps people, changes lives and often saves costly and unnecessary cases going to court. The effect of taking social welfare law out of scope will be to reduce the funding for legal help by law centres by 85.8 per cent. Law centres will inevitably close and many thousands of people, often the poor and marginalised, will be left without access to justice. Even the TaxPayers’ Alliance chairman wrote:
“Almost everyone who has looked at these particular cuts thinks that too many of them will end up costing taxpayers more than they save”.
Does the Minister agree with that analysis, and would it not be an absurd and wrong result if we should end up spending more public money in order to make our country less just and less civilised?
Lord McNally
My Lords, the noble Lord will not expect me to agree with that analysis, which has been his constant theme during the passage of the LASPO Bill, and I suspect will continue to be, based on a worst-case scenario. We are restructuring legal aid and that will have an impact on the not-for-profit sector. We have never resiled from that. However, we also appreciate the benefits of the not-for-profit sector, which is why we provided £107 million in transitional funds and an additional £20 million to help the sector restructure for the new framework of legal aid and legal services that the reforms are intended to bring about. I do not accept the worst-case scenario that has been the basis of the noble Lord's arguments throughout the passage of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the law centres are probably the most efficient and economical way of providing advice for those who are not particularly well off but who really need advice?
Lord McNally
I thank my noble and learned friend for that helpful question—he is making a habit of helpful interventions. Of course we do, and nobody doubts that. That is why, as I said before, we have provided funds for this transitional period and why my honourable friend Nick Hurd is at this moment making attempts to identify funding that will give the not-for-profit sector a better long-term future. Nobody denies, underestimates or fails to appreciate the benefits of the not-for-profit sector. The key is how it will adjust to the new structure of legal services that we are bringing about by these reforms.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, is equality before the law not a basic liberal principle? Why has the coalition abrogated it?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Law Centres Federation expects several urban law centres to close? Where are the distressed people who have hitherto got essential advice from those law centres going to go? Secondly, if the Minister is inclined to say that they can use the telephone helpline that we propose to set up, would he not accept that many of the people in most need of basic welfare law advice, which is often hugely complicated, are inarticulate and unable to access the advice they need on a telephone helpline?
Lord McNally
Again, my noble friend quite often intervenes to ask a question and then provides part of the answer. Yes, part of the answer is the electronic means of advice through telephone gateways et cetera. I do not accept his definition of the capabilities of people to get advice this way. I think he is out of date in that respect—
Lord McNally
People now use local library facilities, go online and use all kinds of ways. I repeat that we are looking at the not-for-profit sector to see how it will be able to help. We do not always preach the worst-case solutions and scenarios which, again, have been the common theme from my noble friend. We are reforming the legal aid scheme, as the previous Administration said they would. It will cause differences in structure for the not-for-profit sector. We are trying to help it to adjust in that transition and are urgently looking for a long-term solution as far as its funding is concerned.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, what impact does the Minister expect the cuts to have, in particular, on disabled people who rely very heavily on law centres for advice on housing and welfare issues? Might this not be a further blow to those who are already disadvantaged in making their case to tribunals?
Lord McNally
We are having this debate more widely in the Bills going through the House. Some of the worst-case scenarios will not be borne out by experience. I think that the not-for-profit sector will adjust to these new circumstances. We have argued the case in the Bills for the changes we are making, which we think will not be borne out with some of the—I put it at its most gentle—worst-case scenarios that are put forward by those opposing us.
Companies: Executive Remuneration
Lord Lea of Crondall
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they will ensure that company boards take full account of the interests and views of employees and the wider public in the determination of executive board pay.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, it is not for Government to micromanage how companies set board pay. Indeed, it is for shareholders to challenge where they believe pay is inappropriate. Last week, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills announced proposals to improve the information that shareholders have at their disposal, and this includes requiring companies to report on how they have taken account of the views and pay levels of employees, and company performance, when setting executive pay.
Lord Lea of Crondall
I thank the Minister for that reply. Mr Cable’s statement undoubtedly contained some excellent analysis, but two questions arise. First, without implementing Ed Miliband’s proposal for worker representatives to be on remuneration committees but simply relying on corporate shareholders to stop the insane leapfrogging that goes on at present, what is there—except in the special case of RBS—that will bring about these overdue changes? Secondly, on information and consultation bodies in industry, Mr Cable’s wish for things to move faster than the present snail’s pace is welcome, but again it is not clear what the driver of faster change will be. Will the Secretary of State take an early opportunity to discuss his ideas on this with the TUC?
Baroness Wilcox
Actually, shareholders are getting more engaged on the issue of pay. They have publicly stated their intention to get tougher, particularly with the large public companies, and we are giving them the tools to do this, which is what the Secretary of State, Vince Cable, said last week. As to the second half of the question—which the noble Lord is perfectly entitled to ask, as he reminded me before we came in here today—my ministerial colleagues Vince Cable and Ed Davey meet regularly with representatives of the TUC and will look to discuss this with them the next time they meet.
Lord Myners
My Lords, I declare an interest as a partner in a fund management firm. The Leader of the House in the other place said in answer to a question from my honourable friend Ms Angela Eagle before the recess that the Government were looking into the case for shareholders being represented on the nominations committees that appoint the independent directors to boards. Vince Cable said nothing on this subject. Can the Minister explain why he was silent on that, and can she assure us that the ministry will ask Professor John Kay to ensure that this is investigated in his review on governance?
Baroness Wilcox
The noble Lord gave the answer in the question that he asked me. Professor Kay will be giving his interim review next month and I am absolutely sure he will be answering the question that the noble Lord has asked.
Lord Razzall
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware that the Secretary of State’s statement endorsed 10 of the 12 recommendations of the High Pay Commission; the major one that was not endorsed was that there should be employee representatives on the remuneration committee. Is she prepared to expand a little on that and accept that there are a number of reasons for it, particularly the difficulty for companies that have the majority of their employees outside the United Kingdom? Will she also accept that one of the problems is weak trade union recognition among leading companies, and can she expand on what the Government propose to do to honour the Secretary of State’s undertaking to try to obtain the views of employees on these issues?
Baroness Wilcox
The Secretary of State gave a very broad, sweeping statement last week, as my noble friend has already mentioned, which he will be speaking to more and more as the weeks go on. Putting employees on board committees is something that obviously everybody would like to see happen. The closed shop of boards and board committees needs to change and we are taking measures to promote diversity. However, as the Secretary of State made clear last week, bringing people on to board committees who are not also company directors, with the associate responsibilities, is not the way forward.
Lord Nickson
My Lords, do the Government agree with the article in today’s Times by Sir Roger Carr, president of the CBI, that if the business climate is to thrive in the United Kingdom, both politicians and the public need to understand and respect the need for it to do so, and the wealth and the employment that it creates, and that unless we do, we are quite likely to be negative in that respect? Do the Government agree with the sentiments expressed by Sir Roger Carr?
Baroness Wilcox
We want individuals who genuinely create jobs and wealth for the UK to be appropriately rewarded, but it is not right that people are rewarded for lacklustre performance. That is the area that we have to look at and the area that we are encouraging the shareholders, especially the big ones, to look at, too. If they can get the conditions in which deals are arranged, I am quite sure that everyone will be delighted to see one of the great men of the world who can run these companies actually run a British company and get whatever bonus he is entitled to.
Lord Monks
My Lords, in view of the Government’s confidence that shareholders will be able, under these new arrangements, to curb inflation in boardrooms, which has been rampant, are the Government prepared to revisit quickly the issue of representations on remuneration committees by outside interests, including employees, especially in the light of the successful experience of this in neighbouring countries across the North Sea?
Baroness Wilcox
I have lived in the European Union and worked in companies there that have very different methods from ours. One of the things that I found difficult was that very often when one had a range of employees on the board, the board’s decisions would be taken outside the boardroom and what happened inside the boardroom was rubber-stamping. We certainly do not want to see that in this country. However, we are looking at whatever we can. I will reinforce the point, if I may, that UK employees in large companies already have the right to request that their employers consult them through information and consultation arrangements, and we would encourage them to use those arrangements. More than that, I would encourage the union leaders to encourage employee members to use them—they are available to them—rather than necessarily taking them down the path of a more extravagant gesture.
Welfare Reform Bill
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:38 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 246 / Noes: 230 - Amendment 1 agreed.
Baroness Meacher
“such additional amount to be paid at either a higher rate, or a lower rate, which shall be no less than two-thirds of the higher rate as may be prescribed”
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, Amendment 1 seeks to ensure that the gap between the higher and normal-rate additions for disabled children is not too great. The Government’s proposals for these additions, according to the Minister, are designed to be revenue neutral. The money saved is to be used to raise the level of income for adults in the support group.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, but might I just suggest that people leave the Chamber quietly, because it is very difficult to hear what she is saying?
Baroness Meacher
The amendment proposes that Ministers revisit the relationship between the new levels of disability addition for children and allocate resources to adults in the support group when new money allows. I know that we must move on from arguments made on Report, but I must make just a few points to help my argument here to be coherent.
Very briefly, under the new provision for a disability addition and a higher addition, families who have a child who is eligible for the higher addition will receive £1.50 per week more than current claimants do, but families with disabled children who do not meet the stiff criteria for the higher addition will receive £27 per week less. Most families with a disabled child will therefore lose about £1,400 a year.
This amendment would peg the normal addition for disabled children at two-thirds the level of the higher disability addition for children. The House voted on a more radical amendment on this issue on Report and the Division was lost by two votes. We are seeking to eliminate the cliff-edge between the two levels of disability addition for children because all such families are far less likely, for example, to be able to rely on relatives or other informal carers. Their childcare costs will be far higher than those with a non-disabled child. Of course, families will have to pay 30 per cent of their childcare costs whereas today they pay, I think, 5 per cent. There really is an issue of work incentives for those parents, although I understand that the Minister will have a go at me on that issue.
On another terribly important matter, the need for high childcare costs will continue until the child is very much older, if not indefinitely. That applies to children who would not qualify for the higher rate addition yet who may be very severely disabled. That is the point. This amendment would go a long way to creating a much fairer system, which is what we are all about.
One might ask whether it really matters. It does matter because 100,000 or so disabled children affected by this loss of benefit are very likely to live in poverty. Recent research by the Children’s Society indicates that once the additional costs of disability are accounted for, four in every 10 disabled children are living in poverty and a loss of income would really matter. Therefore, disabled children would not only live in poverty but would have vastly greater costs.
The Government argue that their new additions align the levels of support for disabled children with those for disabled adults, but the levels of support are based on completely different tests. For children the test is based on eligibility for DLA, and for adults it is based on their fitness for work. So I am not quite sure how the Government are arguing that these have been aligned.
The Government argue that the changes will ease the transition to adulthood for disabled children. On Report, the Minister said:
“We want to smooth the transition from childhood to adulthood by removing that artificial divide”.—[Official Report, 12/12/11; col. 1054.]
In fact, the restructuring will reduce the support for most disabled children. It will not reduce the support for the very most disabled children who require night-time care, but it will reduce it for others. Therefore, I do not accept the argument.
There are good reasons for proposing a disability addition at two-thirds of the higher rate for children. This addition is needed to contribute to the costs of special clothing, repairing damage, safety measures and special food, and to contribute to the costs of giving disabled children access to the opportunities that other children have. We know that simple things like swimming lessons cost something like £270 for 12 lessons for a disabled child as opposed to £80 for a normal child. Where will that money come from? A summer club costs £450 per week for a disabled child compared with £100 a week for a non-disabled child. Yet these are the things that would give a parent a break and really help a child to socialise and benefit from development opportunities.
The Government’s proposed child additions go nowhere near covering these extra costs. I fear that their proposed reforms to disability additions are short-term fixes. I understand the position of the Minister, who is under huge pressure from the Treasury. One of the troubles for this House and noble Lords is that this reform, much of which we support in principle, is being tangled up with swingeing cuts to benefits which are having unacceptable impacts. Therefore, we are trying at the edge to ameliorate some of those unacceptable impacts. That is what we are about. The Government’s proposed reforms to disability additions therefore need another look by Ministers.
I turn to the particular problems of single parents with a disabled child. Many years ago I ran a group for parents of severely disabled children. I expected lots of mums and dads to turn up, and I was faced with what I thought was an absolute tragedy: the room was full of mothers who told me that the fathers had gone. Many of them had left home within months of the birth of the disabled child. It is these mothers and a great deal of others whom we need to have in our minds today.
Many parents of disabled children will be doing something very valuable for society by staying at home to develop their children’s full potential. They should not be under pressure, even in these stringent times, to go out and stack shelves. By devoting themselves full-time to therapy, play exercises and other learning activities, they are reducing the dependency levels of their children that, with luck, will last throughout their lives—some cannot make progress, of course, but many can—and increasing the possibility that their children can develop a degree of independence, and maybe even financial independence, in adulthood. It would be wise for the Government to take this issue very seriously.
I would ask the Minister to revisit the two levels of disability additions to consider whether the balance is right. Is there not merit in leaving the higher rate at £76 and retaining the basic level at two-thirds of that sum, which is something like £50? That really would make an enormous difference to these families. I would be grateful if the Minister would agree to take this matter away for further consideration, even at this very late stage, in the light of what I think are very powerful arguments for some change in their approach. Finally, will he agree to review the impact of the disability benefits changes in the universal credit system one year after its introduction—although I know that the system is to be introduced over time, so a year may not be terribly realistic? While doing that, will the Minister consider taking a look at reviewing the entire welfare reform package? I beg to move.
Baroness Wilkins
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment, which has been ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. The children we are talking about, those who will be affected by this reduction in benefit, are those who are profoundly deaf, who have Down’s syndrome and those with cerebral palsy, among many other conditions. The Government are focusing their resources on the most severely disabled, but the costs of bringing up a disabled child do not equate with the severity of the impairment. The care costs can be just as expensive, sometimes even more so, for bringing up a child who will qualify only for the future lower rate of addition under the Bill.
I grew up with my friend’s younger sister who was born with cerebral palsy. It was a family with four children. The whole family’s life was dominated by trips to London to visit her therapists, visits to hospital, visits to the swimming pool and so on, so that she could avoid contractures and had a chance to develop her full potential. Of course, we all had to go because there was no one to look after us at home. The cost must have been considerable. Then there were the costs of extra equipment, the constant wear on her clothes and so on. If Paula had qualified for the higher rate of care and needed night time attendance as well, it would have put a considerable strain on her family, but it would only marginally have increased the costs. Under this Bill, Paula’s benefits would have been halved, and her chances of developing to her full potential and living an independent life would have had no hope at all.
What about profoundly deaf children? Most do not need day and night care and so would not qualify for the higher rate. The National Deaf Children’s Society tells me that it was contacted by Laura, a single mother whose daughter was diagnosed as deaf soon after she was born. Laura had to give up her job as a nurse as she was the only person who was able to care for her child. She said to me that her life then spiralled out of control and she started getting into financial trouble. All she could think about was, “I have got to eat less and I have got to turn the heating down”, otherwise she simply would not be able to support her daughter. The NDCS helped her to apply for the current benefits, and now that the stress of not being in financial trouble has gone, she is finally able to concentrate on learning to communicate with her child, thus giving her the best possible start in life. But under this Bill Laura would lose up to £1,400 a year. That is £22,000 over her daughter’s childhood. The sum of £1,400 is the cost of heating your house for a year. Think of the danger and the misery that that will mean on a freezing cold day like today.
On Report, the Minister argued that he was working within a fixed financial envelope and that he just could not maintain the existing rates for disabled children if he was going to increase the rates for severely disabled adults. If ever there was an example of robbing poor Peter to pay poor Paul, this would be it. Surely the Chancellor is able to release his noble friend the Minister from this part of his restrictive envelope and find the money from the shoulders of people who would not notice the loss of £1,400 a year. We know that there are many of them; we read of them daily in our newspaper headlines.
Does the Prime Minister really wish to leave this as his legacy for disabled children—children with cerebral palsy? I urge your Lordships to support the amendment and send a message to the Commons to think again.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester
I gather that we are being asked not to rehearse all the arguments. We have, anyway, heard very full arguments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Wilkins. I shall try instead to concentrate on the amendment.
No one likes cliff edges of any sort in the benefits system, and this amendment tries to make one edge less steep over time. The cliff edge that the Government are trying to eliminate in universal credit is the amount of disability additions received, by way of different gateways, by new claimant families for a moderately disabled child under 16 and a moderately disabled adult of 16 and over. The amendment’s cliff edge is different. It tries to address the difficult and sometimes rather artificial differences between the needs of a severely disabled child—whose family will get more money under the Bill—and those of a moderately disabled child and a much less disabled child, both of whose families will get much less money. I have great sympathy with the amendment because I believe that as many families as possible with even moderately disabled children should be helped, although I acknowledge that the amendment, narrowly drawn as it is, to some extent preserves the cliff edge between the disability needs of children and adults in universal credit which the Government are trying to eliminate.
The question is whether the formula in the amendment should be locked into the Bill, or whether everything should be left to regulations. My noble friend Lord German will address that shortly.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I should like to talk directly to my noble friend the Minister about money, because we all understand the imperative to reduce the deficit and how, right the way through the Bill, trying to cut back has been part of the debate on almost every clause. However, this amendment seeks to attain proportionality between that higher and lower amount of addition made to universal credit for disabled children.
I come back to a question that we have raised in previous debates: what exactly do we mean by “disability light”, because that is really what we are talking about. These are still disabled children, in the same way as, in other parts of the Bill, they are still disabled adults. It might be presumed that it is somehow like comparing a light head cold with a really nasty bout of flu, but I say to my noble friend—I should have referred to my interests in the register—that it is not like that. For children with disabilities who will lose this huge sum of money and for their carers, particularly the parents, the impact will be great. We have already heard in your Lordships' House today about the impact on some—not all—families of caring for a disabled child, as well as on the relationship between the parents and—and this should never be forgotten—on other siblings. Usually there are other people in the family. They all share in the responsibility when they share a household with a disabled child.
I have spent many years dealing with casework for what must run into hundreds, if not thousands, of adults and children on the autistic spectrum. If this is about money, I hope my noble friend will take my word for it that although they might be considered as “disabled light” in childhood, a huge proportion of them will be the big bills to the public purse later on in adolescence and adulthood. Not only is the human cost of that tragic and avoidable—because most of it is avoidable, if it is properly planned and cared for—but there is the economic aspect. Just putting in the basics early enough, some of which are very low-budget items, can prevent the very big crisis-budget bills that inevitably come. I say “inevitably” quite deliberately, because that is what we know happens; it is well recorded. We have enough evidence of this right across the whole disability spectrum, particularly in some of those spectrums that I take a particular interest in, which are not immediately visible. They are the ones where there is no obvious physical disability but which none the less have a profound impact on the individual concerned. I do not want to overegg this, but Members of the House will have seen the headlines. We see these tragic cases where parents have a disabled child who is sometimes of school age but sometimes an adult dependent child; for those parents, childhood does not end at 18 or when they leave education, it goes on year after year. I can think of some pensioner parents with pensioner-age children still living at home and wondering what is going to happen to them. This is a lifetime commitment for parents.
I am quite sure that if my noble friend, and certainly the Treasury, have done the cost-benefit analysis that I asked for when we discussed DLA in the context of this Bill, they will find that this amendment, although not what the Government are proposing, will save the public purse over the medium to longer term. If we look at it in those crude terms—because that is what I feel they are—we will save a lot of pain and anguish. We will certainly save lives. At the end of the day, it will also save the Exchequer money in some part of the public sector where it will almost certainly have to be found in a hurry.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, I stand very briefly to support this amendment. As a psychiatrist who has worked for many years with families with disabled children such as those we have been hearing about, I feel very strongly about the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, made about proportionality. It is very difficult to base the cost of having a disabled child on whether the child needs care at night or only during the day. This relates particularly to children who have very difficult and challenging behaviour, including those with learning disabilities who might have attention deficit syndromes or autistic spectrum disorders. This amendment needs very careful and thoughtful consideration.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, I am pleased to support this amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lady Meacher and so clearly defined by the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilkins and Lady Browning. The principles behind universal credit are an acknowledged improvement on the current arrangements for benefits for people who are either in or out of work. Noble Lords cannot but be aware of the enormous strains that disability can put on individuals and their families. That has been pointed out to us today. These strains fall disproportionately on parents of children with disabilities. Most of the time the public are unaware of the emotional demands made by a child with whom his parents cannot reason and whose needs are unending, unpredictable and create additional burdens on the family finances. I have a huge respect for mothers who continue to cope while at the end of their tethers.
The improvements in neonatal survival rates have brought with them more children who are very dependent. Some will never be wholly independent. Some children become disabled through illness or accident for which no one is to blame. There will be no huge compensation payouts for them. This is a responsibility that can be too much for parents to bear alone and I believe that we should all ensure that they receive adequate support.
Recent research by Dr Esther Crawley at Bristol University showed that as many as one in 100 children away from school may have CFS/ME. Many of these children are currently in receipt of DLA at the lower rate, which has a mobility component, as well as others at the higher rate, although they can walk short distances. We do not know how such children will be assessed in future, although if the PIP assessment is anything to go by they will lose the mobility component. Their DLA helps with childcare costs and transport, among other things. It also provides a passport to other benefits, such as Blue Badge, congestion charge exemption and the London Taxicard. As one mother put it to me recently:
“Without these my daughter would essentially be housebound and not only would have no social life whatsoever, but she couldn’t get to medical or dental appointments or places of educational interest associated with her studies. She is a clever talented girl who cannot progress to higher education without these things”.
I am growing increasingly concerned about the strains that we are about to put on our less fortunate citizens by the provisions of this Bill. There are reports appearing on a regular basis of deaths of people found by ATOS to be fit for work. Chris Grayling acknowledged that 31 people had died while awaiting their appeals in the three years to last October. I understand that benefit cuts are also confirmed by coroners as the cause of at least 16 suicides. The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, has mentioned mothers who have murdered their children and then committed suicide.
Too often children with disabilities are cared for by a lone parent, as we heard from my noble friend Lady Meacher. Rejection of this amendment could be the last straw. Acceptance of this amendment may well be their lifeline.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I support this amendment. I am not going to repeat what I said at Second Reading, in Committee and at Report stage, save to emphasise once again that as a family who lost two severely handicapped boys we know the impact of cost when there is disability in the family. Although at their latter stages they would undoubtedly have had the highest available support, at earlier stages they would probably not under the definitions now current. There are thousands of children and families who will most certainly miss out.
We are told that Disability Rights UK is very concerned about the impact that this will have on families with disabled children and particularly, as in our case, on those with more than one disabled child. It is concerned about the effect that it will have on the longer-term life chances if they grow up in poverty. The Minister said at Report stage that,
“the impact of the reform of disability payments on the number of disabled children living in relative poverty will be negligible”.—[Official Report, 12/12/11; col. 1055.]
Negligible—that is not the assessment of others. The Children’s Society estimates that over 40 per cent of disabled children already live in poverty. The Minister conceded at Report stage that we are talking about taking £200 million and redirecting it. What will be the effect of taking £200 million off those who already are very near to poverty? That is surely not acceptable.
The Minister emphasised at Report stage the provisions of the transitional arrangements being made, but he conceded that as inflation bites—and it is still running at 5 per cent—the value of this will erode, which will be a real loss to these most vulnerable people. If this issue is to be considered further, as the mover of the amendment requested, and the Government give it further thought, we must keep the issue alive by adopting the amendment today. Otherwise we will lose the opportunity. I beg the Government either to accept this or to come back with their own amendments in another place and bring them here—or, alternatively, I suggest that we as a House ensure that they are carried.
Lord Walton of Detchant
My Lords, I, too, wish to speak relatively briefly to this important amendment. In the course of my neurological training and in my career, I spent some time assessing children with cerebral palsy who attended the excellent Percy Hedley centre in Newcastle upon Tyne and received outstanding treatment. However, when I saw the varying degrees of disability produced by this group of conditions—a group of immense variability—and saw the effect that the condition of these children had on their families, sometimes leading to family breakdown, as the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, said, I became increasingly concerned about the evidence of the disability and the resultant poverty which developed in many of these families.
Some of my personal research was dealing with a progressive disease—Duchenne muscular dystrophy—where young boys born apparently normal would begin at about the age of three to have difficulty in walking. They then began to have problems with falling frequently and getting up from the floor, and progressively became increasingly disabled so that many of them were taken to a wheelchair by the time that they were aged 10. I saw the effect that this had when not just one but two boys might be affected in an individual family, and the problems faced by those parents were immense. I shall never forget one mother saying to me, “I see my son die a little every day”.
I am not talking just about static conditions such as cerebral palsy—although even in cerebral palsy as the child becomes older, the disability may remain neurologically non-progressive—but about the problems that begin to emerge over schooling and a whole series of other issues, which become increasingly important and increasingly matters for concern. I could go on about my personal experience in the field of neurology and paediatric neurology but I would simply say that this is a very worthwhile amendment, and one which deserves your Lordships' support.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I wonder whether I might intervene briefly. I am in a slightly awkward position, and it may not surprise the House to know that I have been approached by all parties to this argument, either to say something on their side or to shut up. I am going to make a slightly ambivalent speech which will leave a lot depending on the Minister. I fully support the concerns that have been expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, by my noble friends Lady Thomas of Winchester and Lady Browning, and by others. The Government need to listen to this and take heed, and come forward with proposals which address these concerns.
In the light of what I said last week, it will not surprise the House to know that I do not think that setting benefit rates or benefit relationships in concrete in primary legislation is sensible. I would prefer that we leave it for Ministers to decide in regulations, as the Bill provides, provided it is clear that they are going to put something sensible in those regulations and that we shall have a proper opportunity to scrutinise them. It will follow from that that I want a positive response from the Minister before deciding what I am going to do.
I will make one further point, which picks up on what the noble Lord, Lord Walton, was saying. The other thing that strikes me about setting things in concrete is that this is a world in which things change very fast, because of medical advances. He referred to Duchenne muscular dystrophy. I think I have more knowledge of cystic fibrosis, where the world has moved on hugely in the past 20 or 30 years—not least because of work done at the hospital of which I used to be chairman, the Royal Brompton—and that is happening all over the scene. Conditions that were immediately life-threatening or life-limiting at a very early age are now more treatable, and life is longer. Anything that ties us down to an inflexible framework for dealing with these problems is probably not the right way forward.
That, though, is simply a view that I express to the House. My fundamental point is that this is better dealt with in regulations, provided we can ensure that the Government will do that. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say.
Lord Peston
My Lords, I congratulate my old friend the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on her excellent introduction to the amendment.
I have two points to make. First, regarding the excellent speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, I used to be an expert on cost-benefit analysis; indeed, I did the very first piece of cost-benefit analysis ever done in the Treasury, and I am talking about a very long time ago. I have not the slightest doubt that if the Government were to conduct such an analysis—I am too old now to do it for them—of what they are doing in this area, it would show that there will be no net economic saving nor net financial saving from what they are doing now. Nor do I have the slightest doubt that there are plenty of very good economists in the Treasury who already know that.
My main point is that the question before us is an ethical one and should not be treated primarily in economic and financial terms. Your Lordships’ House is the best suited place that I know of to discuss such matters; indeed, I believe that we have a duty to consider the ethical aspects of what the Government are doing with regard to disabled young people. My main intellectual hobby is philosophy, and I know no philosopher who has ever written on the subject of ethics who would be other than appalled at the notion that we are discussing which group of disabled should bear the burden. Those philosophers would regard that as a rather sick formulation of policy-making and would be equally appalled that such burdens should fall on two of the most vulnerable groups in our society. The first group is the young disabled, about whom their view would be that if the Government cannot find the money, we taxpayers should meet the cost. That would be the correct ethical response to all this. The second group we ought also to bear in mind, as various contributors have mentioned, is carers and the burden placed them. I thank goodness that I have never had to be a carer in that sense. As has been pointed out, those carers worry about whether they dare die as their disabled people have got older.
The Government simply should not be going down this path. I say in terms to the Minister that he should be ashamed of himself in trying to defend such unethical behaviour.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, a Division on a similar amendment was lost by two votes. We must all remember that we have here a compromise that would mean that at least some of the huge number of children would not be as severely deprived of the many things that they need in their lives as otherwise. It is also a question, as we have heard graphically spelt out, of many single parents, mainly young mothers, coping on their own with all these additional burdens and the need to stretch the money in ways that your Lordships have read about day after day in the pleadings that come through to us all. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to whether a compromise of some sort would do. Personally, I would prefer the amendment as it is to be passed in full; it is about the maximum that any reasonable, fair-minded person would be happy to receive.
The amendment tabled earlier by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, was passed. If the Minister cannot give us sufficient reassurance and this amendment is voted on and passed, the other place will have an opportunity to see just how widespread is the support for it across all Benches, as we saw with the noble and learned Lord’s amendment. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will think very hard about accepting this amendment, which was so brilliantly moved by my noble friend Lady Meacher.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, it has been said that the mark of a civilised society is the way that it cares for its most vulnerable. I remind the Minister that the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, encapsulated the societal burden of a failure to demonstrate that we are a civilised society.
I wish to put some figures on the table which have not been mentioned in the debate to date. The Family Fund is a charity that provides grants to low-income families caring for severely disabled children. In 2010, it had to pay out to a range of families, 64 per cent of whom had a child who was not receiving the higher rate of DLA. Recent figures from the Social Fund found that 69 per cent of families with disabled children are worried about their financial situation, with 61 per cent of those struggling to pay monthly bills and three-quarters believing that the high costs of caring for a disabled child are the cause of their financial situation. Other children in the family will suffer as a result of that, probably disproportionately greatly, because the psychology of a parent caring for a disabled child often dictates that that child becomes a focus of disproportionate attention.
Research by CLIC Sargent found that on average parents spend about £367 on extra expenses a month following a child’s cancer diagnosis and treatment, resulting in an annual spend of about £4,400 for parents of a child with cancer. When these families, whether suddenly or gradually devastated by illness, do not have the money they need with which to pay not for luxuries but very basic things to enable them to provide care for the disabled child, the other children in the family, the health service and society as a whole end up paying a higher price in many domains.
The amendment was eloquently introduced by my noble friend Lady Meacher. I urge the Minister to accept it, thereby removing the need to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, I support this amendment, but in so doing I understand the position in which the noble Lord finds himself with a set of sealed envelopes. Like many other noble Lords, I encourage him to go back to the Treasury, or at least to have a look at how the available funding can be properly distributed. After all, this is a compromise. Personally, I would like us not to be in this position at all but rather to ensure that we do not make any cuts, because these are cuts—unlike some of the other reforms—to the budgets of families with disabled children.
I do not want to repeat the eloquent speeches that have already been made but to make three brief and, I hope, slightly different points. First, the Government need to take the long view as regards financial management. If we take the short-term view, we will find that many of these families will fall into even more disarray than they are in already. We should remember that, as has been said—I reinforce this point—the majority of these families are single-parent families looked after by mothers. These are not women who have had a child for some feckless reason, as is often portrayed in the newspapers, but women whose husbands cannot tolerate the pressure of having a disabled child in the household and have simply gone out of the picture—so these women are alone. Often that means that they cannot support their child’s situation, which results in many children going into care. I shall not quote more statistics, but noble Lords know that there are large numbers of disabled children in care at the moment and placing them in foster homes is very difficult; in fact, to get them adopted is almost impossible. The state’s burden of caring for such children is huge; the costs per week of caring for a disabled child can run into thousands. In taking the long view, we have to remember the number of children in care.
My last point is that, as several people have said, if we are a civilised society, we want children to grow up to be active young people and to have a proper transition into adulthood. I declare an interest as the president of Livability, a charity which looks after young people in schools, in colleges and through into adult care. I understand the need for that transition. If we are to do that and if we are to ensure that such families have a proper life, appropriate funding is crucial. Noble Lords may have disabled children but, if you are trying to bring them up on the kind of money that these families have and in the housing conditions and relationship situations of these families, funding is absolutely crucial to underpin the care, love and continuity that these children desperately need. I ask the Minister to look in his envelopes again to see whether there is not some way in which the money can be redistributed to ensure that that does not happen.
Lord German
My Lords, I would like to take a little further the arguments, put by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, about where we go with the concerns that have been widely expressed around the House. It is worth reminding noble Lords that the intention expressed by the Minister is not in the Bill before us; that is the subject of future regulations that are to be brought forward. I understand that the purpose behind the amendment is to lock the Minister into a pattern which will remain for many years to come. If you put something into primary legislation, it will be locked there for many years until time is found to change it. I shall return to some of those issues later.
One thing that has not been mentioned is the other cliff edge—my noble friend Lady Thomas mentioned this in her speech—relating to those who are 16 and those who are 17. The cliff edge is enormous. We also have to consider the change in the funding, although it is not the subject of this amendment, but it is the subject of the Minister’s thinking, as expressed to us. Many people see the problem of no continuity for disabled people between the ages of 15, 16 and 17. That is the issue that the Minister is concerned about.
Another related issue is not just the level of payments, but the way in which the payments will be funded over time. Perhaps this House would be better thinking about having a further debate on this or having that discussion during proceedings on regulations. I shall come back to how that might happen in a moment. There are two possible routes out of the problem of the distinct difference in the funding for those who are post-16 and those who are less than 16. I guess that one of the ways might be to create new tiers. There are already three tiers in DLA and there are two tiers for adults. At some stage in the future, a Government—this one or a future Government—might decide that it is essential to have three tiers and they might want to redesignate. Of course, that would be stopped by this amendment.
The second and more purposeful way in which the amendment would not allow change would be as regards transitioning; I do not mean the transitional measures in the Bill, but moving to rectify the enormous cliff edge that occurs at the age of 16. For that to happen, it may well be that a Government of whatever kind would want some form of progress on changing the relationship between post-16 and under-16 provision.
All those things would not be assisted by an amendment that locked into aspic a set of placements between one set of benefits and other, and missed out the other half of this equation, which is not the subject of the amendment. Of course there are concerns about the levels of payment that go into these particular directions. If you forage around the background of these particular payments—they go back to supplementary benefits, and I guess that some noble Lords here will remember how those originated—their purpose was to pay for the additional costs that were not being funded from the disability living allowance system that we now have. Those payments related mainly to items such as energy costs—the costs of extra baths, the need for more heating in the house, extra hot water and so on. Those are very much some of the issues that face the over-16s as well as the under-16s.
We need to have this debate, but need to have it in terms of the absolute flexibility that we can create in the environment between now and when the Minister brings forward his regulations. I am sure that he has listened to what has been said today, and my advice to my noble friend would be to heed the warnings that have been given. Clearly, there are very strong views about how you treat disabled children but, at the same time, I ask noble Lords to consider in the same breath the plight of those over 16 and to think about how best we might approach this issue.
A compromise situation might well be achieved by my noble friend listening to this debate and saying that he will discuss these matters when we come forward with the regulations. I know that many noble Lords will think that you cannot do anything about regulations: they are laid before you and you can either vote for them or not. We are laying markers now and there are markers that people can lay. I am sure that all the lobby groups are lined up, ready to influence the Minister in this matter. There is time—is there not?—for us to make sure that we do not put right one problem and cause another to be set in stone against it. We need that flexibility and I hope my noble friend is listening to that, will heed what he is hearing, but give a commitment that he will consider these matters when he brings forward his regulations.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I should like to come back on some of the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Newton and Lord German. First, I say to the noble Lord, Lord German, that this is a very narrow amendment. It is being considered at Third Reading and we were advised to focus very narrowly on the subject that we are discussing, and not to say that because we cannot do enough for older disabled young people we should therefore make younger disabled children poorer. That is what the noble Lord, Lord German, was arguing for in part of his speech, and I was sad about that. I thought it was inappropriate as well as, frankly, irrelevant—given the steer we were given from the Table about the amendment.
Secondly, the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Newton, asked the Minister to take the opinion of the House and to come back in regulations, as though—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Newton—we would otherwise be setting payments in concrete or, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said, in aspic. I think I prefer aspic to concrete but, none the less, the point is that we are not doing that at all. That would be fundamentally to misunderstand what the amendment seeks to do. It would be wrong to put in the Bill a precise sum of money that would require primary legislation to change. That would be wrong because it would fix a payment in concrete or aspic. We are not doing that. This amendment establishes a principle of proportionality, because—as the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, said so movingly and as so many other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who have personal experience of this, said—the costs of disability are not just connected to the degree of disability; they are on a spectrum and may change.
Unless the amendment is passed, the Government propose that more severely disabled children will have one sum and less severely disabled children will have one-third of that sum. The amendment proposes that the right proportionality would be two-thirds of that sum. That is the principle, because we accept the arguments that have been put today by people with first-hand caring responsibilities, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, in a very moving speech, and during the whole passage of the Bill. The principle here is that disabled children fall on a spectrum of disabled needs, costs and of either an improving or a deteriorating condition. Therefore, we should not have an arbitrary line as to whether you get the full sum or one-third of it. It is not about fixing a sum of money in concrete, it is about a principle that one should be proportionate to the other. That is all we are asking the House to discuss today.
Lord Newton of Braintree
I did not suggest that this was setting rates in concrete; I suggested that it was setting relationships between rates in concrete. That runs into the point that the noble Baroness just made and my earlier point: that there is a spectrum which changes over time.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
The noble Lord is precisely right and has therefore made my point for me. Precisely because that relationship may change over time, we do not want the cliff edge of being on either one-third or three-thirds of the rate. Precisely because, as he says, it changes over time, we want to reduce that cliff edge and not make such a sharp distinction in the spectrum of disability.
The final point that both the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Newton, argued was that this should be in regulations because they believe in the benevolence of the Minister on the issue, as we all do. I am confident that the enemy of or opposition to the amendment is not the Minister. We know him, as we have been engaged in discussion in Committee and at Report. His principles, integrity, evidence and assiduity are without comparison. His enemy is the Treasury. I put to the House a simple question. Which does the House believe will most strengthen the Minister's arm in seeking to follow the wishes of the whole House as expressed today: leaving it to regulations which we cannot amend some way down the line—three months, six months, nine months or a year—when the Treasury can say “Go away”, as it said to me on many occasions; or passing an amendment today which would insist that the House of Commons and the Treasury think again? If they turn it over, I will be sorry about what I will regard as having happened to their moral compass, but that is their right and privilege.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, will have to read his script. I do not expect him to either confirm or deny this, but he will have to read out things that he would wish he could say differently. Whatever he may say, if we want to aid him today in his battle with the Treasury on behalf of the most vulnerable people in our entire society, we will support the amendment to establish the principle of proportionality in the Bill.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we support the amendment moved so comprehensively and eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. This has been a powerful debate with a strong ethical strand, as my noble friend Lord Peston said that it should be. My job is made easier by the contribution we have just heard from my noble friend Lady Hollis, who dealt comprehensively with those who argue that we should deal with this in regulations. The fact is that we have tried at earlier stages to reach the position that the amendment now provides and have been unsuccessful—as my noble friend said, possibly not because that is where the Minister wants to be but because that is the policy imposed on him. I think that my noble friend is absolutely right: if we pass this amendment today, we will put down a clear marker on proportionality, which will strengthen those who have to go and argue with the Treasury about resources.
As we have heard, the amendment seeks to prevent the interests of one group of disabled people being played off against those of another by limiting the ratio between the higher and lower levels of disability support. At present, as we have heard, the Government’s proposals would lead to a significant cut in the amount of support for disabled children on the lower rate of support, amounting to some £27 a week, or over £1,300 a year, with around 100,000 families seeing this drop in their support. We have heard some graphic descriptions from my noble friend Lady Wilkins about what support meant for her family. We also heard from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, who made the very telling point that this is about the whole family—siblings as well—for whom the level of support can make a real difference.
The Government have suggested that this money would be recycled into higher levels of support for disabled adults on the higher rate, but we do not believe that this is a trade-off that anyone wants to see. The interests of adults with severe disabilities should not be played off against those of children with lower-level disabilities, which, as we have heard, may well include conditions such as Down’s syndrome and profound deafness. Such children have no opportunities themselves to increase their income, and we know the problems that parents caring for these children can face when trying to find paid work or increase their hours.
The amendment does not seek to prescribe the levels of support, which will of course be a matter for the Government of the day and will depend on what resources allow, but it does seek to embed the principle that, although there is a need to recognise that some conditions require a higher level of support than others, this should not be used as a reason to downgrade the needs of the many disabled children—and their families—who currently rely on the lower level. Perhaps the Minister could outline in his response, first, what he believes the ratio between the two rates should be and, secondly, how he intends to ensure that those on the lower level do not see a dramatic fall in the support that they receive.
We will doubtless hear again that transitional relief will protect some claimants. However, we know that this is not a protection in real terms and in any event it does not help new claimants. Perhaps we can hear from the Minister what changes in household circumstances he considers would break even this partial protection. In making these judgments, what weight do the Government give to the fact that disabled children are more likely to live in poverty than other children? The Minister may justify the current ratio as aligning support for adults and children. However, is it not the case—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher—that the routes into the benefit are quite different: for disabled children through the DLA and for adults through the WCA? Is there not a disability disregard for disabled adults who can access work?
Much of our debate on the Bill has focused on its impact on children. We would all, I hope, recognise the necessity of combating poverty among children because it carries with it the prospect of greater poverty in later life. However, it would seem that on this matter the Government are shifting resources in the other direction from children to adults.
It is perhaps appropriate that today we heard from the UK’s four Children’s Commissioners, who have put out a notice. I should like to finish by quoting them:
“Families who receive welfare benefits are particularly vulnerable because they live in poverty—small changes in their household income can have a big effect on their welfare. We are concerned that many more families and their children will be pushed into absolute poverty over the coming years if these proposed changes go ahead”.
We support the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, I think that I have to take up the challenge of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and try not to read anything at all in order to convince her that I actually believe in what I am going to say.
I preface my remarks by reminding noble Lords that the amendment is in the same territory as the one we discussed on Report that was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and on which there was a Division. I confess to feeling slight surprise when I saw it come back in such a similar guise. If my arguments sound somewhat familiar to noble Lords, it will be because they have heard many of them before. I need to go through them in the context of this skilfully drawn-up amendment.
I start by making it absolutely clear to all noble Lords—in particular, to my noble friend Lady Browning—that this is not about deficit reduction. Every penny of the money will be recycled to increase support for severely disabled children and adults. None of the money that we are talking about will go to Her Majesty's Treasury, with which I have absolutely cordial relations at all times. The principle that was picked up by my noble friends Lord German, Lord Newton and Lady Thomas concerns the cliff edge that exists at 16 when youngsters transition from childhood to adulthood. As my noble friend Lady Browning pointed out, many of these youngsters are in practice dependent on their families for a long time. The cliff edge is something that we wanted to smooth out. This will be essential to protect work incentives in adulthood.
I said many times in the debate that we are overhauling the whole support system for people who rely on benefits. It simply does not make sense to concentrate on any one element. The universal credit will provide a package of support for families to meet a range of their needs. That is why we need to look at the overall impact of universal credit on families rather than look at individual components. If some families get a bit less on one component, it does not mean that they will get less overall. I will pick up on the point raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Wilkins, about some of the social activities that are required to have a good quality of life. The intention is for DLA to pay for those facilities. The purpose of universal credit is income replacement. The two benefits do different things.
I also remind noble Lords that, contrary to some estimates that have gone around this afternoon on the impact of universal credit, clearly the impact will be that families will be much better off. I remind noble Lords that I and my friends in the Treasury are managing on a steady-state basis to put £4 billion a year into the pockets of the poorest people through universal credit. That is the context in which we are making these changes. Noble Lords should not underestimate what it took to get that out through a government process: a steady-state £4 billion a year in universal credit for the poorest.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I think that I am right in saying that about £18 billion has been taken out in cuts. We are not getting extra benefit payments, but I applaud the Minister for having retrieved £4 billion; that is wonderful, and great news.
Lord Freud
I am very grateful for the applause. I am not hearing a lot of it. The modelling that we have done in the department shows that, as a result of this measure on the reform of disability payments, the number of disabled children living in relative poverty will be negligible. The support for families in the universal credit package includes generous disregards for parents, plus the disability addition to the child element. Of course, we are also supporting formal childcare costs right the way down the hours spectrum in universal credit.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I do not know whether the Minister is going to say anything further about poverty figures, but how does he deal with the report from the Family and Parenting Institute, prepared by the IFS, showing that relative child poverty will increase between 2010-11 and 2015-16 by around 400,000, and that absolute child poverty, as defined in the Child Poverty Act, will increase between those years by around 500,000? Does he dispute those figures?
Lord Freud
My Lords, we have spent a lot of time on child poverty, and the IFS projections do not take account of quite a few matters. They certainly do not take account of any change in government policy. Child poverty, to people’s surprise generally, actually went down last year, and it is projected to go down this year. What happens in future will depend on how we respond. I should point out to the noble Lord that the IFS had some very positive things to say about the impact of universal credit on child poverty, and it has pointed out the impact that universal credit will have as it goes in the direction that he and indeed I want to see.
Let me go through some of the figures on what happens under universal credit for a parent with a disabled child who works 20 hours a week on minimum wage. That parent, and that family unit, is likely to be £73 a week better off in work under universal credit, compared with £13 in the present system under tax credits. There are some 30,000 more families with a disabled child in work than out of work, so that extra money is being targeted pretty effectively.
Let me remind noble Lords again about the figures for the support that we are providing. Under universal credit, an out-of-work family with a disabled child can receive just over £8,000 a year in benefits for its child after introduction of universal credit, compared with just over £4,000 for an out-of-work family with a non-disabled child and around £1,000 for a family that receives only child benefit.
Baroness Wilkins
The Minister said that those children will receive £8,000. They are receiving £9,500 under the current rules.
Lord Freud
The figure that we have on the average amount is £8,800. There is a 5 per cent difference in the overall package for that family under universal credit. Those are the figures that we have worked out for the average. Taken overall, it is a small decline, and clearly there is a substantial incentive for the family to look at work. Work becomes much more attractive. Even a few hours of work under universal credit becomes attractive in a way that is completely impossible today.
The Countess of Mar
How can a single mother with a severely disabled child go out to work?
Lord Freud
My Lords, we are talking about severely disabled children receiving the full rate of £77. That is the point: we are trying to direct the money towards the people with the greatest need regardless of their age. That is what we are trying to do here.
Baroness Meacher
We have to be very clear about this. One of the main reasons for this amendment is the fact that it is so difficult to divide those who are eligible for the higher rate from those who are not. There is often a very narrow—and fairly arbitrary—margin. They just happen not to need to be disturbed at night, but during the day the costs may be even higher—the disruption to the family, the impossibility of working—all those issues are possibly just as great for those who will not qualify for the higher rates. It is really important to hang on to that.
Lord Freud
My Lords, this is a really important point. It may very well be that the concern of the House actually boils down to a discomfort with the dividing line between severely disabled and disabled. If that is the case, the way to do it—and I pick up what my noble friend Lord Newton was saying—is not to look at aspect or concrete ratios but at the precise issue that noble Lords are actually worrying about, which is the relationship. I will commit to having a very close look at this. It is clearly tied up with DLA definitions, which are under constant review and are being reviewed.
If we move the children from DLA to PIP, we need to look at this and there will be a real consultation process. I will review this dividing line and look at that very closely, and when we come to the regulations on this, I will report back to noble Lords on exactly what we find. My sense is that this is the real issue underneath all this. I know noble Lords had to find an amendment that had to weave through, to express this concern, so we all know what is happening on a technical basis. Let us go to the real issue. The real issue is: are we getting the dividing line right? People ask me if I am listening—I hear what noble Lords are saying; this is what I think noble Lords are saying, and I will go and do something about that.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
I do not think that is the whole issue that is concerning noble Lords. There is another issue, about the context. If you expect a single mum to get work in order to benefit from universal credit, you should go out on to the highways and byways with these women, as I do, and try to get a job. You need to be part-time, you need to work within certain time constraints, and you need to be able to get specialist childcare if you are going to go out. It is about more than being proportionate, it is about understanding the nature of life when you have a disabled child, however severely along the spectrum that might be, because some behaviour disorders, which sometimes can be assessed as reasonably manageable, can be extraordinarily difficult to get someone else to manage outside your family home. As I said to the noble Lord recently on another point, if you compare the unemployment figures and the numbers of part-time jobs with the number of those women who would like to work getting into those jobs, there is also that contextual issue that I am sure is concerning their Lordships.
Lord Freud
Not just your Lordships—I share those concerns, clearly. One of the things I have been trying to do is to really hone in on the help for people to get them into the right kind of work. We have now substantially rebuilt the payment by results element of Welfare to Work. That is not about saving money; it is about making sure that the support is very individualised for people. We will have the formal national statistics on this later this year, but the anecdotal feedback that I am getting from providers is that that individualisation of support for people is really beginning to work. That is a real issue that needs to be addressed. We need to support people back into the workplace when they can work, but we also need to get severely disabled children, who will move into adulthood still needing to be supported, to this higher rate and not have this cliff edge.
The blunt truth is that if we got rid of this cliff edge and maintained higher levels for less disabled children—that is the set of choices that we are playing with here—the cost would be £200 million a year. When things are better, I can quite imagine any Government being very keen to put money in that direction. However, as noble Lords will know, you get an amendment here and an amendment there and pretty soon the amounts add up in a way that really damages our national finances. We can blame the Treasury if we like, but that is a real constraint. We have already looked at amendments the proposals of which we have totalled up to cost in excess of £5 billion over five years, and just taking that on the chin and continuing to get rid of the cliff edge would cost another £200 million, as I said. Those are the choices. We have done a lot of soul-searching on this, and our view is that it is right and fair to align the extra amounts payable for disabled children and disabled adults.
I will close with two points. First, we are trying with the universal credit to bring coherence and simplicity to our benefit support for people. I cannot tell noble Lords how difficult that is to do in practice. I spend every moment of the day when I am not here with your Lordships trying to do that and wrestling with issue after issue. It is very simple; if you are asking someone a set of questions, when do they turn off? How many questions can you ask? You have to simplify the whole system. One thing that I have appreciated more than anything else in the weeks in which we have gone through this Bill is that this House has supported absolutely consistently the introduction of a universal credit. It has understood what we are trying to do and the pressure and the need for coherence and consistency, and I am really grateful for that support. I ask the House please to maintain that support now, especially as we have already voted on this principle.
Finally, I will pick up the point made by my noble friends Lord Newton, Lord German and Lady Thomas that this is a matter for regulations and not for primary legislation. Noble Lords have sent a very strong message to me and to the Government. I will look at this issue and we will be able to discuss it in our debate on the regulations.
Lord Patel
My Lords, on a point of order, will the Minister confirm that we cannot amend regulations? He has asked us to give them consideration and committed to bringing them back, but whatever he brings back will have to be either accepted or rejected.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I hope that noble Lords by now have got a flavour of how I try to work with them. I listen and I take on board what people say. I will aim to shape the regulations in the light of that. I am more than happy to—
Baroness O'Cathain
I have listened avidly to this debate and been very moved by a lot of it. I also have some experience. I can see that the position is extremely difficult. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, about not being able to amend regulations, I should like to ask my noble friend whether he can throw out regulations and put new regulations in their place. I know that we have mixed up concrete and aspic. It is not that regulations are fixed in concrete and cannot be changed—I understand that. However, if we voted saying that the regulations were not appropriate, could we have other regulations?
The Countess of Mar
If the House of Commons throws the regulations out, they can be thrown out; but if we throw them out, the House of Commons can ignore it completely.
Lord Freud
No, my Lords. Without wanting to get into a huge constitutional debate about this, my understanding is that if the House of Lords threw them out, there would at some stage have to be a satisfactory set of regulations that both Houses could agree. So it is a very powerful thing to do. Clearly, I would hope never to get into that position, which is why—
Lord McKenzie of Luton
What the Minister says about affirmative regulations is right, but is he aware that it is the stated position of the Conservative Party in this House that it does not vote against affirmative regulations? In recent times we have had several such debates, and the Conservative Party has declined to do this on principle.
Lord Freud
When we were in opposition we certainly did not vote on a fatal basis, which was our policy. If the House feels strongly about a set of regulations and the Opposition do not have such a self-denying ordinance—which I think they do not—they can express their view in a vote on the regulations.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, the Minister is encouraging us to defy all the conventions of the House. Perhaps I may say gently that he really should not go down this path. First, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, is absolutely right: you cannot amend regulations. If you could, you would be in the game of primary legislation, because you would be toing and froing. Equally, if the House of Commons were to pass those regulations and we decided to overturn them, then the non-elected House would be overturning the will of the elected House. Both major parties have respected—I repeat, respected—that convention for the full 20 or so years that I have been in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Trimble
Before the Minister replies to that intervention, perhaps I may suggest that we are getting bogged down on the question of amending or rejecting regulations. I thought that the Minister indicated that, before we get to the point of regulations, he will look at this closely, consult people and speak to people. That is where the conversation should be and where the attention should focus at the moment.
Lord Freud
I thank my noble friend Lord Trimble for that. That is the position. I have heard strong arguments here and very great concern. I will talk to noble Lords before we get the regulations out to make sure that they find the regulations acceptable. I give that undertaking now. I beg the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I feel a huge weight of responsibility here. The Minister does not want me to test the opinion of the House, and I understand that, but hundreds of thousands of families all over the country with disabled and severely disabled children are desperate about this issue; I repeat, they are desperate. The pressure of that is difficult to bear. But I do want to say that I respect very strongly the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, for the huge amount of work that I know he does all the time on working towards a simpler welfare system. He has done a fantastic job on this. But, as he knows, the job of this House is to try to ameliorate the worst effects of legislation, and that is what we have done consistently throughout this process. The Minister has generously agreed to take back and think about these issues following the moving speeches that have been made by many noble Lords, but the fact is that we in this House do not have an assurance that anything will happen.
The Minister is under huge pressure from a Secretary of State who is an awfully long way from this. I think that he has little real understanding of what it is to be a poor family with a very disabled child and not able to afford to give to that child what they know it needs. I have concerns about that because we need the Government to understand the enormity of the pressure on these families. I have often said to my own children that I do not think I could have managed it at all because these things are so tough. That is the situation here.
The Minister referred to a cliff edge at the age of 16. The noble Lord in his place beside me referred to a cliff edge at the age of three. The worry is that what the Government are doing is introducing a cliff edge at birth and then at one, two and three, when severe disability hits. Do we want these families to fall off a cliff—and that must be how it feels—when they realise that they have made a lifelong commitment to care for a child but the state withdraws some of its support? That is a big issue for us.
The Minister referred to DLA funding swimming lessons, school holiday clubs and so on. The reality is that DLA does not cover adequately those expenditures, and that is the issue. Families do not have enough money, and it is why 40 per cent of them are in poverty. They need more money if they are to help their children fulfil their potential, whatever that potential may be. The Minister also referred to families being better off in work. I accept that, but the difficulty is that that is being achieved by impoverishing an awful lot of people, some of whom can work—speaking for myself, I support the Government’s quest to get more and more people back into work. But when we consider families with disabled children, particularly single parents with disabled children, as others have said, they cannot do this and it is terrible to impoverish them.
That is the dilemma we are facing. I know that the Minister is going to be deeply unhappy with me and I do not like making him deeply unhappy, but I owe it to the families out there to test the opinion of this House. We have to do it.
EU Council
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, it may now be a convenient moment for me to repeat a Statement made by the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon on the European Council. The Statement goes as follows:
“With permission, I would like to make a Statement on yesterday’s informal European Council. Countries right across Europe need bold action to recover their economic dynamism, to get to grips with their debts and to secure growth and jobs for the future, and that was rightly the focus of this Council.
First, we agreed important measures needed to restore Europe’s competitiveness. Next we discussed the separate intergovernmental treaty on fiscal discipline in the eurozone. Finally, we issued a statement on Iran, Syria and Burma. Let me take each in turn.
Britain’s agenda in Europe is to promote growth, competitiveness and jobs. We have repeatedly said that the best way that the EU can drive growth and create jobs is to complete the single market; to establish trade deals with the fastest growing parts of the world; and to cut the regulatory burdens on business. At this Council, we made important progress on all these issues. We agreed to establish a fully functioning single market in services, where there are still 4,700 professions across Europe to which access is regulated by government; and, in digital, where there are over a dozen separate copyright regimes in what should be one single market, we will take action to secure what should be a fast-growing area right across Europe. Together, these changes in services and digital alone could add more than 6 per cent to EU GDP within 10 years.
We also agreed to complete the energy single market, which has the potential to cut costs for businesses and consumers across Europe. On free trade, we said that:
‘2012 should be a decisive year to move ahead on trade agreements with major partners’,
such as Japan, India, Canada and the United States, and on regulation we agreed a growth test to ensure,
‘that all actions at the European Union level fully support … growth and job creation’.
We also agreed to reduce regulatory burdens, especially for SMEs and microenterprises, and to complete a patent package to support innovation. This has been discussed in Europe for well over a decade and, finally, we are making decisive progress.
Next, on the eurozone, we want the eurozone to sort out its problems. They are having a chilling effect on our own economy and tackling them is one of the best ways in which we can help secure growth, both here in Britain and right across Europe. As I have repeatedly said, short-term steps must be taken—and taken properly. There was the so-called October package. Europe’s banks must be recapitalised properly. The uncertainty in Greece must be brought decisively to an end, and the firewall needs to be big enough to deal with the full scale of the crisis and the potential contagion. In the longer term, proper fiscal discipline in the eurozone is clearly an important part of the solution, and something that Britain recognises is necessary.
The question has never been about whether there should be greater fiscal discipline in the eurozone but rather how it should be achieved. I went to the European Council last December prepared to agree a treaty of all 27 countries, but only if there were proper safeguards for Britain. I did not get those safeguards, so I vetoed the treaty. As a result, eurozone countries and others are now making separate arrangements outside the EU treaties for strengthening budgetary discipline, including ensuring that there are much tougher rules on deficits. So, at this Council, 25 EU member states agreed a new treaty outside of the European Union. Britain and the Czech Republic have not signed up, and we will not be taking part.
Let me deal directly with the issue of the institutions. The new agreement sets out roles for the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. While some of those roles are already permitted through existing treaties, there are legal questions about what is planned. As I said, it is in Britain’s interests that the eurozone sorts out its problems. It is also in our interests that the new agreement outside the EU is restricted to issues of fiscal union and does not encroach on the single market. The new intergovernmental agreement is absolutely explicit and clear that it cannot encroach on the competencies of the European Union and that they must not take measures that in any way undermine the EU single market. Nevertheless, I made it clear that we will watch this closely and if necessary, we will take action—including legal action—if our national interests are threatened by the misuse of the institutions.
The principle that the EU institutions should act only with the explicit authorisation of all member states remains, so let me be clear: this is a treaty outside the EU. We are not signing it, we are not ratifying it, we are not part of it and it places no obligations on the United Kingdom. It does not have the force of EU law for us, nor does it have the force of EU law for the EU institutions or for the countries that have signed it, and there will be no inner group of European countries distorting the single market from inside the EU treaty. That is the fundamental protection we secured with our veto in December, and that protection remains.
Finally, we also made an important statement on developments in Iran, Burma and Syria. Britain has played a leading role in getting Europe to act together on each of these areas. On Iran, last week all EU countries agreed an unprecedented oil embargo, which shows our determination to keep up the pressure on the regime to turn away from any plans to develop nuclear weapons.
In Burma, Aung Sang Suu Kyi has for years been an inspiration to her people and the world. Britain has supported her at every stage and been at the forefront of EU sanctions. Now there are signs of a new moment of opportunity for democracy and we should be prepared to relax these sanctions, but only in stages and in response to reforms. When I spoke to Aung Sang Suu Kyi on Saturday, she emphasised the importance of credible and free by-elections in April. I assure the House that we will be watching them very closely.
On Syria, the Council condemned the continuing violence and repression of the Syrian people. Reports suggest that more than 60 people were killed on the streets of Syria last week alone. In total, more than 5,000 people have been killed, 400 children murdered and tens of thousands of people detained. Today the Foreign Secretary is in New York to support the Arab League’s call for Security Council action condemning the repression and supporting a transition of power. All 27 EU members backed that call for UN action, and if the violence does not end we agreed that we will tighten EU sanctions further. Our message is clear: we will stand with the Syrian people. It is time for all members of the UN Security Council to live up to their responsibilities instead of shielding those who have blood on their hands. The killing must stop and President Assad must stand aside.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, this was an important Council for Britain. On competitiveness, the single market and trade, Britain is setting the agenda. On action to face down dictators and dangerous regimes in Iran and Syria, Britain is leading the way, and by saying no to a new EU treaty we have protected Britain’s interests. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place.
First, I associate these Benches with the remarks made about Iran, Syria and Burma. On these issues there has been a bipartisan approach and the Government have our full support in the efforts that they are making. However, in relation to the European Union, I am bound to say that I am perplexed. Last month when the Prime Minister came back from Brussels he said, to the dismay of these Benches, that his veto included a veto on the use of EU institutions. That position was reiterated by the Chancellor the day after the summit when he said,
“If we had signed this treaty … we would have found the full force of … the European Court, the European Commission, all these institutions enforcing those treaties, using that opportunity to undermine Britain’s interests … We were not prepared to let that happen”.
Indeed, the Welfare Secretary made the same points this weekend. Yet it is clear from today’s Statement that the European institutions will fulfil their usual role in relation what I would call a new treaty, and the buildings of the European institutions will be used. How can the Prime Minister possibly argue one month that something is a great threat to the national interest and the next that it is a matter of relatively minor significance on which Britain can reserve its position? I well understand that some people may be confused or even dismayed by this turnaround. However, on these Benches we are glad.
I am also perplexed that today the Prime Minister talks of a treaty, yet yesterday he said at the press conference:
“There isn’t a Brussels EU treaty; it doesn’t exist, I vetoed it”.
Yet to my mind it seems to have all the attributes of a treaty. I understand that the Foreign Office made extensive diplomatic efforts to persuade other euro-outs not to sign. Fleetingly it seemed that the Poles might lead a significant number in not joining up, but at the end of the day the only country to put itself in the same isolated and powerless position as ourselves is the Czech Republic. Is the Leader of the House satisfied with this abject failure of diplomacy?
It would also seem that no protections have been secured for Britain. The Government say that protections have been secured about discussions on the single market, but what are those protections? What has happened to the list that the Prime Minister circulated at 2 am at the previous European Council? Was this a serious effort to protect UK national interests or a flimsy excuse for not signing the treaty because ratification would have caused aggro and difficulties in the other place?
The treaty says that,
“the Contracting Parties … take the necessary actions and measures in all the domains which are essential to the good functioning of the euro area”.
Then it goes on to list them: fostering competitiveness; promoting employment; and reinforcing financial stability. They sound like single market issues to me. Can the Leader confirm whether the UK will have observer status at the regular meetings of the 25 so that we know what is going on and whether or not the single market is being discussed? If we do not have observer status, who is going to protect the British national interest at these meetings? Who is going to ensure that deals are not made to undermine the single market? I suspect that it will be officials from the European Commission—the much maligned Brussels bureaucrats. I wonder whether the Leader might not think it ironic that the European Commission—for which I once proudly worked but from which I do not receive a pension—will be this Government’s greatest ally in defending and improving the single market?
There are now growing fears that the scale of austerity required under the compact will not work. The rating agency Standard & Poor’s said that,
“a reform process based on a pillar of fiscal austerity alone risks becoming self-defeating”.
In particular, Article 4 demands that countries reduce their debt levels at such a rate that it will make it very hard for them to grow their economies. Does the noble Lord believe that the economic strategy in the fiscal compact will work? Perhaps he thinks it will because it is a mirror image of the Government’s own policies, but I suggest that those policies are not working.
Yesterday’s summit was supposed to tackle youth unemployment. I wonder what solutions the Government suggested in the light of experience in this country where long-term youth unemployment has doubled over the past year. Will the Government be applying to the European Social Fund for the extra money for apprenticeships, support schemes for young business starters and entrepreneurs that is now to be made available? Will they be applying for the new European Investment Bank support for SMEs and infrastructure? Or, by not signing the treaty, have the Government cut Britain off from the extra help that unemployed young people and SMEs need?
On these Benches, we believe that the summit was bad for Britain, for our businesses, for jobs and for families. There is still no solution to the problems of growth in Europe. The Prime Minister’s veto that never was has been exposed and Britain now has less influence in the European Union than we have had for a generation. Britain deserves better.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I wholly understand why the noble Baroness has to trot out this stuff, which she no doubt gets from the shadow Cabinet, but it is far removed from reality. I very much welcome her own welcome and support for our position and indeed Europe’s position on Syria, Iran and Burma, but when it comes to the eurozone intergovernmental treaty, she has a fundamental misunderstanding of what has been going on over the past couple of months. What we were seeking to defend in the December European Council were British interests, and that is what we did by vetoing a treaty which we believe would fundamentally impact British interests in a negative way. This treaty does not because we are wholly in favour of the countries of the eurozone, and others, sorting out their own fiscal problems, and have supported them in creating this intergovernmental treaty. Therefore, I do not regard it as a failure of diplomacy at all. Indeed, Article 2 of this treaty demonstrates that the treaty shall not encroach upon the competences of the European Union. That is an important safeguard for us.
The noble Baroness asked about the economic strategy and the fiscal compact and whether or not it will work. Most international commentators now agree—and have done so for some time—with the position that the United Kingdom Government have taken over the past 20 months of austerity. It is true that the countries of the eurozone are now seeing that that is the sensible way forward and believe that you cannot buy your way out of a debt crisis. The fact that the informal council spent so much time talking about the growth strategy, about employment, about exports and about completing trade rounds is an indication that throughout Europe we share similar problems, including those of youth unemployment. However, if you look at the forecast that is being made by most international commentators, you will see that Britain, which has had to take the worst of the medicine first, is in the best position for long-term growth. It would be good if the noble Baroness and her party could support us in that.
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne
Does my noble friend agree that, whereas, of course, the Government were fully entitled to decline to sign the new treaty, it was also very wise not to try to deny the use of the European Union institutions to those countries that chose to sign the treaty? To attempt to do so would have been to risk the use against us of qualified majority voting as the normal legislative tool in areas of vital importance to us, such as financial services, to our great detriment?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it is always nice to welcome a question from my noble friend on this matter. On this occasion, we chose to reserve our position on the treaty, at least in part, because we recognise that there are problems within the eurozone that need to be tackled. We believe that we are using that reservation to watch the operation of the treaty closely and, if necessary, we will be able to take action if our national interests are threatened. However, the principle that EU institutions can be used only when there is permission from all 27 member states has been safeguarded. Of course, we have a number of legal concerns on the use of the institutions but we do not want to hold up the eurozone doing what is necessary to solve the crisis, as long as it does not damage our national interests.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, first, in the Statement there is the intention finally to close these free trade agreements with countries such as India. The UK India Business Council, of which I am president, has been asking for this EU-India treaty for years now. Do the Government honestly think that, with the present crisis, it is realistic to be able to conclude such treaties at this time? Secondly, the Government keep talking about wanting fiscal discipline to sort out the eurozone crisis. Can the Government get real? In the growth and stability pact there was no discipline; even Germany did not fulfil the requirements to join the euro when it did so. When are the Government ever going to be able to impose fiscal discipline when there is no sovereign union throughout the united states of Europe? There will never be a united states of Europe. Do the Government think that the Greek crisis will just go away? If Greece defaults, will there be contagion throughout Europe? Are we prepared for that contagion?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Lord asks me a load of questions at the end of his intervention which are not my or the Government’s responsibility. They are very difficult questions to answer. We all have to hope that the steps that the eurozone countries are taking are the right ones to prevent the contagion of which he speaks. We hope that they have done that. People like me, who rather oppose a single currency, have pointed out these problems for many years. It is hard to see how a currency union can work without greater political and fiscal union. It may well be that the countries of the eurozone are heading in that direction.
On the noble Lord's first question about international treaties between the EU and other countries, including India, it is, at least in part, because of the state that we find ourselves in and the lack of moving forward on the Doha trade round that I feel confident that the statement made yesterday in Brussels is heading in the right direction. There is a lot of political force behind it and I am sure that the whole House will welcome this strong declaration of coming forward with a long-term treaty between the EU and India.
Lord Tomlinson
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the tone of the Statement, which I am grateful to him for repeating, was rather arrogant when it spoke about Britain “setting the agenda” and “leading the way”? That is the sort of leadership that this country can well do without—isolating ourselves from the mainstream of Europe. Will the Leader of the House also acknowledge that although he spoke about defending our interests, there is a lot to learn from Mrs Thatcher? She never sought to defend our interests by leaving a Council meeting and walking out. The way she defended our interests was to stay and fight for them. I have a specific question to the Minister. When he talks in the Statement about a fully functioning single market in services, is that supposed to include financial services?
Lord Strathclyde
Very much so, my Lords. We want to see the completion of a single market and the digital economy. It is not arrogant to say that the United Kingdom has been at the forefront of the growth agenda. It is Britain that has been pointing out the dangers of overcentralisation, overbureaucratising, and overexpensive institutions that militate against the interests of the free market that will in the long term provide the jobs we need, not just in this country but throughout Europe.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Prime Minister is absolutely right not to join the proposed new treaty and to distinguish it from the existing treaty? Is he not also right to say that it is essential for the eurozone to sort out its problems? The problem with doing that has been that it has confused the debt problem with the exchange rate problem. The reality as far as Greece, for example, is concerned is that it is inconceivable that it will become competitive at the present exchange rate, however much it is bailed out. There is therefore no way that these matters will be solved until certainly Greece, and perhaps others—one must hope not—leave the eurozone. It is crucial that if they do so, the period of transition should be as brief as possible. The difficulty is that we do not have available in terms of notes and coins a currency that will enable such countries to leave, quite apart from the dreadful problems there will be in the transition over the need to impose exchange controls, which one must doubt the Greek Government’s ability to do. Until that side of things is sorted out, no amount of bailout or fiscal co-ordination will solve the problems of the eurozone.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend’s words on the principle of the position we took yesterday at the informal Council. As to what he said about the desirability of the eurozone solving its problems, I completely agree and that is very much one of the reasons why what happened yesterday happened. However, some of my noble friend’s analysis is not really a matter for me or the British Government, although we wish the euro well. These matters will no doubt be taken up within the eurozone. There are real challenges for countries such as Greece and, within the eurozone, the balance of trade between different countries. They have chosen a route along which they wish to try to solve this matter, and we should wish them well in their attempt to do so.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Shall we hear from the Cross Benches and then Labour? We have not yet heard from the Liberal Democrats. We may go around the Benches and there is plenty of time.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I join the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, in saying that the Prime Minister was extremely well advised not to contest the use of the institutions in the context of this intergovernmental agreement. I would only add, gently, that you cannot reserve your position on a decision that you are not a party to.
Can the Minister now answer a question that I have been asking with a certain persistence without getting any answers: what provisions in the intergovernmental agreement are objectionable to the British Government? He has just spoken warmly about Article 2, and I imagine that he could speak quite warmly about most of the other articles, so why are we not joining the agreement? It is a little difficult to understand. Perhaps the Prime Minister let the cat out of the bag when, with a look of some relief on his face—at least it looked like that on my television set—he said, “Nothing to sign. Nothing to ratify”—and, he might have added, “Nothing to make me run the gauntlet of my Back-Benchers”.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, if those were his motivations, there would be nothing wrong in that. In fact, the Prime Minister made it entirely clear in response to questions and in his Statement on the December Council that his only aim was to preserve British interests. At the December Council, he asked for certain safeguards and those safeguards were not offered. Hence, we have got to the current position.
As the noble Lord knows extremely well, we have a number of legal concerns about the treaty, particularly on the use of the EU institutions, but, as I said, it is in our national interest for the eurozone to solve its problems. That is why we are reserving our position. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asks my noble friend Lord Howell questions from time to time. He will have an opportunity to have another go in a couple of weeks’ time, when we are having an all-day debate on the European Union.
We will be watching developments very carefully over the next few weeks and months, and if there is any sign that they will encroach, particularly on the single market, we will seek to take appropriate action.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, it is at least reassuring that the Prime Minister now appears to be conducting our diplomacy in the EU in a cool, calm and reasoned fashion, although it is very worrying that we shall not, apparently, even be in the room as observers when the 25 meet regularly from now on.
However, I sincerely congratulate the Government on their contribution to the achievement of the single market conclusions of the Council, particularly in relation to energy. I hope that there will be follow-through and implementation.
If Greece defaults, which it may, there may be contagion. If there is contagion, there would be a very serious banking crisis. In those circumstances, it would be extremely expensive for us to bail out our banks. Would it not be much cheaper now to make a more modest contribution to the new financial stability fund, the IMF or otherwise to the firewall which we keep nagging our European partners that they should be putting together without us, up to now, being willing to contribute at all?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it is not my role, nor that of the Government, nor is it appropriate to speculate on the position of Greece. Greece has to make its own decisions on that question. Our view is that it is important that all parties should stick to the deal agreed in October and that all the elements of that package, including the PSI, are finalised and implemented without further delay. We are not contributing directly to more bailouts of the eurozone, as the noble Lord knows. One thing that we agreed earlier through the new ESM is that we are extracting the United Kingdom from having to pay for eurozone bailouts in future. IMF payments are of course an entirely different matter, but we believe that the IMF is there to lend support to a country, not to a currency.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, this is one Statement on which the Prime Minister and the coalition Government should be congratulated. There is total agreement on matters relating to the agenda on jobs and growth. Does the Leader agree that now that we are winning the argument we should be looking to work very closely with our allies, including Italy and Spain, to spell out a truly ambitious and far-reaching plan for delivering jobs and growth from now through to 2015?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, if I may say so, that was an entirely sensible and constructive question from my noble friend Lord Dholakia. We believe that the statement made by the European Union yesterday was an important signal about a change of direction in trying to create a proper market for jobs, services and growth. Of course, we will be working with our allies—not just with the European Commission but with countries such as France, Spain and Italy—so that we can all learn from each other what works, particularly with regard to apprenticeships, and in the long term that will benefit us all.
Lord Richard
My Lords, three or four times this afternoon in making his Statement the noble Lord has referred to the fact that at the December meeting the Prime Minister was forced to cast his veto because he did not get the safeguards that he required to protect British interests. The difficulty is that the Government will not tell us what safeguards he was demanding and, until we know that, we cannot tell whether the veto was sensible. Perhaps the noble Lord could draw the veil a little this afternoon. There seems to be an atmosphere of reflective penance on the part of the government Benches today. Can he tell us what safeguards the Prime Minister was demanding that he did not get, as a result of which he felt obliged to cast the veto?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it is always beguiling to be asked questions by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in that manner. The events of the December Council were in fact quite a while ago and I do not have a list of all the great safeguards that we wanted.
Lord Strathclyde
However, basically we wanted to protect the single market. We also wanted to make sure that we were safeguarded from a financial transaction tax that would have an unfair bearing on Britain within Europe. Unless it was applied on a global scale, we were not going to support it. The noble Lord shakes his head as though I have not been helpful but, if not to safeguard British interests, why else would the Prime Minister have vetoed it?
Lord Willoughby de Broke
My Lords, I want to follow the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in reference to competition. Is not this Council statement just a rehash of the European agenda, which was such a notable failure? Does the Minister agree that, as usual, it is all words and no action? Do not figures of 23 million unemployed in the European Union and 51 per cent youth unemployment in Spain show that the European Union is a total failure for its citizens? Would it not be much better to leave before we get sucked even further into the euro mire?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the views of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, on this are extremely well known. He believes that there should be a referendum in the United Kingdom about leaving the EU or that the United Kingdom should just leave the European Union as soon as possible. That view is not shared by this Government. We think that in the past the EU has gone in the wrong direction but we are hopeful. The noble Lord may not have read the European Commission’s statement but I hope that he will take the opportunity to do so. I am glad to see he is indicating that he has read it. I think he should be heartened by much of what was said in it about growth, jobs, deregulation and single markets, which will aid prosperity in the long term.
Lord Trimble
My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House has made reference to implementing as soon as possible the matters agreed last October. However, is that realistic? Last October, there was reference to agreeing a private sector reduction of Greek bonds by 50 per cent. There has been no agreement, and apparently officials are now looking for a reduction in value of 70 per cent, although the chance of there being agreement on that is minimal. Other institutions talk about firewalls and contagion. The EFSF was created but has turned out to be a complete damp squib. There is now talk of bringing forward the next measure but it is similar in character and is also likely to be ineffective. I appreciate that my noble friend has to be diplomatic but is not the reality that that agenda and those agreements are not going to work with regard to Greece? As my noble friend Lord Higgins said, Greece will have to leave. The euro has been a failure as far as it and other countries are concerned, and the sooner the people who are trying to give that leadership to Europe get their heads round that, the better.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it is not just diplomatic to say that these are issues that Greece and the other countries of the eurozone need to sort out; it is common sense. My noble friend's gloomy view may come to pass, but we should all fear that. There is a chilling effect on the economy already because of the crisis in the eurozone, and it would be considerably worse if there was a real banking problem in the whole of the eurozone and the whole of Europe, which would leak into us. Therefore, we urge the countries of the eurozone to solve their problem. With the intergovernmental treaty, we have given them the best opportunity to do so.
Welfare Reform Bill
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, before we proceed with Third Reading, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Freud, and to the House, for so rudely interrupting him on the matter of affirmative instruments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who unfortunately is not here, for putting matters right. I offer my sincere apologies.
Clause 15 : Work-focused interview requirement
Lord Freud
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, on 22 December last year, the Scottish Parliament voted on a legislative consent Motion to the Bill. Legislative consent was given in relation to several provisions. However, the Scottish Parliament did not give consent in respect of the provisions of the Bill that give Scottish Ministers the power to make consequential, supplementary, incidental or transitional provisions by regulation in relation to universal credit and the personal independence payment. I indicated on Report that I intended to bring forward these amendments, removing the relevant provisions from the Bill, to ensure that the UK Government adhere to the principles of the Sewel convention. As social security is a reserved matter, it will not have an impact on the introduction of universal credit or the personal independence payment. Scottish Ministers will still need to make changes to legislation within the competence of the Scottish Parliament—for example, to add references to these benefits to legislation for housing, health and education, and to remove references to existing benefits that will be abolished in due course. Where necessary, they will do this through a Bill in the Scottish Parliament instead of through regulations. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I do not believe that we have a problem with the amendments in this group, but perhaps the noble Lord will clarify something. If we are removing the power of Scottish Ministers to deal with consequential amendments, where does the power lie—or is the Minister saying that there is no need for the power?
Lord Freud
No, my Lords, I am saying the opposite. The Scottish Parliament has decided that it wants to make the consequential amendments and not rely on us making them. If Scottish Ministers want to do it that way round, that is a matter for them. We were trying to make life more convenient for them.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the noble Lord. Obviously we support the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen)
My Lords, before we move on to Amendment 4, I shall inform noble Lords that there has been an error in the printing of the amendment. It should read:
“Page 18, line 40, leave out ‘work has such meaning as may be prescribed’ and insert ‘work’, ‘better paid work’ and ‘more paid work’ shall have such meaning as may be prescribed in regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure”.
Amendment 4
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, one issue that lacks clarity at present concerns “work”, “better paid work” and “more work”. We are using the opportunity of Third Reading to elicit further information on this important matter. The amendment seeks to ensure that not only “work” must be defined for the purposes of universal credit, but that there should be clarity on “more paid work” and “better paid work”, and on how the requirements would be applied. The definition of work is relevant to the current benefit system as well as to universal credit. It is relevant for the application of the benefit cap—or cliff edge—on one side of which one is free and, on the other, one is within its grasp. For the benefit cap, we know that initially receipt of working tax credit will be sufficient to take somebody out of its grasp. Perhaps the Minister will say whether there is any further news on what the threshold for work will be in these circumstances in the world of universal credit.
The amendment is principally focused on getting an update on how in-work conditionality will work. It is some three months since we debated this in Committee, when the development of how things would work in practice was pretty sketchy. What appeared to be settled was that in-work conditionality would cease when somebody was earning the equivalent of 35 hours at the national minimum wage: approximately £11,000. The threshold for a couple may be double that of an individual, and the threshold for a lone parent may be lower. It is accepted that having a universal benefit that removes the distinction between in-work and out-of-work benefits raises the issue of in-work conditionality. Universal credit claimants will have an entitlement regardless of the hours they work, up to a limit. Before we leave the Bill, or it leaves us, we seek an update on the latest thinking. Presumably, for universal credit to be effective, this is not an optional extra.
On 26 October in Grand Committee, the noble Lord told us that there were a range of complicated issues to work through. He said:
“Critically, we will need to build our understanding of what can help claimants progress—when we should require claimants to look for more work and what role other interventions, such as skills assessments or careers advice sessions, can play … We are not rushing in here ... We recognise that we need to tread carefully in this new area”.—[Official Report, 26/10/11. cols. GC295-96.]
That was fine, but is there any progress to report? My noble friend Lady Drake put the issue very succinctly in the Committee debate. She referred to the significant discretion that the Government would have under the new arrangements: a discretion that would potentially impact on a sizeable section of the workforce and on existing in-work relationships, and would require Jobcentre Plus or outside providers to engage with a large number of companies.
In Committee there was vagueness also in respect of the roles of Jobcentre Plus staff and external providers, and on issues of capacity. In particular, there was no clarity on how this would fit in with the work programme. We know that remuneration for providers under the work programme will come in three ways: an attachment payment, a job outcome payment and a sustainment payment. The latter will be the biggest element of the fees in each of the eight claimant groups. How will in-work conditionality interrelate with the work programme? Will sustainable payments be due only when providers have not only helped somebody into work and sustained them in work, but sustained them in work at a level that meets the requirements of in-work conditionality? Presumably this was not effectively factored into contract negotiations ab initio because of the vagueness around these concepts. Do the work outcomes for which providers are paid align with the in-work conditionality that is proposed, and include the claimant commitment on a case-by-case basis?
In Committee, there was a hint that in-work conditionality might be applied only when somebody has left the work programme. The Minister said:
“Once claimants have left the work programme, we could then look to continue working with them to help them progress”.—[Official Report, 26/10/11; cols. GC 295-96.]
There was also a hint that there might be a future work programme to which individuals would migrate. What is happening on that? If one is to be developed, can we be assured that the lessons of the first work programme and the comments of the National Audit Office are taken fully into account, especially on compiling a business case before a decision is taken to proceed and on going live before the IT is in place?
The definition of “work” and, especially, new issues around “more paid work” and “better paid work” are important to how universal credit is to operate. This is an opportunity to provide up-to-date information to noble Lords at this last stage of our deliberations. I invite the Minister to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Freud
My Lords, before I start on the specific matter, I shall take a short period to thank the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for her remarks a few minutes ago which I appreciate.
This amendment relates to the definitions of “better paid work” and “more paid work” and would require the regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure. The first point I want to make is that it is not necessary to define these terms. They have their natural meaning: working for more hours, increasing your pay and so on. To that extent, we cannot accept the amendment, but I understand that it is a way of looking for information and I am very happy to have the opportunity to provide it.
These phrases are important. Their inclusion in Clauses 15 to 18 allows us to impose work-related requirements on claimants who are already in work. We are currently able to impose requirements on existing JSA claimants who are in some work and we need to retain this capability. Obviously, we are interested in doing more and extending conditionality to claimants who are in relatively substantive levels of work but who are nevertheless capable of working more. A conditionality regime can play an important role in encouraging such claimants to progress towards more self-sufficiency and to raise their standard of living and general status. Clearly, I understand noble Lords’ concerns about the extension of conditionality in this way. It is new and it is a difficult area. I also understand the way that noble Lords want to stay in touch with developments as they progress, so let me reiterate and perhaps expand on the remarks I made on Report.
At the launch of universal credit, we will not be imposing conditionality on claimants in substantive employment. In other words, there will be no conditionality for claimants with income or earnings which would, broadly speaking, have taken them over the cut-off point for current out-of-work benefits. We will retain our emphasis on those claimants who would be eligible for JSA, ESA or income support now. The existing system, in that sense, will continue.
As a general point about how we are going to introduce universal credit, we are trying to be incremental and to lock in gradually the opportunities that it represents. Before we extend conditionality to claimants with earnings above this level, we will run pilots. We want to gather views on the approaches that could be taken in these pilots and we will therefore be consulting widely. Depending on the design, we expect such pilots to require regulations. They will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and therefore to debate in Parliament. I think we have had enough discussion about what that means. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on that point. I have committed to publishing details of any pilots, to monitoring the results of the pilots, in particular, the outcomes for claimants, and to making those results available for scrutiny. We will reflect on this before adopting any national approach. I remind noble Lords that we considered and passed an amendment that I tabled earlier to allow us to test every aspect of universal credit to see how it would change. This is clearly one area where we could do a lot of testing about how different things work.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Before the noble Lord sits down, I thank him for that full response, but can he deal with the point about whether there has been any development of the definition of work for the operation of the cap in universal credit?
Lord Freud
No, my Lords, I am not aware that we have locked that down at this time. It is an issue that we are going to have to address when we lock down universal credit. I cannot update the noble Lord on that matter.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful for the update that we have had. I guess that we just look forward to further developments on those issues. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Freud
“(c) the grounds on which such sanctions may be terminated, prior to the period specified in paragraph (b), including the compliance of the claimant to such conditions as may be imposed.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, this amendment seeks clarification on the issue of what the Minister called “the prodigal son” when he referred to it in earlier discussions. I think that takes government paternalism perhaps a little too far. It relates to the situation of a jobseeker who has received a three-year sanction for a failure to comply with the requirements imposed by this legislation and the circumstances in which that sanction may be removed. This is important because in order to change behaviour, which we know is one of the great motivators behind the Bill, there really must be some carrots as well as sticks.
The three-year sanction is the stick, but the carrot has to be that people who start co-operating and fulfilling the work-search conditions should be able to work towards lifting that sanction. Their behaviour may well change because something in their own life has changed—the death of a parent they were looking after; the birth of a child; a marriage or a break-up; dealing with their own substance misuse; or simply, maybe late in life, growing up—or it may change as a result of the three-year sanction. For whatever reason, it must be possible for the sanction to be lifted, and this amendment requires that the grounds on which the sanction could be lifted should, first, be prescribed in regulations and, secondly, should include the claimant’s compliance with the work-search conditions.
On Report, the Minister told us that he had accepted this principle on ending the sanction and we very much welcomed his words on that. He said that it was,
“a lot better than where we were”.—[Official Report, 14/12/11; col. 1387.]
However, he also said that the department had decided that the proof of the prodigal son’s return was to be in work for six months. Of course, it partly depends on the definition of work, to which my noble friend has just alluded—going for just one hour a week is probably not what the Minister had in mind—so regulations will have to deal with that. Whatever the definition is going to be, we think it means that at that point the sanction will be removed. However, without our amendment, we are not absolutely clear that the three-year sanction can be lifted before the three years are up. It appeared so from the Minister’s words at Report but perhaps he could clarify that the Bill allows not just for a lower sanction to be set at the beginning but for the lifting of a sanction before its end. Clause 27(5)(a) allows for the lifting of the other sanctions but the Bill appears to be silent on the lifting of these higher sanctions.
However, assuming that the Bill does allow for such higher-level sanctions to be ended early, we nevertheless do not believe that having to be in work for a full six months is the right hurdle. First, it gives very little incentive for the claimant to engage with the jobcentre and to meet the conditions set, which would help that person to find employment through all that will be offered by Jobcentre Plus or other providers. Secondly, it would mean that the possibility of having the sanction lifted will depend not only on factors within the claimant’s own control, such as looking for work, but on factors well outside his or her control such as local and indeed national economic conditions.
I do not need to remind the House that there are 5.8 unemployed people looking for every job. A claimant who happens to be one of the 4.8 unlucky ones who, despite everything they do to try to find a job, cannot get work—perhaps because they live in Merthyr Tydfil, which I think was the example given on Report—will continue to receive a sanction through no fault of their own. This turns the sanctions regime into a punishment for previous failures rather than a useful tool to encourage engagement with the jobcentre and the work programme providers.
Our amendment leaves the exact formula for compliance open to regulations, as we know the noble Lord will listen to arguments made in the drawing-up of those, and it will give the Minister and his department a chance to think through the best way to ensure that the sanctions regime provides suitable incentives to engage with the system rather than cutting people off altogether. One obvious suggestion might be to lift the sanction after a period of compliance with the work-search conditions, but the detail could be left to the department as it also struggles with the definition of work.
Without our amendment, the Bill risks driving people further from the labour market rather than moving them towards work by engaging with the process and fulfilling the work-search criteria. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment moved by my noble friend. Throughout Committee and Report, the Minister has regularly made clear that he is concerned to make work pay and attractive, and to get behavioural change. I do not think that we on this side disagree with him at all on this. However, it subverts the value, virtue and continuity of behavioural change if sanctions that were applied before that behavioural change had taken place continue. Therefore, he is effectively defeating his own policy.
I was trying to think of an example. On page 33 of the Bill, proposed new Section 6J, “Higher-level sanctions”, which my noble friend referred to, says in subsection (2)(a) that a failure is sanctionable if a claimant,
“fails for no good reason to comply with a requirement imposed by the Secretary of State under a work preparation requirement to undertake a work placement of a prescribed description”.
A couple of weeks ago we had the story of a young woman, a graduate, who had been doing voluntary work in a local museum and was hoping that this would count as appropriate work experience to lead her to a job in that field. The work requirement placement that the local office came up with was that she should do a fortnight in Poundland, filling shelves, even though she had substantive previous retail experience; in other words, it was a very misguided imposition by the decision-makers in the local benefit office—from the outside, it looked as if she was much better off where she was. If she had refused that placement in Poundland, she would have fallen foul of 6J(2)(a) and she could have had three years’ worth of sanctions imposed on her, even if she had subsequently accepted a further placement, which would have been—in her view, and most people’s views—more realistic.
The Minister is stuck with the position that she would have been pulled out of something appropriate to do something less appropriate on the decision of a local decision-maker, and had she resisted that she could have been subjected to sanctions that would have continued for three years, even if she had made it clear that she was willing to accept further and more appropriate work placements that would help her with her career. It must be sensible for the Government to have a way back for people who have resisted—for good reason or bad—an original work placement offer but then go on to respect that imposition, whether appropriate or not. If there is no way back, how can the Minister expect people to respect that law?
Lord Skelmersdale
Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, could turn over to page 34 of the Bill. New Section 6J(7)(c) talks about,
“the termination or suspension of a reduction under this section”.
That sounds like exactly the sort of principle that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has enunciated in moving this amendment. I that hope my noble friend will be able to confirm that.
Lord Freud
My Lords, let me cut straight to the chase. We have the powers in regulation to do whatever we or any future Government want to do to raise sanctions, so I can provide reassurance to that extent. I will go into a little detail about our plans and what we intend to do, but first I pay tribute to noble Lords because some really interesting and useful ideas were expressed in Committee that we took on board, although I do not think that we took them on board quite as much as some noble Lords would want. We moved a long way and thought about this again more specifically, so I thank noble Lords a lot for that.
We are trying to create a sanctions regime to provide at one level—probably the most important—a deterrent against behaviour that damages a claimant’s and indeed others’ employment prospects. Ending sanctions when a claimant complies with requirements can clearly play a role in incentivising sanctioned claimants to do the right thing. That is why we are moving in the direction of open-ended sanctions for lower-level failures, such as the failure to participate in training or to attend work-focused interviews. In essence, these sanctions apply only until the claimant re-complies, with a short fixed period of a week or a few weeks.
This amendment is about the higher-level sanctions: sanctions imposed for failing to comply with the most important requirements. These are employment-related failures, such as the failure to apply for a job when specifically asked to do so, the failure to accept a job offer, or the failure to leave employment voluntarily. By failing to do these things for no good reason, a claimant is fundamentally breaking the agreement that sits at the heart of jobseeker’s allowance: that they do everything possible to find work in order to be able to support themselves. That is why we believe it is vital that there are clear consequences for such failures. Fixed, substantive sanctions reinforce the message that these requirements absolutely must be met.
As I said on Report, we propose to wipe the slate clean by terminating any outstanding sanctions once a claimant has moved into employment for six months, but we believe that going further and ending these critical sanctions after a few weeks or months of compliance would undermine the clarity of our message and the effectiveness of the sanctions regime. It is worth noting that in the current system sanctions can be imposed for up to six months and are typically not lifted at all on re-compliance.
As I said at the beginning of this debate, we have the powers to end sanctions following re-compliance—we have defined the levels of re-compliance—so if, after a period of live running, we or future Governments wish to change the position, we have the powers to do so. Indeed, this is one area in which it might be very interesting to do some piloting work on how incentives and deterrents actually work.
Just to be techie about this, the powers that I mentioned are in this Bill and in the Jobseekers Act 1995. Clause 19(4)(b) provides a broad regulation-making power to set the duration of a sanction. Existing Section 36 of the Jobseekers Act allows for any regulations made under that Act to be subject to particular exceptions. I am not absolutely surprised that no one could piece that together.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I thank the Minister for the techie stuff, but what happens to someone who has been subject to a sanction, goes into paid work, through no fault of their own loses that job before the six months is up, then assiduously looks for work daily, just as they are supposed to do?
Lord Freud
My Lords, under this construct, they will have to do the six months to wipe off the sanctions. Let us not forget that the sanctions that we are talking about do not involve the full amount of support but the equivalent of the JSA—£63-odd. There will be a very strong incentive on that person to take absolutely anything to fill in the rest of the time.
As I said, this is a very interesting area of deterrence and compliance and how we influence behaviour, which is exactly why I wanted to have the powers to pilot all these things. This is our starting point. Noble Lords have influenced us into making the lift at the six-month level, and it is clearly our best view today on what the reasonable balance is. No one can know yet as we have not done the live testing, but we will do it and we will be able to look at this and get the balance absolutely right. It might need to be milder, it might need to be tougher, but noble Lords will appreciate that if we pilot and test and look at these things in the way that I am describing, we will start to get answers on what works and move away from some of the rather more excited commentary and pressures from some of the media in this area. It could be of great interest to noble Lords if we start to move this into a social science area where we know the answer as opposed to an area where everyone has an opinion.
With those thoughts, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I thank the Minister for passing the test on the regulations—obviously I knew; I was just testing him—and finding that out, which I had obviously failed to do.
As I said earlier, we welcome the fact that the Government have undoubtedly accepted that the three-year sanctions need to be lifted in certain circumstances. However, questions remain, some of which could be dealt with in regulations. For example, people need to know what the carrot is and what they have to do to get sanctions lifted. There is still the problem of defining work, particularly for someone who has childcare responsibilities and the job offer simply does not fit in with their responsibilities.
I am sure the Minister did not mean this, but I also worry about the idea of an incentive to take anything that is offered. Would that not allow certain rogue employers to exploit people on benefits because they know that if there are sanctions they can offer pretty thankless and underpaid jobs? Similarly, I also worry about people leaving a job. There is the problem of the strength of an employer, but those worries are by the by. The biggest thing to say about this is that the idea that you have to get a job to come off sanctions, even if you live in an area where there are simply no jobs available, remains a problem. However, I welcome the Minister’s commitment to pilot and test this. If it proved to be a big stumbling block, I assume that he could come back with regulations to allow for that. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) After subsection (7) insert—
“(7A) In relation to a dwelling of which the landlord is a local housing authority or a registered provider of social housing, and no alternative accommodation (as defined in regulations to be made under this section, and provided by any such provider) is available, regulations under this section shall not permit the AMHB to be less than the actual amount of the liability in a case where a household has no more than one spare bedroom.””
Lord Best
My Lords, Amendment 8 gives effect to an amendment which was in my name on Report and to an amendment to my amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, at that stage. These amendments, which addressed the cuts to housing benefit and universal credit for those deemed to have a spare room, were declared to be consequential amendments to two earlier amendments approved by your Lordships on 14 December and now incorporated in Clause 11.
However, the consequential amendments were not moved formally. They should have been. I fear that the complexities of consequential amendments and of amendments to amendments meant that this amendment is now required. With apologies, I beg to move the amendment formally.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I accept that Amendment 8 from the noble Lord, Lord Best, is a duplicate of previous Amendments 49 and 49A, which related to Clause 68 and should have been formally moved during Report stage. We find the veil and draw it as to why they were not. The Government acknowledge that it was the view of the House, following the vote on the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, on 14 December, to have those amendments made. Essentially Amendment 8, which is a duplicate of Amendments 49 and 49A, would mean that a reduction is not possible where the tenant has no more than one spare bedroom unless suitable alternative accommodation, which is to be defined in regulations, provided by a local housing authority or registered provider of social housing is available. I am clear that to complete that picture Amendments 49 and 49A should also have been made.
The Government regret that the House reached such a conclusion on the social sector size criteria. While I do not intend to oppose these amendments now, I should make it clear to this House that this is not an indication that the Government agree with the overall principle of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Best. It is now for another place to consider this when the Bill returns there.
Lord Freud
Lord Freud
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“( ) Nothing in subsections (1) to (5) have the effect of changing the requirement in the Child Poverty Act 2010 for the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a UK Child Poverty Strategy and to describe the progress that he considers necessary—
(a) to meet each of the targets in sections 3 to 6 of that Act in order to reach these targets by the end of the target year; and(b) the progress he intends to make in the period covered by the Strategy to ensure that so far as possible children do not experience socio-economic disadvantage.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, Amendment 14 seeks further clarification about the purpose of the changes that the Government introduced to the Child Poverty Act on Report. These altered the description of what the Government would do to achieve the target to end child poverty by 2020, as set out in the Act, from making progress to taking measures. Having reviewed the text after Report stage, we are concerned that this alters the substance of the Act to require the Government’s child poverty strategy only to set out what they propose to do rather than the progress they intend to make; that is, to remove the duty on the Government to make progress towards the targets.
The amendment was laid at the end of our deliberations and proceedings on the last day of Report. We probed this a little on Report, when the Minister reassured me that the amendment was intended to clarify the Child Poverty Act and not to change the substance or to affect the law. Stephen Timms, the Minister responsible for that Act in the Commons at the time, stated that “Clause 8”, which has subsequently become Section 9,
“requires the Secretary of State to publish a strategy every three years, to set out the progress intended over that three-year period in each of the policy areas specified in subsection (5), and to describe the progress needed over that period to meet the 2020 targets. In that way, the strategy will set milestones to 2020”.—[Official Report, Commons, Child Poverty Bill Committee, 27/10/09; col. 142.]
Will the Minister confirm that this is the function that the strategies will still play; that is, that they will both set out the progress that the Government intend to make and the progress needed to meet the 2020 target?
Our amendment would ensure that this substance of the original Child Poverty Act would remain the substance of the current version. If the Minister does not feel able to accept it, will he describe for us the difference between what he proposes should now be in the Act and the original version, so that we can have a second chance to assess the merits of each? I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I support the amendment. It is important that there has not been a change in meaning. I know that the Government have their doubts about targets and so forth but they are very important in terms of accountability. I talked a lot last week about accountability in relation to the Social Fund. This is accountability in terms of organisations which are very concerned about what is happening as regards child poverty and enabling them to know what progress the Government are making and are intending to make. I know that certain voluntary organisations are very concerned about child poverty and that there has been a slight shifting here in meaning that could make their job that much harder.
Lord Freud
My Lords, Amendment 14 is designed to place a caveat on the amendment to Section 9 of the Child Poverty Act which is already included in the Welfare Reform Bill. As I discussed on Report last week, the amendment to Section 9 is a clarification which confirms the Government’s existing understanding that the requirement in Section 9(7) of the Child Poverty Act for a UK strategy to describe progress can be met with a description of progress in narrative or policy terms, rather than in numerical or statistical terms.
This amendment appears to seek clarification that the changes already agreed by the House will not undermine three requirements on the Secretary of State which are included in Section 9 of the Child Poverty Act; namely, first, that he must publish and lay before Parliament a child poverty strategy; secondly, that he must describe in that strategy the progress that he considers necessary to meet the four child poverty targets by the target year of 2020-21; and, thirdly, that he must describe in that strategy the progress he intends to make over the period of the strategy to reduce socioeconomic disadvantage as far as possible.
I can state clearly on the record that our amendment to Section 9 is not designed to remove the requirement on the Secretary of State to do any of those things. The Secretary of State will continue to have a duty to produce a strategy every three years which sets out the measures that will be taken, and the progress that needs to be achieved, in that period in order to meet the targets by the target year and reduce socioeconomic disadvantage as far as possible. The purpose of our amendment to Section 9 is not to change the substance or effect of the law. The amendments simply clarify how progress can be described—in particular, that it can be described in policy or narrative terms rather than statistical or numerical terms if the Secretary of State so wishes.
I discussed on Report the reasons why we think that this clarification is important. We believe that a requirement to set out the progress required in statistical terms is equivalent to a requirement for interim targets on child poverty towards the 2020 target. Interim targets incentivise the short-term, income-transfer approach that we have seen in the past. That approach has not worked and completely fails to address the underlying problems. This can lead therefore to small amounts of money being given to families just to lift them over the poverty line.
The Government remain committed to eradicating child poverty and improving social mobility. We do not believe, however, that the right way to achieve these aims is by using income transfers to move people above an arbitrary line, so we must focus on tackling the root causes of poverty and changing behaviour. In the long term, those with the lowest level of income can only improve their life chances by keeping pace with those at the top. This is why we must take long-term sustainable measures to improve skills, abilities and aspirations. An income-transfer approach does not work because it is unsustainable and does not deal with or address the underlying causes of long-term deprivation. We will continue to monitor progress through the annual publication of the Household Below Average Income Statistics, the beloved HBAI. However, we think it is very important to clarify that the law does not require the child poverty strategies to set out interim income targets. It is because of this that we cannot accept the amendment. By reintroducing the wording of the original Child Poverty Act, in effect it would remove the clarification that we introduced using the amendment to Section 9.
I emphasise that we remain fully committed to eradicating child poverty, and that amendment does not alter current government policy. We will continue to be required to produce a strategy every three years which sets out the measures that will be taken and the progress that needs to be achieved over the period. This amendment is unnecessary and unhelpful. The requirements it seeks to place on the Secretary of State already exist. All it will do is reintroduce lack of clarity regarding how progress is to be described, and I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
From what the noble Lord has just said, it seems that what the Government did on Report sought to change the import of what is set out in the Child Poverty Act. If it removes what the noble Lord thought might be the need to have interim targets along the way, surely that is a change, otherwise what is the clarification about? Part of the strategy is to hit some very clear targets by the end of 2020, and I presume the noble Lord is not seeking to change that requirement, but what is it about the current wording that has been changed? I am sorry that I am not being very clear on this, but the Minister has said that there is no change and it is all the same as before and this is just a clarification. However, I thought he said when explaining it that it obviated the prospect of having to put in interim targets when the strategy is developed along the way towards 2020. If that is the case and the requirement for those interim targets is removed, that is a change. It may be that that is what the Minister and the Government want, but it is a change. If it is not a change, can the Minister have another go at explaining why not?
Lord Freud
My Lords, what I hoped that I had explained, although I failed to do so adequately, was this. As currently written, the Act is somewhat ambiguous. We and, I imagine, the previous Government have always interpreted this as needing to describe the progress we are making in policy terms in a way that does not require interim targets because such targets, when set every year, become absolutely tyrannical. They are particularly tyrannical when you are trying to change people’s lives and behaviours in a fundamental way. If you are worrying about interim targets every year, your efforts are undermined. This is a clarification to make it crystal clear that our understanding of the Act, and to be honest what I think was the previous Government’s understanding of the Act—the noble Lord and I spent many happy hours going over every word of it, although I am still not sure that I understand the word “socioeconomic” in it, but let us put that to one side—is that we can progress in the way we think is best, which is pursuing fundamental change for people, without the tyranny of interim targets. The previous Government did not want them and we do not want them. We want to be able to describe our progress towards the main target. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that that is the desirable way to go with this.
It is not an easy thing to do. Dealing with child poverty is really tough. The noble Lord knows it and I know it, as do we all. Let us not mess about with it, but try to do the fundamentals, and this is what we need for that. We need to be absolutely clear that this approach will work.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, it is a pity that this came up at the end of the Report stage and that we do not have another chance to review the record. I am minded not to press the matter this evening, but frankly I am not sure whether colleagues in another place or we in another situation might not wish to re-engage on the issue. The key issue along the way is what the Government will be prepared to commit to and how progress towards the 2020 objective is going to be measured. That, to my mind, is what is missing from what we have just heard from the Minister. However, I do not think it would be productive to test the opinion of the House on what is quite a narrow debate, so we must try to find another way of clarifying this. I accept the assurance given by the Minister. He has put it clearly on the record that this is not meant to change the law or the duty on the Government, and it is not meant to change the obligation that the Government have. On that basis, I will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Freud
“Work-related requirements6A Regulations may provide that a claimant who—
(a) has a right to reside in the United Kingdom under the EU Treaties, and(b) would otherwise fall within section 19, 20 or 21,is to be treated as not falling within that section.”
Lord Freud
My Lords, we have brought forward this amendment to ensure that where we have an obligation under EU treaties to allow the free movement of workers, those who have a right to reside here under EU treaties, particularly as jobseekers, may be subject to the full work-related conditionality requirements of universal credit. This amendment enables us to make regulations so that EU migrants cannot fall into groups which are not subject to the work search and work availability requirements. We must meet the UK’s obligations under EU law while ensuring that, when people come here, they do not take inappropriate advantage of our benefit system. We must maintain protections against non-active migrants who travel for the purpose of accessing state support.
We have always maintained that non-active migrants who want to come to the UK should be self-sufficient, and EU law supports this. The amendment will allow us to make sure that jobseekers who exercise their EU treaty right to come to the UK are in fact searching and available for work, as is the case now. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we support the thrust of this amendment. Perhaps I may ask one question. We had a helpful briefing note from the Box which reads as follows: “This amendment therefore is designed through this regulation-making power to enable the Secretary of State, so far as possible within the unified structure of universal credit, to maintain the current position in relation to the obligation placed on EU jobseekers”. The phrase “so far as possible” seems to be a qualification on what the Government are seeking to achieve here, and I wonder if the Minister might just expand on what that qualification amounts to.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
While the Minister is being helpful, perhaps I may seek the indulgence of the House for just a moment. I want to apologise for not having been able to get in to move my amendment because of the crowds leaving the Chamber after the EU Council Statement, but I want to thank the Minister for the telephone conversation I had with him earlier today when he agreed to work with me and with others on monitoring very closely the changes to the work capability assessment for cancer patients.
Lord German
I do not know whether this is the right place in the debate in which to do it because it is the first time that I have had the opportunity, but I want to place on record our thanks to the Bill team and my noble friend the Minister for the way in which they have handled the Bill all the way through. The way in which access to civil servants has been granted and the openness with which the Minister has provided information has been a revelation. I am most grateful, as I am sure are my colleagues on these Benches.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, since this opportunity is being taken to say thank you, perhaps I may from our Benches—I am sure that others will want to do likewise—thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, for the courteous and happy way in which they have handled the Bill. The Minister has always had a smile on his face despite the fact that there have been occasions when I am sure he felt otherwise. He has always been eager and helpful in responding to inquiries. There is a danger that he will become known in the House as “the latter-day Lord Newton”; in other words, the person who the disability lobby knows is really on its side but whose hands are sometimes tied. There can be worse tributes than that. We are very grateful for all the time and consideration that he has given during the past few weeks.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Before the Minister answers the question that I posed earlier, perhaps I may take the opportunity to add our thanks. The Minister’s enthusiasm for universal credit and his commitment to evidence-based policy have been evident to all of us. He has borne a very heavy load in bringing the Bill through your Lordships' House and has done so, as has just been said, with good humour throughout our proceedings. The fact that noble Lords have sought to beg to differ on a number of provisions does not lessen our respect for him or for the determination that he brings to his role. He has of course been ably supported by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and other colleagues. Our thanks go also to the Bill team for their extensive briefings and provision of information, and the helpful way in which they have engaged. I have seen the operation of a Bill team as a Minister and am aware that we see just part of a huge operation which underpins the calm presence that we see in the Box. The scope, the size and the innovative context of the Bill will have added to this challenge. Of course, I thank my team on these Benches for their expertise, passion and support. As I have said previously, I would not have wished to face such a battery when I was a Minister.
The important changes that we have made to the Bill do not belong to us; they are the result of the voices, votes, knowledge, experience and compassion on all Benches in your Lordships' House. I have no doubt that what we send back to the other place is a much better Bill but also one which does not fundamentally undermine universal credit. It remains to be seen what returns in due course. Thus far, I have no doubt that your Lordships' House has done its job in holding the Government to account. What we are dealing with in this Bill touches the lives of millions, including many of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in our country. Our duty to them is not yet concluded.
Lord Freud
My Lords, before I say a few words of my own, I have to admit that the very last question from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was a tribute to him. It is quite difficult to answer; it is in a tricky area. We are pretty confident that we can maintain the position whereby it is only EU jobseekers whom we have to support and not others. As the noble Lord will know, we are moving from providing particular support in JSA to providing general support. That is where the protection is. We are hopeful that, by and large, we can maintain it, but there may be some shadowing of that position.
It is a shame that the crowds trying to get out of our deliberations earlier on slowed down the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. I can clarify that we had a useful conversation on monitoring cancer patients and I said that the statistics which come out quarterly would become national statistics. I committed to look at what they would show in order to assess how the face-to-face process and other issues were dealt with. She very kindly said that she would help me with that after the consultation. Although we did not debate it, the position is now sufficiently clear on the record.
I do not think that we have seen the last of this Bill, but we have passed a significant point at Third Reading. Perhaps I may use this opportunity to place on record my thanks to noble Lords right around the House for the way in which they have been so constructive, have thought through the issues and been absolutely on the point. I have seen in other Bills a lot of grabbing of the wrong end of the stick and waving it about vigorously, but we have not had that here. Our deliberations have been outstanding. I shall not name all the contributors because it would take all evening—and I would forget someone, which would be invidious.
I was going to say how pleased I was that we had got universal credit through unchanged, but I cannot say that any more. Had it not been for today, we would have had it through. I know that what we are trying to do with universal credit has been understood. The complexity of universal credit is such that, if noble Lords had not appreciated it, it could have been cut to shreds and rendered completely unworkable and basically a disaster. I really appreciate the fact that it has not happened, except on one occasion.
Lord Freud
This is my speech.
I need to thank my noble friend Lady Garden for her support on the Front Bench, and my noble friend Lord De Mauley for his proficiency in covering a number of clauses. He drew one of the short straws, but he did it manfully.
I need to thank also the Bill team—a few of them are in the Box—who have been absolutely stunning in supporting me all the way through. As some of your Lordships have said, they have supported a lot of noble Lords in this process. The access and one-to-one contact that they offered were probably why the wrong end of the stick was not waggled quite so vigorously as it could have been. I hope that the whole House will join me in thanking them for their phenomenal support.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee
“(iii) taken from a person detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983,”
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I will speak also to Amendment 2. Amendment 3 is also in this group and is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. This amendment refers to Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983, which allows for the detention, in a place of safety, of someone found in a public place apparently,
“suffering from mental disorder and … in immediate need of care and control”.
Black Mental Health UK, together with Big Brother Watch and GeneWatch UK, brought concerns to me and other noble Lords about the taking of DNA samples and fingerprints in the circumstances covered by Section 136 that I have just described. The people concerned have been detained in a place of safety; they have not been arrested. They are at a point of crisis in their lives, and the organisations pointed out that the intimate process of taking DNA samples might cause further trauma to an individual who is at his most vulnerable, as I am sure your Lordships will understand.
They wrote to the Minister who is the policy lead on DNA, who replied, referring to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and explaining that an individual detained under Section 136 is not arrested and so there is no power for DNA samples or fingerprints to be taken; and, if they are taken, that is unlawful. The new Section 63D(2)(a), which would be introduced by Clause 1 of this Bill, requires their destruction. My initial reading of the letter from Black Mental Health UK and the reply from the Minister made me think that the concern was about the impact of taking the sample, and that what was needed was a more careful observation of the restriction—in other words, that samples should not be taken when it is unlawful, and that this might be emphasised in the relevant code of practice or guidance.
However, when I looked at the proposed new Section 63D(1), I wondered whether this situation actually fell within it, and therefore within Section 63D(2), which requires destruction of the samples. Looking at the provisions at the top of page 2, we are talking here about fingerprints or DNA,
“taken from a person under any power conferred by this Part of this Act”—
PACE—
“or … taken by the police, with the consent of the person from whom they were taken, in connection with the investigation of an offence”.
There is no power to take samples or fingerprints and nor are they taken with consent. Hence, my amendments would bring within Section 63D(1) samples and fingerprints taken from a person who is detained under this section of the Mental Health Act.
Earlier in the week, at about the same time that the Minister replied to Black Mental Health UK, I saw that there was a Written Answer to two Questions, I think, from the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley. I have been in touch with him today. He wishes he could be here but is not very well today, and so I am begging his support in absentia. He knows I am going to do that and he has not asked me not to—indeed, he says that he supports these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 3, which stands in my name. Perhaps at this stage I can apologise to the House for not being present during proceedings in Committee, as I was back and forth to and from hospital over a six-week period and was therefore unable to attend apart from a brief debate when DNA was being discussed. I set out my position on two amendments—including the one I will be moving later—on 29 November, when I made clear I was in favour of a voluntary national DNA database. I also apologise because Amendment 3, which I wrote in November, is slightly in error. Instead of it beginning with the words,
“or if the person from whom the DNA sample or fingerprint was taken”,
it should actually have read “and only”. That is my fault.
My amendment would require the authorities to obtain the permission of the DNA sample donor prior to the removal of his or her profile from the database, but does not totally compromise the Government’s intention to introduce their proposed changes. At first glimpse, the House might find it difficult to imagine circumstances in which a donor would resist removal of his or her profile. Furthermore, the House might wish to consider in what circumstances creating this new obstacle might benefit the state.
So why would a donor resist removal, and in what circumstances? A donor may wish to ensure that he or she is ruled out of a police inquiry through a simple DNA data mismatch during an investigation. The donor might feel that by allowing the retention of their profile, they were freeing themselves of suspicion during the police investigation. They may well have personal or particular family reasons for doing so. One has to place oneself in the mind of a person who has been accused of a crime and wants to be free of a potential accusation, or even show that he or she is not involved in criminal activity or is even going straight. It might help that person’s resolve. Some former criminals, even those involved in minor offences, feel that they are constantly under suspicion. This proposal is a psychological aid to rehabilitation.
So what possible benefits could there be to the state? I will not pray in aid the general arguments for the retention of DNA in the fight against crime. That is all well documented. However, there is a reasonable discussion to be had about whether, in the absence of DNA information following its removal, at least some residual information should be held on former donors. It was argued repeatedly in Committee that the proposed retention period was too short in the case of serious cases of rape and other crimes of violence. The Government’s response was the two-year possible extension period.
However, there are surely circumstances in which the state, while not retaining the DNA information, has an interest in at least knowing the whereabouts of a person who has previously been charged with a serious criminal offence. Let us not forget that “beyond reasonable doubt” is a high hurdle. Criminals who are successfully prosecuted often drop off the radar, as do those who are not successfully prosecuted. They move on in the process of seeking to cover their tracks. If DNA information is to be lost, the police should at least have the opportunity of retaining some point of contact, or knowledge of the whereabouts of former donors. Some who have been charged with offences will either surface at a contact address to request removal of the DNA data, to avoid detection in the future, or will steer clear of requesting removal, so as to avoid revealing their whereabouts. This may well happen in the case of people who have moved abroad, outside of what they believe to be UK jurisdiction. However, there will of course be those who have surfaced to request the removal of DNA data as a matter of principle. I fully recognise that these are complicated arguments; I suppose that they relate more to criminal psychology than to any empirical evidence that I am able to offer. But I merely ask the House to consider this as a proposition, perhaps for future legislation, since it is a little late at this stage
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I hope that I can deal with these two cases relatively briefly. My noble friend Lady Hamwee has brought before the House again the issue of those detained by the police and taken to a police station as a place of safety under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act. My noble friend outlined what that did, but it might help if I briefly outline my understanding.
If a person in a public place appears to be suffering from a mental disorder and in need of immediate care or control, Section 136 of the Mental Health Act allows a police officer to remove that person to a place of safety if the officer thinks it necessary to do so in the interests of that person’s protection or that of other people. I should make it clear that persons detained under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act—my noble friend emphasised this—are not arrested. That is a very important point that we all have to remember. It is an entirely separate regime, focused on the protection of the detained individual rather than the wider public. The powers to take DNA and fingerprints in Part 5 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 apply only to those individuals arrested for a recordable offence. If a person was arrested for a non-recordable offence, such as speeding, or if they were not arrested at all but detained under the provisions that we are talking about, as is the case under Section 136, the powers simply would not apply.
If the police were to take biometrics in these circumstances, it would be not only an error on the part of the police but in fact unlawful. Under new Section 63D(2)(a) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, as inserted by Clause 1 of this Bill, if it should get on the statute book, all police officers would be under an obligation to delete material taken in this way. Therefore, I can say to my noble friend that Amendments 1 and 2 are unnecessary in that respect. She shakes her head, but I can assure her that, because the person had not been arrested, that would be the case. Taking biometrics from a person detained under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act is already unlawful.
The police are guided in the way that they take DNA and fingerprints by the PACE code of practice D, which deals with issues of identification of persons by police officers more generally. We will need to update code D in the light of the passage of this Bill and before it comes into force. I am happy to say to the House that we will include in that revision of the code a paragraph to make it quite clear that taking biometrics from those detained under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act is unlawful.
The Earl of Erroll
Just to clarify, if the police inadvertently, even despite the new code, were to take such a sample unlawfully, presumably it would just be destroyed once they realised that they had made the mistake. There would not have to be any other rigmarole.
Lord Henley
My understanding is that it would be unlawful and that therefore they would destroy what they had taken. I can give that assurance to the noble Earl.
Lord Harris of Haringey
To clarify further, presumably part of the difficulty here is that this is an inadvertent error by the police, because they have taken somebody under Section 136 to a place of safety which in this instance has turned out to be a cell in a police station. Is not the real problem here, and the reason why, presumably, custody officers have then made this mistake, that there is an inadequate supply of places of safety in more appropriate accommodation? That is a fundamental issue. If the Government were to address that, the chance of this arising would become far less.
Lord Henley
If I may say so, that is another question. I accept the fact that it might be better if there were other places that they could take the individual to, but the important point is that they have taken that person to that cell. They have then done something wrong by taking his or her DNA in whatever form. That would be unlawful—that is what I am trying to make clear—and I hope that the noble Lord will accept that point.
I turn now to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and welcome him back. I had not actually noticed that he was absent from the Committee stage of the Bill, because I seem to remember that we dealt with some of these things—but perhaps it is just a fantasy that I remember us addressing these matters. I certainly remember that we had considerable discussion on these matters.
I appreciate that the noble Lord feels that he has misdrafted his amendment and would like it to read “and only” instead of “or”. We are at Report stage, so it is possibly too late to fix these things, but I suspect that it is to some extent a probing amendment. If the noble Lord remembers, we had some quite spirited discussion in Committee of what the appropriate period should be, and I dare say that we will have another one when we discuss Amendment 4, which the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, will be moving. Amendment 3 does not define that period. If one assumes that the appropriate period would be the relevant period set out in the various provisions of the Bill, I would say to the noble Lord that subsection (3) of new Section 63D of PACE, as inserted by Clause 1, already does this. Subsection (3) says that in,
“any other case,”—
in other words, except in the circumstances already provided for in subsection (2), which are where the arrest or the taking of biometrics were unlawful,
“section 63D material must be destroyed unless it is retained under any power conferred by sections 63E to 630”.
We have a general presumption that material must be destroyed unless the Bill explicitly permits its retention. I will come back to retention on that later amendment from the noble Baroness and later amendments from the noble Lord. But it must be destroyed unless the Bill explicitly permits its retention, either for a fixed period, such as for a person charged with a qualifying offence but not convicted, or for an indefinite period for those with convictions.
I hope that with that explanation my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, will not press his amendment. I appreciate that we will discuss these matters in further detail on some later amendments.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I do not think that we will have an opportunity to come back to mine. Of course, I am glad that the Minister and I are focused on the same outcome—the destruction of the material. My concern is that the answer to the Parliamentary Questions and the letter from the Minister rely on the new Section 63D(2) of PACE. However, as I had hoped I had explained, I do not think that it applies. The new section starts “This section applies to” and then in paragraphs (a) and (b) sets out what it applies to. My concern is that material taken when the person is not arrested, as the Minister has made clear, and has not given consent would not fall within this and therefore the provision for destruction in new Section 63D(2) would not apply.
I am glad to hear what the Minister says about the code and I am of course not going to press the amendment today. But my concern was that, by relying on a section that in my view does not apply—I do not think that we have quite bottomed it out—there might be resistance to destruction, which the Minister has said that the code will make quite clear is required. Although not within the context of the Bill, perhaps this is something that he and I might have a further word on outside the Chamber because we are clearly aiming at exactly the same outcome. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, Amendment 4 would seek to instate a more proportionate limit of six years for the retention of DNA and fingerprint data for those arrested and/or charged with a qualifying offence such as rape or serious assault. We return to the difficult balance to be struck between protecting people's freedom from police and government interference and protecting their freedom not to become victims of interference or violence from criminals or terrorists. As was mentioned in our debate in Committee, there is no more important series of cases involving DNA evidence than serious sexual crimes, rape and other offences against women, which cause huge anxiety, shame and sorrow for the victims. That fact is one of the major catalysts for the amendments before us.
The six-year limit proposed by my Government was based on Home Office analysis and reflected a proportionate response to the European Court of Human Rights ruling that the blanket retention of DNA violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In Committee I cited the 23,000 criminals a year who go on to commit further offences, and who will not be covered by the Government's proposed three-year retention limit. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who is not in his place, whether that figure included minor offences. I confirm that it does, but also that each year 6,000 of those individuals will go on to commit serious crimes including rape and other sexual offences, murder and manslaughter. This analysis comes from the House of Commons Library and from Home Office research given to the Minister, Mr James Brokenshire, in July 2010. I think that the research was buried for some time.
As noble Lords will know, the three-year limit for the retention of DNA comes from the Scottish model, which was based on no real analysis of the risk to public security. The coalition Government made a commitment to the three-year limit based on no new evidence, simply a judgment that this was the appropriate balance between privacy and public safety. The Opposition fundamentally disagree with this judgment. When it comes to offences such as rape and serious assault, we believe that the balance should be in favour of protecting the public and that a more cautious, evidence-based limit should be set.
I was particularly struck by the speech in Committee of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill of Bengarve, about the reality of what is stored, and how it is stored, on the National DNA Database, because this reaches the heart of the issue about the invasion of privacy. She said:
“The information that is retained from a genetic profile for the purposes of the forensic database is not revealing information, such as susceptibility to disease or other genetic factors. It is a selection of the DNA evidence that used to be referred to as ‘junk DNA’, which is not known to code for any personally sensitive feature of persons. In that respect it is what in other aspects of privacy legislation is called an identifier. That suggests that in some ways it is less personal than a photograph of someone's face”.—[Official Report, 29/11/11; col. 145.]
I recognise that how far the state should keep sensitive information on its citizens is a sensitive and highly important issue. However, I believe that the noble Baroness’s detailed explanation about the data on individuals and how those data are actually held removes many of the core concerns voiced about the retention of biometric information. If more citizens understood that they would be willing to cede this tiny amount of personal privacy in exchange for the arrest and conviction of murderers or rapists.
The Government have recognised that there will be situations when there is a clear need to retain an individual's DNA beyond the three-year limit. That is why new Section 63F, “Retention of section 63D material: persons arrested for or charged with a qualifying offence”, contains a provision for allowing police officers to apply for a two-year extension to the limit. However, we have serious concerns about transferring the burden of responsibility for these decisions to the police. It would seem that the Government are abdicating responsibility for the adverse consequences that may result from their decision to set a limit of three years.
We know that in practice such a safeguard does not work. In evidence given to the Public Bill Committee, ACPO stated that the Scottish system on which this is based has not led to a single application for an extension,
“because there are 6 million records on the national DNA database. We have always argued that it is impossible to create a regime of individual intervention for a database of 6 million … In effect, the Scottish model has to rely on a judgment being made against an individual profile when it reaches three years”.—[Official Report, Commons, Protection of Freedoms Bill Committee, 22/3/11; col. 9.]
More fundamentally, the thrust of these provisions is to pass the burden of responsibility for these decisions over to the police. The Government, as I said, are abdicating responsibility for the impact on public safety that may result from their decision to limit the retention period to three years, by suggesting that it is up to the police to decide whether the three-year limit or a five-year limit is more appropriate for each individual who is on the DNA database for a serious offence.
Passing that responsibility on to the police would be wrong on any occasion but it is wholly wrong to do so in these straitened times when intense burdens are placed on the police as a consequence of the cuts. The Government are taking a huge and very risky step in the Bill by reducing to three years the limit for which DNA and fingerprint data are retained for those arrested and/or charged with a qualifying offence such as rape or serious assault. Any such move should—indeed, must—be accompanied by robust evidence, but I do not believe that the evidence is there. I ask the Minister to think again.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I wonder whether I might speak briefly as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, because Members of the House will have the benefit of our report on the Bill, which is in the Printed Paper Office. In that report the committee—which is of course all-party, and beyond party—expressed the view that the scheme in the Bill is more proportionate and more likely than the previous regime under the Crime and Security Act 2010 to pass muster with the Marper judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.
I am not going to bore the House by referring in detail to what the report says, as it explains the issues very briefly and clearly. However, one matter that we expressed concern about, which I think is relevant, is that the committee said that it could not,
“reach a firm conclusion on the proportionality of these measures”,
without fuller information, including statistics on the operation of the National DNA Database, and asked the Government,
“to collect better records on the contribution made to the prevention and detection of crime by the retention and use of biometric material in the future”.
Paragraph 8 of the report states that,
“the measures in the Bill are likely to be a significant improvement on the measures in the Crime and Security Act 2010”.
As for the three-year versus the six-year period, with a renewal of two years, the committee commended and welcomed that as a,
“decision that a narrower approach to retention is appropriate”—
and so on.
The noble Baroness makes the point that Parliament should set a six-year term rather than having a three-year term renewed on application under the Bill. It seems no more rational or sensible to adopt a six-year period than to have a discretionary ability to increase for a further two years for a cause, as experience shows, but it is a matter of judgment about the better approach that one adopts. I say simply that the Government have the support of the committee itself in its report.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Royall. I do so even though I am not entirely in agreement with her, simply because in my view six years is too short. I think that we should go further. This is not the time or the place to argue the whole case, but I want to place on record my total opposition to those who say, on libertarian grounds, that we should not keep DNA because it affects people’s privacy. I think of the people over the years who have been caught because DNA has been kept for 10, 15 or 20 years, sometimes not for a specific offence but because it was standard practice to take a DNA profile. I regret very much that we are going to the extent of saying that we should keep DNA only for three years, with all the qualifications that there are around that.
Technology has improved over the years, not least in the storage of DNA samples. We have seen a case recently, which is probably sub judice because it is now in appeal, where a tiny fleck of blood was found on someone’s shirt but that was enough to lead to a conviction. As I say, one defendant is appealing so I shall say no more on that.
With that one reservation, I give my noble friend my full support on this. If it comes to a vote then I shall certainly vote with her, but I think that even six years is too short. We are going far too far on the basis that people’s privacy is more important than the conviction of someone for a serious offence.
Lord Dear
My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with the view that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, has just expressed; it is a view that one hears frequently when talking to, as it were, the man on the Clapham omnibus. I rise neither to support nor to oppose the amendment at this stage. I have not checked with ACPO to see whether it would prefer a lift from three years to six, but in a straw poll it would probably agree that six years would be a help. However, it is incumbent on me to point out that ACPO has already expressed the view that it is comfortable with three years, following the Scottish model, and the ability to go further.
I wait to hear what the Minister says, but the nub of this is the question of balance and proportionality. It is necessary to follow to a large extent the judgment in Marper, which we all remember and which started this debate in the first place. What the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has said is very pertinent; I drift very much towards his point of view. Still, I would like to hear what the Minister says, particularly on the question of balance, proportionality and how that affects the Marper judgment.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, on the same point about the balance of proportionality, I am assuming that this clause is based on a detailed and careful analysis of the evidence, so perhaps the Minister could share with the House the numbers of people who are affected in terms of their DNA samples being removed and destroyed. Over the past few years, how many individuals whose DNA would now have been removed from the database would not have been brought before the court for offences that have either subsequently come to light or where their DNA has subsequently been matched? It is incumbent on the department to place this evidence before us. That would deal with the concerns raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
If in fact there is no evidence and a judgment has simply been made that three years is better than for ever, but there is no reason why it should be three years instead of five, six, seven or two, that is not a sound basis for making an extremely important decision, not least for the sanity of the victims of serious crime where the perpetrator might otherwise be convicted. It is a very unwise position for this House to be making that judgment without an understanding of the evidence.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I do not want to detain the House longer than a few moments. I reiterate what I said in my brief intervention when we last discussed this matter. I simply cannot understand how we could allow the complete disconnect on this issue between the Government and what people think outside the House. When I talk to my colleagues and friends outside politics about this issue, there is universal support for our position. I know one person who is in favour of the Government’s position. Many of my friends who are Conservative supporters just do not believe that the Government are taking this action. I cannot understand how we allow ourselves to slip into a position where this disconnect can develop. Even during the course of this debate, why are Government-supporting Peers, who know what their own supporters are saying on this issue, not objecting more or even privately making representations to the Government on the need to avoid going down this route? What happens when cases begin to surface, as inevitably they will, of people who have committed crimes who could have been picked up in the event that their DNA had been retained?
The Joint Committee on Human rights has obviously expressed a reservation, which I perfectly understand. Effectively it is saying, as my noble friend did, “Where is the evidence?”. I do not believe that there is any evidence that is worthy of this kind of debate. The Government are making a major mistake in proceeding on this basis and, as I say, they are aggravating the disconnect between the people and Parliament.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Before the noble Lord sits down, he wants evidence, but would he agree with me that what the public may or may not think on the matter is not evidence—it is evidence only of public opinion? We should be careful in deciding questions of rights and freedoms in adopting what might be called a populist approach.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The public’s perception of freedom in this debate is that they will be free of crime, or at least freer, in the event that more DNA was to be retained. That is the general attitude of the public as I understand it. They want freedom, but they believe that freedom comes with the retention of DNA.
Baroness Hamwee
The noble Baroness has referred to the figures that she gave us at the previous stage. She said that 23,000 criminals a year would no longer be on the database who could commit 6,000 further crimes. She has answered the point of my noble friend Lord Phillips and confirmed that these include minor offences. Rereading Hansard, I was not clear whether the 23,000 were those within years four to six, because some of the cases mentioned in the debate related to crimes where there had been more than a six-year period.
As noble Lords said on the previous occasion we discussed this matter, it is not entirely black and white. As we discussed in Committee, if one asked a random group of the public about this, most would want a longer period of retention. That is possibly correlated with those who watch entertaining but unrealistic television dramas; I know that I am affected by these things. We all know that if you asked the same group of people about capital punishment, you would probably get a very hard-line answer, which is why most of us try to avoid asking that question.
My noble friend Lord Phillips said that though we would all agree that a society with a full range of surveillance would be a different society, few of us would be able to articulate why that was so. I have to say that I am among the less articulate on this. I do not think anyone could say that what the Government have proposed is in any way a casual approach to retention or one which completely reverses the current approach. Indeed, it is a pity that what is proposed in the Bill is so hedged about with conditions that this is not so very different a piece of legislation. I agree that, of course, we should not be casual about crime and the prevention or detection of crime. Similarly, we should not be so cautious that we are casual about privacy, our culture and the intervention of the state in our privacy. The noble Baroness said in Committee that,
“there is a fine line between the preservation of … freedom and privacy”,—[Official Report, 29/11/11; col. 146.]
on the one hand and the delivery of justice and the protection of citizens on the other. I also acknowledge the fineness of that line but I think that I am on the other side of it from her.
Lord Henley
My Lords, as always, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill for his assistance and advice in relation to what the Joint Committee on Human Rights feels about this issue. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Hamwee for what she had to say. Certainly, we will do what we can to provide better evidence of the use of DNA in convicting criminals as and when we can. However, I refer the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Hughes of Woodside, and possibly even the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, to the figures. These are some of the figures that we have; obviously, more will become available. Since 2001, more than 4 million people have been added to the DNA database, yet despite that the number of DNA detections has fallen from 33,000 to just over 26,000 in 2009-10. There has been a vast growth in the hoarding of people’s DNA but a decline in the number of convictions. That is an important thing to remember as we look at this amendment.
I also give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, who was worried that material taken from crime scenes would be lost. That is not the case. Material taken from crime scenes will still be taken; we are talking about material that is taken from individuals, whether criminals or not. That is a very different matter. My noble friend Lady Hamwee addressed a point of disagreement about whose DNA you should keep and for how long. We know that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, feels that there should be a national database containing everyone’s data. He would like to start with a voluntary database on which we can all put our DNA. We will discuss that when we reach his amendment. That might be hunky-dory and all that but it is not what we want, nor do we think that we should pursue a compulsory line in that regard.
I have explained what evidence we have. That is something we will look at but I also think we ought to look at other matters which influence this decision. The first thing to point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, is that they would replace the Government’s provisions, which meet our coalition commitment to adopt the protections of the Scottish model. She says that that model was agreed without any analysis whatever. I have given some figures and we will provide some more in due course but we will also look at the remarks of Mr Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, at Committee stage on this Bill in another place. We will also look at what the ECHR had to say with regard to the Marper case referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dear. I was very grateful to him for his intervention, particularly as he stressed the important point of this being a question of balance. My noble friend Lady Hamwee also stressed that point.
I believe that the party opposite is persisting in its approach to keep the DNA and fingerprints of innocent people for many years, no matter how little evidence was ever uncovered, and to keep huge numbers of individuals’ DNA and fingerprints on the national databases just in case they go on to commit crime in the future. That is not something with which we can agree. The party opposite pays scant regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the S and Marper case, which noted with approval the system which has been in place in Scotland for some years. I remind your Lordships that the Scottish system, seemingly endorsed by the European court and on which we have modelled the proposals in the Bill before us today, was put in place by the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006, which was presented to the Scottish Parliament by the then Labour Justice Minister, Cathy Jamieson. I do not think that the Labour Party is in power in Scotland at the moment.
Noble Lords opposite contend that our proposals are in some way a charter for dangerous criminals such as rapists which will allow dangerous individuals to roam the streets, committing serious offences with no way of tracking them down. The contention that every individual suspected of rape or any other serious offence will instantly come off the database as a result of these proposals is just not true. As we have discussed previously and at some length, those charged with a qualifying offence, including rape, will have their DNA held for three years, and the police will be able to apply to the courts to extend that by a further two years. The police will do that and that is similar to what is happening in Scotland. Those arrested for a qualifying offence but not charged—oh! I was wondering whether the noble Lord wished to intervene but he is obviously addressing his Front Bench.
Lord Campbell-Savours
If I recall correctly, my noble friend on the Front Bench said that there had been no extensions whatever in Scotland and no use of the two-year extension. Is that true? If it is true, on what basis can it be argued that it is going to happen here?
Lord Henley
I am saying that it is available to the police should that be necessary. That is the important point to get over to the noble Lord. I do not know what the figures are for Scotland. I am not responsible for Scotland. It is another Administration in charge of their—
Lord Campbell-Savours
In other words, the Government are proposing an extension of two years for England and Wales. That system already exists in Scotland but the Government do not even know what has happened in Scotland in terms of the use of the two years. Is that correct?
Lord Henley
My Lords, that provision will be available here; it is available there. That is the important point. The police will have the ability to apply to the courts. Those arrested for a qualifying offence but not charged, where the victim is vulnerable, will also have their DNA held for three years, subject to the approval of the new independent commissioner. The noble Lord may not like that but that is the case.
Lord Harris of Haringey
The Minister said that an application, which has not, or may not have been exercised in Scotland, could be made when the police consider it necessary. Could he define what he thinks would be necessary under such circumstances?
Lord Henley
I noticed the intervention made by the noble Lord earlier on that point. It would be for the police to decide whether they consider it necessary. I would not want to go any further than that at this stage. They will have to do that. These are matters that will be subject to review by the independent commissioner, which is another safeguard. I know that the noble Lord is not very keen on such safeguards, but I think they are very important.
Across the entire coalition Government we took the view, during the passage of the Crime and Security Bill and in advanced proposals on this Bill, that the correct approach is to ensure that those convicted in the past of serious offences have their DNA added to the database, while those arrested for, but not convicted of, more minor offences should not have their biometrics held beyond the end of the investigation. That is why we encouraged the police to complete Operation Sheen, which the noble Lord might have come across, which identified more than 300 subjects in prison custody who had been convicted of murder, manslaughter or any sex offence but who did not appear to have had their DNA profile recorded on the national database. That operation has been completed recently and has resulted in an additional 376 such individuals having their DNA taken and uploaded on to the database.
Having completed that work, using the provisions of the Crime and Security Act which were agreed in the final days of the previous Government, the police service has embarked on a further operation, Operation Nutmeg, which seeks to chase and sample those with similar convictions who are now in the community. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said at Third Reading of this Bill in the House of Commons:
“In June last year, we started a programme to identify individuals in the community who have previously been convicted of either a sexual offence or homicide, and whom the last Government failed to place on the DNA database. That process has so far identified more than 13,000 people whose identities have been passed to local police forces, and we are now working with the police to find the individuals and obtain samples”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/10/11; col. 282.]
I believe that that sets out why we are doing this and why we are getting it right. I also believe the analysis which has been looked at by many independent experts who have considered it closely and, as my right honourable friend the Minister for crime and security said in the House of Commons Public Bill Committee,
“the Information Commissioner states that he ‘does not consider that the evidence presented’”—
that is, the evidence presented by the previous Government—
‘“supports a general period of anything like six years’”.—[Official Report, Commons, Protection of Freedoms Bill Committee, 29/3/2011; col. 212.]
I turn finally to the remarks of the chairman of the Home Affairs Committee as I think they are apposite and they are remarks on which the noble Baroness might wish to reflect. In his contribution at the Report stage of the Crime and Security Bill in the House of Commons, the right honourable Member said,
“There were differences among those of us on the Select Committee on how long the period should be, but we came to the conclusion”—
this is again to stress the balance—
“that a three-year period probably strikes the right balance. We said that the period should not be less than three years—although it could be longer—but that three years was a reasonable length of time”.
The right honourable gentleman went on to say that on the Select Committee,
“there was a consensus that holding the data for six years was too long”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/3/10; col. 48.]
Again I go back to what I said at previous stages of the Bill, that these are questions of balance. We think that we have the balance right; the European Court of Human Rights seems to think that we are getting the balance right; and the chairman of the Home Affairs Committee thinks that that is the case. Three years with the possibility of an extension seems to me to be about right and we think that six years is too long. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this brief debate and for the information provided by the Minister. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that I have huge respect for the work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights but, on this occasion, I do not agree with its conclusions wholeheartedly. I noticed that other noble Lords have noted, as the noble Lord said himself, that the Committee was asking for better recording in future and for more evidence, in effect. It has become apparent during the debate that the coalition Government are now moving towards three years but are saying that, although they want three years, in some cases five years is more appropriate. They are, as many noble Lords would agree, putting that burden on the police.
In my earlier speech, I mentioned that ACPO had said that not one single application for an extension had been made in Scotland. That is very relevant to our deliberations this evening. I completely agree with all noble Lords who have spoken that this is a matter of balance and of which side of the line one comes down on. On these Benches, I think everyone comes down on the side of wishing to preserve people’s freedom to live, protected from crime, rather than having more protection for people’s privacy. We believe that the citizens of this country would prefer that. We are worried that in future—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Does the noble Baroness accept that this is not a “rather than” situation? She keeps using the phrase “rather than”. Of course we all want to protect ourselves against disorder and crime, but it is not a question of “rather than” but of balance. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has been looking at Marper and at the evidence and as an all-party and beyond-party committee it came to the conclusion that the balance was correct. Does the noble Baroness accept that it is a question of balance?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
I accept that it is a question of balance, as I have said on numerous occasions. However, I believe that it is also a question of “rather than”. We believe that, rather than people's privacy being the be-all and end-all in this argument, it is more important to retain DNA for a longer period. I see people nodding against me, if you see what I mean. I do not expect all noble Lords to agree with me but on this question of balance we come down on the protection of individuals rather than on the privacy of individuals. That is where we are.
I do not intend to move to a vote but I would be grateful if the noble Lord could come back to me with some more information which I may wish to pursue at Third Reading in relation to the three years and the five years. If this is a key plank within the arguments put forward by the Minister, as I believe it to be, it is very relevant that in Scotland it has not been used on a single occasion. I would like to know why the police in Scotland have not felt able to use this or have not felt it necessary to use it. I would be grateful if the Minister could bring back further information before Third Reading.
Lord Henley
My Lords, we are on Report so I intervene with some disquiet merely to say that I do not think that I can add anything to what I have said. I, and other colleagues on these Benches, have been saying that we have to get these things right for a matter of balance. This is also a matter that has been reflected on by the European Court of Human Rights and by our own Joint Committee on Human Rights. They think that three years is about right. We also feel that there should be the ability to extend that in certain cases. I leave it at that.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, of course I recognise what the European Court of Human Rights said, but my Government, when they came to the view that the period should be six years, believed that it was compliant with the ruling of the ECHR. I was not suggesting that the Minister was going to agree with me; I was asking him to come back with further evidence of the situation in Scotland. There must be some facts and figures. The facts relating to Scotland that I have put before the House have been questioned, and I would like more facts about the situation in Scotland. I would like to know whether it is indeed the case that the police have not asked for an extension from three to five years.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that asking whether the police have or have not sought extensions is one matter, but asking why not seems to be asking the Minister to prove a negative. I thought, not just now but a few moments ago, she was asking the Minister to explain why not.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, forgive me if I misled the House. I did not mean to ask why not; I wished to know whether or not the police had asked for an extension. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I withdrew a similar amendment in Committee in order to take more time to consider carefully the concerns expressed by noble Lords. Having done so, I am confident about introducing this amendment.
Among other things, Clause 3 sets out the rules governing the retention of the DNA profile of a person arrested for a serious offence but not charged with that offence. In such cases, the police can apply to the biometrics commissioner to retain the DNA in certain circumstances, including where the alleged victim of the offence was a vulnerable adult. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said at Second Reading in another place:
“We must protect the most vulnerable in society, so when the victim of the alleged offence is under 18, vulnerable or in a close personal relationship with the arrested person the expectation is that the police will apply to the commissioner for retention”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/3/11; col. 207.]
Amendment 6 seeks to replace the definition of “vulnerable adult” as used in this context.
Currently, Clause 3 defines a vulnerable adult by reference to Section 60(1) of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. However, as we will see when we consider Part 5, Clauses 65 and 66 seek to amend the definition of a vulnerable adult in the 2006 Act to mean any person over the age of 18 in receipt of a regulated activity—for example, health or personal care. The changes made by these clauses to the definitions of vulnerable adult and regulated activity put the emphasis on the activity and the person carrying out that activity. The Bill no longer attempts to define vulnerability or label a person as a vulnerable adult. As a result, the definition in the SVGA is not relevant in the context of Clause 3.
Perhaps I may explain further. Clause 3, which we are discussing, is about protecting victims of crime. Clauses 65 and 66 are about protecting those necessarily in receipt of personal care or who rely on the support or contact of others. They are two separate things. The amendment therefore draws on the definition in Section 5(6) of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, which defines a vulnerable adult as,
“a person aged 16 or over whose ability to protect himself from violence, abuse or neglect is significantly impaired through physical or mental disability or illness, through old age or otherwise”.
The reason why the amendment inserts the definition in full in new Section 63G(10) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, rather than merely referring to the 2004 Act, is that our definition refers to persons aged 18 or over, given that the definitions in new Section 63G(2), as inserted by Clause 3, already include all those under the age of 18. For the purposes of protecting those who are truly vulnerable, we believe that this definition is far more apposite. It will cover and protect more people.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the explanation this evening and for the letter that she kindly sent me following Committee. These are complex issues. I hope that she will forgive me if I am asking questions that she has already answered. Essentially, to introduce a new definition of “vulnerable” complicates the issue in many ways. Although I hear what she says—that this definition is imported from another criminal justice Act—it is not the tried and tested definition of “vulnerable” and it would be far easier if people knew exactly where they stood.
I still have serious concerns about the appropriateness of the new definition. As the noble Baroness said in Committee, I disagreed with the restrictions that the Government placed on the retention of DNA data from those arrested for but not charged with a serious offence. That is a misleading distinction which has serious consequences for victims of crime with historically low charge rates, such as rape. As stated in the letter, the Government recognise that vulnerable members of society should be given special protection in such situations, and new Section 63G aims to provide for the retention of DNA data for those arrested for offences against victims deemed to be vulnerable adults.
At Second Reading in the Commons, the Home Secretary, the right honourable Theresa May, stated, on the conditions where new Section 63F(5) would apply:
“I would expect that application to be made in certain circumstances, such as when the victim has been vulnerable, which may mean there is very good evidence that the individual concerned has committed a crime but the victim is not able or not willing to come forward and see that case through”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/3/11; col. 206.]
However, the Government’s proposed amendment to the definition of vulnerable adult recognises only those individuals who are subject to mental or physical impairment as being particularly vulnerable to problems in bringing forward a charge of providing evidence.
In particular, the new definition requires that an individual’s ability to protect himself or herself from violence, abuse or neglect is significantly impaired. The definition, particularly with the addition of the qualification “significantly”, adds a large element of discretion, leaving judgment of the vulnerability of the victim up to the discretion of the officer dealing with the case. I am concerned that such a definition is open to wide interpretation, which may mean that vulnerable adults are not given sufficient protection under the Bill.
An individual’s circumstances are a key indicator of their vulnerability, as is recognised by the definition used under Section 60(1) of the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, which lists a number of different circumstances in which an adult should be classed as vulnerable. The proposed new definition also neglects the fact that the type of offence will often determine the particular vulnerability of the individual and lead to problems which may account for the lack of any charge being made.
I note that the noble Baroness says that women who have been subjected to violence are covered under a different clause, although they are not covered by the definition of “vulnerable”. I am glad that that is the case, but it is complicated. They cannot read the Bill and see that they are covered as being vulnerable.
I will not press the amendment to a vote, but there are still questions to be answered. I do not expect the noble Baroness to answer me this evening, but if we could have further discussion about this to sort out some of my remaining concerns I would be extremely grateful.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
On the change of definition of vulnerable adult, as I tried to explain in moving the amendment, it is important that we do not use the definition applied later in the Bill in the context of victims. If we did, we would be at risk of creating the opposite situation from what the noble Baroness wants. Later in the Bill, the definition of “vulnerable adult”, as amended, is intended to define people's vulnerability in terms of the activity in which a person may have to engage with them. As I said, whether it is personal care or whether someone is required to be in close proximity to someone else, we want to define vulnerability as far as whether someone should have the right to access the person.
In this part of the Bill, we are focusing on victims of crime. The fact that we are using a definition that already exists—it predates the definition that the Bill amends later—seems to me a simpler way forward. It is clear which people it is intended to protect. The definition states that it,
“means a person aged 18 or over whose ability to protect himself or herself from violence, abuse or neglect is significantly impaired through physical or mental disability or illness, through old age or otherwise”.
I understand the noble Baroness’s point about the use of “significantly” and whether or not the definition excludes some people whom she thinks might be captured by the other definition. I disagree. Under the other definition, which is dictated by the nature of the care that people receive, some people who are old may not be in receipt of any specific care that would define them as vulnerable. The fact that they are old would suggest that they are vulnerable in this context, so this definition would capture more people. Also, “otherwise”, at the end of the definition, means that there is discretion for the police in considering who is vulnerable. I would expect the new DNA strategy board to offer guidance to the police on how to consider the definition of vulnerability when they make their application to the biometrics commissioner.
One thing behind the noble Baroness’s concern, which I share, is that in the context of a crime such as rape, and violent crime against somebody, the impact of the crime might make somebody vulnerable. The definition taken from the Domestic Crime, Violence and Victims Act already suggests what the police might consider under the definition of “vulnerable”.
I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from. I was very careful to consider the issues that she raised in Committee and I wanted to explore them with officials in great detail before bringing the amendment back to your Lordships today. However, I am as convinced as I can be that this is a clear safeguard. Women in refuges or secure housing are clearly caught by the other limb of the Bill, meaning that they would have been in a refuge centre because somebody known to them had been violent towards them. That is clearly covered by the other part of the Bill and would mean that, if it was anybody known to the victim, that would allow the police to apply for that DNA to be retained.
I am clear that the wording is sufficiently comprehensive to cover what we are trying to achieve, which I outlined in moving the amendment, and at the same time to protect those who are most vulnerable. I shall of course be willing to discuss further with the noble Baroness outside the Chamber any of her concerns, but I felt that it was appropriate for me to move this amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
The noble Baroness pointed to the words “or otherwise” at the end of the amendment. I may not have been paying sufficient attention to the argument, in which case I apologise, but if this matter is considered further perhaps she would take on board that within this definition the impairment is through only physical or mental disability or illness, and that the last five words are a description of what might cause the physical or mental disability or illness. Therefore, one cannot read “or otherwise” as extending the impairment. I repeat: the impairment is only through disability or illness. As I listened to the noble Baroness, I thought that she was asking us to read “or otherwise” as adding to “disability or illness”, which I do not think it does.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I am sorry if I in any way misled your Lordships. In her definition of those final five words—particularly the use of “otherwise”—the noble Baroness is correct. I was seeking to make it clear that impairment through physical or mental disability could be due to old age or otherwise. I am not trying to introduce something new; I am saying that it is possible for the impairment to be not just limited to old age. I hope that I am making myself clear; it does get rather complicated. However, in simple terms, I think that the noble Baroness is right.
“(5A) The responsible chief officer of police may apply to a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) for an order to retain a sample to which this section applies beyond the date on which the sample would otherwise be required to be destroyed by virtue of subsection (4) or (5) if—
(a) the sample was taken from a person in connection with the investigation of a qualifying offence, and(b) the responsible chief officer of police considers that the condition in subsection (5B) is met.(5B) The condition is that, having regard to the nature and complexity of other material that is evidence in relation to the offence, the sample is likely to be needed in any proceedings for the offence for the purposes of—
(a) disclosure to, or use by, a defendant, or(b) responding to any challenge by a defendant in respect of the admissibility of material that is evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely.(5C) An application under subsection (5A) must be made before the date on which the sample would otherwise be required to be destroyed by virtue of subsection (4) or (5).
(5D) If, on an application made by the responsible chief officer of police under subsection (5A), the District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) is satisfied that the condition in subsection (5B) is met, the District Judge may make an order under this subsection which—
(a) allows the sample to be retained for a period of 12 months beginning with the date on which the sample would otherwise be required to be destroyed by virtue of subsection (4) or (5), and(b) may be renewed (on one or more occasions) for a further period of not more than 12 months from the end of the period when the order would otherwise cease to have effect.(5E) An application for an order under subsection (5D) (other than an application for renewal)—
(a) may be made without notice of the application having been given to the person from whom the sample was taken, and(b) may be heard and determined in private in the absence of that person.(5F) A sample retained by virtue of an order under subsection (5D) must not be used other than for the purposes of any proceedings for the offence in connection with which the sample was taken.
(5G) A sample that ceases to be retained by virtue of an order under subsection (5D) must be destroyed.”
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, as we have previously discussed, the Bill creates a general rule that all individual samples will be destroyed within six months of being taken. This represents a significant step in protecting the civil liberties of those whose DNA is taken in the course of a criminal investigation, as it ensures that the particularly sensitive genetic material, which is generally not needed for identification purposes, is destroyed at the earliest opportunity.
However, as we have proceeded with our consideration of how to implement the provisions of the Bill, prosecutors at the Crown Prosecution Service have made representations to us that, in a limited number of cases each year, it would in fact be necessary to retain the individual samples in order to deal with any subsequent challenge by the defence to the comparison made between the DNA of the individual and that found at the crime scene.
Prosecutors are concerned that, if they are not able to retain samples in these cases, they might be unable to withstand such a challenge and acquittals on technical grounds might result. An example of the type of case where such an issue might arise could be where the crime scene stain contained a mixture of, for example, the blood of both a murder victim and their attacker, and possibly a third person, such as an innocent housemate of the victim. In such a sample, the quantity of material from the victim is likely far to exceed that from the attacker and the innocent third party but, without retaining the reference samples from all three individuals, the chemistry and analysis used to derive the three individual profiles, and thus to make a match to the suspect, might be open to challenge in court.
Amendment 7 would therefore insert into Clause 14 a mechanism to enable the police, very early in a case before any samples had been destroyed, to make an application to the local magistrates’ court to retain all the individual samples in a case for a period of 12 months. That should be long enough in the majority of cases to identify a suspect and complete the pre-trial disclosure process, as part of which it would be established whether the defence intended to mount a challenge to the derivation of DNA profiles and/or matches. If not, the material would be destroyed at that point.
If a suspect had not been identified at the 12-month point, or if the derivation of the profiles and/or matches was still in dispute, the police would be able to apply to the courts to retain the material for a further 12 months, with further such applications available until either the case was concluded or there was no need to retain it any longer. If at that stage a suspect had been identified and criminal proceedings were under way, Section 66 of the Courts Act 2003 would allow the trial judge to deal with the application to continue to retain the samples.
I emphasise to your Lordships that we anticipate this procedure being used in only a handful of cases each year, all of which must be serious crimes on the qualifying offences list. While biological samples will be retained following a successful application, those samples will be able to be used only in the case for which they are taken and no extra profiles will be retained on the National DNA Database.
Given that the concerns of prosecutors would also apply in respect of the prosecution of those arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000, we are making similar provision in Part 1 of Schedule 1.
I turn briefly to the other amendments in this group. Amendment 8 to Clause 17 is technical and confirms that material taken under the regimes in the International Criminal Court Act and the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act is not subject to the rules in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act but to the rules in those Acts.
The amendments to Clause 18 make it clear that, in respect of a DNA profile, the responsible chief officer is the one whose force took the original sample rather than the one in whose force area the forensic science laboratory is located, while Amendment 14 to Clause 21 removes the definition of the phrase “law enforcement authority”, which is not used elsewhere in that clause.
Finally, I take this opportunity to give notice to the House that we are considering whether it would be helpful to clarify further the scope of the regime for the retention and destruction of material under Section 18 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. If we conclude that further clarification would be helpful, I propose to bring forward further amendments to Schedule 1 to the Bill at Third Reading. Naturally, I will give noble Lords proper notice of any such amendments, should they prove to be necessary.
I should have said at the beginning that, in moving Amendment 7, I was speaking also to Amendments 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation of the reasoning behind these amendments. I want to raise a question about a particular part of the amendment rather than to make any point in opposition to the amendments.
The amendments in this group appear to require the application to be made before a district judge in the magistrates’ court. Will the noble Baroness confirm what appears to be the case; namely, that an application could not be made before lay magistrates in the same court? I may be wrong, but if that assumption is right, will the Minister say why this is the case on this issue, since it does not relate, for example, to terrorist activity or threats to national security? As I understand it, the issue simply concerns the case for retention. Is it because there is an existing statute that already provides for this approach? Is it because it is considered that such applications will normally involve complex issues of law? Is it envisaged that such applications will normally be lengthy hearings lasting more than one day? Is it because lay magistrates do not want this responsibility? Is it a lack of confidence in lay magistrates? Or does the reference to “district judge” include lay magistrates? That may possibly be the explanation.
Will the Minister also say whether there is a district judge sitting at every magistrates’ court at which such an application might most conveniently be made; whether it is envisaged that a district judge will hear such applications on occasions outside court sitting hours, away from the court; and what will happen if the district judge who is down to hear the application is off sick on the day fixed for the hearing and, as is often the case, no other district judge is sitting at that magistrates’ court? Will the date for hearing the application have to be rearranged, or in those circumstances would arrangements be made for the application to be heard by a Bench of lay magistrates already sitting that day at the court in question? To cover myself, perhaps I should declare that I am a lay magistrate—but I am not asking these questions in order to tout for additional business.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I will speak briefly on one aspect of the amendment that might be of interest to the noble Lord, in the hope that further advice might wing its way to me. It may be that the specification of a district judge might relate to the fact that the application by the police in the first instance would be ex parte. That may be why the application needs to be made to a district judge rather than to a lay magistrate. I can now confirm that the application will be only to a district judge, not to a lay magistrate, because it is an exception to a general principle requiring discretion, and is not to be used routinely. If no district judge is available, the application could be heard by a circuit judge if one is available. If after that explanation the noble Lord feels that I have not answered all his questions, I will follow up in writing.
“(2A) Sections 63D to 63T do not apply to material to which paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 to the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (requirement to destroy material) applies.
(2B) Sections 63D to 63T do not apply to material to which paragraph 6 of Schedule 6 to the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (requirement to destroy material) applies.”
“(5A) The responsible chief officer of police may apply to a relevant court for an order to retain a sample to which this paragraph applies beyond the date on which the sample would otherwise be required to be destroyed by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) or (5) if—
(a) the sample was taken from a person detained under section 41 in connection with the investigation of a qualifying offence, and(b) the responsible chief officer of police considers that the condition in sub-paragraph (5B) is met.(5B) The condition is that, having regard to the nature and complexity of other material that is evidence in relation to the offence, the sample is likely to be needed in any proceedings for the offence for the purposes of—
(a) disclosure to, or use by, a defendant, or(b) responding to any challenge by a defendant in respect of the admissibility of material that is evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely.(5C) An application under sub-paragraph (5A) must be made before the date on which the sample would otherwise be required to be destroyed by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) or (5).
(5D) If, on an application made by the responsible chief officer of police under sub-paragraph (5A), the relevant court is satisfied that the condition in sub-paragraph (5B) is met, it may make an order under this sub-paragraph which—
(a) allows the sample to be retained for a period of 12 months beginning with the date on which the sample would otherwise be required to be destroyed by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) or (5), and(b) may be renewed (on one or more occasions) for a further period of not more than 12 months from the end of the period when the order would otherwise cease to have effect.(5E) An application for an order under sub-paragraph (5D) (other than an application for renewal)—
(a) may be made without notice of the application having been given to the person from whom the sample was taken, and(b) may be heard and determined in private in the absence of that person.(5F) In Scotland, an application for an order under sub-paragraph (5D) (including an application for renewal) is to be made by summary application.
(5G) A sample retained by virtue of an order under sub-paragraph (5D) must not be used other than for the purposes of any proceedings for the offence in connection with which the sample was taken.
(5H) A sample that ceases to be retained by virtue of an order under sub-paragraph (5D) must be destroyed.”
“(7) In this paragraph—
“ancillary offence”, in relation to an offence for the time being listed in section 41(1) of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, means—
(a) aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of the offence, or(b) inciting, attempting or conspiring to commit the offence;“qualifying offence”—
(a) in relation to the investigation of an offence committed in England and Wales, has the meaning given by section 65A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984,(b) in relation to the investigation of an offence committed in Scotland, means a relevant offence, an offence for the time being listed in section 41(1) of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 or an ancillary offence to an offence so listed, and(c) in relation to the investigation of an offence committed in Northern Ireland, has the meaning given by Article 53A of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1341 (N.I. 12));“relevant court” means—
(a) in England and Wales, a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts),(b) in Scotland, the sheriff—(i) in whose sheriffdom the person to whom the sample relates resides,(ii) in whose sheriffdom that person is believed by the responsible chief officer of police to be, or (iii) to whose sheriffdom that person is believed by the responsible chief officer of police to be intending to come; and(c) in Northern Ireland, a district judge (magistrates’ court) in Northern Ireland;“relevant offence” has the same meaning as in section 19A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995;
“a relevant search” has the meaning given by paragraph 20A(6).”
“20HA Paragraphs 20A to 20F and 20H do not apply to paragraph 20A material relating to a person detained under section 41 which is, or may become, disclosable under—
(a) the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, or(b) a code of practice prepared under section 23 of that Act and in operation by virtue of an order under section 25 of that Act.”
Baroness Hamwee
“Work-related requirements6A Regulations may provide that a claimant who—
(a) has a right to reside in the United Kingdom under the EU Treaties, and(b) would otherwise fall within section 19, 20 or 21,is to be treated as not falling within that section.”
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, Amendment 15 deals with membership of the National DNA Database Strategy Board. In Committee, I moved an amendment requiring rules about the composition of the board to be included as part of the governance arrangements. The Minister reassured me that the Government's rules would include full membership of the board. She said that an independent element in the form of representation from the Information Commissioner's Office and the National DNA Database Ethics Group would be included. She also said that she would be happy to receive suggestions to strengthen the independent element. This is such a suggestion.
My point in that debate and now is that an independent element need not be, and possibly should not be, a member of the board in a representative capacity. Noble Lords will all have experience of boards to which independent members bring exactly that: independence. They come as individuals with not only independence but judgment, experience of the wider world and so on. If they are representatives of other organisations, they have a rather different role to play. My reason for moving the amendment again is not just to respond to the invitation issued in Committee but to ask the Government to bear this in mind and not exclude the desirability of having true independence involved in the governance of the board. I beg to move.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her explanation in moving her amendment. The first thing I will make clear to her is that we are not averse to including on the National DNA Database Strategy Board someone who is wholly independent in the sense that they have no direct or indirect interest in this field and, as such, can exercise a role akin to that of a non-executive director, as my noble friend explained and illustrated. All I can do at this time is restate what I said in Committee: namely, as she acknowledged, that the governance rules that must be published under the new Section 63AB(6) of PACE will include the full membership of the board, and that membership will continue to include an independent element in the form of representation from the Information Commissioner's Office, the National DNA Database Ethics Group and the Forensic Science Regulator. We do not consider it necessary to specify the membership of the board in the Bill or at this time to specify what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary might include in the governance when it is decided and published, but I am sure that in reviewing the membership of the board she will consider the points that have been made by my noble friend. I think she will want to ensure that we are not so specific in those governance rules that they prevent us changing any of the independent elements of the membership of that board in future, when different organisations might be associated with DNA.
I hope that my explanations have given my noble friend the assurance she needs that we understand the importance of an independent element in the board and that we want to retain flexibility for the future in the make-up of the board. However, we will certainly take into account the points she has made.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I do not require the detail now; that would not be sensible. My point is to ensure that the door is not closed to prospective independent members who are not representative of or members of related and connected organisations. The Minister said that the Government are not averse to that, and I am glad that the door will be open and that the point is, I hope, taken. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Campbell-Savours
“(10) The Secretary of State may by regulation introduce a statutory framework for the establishment of a Voluntary National DNA database.
(11) The National DNA Database Strategy Board shall, within a period of 12 months of commencement, report to the Secretary of State with recommendations on the establishment of a Voluntary National DNA database.
(12) The report on the establishment of a Voluntary National DNA database shall include the following—
(a) advice on options for the funding (both public and private) of the DNA database;(b) advice on proposals for the charging of individuals for the taking and retention of sample DNA;(c) advice on the security arrangements governing the retention of DNA samples;(d) advice on the categorising of donors from whom DNA samples have been taken and from which a DNA profile has been derived;(e) advice on the arrangements for the transfer of donor identification between categories;(f) advice on requests for removal of individual DNA profiles from the database;(g) advice on access by a responsible police officer to DNA profile information on the database; and(h) advice as to which statutory organisation and in what circumstances access to DNA profile information shall be given.”
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, this amendment is my modest attempt to secure the introduction of a voluntary national DNA database. I suppose I could have introduced the amendment under the voluntary donation provisions in Clause 10; however, on reflection I decided to graft the responsibility for working up the arrangements for establishing such a scheme on to the functions of the National DNA Database Strategy Board. If the amendment appears clumsy, it is because I am not a lawyer.
During the course of a somewhat flippant area of debate in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, with a smile on his face, suggested that a special database should be set up for voluntary donors. I think he called it the Baroness Royall database.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I put the same proposition more seriously. I am convinced that there is much support throughout the United Kingdom for the establishment of such a database. I have no evidence, apart from anecdotal evidence and conversations. However, I believe that many people out there would have no problem donating their DNA to such a database. The huge and undeniable benefit of going down the voluntary database route is that it would greatly help to take the stigma out of DNA retention and would help to develop public recognition of the benefit of retaining DNA. The bigger the voluntary database, the lower the level of stigma will be.
It is inevitable that over this century the state will hold more and more information in secure conditions. Better that the collection of such information be organised in a thought-out and structured manner rather than in conditions of panic when the state feels so much under threat that its only response is overreaction, with resultant confusion in policies on law and order.
We are slowly moving into a world where the measure of our freedom is dependent on our freedom to walk where we wish, live where we wish, travel where we wish, interact with others where we wish, transact where we wish and live longer without fear of assault on our person, our possessions and our civil rights. That will require some data to be held on us as individuals. I believe that there are many millions out there who are prepared to invest in the protection of their freedom. For me, the question is not so much the nature of the data to be held—I think that at the end of a national debate we can agree on that—but how we can arrive at a point where the public have swallowed their misgivings and reservations about the secure handling of data. As the former Metropolitan Police Detective Chief Inspector Colin Sutton put it in the Times two weeks ago:
“We are seemingly happy to attach biometrics to our passports—and therefore to our identities—but fearful of DNA. Our data-dependent society requires everyone to be ‘on the system’”.
As the senior judge Lord Justice Sedley put it in the Times on 6 September 2007:
“Where we are at the moment is indefensible. We have a situation where if you happen to have been in the hands of the police, then your DNA is on permanent record. If you haven’t, it isn’t … It also means that a great many people who are walking the streets, and whose DNA would show them guilty of crimes, go free”.
He went on to say that expanding the database to cover the whole population had,
“very serious but manageable implications”.
We then have the very interesting comments of Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys in his evidence to the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee on 3 February 2010. Sir Alec was described by the chairman of the committee as the person who,
“invented techniques for DNA fingerprinting in 1984”,
and as,
“the person who … invented this course of genetics”.
Sir Alec fathered the scheme proposed by the Government in the Bill. It was he who called upon the Home Office to adopt the Scottish model due to his profound concerns over the operation of the DNA regime in England and Wales at that time. To be fair to him, I quote his response to Gary Streeter MP’s questions in its entirety, but briefly. Gary Streeter asked him:
“Do you think it would be fair if the police did not just keep the samples from the people they have arrested who turn out to be innocent but if we were all on the database? How would you feel about that? Would that be a better system than the current system?”.
Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys replied:
“It would be a much less discriminatory system. I do not want to discuss the issue of discrimination against certain classes of our society, but it would get rid of issues of discrimination. I personally would be very uncomfortable with the idea that the police would have such a database. My vision would be of a parallel database … that would allow the police to keep their criminal DNA database and then one can image how those two could possibly interface. Very, very interestingly, the United Arab Emirates has agreed to go ahead with mandatory databasing of the entire population—and without any change in legislation, as far as I can tell. They intend doing that over the next few years. There is an experiment that is about to start which will greatly merit a very careful watch, to see whether it really does impact on criminal detection or whether it is seen by the UAE society as much more of a surveillance tool—which would be my worry, I have to say”.
This is the man who basically invented this whole science.
My amendment is but a tentative step down that route. The reference to “categorising of donors” is the move towards the parallel database. There are a number of questions that would need answers if we were to proceed with a voluntary DNA database. What is the cost to be? Who will pay for it? What is the scale of public support? What security arrangements could be put in place to protect such data? What arrangements could be made for the removal of data? Who would have access to the data? How would one categorise data so as to de-stigmatise the retention of data while allowing for the transfer of data between the various categories?
These questions would be the subject of inquiry, investigation and debate within the National DNA Database Strategy Board, which is what I am recommending in my amendment. I have used the board as a peg on which Parliament would place the responsibility for taking the whole enterprise forward. I beg to move.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. He is merely putting forward, probably before his time, something that will inevitably come. The sad thing is, as we have more and more science at our disposal to improve the standard of our lives throughout the world, every now and again it is resisted. There is nothing new in that; it is always happening.
When the noble Lord was speaking, what immediately occurred to me as a good example of scientific progress that is being rejected in some areas at the moment is GM foods. There have even been examples of modern vaccinations being rejected. Clearly, DNA being the most certain of the biometrics currently available is something that will come. It is used in other countries. There is nothing sinister about it. The noble Lord’s idea of a voluntary database is extremely sensible and a very good way of moving forward.
Of course one has to recognise the cultural inhibitions and the emotional barriers to doing these things. I always felt that the problem with the identity card system that the previous Government aspired to and which the current Government have scrapped was not the identity part of it but the cards, because people saw identity cards as being echoes of fascism and totalitarianism of various sorts. In any case, the card itself is quite a dangerous thing. The great thing about biometrics is that if you want to know who someone is, you have the biometric and thus the person. If you want to check whether A is who he or she says they are, you take the biometric. You cannot compare the person with a card, because a good criminal or a good terrorist would ensure that the chip on the card matched themselves, but you can compare them with a fundamental base. This will come. Of course, as the noble Lord said, we are in a complicated society in which people move, but the global economy is nothing compared with the global society in which we will move, and as this happens we have to be able to dispose of resources efficiently to help people who need help rather than those who do not, and of course to fight crime as well. We have to have the means of knowing who people are. What the noble Lord suggests is thoroughly sensible, and as it would give the Government only the powers to do it I hope that they will look at it very carefully.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, who has put the case for his amendment with eloquence and his usual attention to detail, which we should not simply shrug aside.
There is a great feeling these days that we are moving towards some sort of society that is totally controlled by the powers that be, known or unknown. People frequently call into aid the infamous—or famous, if you like—book 1984, in which Big Brother was always watching you. Of course we do not want to move down into that kind of society, and although I support the idea of a national DNA database, as I said earlier, if we cannot get one by normal means then by all means let us get it by voluntary means.
Perhaps I might correct an impression that I gave. I seem to have misled the noble Lord, Lord Henley. In an earlier debate, I spoke about the length of time for which DNA evidence might lie about unidentified. I am not suggesting for one second that such evidence would be destroyed as a result of this Bill. I am perfectly aware that it would not be. The point I was trying to make is that there is an ever increasing gap between the time when unidentified DNA evidence comes to the notice of the police and the authorities and the time when it is identified. Thus the gap between the availability of the evidence and its identification and the identification on the database is growing wider and wider.
One noble Lord said that there was an argument for keeping DNA for ever on a database. I accept that. I am not the least bit frightened about DNA material being kept if it is in the public good. It is a question of balance. The Government have decided what the balance is, and some of us might disagree, but I think there is common ground between us on the point that the objective of the exercise of collecting DNA evidence is to prosecute and to convict the guilty, and where possible to protect the innocent, who might be attacked by someone who has not been charged previously but who then can be.
I will not labour the argument except to say that a voluntary database is a very good idea. I wonder whether my noble friend might agree that we should have some sort of pilot system to try to persuade people that everyone should be on it. Perhaps we should proceed by trying to persuade people that such a thing is a good idea and to volunteer for a limited period to see what the take-up is.
With these few words, I certainly support my noble friend’s amendment, and I hope that the House will support it.
Lord Desai
My Lords, I apologise for not having spoken before in a debate on this Bill. I have listened to the excellent idea of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours about a voluntary DNA database, but I want to say just one thing. Yes, a voluntary database is a good idea, but if people do not volunteer they should not be marked down as being unco-operative. It is quite likely that some people will not like the idea of offering their DNA. It would be a very bad thing if it got to the stage where not volunteering became a black mark against you. It would detract from the virtue of my noble friend’s suggestion. Certain ethnic communities, especially women, may not want to have their DNA taken. Therefore, we must make sure that it is not held against them if they do not volunteer.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, I was quite attracted by the concept of the freedom to choose voluntarily to do something but in this case it leads us astray. History teaches us that, if there is a large amount of private information out there which a Government think is useful, they will acquire access to it. For example, the USA Patriot Act gives the American Government access to anything they want in the name of trying to fight terrorism. Therefore, these data will not necessarily be secure in perpetuity if someone sees a use for them.
I have also learnt from history that governments who accumulate a large amount of information on their citizens end up using it to control the everyday lives of those citizens. For starters, you only have to look at communist Russia, watch “Dr Zhivago”, or look at East Germany, Albania or all sorts of places, where, at the end of the day, these things are used to control behaviours. I am sorry but I do not trust the people who end up in charge of these things. We need to look 10, 20 or 30 years ahead and we do not know who will be in control then.
Perversely, as a result, it does not necessarily protect citizens. It is not as if this will give an automatic one-to-one match. It would do what this Bill is trying to prevent. The Bill is trying to protect us from the Government trying to accumulate large amounts of data. DNA of course is not infallible. Ultimately, it is vulnerable to contamination of samples and laboratory error. It is only an approximate match; it is not a one-to-one match the whole time. Therefore, there will be errors which could be misused. I think that this amendment concerns a bigger subject and should be left out of the Bill. It does not fit with it.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I rise not to support my noble friend on behalf of the Opposition necessarily but, as I said in Committee, as an individual I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend’s amendment. Like my noble friend I believe that such a voluntary database would lower the level of stigma and in the future might enhance public confidence in the secure handling of data, which is very necessary. As my noble friend has said today, the state will undoubtedly hold more and more information about its citizens.
I was also very interested to hear of the response by Professor Jeffreys to Mr Gary Streeter MP, which is worth pursuing. I do not know what the Government’s response to my noble friend’s amendment will be, although I suspect that they will reject the amendment. However, it is an interesting suggestion and I hope that, if the amendment is not accepted by the Government, the National DNA Database Strategy Board will look at the proposal as perhaps something interesting to pursue on behalf of the citizens of this country and their safety.
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Baroness guessed right in that I will be rejecting the amendment or at least not encouraging the House to accept it. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, like Jonathan Swift, made what is described as “a modest proposal” and claimed that I had recommended this policy in Committee with a smile on my face. The noble Lord should not always take me totally and utterly seriously, even in Committee, whether there is a smile on my face or otherwise. I will have to look carefully again at what precisely I said at that time.
If the noble Lord is of the view that he or others should be able to go along and hand in their DNA to the police, I am more than happy for them to do that. I will escort him to the police station in Workington, Carlisle or whatever town in the north-west he finds most convenient. We will go together and I will assist him in that process. Having said that, I do not think that this proposal really has much running for it, although I can see the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, about reducing stigma and other such matters. Those remarks were echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, although he went on to make the important point about those who do not volunteer and whether they would have problems. I will get to that in due course.
I want to make only one or two points about the amendment because I do not think we should waste too much time on it, modest proposal though it was. First, I do not believe that there is a demand for such an idea. The police service has not been demanding the establishment of such a database and I do not believe that there is any great demand for one within civil society as a whole. There might be a few public-spirited individuals such as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and others who wish to come forward and provide their DNA for a database, but I suspect that they would be few and far between. I would also suggest that it is unlikely that individuals such as the noble Lord who did come forward would have any involvement in criminality, and that would be the reason they were happy to put forward their DNA. It is therefore difficult to see what the use might be for such material being stored on a voluntary database.
Secondly, I have a rather more important objection to the amendment, which relates to new subsection (11) where it proposes that the,
“National DNA Database Strategy Board shall, within a period of 12 months of commencement, report to the Secretary of State with recommendations on the establishment”,
of the database, and then in subsection (12) it sets out what the board should do. I do have to say that having the board carry out a feasibility study within 12 months of the commencement of the Bill would be asking rather a lot. The board’s workload will already be high during that period in supervising the establishment of the new procedures required by the Bill. That will take up a considerable amount of its time. The board has no resources to do this and we do not consider it appropriate to require it to do all this extra work at this time.
Having said that, I will put the smile back on my face and say that it is an interesting idea, as the noble Baroness put it, and a modest proposal. No doubt he will be more than happy to hand in his DNA in due course, but I do not think that I can support his amendment at this stage.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for his recognition of the inevitability of the developments in DNA biometrics and how, in the end, there will be a national database. I am absolutely convinced of that, although it probably will not happen in my lifetime. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside on the question of the pilot. I do not think that this would cost the Government a lot of money. The only cost would be incurred by the strategy board in carrying out the work that is necessary for the purposes of my amendment. The fact is that we might find some great public benefactor, a private person, to fund a pilot which, over the years, might develop into a national DNA database. All I was asking was for the framework for a voluntary database to be considered, not for the Government to spend money on establishing it.
I recognise the concerns of my noble friend Lord Desai on the issue of black marks being put against those who refuse to join in. As I say, it would be voluntary, and in so far as it is voluntary I do not think that that issue would arise. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was not able to intervene on this occasion, because she too is recorded in Hansard as expressing the view that it might have some effect on reducing the stigma generated over the retention of DNA. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon for expressing the hope that we can at least consider this seriously at some stage in the future.
Perhaps I may say to the Minister that this is a debate that is going to carry on. As I have said, I believe it is utterly inevitable that this will happen. It is just a question of which Government will have the courage actually to take on the responsibility of taking the project forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Henley
Lord Henley
My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in my name in this group; that is, Amendments 19, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29. We will also consider in this group Amendments 20, 21 and 23, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, and Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. I shall respond to those as I come to the end of my remarks, but, at this stage, I shall speak just to my own amendments.
We consider a child’s biometric information to be highly personal and sensitive and, as such, it should be protected. It is right that schools and colleges should be required to obtain the written consent of a child’s parents if they wish to take and process this information.
We listened carefully to the concerns raised in Committee about these provisions. In particular, my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, argued that the requirement to obtain the written consent of both parents would place too great a bureaucratic burden on schools and could have the effect of dissuading schools and colleges from using biometric recognition systems.
The Government are persuaded that we should remove the “dual consent” requirement and instead provide for a system whereby all parents, and any other individual with parental responsibility for a child, must be informed in writing that the school or college intends to take and process the child’s biometric information and that they have a right to object. As long as no one objects in writing, the written consent of only one parent will be required. This change strikes the right balance between ensuring that the views of both parents continue to be taken into account, with their right to object preserved, and ensuring that the administrative burden on schools and colleges is not too great.
The Government’s amendments also make the consent requirements in the Bill more consistent with all other forms of consent that schools and colleges are required to obtain, therefore alleviating any additional bureaucratic burden. The main difference in this instance is the express provision to notify all parents and the stipulation that, if any parent objects, the processing of their child’s biometric information cannot take place. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, my Amendments 20 and 21 are to the Minister’s Amendment 19, which, as he explained, deals with notification to parents. My amendments would include the child in the notification.
Noble Lords will be aware of provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, both of which are relevant here. Without being technical about it, it seems to me a matter of common sense and principle that a child whose data these are should be part of this whole process. I doubt that I need spend long seeking to persuade your Lordships of that—well, I hope not; if I get a look from in front of me, perhaps I should.
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has made it clear that:
“The realization of the right of the child to express her or his views requires that the child be informed about the matters, options and possible decisions to be taken and their consequences by those who are responsible for hearing the child, and by the child’s parents or guardian”.
Amendment 23 follows an amendment that I had in Grand Committee relating to the provision of information. Noble Lords at that stage regarded what I was proposing as too burdensome, in that it was read as an annual requirement. I had not intended that the provision of information should be anything as burdensome as was understood, so I have brought back a simpler amendment, which would provide that the authority in question should ensure that information is provided to each parent and child on their rights, in language capable of being readily understood by them.
I am not proposing here regular pieces of paper in difficult language—I remember the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, saying that in her experience, as both a mother and a grandmother, such pieces of paper tend to end up in the washing machine. I am simply saying that it needs to be recognised that information should be readily available, perhaps on the school’s website, along with other information. However, the provision of information in accessible language is an important principle. I understand that there has been some research that indicated that most children using biometric systems in schools had not considered how long their fingerprints would be held for. They were generally not concerned, which the researchers took as a serious matter. I am not entirely surprised that children may not think beyond what is immediately in front of them. However, it points up the need, not to shove it down children’s throats, but to make the information very easily accessible.
The Information Commissioner has made it clear that schools collecting data need to be aware that children are data subjects and that,
“it is they who should in the first instance be informed and consulted about the use of their personal data”.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his amendments. I think they answer the matters that I raised as well as I could have possibly hoped.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, we have Amendment 24 in this group. The purpose of the amendment is to effectively remove from a child of primary school age the application of the provisions that would enable a child to override a decision by their parent or parents that their child’s biometric information should be processed. However, I fear that the wording of the amendment could be interpreted as also excluding children above 12 years of age from the provisions in the Bill on this issue, when that is not in fact the intention. Our view is that no child should be able to overrule their parents’ decision on this issue in the way envisaged in the Bill; indeed, we believe that the process should be agreed, or otherwise, by the parent on the basis of having to opt out rather than opt in, as the Government propose.
However, the Government have resisted changing the Bill other than to say that the consent of only one parent is required, provided the second parent is not raising an objection. Hence, our Amendment 24 seeks to address the issue of overriding a parent’s consent in relation to children of primary school age. The Government have argued that a child of primary school age should be able to make this decision. However, in fact, the decision that the child can make is restricted in a way that the Government have not yet explained. If the Government consider that a child of primary school age, from five to 11, is fully able to understand the issues involved and make a decision, which goes against the expressed wishes of their parent or parents that their child's biometric information should be processed, then why is it that if the parent, or one of the parents, declines to agree that their child's biometric information should be processed, the child should not also be given the opportunity to override that decision by saying that they do wish their biometric information to be processed? Indeed, in the light of the Government's amendment relating to parental consent, one parent could agree to their child's biometric information being processed, the other could disagree, and then irrespective of the fact that the child might wish to have their biometric information processed, their view would count for nothing, even though within the family two were in favour—that is, the child and one parent—and only one was against—that is, one parent.
What is the argument in favour of that situation when the Government are saying that a child should be able to overrule the wishes of their parents if the child says they do not want their biometric information to be processed? There may be reasons why a child would wish to agree to their biometric information being processed in a situation where at least one parent had said no. It might be that all or nearly all the other children in the class had agreed to have their biometric information processed, and the child might not wish to be different, or be treated differently, and indeed this might be a cause of concern to the child. Yet under the Bill, while a child of five to 11 years of age could stop their biometric information being processed, they could not insist on it being processed.
In the absence of a convincing explanation for this apparent anomaly—perhaps the Minister will provide one when he responds—there must be a suspicion that these arrangements are being introduced, under the guise of a very selective definition of children’s rights, when what they are really designed to do is implement an unsaid government policy of effectively making impossible the continued processing of a child's biometric information.
The Minister asked in Committee if we were proposing that a child should be dragged kicking and screaming to have their biometric information processed if they disagreed when their parents had given their approval. I will come back to that point. The trouble with the Government's proposal is that it provides a child, including a young child of primary school age, with the opportunity to very publicly, in their school, override the wishes of their parents, provided of course that they do not want their biometric information processed, but not if they do, contrary to the wishes of their parents. Apart from the prospect of some parents feeling somewhat humiliated, it is hardly giving a message to young children that they should respect the word and wishes of their parents. Indeed, it is doing the exact opposite. If it is all right to overrule parents’ wishes in this very public way on this issue, why should a young child not get the message that it must be all right to do it over other issues?
No school with any sense would force a child to have their biometric information processed in a situation where just parental approval or non-objection was required, but that child nevertheless still refused. A more sensible approach would be for the school to go back to the parents and invite them to discuss the issue with their child. If the matter could not then be resolved by either the child no longer refusing or, alternatively, the parents deciding to withdraw their consent, the school would do best not to pursue the issue and make a martyr, but to tell the child that if they so wished they could change their mind at any time in future. At least that approach would not leave the school having to give the child an open invitation to overrule the wishes of their parents, as is the case under the Government's proposals.
As I said at the beginning, our amendment does not change the Bill in the way we think it should be changed on this issue but, in view of the Government's stance, it does at least provide that the provisions enabling a child very publicly to overrule their parents—but, strangely only if the child does not want their biometric information processed, and not if they do—does not apply to children of primary school age.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, although I would agree that the Government have made an effort to move some way in the direction that we were talking about, I entirely agree with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. For many schools, particularly the not-so-good schools, fingerprint recognition biometrics are used in order to stop a certain amount of bullying—so that you cannot, for example, tell which children are in receipt of free school meals or getting special provisions. The moment you start to have a way of distinguishing those matters, other children will have a lever to start bullying, causing disruption et cetera.
It was said that if the parents decided that the child should not have its biometrics kept they could use a card and some other system would have to be provided. But that in itself could become a target for the other children. For instance, if you knew that little Johnny had a card and was also vulnerable, what could be better than to remove his card and destroy it? He will probably not dare tell people that he has been bullied in this way. People might even use that card to gain stuff for themselves. Your Lordships might say, “It is PIN-protected”. However, it would not be very difficult for other children to bully that PIN number out of little Johnny.
We have to realise that, in the real world, these things are not ideal. These biometrics were being used to provide a much more even way of identifying children with special requirements without other children knowing that they have them. The provision could drive a coach and horses right through this very efficient way of doing it. The Government should therefore think again about what the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, and produce their own amendment for Third Reading. The system will need to work in that sort of way so that it can be changed and the child can opt out. If the child thinks, “I am going to get bullied”, it may well want to overrule its parents. In this case, I do not see why the child should not.
The other thing that they might want to do—although this would require a few more amendments and I would not begin to attempt those myself—is somehow to find a way of saying that if this is not working because it is starting to cause problems in schools, we could come back and change it without having to go back to primary legislation. Although I do not like the Henry VIII-clause method, perhaps we can bury some part of this in regulation whereby it could be varied if the Minister found later on that it was causing problems in schools. For instance, instead of the parents having to do an opt-in to the system it would have to be a very deliberate opt-out. Something like that could be useful, because I know this all looks great on paper but out there in the real world it does not work that well. People are not reasonable.
There are also a lot of people who cannot read and write. We talk about providing the information in a form which is easily understood by parents but I am told that the adult illiteracy rate is supposed to be 10 per cent. Perhaps it is 14 per cent, I hear, and in some schools you are going to have that. How many languages would you have to translate it into in some schools? We all seem to be assuming that people are reasonable and available, can read and write, and can understand the issues. That is very dangerous. The Minister should probably look at this and try to give himself more flexibility, in case there are some unintended consequences of what is a well-meaning part of the Bill.
The important thing which we want to end up with is that biometric information used by schools for their administration systems cannot be used outside the schools, and there are many ways of achieving that other than by this opt-in only basis. We should make sure that it is destroyed the moment that the pupil leaves, because it is not needed for administration purposes, and that is not permissible to use it in any other way. If we think that we can keep a voluntary DNA database secure from the Government, we can keep school databases secure from them and the police, or whoever. It is not the fact of the fingerprint that matters; it is what it is used for. We should perhaps make it so that it is not of evidential quality. I suggest to the Minister that he looks again at this.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I note what the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, said in his concluding remarks and we will certainly look at whether any such biometric information should ever be made available outside school. He makes a perfectly valid point on that. Perhaps I might answer some of the points that have been made in the course of this debate, then move my own amendments. It will be open to noble Lords to consider what to do with their own amendments that have been grouped with this later on.
I start with the question of language, which my noble friend Lady Hamwee raised in Amendment 23. The amendment says that information provided by schools and colleges to parents and children on their rights under these provisions must be in a language capable of being readily understood by the parent and child. In response to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, this is true of all information that is provided to parents, whether illiterate or not, and it is something that schools always have to take into account when trying to get to their parents. As I indicated in our deliberations in Committee, the Bill provides that parental consent must be informed and freely given. Schools and colleges should take steps to ensure that parents receive full information about the processing of their child’s biometric information.
I can give an assurance that the Department for Education will issue advice to schools on the provisions in this chapter of the Bill. That advice will include a template consent form for schools to use if they wish. As well as providing information about the type of biometric information to be taken and how it will be used, the advice and the template will refer to the right of parents and pupils to refuse or withdraw their consent and the duty on schools to provide alternative arrangements for those pupils whose information cannot be processed. We will encourage schools to follow the template that we have put forward.
With the aid of this advice, I hope that my noble friend will agree that we can trust schools and colleges to provide appropriate information in the appropriate manner to provide parents and pupils with the right information without the need for an express legal requirement of the kind set out in her amendment.
I turn to my noble friend’s Amendments 20 and 21, which are amendments to government Amendment 19 and seek to ensure that children will also be notified of the processing and of their right to object. We do not consider that an express statutory provision to this effect is necessary, as schools and parents should be trusted to inform children in an age-appropriate manner of what is being proposed, and to ascertain if the child has any concerns about the processing. The proposed government advice will highlight to schools the child’s right to object, and will recommend that parents are made aware of that advice.
I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I was worried that his arguments were oversuspicious and, at some points, over-Jesuitical. He seemed to think that there was a hidden agenda, and at times I suspect that there was an element of him protesting too much in his objections to what we do. Having said that, I have a degree of sympathy for the arguments that he put forward.
The Government believe that, regardless of their age, all children should have the right to say no to the processing of his or her biometric information, even if that is an uninformed objection from a relatively small child. No child of any age should be coerced, physically or otherwise, to give his or her biometric information. We believe that it would be wrong to ignore the wishes and feelings of even a primary-aged child in this important matter.
Lord Rosser
If that is the Government’s view for a child of primary school age, is it also their view that if that child wishes their biometric information to be processed and their parents do not, the child’s view should likewise prevail?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I was going to come to that point. The two scenarios are different. This is why I thought that at times his arguments were positively Jesuitical, with one parent pushing one way, one pushing the other and the child possibly going down a third route, if there could be a third route. Why should one or the other prevail? We think it is right that if the parents say, “No, we do not want that”, that should be final. That is why we have tabled the amendments. Even if one parent objects, that should be it. However, because we believe that these things are important, we also feel that, even if the parents want the provision, it is right that the child can opt out, even if he or she is making an uninformed decision. There is a very big distinction between the two matters. That is why I was worried about the arguments that the noble Lord was putting forward. I believe there is little to be gained in overruling the child’s wishes and I am not aware of any specific evidence that—
The Earl of Erroll
I was trying to make that same point, although not as well. Does the noble Lord remember being very embarrassed when he was at school by some of the things that his parents did because they did not understand how things were at school? That is the huge danger here. Some parents will be wound up by the Daily Mail into deciding to opt out of providing biometric information and their child will feel incredibly embarrassed because they stand out in class. That could get quite serious. Children may know better in this instance than one thinks.
Lord Henley
All of us have been children and most of us in this House are parents. All of us know that one thing that is absolutely universal to all children is feeling deeply embarrassed by their parents. That has been the case since time began. There is no way round that. Children will continue to be embarrassed by their parents, whatever their parents decide to do. The point I am trying to make is that I think there is a very big distinction between the parents saying, “Yes, you should do this”, and the child saying, “No, I want to opt out”, even if he or she is making an uninformed decision; and the other way round whereby it is being suggested that the child should be allowed to opt in even though the parents want to opt out. We want to make it clear to the child that this is a very important decision about giving up some of their own identity. They should be allowed to make that decision for themselves because it is a decision they will have to go on making in the future.
I think that I was the first to use the expression “kicking and screaming” in Committee. I do not think that is something that is likely to happen. A relatively small number of schools will make use of these sorts of mechanics, particularly when we are talking about primary schools. I believe that we can trust parents, schools and teachers to resolve any of the concerns that might crop up. The noble Lord has a point but it is a relatively small point and I do not think that he should get too worked up about it. I assure him that there is no hidden agenda on the part of the Government. I think these matters can be resolved by schools in a sensible way. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it unecessary to move his Amendment 24 when we come to it. I hope that I have addressed the points raised by my noble friend Lady Hamwee in her amendments and by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.
Lord Henley
“(1A) Before the first processing of a child’s biometric information on or after the coming into force of subsection (2), the relevant authority must notify each parent of the child—
(a) of its intention to process the child’s biometric information, and(b) that the parent may object at any time to the processing of the information.”
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
Our procedures do not allow me to come back on a debate on Report, so I move this amendment to the Minister’s amendment to make a point and ask a question. He said that the Government trusted that schools would notify parents and children of the provision in an age-appropriate manner. My problem is that Amendment 19 refers to notifying only the parent. We have got to this point as a result of our focusing on consent. My question is whether guidance will extend—I think he has more or less said this—to notification to the child in the way that I suggest through this amendment. Of course, that will not deal with the consent but, given the later provisions of Clause 26, am I right in assuming that what I am seeking will in effect apply, because Clause 26 will not be workable otherwise? I would be happy with a yes to both those points. I beg to move.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I hope I have understood correctly what is being proposed but if I have got it wrong I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness and we can return to it later. As I understand it, this is a matter of writing to the parents and it is then for the parents to ensure that the child understands, as far as possible, what is being asked. We also hope that the school will deal with this matter. It will be set out in the guidance that I promised that the Department for Education would bring forward in due course.
Lord Henley
“(a) at least one parent of the child consents to the information being processed, and(b) no parent of the child has withdrawn his or her consent, or otherwise objected, to the information being processed.(3) Section 27 makes further provision about the requirement to notify parents and the obtaining and withdrawal of consent (including when notification and consent are not required).”
Lord Henley
“(1A) A notification under section 26(1A) must be given in writing, and any objection to the processing of a child’s biometric information must be made in writing.”
Lord Henley
Lord Henley
Lord Henley
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 38, 39, 40, 41 and 46. I can give an assurance that these are all minor drafting amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas
Lord Lucas
This is also a minor drafting amendment, but I suspect that I shall have to speak to it at greater length. It concerns the scope of “such” in the clause. It is very hard to divine in English what preceding part of the clause “such” is meant to apply to. Clearly, it can go further than the preceding noun. For example, if I were to say, “Some Peers make marmalade; such marmalade is highly prized”, that “such” would clearly apply to marmalade made by Peers and not just to marmalade. However, one can stretch the elastic too far and in that case “such” would seem to apply only to the closing words of a phrase. That is the difference that I have with the drafters of this clause. Clause 33(3) says:
“The surveillance camera code is admissible in evidence in any such proceedings”.
Does “such” mean “criminal and civil proceedings” or does it mean the whole of subsection (2)? This is a moot point. If you put the two subsections together and read straight on, it is absolutely clear in any normal sense of English that “such” refers to the whole of the preceding sentence, but the drafters say that by separating it into two subsections, the “such” applies only to “criminal or civil proceedings”. That is a difficult argument. The additional separation is small and “such” requires to be construed as if what is being talked about is a subset of the whole, but if you are talking about civil and criminal proceedings, you are really talking about the universe of proceedings. There are no other kinds of legal proceedings; you are talking about every kind of legal proceedings in the common world. You would not need “such”, you would talk just about proceedings or legal proceedings. For “such” to have a meaning in that place—I have read and reread that clause—it must refer to the whole of subsection (2). If it does, it allows the surveillance camera code to be admissible in evidence only in cases brought against a person in connection with their not having obeyed the code, not in all the cases that might otherwise involve parking or other aspects of criminal and civil behaviour where the code might be relevant. “Such” greatly restricts the use of the code.
I am clear from my discussions with the Home Office that it intends subsection (3) to be wide—that is, it should apply to any criminal or civil proceedings. It would be much clearer for anyone subsequently reading the Bill if that is what it said, rather than “such”. I beg to move.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, particularly for his references to making marmalade. I can assure him that I made my marmalade last weekend. It did not go terribly well and I will probably be making some more this weekend to make sure I can enter it in that great marmalade competition that takes place in Cumbria once a year. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, will be entering his marmalade in due course.
I am sorry that my noble friend still does not quite understand what we are trying to do here, but I admire his persistence. It reminds me of our late noble friend the Earl of Balfour, who frequently put down detailed amendments of this sort to a whole range of Bills and caused the parliamentary draftsmen considerable problems, as they had to try to explain their intentions and how they were getting to them. I hope that I will be able to do that and I shall quote from earlier correspondence.
My noble friend will remember that we discussed this matter in Grand Committee. My noble friend Lady Stowell dealt with it and then wrote to my noble friend Lord Lucas to clarify the overall purpose of Clause 33 and to provide reassurance that the wording of subsection (3) was consistent with the clause’s intention. Perhaps I may quote the relevant sections of the letter. It stated:
“Clause 33(1) provides that ‘a relevant authority’ must have regard to the surveillance camera code; clause 33(2) is deliberately wider than 33(1) in that it provides that any failure to have regard to the code (whether by a relevant authority or by another) does not of itself create civil or criminal liability. Subsection (2) is open to two interpretations: a narrow interpretation to the effect that the code is admissible in any civil or criminal proceedings in which a failure to have regard to the code is relevant, or a wider meaning, namely that it is admissible in any civil or criminal proceedings. We consider that it was clear from the context of the Bill that the words do refer to any civil or criminal proceedings. If you look at clause 33(2) there are no civil or criminal proceedings at that point. Consequently, the ‘any such proceedings’ (in subsection (3)) can really only refer to any civil or criminal proceedings. One also needs to consider clause 33(4) which refers to ‘any such proceedings’, since the meaning of that will hinge on the reference in clause 33(3)”.
I stand by the drafting skills of our parliamentary counsel and believe that the meaning that he has set out is already, should I say, crystal clear. The reference to “such proceedings” unambiguously refers back to the reference to criminal or civil proceedings in subsection (2). We do not need to repeat those words in subsection (3). We remain unconvinced that there is any real merit in such a revision to the Bill. Moreover, if we were to make that change in Clause 33, we would also need to amend Clauses 51 and 62 and Schedule 3, which adopts the same drafting approach.
With that explanation and having read out that extract from my noble friend Lady Stowell’s letter, I hope that my noble friend Lord Lucas will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, one of the happy consequences of Pepper v Hart is that by setting out what he has, my noble friend has solved the problem, because he has produced something to which the courts can now turn to answer any question that may arise. I am very happy to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Campbell-Savours
“(l) any organisation able to transmit images which derive from surveillance equipment that is subject to the code of practice under section 29”
Lord Campbell-Savours
To describe this as a probing amendment is perhaps to stretch parliamentary procedure a bit far. However, I do so in the light of the parliamentary Answer given by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, on 31 August, which referred me to the Bill and the proposed code of practice in response to my Questions on pixelation. I should tell the House that I gave the department notice of the subject behind the amendment, which is, as I said, the issue of pixelation—the deliberate scrambling and distortion of televised images of people, a practice used by TV production teams to disguise the identity of individuals, more often than not for legal reasons. I believe that there is far too much pixelation in the live media. I understand that TV companies tend to follow rules, some say guidance, set under the Ofcom broadcasting code, which appears to call for,
“caution to be required in programmes covering relatively common but illegal behaviour such as dangerous driving, speeding and criminal damage”,
and state that programmes should not,
“condone or glamorise violent, dangerous or seriously antisocial behaviour”.
I further understand that the broadcasters also follow the Information Commissioner's code of practice, which provides guidance on how best to comply with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the eight data protection principles. Page 13 of the Information Commissioner’s code covers disclosure of images from a CCTV system to a third party, which may well be a television company. The effect of my amendment would be in an oblique way to bring those who transmit the images, TV companies, under the umbrella of not only the two codes to which I referred but the new code, in that the two codes, after suitable amendment, would have some regard to the code covering the operation of surveillance cameras as proposed under Clause 29. There might also need to be further amendment to the Data Protection Act.
I readily accept that that is a rather untidy way to raise the issue of pixelation, which in my view is now completely out of control and contrary to the public interest. Broadcasters have become far too sensitive in the use of such images. I perfectly understand why innocent bystanders—that is, people in the crowd—should have their privacy protected under the various codes. Why should a person committing a driving offence, such as driving with no insurance, grossly exceeding the speed limit or being drunk in charge of a vehicle, or urinating in the street, resisting arrest, attacking a person in a public place, being caught in the act of theft, swearing in a public place, using racist language, or swearing at a police officer, breaking into a shop front, as in the recent riots, or being caught in the act of abusing the benefits system or public servants, shoplifting, acting in a corrupt way through bribery—all acts which can be caught on camera—be protected from exposure and transparency by pixelation of their image in the act of wrongdoing?
The camera does not lie. What the camera sees, those present—very often the public at the scene of the incident—can see and witness. To argue, as the broadcasters do, that their actions are intended to ensure that the legal process is not prejudiced is no more than a cop-out. The judgment that the broadcasters should have in mind is not so much whether they are prejudicing legal proceedings, which is rarely the case, as whether transmission would leave them open to a civil action for damages, which could arise only if the transmission of an image misrepresented the action of an individual or individuals.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for moving this amendment. I have been provided with speaking notes to address some of the points that he has raised but, before I get to them, it occurs to me that perhaps he is raising two different issues here. I speak as someone who worked at the BBC for nine years. Following the noble Lord’s praise for Sky, I do not know whether this will mean that I attract criticism from him, but, as I say, I think that there are two separate matters here.
One is about documentaries or docusoaps, in which broadcasters follow police services and, in the course of filming or making the programmes, they capture footage on film of people doing things that are against the law. In those circumstances, the broadcasters tend to pixelate the images when they are played out. The broadcasters of that kind of imagery clearly have to comply with Ofcom’s broadcasting code and ensure that they do not broadcast images that might jeopardise any legal process that the police service might want to pursue in apprehending the person whom they have filmed. There is a separate issue that the noble Lord spoke more to in moving the amendment. It covers situations where news organisations, including the BBC, Sky, ITV and many others, broadcast CCTV footage that has been released to them by the police, usually in order for them to report on criminal activity and to broadcast the fact of that activity to the general public. In responding to the noble Lord, I will focus my comments on the second category of images rather than the first.
I start by saying that I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord that CCTV systems and images are an important investigative tool for the police. There is little point in investing in such systems if the police and others cannot make full use of the images when investigating offences captured on CCTV systems and prosecuting offenders. Where a suspect has yet to be identified and there is reason to believe that the release of CCTV footage will aid the police investigation of a crime and secure justice for the victim, our general approach is that we support images being made available to the public. There will be some cases where this may not be appropriate. However, the BBC programme “Crimewatch” is a great example of where CCTV footage of crimes has been broadcast and, as a result, the public have been able to provide vital information to the police.
We must be alive to the fact that at an early stage of an investigation, before anyone has been arrested for an alleged offence, any CCTV images would at best identify only one or more alleged offenders or wholly innocent persons. We need to be sensitive to such considerations, particularly where the persons visible on any CCTV footage appear to be under 18 and are therefore afforded particular protection within the criminal justice system. The position is different once a person has been arrested for an offence. In those circumstances, the Contempt of Court Act 1981 is engaged. This means that from the time of their arrest, a suspect is afforded a degree of protection in order to ensure that as the accused they have a fair trial.
All these considerations argue for a degree of constraint on the media in publishing personal details of suspects at the pre-charge stage. This is consistent with guidance issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers that sets out the limited circumstances in which police officers might divulge to the media the personal details of those suspected of, but not yet charged with, an offence. The ACPO guidance sets out the principles in this area, including the legal tests of necessity and proportionality, to help police forces make decisions about the release of images of suspects and defendants to the media.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the issue. It is clearly relevant to the provisions of the Bill, given that one of our objectives is to promote the effective use of CCTV systems. As I said, it must be right that the police should be able to exploit CCTV images as part of their investigation of an offence. If the publication of such images has a role to play in helping identify suspects, the police should not be inhibited from placing them in the public domain. In doing so, they must have proper regard to their duties under data protection legislation and to the need to protect the rights of the accused, and they must have particular regard to the position of children. I hope that, having sparked the debate and listened to my responses, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Baroness for her reply to my amendment. We have had an early canter round a very interesting course. I feel sure that if we had not all been eagerly awaiting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, there would have been far more contributors to the debate. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“(2A) Subsection (2) shall not apply to an authorisation granted in contemplation of any surveillance undertaken in pursuance of Part 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or the Noise Act 1996 in respect of noise.”
Baroness Hamwee
Amendment 33 amends the provision dealing with the need for judicial approval in cases of directed surveillance and covert human intelligence sources in the work undertaken by environmental health officers dealing with noise. I moved this amendment in Grand Committee. I know that the Minister is sympathetic to people who suffer from noise disturbance, so I am trying it again, not just for that, but in order to pursue a couple of points. I should declare that I am a vice-president, one of many, of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health.
In responding to the amendment in Grand Committee, the Minister referred to meetings between the institute and Defra and to work on revising the RIPA code of practice, but if surveillance is unlawful, which is what concerns the institute, the code cannot make it lawful. I am rather cantering through the points covered in that debate. I accept that most of what environmental health officers do in investigating and dealing with noise nuisance does not amount to covert surveillance requiring authorisation. The Minister said that the code would make it clear that,
“authorisation under RIPA is unlikely”—
I stress that word—
“to be necessary”.—[Official Report, 15/12/11; col. GC 357.]
Uncertainty over this is not helpful. The Minister referred to the right to privacy, but I do not believe that this is a matter of privacy—privacy is keeping a matter private after the fact—but is about obtaining information. She said that if noise—for instance, of an argument—is so loud that it can be heard outside a property, there can be no realistic expectation of privacy. However, as I understand it, private information is defined by RIPA according to its content, not its audibility. Indeed, individuals can have a right to privacy in respect of activity even in a public place.
If the local authority is to serve an abatement notice warning that monitoring may be carried out, it has been suggested that it cannot be covert, but whether surveillance is covert is a matter of fact in each instance. The Minister said that the code makes clear that authorisation is not required, but in fact the code states that a perpetrator is not normally to be regarded as having forfeited a right to privacy and that authorisation may not be necessary.
Coming back to those three words, “unlikely”, “normally” and “may”, can the Minister give me any further assurances? I beg to move.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I was grateful to her for taking my call earlier today to discuss her amendment. Since speaking to her this afternoon and rereading the notes and advice that I have had on this amendment, I hope I can provide her with more assurance than I indicated earlier, but I will not prejudge that.
As I made clear in Committee, I fully share my noble friend’s concerns about the impact that intrusive noise can have, particularly when it comes from neighbouring properties. I share her concerns that in many cases noise monitoring would already fall outside the RIPA regime because there is not an expectation of privacy. However, in some cases it is possible that noise monitoring amounts to an intrusion of an individual’s expectations of privacy. In such cases it is right that steps are taken to ensure that any monitoring is both necessary and proportionate. The whole point of the RIPA safeguards of necessity and proportionality is that there needs to be an assessment on a case-by-case basis that takes into account the individual facts of the case.
RIPA ensures that public authority surveillance activity meets its obligations under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Without a RIPA authorisation, a public authority that exceeds the bounds or intrudes quite significantly is at risk of an ECHR challenge. However, I share my noble friend’s view that many noise abatement investigations do not engage any private information and are therefore outside the scope of RIPA. I gave a few examples when we debated this issue in Committee; for example, the monitoring of loud music, alarms or machinery; if someone is having a row and it is causing inconvenience to other people they cannot be in a position to believe that that is private. There are occasions when obtaining a RIPA authorisation for noise abatement would clearly be superseded by the need for immediate action—for example, by the police—because the intervention is for a public order incident.
Home Office officials have been discussing these matters with members of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, Defra and London Councils. We have said that we cannot create a general exclusion for any noise abatement measurement or monitoring, especially if the steps taken to investigate it infringe privacy rights. However, I hope I can provide my noble friend with the assurance that she is seeking by saying that we will look again at the RIPA code of practice on surveillance to see whether we can make it clearer that in the circumstances that I have outlined—that is, where no private information is engaged or a where a person would normally be regarded as having forfeited any claim to privacy—a RIPA authorisation is unlikely to be required. I hope that that is sufficient to persuade my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for having clearly spent quite some time on this since we spoke earlier this afternoon.
As my noble friend will know, a code cannot trump legislation but greater clarity may be of assistance. Certainly, I was with her much more this time on her response than previously. It may not satisfy the institute entirely but if the code can be made clearer and reduce hesitancy on the part of environmental health officers in using the powers that they have, that would certainly be a good thing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“Matters subject to legal privilegeInvestigatory powers: legal privilege
(1) In section 5 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (interception with a warrant), after subsection (6) insert—
“(7) But an interception warrant does not authorise conduct undertaken for the purpose of doing anything in relation to—
(a) a communication, insofar as the communication consists of matters subject to legal privilege;(b) communications data, insofar as the data relate to the communication of matters subject to legal privilege.(8) In subsection (7), “matters subject to legal privilege” means matters to which section 98(2), (3) or (4) of the Police Act 1997 applies, but does not include a communication made with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose.
(9) For the purposes of this section the Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the determination (on an application for an interception warrant or otherwise) of the question whether, in any case, a communication is made with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose.
(10) A code of practice issued under section 71 may in particular contain provision about—
(a) the steps to be taken to minimise the risk of conduct undertaken pursuant to an interception warrant resulting in accidental acquisition of a communication, or communications data, falling within subsection (7);(b) the steps to be taken if it appears that such conduct has accidentally resulted in acquisition of such a communication or data.”(2) In section 22 of that Act (obtaining and disclosing communications data), after subsection (9) insert—
“(10) An authorisation or notice under this section does not authorise or require anything to be done for the purpose of obtaining or disclosing communications data relating to the communication of matters subject to legal privilege.
(11) In subsection (10), “matters subject to legal privilege” means matters to which section 98(2), (3) or (4) of the Police Act 1997 applies, but does not include a communication made with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose.
(12) For the purposes of this section the Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the determination (on an application for an authorisation or otherwise) of the question whether, in any case, a communication is made with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose.
(13) A code of practice issued under section 71 may in particular contain provision about—
(a) the steps to be taken to minimise the risk of accidentally obtaining or disclosing communications data falling within subsection (10) in the course of anything done under this section;(b) the steps to be taken if it appears that anything done under this section has accidentally resulted in such data being obtained or disclosed.” (3) In section 27 of that Act (authorised surveillance and human intelligence sources), after subsection (4) insert—
“(5) An authorisation under section 28 or 32 does not authorise surveillance for the purpose of obtaining information about—
(a) anything taking place on so much of any premises as is in use for the purpose of legal consultations, or(b) matters subject to legal privilege.(6) An authorisation under section 29 does not authorise any activities involving conduct of a covert human intelligence source, or the use of such a source, for the purpose of—
(a) obtaining matters subject to legal privilege,(b) providing access to any matters subject to legal privilege to another person, or(c) disclosing matters subject to legal privilege.(7) In subsection (5), “legal consultation” means—
(a) a consultation between a professional legal adviser and his client or any person representing his client, or(b) a consultation between a professional legal adviser or his client or any such representative and any other person made in connection with or in contemplation of legal proceedings and for the purpose of such proceedings,except in so far as the consultation consists of anything done with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose.(8) In subsections (5) or (6), “matters subject to legal privilege” means matters to which section 98(2), (3) or (4) of the Police Act 1997 applies, but does not include anything done with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose.
(9) For the purposes of this section the Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the determination (on an application for an authorisation or otherwise) of the question whether anything referred to in subsection (7) or (8) is done with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose.
(10) A code of practice issued under section 71 may in particular contain provision about—
(a) the steps to be taken to minimise the risk of conduct undertaken in reliance on this Part accidentally resulting in information of a kind mentioned in subsection (5) being obtained or in any of the things mentioned in subsection (6)(a), (b) or (c) being done;(b) the steps to be taken if it appears that such conduct has accidentally resulted in such information being obtained or such things being done.”
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 34, which has been prepared by the Bar Council. Any noble Lord who looked at the Marshalled List would have been surprised that anyone without parliamentary counsel experience could have come up with this, and indeed it was a former parliamentary counsel who drafted it. I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for the meeting he had with representatives of the Bar Council a few days ago.
The amendment is underlaid by the common-law right of a client and his lawyer—or indeed a lawyer and his client; it works both ways—to communicate privately. I do not think I need to emphasise the importance of this, nor can I overemphasise it. It is a fundamental human right and a major building block of our administration of justice. If a client feels that his communication might be disclosed and used against him, he will edit what he tells his lawyer, and his lawyer will inevitably be handicapped by that.
There is a statutory protection against the use of legally privileged communications when a client is in custody, but in 2009 in the case of Re McE, this House, when it was still sitting as a court, held, although not unanimously—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, dissented—that Part II of RIPA permits the covert surveillance of meetings between defendants and lawyers. This ruling applies to other covert investigation techniques: the interception of communications, the acquisition of communications data and the use of covert human intelligence sources. There is therefore a problem where instructions are taken outside a police station, such as a group of people at an environmental protest, or indeed when one meets any group of people, or any individual, outside particular premises. The ruling also applies outside criminal law when an individual brings a civil action against the state, and to think that the state itself could be listening into and using what he tells a lawyer reminds us of regimes that are very far from the model of what we wish to be in this country.
Following McE, orders were made that altered the authorisation provisions and revisions were made to the codes of practice, but in the view of the Bar Council these provide insufficient safeguards. The codes of practice provide for the violation of legal professional privilege only in “exceptional and compelling circumstances”, but the test contains no special protection for privileged material. For directed surveillance, such circumstances are said to arise only in cases where there is a threat to national security or to “life or limb”. The phrase “threat to life or limb” is not clear; it could extend to quite minor offences where physical injury has arisen from a lack of reasonable care or a breach of a duty that gives rise to strict liability.
The real difficulty is that these changes do not address the fundamental point that covert investigatory powers should not be used to target privileged communications. The orders, in any event, do not apply to the interception of communications and the acquisition of communications data. This amendment would protect legal professional privilege except where it is abused for criminal purposes.
The noble Baroness said in Grand Committee that no one could regard themselves as being beyond the law or immune from investigation or prosecution. I do not challenge that. Indeed, I share that view. Therefore the inequity exception, as it is known in the trade, is included, which provides that privilege does not attach to information that is held or to communications that were made in the furtherance of a criminal purpose. The proposed new clause would simply bring RIPA into line with other legislation. When RIPA was introduced, the issue of privilege was not debated at all, and the courts have been left to construe statutes. This is not a case of the courts having any basis other than an assumption of the construction, “Parliament must have intended”. I do not think that Parliament addressed its mind to it.
I have two further points. First, the noble Baroness mentioned the requirement of codes of practice that cases of legally privileged communications which are intercepted or retained, or are the subject of interception, should be reported to the Interception of Communications Commissioner. I take that point but it is after the event and does not meet the basic concern.
Secondly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, queried whether the way in which the provision was drafted would give a wide power to the Secretary of State to pre-empt how the courts might deal with a criminal purpose. He pointed to the words “or otherwise”. The matter is most likely to arise on an application for authorisation but it could arise later in an investigation where the fruits of a covert operation tend to include lawyer-client communication, which would not attract the iniquity exception.
The Bar Council and I believe that the addition of the words:
“For the purposes of this section”,
in two places would confine regulations which are proposed to provide for determinations only for the purposes of the relevant section of RIPA and not be as extensive as the noble and learned Lord feared. I am grateful to him for pointing out the need for a little tweaking.
This is an issue of really important principle, which I appreciate I am bringing to the House late in the evening. Perhaps the exit of a number of noble Lords indicates that we are not going to go on to what they were staying for. I have no doubt made myself a bit unpopular therefore by this but nevertheless it is an important point of privilege.
Lord Henley
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right to say that this is a very important matter. It is sad that we should be debating this so late and that it will be the last amendment of the day. I was going to congratulate her on her drafting abilities but, as she admitted, that was the work of others. I was grateful to see that it was a former parliamentary counsel who managed that.
Having said that, I appreciate that this is an area on which my noble friend and the Bar Council have strong views and I think that there is some agreement between us on the importance of these issues. I am therefore very grateful that my noble friend brought representatives of the Bar Council to a meeting with me, my officials and my noble friend Lady Stowell last week to discuss this matter further.
We all believe that the principle of legal privilege is important and that the ability of a person to seek legal advice in confidence is a key part of our justice system. We also all agree that the privilege must not be abused by lawyers who might themselves participate in or assist with criminal activity. When such communications are taking place it should be possible to target them for surveillance.
This amendment would not allow us to go any further than this and we do not agree that there are absolutely no other circumstances where privileged material can be targeted. We believe that there are some occasions, which would be exceptional in nature, where our intelligence and law enforcement agencies may need to target these communications in order to counter a serious threat or to protect a person from serious harm. An example would be where a person goes on a shooting rampage, taking members of the public or perhaps their family, hostage. Our law enforcement agencies may have intelligence to suggest that it is likely that the person will visit their lawyer and seek advice or refuge. In that situation, it is clearly vital that information can be obtained about the whereabouts of those taken hostage.
Alternatively, we could take the case of a terrorist planning an attack who may consult his lawyer at the lawyer’s office, where there might be an undercover officer in place, before that attack takes place. The surveillance commissioner may reasonably consider that the undercover officer will obtain information which could be used to avert the attack.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I shall certainly do so. What the Minister has explained to the House is of enormous significance. Given the time, I shall confine myself to just one remark. He gave an assurance that there is a distinction between using information to counter a threat and using it as evidence for prosecutions, with the former being permissible and the latter not. I wonder whether in practice it is entirely easy to disentangle the two. The Minister has given me material to think about, as he will to others who are much more expert than I am on the technicalities. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.