House of Commons

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

Monday 25 February 2013

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

1. What plans he has for the defence budget post-2015.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

15. What assessment he has made of the likely defence budget post-2015.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

The defence budget for the financial year 2015-16 will be set in the current spending round, which is expected to conclude in the summer. The budget for subsequent years will be set in the next spending review. The Ministry of Defence has an agreement with Her Majesty’s Treasury that we may plan on the assumption of a 1% real-terms annual increase in the equipment budget—about 40% of the current defence budget, rising to 45%—from 2015-16 to 2020-21. Our equipment plan, which we recently published, is based on that assumption.

[Rosie Cooper]

On 14 May last year the Secretary of State boasted that he had balanced the budget over 10 years. To prove his claims, he said:

“I have agreed with the National Audit Office that it will review the equipment plan and confirm that it is affordable.”—[Official Report, 14 May 2012; Vol. 545, c. 264.]

However, in January the NAO’s report damningly said that it could not

“offer a definitive view on the affordability of the Equipment Plan.”

Will the Secretary of State tell us how we can believe a word that this Government say on defence when their central claim to competence cannot be confirmed by the independent auditor?

[Mr Hammond]

I think the hon. Lady needs to go away and read the National Audit Office report carefully. To put it into context, she probably needs to read some previous NAO reports on equipment plans. For example, in its 2010 report the NAO discovered that in a single year under Labour just two programmes—Typhoon and the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier—rose by £3.3 billion in cost. In 2009, it said that

“the budget remains consistently unaffordable over the next ten years”

and that attempts to rebalance the defence budget had represented poor value for money. We are very happy with the NAO’s review of the equipment plan, which recognised the huge steps of progress that we have made and set out an affordability assessment model for the Department’s assumptions.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Both the question and the answer are hopelessly long-winded; we need to get better.

[Derek Twigg]

The Prime Minister promised real-terms growth in the post-2015 budget. Can the Secretary of State confirm that that will still be the case for the equipment budget and the non-equipment budget?

[Mr Hammond]

The Prime Minister has made it clear that he stands by his view that the equipment plan budget needs to increase in real terms, and we have a pledge from Her Majesty’s Treasury that we may plan on the assumption of a 1% real-terms increase. Our planning assumption is flat real-terms growth for the remainder of the budget.

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

I do not think that that was precisely what the Prime Minister said. Nevertheless, does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that if we possibly can we should continue to meet the NATO objective of spending at least 2% of our gross domestic product on defence?

[Mr Hammond]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. The plans that we have set out do indeed show that we will continue to comply with that 2% threshold.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State enlighten the House on what discussions he has had with the Treasury in the light of the Prime Minister’s most welcome announcement last week that some of the aid budget might very usefully be diverted to peacekeeping operations? The Department for International Development is to have another £2.65 billion extra this year, but how on earth is it going to spend it when the Ministry of Defence is so short of cash?

[Mr Hammond]

I shall leave it to my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary to explain how DFID proposes to spend its budget. There is already a high level of co-operation between the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and DFID. It makes absolute sense to look at how we spend the budgets available across those three Departments in order to achieve their objectives and secure the UK’s vital national interests.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

Last May the Secretary of State announced to an outburst of self-congratulation that he had balanced the MOD’s books and, as we have heard, he even called on the National Audit Office to validate his assertion. Instead, however, the auditors have declared that his costings are “over-optimistic” and his approach “not statistically valid”. Put simply, the NAO said:

“The costings are not sufficiently robust to support the affordability assertion.”

Is it not now time for the Defence Secretary, just like the Prime Minister, finally to admit that he has failed to deliver on his boasts on the MOD budget?

[Mr Hammond]

No, and I am sorry that the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) has stolen the right hon. Gentleman’s thunder. We now have an equipment plan that includes £4.8 billion of centrally held contingency, £8.4 billion of contingency in the individual projects, and £8 billion of unallocated headroom. The right hon. Gentleman might have noted that the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) recently said that, since the election, the MOD has made

“welcome progress…particularly on the purchasing of equipment”

and “great strides forward”. That is in marked contrast to the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee’s assessment of what happened under the previous Government.

[Mr Murphy]

The Secretary of State should spare us the lecture. This is the party that sold off the Harriers, that could not decide which aeroplanes to put on the carriers, that sends our one carrier to sea without any aeroplanes and that cost the country tens of millions of pounds.

To return to the budget, we now know that when the Defence Secretary told this House that the defence budget was balanced, he meant that only 40% of it was costed. The National Audit Office looked at just £1 in every £5 of the MOD’s budget, and even then it discovered a £12.5 billion black hole in the plans. The NAO said:

“Achieving affordability is…contingent on savings being achieved elsewhere in the budget.”

Will the Defence Secretary confirm the NAO’s figure for the new black hole and that his plans to boost the equipment budget will fall on the back of further cuts to our armed forces and their welfare?

[Mr Hammond]

No. The right hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. The figure of £12.5 billion is from CAAS—the internal cost assessment and assurance service. It was quoted by the National Audit Office and has subsequently been reassessed at £4.4 billion. [Interruption.] No, it was by CAAS and has been reassessed at £4.4 billion. The right hon. Gentleman is simply wrong.

Labour has to decide whether it is going to engage seriously in this debate or not. At last year’s Labour conference, the right hon. Gentleman told his party that it

“must deal with the issues we would if we were in power…No smoke and mirrors, no delay in tough decisions”.

Just two weeks ago, however, he told The Daily Telegraph:

“I’m not going to say we will guarantee to overturn this cut or the other.”

Which is it to be: tough decisions or more ducking and weaving?

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The 2011 independent commission acknowledged the increased cost of collectively training Territorial Army units over their regular brethren when force generation factors were taken into account. Given that the Green Paper makes clear that TA units will be more frequently used, will the Government justify their claim that replacing regular troops with reservists is cost-effective?

[Mr Hammond]

As my hon. Friend knows, we have allocated £1.8 billion over 10 years for additional training, infrastructure and equipment for the reserves to try to rebuild the broken trust that resulted from the previous Government’s slashing of funding for reserve training and equipment. On the economics of using reserves instead of regular forces, it is true that, when deployed on operations, reserves are more expensive than regulars, but, held as a contingency, reserves are significantly lower cost than regular forces. We are simply trying, within the budget envelope available, to create the greatest amount of military capacity it is possible to generate.

[Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Is the Secretary of State able to give any detail as to the exact consequences of the Prime Minister’s welcome statement on the use of the DFID budget alongside the budgets of the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence for the future of defence diplomacy?

[Mr Hammond]

As I have said, we already co-operate significantly. The conflict pool is a tri-departmental pool of funding that is used for upstream stabilisation and capacity-building operations. The Prime Minister was alluding to a commitment by all three Departments to look again at how we can do more of that to support the UK’s national interests, while at the same time support the development agenda. It is a simple fact that unless there is security it is not possible to have economic development or effective poverty eradication.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

2. What his most recent estimate is of costs up to 2016 of the replacement of the Trident nuclear missile system.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Trident D5 missile is expected to remain in service until the 2040s. No decision on a replacement system is expected to be made during this Parliament. The estimated cost remains at £2 billion to £3 billion at 2006 prices for the missile itself, as was set out in the White Paper published by the previous Government, whom he occasionally supported.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Will the Minister undertake to report to Parliament regularly on expenditure on the missile replacement ahead of the 2016 main gate decision? Does the estimate that he has given today include the upgrading of AWE Aldermaston? Does he think that in a time of austerity it is really such a good idea to prepare to spend £100 billion on a nuclear missile system that will be our very own weapon of mass destruction, which will not help to bring about world peace?

[Mr Dunne]

As the hon. Gentleman knows and as I have just said, we published an update to Parliament at the end of last year and we intend to publish such updates periodically. The upgrade at Aldermaston is part of the regular routine maintenance of that site which is needed for the existing programme, irrespective of the successor programme.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

17. Notwithstanding my hon. Friend’s answer, will he join me in paying tribute to the brave submariners who have ensured that the UK has had a continuous at-sea deterrent and who have been the guarantor of our country’s security for 50 years?

[Mr Dunne]

I am very pleased to pay tribute to the bravery of the men and women who support our submarine fleets, both the conventional fleet and the deterrent fleet. As my hon. Friend rightly says, they have done so for many decades. The deterrent is an important component of the defence of the realm and long may it stay so under this Government.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

I have tabled parliamentary questions on the Trident alternatives review. The Government are refusing to tell me how much it is costing and what it is looking at. The review is blatantly the Liberal Democrats researching their manifesto at taxpayers’ expense and in secret. Will the Government release the details of the Trident alternatives review?

[Mr Dunne]

The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that the coalition agreement made it clear that the Liberal Democrats were allowed to produce their own alternative review. It is up to the Liberal Democrats to decide as and when they wish to publish the review’s findings.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Talking of alternatives, does my hon. Friend agree that the few percentage points of the defence budget that will be spent on replacing Trident give far better value for money than the alternative of putting nuclear cruise missiles on Astute class submarines, as has been recommended by the Liberal Democrats, almost all of whom are unaccountably absent from the Chamber today?

[Mr Dunne]

My hon. Friend is a stalwart defender of this country’s nuclear deterrent. I applaud him for that and for the debate that he called on this subject at the end of last year. It remains to be seen what costings are attached to the alternative plans that our coalition partners may or may not publish in due course.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

The majority of Scottish MPs at Westminster have voted against Trident renewal, just as the majority of Members of the Scottish Parliament have voted against Trident renewal, and just as the Scottish trade unions, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, every single faith group and the majority of public opinion are against Trident renewal. Why are the Government ignoring the democratic majority in Scotland and wasting billions of pounds on something that could never be used, rather than investing in conventional defence?

[Mr Dunne]

The hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to the workers of the Rosyth area and see how they feel about whether we should retain a nuclear deterrent in this country. Decisions about this country’s nuclear deterrent are made in this Parliament, as they were in 2007, and they will continue to be made here.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

3. What consideration he has given to routinely storing DNA samples for all members of the armed forces.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on taking a close interest in this matter. As the Minister responsible for defence personnel, veterans and welfare, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), told him in November, it is MOD policy

“to offer all military, deployable MOD civilians and other entitled personnel the opportunity to provide reference samples suitable for DNA analysis.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 18.]

That is on entirely a voluntary basis, complies with the Human Tissue Act 2004, and is to enable identification post mortem if required.

[David Mowat]

The Minister may recall the case of my constituent Emma Hickman, who had difficulty in demonstrating paternity because of a dispute over the ownership of DNA. That case was resolved, and I thank him for his help in that, but we need routinely to require all active soldiers to have DNA taken so that, as in the case of armies such as that of the United States, samples can easily be made available. By what time scale might we do that?

[Dr Murrison]

The policy is under review, and it will certainly include reviewing practice in other countries, notably the US, where, as my hon. Friend says, there is mandatory testing on enlistment. That clearly needs to be within UK legislation, particularly the 2004 Act, and I anticipate the result of the current review being available in late spring.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

4. What steps he is taking to encourage other Government Departments to support the armed forces covenant.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr Mark Francois)]

As stated in December in the first formal annual report on the armed forces covenant, by enshrining the principles of the covenant in law and establishing a Cabinet-level Committee to oversee progress, we are embedding the covenant across Whitehall. The Cabinet Sub-Committee on the Armed Forces Covenant, led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Government Policy, was formed in February 2012 to oversee the covenant programme of work and ensure that momentum is maintained. It provides a forum where Ministers can discuss the commitments owned by their Departments. It met four times in 2012 and has already met this year, a meeting that I attended.

[Mr Buckland]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. What further work is being done to reinforce at local level the need to address veterans’ issues, for example through work with housing associations, many of which have tenants who are veterans, some of whom are in a vulnerable position?

[Mr Francois]

More than 250 local authorities have now signed community covenants, and housing is one issue that is often covered in them; it is covered, I believe, under section 4 of the Swindon community covenant. If veterans have particular problems with housing, as well as contacting their local council and housing associations they can contact the Ministry of Defence’s veterans welfare service, which is part of the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency and can assist them with their inquiries.

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

The Government have been tested on how seriously they take the armed forces covenant by the issue of the bedroom tax, and they have failed that test. The right hon. Gentleman has finally admitted, in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), that some armed forces families, including those of reservists, could be affected by the bedroom tax, but he does not know how many. Now that we know that some armed forces families will be punished by the bedroom tax, why does he think the families of prisoners and of students should have a year’s exemption, but not armed forces families?

[Mr Francois]

It is believed that very few, if any, full-time service personnel will be affected by the new policy of the Department for Work and Pensions as the overwhelming majority will be living in service accommodation provided by the Ministry of Defence. I have met Lord Freud at the DWP to discuss the issue in detail, and we believe that the number of service personnel who will be affected, either regular or reserve, will be really quite small.

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

5. What steps he is taking to help families of service personnel find work.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr Mark Francois)]

We recognise that the mobile lifestyles of service personnel can create a particular difficulty for working partners who may have to give up their own jobs. The Government are committed to addressing such disadvantages, including through Jobcentre Plus armed forces champions to assist service families in finding employment, and through easier access to several Jobcentre Plus benefits and services, such as early access to the Work programme of the Department for Work and Pensions. However, we would like to do more. The new employment model that we are currently developing is intended to create a more stable family life, which in turn should help family members find work.

[Andrew Selous]

I spoke to a service wife this morning who told me that she and other wives at their base believe that they are at a real disadvantage when looking for work. They worry about saying what their husbands do, and even about giving their address. These are special people to whom we owe a debt of care. What more can we do to help them?

[Mr Francois]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue, and the armed forces covenant report 2012 points out that for spouses and partners

“despite the generally difficult economic situation, we have seen increased levels of full time employment—from 34% in 2011 to 38% in 2012—and the number of partners reporting difficulty finding a job because of employment history has decreased from 25% in 2010 to 16% in 2012.”

In addition, the Government plan to make an announcement shortly on regular Army basing, which should help to provide greater stability in future for service families.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Has the Minister considered having a Jobcentre Plus at each service accommodation site to ensure that service families are not disconnected from the services they require to help them get back into work?

[Mr Francois]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s question, but we already have a network of armed forces champions in DWP districts and a number of jobcentres. We attempt to meet the requirement by doing things that way round, and we believe that it works.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

6. What plans he has for the non-equipment defence budget.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

11. What plans he has for the non-equipment defence budget.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

The defence budget was set for this Parliament in the spending review conducted in 2010. As I have set out, the budget for financial year 2015-16 will be set in the current spending round, which is expected to conclude in the summer. The MOD’s planning assumption is that the non-equipment element of the budget, about 55% to 60% of the total, will grow in line with inflation—that is, will remain flat in real terms—over the 10-year planning horizon that the Department uses for budgeting purposes.

[Ian Mearns]

The National Audit Office has called into question the Secretary of State’s projections, and MOD analysis shows that capability gaps could arise in some areas, particularly the Army. Will the Secretary of State publish the analysis to which the NAO referred, and will he guarantee to all future, current and past members of the Army that their livelihoods will not be cut to pay for miscalculations within the Department?

[Mr Hammond]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have right-sized the Army to the budgets we have available, and having taken tough decisions we are in the process of drawing the Army down to its future size of 82,000. That size will allow us to equip and protect properly our service men and women when we ask them to go out and do a very dangerous job on our behalf, and we believe that is the right approach.

[Mrs Glindon]

Given that the National Audit Office did not confirm the affordability of the equipment plan, will the Secretary of State commit to publishing a more detailed summary of the plan with individual funding lines for individual programmes?

[Mr Hammond]

I remind the hon. Lady that the question is about the non-equipment defence budget. For the equipment budget we have published a plan that is more detailed than anything published previously, and certainly more detailed than any equipment plan published during the 13 years of the Labour Government. We have gone as far as we believe we can without compromising either national security or taxpayers’ commercial interests in negotiating with defence contractors, and I am afraid I cannot offer her any more detail than that already published without compromising those things.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Although Ministers rightly never comment on funding for our special forces, does my right hon. Friend agree that the current operational capability of our special forces, in terms of both equipment and manpower, is a huge national asset?

[Mr Hammond]

Our special forces are a huge national asset, and their capability has been expanded very substantially in response to the needs of Operation Herrick in Afghanistan. It follows that as we draw down from our operations in Afghanistan we will want to review some of the supporting infrastructure put in place for that specific operation. As my hon. Friend will know, however, the MOD never comments publicly on the details of special forces numbers, funding or disposition.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

Last week I met trade union representatives from Defence Support Group Sealand who are obviously concerned about the future of the maintenance budget. What future plans does the Secretary of State have for the maintenance budget, and in particular on whether DSG might be privatised?

[Mr Hammond]

The current intention is that DSG will be privatised, and we are in the process of achieving that objective. On the equipment support budget, one important innovation—hon. Members might have thought that this was standard practice, but it has not been until now—is to ensure that no equipment is allowed into the programme for procurement unless we also clearly have a budget to support that equipment over the 10-year horizon to which we budget. Achieving that will ensure not only that our equipment will be first class, but that we can maintain it in first-class condition.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

On an all-too-frequent basis, we hear of cyber-attacks on global businesses and Government Departments globally. Last month, the Select Committee on Defence published its report on defence and cyber-security, which appears to highlight a number of failings. Bearing in mind that cyber-security cuts right across the Government, does the Secretary of State recognise the need for even more investment in it? What percentage of any additional governmental spend will go to his budget?

[Mr Hammond]

Cyber-security is a cross-Government agenda led by the Cabinet Office, but the Ministry of Defence is heavily involved in the programme. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the increasing frequency and severity of attacks on industrial and civilian infrastructure targets not just in the UK but throughout the western world. The arrangements the Government have put in place for a quinquennial strategic defence and security review give us a framework within which to review our responses to cyber-threats and to make any adjustments in priority that we need to make for the next five-year period. The allocation of costs across Departments would be a matter for the next spending review.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

7. What plans he has for the future of the core equipment programme.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

Having established the core equipment programme in planning round 12, as I announced on 14 May 2012, we are now concentrating on delivering that core programme. We will, however, continue to keep under review candidate projects for inclusion in the core programme in the future, bearing in mind that we have £8 billion of uncommitted headroom in the programme. However, before we include any further projects, we will need to be satisfied, first, of the capability need and, secondly, that we have sufficient room within the budget to see projects through to completion and sustain them in operation. Thirdly, decisions will be required to meet proposed in-service dates.

[Phil Wilson]

The National Audit Office has identified a £12.5 billion black hole in the Department’s equipment plan. Will the Secretary of State say how he will fill that black hole?

[Mr Hammond]

We have done this one before. As I explained to the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), the £12.5 billion quoted by the NAO is a CAAS figure, based on its assessment of early summer 2012. In October, CAAS reported that it had downgraded its assessment of the contingency requirement to £4.4 billion, which is rather less than we have allocated in the budget.

[Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

This is my opportunity not to ask a question on the defence equipment programme that I believed I would have to ask for a fourth time at Defence questions, but instead to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the programme’s publication. What has been the reaction from industry and elsewhere to the welcome detailed information in the equipment plan, and to its clean bill of health from the NAO?

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is an aficionado of NAO reports. Anybody who reads NAO reports regularly will recognise that, in context, the report was supportive and favourable. However, it does not make us complacent—we still have a great deal of work to do. I can tell him that the response from industry has been favourable. I chaired a meeting of the defence suppliers forum the week before last, which commented favourably on the report and the guidance it gives in directing its investment in future capability.

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

In a written answer on 11 February to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), who has responsibility for defence equipment, said:

“This Government will not blindly pursue projects, ignoring new information about defence equipment acquisitions.”—[Official Report, 11 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 442W.]

That is obviously vital in core programmes, but the Defence Committee report on defence acquisition suggested that that was exactly what the Government have done. It concluded that decisions were

“rushed and based upon incomplete and inaccurate policy development…and…without the MoD understanding how the change could be implemented.”

Was the Committee wrong to question the Government’s competence?

[Mr Hammond]

The reference that the hon. Lady cites is specifically to decisions made in 2010. We have received the Committee’s report, we are studying it very carefully and we will publish our response in due course.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

8. What plans he has for the training of reservists.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

Defence has committed an additional £1.8 billion investment over 10 years, starting last year, into the reserves, including for training, equipment and recruitment. Reservists will receive the kit and the challenging individual, collective and command training they need to enable them to contribute as part of a fully integrated force.

Army reserves will be trained and be able to routinely deploy at up to sub-unit level and, at times, unit level. This operational requirement will drive improvements in training and equipment, and provide sustainable command and development opportunities both for officers and other ranks. It will also reinforce unit ethos and identity. There will be more structured and focused training up to sub-unit level, and company level overseas training exercises have already started; these will increase in number significantly by 2015.

[Richard Drax]

I thank the Minister for his answer. Is it wise to scrap regular battalions, such as 2RRF—2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers—before our reservists are fully recruited and trained?

[Mr Robathan]

Many years ago, I served in the same regiment as my hon. Friend, and he raises a good point. Nobody would pretend that we wish to reduce the regular Army, but unfortunately we are in a dire financial position left by the last Government. We are quite confident that we will be able to recruit up to the 30,000 trained reserves that we want, and we are making good progress.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Timely and financially prudent training of reservists who will be able to deploy at short notice alongside regular personnel will require the Ministry of Defence to have accurate figures on how many reservists it has, how many it is recruiting on a monthly basis and how many will actually turn up for training. Will the Minister agree to supply, on a monthly basis, figures that show the number of new recruits to reservist forces?

[Mr Robathan]

I will not agree to do that on a monthly basis, because I do not think it is necessary. However, I will give the hon. Lady some figures. In 2000, under the last Government—whom she supported—the number in the Territorial Army was more than 40,000. We inherited approximately 25,000, and we are very hopeful that we will get the figure up to 30,000, which is what we want to see. The figures will be obvious and we will put them in the Library on a regular basis, but not monthly.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

In the future, the Army’s composition will mean that it is more reliant on reservists, with more reservists being enrolled. In the interests of leading by example, how many civil servants in the Ministry of Defence will be called up as reservists?

[Mr Robathan]

It is not a question of calling people up, because all reservists, like all regular forces, are volunteers. However, we are encouraging people in the Ministry of Defence to join the reserves. My hon. Friend will know that, among others, the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), is a reservist, and my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) and for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) have served on operations. We certainly believe in leading by example.

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

9. What progress his Department has made on the aircraft carrier programme.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

16. What progress his Department has made on the aircraft carrier programme.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

While I am on my feet and with your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I wish to correct the impression that I may have given in answer to a previous question. The thousands of jobs in Scotland supporting the deterrent are, of course, in Faslane. The other thousands of jobs in Scotland supporting the construction of the QEII class of aircraft carrier—the subject of these questions—are at Rosyth.

There are now more than 30,000 tonnes of ship in the dock at Rosyth. The forward and aft island structures, containing the ship’s bridges, funnels and radar masts, will be fitted in the coming months, followed by the final hull and flight deck sections. The ship will be largely structurally complete by the end of this year and she will be floated off next year. Construction of HMS Prince of Wales is also well under way, with all the lower block units in build.

[Diana Johnson]

The Select Committee on Defence says that the coalition’s double U-turn on aircraft carriers has cost taxpayers £100 million-plus, and we face years without carrier capability. With Hull considering a bid for the decommissioned HMS Illustrious, is the Minister aware that even Hull might soon have one more aircraft carrier than the Royal Navy?

[Mr Dunne]

As the hon. Lady has heard already today, the National Audit Office criticised the previous Administration for introducing a delay to the aircraft carrier that cost the taxpayer £1.6 billion, so the Government will not take lessons on how to run a major procurement programme.

[Andy Sawford]

Will the Minister confirm that the Government’s plans on whether a second aircraft carrier will be deployed will be based on the unit cost of the joint strike fighter, which is still unknown due to budgetary uncertainty in America?

[Mr Dunne]

As the hon. Gentleman should know, decisions on the deployment of the second aircraft carrier will be made in the 2015 strategic defence review.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s commitment to this programme. Will he confirm that the aircraft carriers will be the largest in British history, and can I urge him not to let anyone put him off building them?

[Mr Dunne]

My hon. Friend is a redoubtable champion for all matters to do with the armed forces. He is aware that the 65,000 tonne aircraft carriers that will form the Queen Elizabeth class will be not only the largest aircraft carriers ever built in this country, but the largest naval ships ever built in this country.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

10. What plans he has for the future of the defence estate at Bicester.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

The Ministry of Defence continues to rationalise its estate and dispose of surplus sites such as RAF Bicester, where a preferred purchaser has been selected and disposal is expected to be completed by the end of the financial year. We have been preparing the Graven Hill site for disposal by submitting a planning application for new homes and commercial redevelopment.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I appreciate that a lot is happening with the MOD at Bicester, with surplus land being sold and investment in new logistics and new warehousing, which is good news, because it will mean new opportunities and new jobs. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House, however, that while all that is going on, he will ensure that the existing work force are kept properly informed about what is happening and what is being planned?

[Mr Robathan]

I agree with my hon. Friend that that is extremely important. I believe that we will do what he asks, and if we do not, I am sure he will bring it to our attention. Since I first went to the Ministry of Defence nearly three years ago, he has been a doughty exponent of the need for the development of commercial and residential estates on old MOD sites. I pay tribute to him for his work on behalf of his constituents.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

12. What support his Department provides to gay people serving in the armed forces.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr Mark Francois)]

A wide range of support is available to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender members of the armed forces, including LGBT forums and an employee network site, Proud2Serve, which provides them with a key communication tool. In addition, all members of the armed forces are supported by a network of equality and diversity advisers, who are trained to provide support on a range of equality and diversity issues.

[Steve Rotheram]

At the turn of the millennium, the previous Labour Government ended the ban on homosexual men, lesbians and transgender personnel serving in our armed forces. Given that only one of the Minister’s Defence colleagues voted in favour of equal marriage, can he explain what message he thinks that sends about this Government’s commitment to equality in our armed forces?

[Mr Francois]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that that was a free vote. With regard to the other issue he raised, we intend to introduce an option for members of the armed forces to record their sexual orientation on our joint personnel administration system if they so wish. I take it that that is a change he would welcome. In the meantime, we have expanded our recruit trainee survey to give personnel the option of providing their sexual orientation if they wish to do so.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

13. What steps he is taking to improve defence procurement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

Reforming defence acquisition and support so that it provides the right equipment to our armed forces at the right time, while driving better value for money from the budget, is a key element of the defence transformation programme currently under way. This is one of my top priorities, which will reverse more than a decade of mismanagement by the Labour Government. Through the materiel strategy work, we have concluded that only significant reform will solve the problems that have for years beset defence procurement. We expect to make decisions on the next steps of that work soon.

[Neil Carmichael]

Does the Minister agree that the need to ensure that the UK defence industry has encouragement and a sense of continuity is also important to the small and medium-sized businesses that supply the defence industries? What steps is he taking to ensure that they can play a major part?

[Mr Dunne]

In 2012, 40% of new contracts placed by the MOD were with small and medium-sized enterprises; they are at the heart of the innovation within the supply chain for defence contractors. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that next week I will be addressing an NDI conference in Manchester on the very subject of encouraging SMEs into the defence supply chain.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

Please can the Minister tell me what knowledge he and his Department have of weapons procurement by the Syrian opposition funded by the Saudis and supported by the Americans?

[Mr Dunne]

This Minister can offer no enlightenment to the hon. Gentleman on that subject.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

14. What assessment he has made of the credibility and effectiveness of a part-time nuclear deterrent.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

As stated in the 2010 strategic defence and security review:

“The Government will maintain a continuous submarine-based deterrent and begin the work of replacing its existing submarines.”

A deterrent works only if it is credible and available. All the evidence points to a continuous at-sea deterrent, based on Trident, as the best way to deliver the UK’s deterrent effect. A part-time deterrent—for example, where we do not have a submarine permanently on patrol—would make us vulnerable to a pre-emptive strike, and the act of deploying the deterrent in a period of tension would risk escalation at a potentially critical moment.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

One of the key elements of our nuclear deterrent has been its uninterrupted nature. Does the Minister agree that it is vital that we not only maintain that continuous deterrent, but refrain from conducting defence policy with an idealistic, flip-floppy, Lib Dem view of the world?

[Mr Robathan]

My hon. Friend draws me to make some disparaging comments before the by-election. I shall refrain from doing so, but I most certainly agree with him.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Siobhain McDonagh. Not here—[Interruption.] We are never going to be troubled for any length of time, any more than the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) is.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

T2. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[Mr Speaker]

The ministerial statement is now forthcoming.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

Our priority is and will remain the success of the operation in Afghanistan. Beyond that, my priority is to deliver the military tasks for which the MOD is mandated. The MOD is also engaged in a major project of transformation to bring about the behavioural change that is needed to maintain a balanced budget and to deliver equipment programmes, so that our armed forces can be confident of being properly equipped and trained. To deliver that project, we need to complete the rebasing of the Army from Germany, secure our target level of trained reserves and restructure the Defence Infrastructure Organisation and Defence Equipment and Support. In parallel with the defence transformation project, I am focused on the steps we need to take to restore confidence in the future to those who serve in the armed forces after a period of turbulence and uncertainty.

[Andy Sawford]

Why do the Government think it right that the pension age for firefighters in the defence fire and rescue service is to be aligned with the civil service pension age, rather than with the age for civilian firefighters, given that the job done by those serving in our defence services is no less dangerous, and certainly no less physically challenging, than that done by other firefighters?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr Mark Francois)]

Lord Newby has been leading negotiations on behalf of the Treasury as the Public Service Pensions Bill has gone through another place. We are now working with our colleagues in the Cabinet Office and the Treasury to understand the implications of the amendment made to the Bill in the House of Lords, which I believe is at the heart of the hon. Gentleman’s question. We are currently considering how to respond.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

T3. My hon. Friend will be aware of recent problems caused by former military personnel accessing the MOD estate. Will he tell the House what measures he is going to implement to deal with this matter?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

I am grateful for this opportunity to announce a comprehensive set of measures implemented in the MOD by the Secretary of State to ensure that both former and current employees are clear about the rules and restrictions on access.

For the first time, a list of all ex-MOD personnel who are subject to lobbying restrictions under the rules of the Advisory Committee for Business Appointments will be available for all MOD staff to see. The MOD permanent secretary has written to all former MOD personnel who are subject to business appointment restrictions to remind them of their duties under the advisory committee, and to the Association of Defence Suppliers to ensure that industry members are aware of the rules. Transparency measures have been radically increased, and since the review the permanent secretary has removed nearly 2,500 passes allowing access to the MOD’s main building to ensure that only members of staff who require regular access to the MOD are granted it. Passes that have not been used for 60 days have been disabled, and there will be an ongoing audit of those who are granted visitor passes.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

When Ministers were last asked about the need to double the reserve force numbers, they dodged the question, instead talking about the increase in Territorial Army inquiries. Today we have heard from Ministers that they are hopeful that the policy will be a success. However, a policy that the country needs to be a success is being totally mishandled, with missed targets and too few businesses aware of the Government’s plans. Instead of talking about inquiries, will Ministers now place on record the fact that recruitment targets are being missed? Surely, in relation to this important issue, accepting that there is a problem would be the first step towards dealing with the problem.

[Mr Hammond]

Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that the way in which we will not increase confidence in the Territorial Army, and will not increase reserve numbers, is arbitrarily cancelling its members’ training, cutting their kit and relegating them to the second division, which is what his party did in government. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) is assuming that there is an automatic link between what he says and what the Secretary of State says, which is itself the creation of a notable parliamentary precedent. However, it is not for the right hon. Gentleman to yell from a sedentary position. He asked the question; whether he likes the answer or not, he is getting an answer, and he owes the Secretary of State the courtesy of hearing it.

[Mr Hammond]

That is certainly not a precedent that I noticed during my 13 years of opposition.

Let me say this to the right hon. Gentleman. We know that we have set ourselves a substantial challenge in increasing the size of the Army reserve to 30,000. We have a number of measures in train, including a new recruiting campaign which started only 10 days ago. We expect to start to make significant progress this year. We will be publishing details of recruitment and retention figures, and as my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces suggested earlier, we will do that periodically and regularly—not, I think, monthly, but probably on a quarterly basis.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

T4. I understand that it costs about £14 million a year for HMS Bulwark’s sister ship, HMS Albion, to sit in Portsmouth doing not very much. Given the Prime Minister’s new-found enthusiasm for spending on our armed services, may I suggest that some of the money be used to put this wonderful ship to sea—if for no other reason than to help the Department for International Development?

[Mr Dunne]

The Prime Minister has always been enthusiastic in his support for defence, but as my hon. Friend knows, in October 2010, as part of SDSR 2010, we outlined plans to place one of our two landing platform dock vessels at extended readiness, while holding the other at high readiness for operations. HMS Albion entered a period of extended readiness in late 2011, and according to current plans will remain at Her Majesty’s naval base Devonport until her upkeep is completed in 2016. At that point, HMS Bulwark will go into extended readiness and HMS Albion will be placed at high readiness for operations.

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

T8. Bearing in mind what the Minister said about the military covenant and the Liberal Democrats’ 2010 campaign for a fair deal for our troops, will he now publish the impact assessment—which I am sure he undertook—of the effect of the bedroom tax on the armed forces, and the actual numbers affected?

[Mr Francois]

I have to say to the hon. Lady that I believe that she and some of her parliamentary colleagues are becoming over-excited about this. We have discussed it with the Department for Work and Pensions, and we believe that a very small number of service personnel will be affected, but we will continue to keep the matter under review.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

T5. Since 1990, the Army has been reduced by about 40%, but officer numbers are down by less than 30%. Indeed, there are more colonels now than there were then. Is there more that we can do to ensure that the cuts are proportionate?

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

We are committed to reducing—and, indeed, are reducing— the star count in the Ministry of Defence by 25%, which means those with the rank of brigadier and above. It is true that the number of colonels is higher than in 1990, but it has fallen by 80 since 1 April 2010, and some of the jobs that those officers do are specific to NATO or to defence engagements. For instance, some are defence attachés. We need all those jobs, and that is why we employ those people. However, my hon. Friend has raised a very good point.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

T9. The Minister for defence personnel will know that for the past two months I have been trying to secure a meeting with him to discuss the financial losses faced by Army officers who are being made redundant shortly before their immediate pension point. To date, he has not agreed to such a meeting. Will he do so today? If not, can he tell me how members of our armed forces should raise their concerns with this Government about broken promises on their conditions of service?

[Mr Francois]

I recently wrote back to the hon. Lady on this precise subject. I hope she has received the letter—she is nodding, and says that she has. I have also written to Ms Jayne Bullock, who wrote to me originally, and to a number of other servicemen’s wives who have campaigned on the matter. I remind the hon. Lady and others who support the so-called taper model, which a number of people have argued for, that we used that model for redundancies up to 2005-06, when the previous Government abandoned it.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

T6. Last year, with colleagues, I visited the British peace support team in Nairobi. Does the Secretary of State agree that the valuable work it does at the international mine action training centre and in training peacekeepers from the east African armed forces plays a vital role in helping to bring about the stability that is essential to economic, social and political development?

[Mr Robathan]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend and pay tribute to the work done by the team, which, as the House will note, is broadly in peacekeeping, ending conflict and mine clearance. We should all pay tribute to that work and we very much value our defence engagement in Kenya.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many jobs will be lost at Faslane nuclear base if Scotland separates from the United Kingdom?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

As the House will know, the Government are confident that the Scottish people will decide in the referendum that the benefits of union far outweigh anything else on offer and will make the right decision. The hon. Gentleman is right to observe that significant numbers of jobs, not just in the immediate vicinity but across the whole of the west of Scotland—thousands of jobs—depend on the operation at Faslane. When I was last at the base, I made a specific inquiry about the geographical location of workers. People come to the base daily from the east coast, so such a change would affect the whole central area of Scotland.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

T7. Constituents of mine, including Councillor Jenny Purcell, have raised with me the worrying case of soldier Harry Killick, who suffers from post-traumatic stress and has received recent press coverage. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to provide support for personnel with post-traumatic stress disorder, such as Harry?

[Mr Francois]

The case of Corporal Killick is still before the court, with sentencing deferred pending advice on his mental health. I hope that the House will appreciate that it would therefore not be appropriate for me to comment further today. However, in general terms, when on operational deployment members of the reserve forces, such as Corporal Killick, have access to the same extensive range of mental health counselling and treatment as their regular colleagues, including access to mental health professionals in theatre and treatment in military-run departments of community mental health, if necessary. This issue is a priority for the Government, who have invested £7.2 million in it.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), the Secretary of State said that he had “right-sized” the Army in line with the defence budget. How would he rebut the suggestion that that sounds like the strategic defence review was not strategic but budget-driven?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

It sounds like a Government who are rejecting the previous Government’s policy of sending people out to do a dangerous job without the kit, equipment and support that they need and deserve. We have a moral obligation not to put people in harm’s way unless they are properly equipped, and setting the size of the armed forces at a level the taxpayer can afford to support and equip properly is the morally correct and appropriate thing to do.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I would like to ask the Secretary of State whether it is the case that when service personnel are accused of breaking the law their pay is stopped with immediate effect, which can cause real hardship to service families who are left unable to meet the costs of rent, bills and food, as well as of independent legal advice. If that is so, what is the justification for that and will he review the situation?

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Lady raises a very important point, but I am pretty certain that that is not the case, although I will write to her if it turns out that I am wrong. Nobody has their pay stopped until and if they are convicted of a criminal offence or at a court martial. If I am wrong I will let her know.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Products from Belted Galloway beef cattle reared and slaughtered on the Falkland Islands travel 30 miles to the NAAFI shop at Mount Pleasant. To be used in the kitchens, I am told by the Falkland Islands Government, the beef travels 8,000 miles back to the United Kingdom, is rebagged and goes back. Is that smart procurement?

[Mr Dunne]

Food for our armed forces on operations, including in the Falklands, is supplied under a contract with Purple Foodservice, which undertakes supply to our forces wherever they are stationed. The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point and I will look specifically, and write to him, as to whether there is any possibility of shortening procurement lines for beef in the Falklands.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

In Portsmouth and the surrounding area, we have world-leading maritime infrastructure, including dockyards, port facilities, marinas, protected and controlled waters, Europe’s largest hydrodynamic tank and a host of high-end maritime electronics system design and integration facilities. As well as maintaining the 200,000 tonnes of warship that will soon be in the harbour, ought we not to be capitalising on those assets too?

[Mr Dunne]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the wide range of world-class defence-based skills around the maritime industry in Portsmouth. We will continue to capitalise on the capabilities offered around Her Majesty’s naval base, providing vital defence jobs for thousands in Portsmouth and the surrounding area, including along the M27 in Eastleigh.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

Given the earlier answer about equipment for our armed forces and given the plight of the remaining Remploy factories, will the Minister use his good offices to ensure that Remploy factories are the first preference for providing equipment and other procurement within the remit? The Remploy factory in my constituency has a long-standing relationship with the MOD, and if the MOD would commit to continue it, the factory may—just may—be secure.

[Mr Dunne]

The Ministry of Defence does not give long-standing commitments for any individual sources of supply; they need to be competitively tendered. But I will be happy to look at the point the hon. Gentleman raised, if he writes to me with details.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has worked hard on the award of the Arctic Convoy Star medal to veterans of the second world war Artic convoys. He will appreciate that time is of the essence, so will he pledge to complete the necessary processes as soon as possible so that the remaining Arctic convoy veterans can receive their hard and bravely earned recognition?

[Mr Francois]

I thank my hon. Friend for that pertinent question. I am pleased to tell the House that since the Prime Minister’s announcement, considerable progress has been made on the introduction of the Arctic star. I hope to make an announcement very shortly on the design, eligibility criteria and application process for the new award. Similarly, I hope to make an announcement about the Bomber Command class at the same time. Both categories of men served their country with great distinction and it is right that we recognise them.

Economic Policy

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

15:33

[Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the UK Government’s economic policy following the loss of Britain’s triple A credit rating.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

This rating decision is a stark reminder of the debt problems built up in Britain over the last decade, and a warning to anyone who thinks we can run away from dealing with those problems. We on the Government side of the House will not do that.

I can report that we have not seen excessive volatility in the markets today. Ten-year Government gilts are broadly flat—trading at 2.1%—within the trading range of the last week, and near the very lowest rates of borrowing in our history. The FTSE 100 is currently up.

The credit rating is an important benchmark for any country, but this Government’s economic policy is tested day in, day out in the markets, and it has not been found wanting today. Families and businesses see the benefit of that in these very low interest rates.

If we accept the outcome of the rating agency’s decision, we must accept the reasons given for that decision. Moody’s points to the combined impact of what it describes as

“slow growth of the global economy”

and the necessary

“domestic public- and private-sector deleveraging process”—

in other words, the process of winding down the huge debts that built up in our society over the last decade. That is the environment that we are operating in. We are dealing with the very high deficit and debt trajectory that this country had, coming out of the financial crisis, and that was made more difficult by the economic environment abroad.

On the same day as the rating decision, the latest European forecasts showed the eurozone deep in recession, and weaker growth than ours in key economies such as France and Germany. Crucially, Moody’s says that the UK’s creditworthiness remains extremely high because of our

“highly competitive, well-diversified economy”

and a

“strong track record of fiscal consolidation”—

what it calls the “political will” to “reverse the…debt trajectory.” Its message to this Government and this Parliament is explicit: the UK’s rating could be downgraded further if there is a

“reduced political commitment to fiscal consolidation.”

Hon. Members will not get that reduced commitment from this Government. We will go on delivering on the economic plan that has brought the deficit down by a quarter, that has helped to secure 1 million private sector jobs, and that continues to secure very low interest rates, not just for the Government, but for families and businesses in this country.

Ultimately, that is the choice for Britain. We can either abandon our efforts to deal with our debt problems, and make a difficult situation very much worse, or we can redouble our efforts to overcome our debts, make sure that this country can earn its way in the world, and provide for our children a very much brighter economic situation than the one we inherited from our predecessors. That is what I will do, and what this Government will do.

[Ed Balls]

The downgrading of Britain’s credit rating is, in the Chancellor’s own words, a “humiliation” for this Government. Let me remind the House what he promised at the general election. He said:

“the British people will have eight clear and transparent benchmarks against which they can judge the economic success or failure of the next government”.

Point 1 says:

“We will safeguard Britain’s credit rating”.

The first economic test he set himself has been failed by this downgraded Chancellor. Yet as we have seen today, he remains in complete denial, offering more of the same failing medicine, even though Moody’s now agrees that “sluggish” growth is the main problem. Does he not now regret using the rating agencies as cover for his accelerated tax rises and spending cuts—an economic course he was warned was bound to fail?

The plan has failed. Businesses, families and pensioners are struggling. Our economy has flatlined, and as a result, Government borrowing is set to be £212 billion higher than the Chancellor planned, but despite all that, he spent the last year saying, “I must stick to my plan to keep the triple A rating.” Now that it is clear that his warnings of disaster—of rising mortgage rates and market mayhem—if we downgraded have not come true, what other excuse does he have for sticking to the plan? Over a weekend, he went from saying that he must stick to his plan to avoid a downgrade to saying that the downgrade is the reason why he must stick to the plan. He used to say that a downgrade would be a disaster; today he says it does not matter, but he still warns that a downgrade in future might be a problem—until it comes along; then he will have the same excuses. It is utterly baffling and completely illogical. He is just making it up as he goes along.

No wonder the Chancellor is now besieged by calls from right, left and centre to kick-start the recovery with infrastructure investment and tax cuts. Even the economic adviser to his great political rival, the Mayor of London, has today called for

“more spending by the Government on infrastructure and construction.”

In conclusion, the Chancellor needs to get out of his denial and get a new plan on growth, jobs and the deficit that will work, or else the Prime Minister will need to get a new Chancellor. Does the Chancellor not see that it is his first duty not to put his own political pride first, but to put the national economic interest and families and businesses in this country first?

[Mr Osborne]

The shadow Chancellor finds himself in the contradictory position of seeking an urgent question on a rating decision which he says we should ignore, about a debt burden that he admits he would add to, in order to attack a Government who are sorting out the mess that he created. What exactly is his policy? Six times on the radio he was asked this weekend whether the answer to too much borrowing is to borrow even more, and he would not answer the question. It is an economic policy that dare not speak its name, from a shadow Chancellor who refuses to be straight with the British people. Finally, he was confronted on the radio by the simple statement:

“I, Ed Balls…would borrow more”

and he admitted,

“Yes, that is what I would do.”

Does not that admission completely undermine his entire argument today? A deliberate decision to borrow more—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Government Back Benchers, whatever their intentions, are in danger of shouting down their own Chancellor. Mrs Perry, calm yourself. There is always another day.

[Mr Osborne]

Government Back Benchers are as baffled as I am by the shadow Chancellor’s economic policy, which he has just had a few minutes to explain and still there is no explanation. His answer to a debt crisis is to borrow more. His answer to too much borrowing is to add to it. That is the problem he has, ultimately—that he is responsible for the mistakes that got Britain into this economic mess. This is the verdict from the leading Citi economist, Michael Saunders, today:

“In our view, the underlying causes of the UK economy’s weakness—and hence the rating downgrade—stem from the surge in private credit and public spending during 2000-2007.”

Who was in charge of economic policy during that period? The right hon. Gentleman is the architect of the mistakes that gave Britain its debt problem. He ignores the solution to that debt problem. He is condemned to repeat those mistakes and, as a result, his party is condemned never to be trusted with the public finances again.

[Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)]

The truth is that any Government would need a credible deficit reduction plan, and the plain fact is that the markets are telling us we have one. Does the Chancellor agree with the shadow Chancellor, though, as he pointed out only the day before yesterday, that what the rating agencies have to tell us, given their dismal forecasting record, is of very limited value?

[Mr Osborne]

I would say that the credit rating agencies are important, but they are one test—[Interruption.] It is the shadow Chancellor who wants to say that the rating agency’s decision is not important, but we should still have a debate on it in Parliament. It is a completely contradictory position. It is important, but it is just one test of the Government’s economic credibility in the markets, and that is tested by the gilt yields, by the value of sterling, by the rates of the stock market and all sorts of other things, and as I say, today we have not seen excessive volatility. I say to the shadow Chancellor and to my hon. Friend and the Treasury Committee that we have to convince the world that we can pay our way in the world, and that is what this Government are going to do.

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

If the Chancellor did not want this to be the test, he should not have set it up to be the test. Does he agree with himself that for the UK to lose its triple A rating would be a humiliation?

[Mr Osborne]

What would be humiliating is if this country lost control of its economic destiny. The way we keep control of our economic destiny is deal with our debt, deal with the imbalances in our economy, and make sure that this country can pay its way in the world, and that is what this Government are doing.

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the shadow Chancellor would himself get a triple A rating for his skill in running this country down? Does he also agree that the hard-working people of this country are getting—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr Birtwistle) should resume his seat. I must say to Members that I am trying to ascertain whether the question is in order; it might or might not be, but it is very difficult to hear. I can make a judgment only if I can hear it, and that means Members need to stop shrieking. Let us hear the hon. Member for Burnley and see whether he is in order.

[Gordon Birtwistle]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sure that you will find that it is totally in order. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the rest of the people that they are getting sick and tired of the shadow Chancellor’s politically motivated antics?

[Mr Speaker]

I am bound to tell the hon. Member for Burnley that I am always very grateful to him for his advice, but I think that on the whole I can probably get by without it, and only by a very generous interpretation—I am in a generous mood—could that be considered to be in order, but I will happily have the Chancellor briefly respond.

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is right that what is completely extraordinary is that we have constant criticism from the shadow Chancellor of our fiscal policy but not a clue from him about what he would do except add to borrowing. He has made it very clear that he would add to borrowing, although he has not said by how much, and he has not said which of the cuts he would stick with and which he would oppose, so until we have a credible alternative, we will not have a credible shadow Chancellor.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

The Chancellor, having abandoned the triple A rating as a benchmark, appears to have adopted the claim that he has created 1 million private sector jobs. Will he tell us how many of those jobs have in fact been transferred to the private sector, or franchised out to it, from the public sector?

[Mr Osborne]

Private sector employment is up by 1 million since the election, the unemployment rate is lower than when we came into office, female employment is at the highest level in our history and the inactivity rate is at its lowest since 1991, so even though there has been a necessary reduction in public sector jobs, which I think even the Opposition accept had to happen—at least, they used to—we have actually seen very healthy jobs growth in the economy.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does the Chancellor agree that the state balance sheet would look an awful lot better, and that the economy would function better, if RBS was sorted out more quickly and sold back to the private sector in a way that promoted banking competition?

[Mr Osborne]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. RBS is now pursuing a policy of becoming a much more UK-focused bank than it was under the strategy we inherited. We are absolutely clear that it should not be in the universal banking business on the scale that it has been and that the investment bank should be supporting its corporate and retail business in the UK, and it has made important steps in that direction.

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

Will the Chancellor confirm that in the five years of this Tory-led Government he will borrow more than the previous Labour Government borrowed in 13 years?

[Mr Osborne]

Let me explain something to the hon. Gentleman. We inherited a 12% budget deficit, and the deficit is defined as the amount added to the debt every year. We are getting the deficit down in order to deal with the debt problem. His plan is to increase the deficit deliberately, borrow even more, add to the debt burden and repeat all the mistakes made by his colleagues when they were in charge.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Between the mid 1990s and 2010, the nation’s total indebtedness grew from two to five times the national income. The shadow chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition, who came to Bedford two weeks ago to advise that the country should borrow £200 billion more, were architects and supporters of a policy of indebting our children and grandchildren. Will my right hon. Friend tell me what the implications for the country’s credit rating would be if the Opposition’s policies were pursued today?

[Mr Osborne]

We are debating the decision of Moody’s credit rating agency, which said in its market notice on Friday that reduced political commitment to fiscal consolidation could lead to further downgrades of the United Kingdom. That is the verdict of the ratings agency. The verdict of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, an independent body, is that Labour plans would add about £200 billion extra to borrowing. That is the view of independent bodies about the Labour party’s economic policy.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Is the Chancellor aware that the whole country is getting progressively more sick of the mantra that there is no alternative, which he parades as a policy, and that for as long as he perseveres with these counter-productive policies there is no hope? In particular, until he can get his national programme for investment in infrastructure under way—even the director general of the CBI said that he had totally failed to deliver on that, and the whole country and the whole House agrees—he is failing as a Chancellor.

[Mr Osborne]

Infrastructure spending—actual money being spent on infrastructure—is higher in this Parliament than it was in the previous Parliament. That is, I am afraid, the simple fact produced and audited by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. We have increased capital spending compared with the plans that we inherited, and under this Government in this Parliament it is higher as a percentage of GDP than under the previous Labour Government. That is what has happened.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is going to take slightly longer than two and a half years to sort out a problem that was 13 years in the making?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend puts it very simply. It is a bit like the arsonist calling the fire brigade and then complaining that we have not put the fire out quickly enough.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Does not the Chancellor realise that it has been three years of continuous failure: first, a recession, then a double-dip recession, and now the relegation of the pound sterling? If he had been a football manager he would have been out on his neck already. The people think that he is not fit to deliver the next Budget—why does he not get out?

[Mr Osborne]

There seems to be amnesia about Labour’s 13 years in office. The hon. Gentleman talks about a double-dip recession. The first recession was a 6% contraction in our economic activity while he was supporting a Labour Government, with a 12% budget deficit, a higher rate of unemployment and more youth unemployment than we have today. We are sorting out these problems. Of course it takes time, but, frankly, the prescription of the hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members would put us right back in the mess that they left this Government with.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

Does the Chancellor agree that the only two countries that have maintained their triple A credit rating across the board—Canada and Germany—are the two countries that fixed the roof while the sun was shining?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Germany and Canada went into the financial crisis with the two lowest structural deficits of the G7, and the United Kingdom went into the financial crisis with the highest structural deficit in the G7—5%. That was confirmed recently by the International Monetary Fund. I think that, quite extraordinarily, the only person in Britain who still denies that we had a structural deficit is the shadow Chancellor. The former Chancellor accepts it and the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, accepts it; only the shadow Chancellor does not accept it. He cannot accept it because that would mean admitting he got it wrong, and if he admitted he got it wrong, people would not put him in charge again.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is suggested that to establish economic credibility we need more growth in the economy, yet—since the Chancellor seems to be quoting former Chancellors—a former Conservative Chancellor said that it will be years before we re-establish proper growth in the economy. How is the Chancellor going to re-establish his credibility?

[Mr Osborne]

As I said, the credibility of the Government’s economic policy is tested every day in the markets, and we are borrowing at record low interest rates. As I have said many times, the idea that the problems we inherited could be solved overnight was patently ludicrous. They are some of the worst economic problems that any incoming Government have ever faced in British political history. We are dealing with those problems. The deficit is down by a quarter, 1 million jobs have been created in the private sector, and interest rates remain very low. That is the test of the success of our policy.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

I shall be calm, Mr Speaker. Will the Chancellor confirm that two other major rating agencies still maintain Britain’s triple A credit rating and that the credit default swap rate—another measure of default risk—is at 51 basis points today, one of the lowest levels in the world?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is right about the credit default swap rate. As I have said, the credibility of our policies is tested every week when we have to borrow all this money to pay for Labour’s deficit, and we are borrowing it at record low rates.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Would not the honourable course be for the Chancellor to say at the next Cabinet meeting, “I’m going outside and I may be some time”?

[Mr Osborne]

The problem with the hon. Gentleman is that he is pretty free with his calls for people to go. The last person he called on to go was the shadow Chancellor.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Is it not correct that even before the crisis struck we had pretty much the biggest structural deficit in the world as a consequence of the previous Government’s policies? It is no wonder that we have been losing ground to economies such as those of India and China. It is only if we stick to our guns that we will sort out our position to become increasingly internationally competitive with other economies.

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is right. The UK had the highest structural deficit of the G7 going into the financial crisis. That was confirmed by the IMF just before Christmas. He is also right about our trade patterns. When this Government came to office we were exporting more to Ireland than to the BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia, India and China—combined. We are seeking to expand our trade with those countries and it has been going up markedly. I think there has been an almost 100% increase in our trade with China and, of course, the Prime Minister led a high-powered business delegation to India only last week.

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

Will the Chancellor remind the House and the country how many billions of pounds his Government have borrowed since he came to office?

[Mr Osborne]

We borrow money because we are running a deficit and we are trying to get it down from the 11.5% that we inherited. The deficit has actually come down by a quarter over the past couple of years.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Evidence suggests that this downgrade will have little effect in the actual markets. May I also suggest to the Chancellor that small business corporation tax cuts will bring their own reward over the medium term? [Interruption.]

[Mr Osborne]

I think that someone on the Opposition Benches shouted from a sedentary position, “Tax cuts for the rich,” when my hon. Friend was suggesting tax cuts for small businesses. That tells us everything about the Labour party’s attitude to enterprise. We have reduced the small companies rate, which was due to go up to 22% under the plans we inherited. It is now 20% and, as from the beginning of this year, we have had a tenfold increase in the annual investment allowance to help small businesses.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Who does the Chancellor think has been the most humiliated in the eyes of the public—the credit rating agencies that gave triple A ratings to junk investments and therefore helped cause the financial crisis, or the Chancellor, who staked everything on the same triple A rating and then lost it?

[Mr Osborne]

Unfortunately the hon. Lady’s list did not include the shadow Chancellor, so I cannot give her an answer.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I can guarantee that in the Dog and Duck in Wellingborough they will not be talking about Moody’s. They might be talking about the lowest council tax in the country or the thousands of homes to be built in Wellingborough East, but does the Chancellor agree that they are most likely to be discussing the 2,000 new jobs that will be created by the Skew Bridge development, which will bring leisure and retail facilities to my town?

[Mr Osborne]

I think they will be talking about the new jobs being created at Skew Bridge and those being created across our economy as the private sector grows. I was in the west midlands on Friday, where I think there has been a 67,000 increase in jobs in the private sector over the past year. That is worth remembering, because the number of jobs in the private sector in the west midlands during the boom years before the financial crisis actually shrank under the previous Labour Government.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The Chancellor began by saying that the gilts market had been flat today, but in fact it is down across the board. Will he share with the House his changed forecast for inflation following the fall in the pound and for the cost of borrowing to the Government?

[Mr Osborne]

Unless something happened while the shadow Chancellor was on his feet, the gilts market was flat on the day.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

The shadow Chancellor has admitted that his plan is to borrow even more. Although the Chancellor has a tough shift sorting out the disaster of Labour’s economic legacy, is he not glad that it is our shift when he stares at the car crash of an alternative opposite him?

[Mr Osborne]

We have inherited a very tough economic situation from our predecessors, but we have confronted the problem and taken difficult decisions on spending. What is remarkable about the Labour party is that in all its questions at Treasury questions, Prime Minister’s questions and the like, it complains about every cut, but never tells us about a single cut that it supports. That is why it does not have a credible shadow Chancellor or a credible economic policy.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

In 2011, the Conservative party issued a dossier that said that a credit rating downgrade

“could add £5,000 per year to a family’s mortgage interest bill”.

Does the Chancellor stand by that laughable remark?

[Mr Osborne]

We are very clear that if we lost control of the country’s credibility in the international markets, as Labour would, interest rates would go up and families would pay more. The truth is that because of the credibility of our economic policy, interest rates are low and have stayed low today.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I wonder whether I may remind the Chancellor that Standard & Poor’s is facing proceedings from the United States Government for fraud and that Moody’s is likely to follow? Moody’s has just downgraded a country whose debt is all denominated in its own currency, which is a fiat currency. That is absolutely nonsensical. Will he therefore join me in citing Lord Chesterfield and telling them that they are foolish people who do not even know their own foolish business?

[Mr Osborne]

I think that it was Lord Chesterfield who provided advice to his son in that famous book, and I am sure that the advice included, “Don’t spend more than you’ve got.”

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

The Chancellor seems determined to follow in the footsteps of his illustrious predecessor, Lord Lamont, who, following our ignominious expulsion from the exchange rate mechanism in 1992, famously had a bath and sang, “Je ne regrette rien”. Does the Chancellor have any plans to have a bath tonight and what song does he plan to sing? May I suggest, “Help!”?

[Mr Osborne]

We are dealing with the problems that we inherited. Given the situation that we inherited, I think we can say, “Things can only get better”.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

At the export for growth summit in east Lancashire, I spoke to world-class engineering businesses that are interested in borrowing to invest in their businesses so that they can grow and sell to the global market. Will the Chancellor confirm that he will stick to his plan and keep interest rates at a record low so that we can create more jobs in east Lancashire?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is a powerful champion of businesses in his constituency and has spoken to me about what they need. He is absolutely right. Of course we want to get credit to businesses that want to expand and take people on. That is why we run the funding for lending scheme with the Bank of England. We have also provided additional annual investment allowances in the way that I have just set out. The reaction of business organisations to the news of the last couple of days has been striking: they have absolutely supported the Government’s determination to deal with our debts.

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

May I congratulate Swansea City on its triple A rating after winning the league cup? At the same time, the Chancellor is fouling up the economy and has caused a penalty that has lost us the triple A rating. He should be focusing on a growth strategy and should not be cutting the poorest hardest, given that they spend the most.

[Mr Osborne]

Of course, I congratulate Swansea on its victory in the Capital One cup.

We have to take difficult decisions on things like welfare, but we are helping people to have incentives to be in work, helping people who are in work and supporting people by, for example, increasing the personal allowance and taking the lowest-paid out of tax altogether. I would hope that the hon. Gentleman supports that.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

The Chancellor has rightly drawn attention to the effect of deleveraging. May I remind him that the average leverage ratio for the banks in the 40 years between 1960 and 2000 was 20 times, and that between 2000 and 2007 it rose to 50 times? Will he remind us which party was in government at that time and who was the Minister for the City?

[Mr Osborne]

We are now looking, through the Basel agreement, at a leverage ratio as a back-stop to regulation in this country, and of course we have the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill coming through Parliament better to protect and regulate our financial services. My hon. Friend is quite right to remind us of who was the City Minister when the City blew up.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

In February 2010, the Chancellor asked:

“What investor is going to come to the UK when they fear a downgrade of our credit rating?”

What I and my constituents want to know is this: does he still think that a downgrade will drive investors away, and if not, what has changed?

[Mr Osborne]

I am very clear, and was clear then, that the test of the Government’s economic credibility is out there in the markets with the interest rates that we can charge and in the corporate tax environment and the general competitiveness of the economy that we offer. Since I made those statements, this country has actually become more competitive and climbed up the league tables of international competitiveness. There was a survey last week on business tax, which said that this country had gone from being one of the least competitive business tax regimes in the world to being one of the most competitive.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that he has no plans to balkanise the responsibility for regulating banks, that he will not sell off half our gold at a knock-down price and that he is not going to let our deficit rip?

[Mr Osborne]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are not going to repeat the mistakes of the last Labour Government. We are absolutely clear, when it comes to regulating the City and banking—I am about to give evidence to the Banking Commission—that we are taking the tough action. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) says “Pathetic”, but he was the City Minister when the Royal Bank of Scotland bought ABN-AMRO and when Northern Rock was offering 125% mortgages. He was the City Minister when the City got completely out of control, and he should get up and apologise for it.

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

In May last year, the Chancellor said that when Britain’s outlook was moved off negative, it demonstrated that the country now had economic stability. Now that it is being downgraded, would he like to give his assessment of our economic stability?

[Mr Osborne]

I know that Labour MPs keep reading out the Whips’ note, but perhaps the Whips will also circulate a note on what Labour’s economic policy is, and then we can have a more constructive debate.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Does the Chancellor agree that the reason he inherited such a big deficit was that the last Government had overspent, rather than that we were under-taxed? Is growth not sluggish because the tax burden is higher now than the one that he inherited, and is the deficit not higher than it should be because spending is higher than the level that he inherited? Is it not about time that we had some proper spending cuts and some proper tax cuts to put money in people’s pockets and get some growth into the economy?

[Mr Osborne]

We have further difficult decisions on spending to take this year to set the spending round for 2015-16. I know that my hon. Friend has always been consistent in supporting all the difficult spending decisions, so I look forward to that consistent support in the years ahead.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Over the weekend, the Labour and Tory Better Together no campaign was giving out leaflets to the effect that an independent Scotland would never, ever secure the triple A rating of the UK, just as the UK was losing that triple A rating. Does the Chancellor agree that his nonsensical economic scaremongering about an independent Scotland has totally failed, and that his credibility and that of the no campaign is nothing other than a treble Z?

[Mr Osborne]

If the SNP is to persuade the Scottish people to vote for independence, it must address fundamental economic questions that it has been unable to answer about the currency it would use and the fiscal agreement it would seek should it want to use the pound with the rest of the United Kingdom. There are also fundamental questions about the financial services industry based in Scotland. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Royal Bank of Scotland is headquartered in Scotland. The SNP is simply unable to answer those questions at the moment, and as a result I think people doubt the case it is making for independence.

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

Does the Chancellor agree that rather than sneering at private sector job creation, we should welcome the fact that 1 million new jobs have been created since the general election? Will he assure me, the House and the markets that, in framing the coalition’s economic policy, he will continue to listen—and indeed listen significantly more—to those who run such businesses and who are taking on new employees, rather than to those on the Opposition Front Bench who landed us in this mess?

[Mr Osborne]

I agree with my hon. Friend and we should listen to the demands of the business community. It wants a more competitive business tax regime and additional help with investment, which we are providing. It wants essential economic infrastructure that was not provided over the past 15 years, and we are providing that. It wants a lighter regulatory regime, and we are providing that for small businesses. My hon. Friend is right: businesses large and small are the engine of growth in our economy, and it is welcome that there have been 1 million private sector jobs since the election.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

The Chancellor has been noticeably more comfortable this afternoon looking backwards rather than forwards. Will he please tell the House his estimate for the likely impact of recent events on the sterling exchange rate, and what the implications will be for inflation?

[Mr Osborne]

I do not comment on the level of sterling. The G7, which the UK chairs at the moment, issued a clear statement that we are not targeting an exchange rate and that the exchange rate flows from the economic policies that we pursue at home to improve our domestic economies.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that for the Labour party to have any fiscal credibility it should just say sorry—sorry for the debt, sorry for the deficit, and sorry for the pain it has caused my constituents?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend puts the point powerfully and until we hear that apology from the shadow Chancellor, frankly he will not have the credibility to offer an alternative.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

The Chancellor’s message to my constituents seems to be that things are only getting worse. Will he lead by example and inform the House what personal sacrifices he will have to make as a result of this downgrade?

[Mr Osborne]

My message to all families is that in the markets interest rates remain low and have remained low today. That is the credibility test for the Government’s economic policy, and as I say, for families paying a mortgage or businesses with a business loan, that is crucial.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Those on the Opposition Front Bench should come out into the real world from their Primrose Hill mansion. Last week in my constituency I visited businesses that are winning new orders, expanding, and taking on workers and apprentices. Will the Chancellor pledge to continue investment in the regional growth fund, enterprise zones and infrastructure spending such as the electrification of the trans-Pennine route that is helping businesses in my constituency?

[Mr Osborne]

I read in the paper that the Primrose Hill mansion my hon. Friend refers to falls just below the threshold for the new mansion tax proposed by the Labour economic team. However, my hon. Friend makes a good point: we must invest in economic infrastructure across the country. People have been calling for years for the electrification of the trans-Pennine route, and indeed the northern hub. It did not happen under a Labour Government but it is happening under this Government.

[Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Does the Chancellor accept that the state of the British economy and its flatlining in terms of growth is a good example of how party political scaremongering at the Dispatch Box for three years does not work?

[Mr Osborne]

I am not sure I really understand what the right hon. Gentleman is getting at. Yes, of course we have a difficult economic situation, because we inherited a 11.5% budget deficit and were coming out of a contraction of the economy of 6%—the right hon. Gentleman talks about flatlining but there was a 6% contraction of the economy when the shadow Chancellor was in the Cabinet. That is what we are dealing with. As I say, we have reduced the deficit, created 1 million jobs, and we have low interest rates.

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

Does the Chancellor agree that the only real way for the UK to maintain its economic credibility is to continue to cut spending in real terms and to start living within its means, so that we and our British companies can start to compete more effectively in the global marketplace?

[Mr Osborne]

We have to reduce spending and, as I have said, we will have a spending round later this year. We are reducing the share of national income taken by the state. When we came to office, almost 48% of national income was taken by the state, which was a completely unsustainable position. That position was never advocated by the Labour party when it sought office, but that is how it left the country. It now apparently wants to return to that position. As far as I understand the shadow Chancellor, who shakes his head, he does not support a single cut the Government have made.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

There is an issue of accountability. In the Chancellor’s February 2010 Mais lecture, which was still on the Conservative party website this afternoon, he said:

“in order to bring some accountability to economic policy, I have set out eight benchmarks…against which you will be able to judge whether a Conservative Government is delivering”.

The first benchmark is that the Conservatives

“will maintain Britain’s AAA credit rating.”

How will he be held accountable for his failure?

[Mr Osborne]

I said very clearly in my statement that that is a benchmark, but it is one of a number of benchmarks. The No. 1 benchmark was fiscal credibility and market credibility, which is precisely what the Government have delivered.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Anyone running a household budget knows that they have to live within their means, and that to start paying off debts, they have to reduce spending if they are not getting as much income. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that households will be worried about higher mortgage rates if we pursue the Opposition’s plans?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we lose that credibility in the markets and are unable to convince the world that we can pay our way—that would be the case if we had a reduced commitment to fiscal consolidation—interest rates would go up, which would affect families with mortgages and small businesses with those crucial loans that are helping them to expand and take people on.

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

Will the Chancellor change the economic medicine before he kills the patient?

[Mr Osborne]

We have revived the patient from the near-death experience it had under the Labour Government.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as the Labour party has no economic policy of its own and no wish but to borrow more and more on the never-never, if the shadow Chancellor were in my right hon. Friend’s shoes, this country would be looking at default?

[Mr Osborne]

The great thing is that we, as a country, have experienced the shadow Chancellor’s economic policy, because he was the chief economic adviser to the Government. We had the biggest financial crisis in our history and the deepest recession for 100 years, and many people lost their jobs. We have had a dry run of what it would be like if he were ever allowed back.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

For the past three years, the Government have blamed all problems on the EU, the previous Government or the civil service. On what precise date will the Government take responsibility for the ineptocracy they have created?

[Mr Osborne]

Unless the hon. Gentleman can find anyone else to blame for the fact that there was an 11.5% budget deficit—[Interruption.] That was what we inherited from Labour, and we have cut it by a quarter. That just shows how economically illiterate Labour Back Benchers are.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

As matters stand today, the gilts market is flat, the stock market is going up, and the cost of Government borrowing stands at historically low levels. What does my right hon. Friend believe will be the impact on the cost of Government borrowing if they borrowed even more, if the deficit was going up rather than down, if the national debt was thereby being added to, and if we followed the kamikaze economics advocated by Opposition Front Benchers?

[Mr Osborne]

We would have the same outcome as happened to the kamikaze pilots.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The Chancellor says that he will not run away from dealing with the country’s debts. When will he accept that the debts have actually run away with him, and that he has got no answers? When will he resign?

[Mr Osborne]

We are confronting the problems that the hon. Lady’s party left this country. If she is seriously trying to blame us for the fact that there was an 11.5% budget deficit, or for a financial crisis that was brewing while the shadow Chancellor was regulating the City, she needs to read her history books.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Is not the priority to preserve the record low interest rates that have helped hard-pressed families and businesses in an extremely difficult time? Would it not be madness to panic and borrow billions more? Would that not put those low interest rates at great risk?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have said before, the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that the Labour plans would add £200 billion extra to borrowing. In the end, the clue is in how one answers the questions, and the shadow Chancellor was asked six times on the radio—many will have heard it—whether borrowing would go up under a Labour Government. He did not want to give a clear answer. Why is that? It is because Labour does not want to admit that borrowing would go up. Finally, on the seventh question, he was forced to admit it, but it is the policy that dare not speak its name.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

As well as the lack of growth in the economy, Moody’s also cited in its downgrading decision its concern about the implementation risks surrounding the current austerity plans. What is the Chancellor doing to address those?

[Mr Osborne]

That is the first sensible question we have heard from the Labour party all afternoon. I agree with the hon. Lady that we have to make sure that the decisions we take on reducing the size of Government are implemented. Collectively as a Parliament we have to reduce Government spending and we have to get the deficit down. I look forward to her support in the Division Lobby as we take further difficult decisions this year.

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

We learned this morning that the UK oil and gas industry is set to invest an extra £100 billion in the industry, with anticipated tax revenues of a further £25 billion to the UK Exchequer. Does that not give us some cause for confidence in and optimism for the public finances as we move forward?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is right that it is very welcome news from the oil and gas industry, and it is partly because we have been able to provide certainty on decommissioning relief, which it has long sought. One of the challenges for the UK economy is the secular decline in the North sea oil field as it reaches its maturity. Although we will get oil out of it for many more years, we have to look to the post-North sea future, and that is one of the big challenges for the SNP.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

As a political strategist, does the Chancellor understand that linking the fortunes of the UK economy to discredited credit rating agencies is at best naive and at worst plain stupid?

[Mr Osborne]

That question rather reveals Labour Members’ confusion today. They cannot decide whether this credit rating decision matters or not. What I am saying is that we have to have the credibility to show the world that we can pay our way, and that is precisely what we are doing.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Despite the bluster of the Labour party, in Pendle we have seen a 106% increase in apprenticeships, and unemployment fell again last month—it is now down to just 4.8%. I urge my right hon. Friend to stick to the course that he has set, because following the shadow Chancellor’s plans for £200 billion of extra borrowing would be an absolute disaster for manufacturers in the north of England.

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In Nelson, Barnoldswick and places he represents, there are successful small and medium-sized businesses, as well as large firms such as Rolls-Royce, which are exporting more. We are supporting them with lower business taxes and helping them with vital economic infrastructure. We have to go on supporting those businesses, as he does, because they are the backbone of this country, and they will provide the secure and stable economy that we need in the future.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Chancellor talked about reviving dead bodies, and he may recall the Hollywood film about medical students trying to create near-death experiences. It was called “Flatliners”. Can the Chancellor predict when the UK will regain its triple A credit rating from Moody’s and say what needs to be done in the interim to make sure that we do so?

[Mr Osborne]

I will not make a prediction about that. [Interruption.] Moody’s is clear that we can win the rating back provided that over time we show our commitment to dealing with our debts and rebalancing our economy, and we will of course provide that commitment. Its market notice is clear that a reduced political commitment to fiscal consolidation—the policy advocated by the shadow Chancellor—would risk further downgrades.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor remind the House that he has cut the deficit by a quarter under this Government? Will he also remind the House that it is Labour Chancellors who ultimately run out of money and have to go to the IMF to be bailed out?

[Mr Osborne]

It is an eternal truth that all Labour Governments have left office with unemployment higher than when they came in. I think that they have all left the country with a fiscal crisis, so let us make sure that history does not repeat itself.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has quite simply lost all credibility as an individual and all credibility as a Chancellor. What will he do to regain the confidence of the general public? Hundreds of thousands of people have lost greatly as a result of the failure of his economic policies.

[Mr Osborne]

Actually, the unemployment rate is lower today than when we came into office, and there are 1 million more people with jobs in the private sector than there were two years ago. Families want to know that the Government are determined to tackle the nation’s problems, to keep rates low, and to ensure that we provide the right environment for business. They have our assurance that we will do that.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

One of the problems highlighted by the Moody’s downgrade was the sluggish nature of international growth. Will the Chancellor use the forthcoming G7 Finance Ministers meeting in May to argue for the reduction of barriers to international trade, to encourage other countries to keep on the path of lowering their own debt, and to try to ensure that we generate the international growth that will benefit all countries?

[Mr Osborne]

I agree with all the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. Of course, all countries in the western world are confronting their debt problems. When it comes to trade, one of the big initiatives we need to pursue in the next couple of years, principally through G8 leaders rather than the G7 Finance Ministers, is the possibility of a free trade agreement with the United States. It was encouraging that the President mentioned that in his inauguration speech. That is one objective, alongside EU free trade agreements with India and Japan, that we should pursue in the coming months.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Last year, just before he was booed at the Olympics, the Chancellor said that this country’s triple A credit rating showed that the world had confidence in his policies. What does he think the downgrading shows?

[Mr Osborne]

As I have been explaining for the past 57 minutes, the test is there each day and each week as we have to borrow money to fund the deficit we inherited—even if it has come down. That is the test, and at the moment the world is lending us money at some of the cheapest rates in our history.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a significant part of the deficit is structural, which means that, as vital as growth is, it will not do anything to reduce the structural element? As long as Opposition Front Benchers refuse to acknowledge the key fact that we need to start living within our means again, they will not be fit to return to office.

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why one of our debt objectives relates to the structural deficit. The structural deficit is the part that does not go away when the economy grows. The shadow Chancellor’s argument that all these problems will disappear as the economy grows is simply nonsense. That was his argument before the financial crisis, that is why Britain went into the financial crisis with a 5% structural deficit, and that is why, when boom turned to bust, the country found itself without any money.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Unemployment in my constituency is still higher than it was a year ago, and many of the people in the dole queue feel humiliated that they cannot find a job under this Chancellor’s policies. Does he not accept that he is the one who is now humiliated and that he should lose his job?

[Mr Osborne]

Of course we are working in the north-east, as elsewhere, to create the right conditions for businesses to grow. Unemployment has fallen—the unemployment rate is lower; a million jobs have been created; the number of youths unemployed has fallen as well; and there is a record number of jobs and a record number of women in work. Those things are welcome, but of course we have to do more to help businesses grow, and that is precisely what we are going to do.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Chancellor has spent the past hour denying what he said previously, but the reality is that he staked his entire reputation on maintaining this country’s credit rating. Why on earth is he still in a job?

[Mr Osborne]

I have made it very clear that although the credit rating is an important benchmark, it is one of a number of benchmarks. We are tested every day out there in the market, and what we have not heard from the shadow Chancellor is any alternative. It is all very well criticising the current Government’s economic policy, but what is the Opposition’s alternative? They have to have a policy to attack a policy.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

This time two years ago the Chancellor was telling us that he had already created half a million new jobs, most of which were probably the result of the previous Government’s economic stimulus—[Laughter.] Unless, of course, people think this was an instant response in six months. Perhaps it was, but that still leaves us with a much slower rate of growth of new jobs since that date. He may not be aware that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban) admitted at the last Department for Work and Pensions questions that free jobs—where people were working without wages—were included in his totals. Is it not time he re-examined the reality of these so-called “employment figures”?

[Mr Osborne]

Frankly, the numbers the hon. Lady quotes are nonsense. The employment creation rate last year—perhaps we should give her some credit for saying last year—was the highest since 1989.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Does the Chancellor think that the loss of the UK’s credit rating is what the Prime Minister was thinking of when he said

“the good news will keep coming”?—[Official Report, 24 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 917.]

[Mr Osborne]

Last week we had the good news that unemployment had fallen again and employment had gone up, and we had the forecasts from the European Commission. Although we would of course want UK growth to be higher, they show that it is actually forecast to be higher than that of France, Germany and many of our European neighbours. We are in a tough neighbourhood—it is a tough economic situation—but we are confronting our country’s economic problems.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

The Chancellor’s response to the questions today has proved that, as ever with him, it is politics first before economics. Now that he has failed the test he set himself, will he turn his attention to the test that Wirral people set him, specifically on under-employment? What is he going to do to help people who cannot get the hours they need in work to put food on the table?

[Mr Osborne]

Of course we want to help people who are not currently working the hours that they want to work; we want to help them by helping businesses to expand to take on more people. As well as jobs going up by 888,000 in total and private sector jobs going up by 1 million or more, the number of hours worked in our economy has also gone up. Labour argues that it is all to do with under-employment, but that is not the case. Of course we want to help people who are working part time but want to go full time and people who want to work more hours. The best way to do that is to create an environment in which businesses want to expand and take people on.

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

Does the Chancellor not accept that the reason why gilts have not really moved in the wake of the downgrading is not a tribute to the Government’s economic policy, but is symptomatic of a deep pessimism about the long-term growth prospects for our economy?

[Mr Osborne]

If that were the case, why would German rates be lower than ours?

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

On 2 February 2010, the Chancellor said

“we will protect Britain’s credit rating and international reputation.”

Having delivered the third-lowest growth in the G20 since 2010, with real wages having fallen every month that he has been in office, the cost of living staying higher for longer, according to the Bank of England, and our nation’s productivity slumping, it is his reputation that lies in ruins in the eyes of the British people today.

[Mr Osborne]

I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman waited an hour and four minutes to read us the Whips’ handout again. As I have said, perhaps the Labour party will circulate its alternative economic policy, so that we can have a real debate about it in the House.

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

Given the loss of 1,000 private sector jobs in the Hull area over the last couple of months, and the 15,000 people who are looking for work, does the Chancellor think that the downgrading will help or hinder the economic recovery of the Humber?

[Mr Osborne]

What will help the economic recovery of the Humber are, first of all, the low interest rates, which, as I said earlier, are tested every day out there in the bond market. In addition, however, we have opened new enterprise zones in east Yorkshire, we have cut the bridge tolls on the Humber bridge—which I would have hoped that the hon. Lady would welcome—and we have invested in new road projects in and around the area, which had been demanded for years.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

In 2010, the Chancellor pledged to secure the recovery. By 2011, that had changed to maintaining Britain’s triple A credit rating. Is not the Chancellor’s failure to deliver on the first promise the reason for our losing the second?

[Mr Osborne]

We inherited an incredibly difficult situation. The economy had contracted by 6%; we were experiencing the deepest recession in the country’s modern history, and arguably the worst financial crisis in its entire history. Since then we have made difficult decisions, but they have seen interest rates stay low, they have seen the deficit come down, and they have seen the creation of a million jobs. The hon. Gentleman should be welcoming that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Flello. Is Mr Flello still with us to give us his views?

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

I am most grateful, Mr. Speaker. This is definitely worth waiting for. I have handwritten notes.

If one of the Chancellor’s pals in one of the banks had lost that bank’s triple A credit rating, he would have gone. Will the part-time Chancellor now either become full-time and change his plan, or go?

[Mr Osborne]

I am not sure that that was worth waiting for. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that he either thinks it is important for us to confront our debt problem—in which case he should support me as we make the difficult decisions that will enable us to do that—or he thinks that that is not important, and that we can take a difficult situation and make it very much worse. No amount of handwritten notes will help him in those circumstances. The main handwritten note from the Labour party that I remember is the one that said there was no money left.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

In the name of protecting our triple A rating, the Chancellor cut £4 billion of affordable housing investment, causing house building to collapse, pushing housing benefit bills up, and creating the biggest housing crisis in a generation. Rather than continuing to borrow to pay the costs of failure, will he now endorse the shadow Chancellor’s call for investment in affordable house building to create jobs and apprenticeships and to get the economy moving, which he has so signally failed to do?

[Mr Osborne]

That is a call for yet more borrowing. At least the hon. Gentleman is happy to advocate that in the House of Commons, whereas the shadow Chancellor dare not talk about his economic policy.

The capital spending in the plans that we inherited from the last Labour Cabinet—which, presumably, were agreed to by all members of that Cabinet—was lower than the capital spending in the plans that we have now. Why? Because we have made difficult decisions on welfare bills and other areas of resource spending in order to invest in capital. As for housing, with schemes such as Firstbuy and NewBuy and the new housing guarantees, we are getting behind the housing industry. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says “Going down”, but the rate of housing starts under the last Labour Government was the lowest since the 1920s. That is the situation with which they left us.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

Only a few months ago, people in my constituency gave a verdict on who they thought was responsible for the state of our economy. The number of jobseeker’s allowance claimants in my constituency has risen by 127 in the last two months. It is the toughest place in the country for young people to find work. Does the Chancellor realise just how out of touch he will sound to all those people who desperately want a Government who are on their side? How can he look foreign investors in the face and tell them to invest in my constituency and others, given that he has now failed the test that he set himself?

[Mr Osborne]

Foreign investors are investing in Britain, and the hon. Gentleman should welcome that. We are also investing in the east midlands—

[Andy Sawford]

Not in my constituency.

[Mr Osborne]

The hon. Gentleman says not in his constituency. He is the MP for Corby, and for 13 years people wanted the Corby link road, which is being constructed—

[Andy Sawford]

Where is it?

[Mr Osborne]

He asks where it is; it is being built at the moment. For 13 years people wanted that road and it was not produced, but it is now being produced under this Government.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, for that matter, the 69 Back-Bench Members who contributed in 57 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time for their notable succinctness.

Point of Order

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

16:39

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House will be saddened to hear of a serious underground fire at Daw Mill colliery in my constituency. Thankfully, there have been no deaths or serious injuries, but the fire, which is still blazing, is causing a great deal of uncertainty and worry to more than 600 people who work at the colliery. Notwithstanding the meetings I intend to have with Ministers, some of which will, I hope, take place later today, will you allow me to offer my support to the workers at Daw Mill and their families during this extremely difficult time?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has just done that most eloquently. I know that as an assiduous attendee in the Chamber he will be alive to the opportunities that the Order Paper presents for him to raise the matter on other suitable occasions. I thank him and extend my sympathies for and concern about the situation he has rightly described.

Children and Families Bill

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Sixth Report from the Education Committee, Pre-legislative scrutiny: Special Educational Needs, HC 631, Fourth Report from the Justice Committee, Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Children and Families Bill, HC 739, Sixth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Reform of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner: draft legislation, HC 811, and Children and Families Bill 2013: Contextual Information and Responses to Pre-Legislative Scrutiny, Department for Education, Cm 8540.]

Second Reading

16:40

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The coalition Government are absolutely determined that all children, whatever their background or start in life, should have the opportunity to realise their potential and to succeed. In particular, we have a fundamental responsibility as a Government to look out for the most vulnerable children in our society and to not only protect their welfare but safeguard their interests and their future. That is why the measures in the Bill are so closely entwined with what I, as someone with compassion at his core, am aiming to achieve as the Minister responsible for children and families and with what the Government want to achieve for all our children.

Growing up with many foster children and adopted siblings, I saw at first hand the huge challenges that vulnerable children face as well as the huge scope for turning lives around. Whether children find themselves in the care system through no fault of their own or face the additional challenge of a special educational need, we have a responsibility to ensure that the system helps them to flourish. We need to recognise that those children are our children and that they deserve exactly the same rights and opportunities as anyone else.

That is the rationale behind our education reforms. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is leading a crusade of opportunity for all through an education system that does not have lower aspirations for poorer or more vulnerable children. We believe that every child should have the chance to succeed, that every child should be able to experience an outstanding education and that every child should not just matter but be able to make a difference.

The measures in the Bill take on that crusade, with an unrelenting focus on tackling the challenges that face the most vulnerable and that can make a positive future more difficult to envisage and achieve. By encouraging better stability, improved support and security and an unswerving focus on a child-centred approach, those measures offer the best hope for children to thrive.

This Bill includes measures to reform adoption, breaking down the barriers for adopters and providing more support to children. It will build on what we have already done to reform family justice, tackling appalling delays and focusing on the needs of the child. It will improve services for vulnerable young people, transforming the special educational needs system and doing more to protect children’s rights.

[Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one concern expressed by many of our constituents is about the right of grandparents, who can often provide extra stability in a family at a time of crisis, to have access to children? Can he confirm that the Bill will address that and that the whole approach will change?

[Mr Timpson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention and I pay tribute to his work in opposition on trying to enhance the rights of children, particularly to recognise the role played by members of their wider family in delivering good care across the country. Through the Bill, we want to make sure that we give every child the best opportunity for a fulfilling involvement not just with both their parents but with their wider family, when it is safe to do so and in their best interests, and we recognise the important role that grandparents often play.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Minister makes an important point about the role of the wider family in caring for vulnerable children and for children generally, but the most important people are children themselves, and putting them at the centre is the critical role for the legislation and anything we do in the House. Does he take on board that that should always come first even when it may be in conflict with the rights of others in the family or other adults?

[Mr Timpson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. From his work and his personal experience of dealing with children of a particularly vulnerable disposition, he knows that children’s rights must be at the heart of whatever changes and decisions we make, which is very much what the Bill seeks to achieve.

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

The Minister will be aware of Scope’s campaign for children with disabilities. Will he be coming to that in his speech? Could he take a moment to comment on the concerns raised by disability groups about the most vulnerable children?

[Mr Timpson]

The hon. Gentleman has written to me about the campaign, as have many Members. As part of the pre-legislative scrutiny process, from the inception of the Green Paper right through to the publication of the Bill, we took into account all the concerns and views that were put to us. Later in my speech, I shall set out some of the measures we have taken as a result of the pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation process. They have considerably enhanced the Bill, and we can discuss them further in Committee.

The majority of children, most of whom do not need such support, will benefit from the introduction of a shared parental leave system and reforms to flexible working and child care. Those changes will help to create a truly family-friendly society.

Today, we published a young people’s guide to the Bill. It sets out the driving principle of the Bill in straightforward language. For example:

“We want to put children and young people right at the centre. We want things to work out right for children...We want services to meet children’s needs, not professionals’ needs.”

Some Members have found previous young people’s guides extremely useful as a nutshell, given their time-constrained existence. If they do not have time to read the text of the whole Bill, I encourage them to use the guide as a very good substitute.

The Bill is all the stronger for the fact that we consulted children and young people on the key proposals throughout, and we continue to do so. I put on record my thanks to Roger Morgan, the children’s rights director, for enabling many of them to contribute.

We have, of course, also listened to adults. The Bill evolved in its current form through extensive partnership working. Numerous consultations over many months sought a wide range of views—from those who provide services to those who benefit from them. That is particularly true of provision for special educational needs. Pathfinders have tested and continue to test our reforms to make sure they are delivering on our aims.

I am grateful to colleagues both here and in the other place for all the care and attention that have gone into preparing the Bill. Large sections of it have benefited from and been enhanced by the scrutiny of four parliamentary Committees and the advice and guidance of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I recognise the importance of my hon. Friend’s commitment to taking account of the concerns of parents, such as a constituent who came to see me on Friday. Her son has Asperger’s and when he was aged between six and 10, she spent £25,000 trying to get a basic level of provision for him. He could not have a statement and now, in the transition from primary to secondary school, she is struggling to find an appropriate placement. As she says, however loud she speaks and however sharp her elbows, she also speaks on behalf of those who cannot afford £25,000 for basic provision and care. Will the Bill address some of her concerns?

[Mr Timpson]

The story of my hon. Friend’s constituent is one that I have heard from many Members who have, in their constituency surgeries or elsewhere, come across the many battles that parents of children with a special educational need find that they must face, day after day. Those parents are having to provide duplicate information and tell their story time and again, and rather than working in partnership with local authorities, the health service and schools, they often find themselves in conflict with them. The Bill is designed to tackle that head-on, and to ensure a much more child-centred, family-oriented SEN system, with a single assessment and planning process for those aged nought to 25, to make sure that those difficult transition periods are dealt with in a much more smooth and co-ordinated way. There will be a much reduced probability of many of the problems that people such as my hon. Friend’s constituent have had to face, even quite recently; in fact, we hope that they will not happen at all.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I compliment him on many of the measures in the Bill, which will be widely welcomed. However, he will be aware that some parents are concerned that in future, their children will not meet the standard for a statement of special educational needs. They are concerned that when School Action and School Action Plus stop, their children may fall out of the scope of the local offer. How can he reassure those parents?

[Mr Timpson]

I will come on to address those issues, but it is important to say at this juncture that we are not changing the definition of special educational need. It is clear from the Ofsted report of 2010 that there has been over-identification of many children, who have been labelled as needing School Action or School Action Plus, but for whom that has not addressed the core concerns around their presentation and their inability to progress at school satisfactorily. We want a greater emphasis on outcomes, and we want to personalise the support that children get at school—if necessary, through a plan, if they meet the criteria. We are not changing the definitions; we are ensuring that the rights that parents and young people enjoy under the SEN system will be protected under the new system. In fact, they will be enhanced, as they will apply beyond the age of 16, all the way up to 25, when that is considered appropriate.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend for the way he is presenting the Bill. Does he agree that this is not just an education Bill, but a health Bill and a care Bill? Unless we make sure that services are joined up through local joint commissioning, there is a danger that the good work he wants to take place will not happen properly.

[Mr Timpson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has on many occasions displayed his deep knowledge and understanding of the subject, and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on autism continues to fight for the cause admirably. Of course he is right: we want better integration of services, and better co-ordination of assessments relating to education, health and social care. That is why, in the Bill, there is for the first time a statutory duty to ensure joint commissioning of services relating to education and social care; there is a duty on the different agencies to co-operate. Through the local offer, they will all have to publish—through a common framework, which we will set out in the code of practice and in regulations—what services they have on offer locally for children with a disability or a special educational need, so that there is much more transparency, and people can hold them to account much more effectively.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Timpson]

I will make progress. I know that everyone is keen to get in, and many people have been sitting here for quite some time, and were here throughout the urgent question, but I have a fair amount to get through, and at least 27 colleagues want to speak, so I ask hon. Members to bear with me for a moment.

We have listened to and considered all views offered on how to refine the draft legislation to make sure that what we are proposing will work in practice. In particular, I want to thank the four Committee Chairs—Baroness Butler-Sloss, my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis)—as well as the Committee members and staff for their diligent and constructive reports. It has been a purposeful and fruitful process.

We believe that supporting strong families and introducing flexible working practices is key to achieving business and economic growth. A new system of shared parental leave will support business by creating a more motivated, flexible and talented work force. Flexible working will also help widen the pool of talent in the labour market, helping to drive growth. Underpinning all this, the Bill will give children a stronger, more independent champion of their rights through reforms to the Office of the Children’s Commissioner. That will ensure that their views are properly represented and taken seriously.

I am mindful of the time constraints, which will prevent me from detailing every clause, but I want to talk through our headline reforms, starting with those on adoption. As someone with two adopted brothers, I know all too well how life-changing adoption can be, for both the adopted child and the family they are joining. I also know how glacial the pace of the adoption process can often be. It currently takes an average of two and a half years to place a child for adoption. This is completely unacceptable. These inexcusable delays are costing children time that can never be recovered—time when they should be bonding with their adoptive family and enjoying the routine and stability that they so desperately need. We must do all we can to reduce the time it takes for a child to be adopted.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) deserves real recognition for his personal crusade to tackle this problem and for the important progress already made. The Bill builds on that work to create a system more focused on the needs of children and which more actively involves and supports adopters.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

I refer the House to my declaration of interest as chairman of the Justice for Families campaign. Does the Minister accept that there are some people, including myself and some in foreign countries, who believe that sometimes children are adopted who should not be adopted?

[Mr Timpson]

I am very much aware of my hon. Friend’s views and have conversed with him on a number of occasions. I always listen to and am mindful of the words that he speaks on this subject, but I have a strong view that for those children who, for whatever reason, are unable to find any other permanent placement, we ought seriously to consider adoption as a way of giving them that stability, that routine, that loving, stable family home which far too often they miss out on because we have not managed to move them through the adoption system in enough time, commensurate with their best interests.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Nobody would disagree that it is important that we reduce the time scale for children to be adopted, but what safeguards does the Minister plan to put in place to ensure that we do not see an increase in the number of adoption failures?

[Mr Timpson]

The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point. We know that the level of adoption breakdown, which ranges from 3% to 30%, is probably the worst outcome of all for those children, let alone for the families who have been brave enough to put themselves forward as prospective adopters. We know that what is key to ensuring successful adoption is good planning, a good matching process that is more adopter-led than it has been in the past, and the support that is provided during and after the adoption is put in place, to prevent any possible breakdown happening in the future. That support, in light-touch form, may be necessary for many years into the future.

I know from my own family’s experience that even 20 or 30 years on, there may be moments when some experience prior to going into care and being adopted comes back to haunt an individual, so we should be mindful of the fact that for adoption support to be successful, it needs to continue to be available. I will come on to the aspects of the Bill which deal with that issue. It is a step forward to make sure that that adoption support is available where it will make a difference.

[Bill Esterson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Timpson]

Briefly. The hon. Gentleman has had one crack of the whip; I will give him one more.

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful. The Minister has made a good point about getting the balance right between speed of adoption and avoiding rushing, leading to breakdown and the damage that that does to children and families. What are his plans to increase the number of potential adopters coming forward? He rightly mentioned support. The No. 1 issue that could be addressed by the authorities is increasing the number of people who are prepared to adopt and who have the support to do so.

[Mr Timpson]

If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I will come to that point in a moment, and I will address it head-on. I am not trying to avert his gaze from that issue.

The fostering for adoption clause will require local authorities to consider a fostering for adoption placement as soon as they are considering adoption for a child, but local authorities must make the most appropriate placement available, which may well be a kinship care placement.

The Government recognise the importance of family members in taking care of children who cannot live with their parents, and we are aware that a child brought up by a family member benefits from living with someone they already know and trust, rather than a stranger. We stand by the measures in the existing legislation: the Children Act 1989 requires local authorities to seek first to place children with their wider family, and the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 strengthened that requirement. That is why section 17 was amended in April 2011 to make it easier for local authorities to provide regular and long-term financial payments to families caring for children, where they assess that to be appropriate. That is also why the Department has funded the Family Rights Group by £93,000 a year since 2011 and why it will award it two further years of funding in our voluntary and community sector grants in April to help further the role of family group conferences.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I know that the Minister is very much aware of the issues facing kinship carers—in fact, I think that he was one of the sponsors of the Kinship Carers (Parental Responsibility Agreements) Bill, which I introduced a couple of years ago—but does he acknowledge that the Family Rights Group says that clauses 1 and 6 need to be removed or amended because they place real obstacles in the way of kinship carers? Are the Government looking at that?

[Mr Timpson]

I am aware of the issue the hon. Lady raises. I have just set out the principles that remain in place, and it is worth noting that the concept of fostering for adoption is not new. A number of local authorities already use fostering for adoption very successfully, for example East Sussex county council. That is in no way trying to undermine the principles in law that already exist whereby local authorities must look at potential future placements within the family before considering a placement outside the family, and that will pertain as a consequence.

We also know that black children take, on average, one year longer to be adopted than white children or children of other ethnicity. Again, that is totally unacceptable. As Birmingham city council’s recent report illustrated, potential adoptions are still being blocked by misplaced and misguided efforts to find the perfect ethnic match over and above all other considerations. I want to make it absolutely clear, for the avoidance of any doubt, that we do not intend that ethnicity will never be a consideration. However, ethnicity should not block a placement that is in the best interests of the child and that can provide them with the loving and stable family home they so badly need. The Bill will remove the explicit requirement to have regard to a child’s religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background when matching them with prospective adopters. In doing so, it will ensure quicker and more balanced decision making when matching them for adoption.

As of 31 March 2012, 4,650 children were waiting for an adoptive family. We need more than 600 additional adopters a year just to keep up with the growing number of children waiting. To address the point made by the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), unfortunately we have a situation in which many small local problems are adding up to one big national crisis. There are currently around 180 adoption agencies, including 152 local authorities, each recruiting and assessing an average of 17 adopters a year. Many operate on too small a scale to be efficient and have no incentive to recruit adopters to meet the needs of children outside their area. That system is simply not fit for purpose.

We need to ensure that the national crisis of children waiting for adopters ends, and that it ends as soon as possible. Therefore, we are continuing to work with local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies and have recently provided them with over £150 million to scale up adoption recruitment services and bolster capacity to meet the growing demand for placements. However, if local authorities are unable to develop a sustainable approach, we will be prepared to use the provisions in the Bill that enable the Secretary of State to require some or all local authorities to outsource their adopter recruitment and assessment function to one or more other adoption agencies.

As we discussed a few moments ago, sadly some adoptions break down, with inadequate therapeutic and other forms of support often being a contributory factor, yet we know that properly assessed and well-planned support can help prevent problems that can lead to a placement breaking down. People adopting children need to be confident in the support available, but that has been sadly lacking, with many adopters not even being made aware of their right to request an assessment. So we are placing a duty on local authorities to provide information about the support that is available. We are also introducing personal budgets to give adopters more control over who provides the support and how it is delivered. With appropriate safeguards, the Bill will also widen access to the adoption register so that adopters can take a more active role in identifying children for whom they may be appropriate adoptive parents.

Taken together, the Bill’s measures on adoption will mean more children being adopted more quickly where that is the right thing for them. It will mean adopters having a greater degree of control and support so that they can give those children the best start in life.

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

Will the Minister say something to reassure Barnardo’s and others that, given that 80% of current adoption recruitment is carried out by local authorities, Ministers do not plan to force whole swathes of local authorities into the voluntary sector, which might not have the capacity or capability to step up?

[Mr Timpson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Select Committee Chairman and I take his question in the spirit in which it was meant. The first thing to say is that we have provided £1 million to the Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies to boost their latent capacity, and those agencies have already seen 20% growth this year and the year before that. It is recognised that this sector comprises only 20% of the current market, so by scaling up the market by making more astute economies of scale, we are ensuring that we move towards a much more mixed market, maximising capacity right across the country to meet the demand. Of course we do not want to sit idly by and watch this money have no effect whatever. That is why the Bill contains this enabling clause to make whatever changes are necessary to recruit the number of adopters we need so that children waiting to be adopted can have the opportunity of getting an adoptive placement.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

The Minister is being generous with his time and is setting out quite a compelling vision for the future of children and the adoption system. His use of language such as “market” and “demand”, however, creates some anxiety, particularly in view of what was said by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart). What discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Communities and Local Government about the impact of some of these changes on local government, given the crippling cuts that many local authorities face as a result of other changes recently implemented by this Government?

[Mr Timpson]

We have provided local authorities with £150 million to try to improve their adoption service. This is a good opportunity for them to show that they can deliver for children in their care whose plan is for adoption. I do not see why the hon. Lady should feel that this is not an appropriate way of trying to resolve this national crisis. What we are trying to do is simply to provide a practical solution to the problem created when all 180-plus adoption agencies have no incentive to recruit beyond their own boundaries, which prevents children from being placed with a family that is potentially waiting for them in a different part of the country. We want to break down such barriers, ensuring that every child whose future lies in adoptive placements gets that opportunity as soon as possible.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Is not the key issue the fact that although about 4,500 children are waiting to be adopted, potential adopters are being put off by the checks and the intrusive nature of the whole process? Is it not important to streamline the system to encourage more adopters to come forward rather than to worry about whether it is local authorities or adoption agencies that are providing the placements?

[Mr Timpson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we are streamlining the assessment process for adopters so that it will take no longer than six months, whereas I have heard of cases in which it takes as long as three years for a couple or a single person to be approved as a prospective adopter. It is also why we have launched the national gateway to provide a single point of advice and information for anyone who is interested in adopting so that they are not immediately cocooned within their own local authority area as regards any potential assessment and thereafter matching. We are doing what we can right across the adoption system to make it more adopter-led and more streamlined to break down some of the barriers that have existed for far too long.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

In response to the question by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), does my hon. Friend agree not only that more money is going into the system but that savings will come from its being streamlined so that the process of adopting children will move faster?

[Mr Timpson]

One of the reasons we want to encourage local authorities, through this additional funding, to move into a more consortia-type arrangement is that that reduces overheads. At the moment, more than 180 adoption agencies are recruiting, on average, 17 adopters each year. That is not a good economy of scale. There is huge scope within the system to make savings and to get the money to where we want it to help to get children adopted.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister on the way in which he is commanding the House in presenting this Bill. He is talking about speeding up the process. Is there any link in the data that he has between the speed of the process and the success of the placement?

[Mr Timpson]

We know from research done by Julie Selwyn at Bristol university that for every year a child is not adopted there is a 20% reduction in their prospect of being adopted. By ensuring that adoption is timely and that the matching process has been done in conjunction with the prospective adopters rather than as an adjunct to that process, we will get children into the right placements in a quicker and more quality-assured way than has happened in the past. The longer children wait to be adopted, the less prospect there is of their being adopted. Adoptive placements are some of the most secure and stable arrangements outside the family. Clearly, adoption breakdowns still take place. We are looking at every stage of the process to make sure that the support that is made available and the information that is given to prospective adopters about the child they are adopting is as transparent as possible so that the prospects of any breakdown are reduced to a bare minimum. The right hon. Gentleman makes a key point that we consistently bear in mind as we make these reforms and push them forward.

Not all children in the care system will or should be adopted. But for all children, the difference it makes when someone cares whether they do well at school is crucial. When someone has high aspirations for them, they are more likely to have high aspirations for themselves. Yet in 2012 only 15% of children who had been looked after continuously for 12 months achieved five or more GCSE grades at A* to C, including English and maths. There have been slight improvements in recent years, but these results are simply not good enough. We have a duty to these children as corporate parents—a duty to care for them as we would our own children.

Of course, we should not forget that, thanks in large part to the fantastic foster carers we have across the country, the large majority of looked-after children benefit from their time in care. However, we want to drive up the focus, commitment and effort within our schools, councils and, yes, foster and residential care homes to make sure that the education of children in care is a real priority. The Bill introduces a duty on every local authority to have an officer—the “virtual school head”—to promote the educational achievement of its looked-after children, because these children are our children and they deserve the very best chance in life.

I want to turn to family justice reform. There is no debate about the need for reform of the family justice system. It is simply not acceptable that children wait, on average, over 47 weeks—until recently, over 56 weeks—for their care or supervision case to be resolved. In 2011-12, 21,553 children were involved in care proceedings and subject to this delay.

David Norgrove’s widely welcomed family justice review made the case for setting a clear time limit for the length of care cases, ensuring that decisions are child-focused and aimed at reducing duplication in the system. We know how important family courts are in making sure that vulnerable children end up in appropriate placements safely, but we need to do more to speed up the process to make sure that children can find stability as quickly as possible. To this end, the Bill includes measures to tackle delay through the introduction of a maximum 26-week time limit for completing care and supervision proceedings.

We also want to see a reduction in the number of additional expert reports commissioned, by ensuring that expert evidence is used in children’s cases only when it is necessary and not as a matter of routine. We will make it explicit that when the court considers a care plan, it should focus primarily on those issues that are essential to its decision about whether to make a care order. We will also help to reduce bureaucracy in the system by removing the need for frequent renewals of interim care and supervision orders.

Our private law reforms are also based on the family justice review’s detailed analysis and recommendations. Simply too many children are involved in private proceedings. Just over 56,000 children were subject to new contact and residence cases in 2011-12. For many families involved, the process can be drawn out and emotionally draining. As someone who spent the best part of 10 years practising as a family law barrister, I can testify that this is rarely the best way to resolve family disputes. Taken together, the Bill’s private law provisions keep the needs of children firmly at the centre of the system, while explicitly acknowledging the important role that both parents should play in a child’s life post-separation.

Our starting principle is that separated parents should resolve their disputes out of court whenever possible. The Bill makes attendance at a mediation, information and assessment meeting—known as MIAM—a prerequisite for applying to court for certain types of family proceedings. This support to help parents reach their own agreements will be underpinned by better online support, access to information programmes and encouragement to develop parenting agreements. The material will also emphasise the importance to children of relationships with wider family members, particularly grandparents.

The principle that most children benefit from the involvement of both parents in their lives after family separation is also pivotal to our private law reforms. Too many children lose contact with a parent following family breakdown. One survey suggests that between a quarter and a third of children who do not live with both parents rarely, if ever, see their non-resident parent. We will emphasise in the out-of-court support we offer to parents the importance to the child of both parents playing a role, but we also believe it must be explicit in the court environment.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The role of mediation has been generally welcomed, but it will require mediators. At the moment, a lot of the mediating is done by court officers and others. Who will play the role of mediator? Their responsibilities will include identifying the safeguarding of children and domestic violence issues. What qualifications and accreditation will be required of them?

[Mr Timpson]

The mediator will not be a court clerk or court officer. An independent mediator will be assigned to carry out the mediation in a particular case. When the Bill goes to Committee, we will go into the detail of exactly how the role will be performed. There is a difference between those who go through publicly funded proceedings and those who do not. I will be happy to provide more information on that.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

rose—

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

rose—

[Mr Timpson]

I am conscious of the time and I still have a lot of material to get through, so I will take just one more intervention.

[Mrs Moon]

As a former child and family social worker, I value what the Minister is saying about the importance of retaining separated family members in the child’s life. Does he acknowledge, however, that part of the problem we will face in retaining the involvement of separated parents in families is the implications of the bedroom tax? A separated parent might be financially penalised for keeping bedrooms so that their children can visit them during holidays and on weekends. Is that not counter-intuitive to what the Minister is trying to achieve?

[Geraint Davies]

That is what I was going to say!

[Mr Timpson]

I will try to kill two birds with one stone, in that case. That is not a matter for this Bill and I am sorry that the hon. Lady did not take the opportunity to raise any of the substantial issues that are in the Bill. As she has raised the under-occupancy rules, she must remember that it was her party that brought them in for the private sector. It is therefore an extension of something that was brought in by the previous Government.

The Bill makes it absolutely clear that both parents should be involved with their children after separation, unless there is a genuine welfare reason why that is not appropriate. This is about the needs of the child, not parents’ rights.

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

My hon. Friend has made it clear on many occasions that the Bill is not intended or likely to lead to different court decisions. Why is he so optimistic that it will lead many parents to take a different view of the need to come to a sensible settlement and not get to court?

[Mr Timpson]

My right hon. Friend knows from his astute chairmanship of the Justice Committee that the intention of these changes to the law is to remove the adversarial, winner-takes-all nature of many of these proceedings and the perception among many parents that they are entering an arena that is about their personal battles, rather than what is in the best interests of the child. The changes will do that not in isolation, but as part of a wider package of measures including MIAMs and the enforcement of the orders.

Nobody would argue that both parents should not be involved in a child’s life if it is safe and in the child’s best interests. We believe that these measures will make it crystal clear to parents who are thinking about their post-separation arrangements or, further down the field, about taking these matters before the court, that the court will judge not the parents’ dispute, but what is in the best interests of the child. The presumption will be that having both parents involved in the child’s life is the right course where it is safe and in the child’s best interests. That is particularly important given the huge number of children who no longer have any contact with one parent after a separation. We need to try to bring that number down and I believe that these measures will help do that.

The message about focusing on children’s needs is reinforced by the replacement of contact and residence orders with the new child arrangements order. That will set out in one place who a child lives with, spends time with or has any other type of contact with, and when. It will move us away from the perception of a hierarchy that is present in contact and residence orders, where the resident parent is seen as the winner or the more important parent.

I will now turn to the special educational needs reforms. I am conscious of the time and apologise to hon. Members who I know will be desperate to get in on this issue. I will take one or two interventions, but then I must press on. These are the most significant reforms in the area for more than 30 years. At the outset, I want to acknowledge the committed work of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who was brave enough to push forward these reforms. I am also grateful to the many parents and young people I have met as children’s Minister in Coventry, Bromley, East Sussex and elsewhere, who have so graciously and generously shared their experiences with me.

When one hears stories of young people with needs and extra challenges that they did not ask for bravely battling a system that can be complex and unwieldy and is often a cause for frustration, it underlines the vital importance of making things better. It continues to be the case that children and young people with special educational needs do less well than their peers at school and college, and are twice as likely to be out of education, training and employment at 18.

The Bill builds on the Green Paper initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central to put the interests of children and young people first. It will bring up to date a terribly outdated system and keep the rights and protections that families value. It will give children and young people with special educational needs and their families better co-ordinated support, and more choice and control over how that support is provided. It will provide, for the first time, one system from birth to 25, promoting earlier identification of children’s needs and extending comparable rights and protections to all young people over 16, whether they choose to continue their education in school or in further education.

The Bill also sets out a number of measures to tackle some deep-seated problems. It requires local authorities and local health bodies to work together to plan and commission services for children and young people with SEN. That will make the best use of available resources and deliver integrated support, and it will bring a real commitment across agencies to ensuring that the services required to meet local needs are available. Families should no longer find themselves caught between different parts of the system, waiting for a particular service.

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

The Minister may be aware that CLIC Sargent, the children’s cancer charity, has raised concerns about the educational support that is available now, let alone in future, to children who have missed out on school as a result of cancer. Will he meet CLIC Sargent and myself—I have written to him today about that—to see whether we can have a more flexible approach to ensure that such children get the education and support that they need?

[Mr Timpson]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, and I thank him for alerting me to it prior to the debate. I am of course happy to meet him and discuss the implications of the reforms for him and his constituents as the Bill moves through both Houses of Parliament.

The Bill requires local authorities to publish a local offer giving parents and young people clear, accessible information about the support that is available to them from education, health and social care bodies. The local offer will outline how they can get an assessment for an education, health and care plan and where they can get information, advice and support. Local agencies will be required to co-operate in developing that offer. We will set out in regulations a common framework for the local offer and give further guidance in the new birth to 25 special educational needs code of practice.

Many hon. Members will know from their constituency surgeries that it is a common occurrence for children and young people who need support to have to tell the same story over and over again to myriad different professionals. The measures in the Bill will lead to better, more co-ordinated assessments across education, health and care that involve children, young people and parents from the very start and focus on their goals and aspirations. Along with a new approach to assessment, we are introducing education, health and care plans.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

What can the Minister say to reassure those who are concerned that children with a specific disability and health need, but with no identifiable educational need, will not have access to an education, health and care plan and so will not be able to benefit from the local offer? Is there are a simple and straightforward answer that I can give such families?

[Mr Timpson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I know from having paid a visit to his all-party group on young disabled people that many of that group of people are wrestling with the issue. Through the local offer and the joint commissioning of services, there will be much more transparency about what services are available for all children with special educational needs and disability, which will put them in a stronger position to hold the providers of those services to account. I am sure he will examine that as we take the Bill through Committee.

Education, health and care plans will have a new and important focus on outcomes, including employment and independent living, and they will be clear about the support to be provided to enable the child or young person to achieve those personal goals.

There is an unhelpful divide between school and college in the current system for young people over 16. They keep their statement and the legal protections that it brings if they stay in school, but they lose it if they go to college. The Bill will change that. SEN statements and learning difficulty assessments will be replaced with the new EHC plans, which will be for children and young people from birth to age 25. For the first time, young people with special educational needs will be able to enter further education and training with the same rights and protections as pupils in school, including rights to appeal to the tribunal.

I have already spoken about how we plan to give children, young people and families a much greater say in shaping local policies. We will also give those with an education, health and care plan much more say in how their support is provided and where they are educated. Parents and young people will have the option of a personal budget, enabling them to be much more involved in deciding how support is provided. They will not have to take up that option, but their entitlement to it, combined with the new approach to assessment and the EHC plans, will mean that agencies will be clear about the level of support that a child or young person should be getting and why.

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

I want to express my profound disappointment that the Government have not taken the opportunity provided by the Bill to strengthen the rights of young carers. The offer and the assessment that the Minister has talked about are very welcome, but the same needs exist among young carers, who are the most hidden group of carers in our society. Does he recognise their need to be identified and assessed, the support that they need to ensure that their education does not suffer from their caring work load and the need to ensure that they are referred for support? The other things that he is talking about are wonderful, but why were young carers left out?

[Mr Timpson]

Although the hon. Lady has raised an issue that is not covered in the Bill, it is an important one that I have discussed with some of the groups that champion the cause of young carers. Of course, I will continue to listen to the arguments that they make during the passage of the Bill.

The Bill sets out plans to encourage the use of local services for settling disputes and independent mediation. That is intended to reduce the need for parents to feel that a time-consuming and stressful appeal to the tribunal is the only way forward. We are confident that the measures in the Bill will improve the lives of children and young people with special educational needs and their families. By promoting closer working between agencies, the Bill will improve local practice and benefit other groups, including those who are disabled but do not have special educational needs.

The early years and child care system is in need of reform and we must increase choice and availability, improve quality, and continue to remove any unnecessary bureaucracy that may inhibit innovation. In “More great childcare”, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), set out plans to encourage all providers to learn from effective best practice, including from other countries. Many of the reforms set out in that report, however, are not matters for this Bill.

This Bill takes forward important provisions to improve the flexibility with which quality child care can be provided, including childminder agencies that are expected to help more childminders enter the market and offer greater support and quality assurance. Child care providers will be able to request a paid-for re-inspection by Ofsted at an earlier date than that allowed by the current three to four-year inspection cycle, so that improvements can be recognised. We are also removing the bureaucratic requirement on local authorities to carry out a rigidly defined assessment of child care sufficiency every three years, as well as the requirement on governing bodies to consult every time they want access to services such as “wrap around” child care. Evidence is clear that high-quality early education plays a vital role in a child’s development, preparing them for school and later life, and provisions in the Bill recognise that attending a high-quality early years setting improves children’s academic and social development.

In 2010 John Dunford conducted his independent review of the Children’s Commissioner. His report stated that children were more vulnerable to having their rights breached than adults, and that they had fewer opportunities to influence political decisions or make their views heard. He concluded that the role of Children’s Commissioner is necessary, but that current legislation has prevented it from having enough impact. The Government agree, which is why the Bill will give the Children’s Commissioner a powerful voice to stand up for the rights and interests of all children, particularly those who are vulnerable.

Under measures of which my colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) is justly proud, the Bill will modernise the leave system following the birth or adoption of a child. Research suggests that a father’s attendance at ultrasound scans increases his commitment to the pregnancy and helps early bonding. We know, however, that a third of fathers do not take time off to attend antenatal appointments, so we are creating a new right to unpaid time off for dads, partners and intended parents in surrogacy arrangements to attend up to two antenatal appointments. Adopters will have the right to time off to attend certain pre-adoption meetings.

The Bill will allow working couples to share the leave and pay remaining when a woman ends her maternity leave or a person their adoption leave early. That radical new system will enable working couples to take leave together and better manage their caring responsibilities and work commitments. We are also making significant changes to the policy on leave and pay for adopters. We think that the shared parental leave and pay package amounts to a substantial step forward in the flexibility available to families to look after their children and balance competing demands at work and at home.

The final section of the Bill—you will be pleased to hear that, Mr Deputy Speaker—supports family life by providing a right for all to request flexible working. Currently, the right to request flexible working is available to parents and carers and enables them to request changes to the way they work to accommodate their caring needs. Four out of five requests for flexible working arrangements are acceded to. The Bill will extend the right to request flexible working to all employees so that parents can be supported in their caring responsibilities by people in the wider family such as grandparents who will also be able to request flexible working.

There is no denying that this is a large Bill with a wide and varied scope. Shining through it all, however, is the coalition Government’s commitment to equality and increasing opportunity, and to ensuring that the most disadvantaged children reach their potential and that fathers and mothers work together to achieve the best for their children. Every measure in the Bill is driven by one simple objective: our determination to improve the outcomes for all children and families in our society, whatever their start in life and whoever they may be. Despite unprecedented pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation, the Bill still has some way to go before finding its way into statute. Therefore, in the spirit of constructive dialogue that has to date been a strong feature of the Bill, I look forward to hearing people’s views during today’s debate and as the Bill progresses, and I commend it to the House.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Before I call Stephen Twigg, I inform the House that, initially, there will be an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions.

17:34

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the Minister both on his opening remarks and on his wider handling of the Bill. In the tone and substance of what he has said today, he has risen to the occasion on these important subjects.

Reforming the systems for children in care, for children with special educational needs and for family justice is surely right. The Opposition welcome the opportunity to debate those important issues. The case for reform is clear. The system to support children with SEN all too often leaves families struggling to get the support their children need and deserve. More than a quarter of parents of children with autism say they have had to wait more than two years to get the support their child needs at school.

The time it takes for children in care to find suitable permanency is often far too long. As the Minister has said, on average, it takes more than two and half years for an adoption to be completed. For children who are black and minority ethnic, it takes an average of a year longer. Although we must ensure that the best interests of the child are upheld, delays to finding the right match are at the expense of a child’s development.

The family justice system needs to work in the interests of resolution and mediation, retaining the primacy of the interests of the child. I place on record my thanks to David Norgrove for his work for both the Government and the Welsh Assembly Government on reforming family justice. I also thank the all-party parliamentary group on child protection for its recent report, “Making Care Proceedings Better for Children”. We have an opportunity to build a cross-party consensus on lasting reforms. For example, strengthening the role and remit of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner could ensure that the primacy of children’s rights is protected in future. I thank John Dunford for his work for the Government on that.

The Children Act 2004 created the Every Child Matters framework, which I believe is as relevant and important today as it was in 2004. A decade ago, children and young people told us that five outcomes are crucial to their well-being, both as children and in later life: being healthy; staying safe; enjoying and achieving; making a positive contribution; and achieving economic well-being. Our ambition was then, as it is now, to raise the educational outcomes for children from all backgrounds, but particularly for those from the poorest families, for children with SEN and disabilities, and for children in the care system.

Hard-working families, who are currently being hit by the rising cost of child care and cuts to maternity pay, will welcome changes that enable flexibility for parental leave following the birth of a child. The previous Government introduced statutory paternity leave, which was an important turning point for many families. Although the current Government’s failed economic plan is hitting families hard, parents will benefit from greater flexibility for parental leave.

On special educational needs, the Select Committee on Education was right in its report to say that the 2011 Green Paper set high expectations and high hopes for parents and for children with SEN. All hon. Members will have been contacted by parents of children with SEN in our constituencies. The story is a familiar one.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I appreciate that the Minister tried to cover a lot of ground quickly, but his response to the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) was extremely disappointing, and there is a broad concern. Does my hon. Friend agree that too many children will be left out by the proposals? That is particularly true of children with dyslexia, who are excluded from the Minister’s current plans.

[Stephen Twigg]

I share my hon. Friend’s concern and I will come to a number of ways in which the Bill needs to be improved in Committee.

All hon. Members will have experienced a familiar story in their constituencies. Parents have a lack of information about the support available. They then have a long, drawn-out battle to secure the additional support their children need. Even when that support is offered, they have to jump endlessly through hoops to get the services their family needs. There is no doubt that we need a radical transformation of the SEN system.

Going back to 1981, the Warnock inquiry introduced the process of statementing, as well as provisions for inclusion of children and young people with SEN in mainstream education. Since then, we have seen several reforms—for example, the requirement on the Secretary of State to publish annually the numbers of children and young people with SEN and their outcomes, following a campaign led by the shadow children and families Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson).

[Geraint Davies]

My hon. Friend may know that the bottom 25% of middle-class children, on measures of cognitive ability at 22 months, have overtaken the top 25% of the poorest children by the age of 10. Is he therefore concerned that most children with speech, language and communication needs will not in fact be statemented or included in education, health and care plans, and that problem will continue and be exacerbated?

[Stephen Twigg]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), my hon. Friend anticipates points that I will make later in my speech. However, he is right, both in his general point, which makes the case for early intervention, and—crucially—about some of the weaknesses in the Bill, which we hope to probe today and in Committee.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If I may, I will take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his introduction of the Bill.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am especially interested in what happens to people with autism. The all-party parliamentary group on autism and others, including the National Autistic Society, have pointed out that the most difficult time for those with autism is the transition to adulthood. In Committee, will he probe further on whether we could have individual transition plans for those people with autism as they move into employment or further education, because that is often the most difficult point for individuals and families?

[Stephen Twigg]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Lady for her lengthy record of work on this issue, including securing legislation as an Opposition Member under the previous Government. I shall move on to the elements of the plan that we do support, including the extension to the age of 25. I know that she has campaigned for that, and the Government now propose it. We very much welcome that proposal, in part for the reasons that she has set out.

We support the switch from statements to education, health and care plans, and we absolutely share the ambition to encourage joint working between different agencies in drawing the plans up and providing the services described in them. We also welcome changes that have been made following campaigning by charities and parents, supported by Labour, and also through the pre-legislative scrutiny, which will maintain access to independent special schools and colleges as an option for children with SEN, and the extension of education, health and care plans for those young people on apprenticeships.

What is striking about this part of the Bill is not so much what it contains, but what it does not. If the Government are to meet the high expectations that they have themselves raised, important changes will need to be made during the Bill’s passage. As the Bill is currently drafted, the education, health and care plans will offer no more legal entitlement to support from health and social care than statements offer at the moment. We will press for stronger requirements on health and social services throughout the passage of the Bill, as well as a strengthening of the plans for those in post-19 education.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about imposing as best we can on health, but the NHS has a constitutional requirement that can conflict with attempts to impose duties on it. Has he thought up some creative ways past that barrier?

[Stephen Twigg]

The hon. Gentleman refers to an important point, which makes the case for the agenda on health and social care set out by the shadow Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), which moves towards a whole person approach. That has been a focus for adult health and social care, but the Bill is an opportunity to demonstrate that that can also be the case for children and young people.

Let me turn to the point raised by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). We, too, agree with the Select Committee that disabled children should be included in the provision of education, health and care plans whether or not they have a learning difficulty. Education, health and care plans should codify and bring together the current entitlements for disabled children and young people. The statutory rights that disabled children and young people have in terms of both assessment and provision are already laid out in disability legislation. Including disabled children, therefore, would serve to promote better co-ordination and integration of the duties that already exist, and could even lead to savings.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

Having spent time working in the children’s hospice movement, I am well aware of families constantly complaining about a lack of co-ordination between all the services that they have to access. Some children and young people are not in education and will therefore miss out. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that we must look at that area again in order to help families both inside and outside the hospice movement?

[Stephen Twigg]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and I will come on to the Government’s proposal in the Bill, which we welcome, on the position of children in that situation and the virtual school leadership model.

One in six children with additional needs will not be catered for under these plans, and it remains unclear what the provision will be for children who currently have school action or school action plus, which are to be scrapped. For example, will this mean that access to specialist teachers and educational psychologists might be at threat? Parents deserve a straight answer from Ministers on what will fill the void following the abolition of school action and school action plus. Will the progress of those children still be measured and published as they are now under the Special Educational Needs (Information) Act 2008? We share the Select Committee’s concerns about local offers. Of course, we welcome parents having more information about the services available in their area, but we will be seeking amendments to toughen up local offers to prevent this reform from simply exacerbating the postcode lottery that we know already exists.

On a matter relating to Parliament itself, unlike the current code of practice, a statutory document that sets out how the SEN system should work, the Bill requires only that the revised code is laid before Parliament under the negative resolution procedure. We believe that it should be subject to a positive resolution procedure, given the importance of its contents. Can the Minister—in his winding-up speech, or, even better, now—tell the House when the code will be published, and commit to its publication in full so that it can be scrutinised by the Bill Committee?

[Mr Timpson]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State. Just to try to answer his question, we intend to publish an indicative draft of the code of practice for the Committee stage, but of course it will still be subject to a full public consultation process in the autumn. On his point about a negative or positive resolution, is he mindful of the Select Committee’s recommendation for a negative resolution? The usual principle for other codes is that they are laid before the House through the negative resolution process.

[Stephen Twigg]

I am wary of ever disagreeing with the illustrious Education Committee—[Interruption.] That applies to the entire Committee, including its Chair. This is such an important issue, however, that using the positive resolution procedure merits consideration, although I welcome the Minister’s assurances regarding the publication of the code so that it can be scrutinised in Committee.

[John McDonnell]

We have had situations where affirmative and super-affirmative resolutions have been used so we can have a wider dialogue. One of the other issues apart from the code of practice is the regulations, particularly with regard to the local offer. The component parts of the local offer should be contained in the regulations. Is it not important that we at least have some sight of them during the Committee stage, too?

[Stephen Twigg]

That is absolutely right and sensible. The spirit of the Minister’s speech, and his and the Government’s handling of this issue—and the fact that he is nodding at me—suggest that my hon. Friend will get what he wants.

[Mr Timpson]

indicated assent.

[Stephen Twigg]

I welcome the Minister indicating that that is the case. Parents were told that this Bill would represent an end of the struggle for support and to the adversarial nature of the system, but there are many unanswered questions, which potentially undermine that goal.

I shall now discuss adoption and children in care. Clearly, one of the state’s most important duties is to care for children who, for whatever reason, are without a safe, loving family to care for them. In recent decades, the system has seen step changes in the fulfilment of that duty, but we know only too well that failings have let down some of the most vulnerable members in our society and, in the most extreme cases, have cost children and young people their lives. I welcome the emphasis that has been placed on reducing the time for completing an adoption and increasing the number of adoptions, where that is in the child’s best interests.

Let me put on the record my thanks to Martin Narey, who has done so much to champion the rights of children in the care system, and to The Times for its persistent campaign to address the crisis faced by too many young people in the care system. We should recognise the incredible commitments made by so many who work in the care system. Social workers up and down the country do a fantastic job, often in very trying circumstances, and it is right that we put on the record our thanks for their duty and service.

We should acknowledge important developments in social care, and I welcome the Government’s contribution of funding to the Frontline initiative for social work. Frontline has the potential to play an important role in raising performance in the care system, both for those currently working in the system and for the new recruits that it will bring in. Measures of the educational attainment by children in care show the scale of the challenge; the Minister pointed out the figures for 2012, when fewer than 15% of looked-after children secured at least five good GCSEs including English and maths.

[Alex Cunningham]

My hon. Friend will be aware that young carers can also have lower educational attainment. Does he agree that the work of organisations such as the Eastern Ravens Trust, in my constituency, is crucial in supporting these young people and that such organisations also need to be financially viable?

[Stephen Twigg]

Absolutely, and I shall briefly address the issue of young carers later in my speech. I pay tribute to that organisation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We know that voluntary sector organisations of that kind up and down the country do a fantastic job, often with very limited resources, and that they have often borne the brunt of the recent cuts in local government spending.

I welcome the introduction in statute of virtual school heads, whereby a duty is placed on local authorities to promote the educational achievement of the children in their care through a designated virtual head teacher. I also welcome the Bill’s emphasis on reducing unnecessary delays in adoptions, but I have concerns about removing completely any statutory requirement for consideration to be given to ethnicity in determining the placement of a child. We support the Government’s attempt to address this issue; we should indeed reduce the prominence given to ethnicity, but we must not move to the other extreme where it could be ignored entirely, which is the risk in the Bill, as drafted. We do believe that ethnicity should remain a consideration, and it is important that adoption agencies are clear about that. The weight of evidence points to delays being primarily caused by the age and health of a child. Last year Ofsted reported that

“there was little evidence of delay caused by an unrealistic search for a ‘perfect’ ethnic match.”

We share the view of the House of Lords Select Committee on Adoption Legislation that the requirement for due consideration on ethnicity should be on the statutory welfare checklist that the courts and adoption agencies must consider.

It is important for us to recognise other forms of permanency, alongside adoption—other options that may be in a child’s best interests. We should also be discussing reforms to strengthen support for foster carers, kinship carers and special guardians. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) has said—my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) reinforced the point—the Bill contains no provisions to strengthen the rights of young carers.

[Barbara Keeley]

That is a very important point. I have served on the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee for the draft Care and Support Bill. A promise was given that strengthening the rights of young carers would be covered in that Bill and this one. We had a battle to strengthen those rights in the pre-legislative Committee and no provision is made in this Bill to strengthen them. Young carers and their organisations are feeling really let down and it is important that we send the right message to them today.

[Stephen Twigg]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She anticipates my next point, as I was about to say exactly what she just said. Research by the BBC estimates that there are up to 700,000 young carers in this country, and we believe the Government should use the opportunity of this Bill to improve the identification, assessment and support given to young carers. As she reminded the House, the draft Care and Support Bill will give greater rights to adult carers, but support for young carers surely could and should be clarified and strengthened at the same time.

Ministers plan to write a presumption of “parental involvement” into the Children Act 1989. Labour strongly supports the principle that both parents should be involved in a child’s life, unless that compromises the child’s safety or welfare. However, we believe it is wrong to dilute the principle that the child’s best interests should always come first. Both the Select Committee on Education and David Norgrove have expressed significant concerns about the proposal.

The Select Committee on Justice, whose Chairman is in his place, has expressed a number of concerns, and I shall set them out. The first is that the Bill would not achieve its objectives in regard to shared parenting and that there is no evidence of a bias in the courts currently. The second is that the Bill could have a negative impact on the paramountcy principle, which states that when a court determines any question with respect to the upbringing of a child, the child’s welfare shall be paramount. The third is that the Bill will lead to misunderstandings about the right to particular amounts of time for parental contact because of the use of the word “involvement” without any definition and because of the use of presumption. A similar measure in Australia created an expectation that shared parenting meant equal time and led to courts becoming more clogged up as parents challenged decisions made on the basis of a child’s best interests, thus turning relatively straightforward decisions into lengthy conflicts.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

Does the shadow Secretary of State not acknowledge that what was proposed and became law in Australia was very different from what is being proposed here? Anything that can, in any way, be interpreted as meaning equality of time would not work. That is why the wording in the Bill, which has taken a lot of work and effort, is absolutely not a presumption about equality of time, but a presumption that all of us must surely agree that a child does best when both parents have as much involvement in the childhood of that child as possible, subject to the welfare provisions, which absolutely still stay paramount in the Bill. Why, yet again, do Labour Members not recognise that there is a problem and that at last we have legislation trying to address it?

[Stephen Twigg]

I certainly do not doubt the sincerity of the attempt to address this issue and to learn from the Australian experience. Labour’s judgment, as I have set it out today, has taken into account not only what the hon. Gentleman and other Government Members have said, but what has been said by organisations working in the sector, including in the field of children’s law. They tell us that there is a gap between the Government’s intention and what might happen in practice. We have to anticipate those unintended consequences, so although I absolutely agree with his final comments about the importance of both parents being involved, provided there is no threat to the safety or welfare of children, the paramount principle has to be the best welfare of the child—that has to come first. The concern is that what the Bill proposes could take us down the road that the Australians went down. We should explore this issue further in Committee, because there is a real difference of opinion on it. I urge Ministers to listen to those who are expressing a different view, so that we make sure that we do not have, as an unintended consequence of this Bill, something that makes the situation worse.

The Bill proposes a 26-week limit for care proceedings. At present, children wait for an average of 55 weeks for a decision about their future. The Government are seeking to address that, and we support them in their aim to speed up proceedings. However, speed should never be at the expense of getting it right for children. We want safeguards to be built into the system to ensure that complex issues are not overlooked and siblings are not separated needlessly. Because much of the delay comes from local authorities, the Government must also address the dangerously heavy case loads of social workers.

Again, we support the recommendations of the Justice Committee. It proposes first that the 26-week time limit should be specified in secondary legislation, while primary legislation should specify the power to set such a limit so that it can be amended easily if it proves unworkable in practice, and secondly that the clause should be amended to give judges the power to take cases outside the 26-week timetable.

[Mr Timpson]

The hon. Gentleman’s point about the work done by local authorities before care proceedings is extremely important. That is why we have placed more emphasis on family group conferences, and on the need to ensure that as much as possible of the evidence that is required for a case to be dealt with as quickly as possible is available at the inception of the application. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that we cannot maintain a situation in which the average time for a case to be dealt with is 17 weeks in one court and 89 weeks in another? The tri-borough pilot in London has produced a reduction to 24 weeks, less than the 26 weeks proposed in the Bill.

[Stephen Twigg]

I understand that specifying a time limit in that way in primary legislation is very unusual internationally, and possibly unique, although that is not a sufficient reason for not doing so. I think that the Justice Committee’s proposals address the legitimate points that the Minister has made, but do so in a way that would not only enable timely decisions to be made, but allow for greater flexibility in individual cases. That strikes me as a sensible compromise, and I hope that it will be considered during the Bill’s Committee stage.

There is a child care crisis in this country, with rising costs. The Government’s proposals to change child care ratios have been widely criticised as a threat to quality. We oppose the proposal in the Bill to remove local authorities’ duty to conduct an assessment of the sufficiency of child care at least every three years.

As for child care agencies, we welcome the idea of additional support for childminders to promote work force development and progression, to increase efficiency and share best practice, and to improve local co-ordination to help parents find good childminders. However, as they stand, the plans are rather hazy on detail. Ministers will need to give assurances that they will not cause knock-on effects, such as extra costs to parents. Ministers will also need to clarify what they will mean for local authorities, how often Ofsted will inspect agencies, and how the criteria for the inspection of agencies will differ from those for inspections of individual childminders.

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

Does my hon. Friend share my fear that agencies may cream off a profit and add costs to parents rather than supporting better child care? We have seen that happen in the older care sector.

[Stephen Twigg]

My hon. Friend has raised a legitimate concern that has been expressed by a number of other people. I hope that the agencies will provide a genuine opportunity for the raising of standards and improvement of quality in the child care sector, but I think that if the system is not managed and co-ordinated carefully, with a continuing role for local authorities, there will be a risk of our going down the path described by my hon. Friend. The quality and cost of child care, as well as parental confidence in childminders, must surely be at the centre of any changes.

Since 2010, the Government have moved away from the last Labour Government’s emphasis on children’s well-being and early intervention. We welcome the additional funds that have been allocated to adoption, but why do the Government always raid the early intervention budget for such new forms of funding?

We are halfway through a Parliament during which the Prime Minister told us that we would have the most “family friendly” Government in Europe. What have we seen instead? We have seen a £l.1 billion cut in early intervention funds, a 10% reduction in the child care element of working tax credit, and cuts in Sure Start as a result of which there are now 400 fewer Sure Start centres than there were in 2010.

Labour Members welcome the opportunity to debate the children and families agenda, not least because it has been sidelined by the present Government. We will work throughout the Bill’s passage to reach a cross-party consensus on lasting reforms. Our policy will be led by evidence, and by what is in the best interests of the children and families of this country. I think that the Bill gives Parliament an opportunity to reaffirm the principles of Every Child Matters, and to send the Government the message that inclusion and children’s well-being go hand in hand with high standards of education for all.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am now imposing an eight-minute limit.

18:06

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I welcome the Bill. It is a Bill of many parts.

I intend to concentrate on the clauses that deal with family law. The core issue is the need to deal with the long-standing failure of the legal, judicial, social services and educational systems in order adequately to safeguard those of our children who need to be taken into care. The present arrangement is costing the taxpayer some £950 million a year, but is straining to keep up with increased demand. In 2007 it involved some 19,650 children, but by 2011 the number had risen to 29,492. In 1989 the average case took 12 weeks, but by 2011 the figure was 54 weeks. I know that by last year it had fallen to 48 weeks, and I was pleased to hear the Minister say that it has fallen again to 47 weeks—that is a great improvement—but there is still a very long way to go.

In the event, the reform approach supported by most parties was that adopted by the Norgrove family justice review, which finally reported in November 2011. We owe sincere thanks to David Norgrove and his team for their sterling work. As the report pointed out, there have been at least seven reviews of family justice since 1989, and more money would not be the answer even if it were available. What we need is fundamental reform.

The core of the Norgrove report attempts to pull together the disparate strands of the overall service. It aims to ensure that the best interests of children are met and to provide them with a voice, to unify the service into a family justice service sponsored by the Ministry of Justice, and to provide effective leadership. When I was a Minister, I encountered as poor a managerial situation as I have seen in any field and in any sector, complicated by regional variations and the lack of any proper measurement of performance. In some regions of the country, the judges were being blamed for delay on the part of the lawyers; in others, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service was being blamed for delay on the part of the judges. However, that was mainly anecdotal, as we had no reliable measurements of success or failure and no recording mechanism.

It is important to emphasise that the implementation of family justice reform has not waited for this legislation, which forms only part of the overall picture. Indeed, I note that the vital aspect of the introduction of a single family court is proposed in the Crime and Courts Bill. It provides for an applicant to have, in future, a single entry point, avoiding what can currently be a complicated choice between the different family courts. It should also mean that the right level of judge is allocated to the case.

As the Minister noted, much of the framework of the family justice reforms has already been put in place over the past two years. For instance, the Bill’s key 26-week time limit for the completion of care and supervision proceedings would probably mean little if we had not already set up a national Family Justice Board to orchestrate a cross-agency strategy at the centre and local family justice boards to review performance at court level, backed up by new performance figures—starting from last year—for each and every court. The key point is that if the 26-week limit is not reached, we will know where and by how much it has been missed, the reasons for the delay and the patterns of poor performance in an area. In other words, it should result in more positive action and less of the old blame culture. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether that is happening on the ground.

I am afraid, however, that the Government must play a part, too. For too long, policy has floated without effective leadership among the Department for Education, the Ministry of Justice and the judiciary, resulting in delay, confusion and the detriment of children’s best interests. When I was at the MOJ, I and my opposite number in the Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who I am pleased to see in the Chamber, partly addressed that significant failing by holding regular meetings with the president of the family division. I hope that that joint working continues and that the new Family Justice Board will now be included.

A good working relationship with the judiciary is key to the implementation of these measures, but we must also appreciate that the Norgrove review proposed, and the Government agreed, that CAFCASS should be moved to the MOJ or Her Majesty’s Courts Service within the MOJ. Will the Minister advise the House on the timing? From my experience, although he might not agree with me, I would recommend that the Children’s Minister should be moved to the Ministry of Justice from the Department for Education in contemplation of that operational shift. Government must fall into line with everyone else and unify policy and delivery for children as far as possible.

The 26-week time limit represents the iconic change that family justice must undergo, which will involve nearly halving the average time. Even our best courts are nowhere near meeting the target. I note that some judges and practitioners are saying that the limit is unfair or unachievable for one reason or another, but we must stay resolute—I say that in the knowledge that pre-legislative scrutiny has already marginally diluted the time-limit clause. We need more effective management and better joint working by agencies backed up by targets and monitoring. We must drive the delay down; the children deserve no less. It was therefore entirely appropriate that the Government insisted on keeping the 26-week limit in the Bill and that is why I strongly support other aspects of part 2, including the measure to ensure that timetabling is child-focused. There can always be another report, but we must ask whether a delay is in the child’s best interest.

The 26-week limit is a target to be worked towards. It will not be reached overnight, but we need tough targets if the courts are to get down to it. Ultimately, the judge makes the decisions in the court and they need to be better managed than they have been in the past. In that regard, I recognise the sterling work on the modernisation of judges’ working practices carried out by Mr Justice Ryder.

We should also note that for too long family law has been the poor relation of criminal law, and the lack of time given to family cases has meant that judges have had to go back to their criminal work. Judges need to spend more time considering the causes for delay and why the service has been worse as a result.

Finally on the subject of private family law, I have long been a great supporter of mediation and I therefore wholeheartedly support the mediation information and assessment meeting requirement in the Bill. Although that has been supported by a pre-action protocol for more than a year, I hope that placing it in statute will mean that those parts of the country where the courts have overlooked the need under the PAP to go to mediation first will now have to take note. In my view, the Government were correct to be cautious about the proposal by the Select Committee on Justice that judges should make decisions based on the merits of compliance. Mediation is an alternative to judges and I am delighted that its use is increasing. It is cheaper and quicker than court, and as both parties need to buy into the process, its settlements are often better observed and less divisive than court judgments.

There is a long way to go in improving family justice in this country, but I believe that the Bill, along with other things that are now being done, helps to set us off in the right direction.

18:13

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

I have personal and family experience and experience in local and central Government of the matters covered by the first three parts of the Bill.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), the shadow Secretary of State, on his speech and its emphasis on the overall approach that must be adopted to invest in the well-being of young people and families from the very earliest years.

The Minister’s personal commitment and grasp of the issues are obvious and welcome, and I wish him well in taking the Bill through the House. I advise him not to take the advice of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and get himself moved to the Ministry of Justice, as I am sure the Secretary of State for Education will give him the support needed to do the job.

The welcome streamlining and speeding up of adoption, with safeguards, under part 1 is very welcome, but as a number of Members have said in interventions, we should not forget the critical role of families, including grandparents, and of intensive fostering, which is often forgotten. When she was the social services chair in Birmingham, Edwina Currie came to Sheffield while I was social services chair there to see what we were doing with intensive fostering. Our approach comes in waves, and then it goes away again. A lot of money can be wasted if we avoid doing the obvious of getting people with expertise and supporting them in doing their job.

On part 2 and the subject of family justice, I have a slight disagreement with some of my colleagues. I do not normally speak about this, because it is too raw and sensitive. Although I am not saying that they should not speak, if they have not had experience of the family court and the family justice system they should be wary of taking a view. It is a nightmare and it is almost impossible for those who do not have large sums of money to deploy.

I welcome the Government’s emphasis on Norgrove 1, as David Norgrove and his colleagues did an excellent job. It was rational that Norgrove 1 should be the way forward. The child arrangements orders and emphasis on mediation, even if it does not work perfectly, are the right way to proceed and I advise people to listen to Mr Justice Ernest Ryder on these issues, as he has enormous experience and a great deal of wisdom to offer.

I have both personal and family experience of the issues covered by part 3. Let me pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who, like me, has had experience of special needs, and emphasise the importance of ensuring that those with disabilities and special needs do not end up being separated out. We should build on our experience of the education, health and care plans and early assessment. Back in the 1970s, Sheffield and Coventry received Government funding from the social services and health Departments to experiment with these questions and those who are worried about the obligations or otherwise of the health service should consider whether joint funding arrangements might be needed in some places. Barbara Castle invented that approach and it was a good thing. Our approach often goes in waves and we often come back to things that we have abolished. Such an approach would have a lot to offer, but would be accessible only when all services were prepared to collaborate and work together so that the money could be drawn down to meet the plans.

There is no point in having a local offer, the information or the signposting, although that is crucial, there is no point in having the code, although I welcome the Minister’s commitment to making that available in Committee and for consultation, and there is no point in letting families believe that an offer of entitlement is on the table unless it is funded and the rights are applicable and accessible without the need to go to court. We need to work together.

Let me say a word about the welcome commitment to nought-to-25 provision. My experience of residential school started at the age of four, and although I would not recommend that, over the years I have been won over to a strong belief in the principle of integration. As with other provisions in the Bill, we must ensure that the child’s needs are paramount. We need a system that works within a local authority area, collaborates across local authority boundaries and uses a degree of regional planning—if I can use that term, as it is not fashionable any more—to provide real options and choices and, when necessary, a national perspective. That is particularly true in post-16 provision when residential care and support is needed. Above all, the emphasis should be not just on education and skills but on skills for life that enable people to live independently on equal terms and to be self-reliant. That takes more for some people than simply going, as I did when I left residential schooling, to the local college of technology.

We need an approach that means that the colleges which will be called section 41 colleges know that they have secure funding. I do not understand why the Skills Funding Agency cannot be used for that purpose, rather than relying on a lottery of very expensive care from local authorities, as I said at a recent reception. I also said that funding for prisoners was greater than that for which we were asking for post-16 residential provision, and that in terms of location, food and discipline, my school was a bit like prison sometimes. One young man who was at the reception to support college principals waggishly suggested that it was the same in the school he went to—I do not think he had a very good welcome after that. It is not the same; things have moved on. We live in an entirely different environment, thank goodness, and we have the necessary collaboration.

For once, on most of the issues, we have genuine commitment on both sides of the House, but we shall achieve what we seek only if there is collaboration across all services. I shall give just one example. If child and adolescent mental health services are not adequately funded, and there is not support from both health and local government, we will end up spending far more down the line, both in terms of mental health services and the Prison Service, than if we get it right. Together, we can do the job better—and I am sure we will—than if we knock bells out of each other individually.

18:21

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

It is a pleasure to follow the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), who brings not only working experience in the field but very illuminating personal experience that is relevant to several aspects of the Bill. That gives his comments an authority that we should take note of.

I shall refer briefly to the family justice elements of the Bill. The Justice Committee report on the draft family justice clauses has been cited several times this afternoon. It was published on 14 December 2012, and we had previously reported on the issue in July 2011. We broadly welcomed the draft clauses, which covered a wide range of public and private family law, and largely followed the Norgrove recommendations. However, we had significant concerns about the clause on “parental involvement.” Those words represent a change; the original term was “shared parenting”, which we disapproved of because it implies the carving up of the child’s time in the interests of the parents. That point is fundamental to our arguments about the Bill, and I shall return to it in more detail.

Relationship breakdown and the family justice process are highly emotive topics, producing strongly held views, many based upon personal experience. We bore that in mind during our inquiry, and in addition made sure that we considered the proposed changes in the light of other changes that are taking place in the family justice system. I should place it on record that the Government accepted a number of our detailed recommendations on the drafting of the Bill, and I much appreciate the work of the Committee’s legal adviser and the Government’s ready response.

On the public law clauses, we welcomed the Government’s commitment to reducing delay in the care process, which is absolutely essential. Lost time is lost opportunity in a child’s life, and cannot be returned or repaid. We praised the work being undertaken by some local authorities and courts on a shorter timetable. We were impressed by the changes we heard about in social worker training and management, and by the work being done in Hampshire and the three London boroughs engaged in the tri-borough project. We welcome the Government’s involvement, although we have some concerns about how it will be pursued.

We argued that when it is in the child’s best interests, it is important that the child’s wider family and family friends are not excluded from the care process. We recommended that the Government undertake to review the practical effect of the 26-week time limit to ensure that kinship carers are not excluded from the local authority or court decision-making processes because of the rush to comply with the timetable.

We recommended that the draft clause on judicial scrutiny of care plans be revised to make express reference to contact by the child with the birth family, including the wider family. We are pleased that the Government have committed to considering whether further guidance on the importance of kinship contact is required in advance of the legislation, and to review the general impact of the clause on an ongoing basis. We are also pleased that clause 15 on care plans now makes express reference to section 34(11) of the Children Act 1989, which considers parental contact with children in care. These are often difficult cases, but parental contact can remain important even when a decision has been taken to put a child in care.

We are glad that the Government removed the word “exceptional” from the test for extensions to the 26-week limit. It created the odd and rather unhelpful impression that some children’s cases are more important and more exceptional than others, whereas the test should be whether the extension is necessary for the case to be resolved justly.

On the private law clauses, we heard evidence about the training received by mediators for mediation, information and assessment meetings—occasionally I have to remind myself that is what MIAMs stands for. We were concerned to ensure that the Government gave help and assistance to mediators. As has been pointed out in interventions, there will be a large demand for skilled mediation, so quality standards are important. The Government told us that they have asked the pre-proceedings working group of the Family Justice Council to look at the issue, and the Justice Committee looks forward to seeing the results of that work.

The Government disagreed with the Committee on only a small number of the recommendations, but particularly on whether the 26-week limit should be set out in primary or secondary legislation and how flexible it should be. I welcome the support we heard today from the Opposition Front Bench on that issue. The big disagreement was about how the parental involvement principle is applied. It is not really about the principle, as there should be no disagreement that it is in the interests of the child to remain in contact with both parents, unless the risk of harm seriously outweighs it. We fully support that principle. The adoption of the Committee’s recommendation to change the title of the relevant clause is welcome. It represents a change from sharing out parenting to recognising parental involvement, and we want wider and more careful consideration of those parts of the Bill. The Government have expressly stated that the courts already operate on the basis that both parents should be involved in a child’s life, unless of course it is not safe or not consistent with the child’s welfare. They say that they do not intend to change outcomes, and cases will not be judged differently as a result of the legislation, so why is the provision there? What is it intended to achieve?

The Government say that

“the purpose of the clause is not to promote the equal division of a child’s time between parents…it will encourage the resolution of agreements outside court by making clear the basis on which courts’ decisions are made and by ensuring that parents’ expectations are realistic when deciding whether to bring a claim to court. The Government anticipates that over time, this change will contribute to a societal shift towards greater recognition of the value of both parents in a child’s life, and to a reduction of the perception of bias within the court system.”

As I indicated earlier, that is a pretty optimistic claim. It would be very good if it were the case, but the danger is that false expectations are created by the inclusion of those words, and much harm could result, as we see from some of the press coverage. For example, The Daily Telegraph reported:

“The new legislation states that judges should ensure that fathers are given the legal right to spend time to develop a meaningful relationship with their sons or daughters.”

Actually, the Government expressly excluded the words “meaningful relationship” from the legislation. If an expectation has been created by press reporting, perhaps encouraged by some briefing, we risk disappointing many non-resident parents, most but not all of them fathers, who feel that their case has not been properly considered, and that in future courts will look at the issue in terms of sharing out time.

[Tim Loughton]

Can we nail that misconception straight away? The provision has nothing to do with giving rights to parents; it is about the responsibilities of parents and the rights that children should have. They have a right to have both their parents as involved as possible—[Hon. Members: “And grandparents.”]—as well as other kinship care. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the reason why the addition of this provision to legislation—for the first time—is so important is that it sends a clear and strong message to resident parents who use the court system to freeze the non-resident parent out of their relationship with the children that it will no longer wash. We want to keep more cases out of the courts, to be agreed amicably in the best interests of the children. That is what it is about.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman and former Minister on what we are seeking to achieve, but he should note that the press coverage is already suggesting something rather different, which is the sharing of time—

[Tim Loughton]

But it is wrong.

[Sir Alan Beith]

As the hon. Gentleman says, it is wrong; perhaps the Government will have to make it rather clearer that it is wrong. On dealing with the perception, even if it is false, that there is a bias in the court system, there is another issue that figures much more largely in the concerns of many non-resident parents, predominantly fathers, and that is enforcement. Court orders are made that appear to give them reasonable involvement in the life of their son or daughter, but they are not observed, and the process of enforcing them is long, time-consuming and ineffective. We urged the Government to produce proposals on enforcement. They concluded that, on balance, it would be premature to legislate now to give courts additional enforcement sanctions. What they hope to do is bring cases quickly back to court—preferably to the same judge. I welcome that; it would be highly desirable.

18:30

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

I represent one of the youngest constituencies in the UK: over 20% of the population of my borough is under 16. Between the last two censuses, the population in the borough of Hackney grew by 30,000. That included a large increase in under-fives, and many people in their early 20s and 30s, many of them parents. Child care is therefore of great importance in my constituency, as well as up and down the country.

The Bill deals with many important issues, but I want to focus on child care. The muddle of Government child care policy is not helped by the child care clauses. They make nothing clearer; in fact, they make the chaos worse. First, the Bill repeals the local authority duty to assess child care provision. I am against that, because it is important that we provide an accurate assessment of the availability of, and demand for, child care in an area, and it is reasonable to expect that to be done locally. I am greatly in favour of local authorities having more say on the subject, but if we remove that statutory duty, in areas unlike mine, where there are not that many children, that may be something that falls off the edge of a local authority’s area of responsibilities. That is another example of the Government’s small-state-is-good ideology, this time on a local level, and with working parents as the victims. It does not square with the Government’s desires—all our desires, indeed—and need to encourage people into work.

There is also a huge issue to do with the proposed ratios between children and their nursery carers or childminders. The policy is unworkable. It beggars belief. It does nothing to reduce costs, but if one were to say, on a generous reading, that it did, it would be at the cost of quality. So that Members are absolutely clear, let me explain that the Government propose that the adult-child ratios for nurseries should go from one adult per three children to one adult per four children for one-year-olds and younger—for the baby room in a nursery, as most of us would know it—and from one adult per four children to one adult per six children for two-year olds. They propose changing the childminder-to-child ratios from 1:1 to 1:2 for the under-ones, and from 1:3 to 1:4 for children aged two to five.

I am the second of 10 children, so I do not have a problem with lots of children being looked after, but imagine taking six toddlers through potty training, or to the park. A constituent wrote to me on the subject. She is just one of the many parents, childminders and professional child carers in Hackney who are really concerned about the proposal. Her child is looked after by a childminder, whom she values greatly. She says:

“If this ratio had come in before I had gone back to work I may not have gone at all. I didn’t want my baby in a nursery. I feel very strongly that parents need the option of leaving our children in a safe, caring home environment”

with a childminder. She speaks for so many parents up and down the country, and indeed for childminders.

That brings me on to the proposals in the Bill relating to the setting up of childminder agencies. I mentioned my concerns about this in an intervention. I am not alone in my scepticism. It is unclear from the Bill how the proposals will work. Among other things, I am concerned that the concept of an agency is different to different people. It might mean one thing to the Minister who made the proposal, and another to others. Is it a children’s centre or a local authority effectively acting as an agent for Ofsted and professional development locally—something that I could support, with the right safeguards—or is it the relentless march of the private sector, supported by the Government, who are enabling it to turn a profit from the relationship between child- minders and parents? We have had no further clarity on that from the Minister today. Will the agencies be able to allocate any childminder to any family, or will the parent have a say? The local, very specific negotiation about a child is vital to the relationship between parents and childminders.

Will there be the recreation of what we could laughingly call the paradigm of the agencies that manage domiciliary care for older people? As someone who has been a carer for two older people, I would hate to see child care go down that route—to see agencies creaming off a profit while providing inadequate care—when we have a very good childminder sector that has improved immensely thanks to the Ofsted badge of quality, which is prized by childminders and valued by parents.

That is not to say that I do not support any change. Sometimes there are challenges arising from Ofsted inspecting such a range of childminders, but I would prefer that to be done through the local authority, or possibly the local children’s centre, both of which already have a relationship with the childminder, rather than through new agencies being set up.

I want to touch on special educational needs, which are a big issue in my constituency. Of course I welcome the principle of improving provision; I think we would all agree on that. On all these issues, I seek to work with the Government to try to improve what they have to offer, because we have no great desire to make a political battleground of an issue as important as the future of our children, but where are the safeguards around special educational needs, and the measures to ensure that the new education, health and care plans include proper, joined-up working to make life easier for parents and to deliver swifter, fairer outcomes for children?

At the moment, there is no single point of accountability for parents seeking redress, and that is a big challenge in areas such as mine. Parents with deep pockets who care for their children can find the money to challenge the provision that is made—or not made, more likely—for their children, and to argue the case. However, many families in my constituency—the majority—cannot afford to pay for their own private support through the SEN minefield. Although there is a lot of good talk about the new provisions, there is no detail on how they will work. A single point of redress is very important if there is to be a level playing field for all parents—and, more important, all children, as they seek the educational support that they need.

For all that I want a cross-party approach on the importance of quality child care and proper SEN provision, my worry is that the former Children’s Minister, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), was correct when he said to the Select Committee on Education a month ago that the children and families agenda was being “downgraded” by his colleague, the Secretary of State for Education, and was “a declining priority” for the Government. I hope that is not the case. I hope that the House can send the message to the Government that we care very deeply about making sure that the Bill really delivers for parents, and for the children in my constituency who will be paying the pensions of the rest of the country in years to come.

18:29

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

The Children and Families Bill is a hugely important piece of legislation, and a huge tribute to the Secretary of State; to the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson); to his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton); and to other Ministers. It says a lot that the Bill has been every bit as much a priority for them as all the other major reforms launched by the Department for Education since 2010. That is all the more important given that it has been subject to considerable pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation.

My interest in the Bill lies in the area of special needs education—an area in which my county of Herefordshire has, despite very low levels of public funding, built a significant body of expertise owing to excellent school leadership, teaching and parental engagement. I refer to schools in my constituency such as Blackmarston primary school and Barrs Court secondary school, both of which do extraordinary work with disabled young people, and both of which have coped magnificently with the need for expansion as numbers have grown. One of my early experiences as a candidate—I was not even an MP —was of being pressed into service at Barrs Court school in an “X Factor” competition, complete with sunglasses and shoulder-length red wig. It was frightening to me but a source of hilarity to those watching.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

You should put it on YouTube.

[Jesse Norman]

I will resist that temptation.

The schools that I have mentioned and others will welcome the Bill’s insistence that the new education, health and care plans must be effective for young people all the way up to 25 years old. I specifically want to single out the work of Richard Aird, newly OBE and head of Barrs Court school, and of Alison Sheppard on behalf of parents in the county in pushing hard for proper further education for disabled young people in Herefordshire. Why should a young person with special needs be treated any worse than one without?

I welcome the new duty on local authorities to set out a local offer of suitable schools and institutions for each individual with special needs, but I want to draw the attention of the House and of Ministers to the fact that this carries with it a risk that the new duty will be interpreted in a purely local and parochial way, cutting out national providers with specialist expertise in particular areas. In Hereford, the Royal National College, for example, has superb facilities for the blind and partially sighted and is dedicated both to the skills of learning and of living. It combines these with a track record of innovation over several decades, ranging from special new Braille technologies to flexible learning methods for the visually impaired to the development of blind football and other sports at an international level. If any Member of the House has not seen a blind football match, I strongly encourage them to do so. It is a magnificent sport and full of extraordinary skill.

No local provider could match the Royal National College for expertise and deep understanding of the highly complex special needs associated with visual impairment. The students’ experience bears this out. I think of the student at the RNC with a passion for information technology who arrived, having been bullied for having a teaching assistant and special support at a mainstream school. He took his GCSEs three times and struggled to do a standard IT course because of his visual impairment. After two years not in employment, education or training, he was finally referred to the RNC by the local Jobcentre Plus. He now takes specialist IT training for the visually impaired and courses in art, and is back on track for the IT career he always dreamed of. I invite the Minister to meet me and the Royal National College to discuss its expertise and these issues in more detail.

In closing, let me say that there appears to me to be a straightforward solution to the problem of parochial local offers. This is to require that local authorities include national specialist providers as well as regional and local ones in those local offers. This has three benefits: it maximises choice, promotes competition and preserves the national providers’ deep reservoirs of skill and expertise. It also perfectly fits with the Bill’s distinctively Conservative emphasis on excellence and institution building. I ask Ministers to give this idea their close consideration as the Bill progresses.

18:42

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

The principle that the interests of the child are paramount, which is enshrined in the Children Act 1989, should underpin all our legislation, policy making and attitudes to children. I therefore welcome the strengthening of the role of the Children’s Commissioner by giving a statutory remit to promote and protect children’s rights. It is crucial that this strengthened mandate is underpinned by sufficient resources.

The Children’s Commissioner’s recent report exposed the extent of child sexual exploitation in this country. I had hoped that the Bill would contain some provision further to support child witnesses in court. I will take a couple of minutes to explain why, giving an example that shocked me deeply—that of a young girl who was the alleged victim of anal rape before the age of three. The girl was interviewed on video six months after the initial disclosure. Aged four, she was brought to court for a live cross-examination via video link about the matters described in the video a year earlier.

To get to court on time, the girl had to be woken at 6 o’clock. However, when she arrived, the court was not ready for her and, after waiting all day, she was sent home. The cross-examination took place the following afternoon, with difficult-to-follow questioning, including the use of double negatives. The prosecution did not apply for a registered intermediary. During cross-examination no one except the judge intervened to ask if the child needed a break. How can this happen in the name of justice in our courts?

The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 introduced the use of a wide range of special measures for vulnerable witnesses. The use of special measures is important as children do not approach communication in the same way as adults. NSPCC recent research showed that only 2% of young witnesses receive support from registered intermediaries, and also that at least half of young witnesses reported being unable to understand some of the questions that they were asked in court. I agree with the NSPCC that children who have been the victim of abuse should always be supported by a registered intermediary, as they have been shown to improve the administration of justice, ensuring that questioning and cross-examination practice maximises the quality of victim evidence. Furthermore and very importantly, the court experience for the child is less traumatic.

Obstacles to implementing section 28 of the 1999 Act must be overcome as rapidly as possible. Governments have been delaying for practical reasons the implementation of the special measures provision, which would allow a young child’s evidence, including cross-examination, to be obtained out of court and in advance of a trial. This would reduce delays in the start of trials and in the presentation of evidence at trial, a cause of great distress to child witnesses.

[Tim Loughton]

I strongly support the case that the hon. Lady is making, but that applies to older children as well, who are deterred from coming forward with their evidence on the basis that they will be re-traumatised in child sexual exploitation cases, of which there are some notorious ones currently under way. We need to make the system far more child-friendly to enable those children to make their statements that can nail the perpetrators in court, and not make them go through those traumatic events all over again in front of multiple barristers, as can so often be the case. I strongly support the point that the hon. Lady is making.

[Ann Coffey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. What he says is quite right. It is a problem that goes right through the system, from the youngest to the oldest children. They are put through a terrible trauma, and it is sad that the measures that were introduced in 1999 are not being used in the courts. Something must be done about that.

I welcome the measures to reduce delays in adoptions. Concerns have been expressed about delays in adoption as a result of ideological correctness and because of the requirement in section 1(5) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 to give

“due consideration to the child’s religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background”

when making an adoption placement. The previous Government made it clear that this did not mean that a child should always be matched with a family of their ethnic origin or that this consideration overrode other welfare interests. Clause 2 removes that requirement. If that clarifies that this is not an overriding consideration in placement, that it is welcome. However, the requirement remains to consider the child’s age, sex, background and any of the child’s characteristics that the court or agency considers relevant when making a placement, and of course that will include religion and race. The Children’s Commissioner in her new role has a statutory responsibility to protect children’s rights, including the right for children to learn about and enjoy their own culture. So I do not think this issue can be resolved by legislation alone. It is more a matter of good adoption practice, with the individual needs of the child being paramount.

Just as the issue of ethnicity is complex, so is the issue of contact in adoption placements. This is certainly the experience of constituents of mine, who were informed by the local authority that placed the children for adoption that there was to be a voluntary letter box agreement—that is, letters are exchanged on an agreed basis. The way that that is being implemented was causing a great deal of distress. When I asked my constituents why they continued with this, as they clearly thought it was not in the best interests of the child, they said:

“You are correct, the agreement is voluntary and not legally enforceable. Our concern is this: the LA”—

the local authority—

“have said that although the agreement is not legally enforceable, birth parents have the right to apply for leave of court to get a contact order and so we were to be careful what we agreed to. This is written in a leaflet they gave us after we were told of what the contact arrangements would be. I will be quite honest with you . . . we feel very vulnerable and I have been having sleepless nights worrying about what we are to do. We can’t continue an agreement that is not in the best interests of our children but we feel that we have to continue it as we feel threatened.”

What a situation for adopters to be in!

I am unclear whether clause 8 will help my constituents. It may be that this is an issue of good practice and ensuring that adopters have the proper support. The new helpline manned by adopters, which was announced in September, will be very much welcomed by my constituents.

I tabled a written question on the number of children returning to care as a result of adoption breakdown. I was told that the Department for Education does not currently collect those figures but will do so from 2014. I think that it is important that there is much better research into what is needed to support an adoption placement and into the factors in adoption breakdown, which can take many forms, including sending children to boarding school, youth custody, returning to birth parents, admission to psychiatric units and sleeping on a friend’s sofa.

I understand that research is being undertaken by the university of Bristol. The demands on modern-day adopters are perhaps summed up by its introduction:

“More children have been entering care because of maternal drug/alcohol misuse, and the impact of such use during pregnancy and later parental neglect have detrimental developmental effects. Attachment difficulties/disorders and the impact of early trauma have all risen to prominence and been linked with placement disruption.”

We need that research. We have a shortage of adopters, and perhaps more families would be willing to adopt if they could be reassured that they would get the support they need. We will need a range of different care models, including adoption, family-based and residential, to meet the complex needs of children coming into our care. Adoption will always be the best placement for some children. We need to do all we can to support the therapeutic parenting we are asking of many adopters.

In conclusion, we must also do more to improve the quality of all our care placements so that when children come into the care system because their parenting is not good enough, they are provided with the best possible opportunities and do not again face poor care because of poor parenting in the care system.

18:48

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

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, which has been interesting throughout. I congratulate former Ministers and the Secretary of State on their contribution to the Bill. In particular, I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), on the way in which he presented the Bill today, on how he dealt with pre-legislative scrutiny by the Education Committee and on his general willingness to listen. If Ministers have the right attitude, the pre-legislative scrutiny approach is exactly the right way to go about creating legislation. With reference to another issue, I think that Ministers who listen to suggested changes and then change tack accordingly should be seen not as weaker as a result, but as stronger. It is about doing the right thing in the long-term interests of children, rather than trying to avoid political embarrassment on the day. Fortunately, pre-legislative scrutiny allows no such embarrassment anyway.

Although I broadly welcome all the provisions in the Bill, I will focus today on special educational needs, which the Education Committee has looked at. The Committee’s recommendations were addressed very thoroughly in the Government’s response, on which the Minister deserves to be congratulated. The regulations and the code of practice will be absolutely key to whether the legislation delivers for children with SEN, as we hope it will, but we are yet to have any sight of them. It will be so important that the Bill Committee looks at, understands and scrutinises those regulations as it does its work.

Of course, those regulations will include the detailed requirements on local offers, which will be critical. I think that I speak on behalf of the whole Committee when I say that we have no doubt that for those with education, health and care plans the framework set out in the Bill will definitely lead to an improvement, although not perfection. Getting it right for those on school action and school action plus schemes—in other words, not the 3% who have a statement now, but the 17% who are on other types of support—is critical, and that comes down to the local offer.

I am delighted that the Minister agreed to extend the pilots, but, in truth, as we scrutinised the legislation we had little information back from the pilots that would allow us to understand what local offers would actually look like. The regulations relating to local offers need to address our recommendation on the need to clarify what will be available for pupils with low to moderate SEN, particularly those with speech, language and communication needs, who make up a substantial group within the category. That is dealt with in paragraphs 52 to 53 of the Government’s response.

The Committee recommended having minimum standards for local offers in the Bill. We wrestled with the idea of a framework, so I was pleased to hear the Minister say today that there would be a common framework. I am not sure whether he will also be summing up at the end of the debate—

[Mr Timpson]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Stuart]

No, that would be unusual. Perhaps the Minister who will sum up can tell us more about what the common framework for local offers means. Will that go some way towards our minimum standards? Will it create a formal basis to make it easier to compare provision in one area and another? It will be important to find out.

We are delighted that the Government accepted the Committee’s recommendation that the code of practice should be a statutory document and be laid before Parliament, although Her Majesty’s Opposition, doing their job, will rightly press on whether that should be by negative or affirmative resolution, which I am sure will be a useful debate to have.

The role of health remains unclear in the Bill, but not because Ministers are not trying their best; it touches on the issue I raised earlier about the NHS constitution. On the positive front, we are encouraged by the Minister’s clear determination to find ways to hold the NHS to account for how well it meets the needs of children. The Bill makes provision for time scales—they apply, for example, to responding to requests for assessments of SEN, and to carrying out the assessments—to be included in regulations, including provision for aligning time scales between local authorities and health. That is to be welcomed, because it is critical, but it needs to be watched closely when implemented.

The Bill will maintain many essential protections, entitlements and freedoms for parents and young people, including a specific right to request a statutory assessment. We also welcome the fact that the Committee’s recommendation that the detail in an education, health and care plan should be “specified”, as opposed to “set out”, was accepted by the Government and is in the Bill. The Committee’s recommendation on mediation being advised but not made compulsory has been accepted, for which I am grateful.

The Bill also shows a good level of commitment to ensuring the involvement of children and young people and their parents and carers in how provision is made for them. Explicit provision has now been made for regulations to set out how local authorities should involve young people and their parents in preparing and reviewing the local offer. The Bill now provides for more choice for young people with SEN and their parents about where they will receive their education. In response to the Committee’s recommendation on independent specialist colleges and independent special schools, provisions have now been included, so the Secretary of State can approve individual institutions for which parents or young people express a preference in their plan.

The Bill will entitle NEETs of compulsory participation age and apprentices to a plan, following the Committee’s recommendations, and I am again grateful to the Minister for listening and taking that on board. The Committee expressed concern about SEN pathfinders failing to involve colleges adequately in trialling the approaches to nought-to-25 provision. The Government’s response explains that pathfinders will redouble their focus on the post-16 sector, along with additional funding for well-performing pathfinders to advise others on implementation, but I ask the House to note that the Association of Colleges is concerned about the implementation of new funding a year ahead of the Bill’s proposed implementation. It states:

“The poor management of the funding changes are threatening the goodwill of Colleges towards the Bill.”

I hope that Ministers will take that on board. It might be something that can be looked at closely in the Bill Committee.

The Minister shares the Committee’s view that special educational needs co-ordinators should be required to be qualified teachers, and he has expressed his intention that regulations should make that a requirement in future. That, too, is welcome.

Briefly—I have 40 seconds left—the Committee’s recommendation was that disabled children with or without SEN should be included in the scope of entitlement to integrated provision and to education, health and care plans, but that was not accepted by the Government, which is disappointing. I accept that they made a cogent case as to why that was, but I hope that they might be able to look at that again. The Committee’s request for reassurance that ensuring statutory protections for 16 to 25-year-olds will not compromise provision for others has not been fully answered, so I hope that can be looked at as well. If we are to have the big improvement we all hope for, we must ensure co-operation and have seamless systems in place across all sectors, including health.

18:59

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

I recognise what the Minister is trying to do in seeking to reform important areas of law affecting children, young people and their families. New as I am, however, I am beginning to learn that the devil is in the detail when it comes to many of this Government’s Bills. I am not alone in that view. The Children’s Commissioner for England, Maggie Atkinson, said that she supported

“the objectives of the Children and Families Bill”,

but was

“concerned about some of the detail. Some measures proposed could be interpreted as overriding the principle that all decisions are to be made in the best interests of the child”.

In preparing for today’s debate, I was deeply disappointed by the lack of an impact assessment of the full effects of the Bill. I found one on business, but I did not find any relating to how the provisions would affect the groups of children and their families to whom the Bill applies. I feel that that is deeply disturbing. Again, my views are shared by others, including the Association of School and College Leaders. Because of the Bill’s complexity and the range of areas that it covers, there is concern about whether proper parliamentary scrutiny can be given to ensure that it has no unintended consequences. I think we should listen to such organisations.

The Bill’s positive elements have been recognised, but a number of concerns have also been raised, and I would like to focus on a couple of them. Although the steps forward on adoption have been recognised, we have heard concerns about adoption and about the importance of ensuring that the interests of children are paramount in the family justice system and of the need to strengthen the independence and powers of the Children’s Commissioner for England.

If I may, I will focus in my remaining time on part 3, which deals with special educational needs. These provisions have been heralded as the biggest reforms to SEN provision in over 30 years. Replacing the dual system of assessment for children and young adults with a single system and the education, health and care plans is a positive change. I am mindful of what colleagues on the Education Committee said in their pre-legislative scrutiny. The Committee observed that

“the legislation lacks detail, without which a thorough evaluation of the likely success of the Government’s proposals is impossible”.

Although some proposals, such as the pathfinders, have been supported and taken forward, Scope and other disability charities in the Special Education Consortium have continued to express their ongoing concerns, particularly about clause 30 and the local offer. The real concern is that, as the provisions stand, they allow for no more than a directory of services, with no duty on local agencies to provide what is set out in the local offer or to define service standards, although there has been some movement there. The risk is that the Bill’s objectives in seeking to improve educational outcomes for children with SEN and disabled children and their families will not be met. There is also concern that children with less complex needs will fail to reach the threshold for new education, health and care provision in much the same way as only the adults most in need of care services are able to access them.

[Meg Hillier]

One concern I have encountered a lot in my constituency is where a child has something that is difficult to diagnose or put a name to. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that unless we get this right in the Bill, those children, their parents and their teachers will not have any better provision than is currently on offer?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I do indeed share that concern. Similar issues have been raised with me in my discussions with different charities.

We know that one in eight families has a child with SEN, and it is estimated that one in six will not be provided for under the Bill. We already know that 1.4 million children with SEN do not have a statement and will not be eligible for EHCP—education, health and care provision—under the Bill. Approximately 87% of all children with SEN are currently supported through school action or school action plus—in the provision of speech and language therapy, for example. With the abolition of these programmes, those children will rely totally on the local offer, so we must ensure that it is strengthened.

I want to refer quickly to accountability, which is still an issue in respect of these services. We need to make sure that children and their families can hold people to account and be engaged in the provision of their services, and the monitoring review of those services. Simply publishing the comments of parents and young people does not really do what is needed. We need to ensure that the engagement is meaningful, as reflected in the UN convention of the rights of the child.

This Bill is inadequate not only in the proposals it puts forward, but in its failure to recognise the policy context that surrounds it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) spoke about that context, which includes complex legislation on welfare reforms and health system reforms, as well as massive cuts in local authority funding. It remains to be seen how well those local authorities will cope with that.

I want to conclude with a reference to one of my constituents: the mum of an eight-year-old son with Down’s syndrome. She says that taking him to all the various appointments he needs, whether for physiotherapy or speech therapy, or even for accessing an appropriate shoe service, given that he needs to wear corrective boots, has proved to be a full-time job in itself. Such demands on her time meant she was forced to give up work. As the household income has dropped with her loss of earnings, her husband has taken a higher-paid job in Scotland to make ends meet. Now the family is together only for the occasional weekend. Joanna says:

“I am not naive, I don’t expect services to exist just for me, or facilities to be for my convenience. The frustration comes from the possibility of services being made easier.”

This is an example of the stress experienced by families across the country in raising children with disabilities and special educational needs. Positive though some elements of the Bill are, it does not reassure us that the particular pressures that these families face will be addressed. I hope that the Government will look again at how to strengthen the provisions.

19:07

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to welcome the Bill, which covers such a broad range of areas. I hope Members will forgive me if I focus on special educational needs, as so many others have done.

I know from my own life story how important it is to get this right. I was one of the pre-1981 report children whose parents had to fight to get me into a special school, and then fight again to get me back into a mainstream school a few years later. The special school was not far from the Minister’s own constituency, in Hebden Green. When I was in the mainstream school, my parents had to fight to get the speech therapy I needed to make the most of being in that mainstream school.

It was with some distress and dismay that when I first got elected to this House, I found that the first three cases of my very first constituency surgery were all about parents fighting for their children to get the special educational help they needed from their schools. Thirty years on, nothing much seemed to have changed. That is why I welcome the Bill, as it starts to introduce some level of change. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who is sadly no longer in her place. What she did with her Green Paper was to raise expectations, perhaps even to create a rod for the Government’s own back in a strange way. None the less, she needs to be congratulated on that.

I know not just from my own life story, but from what I see on the ground in Blackpool, how important this issue is. When one of our council officers—the head of inclusion and access—gave evidence during the Education Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny process, she explained why this matters so much in Blackpool, where we have such a high transient population, with four times as many young people than the national average entering the town already having a statement—9.8% versus 2.8%. Yet Blackpool manages not to make it an adversarial experience; in fact, it has fewer tribunals than the national average. I can see that situation working itself out in my constituency surgeries and in my casework.

As always with legislation, the temptation is to focus on the elements that one is not completely happy with. I will try to resist that temptation and look at the wider picture. I am very privileged to chair the all-party group on young disabled people. What strikes me in that role is that society no longer puts a lid on expectations for our young disabled people and tries to limit what they can achieve. If anything, the only lid that is placed on their expectations is the bureaucracy in the system. Society is changing, but the structures of governance need to change as well to enable them to keep pace. That is why the Bill is so important.

When I meet groups of these people, I am struck by the fact that so many of them do not just want to go into work when they reach 18—they want to go on to university, to go and live their lives. I welcome what the Education Committee and the Minister have said about those who are in apprenticeships or are not in education, employment or training having access to EHC—education, health and care—plans. However, I have a twinge of disappointment about the fact that apparently those who want to go on to university will not have access to those plans. I share the Committee’s concern that we need greater clarity over what this provision should look like for the 19 to 25 age group and how the local offer should be structured in this regard. We have made great efforts in the draft Care and Support Bill to ensure that those who wish to attend university can take their social care package with them from their home local authority to where they seek to go to university. That was a bold and ambitious move that excited many young people, and I want to make sure that what we do in this Bill has the same level of sophistication.

Equally, I urge Ministers to look again at the issue I raised in an intervention—how we treat disabled young people who have a health need but no specific educational need. I realise that it is very difficult to place duties on the NHS. None the less, having had such a revolutionary Bill that is going to change the landscape, it would be a shame if we missed this opportunity to get it right for all our young people.

One of the big things that excited me about the Green Paper was that it finally tackled the issue of transition—the cliff edge that many young people, and their families, come to when they transfer from child services to adult services, whether they be wheelchair services, community and mental health services, or so many other services. As people reach the age of 16, child services start to tail off and there is never any confidence that adult services will then kick in. People get very concerned about that. I urge Ministers to embrace this opportunity to resolve that cliff edge. Families have a fear of the unknown because of the threat of uncertainty and fragmentation. On my reading of the Bill, children with health needs but not educational needs will not get an EHC plan. That is wrong given the spirit of the Green Paper.

I support charities such as Together for Short Lives, which represents the children’s hospice sector, and the Communications Trust, which represents people with augmentative and alternative communication, where interaction between health care and education is not just important but crucial to the role played by the machines that assist them.

I should like finally to focus on clause 69, which seeks to exclude a particular group of people for whom we, as legislators, have responsibility—people in custody in the youth justice system. Again, on my reading of the Bill—I am happy to be corrected—those in youth custody will be specifically excluded from having an EHC plan and will be frozen in a no man’s land.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Is it not the case that children who are in detention are more likely to have special educational needs than those in the population as a whole, and so denying them access to support in the Bill is a real discrimination against that group?

[Paul Maynard]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention; she is right. We must recognise that the Minister has moved substantially on the issue, but it is still important that clause 69 specifically recognises this group. Communication delays and speech and language needs lie at the heart of the offending behaviour of many of these young people, and it seems perverse to exclude them, because that will not help their rehabilitation.

Having picked out every bit of the Bill that I do not like or disagree with, it is important that I emphasise how important it is, how much I welcome it, and how pleased I am that this Minister will pilot it through, because he has a very strong personal commitment to and excellent understanding of these issues. I have great confidence that as the Bill goes through Committee much of what I am highlighting can be teased out, made clear and made fit for purpose. I want us to remember that the Green Paper raised such hopes among disabled charities, organisations and young people, who thought that it was the moment to make sure that Warnock was built on and, indeed, that many of Warnock’s inadequacies were corrected.

I welcome what the Minister has been trying to do and what I know he will continue to do. I even welcome the constructive comments from Labour Front Benchers and the shadow Secretary of State. This should not be a partisan issue—an opportunity to bash political parties over the head—because it is too important for that. I am sure that all of us in this Chamber have parents coming to our surgeries to try to get the support that their children need. This is our chance to work together to solve these problems so that in 30 years’ time we do not all have to come back again to try to make it right.

19:16

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who raised several important issues that I hope will be considered.

This is an important Bill that will impact on children and their parents—on how families function and how the state supports them in so doing. I support many aspects of the Bill and the spirit of this debate, which has been conducted in a very comradely fashion. Some of the Bill received pre-legislative scrutiny, and it is much better for that. However, there is concern inside and outside the House about some of the proposed changes, particularly to child care, that are being foisted on a sector that is fairly united in its opposition to them. It is therefore disappointing that so much of that aspect did not go to consultation before the Bill came before us.

For many families in the current climate, life is tough and getting tougher as they are paying the price for this Government’s failed austerity drive, and the Bill does little to alleviate the pressure on them. However, I raised a number of these issues in a recent Adjournment debate, so I will not go into them now.

Reform of the adoption system is welcome, especially if it means that more children can be placed with a loving family more quickly. However, as always seems to be the case with this Government, progress comes with a price tag. I am concerned about local authorities such as my home authority, Manchester, which will lose 44% of its early intervention grant to help to pay for these adoption changes. Cutting the early intervention grant by £150 million a year—not increasing it, as the Minister stated—to pay for adoption changes is more than robbing Peter to pay Paul: it is counter-productive.

[Mr Timpson]

I hope that the hon. Lady heard me refer to the adoption reform grant, which was recently made available to local authorities to the tune of £150 million to bring about the reform of the adoption system that we need. That money is being specifically targeted to bring about the changes that she wants to see.

[Lucy Powell]

I thank the Minister for clarifying that, but he might want to refer to his Department’s own website, which says that the money for these adoption changes is coming from a cut to the early intervention grant. If he wants to bring forward other changes, I am sure that all Labour Members would welcome that.

Early intervention work with families prevents them from entering the care system in the first place, saving money for local authorities and the state. The Government are in danger of failing the early intervention test and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) will continue to hound them on that issue. I add my voice to his efforts on behalf of vulnerable children and families in my constituency.

I am also worried, given the context of this debate, about the safeguarding of looked-after children. The Bill is a missed opportunity. The Government need to do more to shore up safeguarding capacity in the system, particularly given the massive cuts to local government, and social workers need to be given more support to carry out their duties and to safeguard our children.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend is making a compelling argument. The Minister seems to be shaking his head at what she is saying. I have visited local Sure Start centres in my constituency and they are all earmarked for closure in 2016. Does my hon. Friend share their concern and mine about the capacity to safeguard children without that network of centres?

[Lucy Powell]

I agree with my hon. Friend. In addition, my local authority in Manchester is experiencing a huge cut to its children’s services budget, which is having a massive impact on how the local council provides for children in care. That is particularly worrying.

As I said in my recent Adjournment debate on child care, the child-care crisis is one of the most fundamental issues facing families today. Part 4 of the Bill relates to child care and many elements have been met by a chorus of disapproval. Childminder organisations have welcomed the changes to allow Ofsted to charge for early reinspection at the request of the provider, but there is deep concern at opposition to plans to create new childminder agencies. Providers, the third sector, parents and the Government’s own advisers also have deep reservations about measures to change child-care ratios. Indeed, an unpublished report being sat on by the Secretary of State apparently says that changes to ratios will lead to a deterioration in the quality of care and will not help parents reduce their costs. I have previously asked for that report to be published and I repeat that request tonight. The Minister is in danger of driving down quality while costs balloon.

There are many concerns about the proposed childminder agency changes, and I echo those raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). Childminders are concerned that agencies could charge them high fees for registering and that plans for Ofsted to cease inspecting agency-registered childminders could confuse parents. Indeed, the Pre-School Learning Alliance has questioned why the Government would create another layer of bureaucracy that will see many parents and childminders pay more while duplicating the work of several organisations.

I am also concerned about plans to remove the existing duty on local authorities to assess the sufficiency of child care in their area. I have spoken before about the child-care crisis facing families hit by the triple whammy, including a reduction in the number of places. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) has highlighted the closure of Sure Start centres in some parts of the country and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) also raised that point earlier. More than 400 centres have been lost since this Government took office and 4Children has highlighted that 55% of children’s centres no longer provide any on-site child care, while 50% of those that still do report that those places are massively over-subscribed.

Sufficient child care is a prerequisite for parents—mainly mothers—returning to work. Removing the duty on local authorities to ensure sufficient child care will not help parents who are trying to get back into the workplace. It is a backward step that sends the wrong message to families who struggle to find the right child care.

Involving fathers more in bringing up their children is important and the Government’s proposals for sharing leave are positive, provided that safeguards are in place for women. Indeed, there are still many issues to resolve for women to achieve equality in the labour market, especially returning mothers. I welcome the move to extend the right to request flexible working. It is a further important step to ensure that work for parents pays and it builds on the revolution in family-friendly practices introduced by the previous Labour Government.

Given the unprecedented pressures faced by parents and carers today, it is important that we create a system where families and individuals are able to manage home and work life for the economy as well as for themselves. However, I am not convinced that watering down guarantees for employees, with provisions being transferred from statutes to a code of practice, is the best way to highlight the importance of flexible working for family life.

The Government say that this Bill is about supporting vulnerable and disadvantaged children and families. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) has said, one group is conspicuous by its absence. Young carers do an amazing job caring for relatives such as parents, siblings or grandparents who have a disability or a mental health issue or who suffer from substance misuse. Although new rights for adult carers are proceeding in the draft Care and Support Bill, the Children and Families Bill does not include equivalent provisions for young carers. Many are concerned that this is a missed opportunity. The Bill is a key opportunity to consolidate and simplify the law for young carers and to provide them with rights equivalent to those given to adults. I hope that the Government will take note of the many representations that are being made on the issue and introduce proposals to ensure that young carers will be covered by the Bill. I look forward to debating the Bill further in Committee.

19:25

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

I congratulate all Ministers who have been involved in this Bill, past and present, on many measures that appear to be a huge step forward. I look forward to monitoring its progress through to fruition.

I want to discuss the role of the virtual school head teacher. Virtual school head teachers are a tried and tested method for improving the attainment of looked-after children. They have been shown to have a positive impact when they are well resourced and focused. The Bill contains a new statutory requirement for local authorities to appoint at least one individual to promote the educational attainment of looked-after children, and it is intended that such people will be the virtual school head teacher. As the chairman of our local charity in Calderdale, Together for Looked-after Children, and of the all-party group on looked-after children and care leavers, I welcome this important step forward, because although the attainment plight of looked-after children has been acknowledged in the past, this Bill finally puts accountability for such attainment on a level playing field.

The local authority duty to promote the education of looked-after children does not cover young people over 18, but local authorities continue to have some duties to support the educational achievement of care leavers up to the age of 25. This support is especially important as care leavers are less likely than their peers to achieve traditional testing points throughout their educational life. Research by Catch22’s national care advisory service and the Who Cares? Trust shows that it is vital that the education of care leavers benefits from the same strategic overview provided by virtual school head teachers as that of looked-after children.

For that reason it is important that the Bill Committee looks carefully at doing one or two additional things to strengthen the role of the virtual head teacher. It should either extend the duty on local authorities to promote educational achievement to include care leavers, or include a new clause to require a strategic overview of duties regarding the education of care leavers between the ages of 16 and 25.

Such an amendment would have several benefits. It would provide a strategic oversight of educational provision for all looked-after children and care leavers, and a framework to link education to broader career planning and the employability responsibilities of schools and local authorities. It would provide efficiencies in service delivery by linking, not duplicating, existing pre-16 and post-16 provision. It would provide a framework to monitor systematically the effectiveness of educational provision for individuals and cohorts beyond the age of 16, supporting local authorities to deliver on the extended performance indicators that will be introduced next year. It would also provide a framework for capturing and supporting the educational needs of looked-after children who enter care post-16, such as the homeless 16 and 17-year-olds under the Southwark ruling and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, as well as care leavers.

The proposal would improve joint working and information sharing with further education, higher education and other employment, education and training providers. It would also provide educational expertise to train, advise and support social workers and personal advisers who work with care leavers to deliver EET support, including through input into pathway plans and post-16 personal education plans. The proposal would also avoid gaps in the educational support provision of local authority children’s services. For example, one local authority reported recently that young people were unsupported during the summer holidays post-GCSEs until the 16-plus service took over their case.

The proposal would meet the improved standards of accountability under the forthcoming revised Ofsted framework, which will require local authorities to demonstrate how they would support the education of care leavers until they are 25. Ofsted has already had an impact, with one local authority reporting that the remit of its virtual school head teacher had been extended in response to criticism in a previous inspection.

The beauty of these tweaks is that they are achievable with little additional resource. Many local authorities already deliver an extended service, but I accept that there are concerns about the resource implications of an extended statutory duty. Local authorities would be free to decide the extent to which they used the remit of the virtual school head teacher to provide enhanced services to care leavers. The Who Cares? Trust and the National Care Advisory Service envisage that virtual school head teachers will provide strategic oversight of the educational support that local authorities must provide to care leavers, rather than direct casework, unless local authorities find that that would improve services.

More importantly, the proposal would protect the investment in leaving care support by providing a framework to monitor systematically and review the effectiveness of educational support post-16 and providing the evidence needed to evaluate services in order to enable better targeted support and to eliminate ineffective interventions. It would protect the investment in young people’s educational achievements at an earlier age by ensuring that they were supported to complete further and higher education and given the tools to achieve and maintain future economic well-being.

The proposal would also provide a framework for establishing better links with other EET providers, including further and higher education providers and training providers. Local authorities would be able to make better use of the resources for vulnerable groups. For example, they would be able to negotiate effective systems to access bursaries, support services and other schemes that support educational achievement.

This slight change to the Bill would not only join up services for this vulnerable group of young people, but would be cost-neutral in the long run.

19:32

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I welcome many of the changes in part 1 of the Bill to streamline the adoption process and the provisions in parts 6, 7 and 8 to introduce new employment rights for women and men who have young children.

As one of the first people to argue in this place for a Children’s Commissioner for Wales, I support the commissioner’s response that his remit should be extended to include some reserved matters so that he can better represent the children of Wales. I hope that that provision can be looked at in due course.

My remarks will focus on part 2 and the impact that the changes that it introduces could have on family justice. I declare an interest because I practised in family law for more than 35 years and draw some of my opinions from my experience in the courts, as does the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who, although not of my vintage, practised in the same area of law and on the same circuit.

I sit on the Justice Committee, which undertook some of the pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill. Regarding the public law clauses of the Bill, the Committee was supportive of the Government’s intention to reduce delay in care and supervision proceedings. We applauded the example set by some local authorities and courts in cutting timetables. We have heard about the Norgrove report, which recognised the terrible delays of 61 weeks in care centres and 48 weeks in family proceedings courts. Such delays can obviously cause unnecessary strain and distress for the most vulnerable children.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

Like the right hon. Gentleman, my background is in law, although not in family law. I know from my surgeries that my constituents will welcome the simplification and shortening of the process. However, does he share my concern that we must ensure that the judiciary have the right training and perhaps more training so that when we have the shortened hearings, the right results ensue?

[Mr Llwyd]

Mr Justice Ryder, who is in overall charge of this area, gave evidence to the Justice Committee not long ago and the hon. Lady should rest assured that he is on the case. There has been progress of late in that area, but I am sure that there will be greater progress. I thank her for that intervention.

In evidence to the Justice Committee’s inquiry, Barnardo’s stated:

“Two months of delay in making decisions in the best interest of a child equates to 1% of childhood that cannot be restored.”

Thus, the principle of introducing a 26-week time limit is obviously to be welcomed. However, as the Family Law Bar Association noted in its evidence, the practical consequences of the provision might result in further delay in the courts, because cases will still be likely to take longer than 26 weeks to complete and so will be repeatedly referred back to the court for extensions. The evidence of the NSPCC drew attention to the importance of granting adequate time to work with families in cases where intervention projects are utilised, such as in the family drug and alcohol court in London, without the extra burden of having to apply for extensions.

The Committee recommended that the draft provision should be amended to allow judges some leniency to identify cases that are likely to take longer than 26 weeks and to exempt them from the 26-week time limit. That may well reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and expensive extension hearings. I urge the Minister to think further about that, as I am sure he will.

The Justice Committee was concerned about the provisions on child arrangements orders in clause 12 and recommended a number of alterations. It is important to remember that the UK has had equality of parental responsibility since 1989. That principle was introduced to reduce conflict in courts over contact arrangements and to remove the perception that there are winners and losers in such disputes. The Committee was unconvinced that merely changing the wording from “contact order” and “residence order” to “child arrangements order” would eliminate the perception that there are winners and losers in the family courts.

The Committee was also concerned that the changed wording would cause confusion in foreign jurisdictions and recommended that the Government reconsider the practical difficulty in interpreting the clause in the context of international law. The concept of “rights of custody” is well established in The Hague and in EU legislation. There is justifiable concern that the introduction of CAOs could cause confusion about the nature of parental responsibility, unless the orders specify that the person with whom the child is to live has rights of custody.

My greatest concern and that of the Committee relates to clause 11. We heard a debate about this matter earlier and the Minister became animated when we came to it. The explanation of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) comforted me. The Government accepted the Committee’s recommendation that the title of the provision should be changed from “shared parenting” to “parental involvement”. However, the Government did not accept that the term “involvement” should be defined in the Bill to remove any implication that involvement equates to a parent’s right to a set amount of time with a child.

In their response to the Committee’s report on the Bill, the Government stated:

“Whilst it is not a specific policy intention to change the outcome of court decisions in particular cases, we anticipate that the amendment will encourage parents to adopt less adversarial and entrenched positions in relation to the care of their child.”

I hope that that is right, but evidence suggests that, to the contrary, the change might prompt people to assume that they have rights and could lead to courts undermining the paramountcy of the welfare of the child, inferring instead that equal access to both parents will have a beneficial impact on all children. As Gingerbread pointed out in its briefing on the Shared Parenting Orders Bill, which failed to be passed during the last Session, there would be problems with

“any form of legal presumption that assumes a particular outcome—that is, a parenting arrangement of near equal or equal time—before the consideration of a child’s best interests”.

[Mr Timpson]

I appreciate that this is a Second Reading debate, but it may be worth the right hon. Gentleman acquainting himself with page 21 of the explanatory notes, which deals with the issue and states explicitly:

“It is not the purpose of this amendment to promote the equal division of a child’s time between separated parents.”

That is clear in the explanatory notes and was made clear when I gave evidence to the Justice Committee.

[Mr Llwyd]

I am afraid that does not explain why some corners of the press still believe that to be the case. I accept what the Minister says, however, and I certainly accept the useful explanation given earlier by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham.

[Tim Loughton]

Repeating the misconceptions in the press does not help. Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that if it is crystal clear that both parents are expected to be involved with their children, they are less likely to have to go to court for that to be enforced?

[Mr Llwyd]

I have been practising in the courts for quite a time, and as I understand it, there is a presumption in the courts that the involvement of both parents is good, provided that it accords with the overall principle of the children’s welfare being paramount. Nothing will change drastically, but my concern is that some people who do not have any contact with their children for various reasons will suddenly think that there is now shared parenting and they have a right to do this, that and t’other. I may be wrong, and I hope so.

I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about the need for the parent with residence not to freeze out the other parent. That is absolutely right, but a recent report by the universities of Oxford and Sussex, “Taking a longer view of contact”, states that structural factors such as the frequency and format of contact are relatively unimportant compared with the quality of contact that children experience with both their resident and non-resident parent. It further observes:

“Parenting arrangements after separation cannot be considered in isolation to the patterns of parenting established in intact families.”

It stresses that no contact is better than bad contact, and that there are circumstances, such as when abuse is present, in which no contact should take place.

We know that fewer than one in 10 cases in which parents divorce or separate come before a family court for a decision on contact. It is estimated that between a third and half of the cases that do come to court include allegations of violence or abuse. I believe that the provision in the Bill is more about creating a perception than anything else. This has been a good debate hitherto, and I do not want to fall out unnecessarily on this point, but I simply do not understand why we are legislating to change a perception. At the end of the day, family courts are manned by experienced judges who start with the principle that it is always good for both parents to be involved when it accords with the all-important principle of the welfare of the child being paramount.

19:43

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I want to address a couple of points relating to the special educational needs reforms in the Bill. There is a lot of consensus on the matter on both sides of the House. Indeed, the debate has been so good that there has been a lot of consensus on the Bill anyway, and I am not going to disturb that consensus.

I start with a quotation from Barnardo’s:

“Barnardo’s is supportive of the Government’s intentions, which aim to support better joint working between agencies and introduce unified Education, Health and Care plans for children and young people.”

One of the key components of the Bill, therefore, is better joint working across a range of agencies. There is much to be welcomed in that, although I have some concerns—I have noted that other Members do, too. I should say en passant that giving children, young people and their parents care of the funds through personal budgets is an excellent way of proceeding and has to be right.

Everyone has acknowledged that the integration of education, health and care plans is widely approved, but I wish to raise a question about how it will work in practice. How will the role of health be captured and delivered in the process? That question was put to me by the head of Woodeaton Manor special school in my constituency, which I recently visited. She doubted that the joint education, health and care plans could be delivered without a statutory duty on health services. That was a great disappointment to her, because she was very much in favour of them and wanted to give them a good run. I understand that the constitution of the NHS and the way in which it operates mean that that has not yet been possible to achieve, but I encourage Ministers to continue their dialogue with their NHS colleagues to find a way of sorting this out. Unless they do that, there will be no certainty that the education, health and care plans can be delivered, and that will be an enormous shame.

I urge Ministers also to ensure that one person is appointed to look after a child’s interests. My experience is that when more than one agency is involved, the need for a person to look after the child often falls through the cracks and we end up with nobody looking after the child. In some cases the relevant person will clearly be the education sponsor, but that will not necessarily be true in other cases, particularly when we are dealing with those who are not in education, employment or training. It would be extremely useful to have a provision along those lines in the Bill.

The education, health and care plans replace statements. The accusation has been made that too many assessments are a bad thing and that they are time-consuming, and I agree with that, but the more fundamental point is that statements are a very blunt instrument that can be open to misuse. I pay tribute to the staff of Woodeaton Manor school for the fantastic work that they are undertaking there. When I visited, they were preparing with some children with difficult autistic conditions to take cakes to a cake stall at a local market. The head made the point that the concentration on statements leads to too many children being statemented as autistic. That not only inhibits the best use of resources but dilutes the focus on those who really need help. The misdiagnosis of SEN, or of the level of SEN, leads to the easy solution that everybody ends up with a statement or with SEN provision.

Autism is an important issue in both the south and north of my constituency, where there are two organisations. The problem always comes when the child leaves school. They come to a cliff edge at 16, or perhaps at 18 when provision is taken up to that age, when it is left to individual organisations such as Thomley Hall in my constituency to help shape that young person’s future. That is why I am particularly pleased that the Bill’s provisions extend to the age of 25 so that that cliff edge can be smoothed out. Will the Minister confirm that that will be the case for children with autism?

The new special educational needs code of practice will be important. It will give statutory guidance on the provisions in the Bill, and I hope that it will also set out how those who do not require education, health and care plans will be supported. Providing funding for that is important. Oxfordshire now has a good range of high-quality cost-effective local provision for young people aged 16 to 25 across special schools and colleges, but that is in stark contrast to many other areas. Although it has developed local provision that has significantly reduced expenditure on out-of-county placements, there still seems to be disagreement on how the SEN block grant should be treated and I urge Ministers to look at that. It is simply not acceptable that so many families struggle to get the help and support that their child needs to receive a first-class education. Every child has the right to fulfil their potential, and I believe this Bill will ensure that that happens.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Owing to the number of speakers, I am going to drop the speech limit to seven minutes.

19:50

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As I indicated in an earlier intervention, I wish to focus on the serious impact that the Bill could have on kinship care arrangements. I hope that the Government will seriously engage with and address concerns raised by groups such as the Family Rights Group, and take the opportunity to amend the Bill in Committee.

Recent research by Bristol university estimates that around 173,200 children are being raised by family members or friends of their parents because their parents cannot look after them. That equates to one in every 77 children in the UK, and in Bristol rises to one in every 59 children. These children have often experienced tragedy or trauma in their life due to the death or imprisonment of a parent, or to a parent’s alcohol or drug misuse or mental health problems. Sometimes, the parent has simply walked out on them and disappeared. Most of those children are being raised by grandparents, but sometimes siblings, aunts and uncles, and even friends and neighbours or a parent’s ex- partner, step in to help. Many of these placements occur when a crisis arises. Children benefit hugely from remaining within their wider family units and with people they know and who love them. That helps them to maintain contact with family members and sometimes, where appropriate, with their parents. Often, it also means they can stay at the same school and keep in touch with their friends.

Roughly half the children who enter kinship care have behavioural and emotional difficulties, but around 80% improve after placement—the same figure as for foster care. Despite the fact that support for family and friends carers is inadequate or non-existent, children in kinship care are as safe as and do as well if not better than children in unconnected foster care in terms of health, school performance and attendance, self-esteem, and social and personal relationships. There is also a marked improvement in emotional and behavioural problems. Family and friends carers are more likely to be highly committed to the children in their care than unrelated foster carers, as well as more likely to match their ethnicity, leading to more stable placements.

Only an estimated 6% of children raised in the care of family and friends are looked-after children. The huge majority live with relatives and friends outside the care system, either with their parents’ agreement or under a residence or special guardianship order granted by the courts. Such arrangements save the state approximately £12 billion, which is what it would cost for the children to go into independent foster care.

I first became interested in this issue when I heard the story of Paul on “Woman’s Hour” a couple of years ago. Paul is now 26 and from the age of 22 has raised his six younger siblings. He had to battle the system for more than a year and see his brothers and sisters taken into care and put into foster homes before the courts accepted that he was the best person to look after them. I was fortunate to meet him in June 2011 when I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to assist kinship carers, and I was struck by the extraordinary love and determination he has shown towards his younger siblings, and by the sacrifices he had made in his own career and personal freedom to look after them. He was adamant that he had to step up to the plate and that he was the best person to look after his siblings, and so far that has proved to be the case.

Clause 1 states that when a local authority is considering adoption for a child in the care system but is not yet authorised to place them for adoption, it must consider placing that child with a local authority foster carer who is also approved as a prospective adopter. The local authority will no longer be required to give preference to placing the child with their parents or a wider family network. The Family Rights Group has undertaken detailed research into the impact of the proposals on family and friends care, and set out some careful and reasoned amendments that I hope the Government will consider. Clause 1 could apply to any looked-after child, even those in care by agreement with the parents, despite there having been no due legal process by which the threshold for the state to remove a child from their parents and/or place the child for adoption is fully established. In voluntary accommodation and pre-birth cases there will have been no legal proceedings at all, and kinship carers in such circumstances are unlikely to have had legal advice.

The court’s final decision on whether a child should be removed from their family will be pre-empted by the child forming attachments to the prospective adopters. Any court that later considers the case would not be able to resist the status quo argument—that it would be better for the child to stay with the adopters than return to their parents. That problem is further compounded by the lack of any legal duty to work with parents to help them resolve their problems before or after the child is looked after. It has been suggested that the measure might squeeze out potentially suitable family and friends carers because again the status quo argument would militate against moving a child from prospective adopters to a relative’s home.

It is vital that court decisions on whether to remove children permanently are not pre-empted. In addition, the Government’s proposal to limit the time frame for care proceedings to 26 weeks as set out in clause 14 might be imposed at the expense of getting it right for children. I am aware that that aspect of the Government’s changes to adoption has not received a proper airing because so far the debate in the media has been on efforts to reduce the emphasis given to ethnicity, culture and so on when matching a child to an adopter parent. However, given that this Bill makes provision for children to be removed from their families without due legal process being observed, I am slightly surprised that it has not caused more alarm among Government colleagues, who are normally quite exercised by the concept of an overbearing state interfering with people’s lives. I hope that the Government will reconsider clauses 1 and 6, and that they will take the opportunity to introduce amendments set out by the Family Rights Group that could support kinship care arrangements. I hope that such matters are considered in Committee.

19:56

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I congratulate Ministers and ex-Ministers on this Bill—the way it has proceeded and been put together—and on their willingness to discuss it. Ministers will be aware from the discussion this evening that much of this Second Reading debate has turned into a Committee stage. I do not intend to continue that and will say merely that this broad Bill is about looking after children—something I have been interested in since the early ’80s when I was on a social services committee in an inner-London borough.

The point I want to pick up briefly and congratulate Ministers on concerns adoption. The social services committee was looking after a broad spectrum of issues—everything one could possibly expect in inner London, with all its problems—but one point that struck some of us was that an awfully large number of looked-after children were in homes. Although those homes were good and tried hard, there was a turnover and no parental influence, and the opportunities for children to progress were not good. Some of those children were not suitable for adoption, but the whole council attitude changed and we pushed towards fostering and adoption with huge success.

As I have said, that took place in the early ’80s in the days before political correctness came in. We saw some extraordinary and beneficial changes and I will relate a small story as an example. As councillors, we met all the adoption and fostering people regularly, including one young couple who had adopted two boys—they were pre-school age, just. The father was English and the mother Australian, and one of the two boys was white and one black although both were exactly the same age. The success of the family was striking, and by that I mean even the extended family. The grandmother in Sydney knitted pullovers for both boys, each with his name across the front. On the first visit to grandma, they flew into Sydney. The boys decided that they were going to fool grandma so they swapped their pullovers which, if you think about it, is actually about a big smile. What I am really getting at is that the change and opportunity for those kids once they were adopted were striking.

Through my constituency actions and going back to that local authority, I was staggered at the way the system had gummed up and how children and those who wished to adopt were not getting the opportunity to do so. Progress had stopped. As speaker after speaker has pointed out, that space of time is short for us but long for those children. Therefore, succinctly, I congratulate Ministers on going ahead and taking on those problems, and on having the courage to tackle the political correctness while recognising an element of truth in what people say.

20:00

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is vital for our children and young people that the Bill delivers the change that they want and need, with the necessary resources, safeguards, directions and clear lines of accountability. Failure to deliver on those factors will mean that the Bill will not be worth the paper it is written on. Worse, it could lead to deterioration in service provision and huge variations in the quality of service offered to children and young people in different parts of the country.

I do not doubt that Ministers have every good intention with the Bill, but good intentions are not enough to satisfy the needs of our community. Government cuts have caused a lack of specialist services and professionals since 2010. It is for Ministers to explain how the reforms will work in that context. The Education Committee carried out pre-legislative scrutiny on the Bill’s SEN provisions, but the sector still has concerns that funding cuts in different areas will undermine the positive impact that elements of the Bill could provide to those who need support.

The SEN clauses have created deep-seated cause for concern in the sector, possibly because of the lack of detail in the Bill. They include measures that will shift us from statements to health and social care plans. The key difference between the outgoing system and the new one is that the new plans will extend beyond the mandatory school age, which I welcome. However, the system of education health and care plans does not include a greater degree of legal entitlements than the system it replaces.

Parents with children who have SEN are rightly concerned that current problems will not be solved without a single point of accountability for parents seeking redress. That must be put right. For example, Ambitious about Autism proposes changing the Bill to include a duty that requires local authorities to conduct a review of support available to young people aged 19 to 25 when they fall out of education. That would give them the best possible chance of re-engaging in learning and accessing future employment.

I am pleased that the Government have responded to the Education Committee’s suggestion for an extension of such entitlements to apprentices and, in specific circumstances, to young people who are not in education, employment or training. However, the Government have not taken that promising first step to its logical and desirable conclusion. We should support each and every young person with an EHC plan up to the age of 25, including those in supported employment. Under the current provisions, young people at university will cease to be eligible for EHC plans as soon as they begin their courses. Surely the Government do not want to abandon such young people when they are facing the biggest change in their lives. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say on that. Is that a simple oversight that will be corrected? Campaign groups such as Every Disabled Child Matters and the Special Educational Consortium have observed that disabled children without learning difficulties will not have access to the new plan.

Scope says that the Bill represents an important opportunity to alleviate some of the strain on families with disabled children. I agree with Scope’s objective of amending the Bill to include a guarantee of better support for disabled children and their families in their local area. The Bill requires local authorities to publish information on the services they expect to be available in their areas to children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities—both with and without education, health and care plans. However, the Bill does not say what they must provide. Why are the Government reluctant to provide a national framework of minimum standards for local offers? A greater degree of guidance from the Government would improve accountability and set higher standards for local councils to fulfil their obligations under the new system.

We need assurances from the Government that the new SEN system does not evolve from an informal postcode lottery to a formal one. The National Union of Teachers has concerns that, although local authorities retain a welcome role in SEN provision, the gradual shift away from local oversight of schools will undermine the ability of local authorities to carry out their SEN functions. What is the role of academies in that context?

I am pleased that the Government—I seem to be very pleased with them tonight—accepted the Education Committee’s suggestion during pre-legislative scrutiny that the new code of practice should be laid before Parliament, but the Bill requires that it is laid under the negative resolution procedure. It is not clear why the code will not be subject to the positive resolution given the importance of its contents. I am also concerned that the Secretary of State will meddle with the service by changing regulations.

People in the sector have shared concerns about the scrapping of school action and school action plus— the current graduated response approach to meeting the educational needs of children at school. As other hon. Members have said, around 17% of school-age pupils are on one of those programmes, and concern remains on whether their replacement with a single SEN stage will deliver what young people need.

The Minister should consider the case for expanding the definition of “vulnerable children” to include children living in custody and separated children who are seeking asylum or who have been trafficked, as recommended by the Children’s Society. It is right that action is taken to find more and better adoptive homes for children, but I hope that speeding the process up can be done without compromising the quality of child placement. Speed should never come at the expense of getting that right. No hon. Member wants an increase in the number of failed adoptions. I would be interested to hear more on the safeguards, to which the Minister has referred, for ensuring that speed does not come at the expense of getting it right.

I do not agree with the Minister and the Government that the bedroom tax is not a problem in the context of the Bill. It most certainly is a problem, particularly for foster parents, who rely on having that room available. How many places will be lost for foster children if the bedroom tax is implemented?

[Bill Esterson]

I am glad my hon. Friend mentions the impact of the bedroom tax on foster carers. Has he considered the impact on prospective adopters? A prospective adoptive family must have bedrooms available for children moving in with them. Any prospective adoptive parent who lives in social housing will be in the same position as adoptive foster carers in social housing.

[Alex Cunningham]

My fellow member of the Education Committee makes a strong point. The Minister must address the impact on the rooms of potential adoptive and foster families.

The changes to how child care works are proposed against the backdrop of the rising cost of living, depleted public services such as Sure Start, and benefit changes that penalise hard-working families. The Government have announced grand plans, but Ministers must know that they cannot deliver with less money—although perhaps they will tell us that the Chancellor will reverse the cuts and invest to help rather than hinder our families.

The Bill is a mixed bag. Some measures are welcome, such as some of the changes on flexible leave and on the Office of the Children’s Commissioner. Sadly, it does not live up to its initial promise to end the battle for support for children with special educational needs. I look forward to the Government working in Committee to fulfil that promise.

20:07

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

This huge and important Bill intends to improve services for vulnerable children and to support strong families. It intends to reform the systems for adoption, looked-after children, family justice and special educational needs—my comments will focus on special educational needs.

As a constituency Member of Parliament for three decades, I have too often met parents who have felt that they have had to battle for the support they need. They have been passed from pillar to post, and bureaucracy and frustration have faced them at every step. Being a constituency MP and hopefully helping people is a great privilege. For example, I was grateful to the parents of a 19-year-old son and 16-year-old daughter who both had Asperger’s syndrome. The parents recently wrote to me that

“after years spent battling with LEA and schools to get some SEN support for our son and daughter, it wasn’t until your personal intervention Sir Tony that we were actually listened to. As a result, our daughter was successfully placed in a specialist school near Oxford and today is Head Girl. It was sadly too late for our son and the damage has been immense”.

They went on to ask:

“how will the County Council work to ensure that Government proposals to reform the SEN systems are implemented and that our children get the right levels of support to get the education they deserve”?

Hon. Members agree that it should not be necessary for parents to feel constantly that they have to battle the system, and/or that the only way they will make progress is by enlisting the help of their Member of Parliament. Everyone welcomes the fact that the Government want to put in place a radically different system to support better life outcomes for young people, and to give parents confidence by giving them more control and transferring power to professionals on the front line and in local communities. It is good news that the Government clearly want to bring about better life outcomes for young people from birth to adulthood by helping professionals to identify and meet children’s needs early; by ensuring that health services and early education in child care are accessible to all children, and that those services work in partnership with parents to give each child support to fill their potential; and by joining up education, health and social care to provide families with the package of support that reflects all their needs. But there are still many questions, to which I am not sure that I yet have all the answers—and actually in this regard I see myself just as a typical constituency MP wanting to make sure that I can give help, support and appropriate advice to any parent who comes to see me with questions or concerns.

I do not expect the Minister to have time in his winding-up speech to respond to all my questions, but I hope that he might in due course write to me. Who will be responsible for ensuring that parents understand the process of the combined education, health and care plan? How will schools prepare themselves for when parents are much more in control of the SEN budgets? What will happen to those children who do not quality for the EHCP and those children whose difficulties are often not diagnosed until later on in their school life? Among the health and social service professionals needed in some instances to support children with special educational needs are educational psychologists and speech and language therapists. Do we have enough and how do parents access them? Are we sure we are giving teachers adequate training to teach children with a whole range of conditions, particularly those on a wide scale such as autism? How can we ensure a more consistent approach is taken across all local education authorities? How do we improve the transition from primary to secondary education? How do we improve the selection and training of special educational need co-ordinators in schools?

Parents of children with special educational needs raise two further issues with me. First, they feel all too often that their children are being bullied at school. I hope that we can do more to explain to students, perhaps in year 7, about the various neurological disorders and other disabilities that they might find among school friends, which I hope would then reduce bullying by increasing understanding.

The other concern is the number of exclusions of children with special educational needs. I think I am correct in saying that pupils with a statement of special educational needs are at present nine times more likely to receive a permanent exclusion than those without. Of course, SEN is not some sort of label that can be used to excuse bad or unruly behaviour in schools, but I would have thought it sensible that, if it was thought appropriate for any child to have either a temporary or, in particular, a permanent exclusion, very serious thought be given to whether that child has special educational needs and whether those needs are being properly met.

Many parents are concerned about what happens to their children when they leave school. As one parent put it to me:

“What is the vision for the future for our children to be able to live productive, independent and supported lives when currently post-18, there seems to be little more than part-time college courses for their continued education and properly supported residential places to enable independence and learning of life skills are all out of county”.

I support the notion that parents should be given greater choice, but they must also have the choice of being able to send their children to specialist schools—depending on their needs and disability—such as the National Star College, or the Royal National College for the Blind.

There is a specific issue in respect of Oxfordshire, simply because when the Learning and Skills Council was created and the SEN block grant was first established, there were no post-16 places in maintained special schools in Oxfordshire. As a consequence, no funds were included in the SEN block grant. This is an issue on which I know that Oxfordshire county council has written in detail to officials in the Department for Education and, in anticipation of today’s debate, I have also written to Ministers. What Oxfordshire is requesting is that the Education Funding Agency treats Oxfordshire in a way that is broadly consistent with other local authorities.

Finally, as co-chair of the all-party group for carers, I want to echo the hopes expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House that in Committee Ministers will think about whether provision can be made in the Bill for young carers to mirror the provision for adult carers in other legislation. Young carers are a very vulnerable group. Otherwise, this is an excellent Bill, and the Government are to be congratulated on introducing such a huge and encompassing Bill that will do so much to help vulnerable children.

20:14

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

It is a pleasure to take part in this high-quality debate today on a Bill that we on the Opposition Benches broadly support, albeit that key improvements and changes need to be made. In the short time available, I wish to concentrate my comments on the SEN provisions.

I recently held an Adjournment debate on the SEN provisions in the Bill, and while I welcome some of the improvements made on the draft Bill, such as including academies and free schools in the provisions, unfortunately it seems that in many other areas the Government are still not moving far enough, despite what I am sure is an attempt to do the right thing with this legislative opportunity.

I remind colleagues that this is not a marginal issue. There are some 700,000 disabled children in England and some 1.7 million children are said to have special educational needs. However, far too many of these families feel they live close to crisis point, and MPs are all too familiar with the cases of parents who are forced to fight through a seemingly endless bureaucratic nightmare in order to get the support they so desperately need for their children.

At the heart of the struggle faced by families with disabled children and those with SEN is the unacceptable lack of support for these families close to home. Recently, a report by Scope found that the biggest issue facing families with disabled children is a lack of local support services. More than six in 10 parents of disabled children say they are not able to get the services that they and their child need in their local area. Child care, respite care and therapeutic services, such as speech and language therapy, are often just not readily available. This lack of local accessible services can have a devastating impact on a family’s quality of life. Research has found 80% of families with disabled children who cannot access the services they need locally report feeling anxious and stressed, and more than half said they missed out on doing family activities together as a result.

This situation is getting worse, not better, with local authorities now facing cuts of up to 30% of their budgets. Many councils are therefore being forced to cut services for disabled people, making an already bad situation worse. For example, more than half of councils have cut spending on respite breaks for families, and 77% of local authorities are either making cuts or efficiency savings in services for people with a learning disability. The fundamental question underlying today’s debate is where the money will come from to make the improvements promised by the Bill.

The Government have said that that their reforms to SEN provision will reduce the adversarial nature of the system, putting an end to the frustration of parents having to fight to get the support their children need. I welcome the Bill’s intentions, particularly the requirement for local authorities to publish a “local offer”, to better enable families to find the education, health and care support they need. I also welcome the duty on local agencies to jointly plan and commission services for disabled children—something long overdue in a system that tends to compartmentalise children and their families. But I cannot help but feel that while the Government’s proposed reforms are well intentioned, they very much lack the ambition to truly improve the support available for families with disabled children.

Clause 30, for instance, requires a local authority only to produce information on the education, health and care services “it expects” to be available locally. Many organisations in the field do not believe that this will reduce the battle that families face in getting the support they need. Unfortunately, the local offer stands as little more than a directory of services, with no legal compulsion on the part of local agencies to actually provide what is set out in the offer. Furthermore, if the local offer is to work, it is vital that families with disabled children and children with SEN are able to hold local agencies to account for the delivery of the services contained in that offer. Without that accountability, families with disabled children will have no way of ensuring that the services they need are available. However, the Bill is totally inadequate in this respect, with local authorities being required only to publish comments by parents and young people on the local offer. That will not be enough for parents to hold local agencies to account, nor will local agencies be under any obligation to improve the services contained in the offer, and the chances are that parents will continue to battle with local authorities as they have in the past.

It is even more important for the local offer to be strengthened if Parliament consents to the clauses that abolish the school action and school action plus programmes, as children under those categories will be totally reliant on the services contained in the local offer. Currently, almost 1.4 million children with SEN do not have a statement and will not qualify for the plan under the proposed reforms—87% of the total number of children with SEN. Those children are currently supported under the school action and school action plus programmes. Often they have distinct needs, such as speech and language difficulties, which will have to be met solely by services contained in the local offer. If that offer is weak and unaccountable, those children could miss out on the support they currently receive or will need in the future.

Unfortunately, the Government have not listened to experts in the field, nor have they properly considered the views of the Education Committee, which said in its pre-legislative report:

“The importance of getting the Local Offer right cannot be overstated.”

The Committee recommended that the Bill should establish a national framework for the local offer, together with improved accountability measures by which they could be evaluated. Unfortunately, the Government have so far chosen to ignore that advice, but it is not too late.

I do not oppose the Bill, which I see as an opportunity, but the Government need to respond—to listen to the experts and to make the improvements necessary as it goes through Parliament. Only then will the House be seen to legislate in a way that is truly meaningful to the lives of children with SEN and their families.

20:21

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I shall concentrate my few words, before my voice gives out, on special educational needs. The Bill is to be welcomed, because while there are examples of good practice, the current system of SEN is not fit for purpose. I have been advised of examples where young, vulnerable people and their families have been let down; there are cases in which children have been excluded from activities, such as sports days and swimming, and in which schools have failed to provide support for a child until a medical diagnosis has been received, despite accepting that the child was struggling to access the curriculum. In contrast, there are other schools where completely the opposite service is being provided, with schools being super-supportive despite no diagnosis. There have been cases where parents have had to attend schools themselves to provide one-to-one support for their child, and where parents have been asked to take their child home at lunchtime due to staff shortages.

The Bill provides the framework to transform the system for children and young people with SEN to ensure that a consistently high service is provided across the country, with the examples of poor practice provided being consigned to history. It is right that young people and their families should have greater control and choice in decisions that affect their lives. It is right that the health service should play a full role in improving the planning, commissioning and provision of services. It is very much a step in the right direction that young people will be on the same footing whether they attend a maintained school, an academy, a further education college or a sixth-form college. Replacing statements with a single assessment process and combined education, health and care plans is to be welcomed.

As I said at the outset, there are examples of good practice. Scope currently works with Suffolk county council to provide Activities Unlimited—a brokerage service that negotiates inclusive short breaks and leisure services for children, their families and their carers. By using the purchasing power of existing local service users, Activities Unlimited has increased the availability of local services such as youth clubs, swimming pools and play centres for families across Suffolk, including those in my constituency. It is important that this type of service becomes the norm, rather than the exception.

The Bill provides the opportunity to do that, but I would be grateful if the Government considered some issues in Committee and on Report that will improve the Bill. First, everyone who needs a plan up to 25 should get one. Provision should not be restricted to those with a statemented SEN. As other hon. Members have said, it is also necessary to consider higher education. The local offer needs refining, and should be backed up with a national framework. There must be accountability for delivering the local offer, and while the education health care plans are welcome, more work is needed. Consideration should be given to how best to commit health authorities to delivery of their new responsibilities. One should also bear in mind the changing role of local authorities in education. With the rise of academies and free schools, local education authorities do not have the powers they once had. The Bill should be future-proofed to take account of the fact that the role of local education authorities may change still further in the coming years.

I commend the Government for introducing the Bill. In doing so, they are seeking to address an inequity and an injustice that has gone unnoticed for too long. Some amendments are required for the Bill to achieve its objectives, and I urge the Government to continue to pursue the collegiate approach that they, and in particular the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), have pursued to date. Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker—my voice is going.

20:26

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) who, despite struggling to find his voice, has made his points effectively.

There is sometimes a gap between the rhetoric we display in here and the reality outside. In the Scunthorpe area, 22% of children are defined as being in child poverty. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that families with children are the group being the hardest hit by the current cuts, with the poorest families with children under one having already lost approximately £1,000 a year. That is the context in which the children and families who need the most help are struggling.

I pay tribute to all staff in schools and colleges up and down the land who work extremely hard to achieve the best possible support and outcomes for young people with special educational needs. As the hon. Member for Waveney said, bad practice needs to be consigned to history. However, we need to celebrate good practice and recognise the efforts made by people on a daily basis—that is important.

One of the most significant problems with the current system is the fact that two different systems operate: pre-16 and post-16. That has resulted, more often than we would like, in students enrolling in college at the age of 16, but the college receiving little or no information about special educational needs. The establishment of a seamless system for everyone up to the age of 25 should be a step in the right direction, but the change raises a number of concerns because it will come into force in September 2014, a year after the September 2013 changes to the way in which post-16 special educational needs provision is funded.

Colleges are finding that the process of preparing for the 2013 funding change is exceptionally complicated, and it is regrettable that this proposal was not trialled in advance. There is a real danger that students are going to miss out on their education of choice. As the Education Committee Chair said, the poor management of the funding changes risks threatening the good will of educational institutions towards the good intentions in the Bill. There is confusion about the funding for young people with SEN in respect of preparation for the change in 2013 in post-16 funding.

Local authorities are taking very different approaches, with the worst practice being where they are allocating funding based on their assessments. Such authorities are acting as commissioners and deliverers of the service, and that is endangering the quality of the service. I hope the Minister will confirm that the Government expect that, at the very least, local authorities should continue to fund current students until they have completed their course. It is important that that commitment is given by the Government to provide assurance in the system, so that there is the confidence to build on the Bill and it is not undermined by the September 2013 changes. I hope that the Minister who will be making the winding-up speech has picked up on that point and will respond to it. Although the post-16 sector is enthusiastic about the principle, it is very concerned about the practice in respect of the funding changes for 2013 and there is a real danger that confidence will be undermined, even though the Bill seeks to do the right thing.

I wish to pick up on one or two other issues. The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) drew attention to the exclusion of young offenders from this Bill. I hope that the Government take the opportunity in Committee to re-examine that, because it seems, for reasons he expressed better than I could, that these young people need all the support they can get. Education for over-18s is not supported strongly in the Bill; it says that local authorities “can” take account of that when developing provision. That means that they might not take it into account, so the Government could also look to strengthen provision in that area.

Finally in my list of small issues, I would like the Government to examine the higher education provision. Young people with these additional needs should surely be supported in higher education, too, but the Bill deliberately excludes young people in higher education. Some young people’s higher education will be provided by further education colleges, and there is a lack of clarity about the position for that group in particular. I hope that the Government take the opportunity, either in response to this debate or in Committee, to examine these things in greater detail.

I welcome the excellent way in which the Minister began the debate by saying that he wanted to engage with issues and take the opportunity to improve the Bill. A number of hon. Members have mentioned the good intentions of the Bill and touched on the real issue, which is that with the changing landscape of free schools, academies, studio schools and so on—the hon. Member for Waveney mentioned that—there is a dislocation and dismemberment of a service, and we end up with a series of ad-hoc provisions. The Bill recognises the need for a proper service, but providing it is a challenge, because whereas Every Child Matters has a clear and direct philosophy behind it, the philosophy behind this Bill is at variance with the philosophy behind many of the other educational changes the Government are pushing forward. The Bill provides an opportunity for this skilled Minister to knit things all together, and I wish him luck.

20:33

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

This Bill is clearly close to the hearts of Ministers, hon. Members and many of our constituents. Unlike the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who has just made a typically well-informed contribution, I am not an expert in this policy area. Most of what I have learnt about it has come through the tuition of a very good organisation in the New Forest, Supporting Special Children and their Relatives and Friends—SCARF. It has alerted me to one particular aspect in the Bill, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) when he talked about the cliff edge encountered by young people when they reach 16.

SCARF is composed of parents of children with serious learning difficulties. They cope, and in most cases they cope quite heroically, but they need a degree of certainty in order to plan their lives. They told me that young people aged up to 16 were guaranteed five days of tuition per week, and were subsequently classified as adults. They had been receiving the full range of support to proceed to further education on what might be regarded as a full-time basis—for at least five days a week—but over the years since 2008, first under Labour and then under the present coalition Government, further education funds had been successively cut, and they were able to receive further education provision for their children with special needs first for just four days a week, and then for three. A ravine, or chasm, had appeared between the ages of 16 and 18. Families who had worked out a way of coping beforehand, and could cope afterwards, were suddenly confronted with an additional severe burden which could disrupt all their plans and hopes over that two-year period.

This is not the first occasion on which I have raised the issue in the House. I must say that I have been very impressed by the response that I have received from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), and I think it is a measure of Ministers’ commitment to the Bill that he appears to have been present since the beginning of the debate. I was also struck by the fact that the Secretary of State was present for the first two hours, although he would not be participating directly in the debate, and I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who will wind up the debate, has been present for the vast majority of it. I therefore have no doubt about the seriousness with which these problems are being taken.

I originally raised the matter in an Adjournment debate on 22 October last year. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich sent me a very helpful letter on 13 December, at the end of which he wrote—it was the first occasion during all my time in Parliament that a Minister had done this—“If you would like to come and talk this over with my officials, please do so.” I did, and the meeting took place on 13 February, less than a fortnight ago.

A particular point emerged from those discussions. I shall observe the principle that one should only try to make one main point in any given oration; at least, that is what Mr. Speaker always used to tell me during the years when we were practising our speaking techniques before entering this place. I understand that, whereas in the past funds have been effectively guaranteed on the basis that a minimum of 450 teaching hours a year will be supplied for young people with special educational needs, that minimum will rise to 540 hours, with an average of 600. What was impressed on us by the Minister’s officials at the meeting was that that should mean that any further education college delivering those hours should deliver them over a period of at least four days, rather than three.

Let me make a simple suggestion. It relates, I suspect, to clause 37(4) of the Bill, which states:

“Regulations may make provision about the preparation, content and maintenance of EHC plans.”

I think that we need either an amendment at a later stage, or a commitment from a Minister that those regulations will specify that the minimum number of teaching hours —now, I believe, guaranteed to be 540, with an average of 600—shall be delivered over no fewer than four days. That would be a major step in the right direction, because it would mean that those parents—with all the burdens that they bear, all the efforts that they make, and all the courage that they show—could be assured that, for at least four days a week, their children could receive appropriate stimulation and support. As they point out, the last thing someone aged between 16 and 18 wants is to be nursemaided by their parents. They need stimulation and support. The Government are offering the extra hours—all praise to them for that—but they should ensure that the local authorities are instructed to deliver them over a minimum of four days a week.

20:40

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

The Bill covers such a medley of issues about which I and many of my constituents care deeply that it was difficult to know where to start. I have raised many of them previously in the House from both the Front Bench and the Back Benches, including the adoption process, the importance of supporting all looked-after children, the reform of the family justice system, how to enable parents to create a better work-life balance and the protection of Sure Start services, which I am alarmed to see being put at risk by some of the Government’s local authority cuts. All those issues are incredibly important, as they not only have a direct effect on our constituents but impact on the welfare of society as a whole. However, I decided to focus on the reforms to the system for children and young people with special educational needs, including those who are disabled, so that, in the words of the Department for Education,

“services consistently support the best outcomes for them.”

The Bill’s aim to provide support from birth to the age of 25 through the new education, health and care plans is laudable and deserves cross-party support. We all know from our constituency casework that the provision for families and children with special educational needs is often not up to scratch and, too often, the support that is available must be fought for extremely hard by parents. I welcome the move towards EHCPs, but I support the concerns expressed by several special educational needs organisations that as the Bill is drafted they will offer no more legal entitlement to support from health and social care services than statements. I know that organisations such as the National Autistic Society—including its Newcastle branch, which I met recently—are very concerned that the health and social care aspects of EHCPs should be put on the same statutory footing as education, with greater duties in health. If the Government are serious about delivering a joined-up system of support to families across all services, that concern must be addressed and acted on.

I am keen to focus today on personal budgets, the idea of a local offer of support and, more particularly, how that will be delivered on the ground in the current climate of austerity and cuts to local services. Earlier this month, Mencap published its latest report into the provision of short breaks, commonly known as respite care, for family carers of people with a learning disability. That excellent report makes sobering, indeed difficult, reading. Its key finding is that eight out of 10 family carers are still reaching crisis point due to a lack of breaks from caring. The Minister should be particularly concerned by the report’s findings that, in the past three years, four out of 10 family carers said they had experienced cuts to short breaks and four out of 10 felt their short breaks services had got worse. Three out of 10 councils had closed short breaks services for adults and children, more than half had cut spending on short breaks and six out of 10 had provided short breaks services to a smaller proportion of children with a learning disability in their area.

I know from my constituency just how important short-break provision is to families with children, including adult sons and daughters, with learning disabilities and special educational needs. In Newbiggin Hall in my constituency, we are hugely fortunate to have Cheviot View, a purpose-built and extremely impressive facility that provides overnight residential short-break care for children and young people with disabilities aged 6 to 18. The city council area also has Castle Dene, which is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) but is used by many of my constituents and provides a very similar service for people over the age of 18.

I had the privilege of visiting both centres and meeting the families who use the extremely high-quality facilities, which have been described as an example of best practice. The short breaks provided by the centres to children and young people with a wide range of different and often very complex needs enables them to develop friendships, be independent and take part in activities in which they simply would not otherwise have the opportunity to take part. More than that, short breaks provide their often exhausted and isolated families with much needed respite, not a holiday, just the opportunity to take a break from their full-time caring role and do the everyday things, such as shopping, cleaning, having a full night’s sleep and spending time with their other children, that most of us take for granted. By doing that, the centres undoubtedly help to prevent family and relationship breakdown, and there is no doubt in my mind that they provide an absolute lifeline to many local families.

My recent meetings with families who see those facilities put at risk were invariably moving and emotional. The reason for my visits was the proposed closure of those centres by Newcastle city council as part of its draft budget for the period 2013-16. Following the cuts to local authority funding, the city treasurer estimates a funding gap in the city of about £100 million. Newcastle is not alone. Other northern cities and the poorest London boroughs are bearing the brunt of many of the local government cuts; the areas in most need of support are being hardest hit.

The respite centres in Newcastle were therefore considered for closure, as that would go towards the £100 million of required savings, alongside a whole raft of other savings. I am pleased to say that since the budget consultation closed, and following an incredible campaign run by local people including Nicola Vose, the tenacious mother of two children who use the facilities, the council is revisiting its decision and has announced that the centres will remain open until 2014 and, I very much hope, beyond. Part of the reason the centres may be able to stay open is that many local authority areas around Newcastle are closing their centres and may now need to access services in Newcastle.

The issue is also national, and it needs to be considered, so although I fully welcome the intentions behind the Bill, I ask the Minister to confirm how much consideration has been given to the implementation of its provisions in a climate of austerity, and whether offering children and their families personal budgets will have as much value if there are no services for many of the most vulnerable people.

20:46

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of the Bill, albeit briefly. I offer my apologies for not being in the Chamber for the beginning of the Minister’s comments; I was upholding the honour of the parliamentary hockey team, which is why I am now limping.

There are many things in the Bill to support. It takes forward much of the work done over our past few years in government, and indeed when we were in opposition, especially on adoption and parenting, and I shall talk about those two subjects in particular.

I very much welcome the special educational need reforms, and I think the Minister is open to amendments to tweak and improve them. I welcome the Children’s Commissioner reforms, on the basis of John Dunford’s excellent report. I also welcome the innovative proposals on parental leave and flexible working, especially in respect of adoption. The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) should be complimented on her private Member’s Bill a couple of years ago, which brought the matter to the attention of the Government.

I welcome those provisions, but a number of things could be done better. The subject of shared parenting, or parental involvement, as we are now to call it, has a lot of history. We put forward proposals for the 2006 Children and Adoption Bill. I was disappointed that although more than half of Labour MPs, and Liberal Democrats, supported an identical early-day motion, they voted against proposals that could have brought in the provisions in 2006.

The Bill should be seen in the context of many other things that the Government are doing on private law cases in the justice system, such as better mediation services, better relationship support upstream and better enforcement. The Chairman of the Justice Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, seemed to think there was not a problem. There is a perceived problem and an actual problem. In research on children who do not live with both parents, resident parents reported that between a quarter and a third of the children rarely, if ever, see their non-resident parent. That is a real problem. In 2011, despite serial breaching of contact orders in the many cases that as constituency MPs we see week in, week out, only 53 enforcement orders were granted for non-resident parents to have contact with their children.

[Charlie Elphicke]

We know there is a problem, do we not, because these cases so often fill our constituency surgeries. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in helping to bring forward this part of the Bill.

[Tim Loughton]

I am grateful. It is a problem that we have all known about, but have shied away from doing something about. This is a real opportunity at last to do something about it. It is not about parental rights; it is about parental responsibilities. That includes the responsibilities of parents who have done a runner. The legislation will make it clear to them that they have a responsibility to their children, whether they are on the scene or not. The provision does nothing to dilute the principle of the paramountcy of the welfare of the child; that is absolutely clear. If it did anything else, I would not support it. It is in clause 1; it is subjugated to that very important paramountcy principle in the opening section of the Children Act 1989.

The Bill must send out a very clear message to warring parents—to the 10% of cases who still go to court: “If you think you can play winner takes all, and freeze the non-resident parent out of your child’s relationships and childhood, forget it. Think again, because both of you will have a responsibility to the children, or will be expected to play as full a part as possible in their upbringing.” That is what the provision is all about; it does not dilute the welfare principle.

A lot has happened on adoption in the past few years. This legislation builds on the work of the adoption action plan and the adoption gateway. It was encouraging to see the early glimmers of a reversal in the trend in adoption numbers since 2007; we saw a tick up in 2012, but it is early days. I very much support the measures on fostering for adoption, or concurrent planning, as we used to call it. Coram in particular has done some excellent work on that. It is about a seamless transition for a child, with the risk being taken by the prospective parents, not the child, and about maintaining continuity of care, which is so important to a child in care in the early years.

I strongly support the adoption support services mentioned in the Bill. Peri-adoption support services are probably the most important thing in ensuring a good-quality, lasting placement. As the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) said, we absolutely need to do more research on those adoptions that are disrupted. I am afraid that it is also necessary for us to do more around ethnic matching. As to whether we need legislation to do it, I do not know, but we absolutely need to make it clear that first and foremost a child needs a safe, loving, stable environment from a family. If that family happens to be an ethnic match, that is a bonus; it should not be a deal-breaker for the child.

I am concerned that the £150 million taken from the early intervention grant may mean that provision is taken away from children who remain in care. Even if we double the number of children going into adoption—that is not a target—90% of children in the care system will remain in it, in foster care and residential homes, and will not go into adoption. Yet the only measures in the Bill relating to looked-after children are those for virtual heads, which I welcome, and those on contact arrangements. Why do we not extend personal budgets to foster carers? Why do we not do more to give children in care priority access to mental health services? Half of children in care suffer from mental health problems. That is probably the single biggest contribution we could make to giving them greater stability and a chance to do well at school.

As the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has said, half of children who come into care because of abuse or neglect suffer further abuse when they return home, with up to half of them returning to care. If we did more to support them, so that they could stay with their families, we would have fewer kids in care.

We need to do more. Where I take issue with the Government is on recruitment. We desperately need to recruit more prospective adopters. We desperately need voluntary agencies to recruit more adopters, but it is too early to compel local authorities to take away the responsibility for recruiting adopters. It has been only a year since the adoption scorecard came out. They are three-year track records, and they are always retrospective. We need to give local authorities a greater chance to show that they can recruit more adopters and work in partnership with voluntary agencies. One thing that we could do to help those agencies is create a bounty fee; voluntary agencies would be paid for recruiting prospective adopters. At the moment, the more they recruit, the more they have to pay to retain and train them. They do not get paid until they receive the inter-agency fee. A bounty measure would incentivise voluntary agencies to do more of what they so successfully do to recruit. The Bill risks de-linking adoption from other permanent options.

Finally, I would like to see more measures for supporting young carers, as many hon. Members have mentioned. I would like to see an effective independent complaints or ombudsman system in adoption, for those cases that have gone badly wrong. I would like to see child performance regulations in the Bill—which my ten-minute rule Bill will propose—as it is the only opportunity that we have had and probably will have in this Parliament to introduce them. I would also like to see us do more to compel local safeguarding children’s boards to publish their serious case reviews and to commission them in the first place, as we do not have any primary legislation to do that. There are many other things that I would like to see, but I have run out of time.

20:55

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) served with distinction in his role both in opposition and in government. Members in all parts of the House appreciate the work that he did and the passion that he showed for the issues being debated today. I commend him for that. We heard some good ideas from him that could improve the Bill.

I shall say a few words about special educational needs, before concentrating on adoption, and make my own comments about the excellent practice throughout the country, not least in my borough, Sefton, where schools work on the basis of inclusion and work closely together to make sure that children with special needs get the best deal possible. I have seen that from personal experience in my own family.

I add my concerns to those expressed by a number of Members about the impact of a local offer without minimum standards. Lack of minimum standards could be the undoing of the intention behind it. With falling budgets it will be very difficult for local authorities to deliver on education, health and care plans without national minimum standards. A number of speakers have commented on changes to school action and school action plus. The Government will need to address in some detail the concern about children who are receiving the services now potentially missing out as a result of the change.

On children in care and the plans to speed up adoption, the Government have made much of the delays in adoption. Two and a half years, as the Minister pointed out, is the average time it takes for a child to be adopted. It is right to point out that for young children delay in making secure, long-term, safe relationships can be as damaging as the neglect or abuse that caused them to be taken into care in the first place. For children who are adopted and for families adopting, where the right match is made between child and family, yes, everything should be done to speed up the legal and administrative process.

There are problems with the speed of the court process, with the understanding of the courts, with the case loads of social workers, and with the understanding of some professionals of the impact of delay or the impact of children moving from birth family, sometimes to multiple foster carers. Understanding of the long-term psychological damage done is improving, but there are still delays at all stages. However, just speeding up adoption placements is not the full answer. Some 90% of children in care do not go on to be adopted. I agree that where adoption can be speeded up, it should be, and so should decisions about long-term foster care, kinship care, special guardianship and keeping families together. These should all be made in a timely fashion. In short, we need a system of care for children which is for the many, not just the lucky few.

The idea that adoption is the gold standard, followed by lesser options for other children, is not good enough for the most disadvantaged group of children in our society. Just because a child ends up in a children’s home does not mean that they should receive a lower level of care or support than one who is adopted. Speed is not always the answer. Getting the placement right is tricky. Adoption placements, sadly, break down. Just as with children who are in foster care or residential care, children who are adopted are often severely damaged, physically or psychologically, and it can be very difficult for them to build relationships with adoptive or foster parents.

In the understandable and desirable clamour to speed up the adoption process, another factor needs to be taken on board. I mention Every Child Matters in this context. When it comes to children in the care system, that should apply just as much as to children in other circumstances. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, the presumption that the child is put first is incredibly important, and I glad that he pointed out that that is not affected by what is proposed. If it is in the interests of the child for adoption to be rushed through, that is great, so let us do all we can when a child and prospective adopters bond, but when it is not so clear, a little more thought needs to be given. It must be worse for a child to be placed with a family only to find out months or even a few years later that they have to move to another placement.

The importance of identity and the need to form stable attachments are crucial to the well-being of each child, and the long-term impact on children who have gone through the care system cannot be underestimated. In the long term, the impact is there for all to see in the high number of young people who were in the care system and whose life chances have been permanently damaged. Sadly, children who are in care are all too likely to end up with few or no qualifications, which has a seriously damaging impact on their job prospects and increases the chances that they will have mental health problems, will be homeless or will struggle to build stable relationships later in life. Of course, far too many people in our prisons were in care as children.

It is crucial that everything is done to support children in care to ensure that they have a stable, loving home, whether through adoption or not. In order to achieve that, we need to look at those adults who are expected to support the children in the care system. We have heard a lot about social worker case loads. We need to recruit and train more social workers.

I want to talk about foster carers, adoptive parents and the recruitment of the adults who could look after so many more of the children going through the care system. What I want to see from the Government are ideas on how we can get far more adults to be adoptive parents. It is about being honest and up front with them about the difficulties they will face, the emotional challenges of children who are severely damaged, and all the challenges, stress and problems that can be caused for a family taking on such vulnerable children. Being up front is the way to go, but training and support is also important. If we are to have professionals in teaching, in nursing and in social work, why not make people professionals when they come forward to adopt or to care as foster carers? Why not express formally that they are professionals and put in place the money to support them, and not just in the support services, but in the funding they get themselves?

21:02

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I start by paying tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), for the exceptional way in which he introduced the debate and took the House through the detail of the Bill, of which he has such an incisive grasp. It is an excellent Bill, particularly when it comes to the rights of children to have a relationship with both their parents, an issue on which I have brought a ten-minute rule Bill before the House. I also want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for his part in helping to prepare this Bill.

Some 3 million children in this country are growing up in families that have separated, and around 1 million of them have no contact with one of their parents. The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service has been criticised in the past for having a heavy case load and for too often not being timely enough, so the provisions in clause 10 relating to mediation are extremely welcome.

Clause 11, most of all, is dear to my heart. It will give children the right to know, and to have a relationship with, both their parents. We need the understanding that the child must have the right to a relationship with both parents, because too often it is about mums’ rights and dads’ rights, but this is actually about the rights of the child. It is not right that a parent should sink their child’s right to know the other parent in a sea of acrimony when they split up. From my point of view, that is a very timely and welcome reform. I have had so many complaints about that from constituents, such as Mrs A of Wootton, who wrote about her son’s experience. She said, “Each time a visit is due, their mother creates a great deal of hassle, never being able to give a precise date etc., and she has twice prevented the visit completely.”

It is not simply about mothers with residence. There are cases in which the father has had residence and has blocked the mother from seeing the child. What I have to say is that it is wholly wrong in both cases, as it is an abuse of the child’s rights. It is a child’s right to know and have a relationship with both parents because both parents have love, affection, knowledge and mentorship to offer—and the law should not stand in the way of that; the law should assert and assist that and make it more possible.

21:04

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The general view of the House is that the Bill is a good one that could improve the quality of life of large numbers of children. It is not the revolution, to be frank, that some of us wanted, and there is also an underlying fear that the austerity measures being introduced might undermine the Bill’s potential. Let me say to the Minister that if the Bill requires a battle with the Treasury, he has allies on all sides to fight the fight over resources.

As we legislate, we need to learn lessons. For a Bill that relies so heavily on regulations and codes of practice, we need to learn the lesson that it would have been better to have those regulations and codes of practice available to us on Second Reading. I know that it will happen in our Committee consideration, but it would have been good to have them before us today, as without them we will be working on some issues in the dark until the detail of the regulations is revealed over the next few weeks.

I shall concentrate on two elements: family justice, and children and young people. We have all received many briefings on family justice, and I think we should thank those who supply them to us. On the family justice side, I have received briefings from the National Association of Probation Officers, or NAPO, and the Public and Commercial Services Union, which organises Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service workers and others.

I have three issues to raise. The first is about mediation in clause 10. I raised the issue earlier, but we need to know in some detail how mediation is to be organised in the regulations. Who will undertake the mediation; how will it be structured and organised; how will it be resourced? In addition, I raised the point in an intervention, and it was taken up by the Chairman of the Justice Committee, about the qualifications of the mediators. How will they be trained, and what accreditation will they have? They will have to deal with issues such as the safeguarding of children, the identification of domestic abuse and other matters. That is a professional role; it needs to be professionally resourced.

On the child arrangements orders in clause 12, I am anxious that this new procedure is being introduced at a time when legal aid has been cut. I am concerned that in complex cases adequate legal aid must be available to ensure that the children are properly represented by guardians. It would be worth exploring that further with the Minister in Committee; we must have confidence that the resources will be available to protect children and ensure that their voice is heard.

As for clause 15, I am concerned that the Bill amends the Children Act 1989 so that the courts focus on the central issue of whether the child should be removed from their parents, and the scrutiny of the detail of the care plans is to be left to local authorities. Frankly, when local authorities are under significant financial pressure, my anxiety is that that scrutiny might be influenced by that fact. I welcome the role of the courts in that respect. We sometimes need the independence of a judicial view on these matters.

On the special needs elements, I am grateful for the briefings we received from the Association of Educational Psychologists, my own local group the Hillingdon Autistic Care and Support society, and the National Autistic Society itself. Future work will be based on the foundation stones of the assessment procedure. The regulations or the code of practice need to be explicit about what is expected in the assessment. There will be a requirement to draw on very specialist services. I would welcome it if those services were spelled out in some detail in the regulations—for example, that there will be recourse to educational psychologists and to speech and language therapy. It should be obligatory that that sort of service will be part and parcel of the assessment procedure. Again, I fear that in this economic climate some local authorities, for example, might be tempted to save money by using less rigorous assessment procedures or by using under-qualified or inappropriately qualified staff to save money. That can be overcome, I think, only by central direction from the central Government in regulation.

Time limits will be important in these assessments. I am anxious that there are no time limits in the Bill and hope that they will be determined in more detail in regulations. We should set out in regulations the specific time limits on responses to parents’ requests for assessment, on providing a mediation certificate, and on when a plan is to be put in place. There also need to be regulations on the form and content of the plans, because there are anxieties not only about a postcode lottery, as others have said, but about the possibility that form and content could vary across the piece. That could not only create difficulties for parents but make it difficult for the Government to monitor the effectiveness of the implementation of the plans.

On local offers, the regulations need to be very specific not only about what local authorities are saying exists, but about what should exist, in individual services—best-quality standards rather than minimum standards. The regulations should also ensure that schools are required to set out what they are making available in terms of their local offer. Now that school action plans, among others, are no longer to exist, parents will require that information to make their judgment about the placement of their child within a school setting.

With regard to tribunals, I reiterate the point that others have made about the lack of enforceability with regard to health and social services. I cannot understand why we have a different system from Scotland, where there is some enforceability over health and social services in the development of plans. I welcome the encouragement towards mediation services. I am grateful that the Government have listened to parents so that we do not have an obligatory form of mediation, but having dropped the element of compulsion they have introduced a cumbersome certification process that ultimately can only delay matters.

I fear that personal budgets will not cover the specialist services that are required, particularly in educational psychology. We need to be much more specific about how those personal budgets will be spent to ensure that they can draw in the expertise that children need.

21:11

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who made very important points about the need to make sure that the regulations that follow the Bill protect and enhance not only the rights of the children and young people concerned but the rights of their parents and families. Accountability must be at the heart of this process. It was the lack of accountability and the resulting problems that we all encountered as constituency MPs—and, indeed, as parents—that led to the developments that have seen the introduction of this welcome Bill. I am delighted to support its Second Reading. I am very encouraged by the degree of cross-party support that we are seeing in the Chamber and will, I hope, see in Committee.

The road to the Bill has been a long one, and many of us who have a great interest in these issues were sometimes champing at the bit for the pace to quicken. However, having seen the results of the extensive consultation process and the hard work of the various Select Committees, I am pleased that we have reached this Bill at last rather than at first, as it were, which will make it a better and stronger piece of legislation.

As a member of the Justice Committee, I took a particular interest, with colleagues, in the family law provisions, particularly the debate about parental involvement, as it will now rightly be called. However, I will deal mainly with the provisions relating to special educational needs, which form a large part of the Bill.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work on special educational needs, particularly autism. Does he share my view that children with a middle to low special educational need such as pragmatic language disorders, dyslexia and autism are often short-changed by local authorities, and that the more we can do to strengthen the hand of parents, the greater the amount of provision that will be available to those children?

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. A large cohort of children and young people with disabilities that have been diagnosed will not be covered by the new plans. Some, but not all, were formerly covered by the school action and school action plus programmes. I hope that the Bill will be a catalyst, not only to improve the lot of those young people who will be subject to the new plans, but to improve training and awareness and the system so that it encourages the earlier identification and diagnosis of such problems so that they do not develop to a degree that necessitates intervention in the form of a plan later on.

That is why it is vital that we do not regard this as merely an education Bill—it is also a health Bill and a justice Bill, and it relates to social care. The joined-up thinking—not just at Government level, but at local level—that I and many others have been talking about for so long is vital if we are to make real progress. The provisions that impose a duty on local authorities to work jointly with other agencies, such as the national health service and local health bodies, are absolutely key to make sure that we can deliver for young people.

As I have said, early identification of disabilities such as speech, language and communication disorders— I think that will be enhanced by the expansion of the health visitor system with the injection of another 4,200 health visitors by 2015—will be an essential part of the work that will have to accompany the passage of the Bill. If we do not achieve a fully integrated health and education check at the age of two and a half— I know that that is one of the Government’s key ambitions—we will miss an important trick.

When the all-party group on autism, which I have the pleasure of chairing, reported on these proposals last year, we looked in particular at the need to address the question of transition. Although I am delighted that the Bill extends the provision of education, health and care plans for young people up to the age of 25, it is essential that 25 does not become the new cliff edge. More work needs to be done to ensure that duties are imposed on local authorities and others to provide for those important transition years. Many young people with special educational needs take time to develop. They do not abide by the usual milestones, but go at their own pace and do things in their own time, which is why the extension is so important. We do not want to see the good work that can be done up to the age of 25 wasted by a lack of provision for the transition to adulthood. I also hope that the Bill will make provision to support those who fall in and out of education—a number of people do so for various reasons, some of which are health-related—to get back into it.

Much has been made of clause 69 and the sad exclusion of young people in detention. That, to my mind, is something of an admission of defeat. More than 70% of young people in detention have some form of speech, language or communication disorder. We cannot ignore that cohort. In fact, we ignore them at our peril. I want concerted action to be taken, not only by the Department for Education but by the Ministry of Justice, to make sure that effective provision to address the special needs of those in custody keeps pace with the welcome reforms.

I look forward to the publication of the draft code of practice and hope that the new code will be much more of a living instrument than its predecessor, which has not kept pace with changes in provisions or in priorities. It has to be a living document that will adapt and change over time.

Much has been said about the local offer. It must combine the enterprise and initiative of many local authorities and agencies with a national framework from which those who commission services can seek guidance and support. Blending those two factors will be essential, for example for families with children with special educational needs who, for work or for other reasons, have to move around the country and want to see similar provision in the town or city in which they are going to live. That form of passporting is important in ensuring that there is consistent provision across England.

The position of those who do not fall within the care plans is of genuine concern to us all. However, it is my belief that the Bill, which is the most important reform of special educational needs provision since the Education Act 1981, goes a long way towards addressing the genuine concerns of professionals, parents and all those who have campaigned so assiduously in the sector. I pay tribute to the Minister and his colleagues for the commitment, passion and hard work that they have put in to make this a very useful foundation for success.

21:20

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I begin by supporting the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey). In Rotherham, a prosecution for child sexual exploitation collapsed because the young person found that the horror and trauma of going to court outweighed their desire for justice to be served. I am deeply sympathetic to that young person’s choice, but I urge the Minister to use the Bill to make reforms that prevent other children from having to go through similar horrors.

I broadly welcome the Bill. However, I will focus on how it will impact on life-limited children and children with cancer because I am concerned that they might be overlooked in such a large Bill.

From my experience of working with such children, the care system is often disjointed and baffling. Families routinely deal with more than 30 professionals from education, social care, health and other services. It was standard for families to tell me how frustrated they were that they had to say the same thing over and again to different professionals because the information was not shared between departments, let alone between other agencies. Communication between agencies is generally inadequate, leaving families burdened with the stress of having to navigate their way through an unco-ordinated system. All that happens at a time when many families are overwhelmed by their child’s situation. Unfortunately, that experience is common among families of all disabled children.

If a child’s life is likely to be shortened, the time that is wasted negotiating through the system can be particularly distressing. The Bill must prevent that. As one constituent said:

“Unless you shout and fight you don’t get anything. And, to be honest, I’d rather be spending that time with my child instead of battling the system that should be helping us.”

All the evidence suggests that the best outcomes for children with life-limiting conditions are achieved when there is an effective partnership between parents and the services. As many Members have said today, it is imperative that care is co-ordinated around the needs of the child.

The Bill includes a series of clauses that aim to reform the provision for special educational needs and disability in England. The original SEND proposals were included in the 2011 Green Paper, which set out a vision of improved outcomes for children and young people who are disabled or have SEN. The aim was to reduce the

“adversarial nature of the system for families”.

The Green Paper offered an opportunity to join up assessments and services for all disabled children. However, the draft SEND clauses that followed focused too heavily on education-related services and did not provide an adequate framework to draw health and social care services into the system of support for children with SEN. The Education Committee recommended that the Government broaden the scope of the clauses to reflect the aspirations of the Green Paper. Ministers have not taken its advice. As a result, it is unlikely that the Bill will bring about the integrated assessments and care that the Government have promised. Unless that is addressed, the Bill will simply replicate and reinforce the fragmentation in the current system.

Research has estimated that about 25% of disabled children do not have SEN. Similarly, there are children who have specific health conditions such as cancer who would benefit significantly from a single plan and jointly commissioned services. However, those children would not meet the requirements for an SEN statement. At a time when local authority budgets are under increasing pressure, I seek assurance from the Government that they recognise the impact of local cuts on SEND services.

Local authorities will need considerable support and resources to ensure that the reforms can make a practical difference at a local level. To ensure that the Bill realises the aims of the Government’s original Green Paper, its focus should be widened to include all disabled children, including those without a statement of SEN. It should make clear what disabled children can expect from local services, through a duty to provide and a national framework for local offers. The entitlement to education, health and care plans should extend to all disabled 18 to 25 year olds, including those no longer in education. The duties on the health service to contribute to integrated assessment and delivery need to be clearer and more explicit, and the Bill’s focus should be widened to include all disabled children.

Despite the Education Committee’s recommendation, the Government have chosen not to include disabled children without an SEN statement in the scope of the Bill. That means that disabled children who do not require support in school, or who are not in education or training, and their families, will not benefit from more integrated services despite the significant time and effort that many have to commit to securing the care and support that they need. I urge the Government to adopt the measures that I have suggested, as they would have a considerable positive impact on a vast number of families.

21:25

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who is already making a huge contribution to the business of the House.

As others have said, this is a huge Bill. It covers a broad range of topics, but there are a number of features that unite them. The first is that all aspects of the Bill are intended to meet a demand that has been out there for some time, which those outside the world of politics have been calling for to be met. They relate to problems that are brought to us as constituency MPs time and again, and we have heard some examples today, some of them quite harrowing, of what we hear from constituents and from the many organisations that represent people who are going through tough times.

The Bill has been brought forward from a perspective of trying to solve problems in a way that will stand the test of time. In some areas, we have not had new legislation for a long time, so the Bill is significant. It is intended to overcome the disadvantages that some people have faced and to better support, for example, looked-after children and those who are seeking adoption. We perhaps hear more often from families who want to adopt about the barriers that they are facing, but the process must focus on the young people concerned, who have every right to expect a loving and supportive family in which to grow and do well.

The Bill also includes the proposals for greater flexibility in the workplace, which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who is in her place, have talked about for some time. Other hon. Members have covered those proposals in greater detail. I pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who is no longer in her place, for the work that she did in bringing forward the proposals on special educational needs, and to the other former Ministers from whom we have heard, who made a great contribution to getting us to where we are today.

The process has been one of listening, as all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken have pointed out. Opposition Members have been keen to point out where they would like the Government to change things further, and we have the process of Committee and Report and the detailed debate in another place to go through yet, but they have also said that the Government have set out their proposals, listened and sought to meet the concerns that have been raised.

There has been broad welcome for a special educational needs system that will now go from birth to 25, as that will overcome the problem of crucial periods of change, such as at the ages of 18 and 16. The Bill will ensure that there is greater support for those considering further education, as the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) said, and for those who are considering apprenticeships and wider training opportunities.

The Bill is intended to deal with the parental concerns, about which we have all heard a great deal, about many different agencies providing services to a family. Families are having to jump through separate institutional hoops, sometimes at a time of stress when they need the most support, and the plans that the Government set out in the Bill are a huge step in the right direction towards bringing those services together and providing one point of contact for families to ensure that we get things right.

Hon. Members are, of course, concerned about the local offer, as are organisations on behalf of parents outside this place. We should not, however, be too prescriptive and must consider existing levels of support. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned some specific services—educational psychology, speech and language therapy and so on—but equally, at a time of stretched budgets we do not want services that become costly and might not meet the needs of individual young people. As with other services, we must ensure that what is on offer meets the needs of the young people concerned, and that services are shaped around them rather than sat on a shelf waiting for a need that may or may not arise. We must get the balance right between those two aspects.

Flexible parental leave is another step in the right direction of ensuring that everybody is able to contribute in the workplace. Employers can benefit from the skills of women who have hitherto perhaps spent longer out of the work force, but who might be able to come back to work if they have a supportive partner who is willing and keen to spend more time with their children. Leave entitlement should be used more flexibly so that it is split between the couple and also between two employers—employers will welcome that once the system beds down and we must ensure that we get it right.

A number of Members have mentioned adoption and I will not dwell on that except to say that the Government have set out their concern that the process should continue to focus on the child and be rigorous from the perspective of parental approval. It must also ensure that young people are placed with the right family as speedily as possible and in the interests of the young person concerned. We have heard about family justice and the family court, and we must ensure that the key principle of a child-centred approach is still there, and that the child does not become a pawn in a game between two parents. Both parents must be aware that they need to make room for the other parent in that child’s life. The process should support that and keep the case out of court wherever possible.

The Bill contains measures on child care and the role of the Children’s Commissioner, and I hope Ministers will address the concerns felt by childminders that the proposed agencies will enable them to get on with the job and are not about forcing them into a new straitjacket or seeking to bring them together into a large privatised agency. I am sure the Government will seek to correct that concern. In essence, the Bill seeks to do a huge amount and sets out approaches that will tackle the problems mentioned today.

21:33

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this interesting debate. I wish to focus on one aspect that many hon. Members have already raised—special educational needs—and I particularly welcome the Minister’s commitment to those most vulnerable children in our society. The Bill aspires to improve support and create a smooth pathway for all young people on their transition to adulthood.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) referred to the cliff edge that some young people face as they move between child and adult services. As that person moves into adulthood, support that has been good throughout childhood can become rocky and disjointed and it is not always as easy a transition as we would hope. Teenage years can be difficult for any young person, but for those with special educational needs they are that much harder. This Bill is an opportunity to address the cliff edge that is a cause of concern for both parents and their children. Currently, however, the Bill does not adequately explain how that might be managed.

Ambitious about Autism, the national charity for children and young people with autism, has suggested that the Bill should include a duty to offer an adult social care assessment and complete a transition to adulthood plan for a young person before an education health and care plan can cease to be maintained. It is an expert in the field and runs not only the TreeHouse school in Muswell Hill, where young people with autism between the ages of four and 19 receive specialist education, but also Ambitious Support at Barnet college, which caters for 19 to 25-year-olds. That attracts young people from across north London.

Because of its considerable experience, Ambitious about Autism understands the challenges of supporting young people through that difficult transition. It has a pragmatic and realistic approach to the likelihood of dropping out and seeking to restart education. It is easy to understand that young people with autism will take time out of education—they do so for a range of reasons, including health issues, exclusion from college, or self-exclusion owing to a lack of appropriate support. Equally, young people with autism might commence an apprenticeship or work placement but find it unsuitable and seek to return to college.

Ambitious about Autism is concerned that the Bill means that those young people could lose their package of support and struggle to be assisted back into education. I regard such assistance as an absolute imperative. All hon. Members know that young people often find it difficult to settle on one path. It is essential that those with special educational needs are given the safety net of being able to find their way back into education, and that they have the appropriate support to do so.

The Government suggest that regulations could make provision to support such young people. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that they are explicit on the need to protect education, health and care plans for young people. I also urge him to review support for young people with special educational needs between the ages of 19 and 25, should they fall out of education, employment or training for any reason. We should have a view to supporting them back into education when that best meets their needs.

Ambitious about Autism’s Finished at School campaign found that just one in four young people with autism access education beyond school. For some, that will be through choice, but others would stay in education if only they could access courses and colleges that are capable of providing appropriate support. I welcome the steps the Government have taken to improve the 16-to-25 elements of the Bill, but we need a clearer definition of post-16 education and training institutions. Regulations setting out the definition should be published before Committee and ensure that young people have the broadest possible options for further education.

21:37

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I am desperate to speak in this debate, because I really want to be on the Public Bill Committee, where I will be able to make the speech I am unable to entertain hon. Members with this evening.

I want briefly to say that the greatest potential for supporting families and children is in the perinatal period, from conception to age two. That is when we have the greatest potential to get the society we want, with resilient babies who grow up to become socially responsible adults.

I have a couple of suggestions for the Government on amending the Bill to make a significant difference instantly. First, they could take up the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) of having all births registered at a children’s centre rather than a registry office. That would destigmatise children’s centres, which would be an instant access point for all families. They could go into the realms of a children’s centre and get the support they need. The centres would also provide a chance of support for those with post-natal depression.

Secondly, I would like the Government to adopt my ten-minute rule Bill, which deals with children born on to the child protection list. When there is no plan to take the baby away, the mother would be allocated talking therapies when she became pregnant. In that way, she can improve her maternal attunement towards the baby. The sting in the tail is that, if the baby reaches six months and there is no improvement in the mother’s ability to parent, a decision should be taken at a case review to take the baby away. There is a pitifully short window of opportunity for the baby. If the Bill is all about the children, we should seriously consider more radical solutions to ensure that we are not wasting their valuable time.

Finally, if women were offered an ante-natal interview that assesses problems such as attachment, maternal attunement and depression, and that predicts future depression, we would be in a position to know the magnitude of the problem and introduce measures to resolve it.

21:39

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

We welcome the coalition’s first Bill to focus on children and families. We especially welcome the fact that the Bill focuses on some of the children who are facing the greatest challenges, such as those with special educational needs and those in the care system.

We believe that the provisions on shared parental leave that build on the maternity and paternity leave entitlements of the last Government, and the measures to improve post-adoption support, are an important step forward for children, and we warmly welcome the introduction of child arrangement orders. However, we have heard considerable concerns from hon. Members throughout the debate about the real-world effect of some of these measures, and they need much greater scrutiny before the Bill becomes law. That is particularly true of the provisions on special educational needs, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham); the exclusion of children with disabilities from care plans; and the potential postcode lottery of the local offer.

We share concerns raised by the Select Committee on Adoption Legislation in the House of Lords about the practical implications of removing the requirement to consider ethnicity when placing a child for adoption; about prescribing children’s best interests in primary legislation; and about the unusual, if not unique, attempt to impose strict time limits on care proceedings in primary legislation. The needs of individual children must remain paramount, both in principle and in practice. While we welcome the efforts made by the Minister so far to accommodate the concerns that have been raised with him, we believe that the Bill can be significantly improved in those areas and we will seek to work with Ministers to achieve changes as the Bill makes progress.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) outlined, the Bill contains some good measures, but we believe that it will come to be characterised less by what is in it and more by what is not. It is a Bill about vulnerable children and families, but it says nothing about the problems facing young carers, trafficked and migrant children, and children who have been abused and ill-treated. We know that action is needed in these areas, but where is the action and urgency for those children? In the words of 10-year-old Paige, as reported by Save the Children:

“It doesn’t get any better. It gets worse and worse as the days go on.”

Where is the strategy for children such as Paige, after the dismantling of the Every Child Matters framework?

In line with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), we will consider how to ensure that the Bill introduces more support for children who have been abused and ill-treated, and who face the prospect of the courts. We will consider how to ensure that the needs of children in the wider care system are not neglected. We are concerned that the Bill is unbalanced. The focus on adoption is welcome, but it should not come at the expense of attention on other children in the care system, the majority of whom are in foster care placements, at a time when we have a shortage of nearly 9,000 foster carers. We share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who spoke compellingly about the situation facing children for whom kinship care is and should be the right option.

We want to know what the Government intend to do to ensure that children can remain with their birth parents where that is in their best interests. We are very concerned about the stripping away of support for those children at a time when families are under huge pressure up and down the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) has uncovered the huge cuts that have been made to the early intervention grant and she highlighted the disappearance of more than 400 Sure Start centres since the last election. Recently, the Government took even more of the early intervention grant to pay for their adoption reforms, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) pointed out. For some children, remaining with their birth family is the right option: where is the support for them?

The Bill fails to address some of the stark challenges that children face. This is their Bill—it is not our Bill or the Government’s Bill. It is for and belongs to the one in five children who go to school hungry, without decent shoes, without decent clothes and without basic essentials; for the estimated 1.5 million children who, according to Action for Children, are growing up in neglect; for the record numbers of children in the care system; and for the nearly 9,000 homeless families, 2,000 of whom are languishing in bed and breakfast accommodation, up by 51% in the past year.

At a time like this families need support more than ever, but the safety net is being eroded, creating a perfect storm for some children. The Bill is completely silent on the wider problems. The cuts to local authorities are particularly important, because parts of the Bill require social workers to take on an even bigger and more responsible role—for example, in the court process, and in deciding to place children in fostering for adoption arrangements before the court has made a decision. Those are crucial decisions for children, yet nearly eight in 10 social workers say that they are overburdened. The situation for independent reviewing officers—often the voice of children—is just as difficult. Without action from Government, the reforms could easily work against, not for, children’s best interests.

That is why we warmly welcome the strengthening of the role and remit of the Children’s Commissioner for England. At a time when the reality for some children is very bleak indeed, as illustrated by the bedroom tax, and their needs are easily overlooked by other parts of Government, children need a strong voice. We therefore support the Government’s measures to strengthen the role of the Children’s Commissioner. We will seek in Committee to further strengthen its powers, its remit and its independence.

While we welcome some of the measures in the Bill that help the people who matter most to children—the key adults in their lives—through the shared parental leave provisions and the post adoption support provisions, we have concerns about the capacity of an overstretched, hard-working children’s work force to meet those rising needs. We will therefore seek to improve the Bill in Committee, so that the system gives more support to families—not just to parents who have children with special educational needs, but to siblings and others who play an active role in helping a child at home. We want to be sure that the pathfinder schemes for personal budgets provide concrete proof that they will result in better outcomes for children before they are rolled out. That is our key test for the Bill: does it improve the situation of the children whom it seeks to help?

We are concerned that too often the Government are not child-focused; that too often they see children through the eyes of adults, not adults and adult systems through the eyes of children. It is why we are concerned by measures—for example, the time limits on court proceedings, as we heard from the Chair of the Justice Committee—that seek to prescribe the solution for individual children. We have heard a great deal about them in the course of the debate. It is important to retain individual flexibility for individual children, and we will seek to press the Government on that point in Committee.

We heard concerns from all parts of the House about attempts to define children’s best interests in law. We heard a welcome assurance from the Minister that that is not about seeking to define parents’ rights against children’s rights, but our concerns remain. We share the concerns of the Children’s Commissioner, and many of the organisations working with children, that this sends a dangerous signal that the paramountcy of children’s welfare is being diluted. While we agree strongly with the Government that parental involvement is in the best interests of children, so too are other relationships with grandparents, siblings, step-parents and friends. That is what children say matters to them, and we believe that they ought to be listened to and treated as individuals when decisions that affect them are made.

We will seek to give children a long overdue voice and ensure that the Bill reflects their priorities, not the Government’s, and the stark reality of the situation they face. While we will support strongly the Minister’s efforts where they improve the lives of some children, today we are laying down a challenge to the Government: work with us to improve the lives of more children. At present, many children are silent and invisible in the Bill, and do not have the childhoods that they, or we, would wish or expect. We lay down a challenge to Ministers to work with us during the passage of the Bill to do better by them.

21:49

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

I am delighted to respond to this debate and, alongside the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), to be introducing legislation on issues about which I am so passionate. It is a pleasure to have heard all the contributions by hon. Members from across the House, and I welcome the general warmth and support for the Bill. Its measures are diverse, but they are united by the guiding principle of bringing about real, radical and positive change for children and families.

In the time available, I will respond to some of the specific points raised but, as, wonderfully, we have heard from 34 Members, I will not be able to address every point. We may perhaps hear further from some Members in Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who was so concise in her remarks. Clearly, the House contains a lot of expertise on these issues and we will have interesting discussions in Committee.

Many hon. Members spoke about the reforms to special educational needs, and I, too, wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) for the work she did to start this reform process, which has of course been continued by the Under-Secretary of State for Education. I also thank all those who got involved in pre-legislative scrutiny, particularly the Education Committee, as that process was a good example of how the House can improve legislation before it becomes a full Bill. I welcome the broad consensus on many of our SEN measures, particularly the support for a statutory framework that works for children and young people from birth to 25. We, of course, look forward to further discussions in Committee, but I wish to say that if any hon. Member was in any doubt about the intention of the Bill, they should look at clause 19 for the key founding principles on which the SEN provision will be based.

The Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), made specific mention of the local offer and the Under-Secretary’s use of the term “common framework”. The regulations will provide the common framework for local offers, setting out all the things they should contain. That will bring consistency and will enable provision in local areas to be compared, and I am sure that will be welcomed. As my ministerial colleague has mentioned, we will be providing indicative regulations for the Committee, so that we can have a fuller discussion at that time.

On the issues of family justice, we heard from the Chair of the Justice Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), and from the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), who brought us his personal experience, memorably talking about the nightmare of the family courts. It is important that we hear that direct experience. I also note the comments by the former children’s Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who eloquently put the case that the needs and welfare of the child remain of paramount importance. I know that some hon. Members expressed concern that the paramountcy principle will be undermined, but I wish to reassure the House that the relevant clause has been drafted with the express intention of not diluting that principle, which is so important, as has been said.

The hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) raised the horrific example of the experience of a young child victim of abuse giving evidence and the traumatic way in which that took place. We take this issue very seriously, and we will certainly bring that to the attention of Ministry of Justice Ministers in order to raise the point she makes. Such issues have been discussed recently; the Under-Secretary has been holding round table meetings on tackling child sexual exploitation. So we are aware of those issues and she is right to raise them.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) asked for reassurances about the details of our plans for childminder agencies. We will be setting out more detail, including some draft regulations, in Committee. Introducing agencies is about increasing choice for parents; no childminder will be forced to join an agency and parents will vote with their feet, choosing the childminders or other child care offering the best quality and value for money. Let me just set out the context. In the past two decades the number of childminders has almost halved. That is a real problem on the provision we need to secure for parents. Agencies will help us to increase that provision, which is much needed, and, especially, to give the greater flexibility that many parents increasingly need for out-of-hours child care provision, too.

The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) raised the issue of the sufficiency duty, and I wish to clarify the position in case there has been any misunderstanding. Our proposal is to repeal the requirement for local authorities to conduct an assessment of the sufficiency of child care in their area in very specific terms. However, the duty to secure sufficient child care remains—it is in section 6 of the Childcare Act 2006—and to meet that duty, authorities will need to collect data on supply and demand. We are repealing the bureaucratic requirement to create a specific document and publish it.

The issue of staff-child ratios in child care is not dealt with in the Bill, but as it was raised by more than one Member today, let me say that our focus is on quality rather than quantity. We are consulting on the proposal, and in particular on what levels of qualification would unlock higher ratios. I encourage the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, and any others who are particularly interested in the subject, to contribute to the consultation.

While welcoming the Government’s plans to extend the right to request flexible working, the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) expressed concern about the move to guidance. Let me reassure her, and other Members, that we want to make the process simpler and less bureaucratic for employers and employees alike. I was rather horrified when, having arrived in the Department and asked what the procedure was, I was shown a flow chart featuring eight separate steps with periods of 28 or 14 days elapsing between them, the total amounting to 84 days. Far too much bureaucracy was involved in what should be a straightforward and simple set of discussions between employers and employees. We are replacing that with two pages of common-sense, straightforward guidance, so that everyone will know where they stand. I think that that move should be welcomed.

These reforms are long overdue. They address systems that are old-fashioned and out of step with the needs of children and the wishes of modern parents. The needs of children will be put where they rightly belong, at the heart of the services that support them. In the Children’s Commissioner, children and young people will have a strong and independent champion. Children for whom adoption is the right option will be settled more quickly in a safe and loving home. Unnecessary and damaging delays will be driven from the family court system. The most radical reforms of the special educational needs system in 30 years will raise aspirations and put children, young people and their parents at the centre of decisions. Child care will be more widely available and of better quality, helping parents to juggle their work and family lives.

Perhaps because there has been general agreement on the subject, we have not heard a great deal today about the shared parental leave plans, but they constitute a radical reform. Mums and dads will have freedom to choose how they share time off after having a baby or adopting. As every parent knows, having children brings both joy and plenty of challenges. Our changes will let families get on with sharing the care responsibilities in whatever way works for them, replacing rigid rules based on an outdated stereotype that assumes that men are the breadwinners and the role of women is to stay at home and look after children.

By extending the right to request flexible working to all employees, we will help families in the widest sense, while also removing some of the workplace resentment about the different rights that exist for parents and those without children. We will also help the economy to benefit from a more flexible, committed and productive work force. Changing the culture of United Kingdom workplaces to embrace flexibility is good for employers and good for workers.

At the heart of the Bill are two simple changes. We are giving families real choice and flexibility in relation to the decisions that affect them, and we are ensuring that services focus consistently on the best interests of the children who need them. This is a Bill that will make real, long-lasting changes, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Children and Families Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Children and Families Bill:

Committal

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedingsin Public Bill Committee

2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 23 April 2013.

3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.—(Nicky Morgan.)

Question agreed to.

Children and Families Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Children and Families Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(1) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown or a government department by virtue of the Act, and

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Nicky Morgan.)

Question agreed to.

Children and Families Bill (Ways and Means)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Children and Families Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) provision in connection with residence and contact orders being replaced by child arrangements orders; and

(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable into that Fund under any other Act.—(Nicky Morgan.)

Question agreed to.

Business without Debate

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

Deferred Divisions

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),

That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Secretary Michael Gove relating to the Children and Families Bill (Carry-over).—(Nicky Morgan.)

Question agreed to.

Business of the House

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 15),

That, at this day’s sitting, the Business of the House (26 February) motion, in the name of Mr Andrew Lansley, may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) will not apply.—(Nicky Morgan.)

Question agreed to.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) is not cavilling about this matter from a sedentary position, his meaning not being entirely clear as the House reaches 10 o’clock.

Children and Families Bill (Carry-Over)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 80A(1)(a)),

That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Children and Families Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.—(Nicky Morgan.)

Question agreed to.

Business of the House (26 February)

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I inform the House that I have not selected the amendment in the name of Mr Christopher Chope.

22:00

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

I beg to move,

That at the sitting on Tuesday 26 February, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), the Private Business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means may be entered upon at any hour, and may then be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours after which the Speaker shall interrupt the business.

You will recall, Mr Speaker, that on Thursday 14 February I confirmed to the House that the business for tomorrow, 26 February, would be the remaining stages of the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill followed by opposed private business. Tonight’s motion seeks to ensure that the House can spend the planned amount of time on each of those items of business.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that if we agree to the motion it is likely that we will spend three hours after the moment of interruption in a debate that goes very late into tomorrow night?

[Mr Lansley]

All I can confirm to my hon. Friend is that if we agree to the motion we will protect the time available for the debate on the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill and ensure that the House has the time intended—that is, three hours—to discuss opposed private business. As my hon. Friend and the House will recall, the programme motion for the Bill allows up to four hours for consideration on Report and Third Reading. The motion would then permit opposed private business to run for up to three hours following the conclusion of our debate on the Bill.

[Mr Bone]

I might have misunderstood, but I thought that the House’s view was that tomorrow’s business on the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill should run until the moment of interruption. I think that the Leader of the House is talking about a variation to the programme motion that has not yet been put before the House.

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry to have to disagree with my hon. Friend, as it is rare for us to do so, but in this instance I am afraid that he is wrong. The programme motion for the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill allows up to four hours for Report and Third Reading.

The motion is needed because even without any statements, four hours of debate on the Bill would take us beyond 4 pm, which is the normal time for commencing opposed private business on a Tuesday. It will also therefore allow the House to sit beyond the moment of interruption—that is, 7 pm. Although the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) was not selected for debate, it would have prevented opposed private business from being taken if it were reached after 4 pm. As I have just said, we do not expect business on the Bill to conclude before 4 pm and the opposed private business is likely to be reached after that. The amendment would therefore have obstructed the opposed private business tomorrow. I know that my hon. Friend takes a particular interest in such business and I am surprised that he would have sought to do that.

If the motion is passed, we will be able to debate the Bill and opposed private business as planned. I do not believe that the House would want to obstruct the business that the Chairman of Ways and Means has set down for tomorrow in accordance with Standing Orders, so I commend the motion to the House.

00:00

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I hesitate to call the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House disingenuous, but that is probably the only proper description of what he has just enunciated. Standing Order No. 20 provides that private business should be given three hours between the hours of 4 o’clock and 7 o’clock. The Leader of the House has all the rest of the parliamentary timetable to play with as he wishes, so surely he should respect the right of people who put private business before the House to do so with some certainty as to when that business will begin and conclude. That is the whole purpose of Standing Order No. 20.

If there was no Standing Order, we would be treating private and public business in exactly the same way. As Members know, I take a keen interest in private business, and I think it is important that we do not tear up our Standing Orders on an ad hoc basis. It is almost invariably the case that the Leader of the House tables a motion to try to vary the convention under Standing Order No. 20 that private business should be dealt with for a specified three-hour period.

If I was speaking on behalf of the promoter of a private Bill, I should wish to have certainty; it is unwhipped business, so to ensure that it can proceed it is important that the Member in charge of the Bill can tell colleagues to come along to the debate because at 7 o’clock there may be a vote. Instead of that situation being crystal clear for everybody, tonight’s proposal will mean that nobody will be quite sure when business on the City of London (Various Powers) Bill will be concluded, assuming that it extends for a three-hour period.

In my submission, the City of London (Various Powers) Bill is very important. Obviously, this debate is designed to ensure that we have three hours between 4 o’clock and 7 o’clock tomorrow afternoon dedicated to dealing with the Bill. In paragraph 7 of the statement by its promoters, they state that progress on the Bill, which was introduced in Parliament in November 2010,

“was delayed as the Promoter sought to address Government concerns as to the compatibility of certain of the Bill’s provisions with the EU Services Directive. The Promoter obtained an opinion of leading Counsel supporting the inclusion of the provisions and passed this to BIS in February 2012. BIS, having reserved its position to the Second House while it considered the issue…has now indicated that it has not altered its original view”.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills therefore does not agree with the opinion of leading counsel obtained by the promoters of the Bill. Those of us who discussed the last set of private Bills will recall that the EU services directive is a very controversial measure. [Interruption.]

I shall not talk more about the Bill now; I simply emphasise that it is significant and should be of interest to a wider group of parliamentarians, particularly those concerned about the implications of the implementation of the EU services directive. [Interruption.]

[Mr Bone]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the hon. Member for Christchurch gives way, I gently note that quite a lot of rather noisy private conversations are taking place on both sides of the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman must be heard—[Hon. Members: “No.”] Indeed, he must be heard with courtesy. I think the hon. Gentleman was giving way.

[Mr Bone]

Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the House that one reason why we are having this short debate—and possibly a Division—is to stop us debating important private business between the hours of 7 pm and 10 pm tomorrow night? What we are doing tonight is trying to prevent the House from sitting late tomorrow.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right. If there are hon. Members present who would rather I was not speaking, I would point out to them that it was open to them to vote against the 10 o’clock motion. Indeed, I am rather surprised that they did not do so, if they wanted to get home promptly.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Does not my hon. Friend think that people voted in favour of the extension motion because it is always such a pleasure to sit late—to sit late tonight, and to sit late tomorrow night? Perhaps we could sit late on Wednesday as well.

[Mr Chope]

At a time when productivity in so many parts of our economy is in question, it is important that the House should set a good example by being very productive. I am sure that no one would wish to suggest concluding our proceedings unnecessarily early.

This issue should not be treated with levity. The whole purpose of Standing Orders is that we should maintain and stick to them. If, whenever we had private business, the Standing Orders were invariably set aside, they would be brought into disrepute. In the absence of a written constitution, the Standing Orders are our ultimate defence of liberty. That is why I take very seriously attempts by the Government to undermine the Standing Orders.

Let us look at what would happen tomorrow if the business of the House motion were not carried. The sitting would start with questions. Then there would be statements, though we do not yet know whether there will be any urgent questions or statements tomorrow. Then we would get on to the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill. If discussion on that Bill had not finished at 4 o’clock, we could continue discussing it at 7 o’clock. What is so unreasonable about that? It seems a sensible way of proceeding.

Let us remember that in the past the Government would not normally have given half a day for Report and Third Reading of a major Bill; they would have allocated a whole day. Indeed, that is what they did originally in the programme motion that was carried by the House on 19 November last year, in which it was agreed that Report and Third Reading of the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill would have a full day. As the Government want to curtail debate on the Bill, they have tabled a motion among the remaining orders to restrict the length of Report and Third Reading, and they are compounding that felony by saying that they wish to push private business to later on in the day, so that the Bill can be accommodated before private business.

Anyone would think that the Government were not in control of their business. Why are we having to debate this at 10 o’clock on a Monday night? It seems as though they run their business on a rather hand-to-mouth basis. Why did they not decide on this several weeks ago? I hope that the Leader of the House will address that issue when he responds.

I have tabled some new clauses and amendments to the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill, and I see no harm in splitting consideration of the Bill, with our debating it until 4 o’clock, and starting again at 7 o’clock. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) thinks that would be a good idea, and I hope that, in due course, that will be reflected in the way he votes in any Division that takes place.

We do not need to make a great meal of this. It is important that we should stand up for the rights of the House. We should make it clear to the business managers that they cannot just push stuff though on the nod, and that there will always be some of us who will want to raise questions and not be pushed around, as we feel we are being pushed around now.

I hope very much that the House will support the proposition that under Standing Order 20 private business should be dealt with for three hours between 4 o’clock and 7 o’clock tomorrow and that any other Government business should be fitted in around the private business, rather than the private business being kicked into the long grass—relatively speaking—for consideration later in the day. That is my proposition, and that is why I tabled the amendment, which was not selected. That would have been a slightly academic amendment, as reflected in the Speaker’s decision not to call it, because I see no prospect whatever of the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill being finished before 4 o’clock tomorrow afternoon. The issue before the House is a straight one: do we accept the motion on the Order Paper or do we not?

22:15

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Tonight we are discussing a significant point of principle. We are lucky to have a benign Leader of the House, but that will not always be the case.

Yet again we see the Executive abusing their position by getting rid of Standing Orders, or abandoning them for the day. It is clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) said, that on Tuesday, if private business has been laid down by the Chairman of Ways and Means, it should be debated between 4 o’clock and 7 o’clock. That is specified for certainty, so that we will not be discussing important legislation late at night just because it is private. Of course, there might be an emergency debate under Standing Order No. 24, which would take precedence, but otherwise Standing Order No. 20 requires private business to be taken between 4 o’clock and 7 o’clock.

On 19 November 2012 the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill programme motion clearly stated:

“Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.”

Nowhere in that programme is there discussion of a four-hour rule. I am sure the Leader of the House is about to correct me.

[Mr Lansley]

I will correct my hon. Friend to this extent: if he looks at the Remaining Orders and Notices on the Order Paper today, he will see that No. 4 is the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 3) motion, which sets out that proceedings on consideration shall be brought to a conclusion after three hours and on Third Reading after four hours, so the nature of the programme motion intended to be attached to the debate on the Bill tomorrow is clearly set out on the Order Paper.

[Mr Bone]

I am very grateful to the Leader of the House for the apology for what he said earlier, but I believe I am still correct in saying that what the House voted for, and the position tonight, is the programme motion of 19 November. The Leader of the House may wish to table a programme motion tomorrow to curtail the debate on the Bill.

We have two things going wrong here. We have a reduction of scrutiny of the Bill and at the same time we are pushing back—it could be very late, because we do not know if there will be any statements or urgent questions tomorrow—discussion of private business. It is really a bit of a dog’s ear—

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

A pig’s ear. Or did the hon. Gentleman mean a dog’s breakfast?

[Mr Bone]

Whatever. It is late at night. The comment from the Opposition Front Bench is spot on. That is what happens late at night when we are trying to discuss important business. That is why we should not be debating private business late tomorrow night. I am thankful for that helpful sedentary intervention.

There is a serious principle here: we are reducing the scrutiny of an important Bill and removing the fixed time at which private business is heard, and simply for the convenience of the Executive, not that of Parliament. We are reducing scrutiny and removing certainty, and that is against the interests of every Member sitting here tonight. [Interruption.] Members might boo and grunt because this is going on, but I notice that most of them are members of the Executive. In my view, they are not necessarily here representing Parliament; they are representing the Executive.

While we have a very nice and benign Government, this is probably okay, but I ask the Leader of the House to imagine what the other lot would do if they were sitting on the Government side of the House. What sort of nasty things could they get up to? They would then refer to what is happening here tonight as the precedent.

The whole point of this debate is to stop us sitting late tomorrow night. I hope that when the House divides—[Interruption.] In fact, I hope that the House does not divide, because I am sure that the Leader of the House, having heard these short arguments, and the much more powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, will withdraw the motion.

[Mr Speaker]

Does the Leader of the House wish to respond? He is not obliged to do so, but he can.

22:24

[Mr Lansley]

I will gladly respond, simply to say, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), that we are debating this now because an objection was taken to the motion providing for opposed private business tomorrow that was on the Order Paper and considered after 10 o’clock, the moment of interruption, on 13 February. I am sure that the House is quite amused by my hon. Friend’s support for the promoters of the private Bill and the certainty they require about its progress; with that solicitude from him, they must feel a little like someone in the embrace of a particularly large boa constrictor—[Interruption.] I would never impute any negative motive to my hon. Friend, that is for sure.

I think that I might reassure my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) that the intention is not to do any serious damage to the time at which the opposed private business is to be taken on a Tuesday. The intention tomorrow will be to ensure that the House considers the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill and agrees the time that is available for it. I am sure that the usual channels have made sure that the House has an opportunity to consider the Bill to the necessary extent. Therefore, if the programme motion is agreed to and consideration of the Bill is concluded after four hours, the House is likely to start considering the opposed private business at about 4.40 pm, if there are no urgent questions or statements—[Interruption.] I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, who says “Ah” in that way from a sedentary position, that we are always subject to the question, as he rightly said, of whether there will be a Standing Order No. 24 motion, whether an urgent question will be sought and granted and whether a statement will be made. Those matters will inevitably give rise to a degree of uncertainty, so although my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is talking about the certainty that is required, very rarely in this place do we have absolute certainty about the timing of proceedings.

[Mr Chope]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, because I always want to be helpful to my hon. Friend, but then I must conclude.

[Mr Chope]

I am going to practise my snake-charming, Mr Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the doctrine of reasonable expectations is now being regularly undermined by the Government, because when the House voted to change the sitting hours the expectation was that it would rise on a Tuesday, subject to the Adjournment, at 7 o’clock? Now it almost invariably sits much later than that. It is almost as though the Government were changing the policy.

[Mr Lansley]

I am afraid that I must disagree with my hon. Friend. On the contrary, I think that we are meeting our expectations with regard to the sittings of the House with considerable regularity and certainty. On that basis, the worst-case scenario tomorrow, without urgent questions or statements, is that business will conclude at 7.40 pm. Of course, he must remember, and Members will be aware, that the programme motions and this motion show a maximum amount of time. The motions do not require us to debate the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill for four hours, nor do they require us to debate opposed private business for three hours—we can choose to debate for a shorter period.

While debating the City of London (Various Powers) Bill and its important measures tomorrow, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and others to remember their urging tonight that the House should conclude its business at 7 o’clock—and it may be in their gift to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

estimates

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 145),

That this House agrees with the Report [12 February] of the Liaison Committee.—(Nicky Morgan.)

Question agreed to.

financial assistance to industry

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6) and Order, 7 January.)

That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake to pay, and to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, sums exceeding £10 million and up to a cumulative total of £40 million in respect of Funding Circle and BOOST&Co as part of the Business Finance Partnership.—(Nicky Morgan.)

Question agreed to.

communities and local government

Ordered,

That Bill Esterson be discharged from the Communities and Local Government Committee and Mrs Mary Glindon be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Ankylosing Spondylitis

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Nicky Morgan.)

22:26

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

Let me begin this debate by posing what may seem a little like a pub quiz question. What do all the following people have in common: Mick Mars, the guitarist for rock band Mötley Crüe; Vladimir Kramnik, the Russian world chess champion; Mike Atherton, the English cricket player; Jens Stoltenberg, the Prime Minister of Norway—and, not forgetting, me? We all have a condition called ankylosing spondylitis—athletes, chess champions and rock gods and Members of Parliament: we can all get it, along with around 200,000 other people from all walks of life across the UK.

Ankylosing spondylitis is not a condition we hear a lot about, yet the 200,000 people with this condition are roughly twice the number who have Parkinson’s disease or multiple sclerosis. Perhaps it is the very name ankylosing spondylitis, which does not lend itself to easy headlines or easy campaigning, although it may also be due to the historical lack of awareness, including among GPs and clinicians, of the condition. AS is often overlooked and misdiagnosed, but it is a type of arthritis that can start when people are young—often between 15 and 35 years of age. It is a type of chronic, long-term arthritis that affects parts of the spine, including bones, muscles and ligaments. The condition can be severe, with around one in 10 people at risk of long-term disability. It is often misdiagnosed or diagnosed late—typically 10 years late—and that was certainly the case with me.

Let me begin by setting out drily and coldly the standard description, and I would like to thank the National Ankylosing Spondylitis Society for its help with that. It says:

“AS usually starts in the late teens and early twenties and can cause lifelong pain and stiffness. There is no cure for AS. It’s a form of inflammatory arthritis mainly affecting the spine and hips, which may fuse over time. Ankylosing means fusing together and spondylitis means inflammation. It can also cause inflammation in other areas of the body, including the heart, the bowel and the eyes. Unless treated and managed effectively, AS will lead to great pain and can render people immobile and unable to work”—

and so on. It is worth using the words NASS has collated to illustrate what this means practically. People with the condition have described the type of task that can cause difficulty. One person says, for example:

“Opening and closing the boot of my car is a nightmare for me and makes it so much harder for me to get out and about with my 2 year old and my 5 year old.”

Another draws attention to the problems of simply

“sitting on the grass having a picnic.”

Another says that

“washing my hair and putting on tights”

is a problem. Others refer to

“pouring water out of the kettle”

or

“reaching high shelves or cupboards”,

and so on. NASS notes that

“people with AS deal with constant pain and stiffness, along with high levels of fatigue. In the early years it is an ‘invisible’ illness with bodies showing no outward signs of the pain and suffering, making it difficult for others to understand what they are experiencing.”

It is worth turning to some of the words that people with AS use to describe themselves. One person says that they feel

“isolated, lonely, fed up with pain, envious of”

what they say are “normal people”. Another says:

“I have low self esteem, feel isolated, depressed and in constant pain. I am fed up of swallowing all the tablets and sticking a needle in my leg…I hate the shape of my back and the position of my head. But people always say I have a smile on my face and look so well.”

Another says:

“I feel overly tired most days. Outside of work my participation in activities has been reducing. I don't spend as much time as I used to socialising with friends and family. I used to be very active and go out in the evenings but now I have early nights instead.”

Every single person with AS will have a different experience, but here is mine. I, like many others, was diagnosed very late in life. In my late teens, I played first division and county badminton, and competed in national competitions. My tennis was not too bad either, and I was a pretty keen leg-break bowler for my school, though my rugby had long gone. But during and after matches I would experience real stiffness and soreness in the neck and the spine. I found it increasingly hard to look up towards the shuttlecock as it descended. However, I thought that this was just routine, as I was extremely fit and active. As the years went by, the stiffness became more routine and more painful, and progressively the flexibility in my spine and my neck grew less and less. At the time, I was working in sports centres, I was coaching sport, and I was still actively playing many sports myself. I thought that it was just part of a sporting life: you end up creaking a little bit.

By my late twenties, the stiffness and the pain were periodically debilitating, and affecting my sport and my general health. I had been to see GPs over the years since my teens. I had been given strong painkillers, sometimes steroids. I had been to see masseurs and chiropractors who had stretched and crunched me, worked out the knots in my neck, and applied various odious potions to me. I had resorted to homeopathic medicines, including a vile concoction involving exotic mushrooms from Russia, complete with a handbook on how to use it, and various mail order medicines. Some of these were harmless but utterly useless. Others were probably directly detrimental to my health and even antagonised the condition.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this very important matter to the House. This debate will raise awareness, but does he agree that there is also a need for awareness in the benefits system, because I know people in my constituency who have difficulties in getting disability living allowance for this condition?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

That is a very important point. People often refer to it as a bad back, growing pains, and as an assortment of other things, but that is a classic case of misdiagnosis. If somebody has AS, it does not go away. It is long term and debilitating and unless diagnosed, it will get worse and worse. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct.

At that stage of the development of the condition in me, no one had diagnosed it, so I was trying anything and everything. Then, as luck had it, in desperation I had an appointment with a different doctor because my usual one was away. He suggested that I visit a rheumatologist, and that is where I first heard of the condition called ankylosing spondylitis. There started the beginning of a more coherent diagnosis and a programme of treatment involving appropriate physio- therapy and, when needed, oral steroids or, when the problem was severe, steroid injections directly into joints. By this stage, in addition to the fluctuating but regular stiffness and pain, every few months I would have a major flare-up when my joints, especially ankles, knees and hips, would swell like billy-o and scream with pain. Yet—this is a common refrain from AS sufferers—I would just carry on. Sufferers get our heads down and carry on. We build a tolerance to pain and a dogged determination. It is far from heroic; it is just pragmatic. We have bills to pay, places to go and people to see. We just do not give up very easily.

My situation came to a head here in Parliament. The story I am about to tell will be disbelieved by many, because it reveals—wait for it—the compassion of the Whips Office. Back in 2003, I had been struggling along and getting by, but this was the mother of all flare-ups. I have the acute form of AS, which I sometimes feel makes me fortunate, although I guess that others who have it may disagree. Rather than enduring constant pain and discomfort, I could go for months without problems, then—bang!—when it hits, it hits big.

The early-warning aches, throbs and fatigue started about a month before the crunch. After hobbling slowly for a couple of weeks, I resorted to using a stick, then two sticks, and then switched to crutches a few days later. Progressively, I also looked like I felt—like I had been through 10 rounds with Mike Tyson after a week without sleep. Finally, for one particular vote it took me nearly 15 minutes to walk from one end of the voting Lobby to the other, which is the length of this Chamber. I was in so much pain. At that point, a friendly Government Whip whispered to me, “Huw, get yourself home.” Although that reveals the compassion of the Whips, the following sentence was telling: “Get yourself better, ’cos we need you back in two weeks for a crunch vote.” Still, I take compassion wherever it comes from and whatever the motive.

That episode finally got me on to the treatment that has transformed the quality of my life over the past decade and—touch wood—has meant that I have not had a major flare-up in all that time. I was fortunate to be referred, finally, to an AS specialist and was put on to an innovative and then experimental treatment called anti-TNF—anti-tumour necrosis factor—which is an immunosuppressant that has helped control the condition. It is not without the risk of side effects and I would prefer not to be on medication for the rest of my life, but my quality of life has been transformed. Anti-TNFs, which are now moving on to new generations that can target specific types of AS, will not be right for everyone, but I say to the Minister that, where appropriate, they really must be made available, and investment in research must also be maintained.

People such as me have much to thank Arthritis Research UK for its research in London in the 1990s, which led to successful trials of anti-TNF therapy.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

As the hon. Gentleman knows—we have discussed this on a number of occasions—I also suffer from AS and many of my experiences mirror his, although I have never experienced the compassion of those in the Whips Office. Although the condition affects many esteemed people, it also affects many humble people such as me. I was also involved in the campaign for anti-TNFs. Does he agree not only that proper and effective diagnosis is critical, but that it is vital that medicines are properly prescribed and made freely available to those who are suffering very badly from the condition?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

That is absolutely right. The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point and I will touch on it when I describe my mini manifesto for how we should move forward on AS. Different sorts of treatment will be appropriate for different people with AS.

Arthritis Research UK is currently funding research into other aspects of AS, including the award of more than £1.3 million to seven experimental arthritis treatment centres that aim to fast-track the most promising treatments to market, research into the genetic factors of AS, and even education resources to help families affected by AS. It is tremendously commendable work.

The Minister is not here just to listen to my or anybody else’s sob story, or to help me regain my prowess on the badminton court or at the cricket crease. I want the Government to help other people with AS, now and in the future, to get the best care, so here is my wish list.

First, we should increase the awareness and recognition of AS. AS has always had a low profile among both the medical profession and the public. Because back pain can have a number of causes, it is easy for AS to be misdiagnosed or to go undiagnosed.

Secondly, we should improve the way in which people with AS are referred. GPs may focus on trying to manage people with lower back pain and not consider referring them on to appropriate specialists such as rheumatologists.

Thirdly, please can we use MRI, not X-rays, for early diagnosis? Clinicians now agree that MRI scanning is a far better option because it can pick up the early joint damage due to AS before it is evident on an X-ray. X-ray changes because of AS may take years to show up.

Fourthly, we should improve access to the right specialists. Experts in other forms of spinal pain are not necessarily skilled in treating inflammatory back pain and associated conditions. For the best outcomes, it is vital that people with AS are managed by the right specialists as part of a multidisciplinary team.

Fifthly, we should improve access to the best medical and surgical treatments. The last decade has seen much improvement in imaging, which is vital to improving the safety and effectiveness of surgery, and treatments that offer better symptom control and quality of life. Early access to those is critical.

Sixthly, we should implement long-term follow-up and management. For the right decisions to be made at the right time, people with AS need long-term monitoring by appropriate experts and ready access to advice or treatment when necessary.

Seventhly, we should develop quality standards and clinical guidelines for AS. In the absence of those, perhaps the Minister will say what can be done now to focus local clinical decision making on AS.

We also have a range of things that we want from GPs. We want them to consider AS as a possible diagnosis if patients have symptoms of back pain and stiffness that are not improving. GPs should refer patients to a rheumatologist as soon they suspect AS. MRI scans should be part of that process. There should be access through GPs to specialists, including rheumatologists, physiotherapists and specialist nurses. There should be access to physiotherapy sessions, either as part of a group or individually. Information should be provided in GP surgeries. There should be access to expert surgical assessment and treatment for people with severe spinal deformity who may wish to have surgery to correct it. There should be regular follow-up appointments and ready access to expert reassessment, including monitoring for bone health, osteoporosis and cardiovascular risk. Finally and critically, there should be information on, and access to, sources of support including physiotherapy, financial advice and psychosocial services.

I say to the Minister, on behalf of 200,000 people who have AS, that that is our manifesto for improved diagnosis, improved treatment and improved quality of life. Despite my late diagnosis and early mistreatment, I am pleased to say that thanks to great, if late, support from tremendous NHS clinicians and staff, I am currently active, sporting and able to be a thorn-in-the-side— or should I say constructive critic—of the Government whenever the need arises.

I am part of a team alongside great friends and campaigners such as Gillian Eames who are taking part in the worldwide “Walk Your AS Off” event for the next month promoting exercise as part of the self-management of the condition. On 1 and 2 April, I will be walking 50 miles at the age of 50 to raise awareness of AS and funds for the National Ankylosing Spondylitis Society. I invite the Minister to join us. Take a walk in our shoes, as people say, and we will show how a little support goes a long way, reduces health and social care costs, helps people to stay active and in work for longer, and gives people a far better quality of life. If he cannot make the walk, perhaps he will agree to meet me and a delegation from NASS and Arthritis Research UK to discuss further our ideas. I thank the Minister for listening and hope for a positive response.

22:43

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) for allowing me to make a short speech.

When I was growing up, it was a role in my family that when the big brother went off to high school, the next brother was sent to live with my grandmother because she was in a wheelchair. She had always been in a wheelchair. Every morning, we had to get her up, and she was a big woman. She had been 6 feet tall when she was a young woman, and she had twisted feet and hands. We had to dress her in the morning, and it was difficult to do. I have memories of climbing on the bed, hauling her up and swinging her legs out to get her in the wheelchair, and getting her dressed. We did not know what it was—we just thought it was serious arthritis.

You may have recently heard me talk, Mr Speaker, about an uncle who was killed in McGurk’s bar. His sister is still living, and I go to visit her in Belfast. I have discovered that her son Joseph has had to retire from the civil service because he cannot move his neck at all. He explained to me that he had ankylosing spondylitis, and I had never heard of it before. He said that he had two cousins in the north—it is good that Members from Northern Ireland are here to listen to the debate—who were suffering from the same thing. He was diagnosed in his 40s, and he now knows that he will not be cured as he could have been if he had been diagnosed when he was young. Like my hon. Friend, he felt aches and pains, and he thought he was getting them from playing in the civil service football team, but it was actually the growth of the same problem in his body. Recently, a 38-year-old nephew, Paul, from Scotland, had a titanium hip joint replacement because the growth of the bone had basically broken his hip. Hon. Members talk about inflammation, but they seem to have a form of it that deals with bone growth. Their bones fuse early and grow in such a way that means they would end up cripples without treatment.

I fully endorse the campaign that my hon. Friend talked about, and I have spoken to the people from the National Ankylosing Spondylitis Society. One problem for my nephew was that he could not convince the people in the health service in Scotland that he had AS. In fact, he had a hip joint replacement that he might not have required if his AS had been diagnosed early enough and he had been treated for what I believe is a genetic disorder that runs in part of my family. Anything that the Government can do to make the matter a priority will save thousands, if not millions, of pounds and will save many people great pain.

22:46

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) on securing the debate, and I was also delighted to hear from the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). I am conscious that, having allowed an additional speaker, we are quite short of time, but if I cannot deal with all the issues that have been raised, I will be happy to write to hon. Members who have participated in the debate to answer their questions.

I know that the hon. Member for Ogmore has worked tirelessly in this cause and speaks with great personal experience. One of the great values of debates such as this is that they focus our minds on subjects that otherwise do not get the attention that they might deserve, and we all benefit from that. I am grateful to him for that.

The Government fully recognise the importance of early diagnosis, of differentiating ankylosing spondylitis from other causes of back pain and of effective drug treatment. The hon. Gentleman spoke movingly of the impact that anti-TNFs have had on him, and the transformation that they have made on his life, along with regular exercise to maintain mobility, has clearly been quite remarkable. He is putting his words into action with his 50-mile walk. I would love to join him, and I would really enjoy his company, but sadly I do not think it will be possible. However, I absolutely agree to the meeting that he asked for as an alternative —it is an attractive alternative, and I look forward to it.

The Government also understand the importance of accessible information and support so that people can take care of their own condition. The ability to self-care is critical, as is regular follow-up by specialised practitioners. I welcome the lead that the National Ankylosing Spondylitis Society has taken in publishing its good practice guide, and I recognise that there is still too much variation within the NHS in the provision of services for AS and for musculoskeletal conditions in general. The question is what should be done to remedy those deficiencies.

The last Administration sought to improve the quality of care for a number of major conditions by means of a rather top-down improvement model, and I totally understand why. It involved a combination of national standards, a uniform national programme with target dates for achieving standards, ring-fenced funding for specific improvement initiatives, demonstration programmes and top-down performance management to ensure that the NHS delivered. The programme was clearly well intended, and we recognise that it achieved demonstrable improvements in a small number of major conditions—coronary heart disease and cancer, for example. However, that model of quality improvement would be totally impracticable and unsustainable if we attempted to replicate it across hundreds of less common conditions.

I recognise that 200,000 people have this condition—as the hon. Gentleman said, that is more than have Parkinson’s and MS—and such a move could overwhelm the capacity of NHS management, not to say that of national bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The entire NHS budget could be tied up with rather inflexible packages of ring-fenced funding. It therefore seems that we need a general model of quality improvement that recognises that real people are different in all sorts of ways, and that increasingly people suffer from more than one long-term condition and need holistic, not atomised, care that meets their particular needs.

Given that time is tight, I will turn to the specific points raised by the hon. Gentleman. I agree completely about the importance of raising awareness of this condition among GPs, especially given the importance and difficulty of early diagnosis. The hon. Gentleman mentioned his long and winding road to finally getting a diagnosis after 10 years, which, as he said, is the experience of many people. I salute the valuable work done by the society’s GP awareness campaign, but we must also recognise that in their day-to-day work GPs have to deal with and recognise a vast number of different conditions and may meet a new case of ankylosing spondylitis only once every few years. There is no easy answer to that dilemma although in future computerised decision aids such as clinical knowledge summaries may help to prompt GPs to recognise or at least suspect more serious but rarer conditions such as AS.

The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the society’s recommendation that MRI scans should be used in the diagnosis of early AS, rather than waiting for damage to become apparent on a X-ray. I understand that a consensus for that proposal is developing among clinicians, but I am not sure whether there are any further actions that the Department or Commissioning Board could usefully take at this stage to promote a greater uptake of such an approach. In a sense, word is spreading among clinicians about the potential value of such a move.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether we should commission NICE to develop a quality standard or clinical guidelines for ankylosing spondylitis, but I am afraid I cannot offer a lot of comfort. As he may be aware, we have recently published a list of all quality standards that we currently expect NICE to develop, following extensive consultation with professional and patient organisations. The list includes a number of the more common musculoskeletal conditions but not AS. In future, the NHS Commissioning Board will be responsible for requesting NICE to develop additional standards. In the meantime, it is open to the National Ankylosing Spondylitis Society to propose to NICE that the quality standard for chronic pain should include a statement on the need to consider other serious conditions for patients presenting with chronic back pain. That might be a valuable thing to do.

The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the importance of support for self-help in managing this condition, and he leads from the front in that respect. As I have made clear, we are in complete agreement on that point, and the model of care to which I have already referred—which of course applies to other conditions and not just AS —will strongly promote that approach.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman invited me on his walk. I wish him well and hope that he gains great fitness as a result of it. I also think that a meeting would be of great value. I am delighted to have had the opportunity to debate this important issue, and I pay tribute again to the eloquent way in which the hon. Gentleman made his case for better care for people with AS. I hope that this debate will help to bring those issues even more into the public spotlight.

Question put and agreed to.

22:54

House adjourned.

Petitions

Monday 25th February 2013 Petitions

Monday 25 February 2013

Human Rights in India

Monday 25th February 2013 Petitions

The Petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that the UK Government should encourage the Indian Union to take immediate action to stop human rights abuses facing minorities in India and that India should sign and ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the UN Charter against torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment which encompasses the death penalty and thus India should abolish the death penalty as it is a cruel, inhumane and degrading form of punishment; further declares that the UK Government should campaign to stop Balwant Singh Rajoana’s death sentence and have him released from jail as he has served 17 years in custody and that the Indian Union should release all political prisoners, prisoners of conscience and prisoners who have been imprisoned without trial.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to appeal to India for the above actions to be taken, and requests that the House holds a debate on these issues and brings them to light in the European Union and United Nations.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Mr David Winnick.]

[P001159]

Hemlington library (Middlesbrough)

Monday 25th February 2013 Petitions

The Petition of residents of Middlesbrough,

Declares that the Petitioners acknowledge the unfair and savage cuts imposed on Middlesbrough and particularly the impact to Hemlington library; further that the Petitioners note that local authors Richard Millward and Peter Brunton support this Petition and also note the great work done by local Councillors Nicky Walker and Jeanette Walker who made this Petition possible, alongside local volunteers including school children from Hemlington Hall Primary, St. Gerard’s Primary and Viewley Hill School.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Communities and Local Government to explore every possible avenue, including the obtaining of funds from the development at Hemlington Grange, to keep Hemlington Library open.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Tom Blenkinsop, Official Report, 18 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 820.]

[P001151]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport:

The Government are committed to championing the public library service. Libraries can and do contribute to a range of local and national government priorities including assisting people to access a range of educational materials, to find employment and work with parents, schools and colleges to support education and learning agendas. All these connections can have positive benefits for communities.

The Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 requires all library authorities to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service based on local need within available resources. The assessment, funding and provision of library services, including issues such as opening hours, are therefore for local authorities to determine. Decisions about Hemlington library are a matter for Middlesbrough Council, and the Department notes that the Library could remain open through a move to a volunteer-supported service in 2013-14.

The Secretary of State, has a duty under the Act to superintend the delivery of library services by local authorities. A number of local authorities have announced plans to reconfigure their library services, and we monitor progress on plans, including those of Middlesbrough Council. Where the Government consider that a local authority is no longer providing a comprehensive and efficient service, it has the power to order an inquiry.

The Government continue to support libraries and has transferred the responsibilities for the development and improvement of public libraries to Arts Council England (ACE). ACE is currently undertaking a major research project to help develop a long-term vision for public libraries in England. Additionally, they have worked with the Local Government Association to publish new research into communities’ involvement in library service delivery and management. The report, “Community libraries—Learning from experience: guiding principles for local authorities” was published on Tuesday 22 January and the guiding principles will assist local authorities who are considering reviewing the delivery of their library services to work with their communities.

Home to School transport

Monday 25th February 2013 Petitions

The Petition of residents of Durham,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that the Home to School Transport Guidance and Education Act 1996 does not make adequate provision for children travelling safely to and from school and that it should be amended to set a new statutory threshold of 2 miles to access free school transport; to properly define a safe route to school as one that considers issues of lighting topography, degree of isolation and other relevant matters and defines a safe route as one that can be walked safely by secondary school aged children without being accompanied by an adult.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the Home to School Transport Guidance and Education Act 1996 accordingly and ensure that all households in receipt of any earnings replacement or means tested benefit or tax credits shall have access to free home school transport.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Roberta Blackman-Woods, Official Report, 29 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 872.]

[P001153]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Education:

Having confidence in the safety of their children on the home to school journey is of paramount importance to every parent. I want pupils to be able to travel to school safely. It is the responsibility of local authorities to decide whether a route is safe or not, having had regard to the guidance produced by the Department for Education.

Existing Home to school Travel and Transport Guidance, to which local authorities have a duty to have regard, suggests that in assessing walking route safety, the assessment should be conducted as if children are accompanied. However, the guidance also makes provision for local authorities to consider whether it is reasonably practical for the child’s parent/carer to accompany the child on a route which would otherwise be classified as too dangerous to walk in reasonable safety. Parents have a right to appeal any decision not to provide transport support. Following our Efficiency and Practice Review, I am considering strengthening the transparency of those appeals processes so as to ensure parents are clear on what basis (and information) all such decisions are made by local authorities.

The guidance sets out that in assessing the safety of a route, consideration should be given to risks a child might face and that a range of factors are taken into consideration, including, for example, the child’s age; whether risks might be mitigated if the child were accompanied by an adult; road width and the existence of pavements; the volume and speed of traffic and the existence of street lighting etc. This list is not exhaustive and I look to local authorities to work with their communities, even in times of reducing public expenditure, to give parents the confidence that routes are safe.

There are no plans at this stage to amend the statutory walking distances, given that local authorities have discretionary powers to make necessary transport arrangements as appropriate; the flexibility in existing guidance and the right of parents to appeal against a decision not to award transport.

Written Ministerial Statements

Monday 25th February 2013 Written Statements

Monday 25 February 2013

Children and Families Bill

Monday 25th February 2013 Written Statements

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

Today the Government have launched a consultation on the detailed administration of shared parental leave and pay. Shared parental leave and pay will enable working parents to choose how to share leave and pay between them to create the best outcomes for them as a family. This is a radical change in the provision of leave and pay for parents around the birth of the child. We are keen to ensure that the new system works for employers as well as for employees.

This consultation will deliver the detail that business and families are waiting for on how these new proposals will work. This consultation is about getting the detail right so we can deliver a workable system of shared parental leave and pay.

The Government are consulting on the details of:

Whether it would be beneficial to align the notice periods to inform employers of the intention to take paternity leave and pay;

Eligibility criteria for shared parental leave;

Notice to bring to an end maternity leave and maternity pay, or allowance, if accompanied by a notification of intention to access the shared parental system;

Whether parents should have one year from the start of maternity leave or one year from the child’s birth date to use the shared parental leave and pay;

How employment protections on the right to return to the same job, should work for shared parental leave;

How notification to employers will work with the new “fostering for adoption” arrangements.

In addition ACAS is also today launching a consultation on a code of practice for the right to request flexible working. Under proposals included in the Children and Families Bill, the right to request flexible working will be extended to all employees who have worked for their employer for 26 weeks or more. Employers are obliged to consider all requests in a reasonable manner.

The current statutory procedure will be repealed and the Government have asked ACAS to produce a code of practice to help businesses manage this new extended right. ACAS will also produce non statutory good practice guide with practical examples of managing this in the workplace. This will be published alongside the code. Taken together, these measures will deliver on several important commitments in the coalition agreement.

Copies of the consultation document will be placed in the House Libraries.

ECOFIN

Monday 25th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council was held in Brussels on 12 February 2013. Ministers discussed the following items:

Current legislative proposals

The presidency updated Ministers on the single supervisory mechanism (SSM); capital requirements directive IV (CRD IV); bank recovery and resolution; market abuse directive (MAD)/market abuse regulation (MAR); and revised rules for markets in financial instruments directive (MiFID).

Discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget for 2011

Council adopted a recommendation to the European Parliament on the discharge to be given to the Commission for implementation of the EU’s general budget for 2011. This recommendation was based on an annual report by the European Court of Auditors (ECA). The UK, along with the Netherlands and Sweden, voted against the recommendation and submitted a joint statement expressing disappointment that for the 18th year in succession, the ECA has been unable to grant a positive statement of assurance on the EU budget as a whole, and furthermore that the overall error rate in recent years has increased.

Council guidelines for the budget for 2014

ECOFIN agreed a set of Council conclusions on guidelines for the 2014 budget of the EU, which will serve as its overall reference for the subsequent budgetary procedure.

Preparation of G20 Meeting of Finance Ministers and Governors (Moscow, Russia, 15-16 February 2013)

Council endorsed EU terms of reference in preparation for a meeting of G20 Finance Ministers and central bank governors to be held in Moscow on 15 and 16 February.

Annual Growth Survey 2013

ECOFIN agreed a set of Council conclusions on the Commission’s annual growth survey 2013. The conclusions, which highlight the importance of EU growth and structural reform, will feed into the March European Council.

Alert Mechanism Report 2013

Council agreed a set of Council conclusions on the Commission’s alert mechanism report 2013.

Fiscal Sustainability Report 2012

ECOFIN agreed a set of Council conclusions on the fiscal sustainability report 2012.

DCLG (February Recess Work)

Monday 25th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

I would like to update hon. Members on the main items of business undertaken by my Department since the House rose on 14 February 2013.

Delivering local pay transparency

The Department is continuing its commitment to deliver transparent and open government to drive out waste, protect front-line services and ensure value for money to the taxpayer. We want to make it easier for local people to see how their money is being spent.

Councils have a responsibility to the public and transparency is at the heart of that. On 20 February, my Department published supplementary guidance on pay policy statements in order to strengthen the transparency and democratic accountability measures over senior pay practices. This recommends that in addition to a full council vote for hiring senior officer earning more than £100,000 six figure severance pay-offs should also be democratically approved so elected councillors have the opportunity to vote and give their democratic consent.

We also announced our intention to change regulations on the dismissal of senior officers, to tackle the culture of large “parachute payments” being made to senior officers. My Department will following an informal consultation reform the existing Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) Regulations 2001 to remove the requirement for the appointment of an expensive designated independent person. These changes will mean each council can decide the best disciplinary process that delivers value for money without the need for an independent investigation.

Both measures are designed to offer maximum value for money for the taxpayer.

Keeping Council Tax down for a third year

This Government are committed to helping people struggling with the cost of living. We have set aside £450 million for local government in England to freeze council tax in 2013 to 2014.

On 22 February, my Department published an updated list of the 219 councils so far adopting a “can-do” attitude by opting to take our freeze grant and support their residents. Those that freeze bills are making a real difference to families and those on fixed incomes, such as pensioners. We expect this figure to increase further as local authorities finalise their budgets.

To ensure that councils do not by pass the taxpaying public when setting their council tax increases, we have introduced through the Localism Act 2011 a new local democratic process that triggers a council tax referendum giving residents the means to protect against excessive rises. This year a local authority will have to go to the polls if they decline the freeze offer worth an equivalent of a 1% rise and raise council tax above a 2% increase.

This is the third successive year in which a freeze scheme has been applied. In total the three freeze deals are worth potentially over £200 to a typical Band D resident.

Driving economic growth and Enterprise Zone delivery

Economic growth is this Government’s biggest priority and enterprise zones are the engine room of that strategy. We are determined to help ensure that Britain is the best place in the world to start and grow business and we believe the economy needs to be rebalanced so this can begin at the local level. It is local business and commerce that drive the private sector growth, jobs and wealth that this country needs.

This morning, 25 February, I invited local enterprise partnerships to bid for £59 million worth of investment to help deliver the infrastructure that enterprise zones need to become economic engine rooms and drive local growth across the country.

This fund will help zones with real growth potential to put in place the infrastructure required to unlock sites so businesses can set up. This could mean links to local road networks or reconfiguring site layouts; upgrading or installing utilities like electricity and water; or land remediation to reclaim contaminated land.

There are 24 enterprise zones across the country made up of 142 sites. Since they opened for business last April, they have already created around 1,700 jobs and attracted £155 million of private sector investment. In the coming months more jobs and investment are expected to come forward.

This fund is part of the local infrastructure fund announced at autumn statement which provides £474 million to for infrastructure investment and other site preparation works that will support local economic growth, jobs and homes. The fund will operate for England only. The local infrastructure fund prospectus also invites locally-led large housing sites to come forward.

A copy of the associated documents and press notices have been placed in the Library of the House.

Horsemeat Fraud (Update)

Monday 25th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

I would like to update the House on developments since my written ministerial statement on 14 February 2013, Official Report, column 60WS.

Consumers have been the Government’s priority throughout this incident. No misrepresentation of horse meat as beef is acceptable. Food industry tests of the most vulnerable processed beef products have now been reported to the Food Standards Agency (FSA) covering approximately 90% of retailers’ products, and 80% of those from manufacturers, caterers and wholesalers. It is of some reassurance to consumers that over 99% of 3,599 tests contained no horse DNA at or above the level of 1 %.

On Friday 15 February, the FSA published the first set of results from the programme of product testing being carried out by food businesses across the supply chain. Out of 2,501 tests, 99% were completely clear of horse DNA. The 29 samples that were positive for horse DNA involved products which the FSA had already been informed about and which had already been taken off the shelves and the recall publicised.

I followed the publication of this first tranche of results with a meeting on 18 February with businesses and organisations from throughout the UK food industry. Ministers from the devolved Administrations were also present. This was a constructive meeting, at which everyone committed to work together to rebuild the certainty and trust that consumers deserve, both for the products that they buy and the food that they are served. At that meeting food businesses throughout the supply chain agreed to do their best to report back as many testing results as possible to the FSA by Friday 22 February.

On Friday 22 February, the FSA published the second set of test results from the programme of product testing being carried out by food businesses. A further 1,133 new results were reported, of which six products tested positive for the presence of horse DNA. The message to consumers remains that the overwhelming majority of products tested, 3,599 out of 3,631 (over 99%) were completely clear of horse DNA. A further update of industry testing results will be published by the FSA this Friday.

There have been no positive tests to date for the presence of bute in any of the UK food samples found to contain horse. Food adulterated with horsemeat remains a fraud issue and one of consumer confidence, not one of food safety.

On Friday 22 February the British Retail Consortium issued a press release stating that they had completed over 90% of their tests on processed meat products. Caterers and wholesalers also indicated that they had now completed around 80% of their tests.

The FSA will publish the results of the remaining tests on Friday 1 March. After that, food businesses will update the FSA on their test results every three months. I have also agreed with food businesses that we should meet regularly to discuss ways to strengthen the food industry.

Public sector food is very much within scope of the current testing regime. The major suppliers and caterers to public institutions are part of the extensive food industry testing which is being reported and published through the FSA. In addition the food served in schools, hospitals and prisons is included in the FSA commissioned UK-wide authenticity survey of processed beef products and ready meals being carried out by local authorities. As with all parts of the industry any positive test results will lead to the immediate withdrawal of products, notification to the FSA and information being provided immediately to consumers.

The FSA has made it clear that all public bodies where food is served are expected to have rigorous procurement procedures in place, and use reputable suppliers. The FSA has reminded public bodies of their responsibility for their own food contracts. Since the FSA issued advice to public institutions on Sunday 11 February lead Government Departments have been in contact with their public bodies to highlight the advice. All public bodies are aware of the extensive testing regime the FSA has established with the food industry and the UK-wide survey which have been put in place to reinforce the integrity and confidence in processed beef supplies in Britain.

At the meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health on 15 February agreement was reached on a Europe-wide programme of testing of beef products for presence of horse DNA and testing of horsemeat intended for the food chain for “bute”. This is an important step in establishing where the problem of food fraud is occurring across Europe and seeking the commitment from all member states to not only put an end to it but to prevent it happening again. The apparent French source of the recalled Findus product and the announcements last week by Nestle and Birdseye of product withdrawals in Italy, Spain and Belgium demonstrate that this is a Europe-wide issue.

Results from the first phase of the UK-wide authenticity survey being carried out by local authorities of minced beef products for the presence of horse and pig DNA will be available in the week beginning 4 March. In the meantime the survey has been extended. A second phase will survey a wider range of beef products including ready meals. Sampling for this phase has been completed and testing is starting this week. A third phase to include sampling under the EU co-ordinated control plan is also now under way. The FSA will report the UK’s contribution to the Europe-wide programme to the EU by mid-April.

While the issues surrounding falsified horse passports are unrelated to the fact that horsemeat has been fraudulently passed off as beef in a number of products I would like to update the House on this issue. I met representatives from across the equine sector on 21 February to look at ways in which we can work together to tighten and improve the current horse passport system. DEFRA officials will continue to work with interested parties but in the meantime the FSA has already taken robust action to ensure that no horse carcass from the UK can now enter the human food chain unless it has tested negative for bute.

Consumers need to be confident in the food that they buy. I welcome the significant effort put into testing products by businesses across the food industry to tackle horsemeat fraud. This unprecedented level of testing, combined with the FSA led local authority and EU programmes over the coming weeks, will give us a clear picture of the extent of the problem. Investigations into specific incidents are ongoing in the UK and across Europe and where appropriate the police and other enforcement authorities are involved.

This has been a Europe-wide scandal. I will be discussing the mislabelling of beef products with other Ministers at the EU Agriculture Council meeting today, and will report further to the House after the meeting.

Foreign Affairs Council

Monday 25th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) on 18 February. The Foreign Affairs Council was chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland. Commissioners Piebalgs (Development), and Füle (Enlargement) were in attendance for some of the discussions.

Foreign Affairs Council (FAC)

A provisional report of the meeting and conclusions adopted can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/135544.pdf.

Mali

Ministers formally launched the EU training mission to Mali, and discussed the adoption of the road map. There was general support for ensuring that elections were held in line with the road map, and that they took into account the legitimate needs of the north. Ministers also stressed the need to ensure that the Malian Government were engaged on the political track, as well as the security one. There was widespread support for the role of France in this crisis and the leadership they had demonstrated. The discussion also included a focus on what development opportunities could be reinstated in the light of the improving security situation. Conclusions were agreed, which described ongoing efforts in Mali to achieve security and stability.

Eastern Partnership

There was a wide-ranging discussion, with a view to establishing the EU’s priorities ahead of the eastern partnership summit, scheduled to take place in Vilnius in November. Conclusions were agreed outlining this. Ministers discussed how to engage partner countries in the debate, how to encourage them to continue economic and political reforms, and on the need for a differentiated approach to for each country. Several member states stressed the need for the EU to offer a clear European perspective for the eastern partners.

Iraq

The current political tensions in Iraq were touched on briefly, with a more substantial discussion planned for a later date.

Syria

The FAC agreed conclusions which outlined the EU’s strong concern on the ongoing situation in Syria especially the humanitarian crisis, and highlighted its support for the al-Khatib initiative, the opposition, civil society and planning for transition. There was broad agreement that further assistance to people in Syria, particularly the protection of civilians, could be enhanced. The Council conclusions also set out the EU’s decision to amend the EU’s arms embargo to allow the provision of non-lethal support and technical assistance to the opposition, and to renew the restrictive measures for a further three months.

Middle East Peace Process

Ministers agreed that 2013 was a crucial year for the middle east peace process. They welcomed President Obama’s planned trip to the region and agreed that it was important to engage with the US on the increasingly urgent need to make progress on the two-state solution. There was broad agreement that the EU had an important role to play in supporting US efforts.

Zimbabwe

Council conclusions were adopted that repeated the EU’s readiness to suspend the majority of the restrictive measures following a peaceful and credible constitutional referendum. Ministers agreed an amendment to the existing measures that delisted 21 individuals and suspended the travel ban on six Ministers. The restrictive measures were extended for a further 12 months. The EU position supports the reforms that have been achieved so far and encourages further progress.

Other business

Northern Dimension

After the FAC, there was also a meeting of the Northern Dimension, where Iceland, Norway and Russia joined member states in a discussion on practical co-operation in the region, highlighting the opportunities in the High North and the challenge of developing those opportunities in a sustainable manner.

Bourgas

Under any other business, Bulgaria outlined the findings of its investigation into the Bourgas terrorist attack which took place in July 2012.

Other business

Ministers agreed without discussion a number of others measures, including:

EU assistance to Kosovo related to the rule of law.

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK); The measures that had been agreed previously at the January FAC were strengthened in light of the recent nuclear test on 12 February. The package will implement UN Security Council Resolution 2087, which imposed new criteria allowing the EU to sanction individuals involved in the supply of conventional arms and dual-use goods and banned the export to DPRK of certain materials for ballistic missiles. In addition, a limited range of financial restrictions were agreed in response to the nuclear test, including bans on the sale or purchase of gold, diamonds, precious metals and Government bonds. The EU reiterated its call on the Government of DPRK to urgently improve the human rights situation in their country. Together with Japan, the EU will propose, at the Human Rights Council, the creation of an independent inquiry mechanism in support of the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the DPRK.

EU priorities in UN human rights forum: Council conclusions were agreed on the EU’s approach to UN human rights forum in 2013. Among the priorities for strong action at UN-level are the human rights situations in Syria, DPRK, Burma, Belarus, Sri Lanka, Mali and Iran, and the right to freedom of religion or belief.

Special Tribunal for Lebanon and Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia

Monday 25th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

I am pleased to announce that the UK intends to make a voluntary contribution of £1 million to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), and a voluntary contribution of £1.4 million to the international component of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC). This is in order to support international justice, strengthen accountability in the international system, and bring to justice those responsible for the most serious international crimes.

The UK is committed to supporting security and stability for the people of Lebanon. That was my message during my visit to Beirut last week. This new contribution to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon is a signal of our steadfast support for its work to end the climate of impunity for political assassination in Lebanon.

The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia is securing long awaited justice for millions of Cambodians through the trials of the most senior and responsible surviving members of the Pol Pot regime. The scale of the crimes committed and the number of victims makes it one of the most significant tribunals of its kind since Nuremberg. Both the international and national sides of the Court are facing severe financial shortfalls. The UK is committed to supporting the Court and our planned contribution will provide a measure of stability in this difficult period. We will continue to call on international partners, including states in the region, to contribute to the Court.

International justice is central to foreign policy. It is essential for securing the rights of individuals and states, and for securing peace and reconciliation. Through the International Criminal Court, and the separate international tribunals, we are working to make clear that those responsible for the most serious crimes will be held to account and that political leaders will not enjoy impunity. Our support to the institutions of international justice is an important part of our efforts to reduce conflict and promote stability worldwide.

Health Committee's Report on the General Medical Council (Government Response)

Monday 25th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)]

We have today laid before Parliament the “Government response to the House of Commons Health Select Committee’s report of Session 2012-13: 2012 accountability hearing with the General Medical Council” (Cm 8520).

This Government welcome the Health Select Committee recommendations contained in this report, and would like to thank the Committee for its work.

The Government’s Command Paper, “Enabling Excellence” (Cm 8008), published in February 2011, sets out a comprehensive strategy for ensuring that professional regulation systems are robust and made it clear that the Government would like to see more effective accountability for the health professions regulatory bodies. We have taken forward the recommendations made in this report and its predecessor and the changes to the Responsible Officer regulations, subject to parliamentary approval, will be introduced in April 2013. The Government plan to consult on giving new powers to the General Medical Council to check the language skills of all doctors, through amendment to the Medical Act.

It is right that the independent bodies responsible for ensuring public protection through the regulation of healthcare professionals are held to account effectively by Parliament.



Copies of the Government’s response are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office. The report is also available at: www.dh.gov.uk/health/2013/02/hsc-response/.

Charging for Immigration and Nationality Services 2013-14

Monday 25th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

I am announcing proposals to change the fees for immigration and nationality applications made to the UK Border Agency and services provided by the agency. The Government review these fees on a regular basis and make appropriate changes as necessary.

In developing these proposals, the UK Border Agency has sought to limit most increases to 3%, which is in line with recent measures of inflation. There are further targeted increases for applications made within the UK, where the value of the entitlements provided to successful applicants is greater, and new fees for European residence documents.

The UK Border Agency has given careful consideration to its fee levels, to ensure they provide the funding necessary to operate effective immigration controls and invest in improving service levels to customers. This is balanced against the need to ensure that the UK continues to attract and welcome the “brightest and best” migrants from around the world and those that make a valued contribution to British society. Given the ongoing need to reduce public spending, we believe it is right that we continue to reduce the contribution made by UK taxpayers towards delivering the immigration system by asking those who use and benefit directly from the system to make a greater contribution.

For certain application categories, we will continue to set fees higher than the administrative cost to reflect their value to successful applicants. This helps to provide resources to run the UK immigration system and enables the agency to set lower fees elsewhere in support of wider Government objectives to attract those businesses, workers, students and visitors who most benefit the UK.

I have laid regulations for fees set higher than cost. In addition, I will shortly lay another set of regulations in Parliament for fees set at or below cost. Further details explaining all fees changes are provided in the explanatory memoranda for both sets of regulations. Subject to parliamentary approval the Government intend to bring new fees into force from 6 April 2013.

The attached table, setting out all the proposed fees, includes indicative unit costs for financial year 2013-14. The unit cost is the estimated average cost to the UK Border Agency of processing each application. Unit costs are published so it is clear which fees we set over cost and by how much.

Full details on how to apply for all of the agency’s products and services will be provided on the UK Border Agency’s website: www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk.

Equality (Language Analysis - Palestinian, Syrian and Kuwaiti Testing) Authorisation (No.2) 2013

Monday 25th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

On 20 February 2013, I made a ministerial authorisation under schedule 3, part 4, paragraph 17 (4) (a) of the Equality Act 2010. This authorisation may be cited as the Equality (Language Analysis—Palestinian, Syrian and Kuwaiti Testing) Authorisation (No. 2) 2013.

The purpose of language analysis (LA) testing in the UK Border Agency is to assist in identifying an asylum applicant’s true place of origin where it is in doubt, and to deter claims made in a false nationality or national origin because of an actual or perceived benefit to an asylum claim. Where the United Kingdom is responsible for deciding a case, LA testing may be carried out on an informed consent basis, and presently, only if it is strongly suspected the applicant has provided false information regarding their place of origin. A refusal to submit to testing may be taken into account when determining whether an applicant has assisted in establishing the facts of his case or her case.

UK Border Agency data on language analysis testing between October 2011 and May 2012 show that although 20 different claimed nationalities or national origins were tested, on a case-by-case basis, abuse was particularly apparent for three claimed nationalities or national origins. Where tested, those claiming to be of Kuwaiti national origin were shown in 26 out of 33 cases (79%) not to be from Kuwait; none of the 12 claiming to be Palestinian (100%) were found to be from Palestine; and (to July 2012), 12 of the 15 applicants (80%) claiming to be Syrian nationals were assessed to not be from Syria.

I therefore consider the ministerial authorisation to be reasonable, rational, proportionate and necessary for maintaining the integrity of the immigration system.

The authorisation gives approval for the UK Border Agency to use linguistic analysis to analyse the language of persons making an asylum claim where they claim to be of Palestinian national origin or Kuwaiti national origin or Syrian nationality, to assist in determining whether those asylum seekers are of the national origin or nationality respectively as claimed.

The authorisation came into operation on 20 February 2013, and will remain in force until revoked.

Further to my written ministerial statement of 14 February 2013—Official Report, column 66WS, Vol. 558—I can now confirm that the Equality (Language Analysis—Palestinian, Syrian and Kuwaiti Testing) Authorisation 2013 was on 20 February revoked. It referred to an intention to test those of Kuwaiti nationality. My intention is in fact to test those claiming to be of Kuwaiti national origin where their national origin is in doubt. It is for this reason and to ensure clarity that I have issued this authorisation in its place.

I am placing copies of the authorisation in the House Library.

Youth Detention

Monday 25th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

Today the Ministry of Justice and the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales are publishing a joint response to a consultation paper issued last year entitled “The new remand framework for children: Allocation of new burdens funding to local authorities”.

The aim of the consultation paper was to seek views from local authorities and other interested parties on our proposals in relation to the funding to be allocated to local authorities following the implementation of the new remand framework for children as provided for by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.

The consultation, which ran from 21 September to 16 November 2012, received 107 responses, mainly from local authorities and youth offending teams. In addition, feedback was obtained from over 400 practitioners who attended a series of engagement events linked to the consultation.

The joint response explains how the indicative budget of £20.2 million has been calculated; provides a summary of responses to the consultation exercise and addresses the equality impacts raised during the consultation process. It has been made available on the Justice website. Local authorities will be notified of individual allocations today.

Devolving greater financial responsibility to local authorities for children remanded to youth detention accommodation will create stronger incentives for local authorities to reduce unnecessary remands, develop effective community alternatives and improve outcomes for young people. To improve further the outcomes for young people in custody, the Ministry of Justice published on 14 February a consultation paper. “Transforming Youth Custody: Putting education at the heart of detention”, setting out plans to reduce reoffending, improve education and reduce the costs of youth custody. The consultation period closes on 30 April.

Copies of the response have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The document is also available online, at: www.justice.gov.uk.

House of Lords

Monday 25th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Monday, 25 February 2013.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.

Media and Creative Industries: Equality

Monday 25th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

14:36

Asked By

[Baroness Benjamin]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure cultural diversity and promotion of equality in the media and creative industries.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring that equality is promoted in the media and creative industries in line with duties set out in legislation, including the Equality and Communications Acts. However, we do not have a role in influencing the content or output of these sectors, which must remain independent of government. Nevertheless, Ministers maintain a regular dialogue on issues relating to diversity and equality. Most recently, that has included increasing the media coverage of women in sport and the representation of disabled people.

[Baroness Benjamin]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend. As Danny Boyle demonstrated in the Olympic opening ceremony, diversity throughout the creative industries is incredibly influential in how modern Britain is portrayed and represented. Unfortunately, at present there is no pan-industry system of monitoring diversity to hold television or other creative sectors accountable and ensure that they attract, retain and increase talent from a range of different backgrounds. What measures are in place to ensure that the creative industries are employing and fulfilling their diversity responsibilities, and does my noble friend agree that standardised monitoring would provide valuable data? Will she work with PACT, UK Music and others in identifying how such measuring systems could be introduced?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point. We all want to see ourselves reflected in the media and for that reflection to be accurate in its portrayal. The Government certainly welcome the work by PACT, the Creative Diversity Network and broadcasters to devise a common system for monitoring diversity onscreen and offscreen. We understand that discussions are progressing well between these groups to consider how to standardise a system of diversity monitoring across the industry, and that the first pan-industry measurements are expected to be collected by the end of this year. However, we believe that it is absolutely right that the industry lead this initiative itself. While we look forward to hearing about this system and its results, we have no plans at present to mandate it because we believe most fundamentally in the independence of the media.

[Baroness King of Bow]

My Lords, I declare an interest as Channel 4’s diversity executive. Further to the earlier Question, I wondered if the Minister was aware of the lack of social diversity in terms of social mobility and social background in the media. Will she support broadcasters that are going out beyond non-traditional backgrounds, and particularly beyond non-media hubs, to find young people from those backgrounds who are not so much involved in the media industry at present?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I share the point that the noble Baroness has raised. I am aware that the BBC, which is the main public service broadcaster, has the largest responsibility to ensure that it is reaching out to new people in terms of its workforce. There are a couple of schemes that the noble Baroness may or may not be aware of. A BBC apprenticeship scheme has recruited over 50 apprentices in the past 18 to 20 months, 30% of whom were from the black and minority ethnic communities. The BBC’s work experience scheme has ensured since January 2011 that 60% are from BME backgrounds, and of those 21% have secured paid work at the BBC. The latter scheme has been recommended for an award for extending diversity in the workplace.

[The Earl of Clancarty]

My Lords, do the Government accept that cultural diversity in the creative industries will have significant roots in school education? If so, will the Minister say what they are doing to encourage every child, whatever their background, to have the best possible education in art and design subjects?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The noble Earl raises an important point about how we can ensure that people’s aspirations at school are broadened and increased to include areas which might not be most obvious to them. I certainly support that. I do not have a specific response to the noble Earl on his question, but I will see whether I can follow up in writing.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, following the question from the noble Baroness, Lady King, I wonder if the Minister is aware that not only the young but also the old need to be cared for. Is she aware that the media, and particularly the BBC, are very short of women over 50 at the moment? Does she not think that it is time that that was brought under control a bit more?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

As I said in response to the first question, it is important for all of us to see ourselves reflected in the media, whether that means people who come from the area that we come from or people who are of a similar age. The most important point is that the broadcasters themselves should acknowledge the issue and take action. I was certainly heartened when the last director-general of the BBC was willing to acknowledge that there was a problem and took steps to improve the situation.

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal]

My Lords, does the Minister not think it would be a real contribution if the GREAT campaign, which has had such a success, were to include diversity as one of the issues that we celebrate in this country and promote to others to emulate?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The noble and learned Baroness raises a very interesting point and I would find it hard to disagree with what she suggests. I will certainly take back that recommendation to the department.

[Baroness Thornton]

The issue of older women in the media has already been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and she is quite right. I am sure that this House appreciates that the new generation of older women in the media does not fancy the idea of being written off and regarded as past it when they are 60, 50 or even 40. Can the Minister go into more detail about how the Government intend to monitor this situation and what they intend to do about it?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The system of monitoring that I referred to in answer to my noble friend Lady Benjamin’s Question, which the broadcasters are in discussion about at the moment, will include age as well as ethnic diversity. It is up to the broadcaster to gather that information and to make it transparent. We share the principle of transparency, which is why we have introduced the Think, Act, Report initiative about diversity in the workplace more generally.

Republic of Ireland: Aids to Navigation

Monday 25th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

14:43

Asked By

[Lord Berkeley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in discontinuing their funding for the Republic of Ireland’s aids to navigation.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the Department for Transport in the UK and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport in Ireland work together to support the Commissioners of Irish Lights’ Republic of Ireland self-funding endeavours. The process remains on course for completion in 2015-16, and in preparation the Commissioners of Irish Lights continues to reduce its headcount and to introduce new operational and commercial initiatives.

[Lord Berkeley]

I thank the Minister for that positive Answer. In fact, it is the first positive answer that the ship-owners who bring their ships into UK ports have had for 90 years, because this has been going on for 90 years. Why successive Governments have failed to make this negotiation in all that time escapes me. I am very grateful to the Minister, but can he confirm that, with or without the Commissioners of Irish Lights sorting out its financial problems, payments from the UK to the Irish Government for these lights will stop in 2015-16?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I know that it took a long time to achieve this agreement, which is down to my honourable friend Mike Penning, who secured agreement with the Irish Government. The noble Lord asked when transfer payments would stop. That is a bit of a complex question. If a Commissioners of Irish Lights vessel works in UK waters as part of the co-operation between the various lighthouse authorities, there will of course be a transfer payment. It is a little complicated to say exactly when any transfer payments will stop; they may never stop. The main thing is that we will, by 2016, no longer support the Irish lights.

[Lord Bradshaw]

Does the noble Lord acknowledge that the situation in Ireland has been going on for 90 years? Further, will he confirm that if the Scottish Government vote for independence, the cost of the Scottish lights will be transferred to that Government?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, it is interesting to note that the Atkins report, commissioned by this Government in 2010, recommended that we retain the Northern Lighthouse Board and Trinity House to provide lights in Scotland and England respectively. We have no intention of changing those arrangements.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

My Lords, what contingencies exist for aids to navigation in the EU, Britain and Ireland? Will the Minister address that issue?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble Lord is getting at, but it is important to understand that the specification for aids to navigation would, I imagine, come under IMO auspices rather than EU auspices.

[Lord Greenway]

My Lords, in commending the Commissioners of Irish Lights on reducing its costs, can the Minister confirm that after 2015-16 the joint strategic board set up by the Atkins report will continue the interoperability arrangements for ships, as exist at the moment?

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Lord raises an extremely important point. One of the ways in which we have managed to reduce unnecessary expenditure is through the work of the joint strategic board to set the modalities so that assets can be shared and facilities are not duplicated.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that, for some of us, the fact that there was continued collaboration between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland on lifeboats, lighthouses and the Ordnance Survey throughout the Troubles was a bright light in a darkened world? Furthermore, does he recognise that the reconstruction of the Ballyconnell Canal, 80% of which was paid for by the Irish Government—both of us being helped by the European Union—has had a powerful effect on tourism on our side of the border in Lough Erne?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I agree that there has been surprising co-operation between the Republic of Ireland and the UK Government over many years. It is important to understand that the general lighthouse authorities will continue to co-operate around the coasts of the UK and the Republic of Ireland.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, the House will of course welcome the optimistic and accurate position which the noble Earl has reflected. However, the urgency of the situation ought not to be underestimated. General shipping costs are going up 11% this year on these dues. For shorter crossings and ferries, they are going up by 43%. People have ways of avoiding these costs, such as by putting into other ports if costs continue to escalate. I therefore hope that, in the time before the full Irish payments come in, increases in costs are kept to an absolute minimum.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, throughout this process, all GLAs have managed to reduce their operating costs, which is a great benefit to the shipping industry. We will shortly determine the light dues for 2013-14, but there is already a commitment from the Government that in cash terms they will not go up. One of the beauties of light dues is that they are quite a difficult tax to avoid. It is pretty obvious when you take a big ship into a harbour.

[Lord Lexden]

The Atkins report, to which the Minister has referred, although written largely in impenetrable jargon contained at least one clear recommendation. It stated:

“The UK and Irish Governments should consider additional sources of revenue including a charge on leisure sailors, charges on passengers, cars landed and cargo”.

Are such changes being considered?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, one obvious target for increased revenue for the General Lighthouse Fund would be small pleasure craft. The difficulty is that it would be uneconomic to collect that revenue because the amounts would be relatively small, whereas a large merchantman would pay several thousand pounds on each visit to a port.

Energy: Prices

Monday 25th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

14:51

Asked By

[Lord Touhig]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with energy providers about recent increases in prices.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma)]

My Lords, my department has regular discussions with energy providers about a range of market issues. We are determined to help consumers to get their energy bills down through a range of measures to reduce energy inefficiency and increase energy security. We know that increasing global demand is driving up energy prices and that this will continue. That is why, through the Green Deal, we are hoping to help consumers to use less energy and, through the electricity market reform measures being introduced in the Energy Bill, we are providing the right environment for investment in key energy infrastructure.

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, energy bills have gone up by more than £300 since this Government came to office. When the energy companies announced their most recent price hikes, they blamed rises in wholesale prices, yet research shows that they have more than trebled their profits. Will the Government look at the relationship between wholesale and retail prices so that we can be sure that British people are not being ripped off by these energy companies which, by today’s standards, might not be the unacceptable face of capitalism but most certainly are the unacceptable face of greed?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, energy prices have been going up over quite a period of time. In fact, the period 2004 to 2010 saw a doubling of gas prices, which was under the previous Administration. We know that global prices are going up and that demand has grown because of emerging economies. That is why this Government are determined that we should have a diverse mixture of energy that we can control in our own country ourselves.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, the Government are right to focus on every possible means of curbing our horribly high energy bills and costs. However, has the Minister noticed that the United States of America is achieving substantially lower energy costs as well as lower carbon emissions and is attracting a great deal of new investment back into the United States? Will she give us some encouragement that the same kind of policies will be pursued as far as possible in this country?

[Baroness Verma]

My noble friend is absolutely right, but America is a very different place from the United Kingdom. Through our diverse mix of energy sourcing and our usage of traditional energy supplies, we are determined to give our consumers the best possible deal that they can get. However, to reflect on the point I made earlier, global prices are going up because emerging economies have a greater demand on them.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, have the Government given any consideration to the earlier payment of winter fuel allowance so that recipients can not only better plan their fuel expenditure but can also buy earlier in the year when prices are cheaper?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, it is an interesting option, which I think I will take back to the department. Through the Energy Bill and through the ECO the Government are reaching out to the most vulnerable families and tackling as early as possible the issue of those who need support. We are doing that and helping 2 million households at the current time.

[Lord Tomlinson]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that part of the reason for the increase in energy prices is the devaluation of sterling? Our failure to keep our AAA rating is bound to have a continuing effect on the devaluation of sterling and therefore feed though into increases in the price of imported fuels, particularly those based on petroleum, which are all designated in American dollars.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the noble Lord will be pleased to know that today the oil and gas industry report sets out some very positive figures, showing that investment is increasing in the UK and that we are able to provide security and supply of energy in our own country. Of course, we are going through a difficult time, but that should come as no surprise to the party opposite because they were the instigators of it.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, when my noble friend the Minister talks to energy companies, will she also take into consideration people who are not the normal suspects? People who live in rural areas have to pay a lot of money for bottled gas and heating oil, which come from a limited range of local suppliers. They are the people with the highest energy costs. Will she talk to those sectors to make sure that rural residents get a much better deal as well?

[Baroness Verma]

My noble friend raises a very important point. Though the Green Deal and through collective purchasing we are trying to help those areas where it would be far more beneficial to be able to buy collectively. Economies of scale and greater purchasing power will give them a better choice of where they can buy and what they can buy.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, did the Minister read Mr Christopher Booker’s article in yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph, which revealed that last Monday all our 4,300 wind turbines put together produced a paltry 31 megawatts compared with the 2,200 megawatts that we get from a single conventional plant? What are the Government going to do about future back-up for this situation, and when are they going to abandon this mad wind turbine policy, which will put millions into fuel poverty?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I did not read the article. I am afraid that I was curled up in bed with the flu. However, I will take the noble Lord’s word for it that it was an interesting article. As I have said persistently and consistently at the Dispatch Box, we need a good energy mix, and wind will be part of that mix.

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, during this cold weather, many people are being forced to make very difficult decisions in their budgeting, especially because of the high energy prices. Does the Minister agree that the best way to bring prices down is to ensure that we have a genuinely competitive market in energy? Will she comment on whether the Energy Bill that will come to this House later in the year will be amended to introduce genuine competition in the generation of electricity, splitting it from the retail and therefore enabling us to get real competition to bring prices down?

[Baroness Verma]

The noble Baroness is right that the Energy Bill will be coming here and we will have some great discussions on its contents. She is also right that we need to have greater competition in the marketplace to be able to drive prices down for the consumer. But we do not want to stifle competition. Therefore, we need to support the markets in being able to have open and fair competition rather than dictate to the industry on how it should be supplier of it.

Health: Midwives

Monday 25th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

14:59

Asked By

[Baroness Cumberlege]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the continuing increase in births, what is their response to the recent report by the Royal College of Midwives, which states that there is a shortage of around 5,000 midwives.

[Baroness Cumberlege]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest as a fellow and vice-president of the Royal College of Midwives. My other interests are in the Lords register.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, there are some 1,381 more midwives in the NHS than there were in May 2010, and there are a record 5,000 in training. The Government have committed to ensuring that the number of midwives matches the needs of the birth rate. Most women already have choice and one-to-one maternity care, and we are working closely with the Royal College of Midwives to ensure that personalised, one-to-one maternity care is available for every woman across the country.

[Baroness Cumberlege]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very encouraging reply. I suspect that every single Member of your Lordships’ House has been touched by a midwife. They are a remarkable and very committed profession. Is my noble friend aware that although there is what the Royal College of Midwives describes as a tipping point in the increase in the number of midwives attending women in labour, the real crisis is in postnatal care, where new mothers require advice, support and help in cherishing and feeding their newborn baby? Is he also aware that this requires continuity of a midwife? He has just told us that continuity is being carried through, but a recent survey shows that 40% of new mothers always see a different midwife. How does he propose that we put this situation right?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, women should expect to have one-to-one care from a midwife during labour, birth and immediately after birth, and to continue to have the support of their midwife after the birth. This is especially important for those women who are susceptible to, or have, depression during pregnancy or postnatal depression. My noble friend is absolutely right about continuity. This depends on each woman having an individualised postnatal plan of care, taking into account her circumstances. To assist the NHS, the department has asked the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to develop a quality standard for postnatal care, which it is anticipated will be published in July this year.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, my noble friend may have had a chance to look at the report published today by the Refugee Council and Maternity Action on the deficiencies in the support for pregnant asylum seekers. Will his department hold discussions with the Home Office on amendments to the guidance for those women to make it compatible with NICE guidance on the maternity care of women with complex social factors? Will the department and the UK Border Agency jointly look into the negative impact of the current dispersal and relocation policies on the healthcare of women asylum seekers?

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend raises a number of complex and important issues. My department provides approximately £1 million a year for health assessments of asylum seekers in UKBA initial accommodation in England. The aim of the health assessment is to identify and address immediate healthcare needs, including pregnancy, and to recognise ongoing and non-urgent care needs for attention in the dispersal areas. The use of experienced health teams and interpreting services to record medical history also avoids more expensive arrangements at GP-registration stage later on. My officials met Maternity Action on 19 February to discuss the report’s recommendations and were assured that the maternity care provided by NHS midwives was appropriate and in accordance with NICE guidelines. Following that meeting, officials have briefed the Home Office.

[The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds]

My Lords, the fact that Edge Hill University, for example, had nearly 900 applications for 22 midwifery places shows considerable enthusiasm for acquiring this skill. However, experience shows that many midwives withdraw during training or the early years of practice. Has the Minister any statistics on such withdrawals and does he know any of the reasons for them?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, as regards the statistics on trainees who drop out, I am advised that the average rate is around 22%, which is quite high, but that can be for a number of reasons. I am, however, encouraged by the statistics that I have on the number of commissions that are currently in train across the country. On conservative assumptions, this year and next, we should see about 1,900 midwives emerging from training.

[Baroness Afshar]

My Lords, how many midwives are familiar with the minority languages that are spoken by British women in areas such as Leeds and Bradford? Are there sufficient numbers who know the local language, rather than having a general notion which does not really suit the language that the women are speaking?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Baroness raises another important point. This will be a particular issue for the local education and training boards, which we are setting up under the auspices of Health Education England, to get a local feel for the needs of patients in an area. The language skills of midwives will be a very important ingredient of that.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, in the light of the original Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, would the Minister advise the House as to whether NICE will be asked to produce guidelines based on what it believes is needed or based on the current shortfall in midwives? If it is based on the current shortfall, we will suffer the same problems.

[Earl Howe]

As I mentioned, we are doing our best to address the shortfall in the number of midwives in training. However, NICE has been asked to produce a quality standard that will be a benchmark against which the quality and outcomes of midwifery practice can be judged.

Partnerships (Prosecution) (Scotland) Bill [HL]

Monday 25th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Report

15:06

Report received.

Defamation Bill

Monday 25th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

15:06

Clause 2: Arbitration service for defamation and related civil claims against members of Independent Regulatory Board

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Fowler]

1: Clause 2, page 2, leave out lines 11 and 12

[Lord Fowler]

My Lords, I will be brief in moving this amendment. It has the support of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who apologises for not being in his place today. He is in the Far East on a long-arranged trip as one of the Prime Minister’s trade envoys there. He entirely supports my proposals. I also have the support of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, a former Attorney-General; my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, a former Lord Chancellor, and, according to the Times, a “Conservative source” has also given it a grudging approval. I am not entirely sure what a “Conservative source” is, but, of course, I always believe the Times.

As I understand it, it also has the support of the press, which perhaps is most significant of all. During the past months, those of us who have supported Leveson have been subjected to a campaign of vilification, being compared to Mugabe, Castro, Putin and any other dictator that you can think of. When we have spoken or written in favour of Leveson, we have been attacked in reports such as the one that appeared in the Daily Telegraph in November with the neutral headline,

“MPs tainted by scandal among group backing an end to free press”.

I looked down to see, slightly to my surprise, that among the little photographs at the bottom was my own photograph. The caption said:

“Lord Fowler: during 15 years as a government minister, he had plenty of run-ins with the left-wing press, particularly when he announced job losses and spending cuts in the NHS in the 1980s”.

That explains why I have had, according to them, this deep-seated antipathy towards the press, in spite of the fact that I was chairman of two regional newspaper groups after that time. Of course, it is doubtless made particularly painful for me by the fact that all my succeeding Health Secretaries have been carried shoulder high down Whitehall by representatives of the British Medical Association. So, it is not entirely surprising that some of us want to move on from this bitter debate and enter the calmer fields of gay marriage.

The trouble is that when the press have a genuine point, people tend to say, “Here they go again”. Here, as my amendment seeks to make clear, they do have a genuine point. I should make it clear that my amendment in no way challenges or changes my backing for the support generally for Clause 2 and for an arbitration service, as proposed by Lord Justice Leveson. Although a great deal has been written about this particular clause, all too often it has missed out the overall purpose, which is to provide a low-cost remedy for the public and the press without the expense of going to law. That is the essence of what it is saying: for the public to pursue a defamation case, as it stands at the moment, means certain cost and a very uncertain result. My amendment questions whether the two lines at the end of Clause 2 are necessary to bring that aim about. I do not believe that they are and I say that for two reasons.

First, as I made clear, I am a supporter of the Leveson report but it seems to me that the words at the end of Clause 2 go beyond what Leveson himself proposed. Referring to the proposed independent self-regulatory body, Leveson says:

“I also suggest that it considers offering a purely voluntary pre-publication advice service to editors who want support on how the public interest might be interpreted in a specific case before a decision is reached on publication”.

I think that the words at the end of the clause are fairly tentative and certainly go beyond the words in the amendment that,

“the court shall take into account whether a defendant first sought advice”.

Furthermore, as it stands, it gives the impression that we who support Leveson are all concerned with pre-publication controls when that is certainly not the case, and nor has it ever been the case. The authors of this clause might claim quite reasonably that they are also conferring an advantage on newspapers as well as on the public. Nevertheless, the false impression remains, and it would be a vast pity if the beneficial intent of the clause was to be harmed in this way and in so doing give ammunition to those who say that the supporters of Leveson are about statutory control, which I repeat and underline has never been our cause.

The second reason I tabled the amendment is that the whole idea of some kind of pre-publication check is anathema to most journalists. I emphasise that I am talking about working journalists. Remember that the NUJ, as opposed to the proprietors, is in favour of Leveson; it is not against it. It is against the kind of provision that I am seeking to amend for the good reason that in any story of any controversy there will always be people out there who want to stop the story, or at least take the guts out of it. I learnt that very early on as a young journalist. I had been advised to show a series of articles that I had written to the man who had given me access to the story. When I met him, he was furious about what I had written. Very obviously, so that I could see it clearly, a letter of protest to my editor was set out on his desk. Happily, the editor took no notice, but I have never shown an article in advance to any body or person since.

15:15

It is most important that the House should recognise that often there is very great pressure not to publish but to keep things secret and out of the public gaze. Noble Lords should recognise how sensitive an issue that is to journalists. I also wonder whether there is an analogy with the BBC’s pulled report on Jimmy Savile. It was an important story killed off not by the reporter or reporting staff but after it got into the equivalent of the checking process, with the result that ITV last week received the award for the scoop of the year from the Royal Television Society at a ceremony that both the Minister and I attended.

My major point is that the two lines at the end of Clause 2 are not necessary and, above all, give an entirely wrong impression to the public of what the clause is trying to do and of the beneficial impact and effect that it could have. I said at the start that the amendment had the support of a wide range of individuals, and, in varying degrees, of two political parties. The only party that has not proclaimed its position is the Liberal Democrats. It may be just my luck that this debate will be replied to by a Liberal Democrat Minister. However, as always, I am an optimist in these things. My noble friend and I are old allies who have fought a number of causes together, and my hope is that the alliance will hold good on this amendment. I beg to move.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I intervene now to put the debate in context. I confirm that my noble friend Lord Fowler and I have been close allies in many battles for press freedom over the decades, and I assure him that this reply comes from a government Minister.

My noble friend’s amendment seeks to remove from the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, which was agreed on Report, a section that goes beyond Leveson in requiring the courts to take account of pre-publication advice from the new regulator in considering whether to avoid exemplary damages.

When we debated the main amendment on Report, I was clear that our objective in respect of Leveson must be to achieve a cross-party endorsement of a solution that works in parliamentary and legislative terms, and has general public support. On Report, I promised that a draft royal charter would be published. This has now been published. It illustrates one example of how a recognition body might be constituted to underpin the tough system of self-regulation for the press that Lord Justice Leveson recommended.

The draft charter is under active consideration in the cross-party talks, and it is important that we allow the talks to progress and reach their conclusion. I have made clear my reservations about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, being shoe-horned into the Defamation Bill. I do not propose to rehearse the arguments today. The Puttnam amendment is now part of the Bill, which should now be returned to the Commons.

The amendment of my noble friend Lord Fowler is welcome in so far as it will remove an element of the Puttnam amendment that went further than Lord Justice Leveson recommended. No one wants to see Leveson implemented more than I do, but the tripartite talks are the key to achieving that objective, not the Bill as now amended. We should continue to allow the parties the space to agree the most appropriate solution within the tripartite talks.

In so much as he is amending a clause that we do not consider to be effective and which pre-empts what I hope will be a successful outcome to those tripartite discussions, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, makes an unacceptable position marginally better. I shall not ask noble Lords to vote against the amendment, although the overall position will remain that we believe the amendment to be unacceptable.

I shall say that again slowly. I am looking at my words. Basically, I am suggesting that the House should pass the amendment and that the Government will not oppose it. The amended Bill will then go to the Commons for consideration and will come back at ping pong for what I suspect will be a lively debate. However, by then the tripartite talks might have succeeded—I sincerely hope they will have—and my Defamation Bill, which I think unamended is perfectly formed, could then be passed by this House. Those are my recommendations.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Clause 6 : Publication on matters of public interest

Amendment 2

Tabled by

[Lord Taverne]

2: Clause 6, page 3, line 36, leave out “believed” and insert “decided”

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, I still feel that the words I moved at an earlier stage are better than those of the Government but, as both sides wish to give effect to what was said in the Flood case, there is not that much between us. In the circumstances, I shall not move my amendment.

Amendment 2 not moved.

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Monday 25th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Committee (1st Day)

Relevant document: 14th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee.

15:22

Clause 1 : Up-rating of certain social security benefits for tax years 2014-15 and 2015-16

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out “by 1%”

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 1 in the name of my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I support Amendment 1, which seeks to ensure that the Government have flexibility to increase benefits in 2014-15 and 2015-16 taking account of the level of inflation at the time. The amendment does not seek to impose a particular percentage increase in benefits in any year. It simply seeks to avoid the straitjacket imposed by the Bill as it stands.

Amendment 1 covers all the benefits and claimant groups referred to in Schedule 1. It would therefore leave open the possibility of a Government deciding to protect a particular group, perhaps disabled people or children. This amendment has become particularly pertinent in the light of the downgrading of the British economy by the ratings agency Moody’s at the end of last week, along with the anticipation of yet more quantitative easing and the expectation that in these circumstances we will have more inflation year by year. That inflation comes on top of a level of inflation which is already above 1%, which is vital to this set of amendments and, indeed, to the Bill.

This Bill has to be considered in context. As noble Lords know very well, last year’s Welfare Reform Act has already capped benefits and imposed the bedroom tax so that an increasing percentage of everyone’s rent will be paid out of their personal allowance, leaving them with the most pathetically small amount of money to cover food, heating, clothing and other necessities. Also, the Government have already changed the basis of annual welfare benefit increases from the RPI to the CPI. This is absolutely crucial because that measure alone, before this Bill, is expected to save £5.8 billion a year. Such savings can be achieved only through imposing the most incredible hardship on many of the most vulnerable people in this country. The proposed limiting of upratings to an increase of 1% will be an increase in the consumer prices index, not the retail prices index, so it is not even going to cover an inflation rate of 1%. That is how bad it is. It is the compounding of the previous Welfare Reform Act with this Bill that is so deeply shocking to many of us.

The cumulative impact of all these changes and the proposed 1% uprating limit is not yet fully understood even by the experts in the field, let alone by its victims. But it is not surprising that there is deep concern in those organisations which have to work with vulnerable people, including the CAB service. It is worried stiff about its clients and the capacity of the bureaux to cope with what is going to be an unimaginable flood of people in desperate circumstances. The Government are breaking the long-standing link between annual incremental increases in benefits and prices. Once lost, it will be very difficult to restore it. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that happening for decades. That is how serious this is. It is not just one little part of a Bill; it is actually historic because it changes the whole way we look at increases in welfare benefits.

Has the Minister undertaken an impact assessment on this Bill, including an estimate of the likely cost of increased mental breakdowns and the resulting impact on mental health services? Has the Minister assessed the costs arising from the result of increased crime rates and the impact on the criminal justice system, and from the impact of increased homelessness on local authorities? Also, I refer to the overall impact on communities of what I fear we will see in terms of increased unrest. It is very difficult to believe that we will not experience unrest in communities that are profoundly hit by the combination of all these changes—not just arising from this Bill, but from a combination of everything that is being done. I would be grateful if the Minister would reply to this question: has the impact of this Bill, combined with the previous Bill, been fully assessed in terms of services and costs? If these implications have not yet been estimated, does the Minister agree that that must be done before implementation of this Bill?

I want to challenge the Government’s rationale for this uprating Bill—that welfare benefit increases must take account of the public sector pay freeze and the low level of pay increases across the economy in recent years. Citizens Advice is right to argue that a 1% increase means something very different to somebody on an average wage from what it means to somebody on welfare benefits. A 20% increase in out-of-work benefits in the period 2007-12 resulted in an average annual increase in income of only £2.37 per week. A lower percentage increase, of 15%, in public sector pay during the same period provided an average increase in income for public sector workers more than five times greater. It was a lower percentage but a much greater increase in actual terms.

15:30

What matters for families is how many pounds’ increase they have, not some airy-fairy percentage; they want the pounds. Public sector workers had on average an increase of £12.40, compared with the benefits average of £2.37. I accept that it would not be fair to enable those on benefits to leap ahead of those on low public sector wages in absolute terms, but there is no danger of that happening. Does the Minister agree?

My final point takes us back to the debates we had about direct payments of rent to landlords and the payment of benefits weekly rather than monthly. You could say that that is irrelevant to this Bill; I do not think that it is. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freud, for explaining to me that he has done a lot of work since the previous Act and those earlier debates, and that built into the system now are exceptions to try to protect particularly vulnerable people; in other words, by enabling some peculiarly vulnerable people to be paid more regularly and to have their rent paid direct to landlords. I am referring to the noble Lord, Lord Freud, because I had a meeting with him recently, and I know he has real concerns about some groups, particularly those with mental health problems, and how on earth they are going to cope with these reforms.

Perhaps the Minister will spell out the exceptions for the benefit of this House. It would be helpful to know how broad or narrow these exceptions are going to be. Undoubtedly, exceptions to the requirement for monthly payments and ending the direct payment of rent to landlords will help but, whatever amendments may be agreed to this Bill, would it not be wise to put on hold altogether, for a period of perhaps three years, the changes to the frequency of welfare payments and the direct payments to landlords? Such concessions would be relatively cost-free but would make a very big difference to people’s capacity to cope as they find their tiny incomes declining in real terms month by month.

In two years’ time the Government can measure the extent of the inevitable increases in rent and council tax arrears, homelessness and other social consequences. When that evaluation has taken place, a decision could then be made on a rational basis about whether it is remotely sensible to implement the other provisions of the previous Welfare Reform Act. I do not expect the Minister to respond to these points today but would be grateful if she could write to me with the response before Report.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, somewhat to my surprise, I find my name on this amendment, so perhaps I should say a few words. I do not want to repeat all the arguments that were advanced at Second Reading and I do not have a lot to add to the very eloquent speech that we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, but there are a couple of points I would like to make.

The first is the economic argument. I said at Second Reading that it did not really make any sense, at a time when the economy was flat-lining, to withdraw additional purchasing power from a section of the community that was most likely to spend it: those on welfare benefits. With every day that goes by and the economic news piles up about the dire condition of the British economy, the stronger this argument gets. The Minister did not respond adequately to that argument at Second Reading. I would be grateful if the Government gave further serious consideration to the force of that argument, which is genuine and considerable.

The Bill will cause real hardship for disabled people, carers and children. Disabled people are said to be protected but, as we showed at Second Reading, the protection accorded disabled people is partial. There is some protection for those in the support group receiving employment and support allowance, and disability living allowance is exempted from the 1% cap, but those receiving employment and support allowance in the work-related activity group and other disabled people receiving other benefits do not receive protection from the 1% cap. It cannot therefore be said that disabled people are fully protected, nor are carers.

Above all, children are not protected. Disabled children in this country are already disproportionately likely to live in poverty. Approximately 40% of all disabled children—about 320,000—live in poverty, compared with a poverty rate of 30% across all children. Nearly a third live in severe poverty—where a family’s income is less than 40% of the national average. Under universal credit, which will begin to come into effect later this year, parents of disabled children can receive a benefit called the disabled child addition. This will replace the current disabled child tax credit, but, under universal credit, the support available for disabled children who do not receive the high rate of DLA care component will be cut by half, from £57 a week under the disabled child tax credit to £28.52. The Bill will mean that the value of this benefit will increase at a significantly slower rate, by just 1% as opposed to in line with the CPI, which is currently running at 2.7%. As a result of the Bill, parents of disabled children receiving the lower disabled child addition of universal credit will lose £25.21 a year, or £75.63 over the three years during which the 1% cap is intended to operate. I would be grateful if the Minister could reflect further on the hardship that will be caused to all these groups and have second thoughts about the universal application of the 1% cap.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 1 in this group and to the other amendments that we have in it: Amendments 6A, 9 and 10A. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hayter for moving the amendment in my absence and apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for missing the very start of what was a powerful presentation.

Amendments 1 and 9 would remove the reference to 1% in Clauses 1 and 2 and hence remove the 1% cap on the uprating of relevant sums and amounts. Amendments 6A and 10A would delete the prohibition on uprating such sums and amounts under the annual uprating of benefits and tax credits. We fully intend these amendments to undermine and negate the purpose of the Bill, which we consider to be unnecessary, misdirected and contributing to the continuing economic failure of this Government, a failure all too evident from last week’s downgrading of our AAA credit rating by Moody’s.

Let me be clear from the outset on Labour’s position: we will make no commitment now on spending or tax for the next Parliament and will set out our spending plans at the time of the next election. However, right now we would uprate in line with inflation—I shall come on in a moment to how the Government can plug the hole in their increasingly fragile finances.

This Bill is unnecessary because if this Government misguidedly wish to plough on with this capping on uprating, they could simply use the annual uprating process. The Bill provides no certainty for taxpayers because there is no certainty on claimant numbers, except perhaps the prospect of them increasing, given the Government’s economic failure. As for the markets, it is frankly untenable to suggest that by locking those amounts, which account for less than 0.1% of government spending, into legislation they will be assured and comforted. It does not seem to have cut any ice with the rating agencies. The certainty of a real terms cut in support cannot be welcomed by claimants, especially when they have no certainty about the level of the real cut.

We all know why the Bill was brought forward. We made our position clear at Second Reading and I do not propose to revisit the issue in Committee. The Bill is misdirected on several counts. It does nothing for jobs. Indeed, by withdrawing real resources from low-income families, which of necessity have the highest marginal consumption rates, it is damaging demand. It ignores the IMF warning that the fiscal stabilisers should be allowed to operate. Its justification is supposed to be that there needs to be some correction for the fact that benefits have been uprated at a faster rate than earnings over the past five years—essentially, that those out of work have done better than those in work. It is perverse, therefore, that two-thirds of those hurt by the Bill are in work, taxing the very strivers whom the Government claim to be supporting. Indeed, specifically included in the cuts is in-work support, such as working tax credit, SSP, SMP and paternity pay, as well as in and out of work benefits such as housing benefit, the very support that enables individuals to sustain employment and manage work and family responsibilities.

It is not only those in work who are having their living standards cut. The Government are failing to honour their pledge to protect the most severely disabled. If they still hold to their obligations under the Child Poverty Act, they are drifting further away by pushing a further 200,000 children into poverty. Worst of all, at a time when the Bill will reduce the living standards of the very poorest, they are rewarding those with the highest incomes, including 8,000 millionaires, with a generous tax cut. The contrast could not be greater: a £2,000 a week tax cut for some, 71p a week if you claim JSA.

By leaving the inflation risk with claimants, the Bill creates greater risk for the poor and uncertainty about their real incomes. The 2012 Autumn Statement cites energy and fuel prices as remaining a potential source of risk over the coming years. It estimates that inflation will be higher in 2013 and 2014 than originally announced due to rises in domestic energy prices and food commodity prices—the very costs that hit the poorest hardest. We see today the reaction of the currency markets to our credit rating downgrade: a weakened sterling, which will put further pressure on prices.

Uncertainty is compounded by there still being no cumulative impact assessment for the raft of benefit and tax credit changes that have been introduced so far by the Government. The IFS, in its 2013 green budget, analysed the effect of the 2013-14 tax and benefit changes. It concludes:

“This broad pattern of tax giveaways and welfare takeaways”—

its own terminology—

“means that the changes, on average, reduce net incomes towards the bottom of the income distribution and increase net incomes in the middle and upper parts of the distribution”.

It states that the below-inflation uprating is the predominant cause of losses in the bottom half of the income distribution and that the reduction of the top rate of tax from 50% to 45% produces the gain for the richest.

That juxtaposition speaks volumes about the priorities of this Government: the rich need more to motivate them; the poor need to feel the lash of cuts to inspire them. This pattern is not new. Looking at the overall position since 2010, apart from the richest decile it is a fact that the poorest have lost the greatest percentage share of their income in the cause of fiscal consolidation. This analysis is consistent with the detailed briefings that we have all received from a range of authoritative sources. They tell us that 68% of those affected by the Bill are actually in work, 30% of all households that will be hit will lose on average £156 a year, two-thirds of those households are families with children, 71% of households affected are at or below average income, and two-thirds of those affected are women.

15:45

Our opposition to the Bill is clear: the Bill locks in cuts to real incomes through to April 2016. We argue that the normal uprating process should operate, with annual Statements laid before and debated by Parliament. We will hear the cries from the Minister asking what we would do. Clearly, one matter that should be addressed to get the social security budget down is getting more people into work. Despite claims to the contrary, the Government are failing on jobs. Long-term unemployment and long-term youth unemployment are up on the year. The Work Programme is little short of a disaster and continues to fail the hardest to help. Some 1.4 million part-time workers would like to be working full time. This is why we have proposed a new initiative to get people into work and a compulsory job guarantee for the long-term unemployed, and we have costed a scheme that over the course of a year would help more than a quarter of a million people into work, paid for by restricting on a tapered basis pension tax relief for those earning more than £150,000.

We will continue to argue for the reversal of the proposed tax handout to the very rich. We heard the Minister at Second Reading suggest that the saving that this would produce would be “illusory” because the rich would order their affairs to make sure that the will of the Government was defeated. Indeed, the HMRC analysis suggests that some would do this by forestalling and deferring, whereby income fell into a lower tax period, converting income into more favourably taxed capital. Have we not already had reports about income being deferred into next year? However, the Government do not have to acquiesce in this and accept the Starbucks approach to tax compliance. If they believed in tackling tax avoidance, they could secure the revenues that reversing this tax cut could generate.

There are alternatives. The country does not need the Bill. It needs growth, jobs and fairness in sharing the burden of fiscal consolidation. This Bill will contribute none of this.

[Baroness Afshar]

My Lords, I speak on behalf of the minorities and the moral economy of kin. For minorities who have been in this country for a very long time, it is the family who has given support and sustenance to those who are unemployed and suffering. That is normally done by people who are employed but in marginal jobs—hand-based employment such as catering—essentially by stretching the resources of the family unit in order to include the extended family.

Unfortunately, with the kind of cuts proposed at this stage, the extended resources of the family will no longer be able to help. My fear is that those of the younger generation who are likely to be serving in the restaurant with their dads or working with their mums by knitting or producing shirts and so on will now join the ranks of disaffected young people, and then be branded as home-made terrorists. It is a dangerous precedent. We really need to nurture the moral economy of kin because it is these families who offer support, but on this kind of income and with these kinds of cuts they will simply be unable to do so.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, perhaps I may pick up on some points made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. I have the highest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Low, and nothing would give me greater pleasure than to vote for the amendment. There is a problem, however, in that we cannot afford to vote for the amendment. The noble Baroness who has just spoken talked about cuts. We are not talking about cuts but about not having increases. It is true that there might be cuts because of inflation, but if we go down the road proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, inflation will be even higher and the cuts will be more severe. It was Lord Callaghan who pointed out, as a Labour Prime Minister in the 1970s—sometimes I feel that we have gone back to the 1970s; even the Daleks made an appearance in Westminster last week—that inflation is the father and mother of unemployment.

It is really quite extraordinary for the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to make so much of the rating agency’s downrating of the UK from AAA status. I do not know whether he has read what the rating agency had to say about why that downrating was being made. It was because the agency believed that the Government would not be able to meet the targets that they had set, and which the Opposition are constantly urging us to abandon. The noble Lord talked about the impact of the sliding pound and of inflation, which is a consequence of not meeting these targets. On the idea that finding money out of thin air will not hurt the poorest hardest in the long term, because of the inflation that would be created and the impact it would have on the pound, the hard reality is that we simply cannot afford to do what the noble Lord, Lord Low, would ask of us.

It is the cheapest of cheap politics to keep going on about millionaires being given a subsidy. First, that assumes that the state is entitled to their money and that it can spend that money better than they can; and, secondly, that if they spend it by investing or buying goods it will not generate wealth and prosperity in the economy, while somehow a state bureaucracy involved in spending money and taking it by force through an Administration will get better value and growth. That is a delusion which we happily abandoned in the 1970s when we abandoned rates of income tax at 98% and discovered that the consequence of cutting taxes to 40% was that the rich ended up paying a higher proportion of tax than in the past. Already we are seeing that the proportion of tax paid by the very rich is falling and the proportion paid by the poorest is rising. That is not as a consequence of the recent measures made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor in his Budget but as a consequence of the politically inspired 50% tax, which the previous Government introduced as some kind of political gesture to try to create division between the parties.

We can all make speeches saying that we would like to have more money available for those who are poorest but if we were to follow the prescriptions of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and his party—in so far as we can work out what their prescriptions are—the effect would be higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment, with those who are poorest in our country being the most disadvantaged. It would not be the rich or the people in the public sector but those who are unemployed, while the prospects for new jobs would be reduced.

I say to my noble friend that she is right to press ahead and, I hope, to reject this amendment. It is not because we do not care about those who are most vulnerable in our society but precisely because we do that we want an economic policy that will deliver the wealth that is necessary to pay the bills. The truth is that we are in this mess because the previous Labour Government spent money on welfare that was based on an unsustainable bubble. That is why we now have the problem. It is very regrettable that noble Lords opposite should seek to make party politics out of this issue while not acknowledging the very heavy burden of responsibility they carry for having brought this situation about and the real courage being shown by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in bringing forward this Bill. It is trying to bring into effect a welfare system that will be within our means and will recognise the need to encourage those who have the greatest need.

[Baroness Meacher]

It is very fashionable to blame the previous Government for our predicament but does the noble Lord accept that the banks have to carry perhaps 90% of the burden of responsibility, and that the banking crisis started in the United States—not even in this country? In fact, if there was a weakness, it was in the degree of regulation. My understanding is that the previous Conservative Administration opposed even the level of regulation that this country had. This is therefore not a party political issue; it is about banking, and this country has been deeply wounded by the banking crisis.

The other question for the noble Lord is whether he accepts, as Lord Maynard Keynes argued rather powerfully, that if you are in a terrible state of recession the best way to get yourself out of it is to generate growth. That means that you should not be withdrawing demand from the economy in this incredibly irresponsible way. What the Government are doing is very worrying.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I disagree with the idea that leaving money, as Gladstone would have put it, to fructify in the pockets of the people is withdrawing money from the economy, and that somehow the state would spend that money more effectively.

As to her particular question about whether I accept that all this difficulty was caused by the banking crisis, no, I do not. I think that the banking crisis was caused by the monetary policy being pursued by the previous Government by targeting inflation. The noble Baroness seems surprised by this, but the fundamental causes of the financial crisis were the huge financial surpluses that were being built up—I hesitate to stray too far from the amendment—in China and the Middle East, which kept interest rates low, and an inflation-targeting policy being pursued by the Bank of England that meant that they were very low interest rates. As a result, the banks tried to go for yield. The banks were certainly at fault in devising packages that they thought would reduce risk and give a higher return, and it is certainly true that regulators such as the FSA should have been on to this.

However, the fundamental point is that while Labour were in charge they did nothing about that; indeed, they revelled in it. We were told that they had abolished boom and bust, and that they had come up with a new paradigm. That is why that Labour Government, even at the height of the boom, with huge revenues coming in and house prices and asset prices going through the roof, did nothing except collect the tax. Instead of putting the tax away for a rainy day, what did they do? They spent it on welfare that they could not afford, and when the boom collapsed there was a sudden gap in the market that my right honourable friend is now having to deal with. So let us not rewrite history here; let the Labour Party take responsibility for what it did in government.

The fact is that under both Governments we have been living beyond our means. We have been spending about 10% more than we earn, and we have been saving nothing. We need to save 10%. The consequence of that is that our living standards will fall unless we are able to create growth, and you do not create growth with the state taking more and more from the productive part of the private sector. According to the OECD, close to 50% of our GDP is being spent by the Government. We used to define communist countries as those where more than 50% of the state’s production was spent by the Government.

I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that this is not an easy amendment to oppose—of course it is not—but she is absolutely right to do so because it is in the long-term interests of the most vulnerable people in our country that we stick to this policy and do not go further down the road that has brought us to this mess. If we travel down that road, it will mean that the hardship endured by the most vulnerable will be all the greater.

16:00

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I had not planned to speak to these amendments but I have been stung into doing so by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I am going to keep my powder dry for later amendments. First, he started by saying that this is not a cut. Of course it is. He then had to concede that if you do not uprate benefits in line with inflation, you are cutting benefits. Do not tell the mother who has to struggle that this is not a cut—it is.

Secondly, the noble Lord said that we cannot afford to uprate benefits in line with inflation. This is about choices—particularly, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester made clear at Second Reading, moral choices. We can afford to protect people living in poverty from inflation.

I will not make the contrast with millionaires because the noble Lord said that it was a cheap contrast. I will simply make the contrast with a policy of which the coalition Government are very proud—that of uprating tax allowances by more than inflation. As Gingerbread, I think, pointed out to us, this is the least effective way of targeting resources on people in poverty. A much more effective way of helping them is by inflation-proofing their benefits. There is a choice. The choice was made to increase tax allowances by more than inflation, which is of no help to people too poor to pay tax, including people in work too poor to pay tax; of minimal help to people on means-tested benefits, because they lose some of it; and of greatest help to higher-rate taxpayers. That was a choice. It was believed to be all right because we could afford it, but we cannot afford this.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Is the noble Baroness not leaving out an important ingredient? The reason why that choice is made is because by cutting the tax burden and encouraging people to save to invest and to work harder you create the wealth that is needed to create the welfare state. That is the difference. The noble Baroness seems to think that it is a fixed cake and that whatever happens it is impossible to increase the size of the cake and thereby make more money available for those in greatest need.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I do not want to get into a great debate about the economics of this, but are people in low-paid work who are getting tax credits not contributing to the wealth of the country in the same way? They are affected just as much as people on so-called welfare, which I prefer to call social security. The economic case was made by the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. This is not about the state taking money out of the productive economy and somehow filing it away somewhere; this is about the state redistributing money to people who are more likely to spend it and to spend it in local communities, thereby helping to boost economic growth at the time we need it. I do not believe there is an economic case. I do not accept the crocodile tears that are being shed by someone who is prepared to support a Bill that will hurt people in poverty the most.

[Lord Bates]

I, too, was not intending to speak on this amendment, but I was spurred to by my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. I rise to add to some of the points and to reinforce some of the questions that he has about this. I followed this debate quite closely at Second Reading, and I thought that the position then argued by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, was that the Opposition opposed the 2013-14 and 2014-15 limits but had not yet reached a position on 2015-16. Presumably by supporting this amendment, they are now making the position that they do not agree and would therefore reverse the policy as it affects 2015-16, which is £1.9 billion. I may have got that wrong, and I am very happy to sit down if the noble Lord wants to intervene to correct me.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I shall clarify for the noble Lord that we made our position clear in respect of 2013-14, which is not in the Bill but is dealt with by regulations in the normal way. We made it clear that we will make no tax or spending commitments in respect of the next Parliament, which would include the latter part of 2015-16. As for 2014-15, we think that removing this cap would enable the normal process to take place so that there can be an assessment in the normal course about what is happening to inflation and the state of the economy in that year. I hope that has clarified the position. That has not changed since we debated this at Second Reading.

[Lord Bates]

The noble Lord is saying that the Official Opposition do not intend to make any pledges, which is interesting because I thought I heard last week that there was a proposal for a mansion tax and that that would be funded by other means. I thought that was a specific spending commitment beyond 2015-16.

My second point picks up on one from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who made a thoughtful contribution. We overwhelmingly agree that the most effective way to alleviate poverty and raise standards is to create jobs. I would have thought that there would be some recognition that the Government’s record on that has been quite reasonable. We would of course like it to be very much better, but contrary to some other countries that are wrestling with the same problems our unemployment rate continues to fall. We now have the highest level of private sector employment in our history and a million new private sector jobs since the last election. That suggests that moves to reform taxation and stimulate the economy are beginning to have some effect, and that they are the best way of tackling this.

We have an Urgent Question coming up on the rating agency decision: the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, referred to this. I was reading through the decision and thinking of making a contribution to the Urgent Question, which I will not now do having secured the Floor in this debate. Moody’s statement,

“explains that the UK’s creditworthiness remains extremely high … because of the country’s significant credit strengths”,

chief among which are,

“a strong track record of fiscal consolidation and a robust institutional structure”.

That is quite interesting. In fact, going beyond that, we are again warned about what could happen to the country’s inflation and the cost of borrowing if the country were to be downgraded again.

Further down, on what could move the rating up or down, Moody’s statement says that,

“downward pressure on the rating could arise if government policies were unable to stabilise and begin to ease the UK’s debt burden during the multi-year fiscal consolidation programme”.

So there is a case for fiscal consolidation. There needs to be a recognition that the Government’s policies of raising tax thresholds and increasing employment are beginning to have some effect.

Notwithstanding that, I come to a point of agreement, which I made at Second Reading: no one on any side of the House is cheering on this measure. It is an economic necessity. It is certainly not something that anyone takes pleasure in.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, although I am delighted to support these amendments, believing the Bill to be yet another attack by the coalition on the poorest and those in the squeezed middle, I confess to feeling more than a little hard done by being obliged to speak at all to the amendments in this group. The reason for this is that a draft amendment in my name was refused as not being in scope. The draft amendment was to the commencement part of the Bill, on page 2 at line 38, and says:

“Except that no commencement shall take effect until the Secretary of State is satisfied that legal help is available for all claimants who seek legal advice on the validity of the decision on their benefit entitlement”.

At first sight, it sounds as relevant to the Bill as other amendments that grace this Marshalled List, but there it is. My amendment has for some reason ended up on the wrong side of the line. It is not for me to speculate on whether any part of government was asked its view as to the status of my amendment, but I venture the opinion that it may be something of a relief to the Government that my amendment does not stand to be debated or to be voted on at a later stage.

However, I would argue that the principle behind it clearly is relevant to this group of amendments. It could be called a pursuit of justice or, to put it the other way around, the avoidance of unfairness. Because the concentration is rightly on the measures themselves, what is so often left out of the arguments about welfare reform, whether in relation to this Bill or the regulations that we were debating before our half-term break—in this case, the 1% uprating—is what potential real remedy the citizen will be left with if the department’s decision is wrong. Surely the fact that it is wrong in many cases is not in question. We all know that, with the best will in the world, decisions made by the department are often wrong and very much to the disadvantage of those who want to claim them.

For a long time, this has not been a pressing problem. For those requiring legal advice on their benefit entitlements, legal aid has been available—if, of course, these people came within the criteria for legal aid, and many did. For a small amount of legal aid, quality advice has been available, having the effect of both stopping—this is important in cost terms—hopeless claims and establishing good claims where appropriate. It is a system that worked. Putting it at its highest, it has allowed access to justice for all. At a slightly lower level, it has meant that tribunals have not been faced with an impossibly large number of cases, many of which should never have been brought in the first place. It has cost a fraction of the total legal aid budget and is paid to lawyers who are not by any standards well paid. Yet from 1 April, as a deliberate act of government policy, this legal help will no longer be available for anyone in cases relating to welfare benefit entitlements, whether under this Bill or under the regulations and the larger Act passed by Parliament last year.

Thus, people will not be able to get the advice to which they are entitled. Their access to justice will be gone. The department will get away with wrong decisions and tribunals will be overburdened with what I can only describe as rubbish cases—all to save £25 million per year on welfare benefit advice. Perhaps I may remind the House and this Committee that that is one-tenth—I repeat, one-tenth—of the amount set aside by the Department for Communities and Local Government so that there can be weekly rather than fortnightly collections of rubbish. Is this really a proper sense of priorities for a time of austerity?

Further, everyone who knows anything about this agrees that this is not likely to be a saving at all in the end. The state—I fear that it will be the department as much as any other department and perhaps the Treasury—will eventually have to pick up the pieces when things get much worse than they need to. What does the Minister, for whom I have a high regard, have to say about this? What does he say to those who under this Act will not be able to query a wrong decision about their entitlement? They will not be able to do that because they will not be entitled to legal aid for legal advice as to whether a mistake has been made. How can the Minister or any Government justify this either in terms of common decency, which should appeal to this House and normally does, or even under the rule of law?

16:14

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I support the non-existent amendment of my noble friend Lord Bach as it is key to the changes that we are having. We should not be discussing this Bill in isolation from the Welfare Reform Act that preceded it. They represent a package of cuts and changes that will bear very heavily on 5 million to 7 million people in this country—no light measure.

To follow my noble friend, it is worth reminding the House of what we discussed at Second Reading about the number of changes that will affect people who are receiving benefits, even though many of them are in work. Those changes will happen to them all at once. We will see a new structure of benefits, brought together in universal credit—that is a structure that I welcome—but it will be accompanied, as in this Bill, and in reducing benefit inflation to CPI, by serious cuts, which many benefit claimants will think is simply an error by the department. They will go frantic with concern in trying to rectify them. That is the second change.

The third change that we are going to see is to the new patterns of payment. For example, tenants of social housing who currently have their housing benefit paid directly to the landlord will now have it paid to themselves, looped through a bank account. Very often, given other pressures of finance, debts and so on, they may be in real difficulties in making that money over to the landlord at the end of the month. So there is a new pattern of payment, with which tenants must become familiar. They will also have monthly payment of benefit, when many of them have been used to weekly or fortnightly payments, and the payment will go to a single earner or person in the household and not split. Again, that is a major change.

All those changes—the new structure, the cuts, the new method of payment direct to tenants, and the monthly payments—will be handled by an IT system, when we know that 20% to 30% of the tenants wishing to claim benefit have no familiarity with IT at all. So what will they do? What they have always done is to seek legal advice from Citizens Advice, which in the past has been funded very substantially by the Lord Chancellor’s Department. CABs have received some 40% of their funding from the Lord Chancellor’s Department, but that has been cut, and they are now 40% short. As a result, those same people facing this sequence of changes, some of which I support, like universal credit, and some of which I deplore, will make their bids for benefit on the basis of an IT system, with which they are not familiar, instead of a paper trail. Where do they go? They cannot go to the traditional advice centres because the legal aid money that sustained them has been withdrawn in the worst, most foolish and most indecent economy of which I can conceive. I declare my interest as a chair of a housing association. I am having to appoint paid professionals to do the welfare advice, to be paid for out of increased tenants’ rents, which hitherto was provided by the skilled but unpaid volunteers of the CABs, which represented a real commitment to the big society to which we all give lip service and which, I fear, is too seldom observed in this House.

My noble friend is absolutely right that this is a foolish way to proceed and I regret very much that we were not allowed to debate this properly. I speak with some concern because, as a departmental Minister for eight years, I was responsible for tribunals before they went over, via Leggatt, to a generalised tribunal system. I sat in on those tribunals for DLA and other benefits. My noble friend is exactly right—I could see within five minutes whether the person coming before the tribunal had or had not received prior legal advice. If they had not, the appeal or discussion at tribunal took five times as long, with the chairman, as they were then called—now judge—trying to tease out the issues and establish whether it was a bona fide case, whether they could take it further and even whether the person was claiming against the right benefit. In some cases, they were complaining about an incapacity benefit when it should have been DLA, and I felt like jumping up and saying, “You’ve got the wrong benefit here—let’s start again”.

That is the situation here. We are transferring the pressure of the problem away from the point that is most approachable, accessible and value for money—local services in the community funded by legal aid—to the tribunal process itself and merely distributing the pressure over a longer time, at greater cost, with greater inaccessibility and greater difficulty for everyone to understand. That is a huge folly and, like my noble friend, I beg the Government, even at this late stage, to reconsider.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, at the risk of repeating arguments made in earlier debates, I remind the Committee of the context of the Bill. This country is still recovering from the most damaging financial crisis for generations. When this Government came to power, the state was borrowing £1 in every £4 that it spent. Even before the recession, the UK had the highest structural deficit in the G7 and between 1997 and 2010 welfare spending increased by some 60% in real terms. Welfare spending now accounts for more than a quarter of government spending: that is, more than £200 billion. The £1.9 billion of savings enabled by this Bill in 2015-16 is a necessary part of helping to reduce public spending, tackle the deficit and secure the economic recovery.

Amendments 1 and 9, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, would remove the 1% uprating figure in the Bill in Clause 1 and Clause 2. The effect of these amendments would be to give the Government discretion over benefit levels on an annual basis in much the same way as under existing legislation. As I have already explained, we believe it is vital that we set out credible plans for the longer term. The Bill is needed to enable us to set out our uprating policy over several years so that we can be sure we will deliver those £1.9 billion worth of savings.

My speaking notes at this point said that this amendment would completely undermine that core purpose of the Bill. I was relieved, but not surprised, that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, used that very word to define the effect of these amendments. He said that the amendments would undermine and, indeed, negate the core purpose of the Bill. They would, and so a vote for these amendments would be equivalent to a vote against the Bill at Second Reading. I note that the amendments, while removing the 1% figure, do not suggest an alternative uprating metric. If we assume that the noble Lord’s intention is that we operate in line with the CPI, this would obviously not deliver the savings we are talking about. I remind the Committee that the £1.9 billion worth of savings that this Bill will generate in 2015-16 are equivalent to the salaries of about 45,000 nurses and about 40,000 teachers, so these are not negligible amounts, as some noble Lords have suggested, and the savings would have to be found somewhere else.

As I say, the amendments undermine the purpose of the Bill and, frankly, demonstrate a fundamental difference of opinion between the two sides of the House on how we deal with the current economic situation. The Government believe that the main priority is to get spending under control, reduce the deficit and restore growth. The Bill helps us to achieve that. At the same time, we are implementing policies that make a real difference to people’s lives—people of the most modest means. Let me name just a few of them: universal credit; the pupil premium; reform of early years education; tackling problem debt; and lifting people out of paying income tax through raising the personal allowance. We believe that these policies are vital if we are to have a real and sustainable impact on poverty over the medium to longer term. We cannot simply focus on increasing incomes through welfare payments, lifting people just above the poverty line.

The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, asked me a number of questions about the impact assessment. I remind the Committee that we published a detailed impact assessment for the Bill, which includes details of the impact by family type, and have made public details of the impacts on relative child poverty. She asked whether we could delay the changes until we had a broader impact assessment that covered the impact on mental health, crime and, I think she said, social unrest. As regards the impact on crime, it seems to me that the noble Baroness is being completely unrealistic to believe that such an impact can be measured with any degree of precision. At the start of the downturn, most commentators believed that crime rates would rise substantially. If one had taken the average view of people in the know, that is what one would have put in an impact assessment. The truth is that crime rates have not risen substantially. They have fallen. I obviously welcome that. I make that point only to make the more general point that, while one can make an impact assessment that covers some things with a reasonable degree of precision, on other things—on crime, for example—it is impossible to do what the noble Baroness wants. That is why the impact assessment is couched in the terms that it is.

The noble Baroness asked about exceptions or exemptions from direct payment. We are not setting out the exemptions in the regulations because they will be based on individual needs and assessments. Individuals will work with an adviser via Jobcentre Plus. There will be personal budgeting support, which will contain two elements: money advice, to help people who cannot manage monthly payments, and alternative payment arrangements, which include rent paid direct to landlords, more frequent payments and payments split between partners. These will be undertaken on an individual basis.

I do not really want to get involved in a long macroeconomic discussion. I would like to get involved in one, but perhaps I might simply refer the noble Baroness to the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Desai, in the Financial Times last week. It seemed to explain extremely carefully and clearly why this downturn is not like the typical Keynesian downturn that we have seen in the past. I would commend that letter to all noble Lords who are looking for a primer on why the Government are following the line that they are.

[Baroness Meacher]

I thank the Minister for attempting to respond to some of my questions. Perhaps I may return to the one on the impact assessment. The Minister referred to the crime issue and I accept that we have had a long-term decline in crime. However, I am not sure that that makes it impossible to look at the increase in the amount of crime among benefit recipients; that is something precise worth looking at. Moreover, I do not think that that negates the possibility of looking at the amount of mental breakdown among benefit recipients. Again, that is one of my main concerns, having been involved in mental health services for 25 years. I fear that there will be quite a dramatic increase in mental breakdown and an incredible impact on a very tight psychiatric service. In particular, in-patient beds have been cut over many, many years. It would be helpful if he could look at that.

[Lord Newby]

I think that the difficulty—and I may be wrong—in terms of mental health is that the noble Baroness is very worried about what might happen. She may be right and she may not be right, but it is difficult to model—in the way required in an impact assessment—that kind of change which has not happened. As far as I am aware—she will know much more than I do—you cannot go back and say, “This is what happened in the past”, which would give us the kind of experience that would enable us to say in an impact assessment, which is a very specific thing, that these outcomes are predicted with any degree of certainty.

I will talk to officials about this. I realise it is a potential problem. However, I still maintain that while there are some things that can be relatively clearly enumerated in an impact assessment, some other things are very difficult to the point that the value of attempting the exercise is relatively low.

16:30

[Baroness Meacher]

I am sorry for standing up again but I want to clarify the point; otherwise we will be left with a misunderstanding. I was saying in my speech that it would be helpful to have an impact assessment of what has happened in, say, two years’ time. I agree that we cannot look at these things prospectively, so I want to clarify that. I am suggesting postponing implementation until an impact assessment can be undertaken in real terms.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Will the Minister acknowledge that there is abundant evidence that incidences of crime and mental illness are significantly higher in more unequal societies? Given that the tendency of the policies in the Bill will be to exacerbate inequality, is not the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, well justified in her anxiety, and should not the Government be taking great care to examine the potential impact of these policies?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I have read The Spirit Level as well, but one of the best ways of dealing with inequality in society is to increase the proportion of people in work and to increase opportunities for people to get into work. I will come on to that later.

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in a way answered the point of the noble Lord, Lord Low, about spending more money now. That is the argument. We get back to a macroeconomic point that if one spends a lot of borrowed money now, it will generate the kind of growth that will get us out of our difficulties. The Government reject the argument that we are in a position where we can spend our way out of recession, and it is as simple as that.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I just want to clarify that I am not arguing for a splurge in spending. I am not advocating that the Government should spend more. My point is rather that the Government—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for whom I also have great respect, would not agree with me—should not pursue an economically counterproductive policy of withdrawing purchasing power from the economy.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, we and the noble Lord will simply have to agree to differ on that. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, repeated some of the arguments made about millionaires and the huge tax boost that they allegedly got. He did not mention that the Budget changes announced last year affecting millionaires and those on very substantial means would generate five times as much income as the 45p tax rate. It is simply untrue to claim that the Budget measures last year mean that millionaires as a group are paying, and will be paying, less tax this year and next than they have in the past. Equally, it is simplistic and false to argue that there is a sort of mechanical problem with HMRC, or an inability of HMRC to collect money from millionaires. Millionaires are extremely clever at avoiding tax. All the evidence from the Office for Budget Responsibility and the work that it did demonstrates why the 50p tax rate simply would not generate anything like the amount of money that was originally envisaged. Indeed, it said that it was quite possible that the 50p tax rate would mean less money being collected than would otherwise be the case.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to my noble friend. Have we not had a spectacular example this very day of how cutting taxes can result in huge increases in revenue? The Chancellor’s decision to reverse his plan to increase the tax on the oil industry has resulted in the £25 billion of investment reported today, with huge implications for future revenue and employment.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, that is an extremely good point. It demonstrates that there is no simplistic relationship between tax rates and the amount of tax collected. In some cases there is and in some there is not. The trick of government is to understand the difference between the two. Frankly, I do not believe that the Opposition have reached that point.

The noble Lord also talked about tax avoidance and conflated wealthy people avoiding tax and the situation relating to Starbucks. On the question of Starbucks and profit shifting, the Government, along with the French and Germans, have started a process with the OECD—something that the previous Government never did—to change the basic global accounting rules so that we can get to the bottom of corporations that are shifting their profits to low-tax jurisdictions. This holds the prospect of being successful in the medium term, but whatever it does it will have no impact on the effectiveness of the Government’s treatment of individuals. As we have debated many times in recent months at Question Time, the new focus that HMRC is putting on going after people who are avoiding and evading tax is generating many billions of pounds more in income. While the previous Government cut the number of HMRC people working on compliance by 10,000, this Government have already increased it by 2,500 and will increase it further.

I was very taken by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, on extended families. In the past year, employment has increased by more than 500,000 and I am unaware of any differential effect on the minority ethnic communities such that small firms in those communities have been shedding jobs disproportionately. Perhaps they have, but I have not seen any evidence. One of the more welcome developments of the past year, which has surprised a lot of commentators, is that hundreds of thousands more people are in work, and this increase in employment has taken place disproportionately in regions other than London and the south-east. There has been a slight rebalancing of employment prospects, and regions such as Yorkshire and the Humber, which I know, have done remarkably well in difficult economic times. I completely support the noble Baroness’s view about the moral economy of kin, but I question whether what has happened in recent months has undermined it to the extent that she suggested.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, implied—very gently; I know that he did not really mean it—that the Government might have influenced what amendments were considered to be in scope of the Bill. He knows, as we all know, that the Government have no power to determine what is in scope of the Bill.

[Lord Bach]

Of course I did not imply that for a moment—and I think that the Minister knows that. However, when there is some doubt about whether an amendment is in scope, there would be nothing wrong in the authorities asking both the Government and the person who might be tabling the amendment for their thinking on the issue. The decision is of course for the authorities and nobody else, but there would be nothing wrong in inviting the views of, for example, an experienced Bill team, as I am sure the Minister has backing him. I was not suggesting for a moment that the Government could use their influence, as the Minister put it, to decide for the authorities, which will make the decision themselves, as always. My point was that if the amendment had been allowed in, I suspect that the Government might have been in trouble in a vote at a later stage Bill. That was all that I was saying.

[Lord Newby]

I am extremely sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord.

In conclusion, I repeat that the amendments in this group would mean that the Bill would not deliver on its purpose of enabling the Government to set out clear and certain plans to control welfare spending and help secure the economic recovery. That is why they should be resisted.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, perhaps I may wind up on behalf of my noble friend, who moved Amendment 1 on my behalf. I thank the Minister for his range of responses. I emphasise that, yes, we believe the amendment would negate the Bill, but it would not prevent the Government doing what they wanted to, given a chance, over a three-year period. However, we believe that it is wrong to lock in a real-terms cut for three years. Effectively, it is for two years, given that the first year is by way of regulation.

On issues of tax, the Minister, in response to the Second Reading debate, said that a 50% tax rate would not garner the revenue we believed because people would order their affairs. Ordering their affairs, as set out in some detail in the HMRC publication that looked at this issue, would involve switching income from one year to another. It is quite possible that, as we speak and draw to the end of the current tax year and move towards, possibly, a 45% tax year, a great deal of income will shift from this year into next year. Will the Minister say whether he thinks this is okay and acquiesces with it, or whether it is a matter that the Government should address in some form? If you simply sit back, clever and well resourced people will reduce their tax liabilities as fully as they can. However, it does not inevitably have to be that way, particularly when the people who will pick up the burden of that avoidance are at the very low end of the income scale.

[Lord Bates]

I take the argument that the noble Lord is making about 50p down to 45p. I am puzzled therefore as to why, during the entire period of the previous Government, who were in power from May 1997 until April 2010, the top rate was 50p. It reduced to 45p only on 6 April 2010. If it was an overriding cause of concern and a belief of the Government of that time, in which he served as a distinguished Minister, surely they would have kept the rate at that level and not proposed reducing it.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

We are addressing the policies of this Government. We can spend all our time debating what previous Governments have done but we are addressing this Government’s determination to raise the revenue that they can from a 50% rate, rather than give what is a huge tax cut to a minority of people in our country at a time when people at the other end of the income scale are being asked to bear a real additional burden. That is what we are complaining about and we believe that the Government can and should do something about it.

There have been a range of powerful contributions to this debate. I agree entirely with my noble friends Lord Bach and Lady Hollis about this collection of things that are going on, particularly at the moment. New benefits, new structures and new payment details are being introduced in circumstances in which it is difficult for people to access good advice, to get justice when they wish to challenge, or even to understand the system with which they are faced.

The noble Lord, Lord Bates, referred to fiscal consolidation. Yes, we all agree about fiscal consolidation: the issue is how you go about it. We all agree about the importance of work and getting people into work, but it is how you go about it. The problem is that the Government have not produced the goods. Every time George Osborne presents a Budget or an Autumn Statement, the OBR revises growth downwards. Indeed, the latest GDP figures show that there has been no growth this year. The issue is not about whether we believe growth is the right way forward; it is about how you get it—and this Government have not delivered on that.

As to their impact on benefit spending, the Government’s failure to get Britain back to work is sending the social security bill up by something like £13.6 billion more than expected. Long-term unemployment is up by 55.7% this year. That is a manifestation of government failure in getting people into work and on growth in the economy. Borrowing has risen by 10% so far this year and it looks as though the Chancellor will miss his target to get the national debt falling by 2015.

On our record on benefits, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that real-terms expenditure on out-of-work benefits fell by £7.45 billion under the previous Labour Government between 1996-97 and 2009-10, while real spending on out-of-work benefits in 2006, at something like £38 billion, was at its lowest point in 15 years. You do not have to take my word for Labour’s record on benefits. An analysis was made of the Labour Government’s record on welfare reform and it was found that they had made “strong progress” in their welfare-to-work agenda. Policies such as Welfare to Work, the New Deal and Jobcentre Plus were all a success. It was the noble Lord, Lord Freud, who came to that judgment.

16:45

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I am a bit puzzled because he said in answer to my noble friend Lord Bates that we were discussing the policies of this Government, not the last one. He is a little selective. However, given what he has described—an economy which is not growing at all—how on earth does he expect to fund the increase in benefits that he says he is in favour of? That is the crux of the matter. It is not about where we would like to be or how the world might be different, the fact is that the economy is not growing. If the economy is not growing, how is it possible to expand the welfare budget?

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I was talking about the last Labour Government in response to points that the noble Lord himself made earlier on. On growth, I would outline that there is one particular proposal that we in the Labour Party have been working on—the long-term jobs guarantee, and we have explained how it could be funded by, yes, restricting tax relief for the wealthiest in terms of pension contributions. It would get people into work, get them spending, and take them off benefits and welfare support. That is the way to do it. Perhaps I can turn this back to the noble Lord. The approach the Government have undertaken has simply failed to deliver growth; it is not happening. Everyone knows that and it does not need me to expound on it. The Government have failed to deliver.

It is because of that that we are challenging this burden of a real-terms cut. The noble Lord said that it is not a cut, but of course it is a cut in real terms because it is a cut in people’s living standards. It is also a cut that we do not know the magnitude of over the life of this Bill, which is why we object to it so strongly. We do not know what the rate of inflation is going to be in two years’ time. We can speculate on the impact of the downgrading of our credit rating, but getting growth in the economy and thus providing more employment is certainly more likely to impact in a positive way. That is what we would argue for and plan for. It is making the people at the bottom end of the income scale pay for the failure of this Government that we object to. This Bill is the wrong way to deal with benefits uprating. There is a tried and tested way that has operated for many years which is open to the Government rather than locking it down and forcing people into a real-terms cut in their living standards.

I suspect that we will have another round of this argument on Report because it is the fundamental part of our objection to the Bill, but in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

House resumed.

Economy: Credit Rating

Monday 25th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Statement

16:49

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Deighton)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

“Mr Speaker, this decision is a stark reminder of the debt problem built up over the past decade and a warning to anyone who thinks that we can run away from dealing with those problems.

I can report that we have not seen excessive volatility in the markets today: 10-year government gilts are broadly flat—trading at around 2.16%—within the trading range of the past week and near the very lowest rates of borrowing in our history. The FTSE 100 is currently up by about 35 points. The credit rating is an important benchmark for any country but this Government’s economic policy is tested day in, day out, in the markets—and it has not been found wanting today. Families and businesses see the benefit of that in those very low interest rates.

If we accept the outcome of the rating agency decision, we must accept the reasons given for that decision. Moody’s points to the combined impact of what it describes as the ‘slow growth of the global economy’ and the necessary ‘domestic public- and private-sector deleveraging process’—in other words, the process of winding down the huge debts that built up in our society over the past decade.

That is the environment we are operating in, dealing with the very high deficit and debt trajectory this country had coming out of the financial crisis, made more difficult by the economic environment abroad. For on the same day as the rating decision, the latest European forecasts showed the eurozone deep in recession and growth in key economies such as France and Germany weaker than ours.

Crucially, Moody’s says that the UK’s creditworthiness remains ‘extremely high’ because of our ‘highly competitive, well-diversified economy’ and a ‘strong track record of fiscal consolidation’—what it calls the ‘political will’ to ‘reverse the UK’s debt trajectory’. Its message to this Government and this Parliament is explicit: the UK’s rating could be downgraded further if there is a ‘reduced political commitment to fiscal consolidation’.

You will not get that reduced commitment from this Government. We will go on delivering on the economic plan that has brought the deficit down by a quarter and helped create a million private sector jobs, and which continues to secure very low interest rates not just for the Government but for families and businesses in the country.

Ultimately, that is the choice for Britain: we can either abandon our efforts to deal with our debt problems and make a difficult situation very much worse, or we can redouble our efforts to overcome our debts, make sure that this country can earn its way in the world and provide for our children a very much brighter economic situation than the one we inherited from our predecessors. That is what I am going to do—and that is what this Government are going to do”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

16:52

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, the Conservative Party manifesto said:

“We will safeguard Britain’s credit rating”.

When that rating was maintained immediately after the 2010 election, the Chancellor said:

“That is a big vote of confidence … in the coalition government’s economic policies”.

Does the Minister not feel embarrassed to have to come here this afternoon to eat all the Chancellor’s words, and does he not accept that this downgrade shows that the Government’s economic strategy has failed, in their own terms? Will he confirm that Moody’s says that the main driver of its decision to downgrade is the weak growth of the British economy? When does he expect growth to return to the 1.8% level of 2010?

At the 2010 Conservative Party conference, George Osborne said that a credit downgrade would put Britain “on the brink”, as he referred to:

“The lost jobs. The cancelled investment. The businesses destroyed. The recovery halted”.

Since all these things have now come to pass, is it not time to change course?

16:53

[Lord Deighton]

My Lords, if I may be very specific about Moody’s expressed reasons for the downgrade, it is due to the,

“slow growth of the global economy and the drag on the UK economy from the ongoing domestic public- and private-sector deleveraging process”.

The noble Lord is absolutely right that we are growing far more slowly than was anticipated. That is a phenomenon of being highly constrained in a global economy that has had severe problems. Every other piece of advice implicit in Moody’s explanation for this downgrade tells us that the most critical thing is to continue with the path of fiscal consolidation.

16:54

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that we were supposed to have this Urgent Question much earlier in our proceedings, and that if this does not happen the Whips should rise and say what is going on?

As far as the substance is concerned, does my noble friend agree that it is absolutely crucial that the Government should continue with their existing policy? The reality is that they have not managed to reduce the deficit as fast as we would have liked. The Labour Party is saying that the reduction is being done too quickly and by too much, but clearly the reason why we have had this reassessment of our position is that it has not been done as quickly as international opinion might feel would have been appropriate.

If we are going to take this attitude, it is essential that aggregate demand should be maintained. In that instance, a further increase in quantitative easing would be appropriate. However, we are in some danger of having economic management split between an unaccountable Monetary Policy Committee and the Treasury. Perhaps this point also should be taken into account.

[Lord Deighton]

I thank my noble friend for those observations. As for the timing of the Statement, I think that it was simply a matter of the earlier session not finishing on time. I, too, have been here for an hour and a quarter ready to talk about this Question.

On the economic substance, my noble friend raises a number of extremely important points. I do not think that we can evaluate the current economic situation in terms of a direct trade-off between growth and fiscal consolidation. The essence of the situation that we find ourselves in is that fiscal consolidation is an absolute prerequisite for recovery and for the confidence of the markets which allows us to borrow to finance this extremely high deficit. My noble friend is right that an array of other policy weapons is available to prosecute a growth agenda. That includes multiple supply-side reforms to make our economy more efficient, and the Government are fully embarked on those. An activist monetary policy plays an important part, but—I agree—within a constraint of managing very carefully any inflationary risk.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, the Statement makes it clear that there is the very real danger of further demotion if growth is not achieved. Have Moody’s or any of the other exalted bodies that are our lords and masters in this connection given any indication of at what point a failure to achieve acceptable growth will make possible a further and calamitous demotion?

[Lord Deighton]

Interestingly, Moody’s has established that the outlook is stable. That means that it would not anticipate a further ratings change in the next 12 to 18 months—unlike the situation with the US and French economies, where the outlook is deemed to be negative because they are not perceived to have the same political will to drive down the deficit. The focus of the ratings agencies is much more to do with the management of our debt and driving down the deficit than directly with growth. Growth gives you the fuel to help manage down the debt, which is their primary concern.

[Lord Marlesford]

My Lords—

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, is not the situation even worse than intimated by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins? We have a state of affairs in which the markets are totally confused by the position taken by the Governor of the Bank of England and the Monetary Policy Committee and in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been found abjectly wanting by the witness whom he most insistently prayed in aid. What prospect is there of the Government getting a grip on this sliding situation?

[Lord Deighton]

The noble Lord exaggerates the confusion or nervousness of the markets. My interpretation of the markets is that there is very little volatility at the moment; the markets have taken this situation entirely in their stride. The market variable that has shifted the most is the exchange rate, where sterling has moved back to a range where it was trading before the eurozone crisis. The risk that has gone out of the eurozone sector has enabled the euro to strengthen; and the risk that was inherent in the US so-called “cliff” situation did not materialise, which has allowed the dollar to strengthen relative to sterling. I do not think that the markets are doing anything other than continuing to reward this Government’s focus on fiscal consolidation, which is why we are borrowing at these incredibly cheap rates.

[Lord German]

My Lords, perhaps I can pursue an issue which my noble friend talked about: policy weapons which can be used to promote growth in a sustainable way. The Government have acknowledged that infrastructure is one of those policy weapons and that moving decision-making locally is another. I wonder whether now is the time to remove some of the constraints which the Government—the Treasury—have put on tax increment financing for local government, so that it can use that challenge to increase growth locally. At the moment, the restrictions that have been put on TIF by the Government will have the effect that very few schemes will come forward.

[Lord Deighton]

I thank my noble friend for bringing a very constructive perspective on ways in which we can address some of our supply-side problems in the short term. Investing in infrastructure and devolving spend to the regions, where they have a clearer grip on the projects necessary for local growth, is one thing that we should be pursuing. I know that my right honourable friend the Chancellor will be making some announcements in the Budget with respect to following through the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Heseltine.

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, can the Minister enlighten us as to what will be the Government’s response to the failure of their deficit reduction plan? That is the reason why we have had the downgrade: because the deficit is not being reduced as was hoped. Do the Government agree with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who says, “No more cuts”, or will they accept the advice of the No Turning Back group, and say that what we need are more cuts in spending so that we can have more cuts in taxes? Does the Minister agree that this is a Government without a strategy to face this looming crisis?

[Lord Deighton]

The noble Lord identifies some of the trade-offs that we have to tread carefully between. I think that the Government have an extremely clear economic strategy. Not everybody necessarily agrees with it, but the strategy could not be clearer. It is to demonstrate to the markets that we absolutely have control of the public finances, to reform our financial system, to ensure that we have the right kind of activist monetary policy and to ensure that, right through the economy, we introduce real microeconomic reforms that can unleash the productive capacity of the economy. That is an extremely clear strategy. It has been prosecuted with consistency through the life of the Government.

Moody’s is entirely supportive of government policy, which is to focus on reducing the deficit. It has merely demonstrated that because of the slow growth in the world economy and the huge debts with which we started this process, it is taking longer than we would all hope.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Monday 25th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Committee (1st Day) (Continued)

17:03

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) In the case of employment and support allowance receivable by claimants of the support component of the allowance (who receive both personal allowance and support components) the mandatory 1% uprating stipulated in subsection (1) shall not apply to any components of the employment and support allowance (including personal allowance and support components) receivable by them.”

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, this is a focused amendment concerning disabled people who are in the support group for the purposes of the employment and support allowance. Noble Lords will recall that in the main phase of ESA an individual will receive a personal allowance and an additional support component. Those are currently £71 and £34.05 respectively. They will increase to £71.70 and £34.80 under the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2013. This is an increase of 1% for the personal allowance but a CPI increase of 2.2% for the additional component. We will have the opportunity to debate the regulations shortly, although, of course, they cannot be amended. Under income-related ESA, other premiums may be applicable, such as the enhanced disability, severe disability and carer’s premiums. Of course, the final amount of any payment depends also on the income, if any, of the claimant.

So far as the Bill is concerned, for those in the support group, the support component and the premiums are outwith the maximum 1% cap, and we support this. However, that is not the case for the personal allowances for a single lone parent and couple, and it is this injustice that we are seeking to rectify. In doing so, we are placing reliance on the commitment made by the Secretary of State for the DWP. On 8 January 2013, he said:

“I stand by what we said originally, and I say it again: in this Bill we have protected people on disability living allowance, as well as people in the support group on ESA”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/1/13; col. 194.]

That is not the case. Noble Lords will recall that those in the support group are those with the greatest challenges who are deemed neither fit for work nor work-related activity. They are not generally in a position to improve their financial background by way of accessing the labour market and I believe it is generally accepted that they experience higher living costs. The amendment would not represent a hugely expensive change to the Bill, but this is fundamentally about an issue of fairness and insisting that Ministers carry out their promises.

Amendment 3 stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Low. I will perhaps offer our view on that amendment when I reply on my amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to which I have added my name, but I rise principally to speak to Amendment 3, which is in my name alone and provides that the 1% uprating should not apply to benefits paid to claimants in the work-related activity group.

The amendment is essential if the Government are to fulfil their pledge to protect disabled people from the 1% uprating cap. Only disabled people are in the work-related activity group. The assessment process ensures that non-disabled people do not qualify. A recent DWP study tracking those receiving ESA over 18 months revealed that three-quarters of recipients were undergoing regular treatment for a health condition, including a stay in hospital for some. ESA for those in the work-related activity group is paid in two parts—the main component, which is equivalent to jobseeker’s allowance and worth about two-thirds of the total benefit, and the work-related activity group component, which is worth the other third. Many disabled people are being placed in the work-related activity group. Capping increases in their benefit at 1% will mean that households receiving ESA in the work-related activity group will be £87.65 a year worse off. The Government’s proposals to exempt from the 1% cap the support group component for those placed in the support group mean that less than a third of ESA payments for less than half of disabled people receiving ESA will be protected. That is what the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, would achieve, but it would address the shortfall only for the quarter of a million disabled people in the support group.

The most recent DWP figures show that there are 360,000 disabled people in the work-related activity group who also need protection. This amendment would achieve that. One third of disabled people in the UK were found to be living in poverty before the global economic crisis. Disabled people routinely experience higher living costs associated with their disability on things such as equipment, personal assistants and special diets. Disabled people experience the same increases in general living costs as everyone else: food inflation is running at 4.5% and travel inflation at 7%. Unfortunately, disabled people were not able to catch up financially during better economic times. We should not allow them to slip further behind as a result of this Bill; rather, we should ensure that the Government’s objective of protecting disabled people is fully delivered.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I support Amendment 2, moved by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to which I added my name, and Amendment 3, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Low. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, consistently argued during the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill that there were two fundamental principles to the Government’s welfare reform provisions. One was to make sure that people in work had an incentive to remain in work and that those out of work had an incentive to move into work. The second principle was that the money available, however much there was available, should be focused as far as possible on those in greatest need. Throughout the debates on the previous Bill, I found myself very much in agreement with those two principles. It seemed to me that if money is short, at least one should abide by those two principles. That seemed very reasonable.

I find myself therefore confused that in this Bill those two principles appear to be breached. It does not seem that you are focusing on those in greatest need if there is an impact that reduces in real terms the living standards of people who are severely disabled. You are certainly not increasing the incentive to work if you reduce the benefit of people who have not a chance in hell of returning to work. We know that a lot of people who in any normal view of things would not really be able to work have been put into benefit categories such as jobseeker’s allowance, where they are expected to work, although they would regard this as being beyond their wildest dreams, much as they might like to. That is not the point that I wanted to make; I simply want to ask the Minister how she squares the provisions of this Bill with the principles so eloquently and consistently laid out by the noble Lord, Lord Freud.

[Lord German]

My Lords, at Second Reading I said that this Bill had some rough edges, and the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is directed at one of those rough edges. Can my noble friend the Minister tell the House whether a deliberate step was taken to exclude the personal allowance part of the support group to meet the budgetary requirements? Was this matter overlooked in the discussion that may have taken place on the principle espoused both in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Freud, and by the Secretary of State in the other place that those who are unable to do something to help themselves should not be penalised in this way? That is why the example of DLA and PIP has been given.

It may be, though, that in the words of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, people are generally not able to access the labour market. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us what the actual cost would be of reinstating the non-1% cap on the personal allowance part of the support group, given that people are in the support group because they obviously need support and cannot do things for themselves? That is the nature of the word. Has the department given any thought whatever to finding ways of ensuring that what is clearly not in the spirit of the statements made about providing for people who cannot help themselves will be carried through, if perhaps in some other way than by the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie? In other words, is there another way of dealing with this apart from using the methodology provided in the noble Lord’s amendment?

17:14

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I support both these amendments. I have a question concerning Amendment 2. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, I am slightly confused; I had understood that the rationale for not including, say, pensioners in the Bill was that that group could not be expected to make up the difference through paid work. Therefore, and in a sense this follows on from the noble Lord’s question, why are disabled people in the support group affected, albeit not as much as some other groups? According to the Disability Benefits Consortium, a person in the support group will be £138 per year worse off by 2015. That is a considerable sum for someone living on benefits, and of course the personal allowance element is larger than the element that is protected. Why does that principle of excluding groups that the Government expect to go into the labour market to somehow protect themselves not extend to people in the support group who, by virtue of being in that group, are not expected to look for paid work?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. It is probably worth my summarising that the two amendments we are talking about seek to make changes to the ESA. Amendment 2 would remove from the Bill the 1% increases in the personal allowance for those in the support group, while Amendment 3 relates to those in the work-related activity group.

I understand why noble Lords have tabled these amendments and raised the points that they have in this debate. We all want to protect those who are furthest from the labour market, or who have additional costs because of disability, and that is what the Government are doing.

On the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, referring to the principles outlined by my noble friend Lord Freud during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act, I am clear that those principles—that we will target welfare spending to those most in need and ensure that we do not do anything to disincentivise people from pursuing work—remain intact via this Bill. We are prioritising those in greatest need.

It is right to say that there will still be some effects among disabled people through the Bill because we are including the personal allowance for both types of ESA as well as the additional element for those in the work-related activity group. However, we are ensuring that all those benefits that are paid specifically to cover the additional costs associated with disability are not included in the Bill. For example, the disability living allowance and the attendance allowance are protected, as are the disability premia in benefits such as income support, ESA, JSA and housing benefit, and we have excluded the disability elements of tax credits from the Bill.

In many cases, the basic rate of ESA is just one element of the total package of benefits received. Many people on ESA are also in receipt of other benefits, such as DLA, to which I have just referred, and housing benefit. It is worth noting that around 65% of people in the support group also claim DLA. The point I am trying to make here is that ESA is not the only benefit that most people are relying on. People in the support group receive a component worth £34.80 a week, as has already been said, and they are also automatically entitled to the enhanced disability premium of £14.80 a week if eligible for income-related ESA. We should not forget that some people will be eligible for the severe disability premium or the carer premium. All these are protected, like the support component. Income-related ESA households where a member of the couple is over pension age also receive a pensioner premium to ensure that the rate of benefit is the equivalent of the pension credit rate. This rate is also uprated as normal.

My noble friend Lord German asked in particular about the personal allowance aspect of ESA and why it is included in the Bill. It is important for me to be clear that the personal allowance is there to provide basic support. It is designed to meet the basic needs of all those on out-of-work income-related benefits. The personal allowance is consistent across all benefits which relate to those of working age. There is a standard amount. For single people, it is currently £71 a week. It is important that I am clear that this rate is common across all claimants who receive ESA, JSA, income support and housing benefit and reflects the fact that they perform a similar function of providing basic support for everyday needs. They do not reflect disability or the additional costs of disability, so therefore it is right that they are set at a standard rate. That is the rationale for including the personal allowance in this Bill and for the personal allowance to be subject to the 1% cap on annual increases. Treating one personal allowance rate differently from that in other benefits would mean that there would be no clear level of income at which state support is set and at which access to other help would be available across a wide range of services. It would also introduce an element of complexity in terms of the coherence of the benefit system which would introduce new challenges and be likely to add further costs to the running of the overall system.

As has been acknowledged, the support group component is protected, so it is not included in the Bill. It is the component element of ESA which differentiates the need based on the effects of a disability or a condition. That particular component relates to the effects of a specific disability. The support group component is paid in recognition of the fact that more severely disabled people are less likely to be able to increase their income by moving into work and may have additional needs. Therefore we pay those in the support group a higher increase than those in the work-related activity group.

It is worth making the point that for those in the work-related activity group, ESA is not like the old incapacity benefits that usually led to people being in receipt of that benefit for a long period. This is intended to be a short-term benefit for those in this group. Those who are placed in the work-related activity group are there because they have been found able to prepare for work. As such, they will be referred for appropriate support, training and provision to ensure that they get the help they need. ESA for people in that group is intended to be a short-term benefit and we expect these claimants to be closer to the labour market and be in a better position to prepare for work. Therefore, while they may not be looking for work immediately in receipt of that benefit, they have some ability to affect their own incomes. That is why it is right that the annual increase for those in the work-related activity group should—unlike that for those in the support group—be fully within the scope of the Bill.

In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, again referred to the alternative option of the Government bringing forward annual orders rather than introducing the Bill. It is important for me to stress heavily that a central purpose of the Bill, in addition to achieving savings, is to provide certainty. I will say that regularly throughout the passage of the Bill; it is an important aspect of what we are doing. I know that the noble Lord seeks to undermine that, but it is central to what we are trying to do. It is important that we recognise the long-term benefits of providing that certainty; that is how we retain the credibility of the Government’s fiscal policy.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Can the Minister explain to me the certainty that is achieved for claimants on the real value of their benefits as a result of the Bill?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The point I am making, which the noble Lord is clear about, is that the Bill still provides annual increases in benefits, but at a reduced rate for some elements of those benefits. We are doing this in the way that we propose because it adds to the certainty. As I told the noble Lord when we were outside the Chamber, the IMF was very clear that to anchor market expectations, policymakers need to specify adequately detailed medium-term plans for lowering debt ratios, which must be backed by binding legislation or fiscal frameworks. This is part of what we are doing, and why it is important.

As I have said, despite the economic situation, which we have already discussed today at some length, we have found the resources to fund a 1% increase in working-age benefits and, in doing so, protected the incomes of disabled people as far as we can—especially those elements which are provided to cover the additional costs of disabled people.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said that it would not be hugely expensive to accept these amendments and to make this change. It is important that I make it clear to the Committee that accepting these amendments would mean a loss of £340 million in savings, which we would have to find elsewhere. Those in the work-related activity group are deemed able to prepare for work and, as such, are better placed to be able to improve their income levels. Therefore, we believe it right that the component is also within the scope of the Bill.

Personal allowance rates are common across the working-age benefit system, as I have already said, reflecting the fact that they perform the same function: to provide basic support for everyday needs. Accepting these amendments would therefore break away from that model and would create additional complexity in the benefits system. Our proposals are proportionate. Although I understand the concerns and points that have been raised in the debate—please believe me, I do—what is being proposed here is fair. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Meacher]

Are the Government more concerned about certainty for the Government or certainty for the claimant? If the Government are concerned about certainty for the claimant, would it not be better to say that benefits would be uprated to the extent of 1% or 2% less than inflation, for example? That way, the claimant would know that they would not have a cut in their income of more than 1% or 2% a year. That would provide a level of certainty for the claimant, whereas it seems that the Bill is after certainty for the Government. Is that correct?

17:30

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I think I am right in saying that the noble Baroness was not here at Second Reading when I laid out the purpose of the Bill and its wider context. In response to her question, my point is that this proposal is about certainty, so that in the long-term it will result in a better future for everyone. It is also about taking measures now which are difficult and will affect people but which have the sole purpose of helping us to achieve a stronger economy so that in future years all of us will benefit. That is what I mean when I talk about certainty.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, as the Minister will recall, that is not exactly what the impact analysis said nor exactly what she said at the pre-meeting on this Bill, which was very helpful. I am sure that we all appreciated it. She made the point that it was about certainty for the markets, certainty for the Government and certainty for the claimants. Many of us pressed her on the fact that certainty for the Government, the markets or the claimants depended not just on what the level of inflation would be but also on what the number of claimants would be in order to get some estimate of what spending would be. The Government had no way at all of forecasting two out of the three factors that went into giving themselves some comfort about their uncertainty.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The point that I was making at Second Reading and continue to make is that certainty is a means to an end. It is through certainty for the Government, certainty for the markets and certainty in these measures that we will achieve a stronger economy. That is what I am talking about.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, this simply will not give you certainty. The whole of the impact analysis brief was a set of mythological language. This will not do what the Government claim. I understand that they are seeking to cut possible expenditure demands but to say that this is about certainty is simply an abuse of language, if I may say so.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in favour of Amendment 2: the noble Lord, Lord Low, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and my noble friend Lady Lister. From the Minister’s response it seems that this is all about a better future for everyone, and that seems to encompass a rather strange load of decisions. My noble friend Lady Lister asked a question which I do not believe was answered. She raised the comparison with pensioners who are being protected—and we support that because they are not so readily in a position to make up their income by accessing the labour market. However, people are in the support group because they are not expected to be able to be in, or are some distance from, the labour market.

In respect of the WRAG, I think that the Government are generally drawing closer together the JSA group and the WRAG to blur that distinction. People in the WRAG were not expected to look for work. Yes, they were expected to be fit and were deemed to be fit for work-related activity, but there is a constant push by the Government to blur that distinction and ease them much more towards the JSA category, if that job is not being done, in any event, by the WCA and Atos.

The noble Lord, Lord German, asked whether this is a rough edge. It seems to me that it clearly is a rough edge—it has not been overlooked, and it is not being dealt with in any other way. It is a hit that people in the support group and the WRAG have got to take. It seems to me that this is incredibly mean-spirited. It just focuses on the support group—the people who are in the most difficult position and not able to access employment. The noble Baroness said that 65% of them were on DLA and acknowledged that DLA is outwith the Bill. What is the Minister’s understanding of the percentage of people in the support group who will end up on PIP rather than DLA?

In Amendment 3, the noble Lord, Lord Low, makes a broader case for removing ESA from the scope of the 1% restriction on uprating for those who are in the WRAG. It obviously goes further than our Amendment 2. We have made clear that the 1% uprating restriction should be removed in its entirety from all the relevant sums and amounts as defined, and we are grateful for the support of the noble Lord in that endeavour. If we are successful, the noble Lord’s amendment, and several others including our own, would fall by the wayside. Should we be unsuccessful we need to consider how we can at least move some way towards that objective.

As we have just discussed, we focused in our Amendment 2 on those in the support group. We did that because those affected are the most seriously disadvantaged—the furthest from the labour market—and because the Minister has made a commitment that this group would be protected. That commitment clearly is not being met. The noble Lord’s proposal that we should go further, beyond the support group, is entirely reasonable. Those in the WRAG are similarly judged under the WCA as not being fit for work although capable of work-related activity. But for those who seek work, we know that the prospects are not good. Not only do we have a work programme which is failing overall but there is at least anecdotal evidence to suggest that the hardest to help are not being properly supported. We have the shutting of Remploy factories, concerns over the looming bedroom tax, the restrictions on contributory ESA and the loss of the severe disability premium in universal credit. These have all added to the pressure on disabled people.

As the noble Lord, Lord Low, has said, the Bill will mean that people in the WRAG will be some £191 a year worse off by 2015. If we cannot carry the day on removing the 1% restriction across the board, we would look to support the noble Lord should he decide to pursue his line on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Amendment 3 not moved.

Amendment 4

Moved by

[The Lord Bishop of Leicester]

4: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must, in each of the tax years ending with 5 April 2014 and 5 April 2015, make an order by statutory instrument increasing each of the relevant sums by no less than the general level of prices over the period under review and for the meaning of the “relevant sums” see paragraph 3 of the Schedule.”

[The Lord Bishop of Leicester]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 4, 5, 16, 18, 20 and 21, which are in my name, and I am grateful to other noble Lords for adding their names to some of them. These amendments seek to make two key changes to the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill. The first is to ensure that universal credit rates, including work allowances, are uprated with inflation. This will protect the future value of benefits for low-income families while also achieving most of the short-term savings required as part of the Government’s deficit reduction strategy. Secondly, the amendments seek to ensure that work will always pay and that all working families are able to afford a minimum, decent standard of living.

I turn first to those amendments which seek to ensure that universal credit is removed from the scope of the Bill. I have tabled them for four key reasons. First, the baseline amounts for universal credit have only just been established by the Government. It surely is reasonable that these are now increased with cost of living. Secondly, the majority of households protected in this way in the long term would be working households. The measure would promote work incentives, about which I will say more in a moment. Thirdly, the measure would protect 6.7 million children from some level of impact once universal credit is fully introduced. Finally, the cost of the change would be relatively low over the next two years as a result of limited levels of migration to universal credit.

A number of benefits have been substantially revised as part of the introduction of universal credit. For example, the lower disability addition for children, comparable to the disability element of child tax credit, has been halved in value. Personal allowances for those aged under 25 have been changed so that lone parents under 25 will no longer receive the same rate of personal allowance as single adults aged over 25. The severe and enhanced disability premiums present in the current benefits system are being removed. These are major changes to the system and, since we have only just established a new baseline for support provided through the welfare system, it is surely reasonable that that support should be increased to keep pace with rises in the cost of living to ensure that the situation for families remains comparable over time. Inclusion of universal credit in the Bill amounts to a cut to the new scheme before it is even introduced. This surely cannot make sense. At this stage, we do not yet know what the impact of these changes to the structure of support will be. We should at least wait and see what the implications of these changes are before initiating cuts to them.

So how much will this cost? With my proposal, the Government can still make savings, but they can also help to ensure that the success of universal credit is not undermined. Based on a migration rate of 10% of claimants by the end of 2014-15 and 30% of claimants by the end of 2015-16, the additional cost of removing universal credit from the scope of the Bill would be £90 million in 2014-15 and £510 million in 2015-16. This would mean that the Bill would still make savings of £810 million in 2014-15 and £1.2 billion in 2015-16. In fact, since many households migrated across will have a lower entitlement under universal credit and so receive transitional protection, the costs may be significantly lower than this. Does the Minister agree that, having only just set the rates of support for universal credit, it would be reasonable to increase these in line with cost of living?

Secondly, I turn to work incentives. A key objective of the current welfare system and of the future system in the form of universal credit is to ensure that work incentives are maintained. The Government rightly identify work as an important way for families to lift themselves out of poverty, and we all accept that. However, this can succeed only if the right work incentives are provided through in-work benefits and tax credits. The Government estimate that around half of the total number of households affected by the Bill are working households—a total of 3.25 million working households, including working families from all walks of life.

The impact will be reflected in children in poverty in working families. The Government have admitted that they expect it to push 100,000 more children in working families below the poverty line. The amendments in this group in my name explicitly safeguard work incentives. The amendment ensures that the allowances provided through working tax credit, personal allowances within housing benefit and work allowances in universal credit are increased in line with prices. Doing so explicitly improves work incentives and ensures the principle that work pays.

Working tax credit will be affected by this Bill as it stands. It is notable that the basic and 30-hour elements of working tax have already faced a three-year freeze, from 2011-12 to 2013-14. This means that, in total, these elements will increase by just 2% over the course of half a decade, a period in which prices have risen by eight times as much. On top of this freeze, as a result of the Bill, a lone parent working 30 hours per week would receive the basic, lone parent and 30-hour elements of WTC and, as a result, they will have a WTC entitlement which is up to £132 per year lower.

The amendments also seek for the personal allowances within housing benefit to be increased in line with inflation. The personal allowance rates for adults are included within the scope of the Bill. This will mean that households moving into paid work keep less of their earnings before additional earnings are withdrawn from their housing benefit entitlement.

17:45

Finally, with the passing of the welfare Act last year, the future of the welfare system is focused through the universal credit. A key aim of this credit is to promote work incentives through work allowances, but it is notable that these work allowances are not mentioned within the Bill. Failure to increase these in line with inflation will have a very substantial impact on the actual value of the allowances. For example, the higher work allowance—the rate provided to households not claiming for help with housing costs—for a lone-parent family is £734 per month, worth up to £477 per month for working families. The Children’s Society have calculated that, were this uprated in line with inflation, this would be expected to be £770 by 2015-16, worth up to £500 per month for working families. As a result, failure to uprate work allowances within universal credit would cost working lone parent families £23 per month, in the value of this allowance alone. Does the Minister agree that in-work benefits and tax credits help to ensure that work always pays? Secondly, will she confirm that the reason that the work allowances within universal credit are not included within the scope of the Bill is that the Government intend to increase them at least in line with inflation?

In conclusion, the Bill as it currently stands seriously fails to protect working families, and will cast children into poverty. It simply does not go far enough to promote work, so that work always pays, particularly for the lowest earning working families. My amendments go some way to mitigate these deficiencies, and I beg to move.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

I am happy to support these amendments and have added my name to most of them. The House owes a debt of gratitude to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester for raising these points. I particularly support his concerns about lone parents. Over the whole systematic process of change, my concerns are getting greater and greater about the compounding effect of all these changes that we see in the social protection available in the United Kingdom. Lone parents, who are mainly women, are struggling already, and we need to watch their situation with great concern in future.

My heart absolutely sank when I saw that this Bill was being applied to universal credit, because universal credit should be the future; it is the architecture around which we as a country should and must have serious consideration about provision for low-income households. We need to have a discussion with people such as my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean as well, between now and the next election. I hope that there will be a grown-up discussion about how the United Kingdom, as a poorer country, accommodates some of these new pressures, and I am willing to engage in that to the best of my ability. However, what is wrong about applying these two years of locked-down 1% increases is that they risk prejudicing the whole new future, as I see it, of how we cope.

In my experience, the administrative cuts in the health service prejudiced the view of a lot of people towards some of the NHS reforms. My real fear is that people will not know that the cuts are being introduced by the uprating Bill and will think, in the early years of universal credit, when they are transitioned across into the new system, that they are being sold a pup. That will potentially damage the public’s understanding of what universal credit is about and that is a real shame. I understand perfectly well all the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, makes, and we have to put up with them in the best way we can, but we should have isolated universal credit for the reasons that I have explained.

Further, I do not think that we know how universal credit will work out when it is in steady state, and it will take a long time to get there. I come back to the costs that will be saved by applying this uprating Bill to universal credit because I am a bit confused about exactly what the Government think they are going to save. Therefore, I make my first complaint—it is another moan—with conviction. The noble Lord, Lord Freud, bless him, has worked very hard to try to get universal credit to stand up. I read a worrying story in the Financial Times, which said that the self-employed have not yet been told that there is a real-time HMRC system heading in their direction. Not many of them know about it. That is more than slightly worrying—it is very worrying, because the computer system is essential to that measure working sensibly. However, we must try to do the best we can to make it work in future.

Secondly—again, the right reverend Prelate was right to give this priority—one of the best elements of universal credit is the way it deals with what used to be known in the old language as income disregard. Some of us have fought for years to do something constructive about income disregard. It is a very intractable problem and universal credit has given us an opportunity to get hold of that and provide incentives to get into work. Universal credit does that, but the first thing that the Government do after bringing in this new progressive reform is to cap it at 1%. How that is supposed to meld with everything else that has been done in connection with the Work Programme makes no sense to me. It will save relatively small amounts of money in terms of the big picture savings that the Government are trying to lock in, but for the life of me it seems a counterproductive, silly cut to introduce and it compounds my first point in that it makes the universal credit system look worse than it is.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester made eloquent and important points about child poverty targets. I concur with everything that he said, so I do not need to elaborate on that. My final point is about costs because I am struggling to understand the savings that have been alluded to. I do not expect the Minister to be able to do this off the top of her head but it would be helpful to me if, before Report, I could be told what the universal credit cost savings are in this measure because I cannot make any sense of the impact assessment. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that it is—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Perfunctory.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

Indeed. I am looking at the Treasury Autumn Statement 2012, Table 2.1, which has a category headed, “Exchequer savings resulting from 1% uprating of benefits and tax credits”. This is over the three years, not just the two years in the Bill. The table also has a category headed, “Universal Credit: finalise disregards and increase by 1% for two years from 2014-15”. The figure given suggests that the saving for 2015-16 will be £640 million. However, my honourable friend Steve Webb, in a Written Answer to Stephen Timms on 13 February, identified universal credit additional savings as £20 million in 2014-15, £100 million in 2015-16 and £150 million in 2016-17. I am not sure how these figures relate to one another. I may be misreading the statistics and the tables may be drawn up using different bases, but between now and Report I would like to understand how these figures are worked out.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, the assumptions about how many people will be translated on to universal credit are best guesses, to put it mildly. I think the roll-out programme will take much longer, for the reasons that I explained earlier, and the story in the Financial Times compounds my anxieties in this regard. I think the figures that the right reverend Prelate gave of 10% of claimants being on universal credit by 2014-15 and 30% by 2015-16 are ambitious, to put it mildly, so can we have some greater clarity?

This is an important Bill. I understand the significance of the situation in which the Government find themselves. If I did not believe that before this weekend, all the financial circumstances of the past few days have confirmed the difficulty of the situation. However, before Report, we must try to get a better fix, in particular on the savings related to the universal credit inclusion in the Bill, because it is unclear to me. It is important and, from where I am sitting at the moment, I do not think that the savings are worth the candle. I would be much happier leaving universal credit out of the Bill. Let it be the future and let us all work on it, try to protect it and build on it in the best way we can. The Bill is a retrograde step as it affects universal credit, and I support these amendments for that reason.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I want to say a very brief word about two groups—children and families. Before I do so, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester on his excellent briefing on these very important areas. I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, said.

We know that the Government are not on target to meet the Child Poverty Act commitment to eradicate child poverty by 2020. The right reverend Prelate referred to that. We are told by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that there can be almost no chance of eradicating child poverty, as defined in the Child Poverty Act, by 2020. It predicted that there would be an additional 500,000 children living in absolute poverty by 2015. However, that leaves out a further 200,000 children who will be pushed into relative income poverty. How on earth will this Bill help the Government to meet their commitments under the Child Poverty Act?

I am even more concerned about the disproportionate impact that all this is having on women. The Bill disproportionately affects women, including through the cap on child benefit payments and statutory maternity pay. Furthermore, those in low-paid work, who are more likely to be women, will lose the most. It is estimated that 300,000 nurses and midwives, 150,000 primary and nursery school teachers and 1.14 million admin workers and secretaries will be affected by the cap. Some 98% of child benefit payments are paid to women. Child benefit has already been frozen for three years, meaning that over five years there will be a total of a 2% increase; for the same period, CPI will have risen by 16%. Of different family types, lone parents, who are mostly women, as we know, will lose the most: £261 a year by 2015.

18:00

There we are: those in low-paid work will lose the most as a result of this Bill; 71% of the families affected are at or below average income. The IFS estimates that the combined impact of all the tax and benefit changes introduced between 2010 and 2015 will reduce the incomes of the poorest fifth of families with children by around 7%. Will that really do what the Government want to do? I get increasingly worried by all the evidence that is sent to us, and it is evidence from people who are working on a daily basis with the families about whom we are most concerned. I really hope that the Government will think again on some of these areas.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I start by thanking the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Leicester, for these amendments. I hope he will understand that, should he press them to a vote tonight, he would present us with a little difficulty. I doubt that will come as a surprise. The difficulty is that the strictures under which we are operating mean that we cannot at this stage make commitments in respect of the next Parliament. Clearly, an uprating in the tax year beginning 5 April 2015 would operate in the subsequent year, which crosses that particular line.

Having said that, there is much to support and sympathise with in the case made by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. We on this side wish universal credit well and hope that it will deliver that which is promised for it. However, we know that there are a number of teething problems; we think the Government have been right to extend the introduction way beyond the original intention. It therefore seems to me that very important questions have been raised about why we should at this stage include universal credit within these provisions. We on these Benches want to see everything outside this Bill; we think that would be the right way forward, but certainly the universal credit would be a start.

The issue of work incentives is very important. Although we probably do not espouse it often enough, I think we have a shared view around this Chamber about the importance of work, which is the route out of poverty for most people. It generally seems to be better for their health and well-being and all those things. Therefore, it is crucial that any measures such as this support the proposition that we should try to get people into work when they can work, and help them get closer to the labour market when they cannot.

The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, widened the debate to discuss the broader impact of this Bill on child poverty. The figure of 200,000 is the one that was identified by the Minister in the other place. That comes on top of IFS figures, which suggest that another 800,000 children are going into poverty as a result of measures since 2010—in a sense, reversing the gains of the past decade for children and women, too. Therefore, without being able to support the wording of the amendment formally tonight, there is much for us to reflect on and support in the right reverend Prelate’s proposals. I hope that between now and Report—particularly picking up the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood—we could end up in a position where we were not only in sympathy but were marching through the same Lobby.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, we have covered a lot of ground with these amendments tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. I will do my best to cover that ground. It is probably worth starting by noting some common issues raised by this group of amendments. They come under the headings of their impact on savings from the Bill, their impact on certainty—as I have already talked about—and the inclusion of in-work benefits. I will then refer to some of the points related to housing. Before I begin, however, I note that the right reverend Prelate has added his name to Amendment 13, which removes housing benefit and personal allowances from the schedule, but Amendment 13 is to be discussed later as part of a different group.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I should have said when I got up to speak that Amendment 13 was originally part of this group but unwittingly got moved to be grouped with two later housing benefit amendments in the names of my noble friends. I apologise to the right reverend Prelate for that.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I was going to say that because Amendment 21, which inserts housing benefit and personal allowances into a different part of the schedule, and Amendment 5, which places a duty to uprate by at least prices, are reliant on Amendment 13, I will speak to the amendments in this group as if Amendment 13 were assumed. I hope that makes sense. Hopefully, we are all following each other in respect of these different amendments.

Noble Lords have already outlined the effects that the amendments would have on the Bill. In broad terms, the legislation would revert to the existing annual exercise of discretion by the Secretary of State. To remove these benefits and payments from the Bill would reduce savings by around £800 million in 2015-16: that is, around £600 million that year from removing universal credit, which would increase over time as more households moved to universal credit; around £160 million that year from removing working tax credits; and, under Amendment 13, around £60 million that year from removing housing benefit and personal allowances—in total, an £800 million reduction in the Bill’s savings in the final year, which is about 40% of the Bill’s savings.

I have to disagree with the right reverend Prelate and say that it would simply not be affordable to give up those savings. If we look at the two years of the Bill together, we are talking about a loss of £1.1 billion in savings. As I have said before, none of these decisions is easy, but we have to recognise that if we do not take the savings that this Bill provides in the way it does, this money will have to be found elsewhere.

While I am talking about general matters, it might be worth responding to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, either just now or in an earlier debate—I cannot remember—about the wide range of changes that the Government are introducing in welfare reform. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is not in her place, but she also made the point in an earlier debate. We are making a lot of changes to the welfare system. We absolutely believe in those changes; we think that we are doing the right thing and that those changes will result in a much more effective system. It is safe for me to say that in broad terms most of those changes have received support from the House. There has been recognition on all sides that the welfare system as it stood needed to be reformed. As we move into 2013-14, a lot of those changes will be implemented, so it will no longer be a discussion in theory; it will be real in practice. Of course, as we go through the implementation phase, we will ensure that all changes are implemented in a way that we designed them to be made and that they have the effect and the outcomes that we set out in the legislation. This is not something that we will not be closely involved in to make sure that things operate in the way that we intended.

While talking about general issues, it is perhaps worth responding to points raised about cumulative impacts and assessments. I know that my noble friend Lord Newby referred to this in his response to the first group of amendments, but the matter having been raised again it is worth making a couple of points. The Government introduced a new system of greater transparency around impacts and we publish the impacts of government policy every time there is a fiscal event. The last time we did this was in the Autumn Statement. That cumulative impact includes information about changes to all tax, welfare and public spending policy that can be modelled since the June Budget of 2010.

So far that analysis has not included universal credit, and a separate analysis shows that 75% of the gains from universal credit goes to the bottom 40% of the income distribution. It is worth adding that the IFS has acknowledged that the effects of reforms, such as those to DLA and housing benefit, cannot be precisely modelled, but as I say we are producing quite a lot of information. It is there and publicly available, but let us not forget that all those assessments are against the previous Government’s plans for this period—this Parliament, had they come into power—and we have acknowledged that those plans were not affordable. We are assessing something against a benchmark that we have already acknowledged we cannot afford.

A key principle of this Bill is the certainty that it gives as part of the Government’s fiscal plans. I have said that before, and said then that I hoped noble Lords would not tire of me saying it. I will not tire of saying it to the House as it is important. By taking these benefits out of the Bill and thereby restoring the annual exercise of discretion in relation to prices, the amendments would undermine the key principle of certainty. Amendments 4 and 5, if taken with the others, would make it a requirement to uprate universal credit, working tax credit elements and housing benefit personal allowances by at least prices. I am not sure whether that is the intention, but the amendments would take us further than existing legislation, while not giving a firm commitment to addressing the deficit that the Bill provides.

Noble Lords have talked about the inclusion of in-work benefits and questioned whether these should be included. We cannot escape the fact that some working households will be affected. I am not seeking to suggest for one moment that they will not. Tax credits, for example, account for around £30 billion of expenditure this year. Tax credit spending rocketed under the previous Government by an extraordinary 340% compared with the benefits they replaced. Eligibility for tax credits was extended to nine out of 10 families with children, so it would be unrealistic to exclude the benefits received by working people from these decisions that we are taking. For my part I think people understand that. There is a general recognition that this element of spending could not be excluded, particularly when those in work are facing tight restrictions, if not freezes, to their own pay.

18:15

The Government have, however, taken real steps to support working families with the cost of living. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who sadly is not in her place, talked about families being really concerned about the money they receive rather than percentage increases in this, that and the other. I absolutely agree, and that is why it is important when debating these changes that we also make sure that we take account of the other measures that the Government have introduced that provide some benefit to families. For instance, in the Autumn Statement we announced a further increase to personal tax allowance, and taken together, increases to the personal allowance brought in since this Government came to power will benefit 24.5 million individuals, providing a real-terms gain of £443 for the most basic taxpayers in the next financial year. These changes will take 2.2 million individuals with low incomes out of tax altogether.

We should not knock important measures such as fuel duty and the fact that we cancelled the January fuel duty increase. That means that pump prices are about 10% per litre lower than they would have been had that measure been implemented. We have also provided an extra £450 million to help freeze council tax bills in England, which means that somebody in a band D home will save up to about £72 on a 5% rise in council tax. All those measures mean that an average working family will be £125 better off next year and better off on average no matter where they sit on the income distribution scale.

The Government believe that work is the best route out of poverty. Noble Lords have said this in today’s debate, which is a point that we all agree on. Universal credit lies at the heart of coalition policies to combat child poverty and transform the lives of those who most need our help. The simplicity of universal credit means that people will clearly understand the improved work incentives it creates, allowing them to keep more of their income when they find a job or increase their earnings. That simple point should never be underestimated. I find the benefits system a complete minefield to understand, and the changes that we are introducing are incredibly important. More than 3 million people will gain from universal credit, with an average gain of about £168 a month, and we estimate that up to 300,000 more people will enter work as a result of the introduction of universal credit through improved financial incentives alone.

At this point, I should respond to one of the questions that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester asked about work allowances. Committing to uprate the work allowances goes beyond the legacy system that saw no routine increases to the less generous disregards. It is also worth responding now to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, who referred to statutory maternity pay. We will be debating that later on as there is a group of amendments specifically about that. She talked about the impact on women. There was quite a lively discussion online on the Mumsnet website about statutory maternity pay. One of the points made on the blog that was echoed by quite a lot of people is that for those who are in a relationship or marriage, their husband or partner benefits from maternity pay just as much as they do because all their household income is pooled. We undermine the intelligence of people if we argue that people are not clear about the impact of what we are doing and manage their finances in the strict way that the noble Baroness suggested.

Finally, I turn to housing benefit personal allowances. I should make it completely clear that the Bill does not uprate every aspect of housing benefit by 1% over the period in question. It uprates by 1% the housing benefit personal allowance. This figure is used in the calculation of housing benefit. I refer noble Lords to our previous debate. The personal allowance is a block of money that is consistent across all benefits. For single people it is £71 a week. That is what the Bill refers to when it talks about housing benefit.

As housing benefit is particularly complicated, I will make two things clear. For those who continue to satisfy the income test for all income-related benefits, including housing benefit, their eligible rent will continue to be covered by housing benefit, as it is now. There will be no change for them. Secondly, work will continue to pay for those on housing benefit. Renters in low-paid work will still be better off than they would be on out-of-work benefits.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

When the Minister talks about housing benefit, does she include local housing allowance? I think not.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

No, I do not. The Bill relates to the personal allowance element of housing benefit. The noble Baroness refers to another announcement in the Autumn Statement. This Bill concerns the personal allowance component of housing benefit.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

What about the personal allowance in local housing allowance?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I do not think that it is included, but I will check.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Perhaps the Minister would write to me.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I think I am clear that the Bill refers just to the personal allowance for housing benefit. If I am wrong, I will of course correct that.

As I said, if we were to change the personal allowance for housing benefit, we would introduce inconsistency to the way in which this part of in-work benefit is calculated. There would no longer be consistency between the different kinds of personal allowances that apply to different benefits. In addition to increasing the complexity of the system, this would lead to additional costs.

Before I conclude, I will respond to a question from my noble friend Lord Kirkwood, who asked about costing methodology. I confirm that costs have been modelled and presented in a way that is consistent with the Autumn Statement. I will be happy to provide further details to the noble Lord before Report.

The Government are supporting working households. One of the key ways in which we are doing that is by taking tough decisions to reduce public spending, reduce the deficit and restore economic growth. The amendments tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, including Amendment 13, would reduce the savings of the Bill by about 40%—or £800 million—in 2015-16 alone. Not including in-work benefits in the Bill would be simply unaffordable. Therefore, I ask the right reverend Prelate to withdraw his amendment.

[The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds]

Perhaps I might ask the Minister about work allowances, which were referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. The Minister’s response left me unsure whether, as time goes on, they will be increased in line with inflation. They are a major element of support for those who are in work.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am sorry, I should have been clearer. Work allowances will be increased by 1% in 2014-15 and in 2015-16. That was announced in the Autumn Statement.

[The Lord Bishop of Leicester]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to noble Lords who contributed to this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, underlined my concern about lone parents and reminded us that the effect of the Bill compounds the effect of so much other legislation that is going through at the moment. In particular he made the point that universal credit is the central architecture of welfare for the future and reminded us that, in his view, the savings are not worth the candle, and the effect of including universal credit in the uprating provisions will be to prejudice so much that is good about it. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, passionately expressed her concern about more children being tipped into poverty, and about the very wide margin by which it is now clear we will miss the 2020 children in poverty targets. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, indicated that his party shared concerns about universal credit and work allowances.

I am grateful to the Minister for her response. She reminded the House that my proposals for excluding universal credit simply cannot be afforded. I hope she will hear that it is very clear that many people in this House doubt whether the argument that we cannot as a nation afford to provide enough to keep the poorest out of destitution sits at all comfortably with the House. I continue to have many concerns about restricting the uprating of benefits to 1%, especially for families, children and the many in work who receive benefits. As others have said, I hope that the Government will continue to reflect carefully on the direction of the Bill, and I look forward to their response on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

Amendment 5 not moved.

Amendment 6

Moved by

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

6: Clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
“( ) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a tax year if, on the review in that tax year under section 150(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, the Secretary of State determines that the general level of prices, measured by the Consumer Price Index, for Great Britain has increased by 3% or more over the period under review.”

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to move Amendment 6, standing in my name and that of my good friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett. This is a probing amendment. It is something about which I feel very strongly. It is a modest proposal that does not seek to disrupt the certainty of which my noble friend made so much earlier in the course of these important debates. The amendment simply disapplies the 1% uprating in Clauses 1 and 2 in the event of inflation reaching 3% in 2014-15. In those circumstances, we would revert to the default position of the annual uprating mechanisms that we all know and love. We would achieve the savings without exposing clients on benefits in future to the risks of inflation above and beyond the government estimates on which the savings will be made.

It is important to remember that the Bill deals with two years of annual uprating. However, we must factor in to the totality of the situation we face the already accepted £505 million that the Autumn Statement estimated that the 1% uprating would yield in this current year. I am sure that we are all looking forward to the uprating statement later in the week. In addition, the saving from the 1% uprating of local housing allowance is being dealt with through separate legislation. Both these reductions have already been made for the current year, 2013-14. We must not forget the reductions this year, in addition to those of the two years for which the Bill provides.

What will the Government do if the OBR estimates are too low? We know that the Budget Statement is a few weeks away. No doubt the Office for Budget Responsibility will discharge its duty to make available to the Chancellor, and subsequently to the rest of us, its best evidence and estimates about the inflationary risks that we face. However, we all understand that the Bill is based on the CPI and inflation forecast of the OBR, which at the moment stands at 2.6% in September this year, to be followed by 2.2% in September 2014. Those are the estimates on which the savings of £1.2 billion in 2014-15 and £1.9 billion in 2015-16 are posited.

18:30

My colleagues have been as concerned as I have been over the past few days. I am no economist but I am now more nervous about inflationary pressures increasing. The Governor of the Bank of England designate, Mr Mark Carney, has already signalled that he might take a different view and so the strategy may change. If he goes for growth—I hope he will consider that seriously because it is an element of economic policy that we need to explore in the immediate future—it will almost certainly have inflationary consequences. The fall in the value of the pound and exchange rate concerns will all increase prices. I am a well known pessimist—I am rarely disappointed—and I think that things will get worse before they get better. Food and fuel prices, and rents in certain parts of the United Kingdom, particularly in London, will certainly increase. To be confident that the figures of 2.6% in September 2013 and 2.2% in September 2014 are going to stick is not a safe basis on which to establish this policy.

As I said at Second Reading, the way the Bill is contrived at the moment is a one-way bet for the Chancellor because he locks in his savings but banks everything else if inflation goes beyond 2.2% and 2.6%. I do not think that is fair. It produces government certainty but, sure as anything, it will produce uncertainty for the benefit claimants in 2014-15 and 2015-16 if inflation breaches the OBR’s estimates. The Government need a plan B to deal with the increasing risk that the price that will be paid by benefit cuts in future will be higher than the Government really need.

The value of the lost purchasing power of these benefits is very sensitive to inflationary increases and I asked the Library to look at what some of these measures would mean. It is difficult to make sense of tables in a speech because it is hard to speak in tables but if the OBR estimates for 2014 and 2015 increase by 1%, the savings will not be £1.1 billion and £1.9 billion but £1.8 billion and £3.3 billion. A 1% increase on the OBR estimates would change the cut in the value of the benefits from 4% to 6%. The next line in the table tells me that if the OBR estimates are underestimated by 2%—not 1%—in 2014 and 2015, the savings to the Chancellor will be £2.5 billion and £4.7 billion. That is a cut in the real value of benefits of 8%. I could go on—and, rather obviously, it would get worse—but we can all pay our money and take our choice about what the inflation rate will be. I have got a table, which is freely available, which shows its effect on the cuts in benefits.

There is no certainty of any kind about where inflation will come to rest in September 2014 and September 2015 and there is nothing in the Bill, as it stands, that gives any protection whatever to benefit claimants. For me, that risk is far too great. The purpose of the amendment is to try to get on the record—I will look at it very closely—the Government’s suggestions about what will happen if the OBR estimates are underestimates. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about that.

I was encouraged to receive support from a rather surprising direction. In Committee in the Commons, a Mr John Redwood—of whom noble Lords may have heard—argued that,

“every action should be taken to get inflation down. If inflation suddenly took off, this would become a much tougher and crueller policy than Ministers have in mind”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/1/13; col. 66.]

I agree with Mr John Redwood.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I am pleased to be able to support the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, who, given his stance on these issues, has to be considered a noble friend. I am grateful to him for tabling the amendment, which I regard very much as a bottom line amendment as he put it, a modest amendment. Support for it does not in any way imply acceptance of an uprating of up to 2% less than inflation, which would still happen even if the amendment was passed. Citizens Advice has calculated various scenarios assuming 2.2% inflation and taking account of any gains from the rise in the tax threshold, regularly waved as a fig leaf by Ministers. These show that for some families, in or out of work, the net loss could be as high as around £13 a week by April 2015. This is an enormous sum to lose for someone on a low income. The amendment would not prevent these losses if inflation is less than 3%. It is a damage limitation exercise designed to ensure that benefit and tax credit recipients are not required to bear an even greater burden should prices rise by 3% or more.

I, too, was going to quote the right honourable John Redwood MP—perhaps an even stranger bedfellow. As he said, it is a tough and cruel policy—and it is. He said that if inflation did go up by more than expected it would be extremely difficult. It will be extremely difficult for those affected. Inevitably, I shall be making some of the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, made in his powerful opening speech. I hope that this will be to reinforce rather than simply to repeat.

The Bank of England has predicted that inflation could peak at 3.2% in the second half of this year. Given that the 2014-15 uprating will be based on the previous September’s CPI rate—that is, the rate in the second half of this year—this could mean an increase in benefits and tax credits 2.2% below the actual inflation rate rather than the 1.2% below inflation upon which the impact assessment is based. As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, said, given that the incoming Governor of the Bank of England is making noises about possibly easing inflation targets and the loss of the AAA rating’s impact on import prices, it is quite possible that the 2% inflation rate predicted as the basis of the 2015-16 uprating could also be an underestimate. Indeed, many economic commentators are talking about inflation remaining in excess of 2% for at least the next two years.

A more relaxed inflation policy may well make sense in terms of stimulating the economy, but we should not leave the poorest members of the community to bear the burden—hence this amendment. My colleague, Donald Hirsch of the Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University, has calculated the likely impact of the Bill on a two-earner couple with two children on combined low earnings of £20,000 a year and in receipt of child tax credit and child benefit. Over the next three years, if inflation is on target at around 2%, they will lose just under £300 a year in real terms. To repeat the point, that is a cut. If it runs at 3% a year over the period, they will lose as much as £500 a year.

When we talk about inflation rates with reference to benefit upratings, we must remember two things. First, the switch from the RPI to the CPI is already expected to significantly depress benefit rates over the long term. The House of Commons Library cites the OBR’s long-term assumption that the annual increase in the RPI will be 1.4% more than the CPI. The Library calculates that such a difference will result in benefits being worth, after 10 years, 86% of the amount they would have been had they continued to be uprated by the RPI. That is quite a big difference. Secondly, even the RPI does not provide an accurate measure of the impact of price rises on low-income recipients of social security benefits and tax credits at a time when the prices of the essentials upon which they spend a disproportionate share of their budget are rising faster than prices generally. Recent work by the IFS shows that the general trend in recent years has been for higher than average CPI inflation rates for those on low incomes. Again, Donald Hirsch has calculated the increase in the cost of a minimum basket of necessary goods and services between 2001 and 2011. This shows that someone whose benefits were uprated only by the CPI during that period would have a shortfall of around 11% as opposed to if they had been uprated by the cost of the minimum basket. He warns that,

“there is every reason to believe that similar trends, in which the cost of a minimum budget rises faster than general inflation, will continue in the future”.

Analysis of the global influence on prices suggests that a long-term increase in commodity prices will have a knock-on effect on essentials such as food, fuel and clothing, and could mean that someone on basic benefits in 2020 would be at least 20% worse off relative to the minimum requirements in 2000—and that is before taking account of the long-term effect of three years of legislated cuts in the real value of these benefits.

It is not surprising that the Office for National Statistics reported in December that spending is falling fastest among the poorest, with an average reduction of 9% on the previous year among the bottom 10%. A number of noble Lords argued at Second Reading and earlier today that it does not make economic sense from the perspective of stimulating growth to depress demand in this way among a group with a greater propensity to spend than to save.

In the Second Reading debate, the Minister responded to the concerns raised by a number of noble Lords about what will happen if inflation soars. I guess he was trying to be reassuring when he said:

“We will continue to monitor the rate of inflation closely … and the impact that it has on the cost of living for families. This will continue to be a key consideration for this Government’s policies in the future”.—[Official Report, 11/2/13; col. 553.]

If I were, say, the parent of a young disabled child and had little prospect of getting a job by 2016, I would not take much comfort from that assurance. I would want to know what the Government will do if their monitoring shows that inflation is on the rise and is having a highly damaging impact on the cost of living for low income families. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, asked a very direct question: what will the Government do? I do not know whether the noble Lord who is to reply can give a more precise answer than simply that the Government will monitor the situation. In other words, I would want an element of certainty, which this amendment seeks to provide.

The need to provide certainty was a theme of the remarks from the Government Front Bench at Second Reading and has already been emphasised during this debate more times than any of us care to say. The point has already been made, but as the noble Baroness said, she will continue to repeat the point about certainty and we will continue to repeat our point about certainty. The Minister was concerned only about certainty for taxpayers and the markets and said nothing about certainty for those affected by the Bill. But they too are taxpayers, even if not all of them are direct tax payers.

The Minister said:

“We believe it is only right that we set out our plans in advance and give as much certainty as possible”.—[Official Report, 11/2/13; col. 553.]

However, as other noble Lords have said, in the face of the very real possibility that prices could rise by more than the anticipated 2% or so during the uprating periods covered by this Bill, the application of an arbitrary 1% cap, regardless of the actual rate of CPI inflation, provides total uncertainty for people living in poverty who will be affected by this legislation. That is a point that we have to repeat over and over again. At the very minimum, I believe that we have a responsibility to support the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, in order to inject a modicum of genuine certainty for those affected and a modicum of justice.

18:45

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and my noble friend Lady Lister for this amendment and the manner in which they have spoken to it. I start by reiterating that obviously our overall objective is to get rid of the 1% uprating cap throughout the Bill. Obviously, if we were successful, the protection that both speakers are seeking here would be unnecessary, but if we are not able to do that, we have to consider a range of mitigations to these cuts. The aspect identified by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood—the bearing of inflation risks much in excess of OBR forecasts—is certainly one that should concern us all. As it is, on the basis of the OBR forecast, by 2015-16 the 1% uprating will imply a real cut of some 4%. Depending on what happens to inflation, that real cut could be much higher. We have heard a range of figures from both speakers that could flow from that.

We need to recognise that these real cuts lower the base for whatever the uprating may be for the future. Studies point to the rate of inflation for what might be termed as essential items being higher than the overall rate, with essentials for this purpose including such items as food, heating, transport, fares and water charges. These are costs which are largely inescapable for low income households. The briefing we have had from USDAW records electricity prices rising by 3.9% and gas by 5.2% up to December 2012, with the poorest 10% of households spending 17% of their income on food, which rose by 3.8% in the period to December. As it stands, this Bill places the whole of the inflation risk on benefit and tax credit recipients, irrespective of the size of the risk. However, if inflation is less than 1% the Government can take the benefit of that and, if they so choose, uprate by less than 1%.

It was the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and his noble friend Lord German who demanded of the Government at Second Reading that there should be no further cuts beyond those set out in the Bill. Of course they got a dusty answer from the Minister, but the problem is that we do not know the level of the real cuts which flow from this Bill because we do not know the rate of inflation. The point made by my noble friend Lady Lister is that inserting an upper rate of 3% should not be taken to imply that real cuts up to this level are acceptable, but that automatic cuts above that level are certainly not.

I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment at this stage—I think he said it was probing in nature—because we believe that the right course of action is to eliminate the 1% cap in its entirety. But if we are unable to do that on Report, the type of backstop being sought by this amendment is something which deserves our support—subject to only one exception, which is that the Minister can give assurances about how poor people are to be protected from inflation, a phenomenon over which they themselves have absolutely no control.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the effect of Amendment 6 would be that if inflation as measured by the September CPI was to rise to 3% or above in 2014-15 or 2015-16, Clause 1 would not apply. Amendment 10 would do the same for Clause 2.

As I set out earlier today, a key purpose of the Bill is to deliver clear and credible plans for our public finances. It is only through having these plans that we can maintain confidence and keep interest rates at near-record low levels. We have clearly stated our intentions on uprating policy for the next three years, but the plans for 2014-15 and 2015-16 are made possible only by this Bill. Adding conditions to the Bill would remove that certainty and weaken the credibility of our plan to reduce public spending and tackle the deficit.

The Autumn Statement operating decisions were taken on the basis of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s CPI forecast. As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, explained, the OBR does not forecast inflation to reach 3%. The CPI forecasts for the purpose of uprating in 2014-15 and 2015-16 are 2.6% and 2.2%. The Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee is committed to maintaining price stability, which is defined by the Government as an inflation target of 2% as measured by the 12-month increase in the consumer prices index. Inflation is forecast by the MPC and the OBR to be above the 2% target in the near term but is forecast to fall back towards the target in the medium term. The inflation target is not set by the Governor of the Bank of England. The inflation target is set under the terms of the Bank of England Act 1997 on an annual basis by the Chancellor, and that will continue to be the case whoever the Governor of the Bank of England is.

As I said at Second Reading, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, helpfully reminded me, these are forecasts and targets. External factors and unforeseen events can produce a different outcome—on the upside or the downside. Nobody can say with absolute certainty what inflation is going to be two years from now.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

Both the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and I referred to economists and people who are suggesting that the inflation rate might be higher. Can the Minister quote the people who are saying it might be lower?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, economists say all kinds of things. For every economist who says one thing, I guarantee that I can find you an economist who says the other thing. There will be a new inflation forecast from the OBR at the time of the Budget. It would be completely inappropriate for me to speculate on what that might say and I am certainly not going to do so today.

As I said at Second Reading—and I repeat—we will continue to monitor closely the rate of inflation and its impact on the cost of living for families and the wider economy, as we always do. Again, as I said at Second Reading, the Government have taken action in response to the changes in the cost of living, including cancelling the January fuel price rise, providing further funding for local authorities to freeze council tax and, of course, for virtually everybody in work, implementing the largest ever increase in the personal allowance in April 2013.

The Government believe that what really matters to families is the impact of our policies as a whole and this will continue to be a key consideration for our policies in the future. However, that does not mean that we believe that we should add conditions to the Bill, and I am certainly not going to agree to that this evening. People have seen very significant restraint in their pay across the private and public sectors without the comfort of a safeguard against increases in inflation. Noble Lords have said a lot about certainty today. The truth is that no one has certainty, whether they are in or out of work, about their future real income. As noble Lords know, many people in the public and private sectors have not been getting pay increases linked to inflation and have been falling behind in real terms. This is exemplified by the difficult decision we took to freeze public sector pay at a time when inflation was rising to 5.2%. It is also borne out by the fact that, according to the latest figures, over the past year average earnings have risen by only 1.3%—not very different from the increase that is being proposed in the Bill. This means that on the best available forecasts—those produced by the OBR in November last year—even with the effects of this Bill, by the end of the financial year 2015-16, out-of-work benefits will still have risen faster since the start of the financial crisis than if they had been linked to average earnings, which many noble Lords are concerned about.

It is vital that we set out clear and credible plans to reduce welfare spending, tackle the deficit and secure the economic recovery. Adding conditions to the vital savings delivered by this Bill would remove that certainty.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. These are very difficult issues. I do not think that his response takes us any further forward from the Government’s position at Second Reading. I hope that he will do me the favour of reflecting carefully on what he has heard today. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister for her wise counsel and support, as always.

I am seriously interested in this issue. I think it is a modest proposal. I will go away and think carefully about what my noble friend has said today but we may have to return to this at later stages of the Bill. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed.

Amendment 7

Moved by

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

7: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of housing welfare benefits
(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review of the current relationship between the amounts of housing welfare benefits in each local authority area and market rents in the same area during the relevant period.
(2) The relevant period in subsection (1) shall be each period of twelve months starting on 1 April 2013 and ending on 31 March 2016.
(3) A review under subsection (1) shall include an analysis of the effect of the levels of housing welfare benefits on the amount of private sector housing which is currently affordable by those in receipt of or entitled to such benefits.
(4) The Secretary of State shall cause to be published at twelve monthly intervals starting on 31 March 2014 a report of the evidence and conclusions of each review undertaken under subsection (1).
(5) The Secretary of State shall publish a response to each report under subsection (4) within three months of its due date, and shall take steps to amend the method used to uprate housing welfare benefits if there is shown to be a significant divergence between rent levels in the private rented sector and housing welfare benefits.
(6) In this section “housing welfare benefits” means housing benefit in the form of the local housing allowance or (as the case may be) the housing component of universal credit and “significant divergence” within the meaning of subsection (5) is to be defined in regulations.”

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, as others have said, this is a modest amendment, so modest that I hope it is not only going to be acceptable to the Government but it might even be welcomed by them—you never know—as it only specifies how the firm undertaking given on 14 December 2011 by the noble Lord, Lord Freud, on Report of the Welfare Reform Bill will be followed through.

The noble Lord, Lord Freud, agreed:

“If it then becomes apparent that local allowance rates”—

that is, private sector HB—

“and rents are out of step, they can be reconsidered”.—[Official Report, 14/12/11; col. 1324.]

After I pressed him, he agreed to,

“change the word from ‘can’ to ‘will’”.—[Official Report, 14/12/11; col. 1325.]

So the substance of this amendment has already been agreed. This amendment is merely about process. The commitment made by the noble Lord, Lord Freud, needs to be embedded in primary legislation with follow-up regs so that we can have an agreed timetable and we can all enjoy what the Minister referred to as the certainty that would follow—certainty for the markets, should they be so interested, for the public, for the recipients and, above all, of course, for Parliament.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, did not have the considerable and extended pleasure of being active in the Welfare Reform Bill—how wise of them—so it might be helpful to them and the House if I retrace our steps a little. Why, first in Committee and then on Report, did we press for this review, which the noble Lord, Lord Freud, agreed to? The noble Lord, Lord Best, had already persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Freud, of the need for a high-powered independent review of the full housing implications of the Welfare Reform Bill for families. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for persuading the Minister, and to the noble Lord, Lord Freud, for the open-minded, evidence-based way he responded, which was to agree to the review.

None the less, a partial and particular problem seemed to many of us to persist: the connection of the private rented sector—PRS—rents and local housing allowance; that is, LHA. Why? It is clear that we have three housing tenures—owner-occupation, PRS and social housing—but we have only one housing market and that housing market works effectively and efficiently only if there is a rough match between supply and demand, which there is not. We can all see that the housing market is currently in crisis.

Burdened with student debt and unable to build a deposit for owner-occupation while and because they are paying very high rents in the private rented sector, people in their 20s are now living in that sector not for five years but for 15. It is no longer tenure of transit but a permanent tenure of long stay. Rather like in the 19th century, when people consumed more potatoes whenever their price went up, as more people unable to afford to buy remain in the private rented sector, the more they push up demand and push up rents—which absorb more of their income and make it impossible for them to afford a deposit, move out and buy. So the higher the rent, the longer you stay in the private rented sector.

19:00

The result is that we are building fewer than 100,000 houses this year—the lowest number for 30 years—at a huge cost both to those needing homes and to those needing construction-related jobs. We need 250,000 houses—two and a half times the number being built. New households are forming three times faster than new homes are being provided, so the existing stock, especially in the PRS, soars in price. Those seeking to move out and up into an occupation cannot do so; those seeking to move out and sideways into social housing cannot do so either as local authorities and housing associations have seen their building programmes devastated—as in my housing association, in which I declare an interest as its chair.

An increased number of prospective tenants entering the PRS push up their rents as a result. This has a double whammy on the LHA bill—higher rents, pushed up by the greater number of those who cannot buy, while those same higher rents and reduced access to social housing increase the housing benefit bill for the neediest. Just at the point when government, understandably, wants to bear down on HB costs, it finds its efforts destroyed by the shortage of housing supply in the market. I sympathise, but the Government’s folly lies in their response. Housing, like potatoes, is not a discretionary item—its consumption cannot be reduced except by illegal overcrowding in illegal slums—yet it is being treated by government as though it were rather like going to the cinema. People cannot choose not to have any housing unless they sleep rough or in cars or on cathedral doorsteps. They must live somewhere and must pay for it. The Government, instead of seeking to increase the supply of housing substantially—which is the only answer apart, possibly, from rent control—have chosen to drive down the HB bill by fixing it to below average rents.

Until now, HB has always been tied to real, actual rents, precisely because rents vary from place to place and by type of property. Local housing allowance was in each area placed at 50% of the median local rent and adjusted monthly—that is how sensitive it was to local rent levels—so that half the houses or properties in the private rented sector should be available and affordable to a tenant on HB. The Government have now brought that 50% figure down to 30%—that is, less than a third of properties will now be affordable—believing without any evidence, and we have pressed the Minister on that on many occasions, that this would press down HB and rents would fall. They have done so because they seem to think that it is a tenants’ market. They have no evidence for that, understandably, because the evidence does not exist, and because it has not been a tenants’ market—it is not and it will not be. If housing-benefit tenants dominated the private rented sector then we would have seen rents begin to fall during the past year. But they have not, and they do not, because tenants on HB are only 20% of the PRS, so they do not have the leverage that government attributes to them. Tenants are now being punished for the fallacies, failures and folly of government policy. Do you remember those notices in landlords’ windows: “No Irish, no blacks, no dogs, no DSS”? I do. Well, that is reappearing. According to the National Landlords Association, nine in 10 private landlords say that they are reluctant to accept HB tenants because they do not have to. With five to eight tenants after every flat, it is a landlords’ market, not a tenants’ market, which is why cutting HB will not do anything to help drive down the bill.

By tying HB to 30% instead of the 50% median, all government is doing is subsidising the landlords of the least salubrious, most squalid property. However, HB tenants will now, Lord of the Flies style, compete savagely to occupy that property. Complain and you are out.

That is bad enough, but we have a second whammy occurring. Not only is the proportion of PRS property available to HB tenants being nearly halved, but HB will no longer rise even sufficiently to meet their needs. HB will in future be tied to inflation—this year, CPI—and not as in the past to what is happening to rents. For the first time ever, in other words, HB is being detached from what is happening to real rents in the market, whether at 50% or 30%. In the past decade, however, PRS rents have risen in real terms by more than 11%. As rents in London are rising by 7% a year and by 3.4% elsewhere, and as CPI is currently running at 2.7%, then HB, which is supposed to cover 30% of available properties, will instead cover only 20% in about five years and perhaps 10% or less in 10 years. Shelter estimates that in a third of the country the private rented sector will be inaccessible to all would-be tenants on HB. A third of the country will become a no-go area for tenants on housing benefit.

It gets worse. Local housing allowance will be uprated by CPI this year—as the Minister said, the Bill does not cover it this year—but thereafter, for the next two years, it will be uprated under the Bill by only 1%. London rents are rising by 7%. The Government’s own impact analysis expects rents to rise overall by 4% while the benefits to fund it are rising by only 1%, and these are benefits fixed to only 30% of rent levels.

The result of this double whammy is an increase in the number of people needing housing benefit as rents soar and an increase in the number of people finding that even the housing benefit that they receive will not cover the ever smaller proportion of properties that they can access to rent. Rents will be too high, housing benefit too low and landlords too reluctant. What is the result? Either tenants will seek to make up the difference out of their benefit income, thus increasing severe child poverty, or they will not. If they do not, they may face eviction and end up homeless. If they have children, they may ultimately end up in bed and breakfast before—with the lack of available social housing—probably being recycled into the private rented sector for the same sorry cycle to be repeated another year down the line. As all the housing dominos fall over, misery cascades down the tenures, and the Government are choosing for this to happen because it is a policy choice—not a necessity but a policy choice.

Homelessness is already on the rise, having increased by 22% in the past two years, and so is rough sleeping, which is up 31% in the past two years. All this is happening before the indecent bedroom tax takes effect for some of the sorry occupants of the private rented sector. The Government may tell us that a third of the expected savings from all this will be recycled to help those areas with the highest rents, and that is welcome. However, as with the discretionary housing allowance, they will end up trying to cover gaps and holes in provision which I estimate will be five or 10 times larger than can be covered. Hence I offer this modest amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Freud, accepted that that there could be a problem, though he argued that he expected the policy to work. However, he was open-minded enough to agree that there should and would be a review of what was happening to market rents and the adequacy or otherwise of local housing allowance to ensure safe and secure housing for those in need.

If rents and housing benefit diverge significantly, the Government must change the method of operating. That was the policy intent, and that was what the noble Lord, Lord Freud, accepted. I ask the Minister not whether the Government agree with the policy—they have already agreed the policy intent of this amendment—but how their delivery of the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Freud, is to be secured. I beg to move.

[Lord Best]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 12A, which entirely supports Amendment 7, so eloquently moved by the noble Baroness. In fact, I think that I prefer her speech to mine. However, my amendment has a slightly different take on the same set of issues, as it has been prepared by the Residential Landlords Association, which represents its member landlords. I have no interest to declare as a member of any landlords’ association, but I draw attention to other housing interests in the register.

It is important to note that the amendment’s call for a review of the impact of capping rent increases in local housing allowances at 1% next year, rather than at the consumer prices index level, comes from the landlord side as well as from those excellent bodies Shelter, Crisis and the others representing tenants. If the case made from the perspective of tenants does not win the argument, perhaps the points made by the landlord representatives will prove convincing.

Why is there a need for a special review of how rent increases in the private rented sector in comparison with increases in help with rent from local housing allowance are likely to work out in the years ahead? I suggest that there are two distinct reasons why the capping of local housing allowance at 1% per annum irrespective of levels of real rent increases in the marketplace is critical. First, the local housing allowance can represent half or even more of the total benefits received by those out of work and can represent most of the support which many of those in low-paid jobs receive from the state. That means that there are huge repercussions for tenants where a gap opens up between the actual rent that must be paid and the local housing allowance received to cover it. Cutting housing support means the tenant finding the money to meet the shortfall on the rent out of income intended for food, heating and other essentials.

High housing costs greatly increase the level of child poverty—the issue of concern to my noble friend Lady Howe. Department for Work and Pensions statistics analysed by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation this month show the child poverty rate in England at 19% before housing costs are factored in, but at 28% afterwards. Where housing costs are lower, that huge impact does not show up. In Scotland, for example, the child poverty rate is the same as for England excluding housing costs, at 19%. It rises to 21% when housing costs are taken into account, far short of the 28% figure for England because of England’s high housing costs. Help with housing therefore makes a very real difference to the number of households in relative poverty.

Not providing enough money to pay the rent for those who rely on income from benefits simply means a cut to the other benefits that they receive. For tenants in the private rented sector, the reduction in living standards in real terms resulting from the Bill could well be doubled: first, from the gap in direct help with income between 1% and whatever inflation turns out to be and, secondly, from the gap in housing help between 1% and whatever rent increases over the next three years turn out to be.

Secondly, there are consequences where support for housing costs is cut not only for those receiving benefits but for the housing market—the availability of accommodation. Obviously, it affects the attitude of landlords towards providing accommodation for those on modest incomes if they are subject to tough rent controls. In most parts of the UK, there are plenty of other people desperately keen to find a rented home—students, mobile single people who share, and, as we know from excellent new research by the Building and Social Housing Foundation, increasing numbers of working families with young children who would have bought a home in times past but now cannot afford the deposit and mortgage costs. The acute housing shortages in so many parts of England mean that landlords are most unlikely to reduce rents to assist those in receipt of local housing allowance. Rather, as the Residential Landlords Association survey cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, shows, landlords will avoid lettings where LHA rent controls could apply, and will go for lettings on the open market.

19:15

Gradually squeezing out that part of the rented sector puts more pressure on the social housing sector—housing associations and councils. Of course, that stock was diminished by right-to-buy sales of council housing. The building of social housing in the past 30 years has been at one-quarter of the level of the preceding 70 years. Now those landlords have massive waiting lists. There are consequences for the taxpayer if private landlords do not house lower-income households: the cost to local authorities of stacking families in temporary accommodation—hostels and bed and breakfast hotels. One London borough now has 2,320 families in temporary accommodation. In 2010, the figure was 610. That is an increase of more than 350% in less than three years, and expenditure will escalate wildly if we have to return to using those temporary solutions, including bed and breakfast hotels, at costs far higher than for private rented sector renting. I do not need to add that the social consequences for families of homelessness and having no fixed abode are horrendous.

As from April 2012, a cap on rent increases at the consumer prices index level was introduced in place of using the retail prices index or, indeed, the increase applicable in the wider market. That change came in combination with other restrictions on rents eligible for the local housing allowance. The noble Lord, Lord Freud, explained that the Government’s hope was that landlords would set rents that reflected those new constraints, but he made clear that the cap on rent increases at CPI levels would be for just two years initially and agreed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, explained, to review the position at that point to assess any impact on the rental market.

Sadly, although we are less than one year into the new regime, it is clear that the measures are not driving down rents. Rents have been rising in most areas by more than RPI inflation, despite the tough downward pressure on rents through LHA caps. It seems extremely unlikely that the Bill’s extension of the controls—not just to extend the limitation of increases to CPI levels beyond two years but to enhance the squeeze by the 1% limit, probably well under half the likely CPI increases—for three years makes a requirement for a thoroughgoing review much more significant.

The amendment, echoing the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, would ensure that that review will take place and that the Government will be encouraged thereby to act on the results. If present trends towards homelessness and, consequently, higher costs are revealed, the Government will have the mechanism to lift the 1% cap.

I have one last point. Can the Minister explain the Government’s intention in relation to the special case of London? We have been led to understand that one-third of the gains from the 1% cap on LHA payment increases are to be recycled to support the higher rent increases in the London area. We know that London rents have been increasing by twice the level of inflation—6.7% last year, for example—and excluding London from the 1% cap would ease pressures there. However, it would be more than helpful if the Minister could explain how this arrangement, which would of course make the housing position of the capital even further out of step with the rest of the country, be implemented in practice.

I am sure that we should take note when landlord groups and tenants’ groups are unanimous, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister on whether her department, not just to save tenants but to prevent further diminution in supply of accommodation, with its costly consequences, will be able to respond positively to my amendment.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I wish to comment on the amendment, in which I find a lot to support, particularly the idea of a review. Before I do so, I owe the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, an apology because in my earlier intervention I made a point about higher-rate tax and said that it had decreased, when of course it had increased. I apologise for impugning his tax-raising credentials. It was a low blow that was not intended. I take this opportunity to correct the record and hope that he might accept my apology.

This is an interesting amendment to consider because we are dealing with a significant crisis. There is no doubt that housing benefit itself needs to be focused on: how it has increased from roughly £11 billion, circa 1997, to a predicted £25 billion in 2015. Clearly, no one could sit in the Treasury, not have a view on that trend and not say that it needs to be looked at carefully.

My second point is that private rents have been increasing at an alarming rate when compared with the rest of the housing market. One needs to consider the increases, which, according to the National Housing Federation, have been something like 35% over the past three years. Over that same period, we have seen an 86% increase in the number of those claiming housing benefit, from 485,000 to 905,000. This is happening at a time when, outside certain sections of the London property market, house prices are actually falling. This is happening when interest rates are at historically low levels, and mortgage rates are at levels whereby 1.99%, two-year fixed rates are being offered. There are very low mortgage rates while house prices are falling, yet at the same time private rents are increasing by not only the rate of inflation but in many cases by twice the rate of inflation. It does not take a great economist—and I note that there are some in the Chamber—to work out that there might be some correlation between housing benefit and a potential inflationary effect on the private sector. I therefore understand that that is one of the issues that my noble friends would look at with some care.

I also note that one of the solutions to the problem is to ensure that there is a greater housing supply through housebuilding. This is an area on which I would pitch to my honourable friend in his pre-Budget purdah and ask him to reflect on how additional funds could be made available. I do not say that the Government have done nothing in that regard. They have put up £10 billion in guaranteed loans to try to stimulate the market, and they have introduced shared ownership schemes through FirstBuy and NewBuy to try and increase house purchase. That is an important element. We do not want, as a society and for the health of our society, to divert people into a life in private rented housing. We want to encourage people to have an ownership stake in society and to own their own home. For them to do that, there need to be enough homes coming on to the market.

There is a competition because, as people are coming on to the market and wanting to own their own home, investors who are experiencing low rates of return in other asset classes are finding, according to Rightmove, that there is a yield of 5.8% on private rented properties—the figure is 6.5% in London—which represents extraordinarily good value in the present market. Capital is therefore flowing into the buy-to-let market, rather than the build-to-buy market. There needs to be some step back from this approach and one needs to ask what is actually happening and how it all connects with changes in benefits.

We are, I assume, taking an approach whereby we believe that capping the local housing allowance and housing benefit will lead to a slowing down of the increases in rents. The noble Baroness is shaking her head, but that is the assumption. We have certainly seen how rents have increased when housing benefit and local housing allowance have increased. Perhaps we should test this out, but that is difficult because we are talking about affecting lots of very vulnerable people. However, there is a case to be looked at. Some annual or periodic review of how this is working and impacting on the housing market would be welcome, and I encourage that part of the amendment. I am delighted to note that my noble friend Lord Freud had been supportive of the idea, and I very much hope that my colleagues on the Front Bench will also be supportive.

Finally, perhaps I may take this opportunity to raise one further question about the way in which benefits are to be paid to the tenant rather than to the landlord. I know that various demonstration projects are undergoing trial in Edinburgh, Oxford, Shropshire, Southwark and Wakefield involving direct payment, and that they have some time to run, but I should be grateful if my noble friend in her response can provide some assessment of how they are going. There are some concerns that paying benefits directly to tenants, particularly when that may represent the largest component of their income, might put them in an invidious position, and some people might get into greater debt as a result. I know that such schemes are being trialled and I should be grateful for some comment from my noble friend on the Front Bench in her winding-up speech.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, this has been a good but short debate, as any debate around amendments of my noble friend Lady Hollis and the noble Lord, Lord Best, on housing would be. You cannot do better than that in your Lordships’ House. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for his earlier comments. I thought that he had got it the wrong way round but was not quite sure whether I had misheard. I think that my problem is that I am not confident to challenge him; however, I am grateful for his clarification.

My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Best, are on the same page on this matter and we are happy to support the amendment, which calls for a review of housing welfare benefit, especially regarding the affordability of private sector housing. My noble friend and the noble Lord made a particularly powerful case in their analysis of the consequences of a growing divergence between levels of private sector rents and levels of support. We know and recognise why there is a growing divergence—the 30th percentile, the individual cap, CPI uprating, and now the proposed 1% cap. It will be made worse by direct payments when universal credit comes in. There are certainly causes of the pressure on rents, with growing numbers of households and insufficient new builds, but no evidence—indeed, quite the reverse—that the restrictions on housing support are driving rents in the opposite direction. It remains to be seen, as the noble Lord, Lord Bates, suggested, whether there will be any slowing down with the further ratcheting down of housing support.

19:30

Another consequence of the Bill is that there is a growing gap between rent levels and support. I think the noble Lord, Lord Best, made this point at Second Reading. That has to be met from income which is itself, as a result of this Bill, coming under increasing pressure because of the real-terms cuts. The amount of housing support in the private rented sector has been determined by family type and the rent distribution in the local area. In the future, the link will be with the historical levels of local rents; that seems a slightly illogical basis on which to build a sensible system. The demand of my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Best, for a review of the current and changing relationship between local market rents and levels for housing support is no more than a reasonable search for the data to monitor what is going on. We hope that, on the basis of the commitment that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, has already made, there will be no difficulty with this so far as the Minister is concerned.

I would like to pick up a point that the noble Lord, Lord Best, raised about the uprating for 2014-15 and 2015-16 at a maximum of 1%, which is being dealt with by orders under the Housing Act 1996. As I think has been stated, 30% of the saving under this measure, or £140 million, will be made available to help with particular pressures on affordability. The noble Lord, Lord Best, asked whether we can get some more information on that and I should be grateful if the Minister could give us some further detail. If £140 million represents 30% of the Government’s saving from this measure, I compute that the total gross saving—the total further amount being ripped out of support for housing—is something to the tune of £500 million.

I conclude by emphasising the point that has been made about what happens when there is pressure on the private rented sector and social housing, and who bears the consequences of that. There was a report in the Guardian on 18 February about the use of bed and breakfast to house homeless families beyond the legal time limit, which has risen by 800% since this Government took office. It said that,

“a third of the country’s councils”,

have unlawfully housed homeless families in bed and breakfast,

“for more than six weeks since government took office”,

with,

“local authorities across England … spending on average up to £650 a week to keep people off the streets”.

The report went on to say:

“These emergency measures are expensive for the taxpayer. Councils are spending in some cases more than a thousand pounds a week to house people in hotels. Tory-run Wellingborough spent £1,961 in one week for a family. Lib Dem-controlled Eastleigh”—

it was written this side of Thursday—

“spent £1,932 for a family with seven children for a seven-day stay. Labour’s North East Derbyshire district council shelled out almost £700 for a week. Tory-run Dartford said it spent £616 for one week for a family of five”.

If there are consequences for the taxpayer, there will certainly be consequences for those individuals and families who have to endure bed and breakfast accommodation until we begin to get this housing policy right. The review that is requested by these amendments will be a step along the way and I would hope that the Government will fully support it and commit to delivering on it.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I thank noble Lords very much for this debate. I should say at the start that although Amendment 13 is caught in this group, as I covered quite a bit of it in the previous discussion I will not go over it again, except to say that since the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to the personal allowance of housing benefit, it is worth me repeating this for clarity’s sake. First, eligible rent will continue to be wholly covered by housing benefit for those who continue to satisfy the income test for all income-related benefits, including housing benefit. Secondly, renters in low-paid work will still be better off than they would be on out-of-work benefits. Work will continue to pay. Although that relates to the previous discussion, I wanted to say that again because the noble Lord, Lord Best, had raised it.

I turn to Amendment 7, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and Amendment 12A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. As they have explained, their amendments seek to specify how the Government should monitor and review the uprating of local housing allowance. It is probably worth my saying from the outset that, as noble Lords know, I am new to this policy area and on housing I very much bow to the long-term experience and expertise of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. I know that they have a huge amount of knowledge in this area.

Noble Lords should be aware that the uprating of local housing allowance is not covered by this Bill. Reference has been made to that; it is made under separate secondary legislation, providing independent rent officers with a remit to set rates under specified rules. None the less, I will try to respond fully to the issues that these amendments cover. Now might be a good point for me to reconfirm a point that I made in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about personal allowance in LHA. What I said to her in response to the previous debate is correct: the local housing allowance simply sets the local maximum for eligible rents, and calculation of housing benefit to meet that eligible rent is not part of the Bill.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Can the Minister help me on the point that she made slightly before saying that it was not covered by the Bill, et cetera? It is certainly the case, is it not, that housing benefit and local housing allowance in the forthcoming year will rise by CPI? It is not caught by the 1% figure that other benefits are but thereafter, for the following two years, it will be capped by 1%. Is the Minister saying that that will not happen, or that it will but that it will done through the route of looping it through advice or instructions to rent officers by regulations?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

Absolutely; it is the second. I am not disputing the fact that it will be capped at 1% for 2014-15 and 2015-16, but that will not be done via this Bill. That is just a point of process.

As noble Lords will know, the total bill for housing benefit has doubled in cash terms over the past decade and if unreformed by 2014-15, it would cost us more than £25 billion. This is why we are taking a number of measures to reduce housing benefit expenditure, including limiting increases in the local housing allowance to 1% for two years from 2014-15, as we have just discussed. This change will make a crucial contribution to the essential deficit reduction strategy but it will do more than that. As the Government are a major player in the private rented market, it will also exert downward pressure on rents—a point made by my noble friend Lord Bates. Where rents are increasing rapidly, there should be no presumption that the taxpayer should pick up the bill.

Noble Lords referred to the need to monitor affordability of accommodation for benefit claimants during the period where the limits are in place. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, paid tribute to my noble friend Lord Freud and his response when this matter was discussed during the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill. I certainly agree with what she described; I also agree with his decision. That is why we have already put in place a strong monitoring and evaluation plan. I reassure noble Lords that this is in place in light of that discussion that took place during the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill. My noble friend has honoured his commitment made at that time.

The Government have introduced a number of changes to the way that local housing allowance rates are calculated, including a cap on rates.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again but, before she goes on, she is saying that she confirms that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, made the commitment and that that commitment is now in the process of being delivered by a current review. Is she referring to the original review that was established by the noble Lord, Lord Best, is she saying that the terms of reference of that original review have been extended or, thirdly, is she saying that there is a further review for this particular aspect in order to deliver the pledge made by the noble Lord, Lord Freud, that he would keep under review any possibility of significant divergence between market trends and housing benefit?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I hope that as I continue to respond to the debate I will answer the question that the noble Baroness has just asked.

We have commissioned a consortium, led by Ian Cole of Sheffield University, to carry out an independent review of these changes. The interim report is due to be published in spring this year and the final report in early 2014. In addition, to monitor the specific effects of LHA uprating we have put in place a process for publishing on an annual basis a comparison of local housing allowance rates and the 30th percentile of market rents.

The first annual publication of these data took place in November last year and was carried out independently by the rent officers who set LHA rates and collect the most authoritative data on market rents. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked for some evidence. The published data show that only one-quarter of LHA rates have been subject to the CPI limit and more than one in 10 rates have actually fallen in line with local rents, to answer the point that my noble friend Lord Bates raised. At this moment we are not seeing a general divergence between LHA rates and market rents.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred to several different potential outcomes from the changes that we have made. A couple of things were proposed, suggested or estimated during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act, one of them being a suggestion that 42% of landlords would scale back on housing benefit tenants. The reality is that the housing benefit caseload has actually risen in London by 5% in, I think, the past year.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, suggested that no properties would be available to benefit claimants. Private sector landlords are not turning away housing benefit claimants. Since April 2011, when we introduced our first reforms of the LHA, the PRS caseload, as I just said, increased, and that includes London and the south-east.

The noble Baroness also made reference to rent control and suggested that that might be the way forward. We absolutely dispute that; we say that it would not make more homes available at rents that people could afford. We experienced regulated rents in the private sector some decades ago and they shrank from 55% of households in 1939 to 8% by the late 1980s.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I was not recommending rent control. I was merely saying that if you are not going to increase the supply and rents continue to rise—and all the evidence is that they are—then that is one possibility. It is not one that I support because I would much prefer the Government increasing the supply of stock.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I think that I have just provided the noble Baroness with some evidence to show that rents are not actually increasing in light of the changes that we have made. Rents are actually coming down. We are having some success in downward pressure on rents.

We have taken care to retain some flexibility to react if problems with affordability emerge along with the need to take action should significant divergences emerge between LHA rates and market rents. We have set aside £140 million over two years from 2014-15 to help people most affected by the new 1% limit. The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred specifically to effects in London, and I can confirm that the funding that has been set aside will be there to address areas precisely such as London and the south-east. Our intention is to increase the local housing allowance rates by more than 1% in areas where rent increases are causing a shortage of affordable accommodation. Rather than specifying the details in legislation now, however, we plan to develop our approach in spring this year before making final details available in the autumn so that we can reflect the views of key stakeholders and take account of the most up-to-date evidence before making decisions.

19:45

My noble friend Lord Bates made the point that it is important to ensure that we reflect at all times that when we are talking about housing we are talking about people who are often very vulnerable; the fact that they are in this kind of housing means that we should be very conscious of the effect of our decisions. I hope that I have been able to reassure him that the measures that we are taking very much address that kind of concern, but we are committed to making savings from this measure until 2015-16. Subsequently, a future Government have the opportunity to reconsider the policy design in view of the balance between local housing allowance rates and market rents.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and my noble friend Lord Bates spoke about increasing the supply of housing. I shall respond to a few points on that. First, the Government have committed £4.5 billion, along with £15 billion of private investment, to deliver 170,000 new affordable homes over this spending review period. Almost 58,000 affordable homes were delivered last year. That is one-third more than the average delivery in the 10 years between 2000-01 and 2009-10. Secondly, the Government will provide up to £10 billion in debt guarantees to support private investment in the private rented sector and in new affordable housing. Thirdly, in last year’s Autumn Statement the Government announced a new local infrastructure fund of up to £474 million to support key projects. This includes accelerating delivery of large housing sites and enabling quicker disposal of surplus public land for new homes.

In the wider context of the changes that we are making to housing benefit, my noble friend referred to direct payments and how the trial is going in terms of its impact on claimants. I would say two things in response to that. First, these are very early days for the trial and it is too soon to give a properly informed response to that question. However, there are certainly no immediate signs of any serious problem. It is worth reminding the Committee that this change is part of the wider reforms of the welfare system where we are trying not only to help people to prepare and, for those who are out of work, return to work but to help people to take control of their own finances. While I understand the risks that people point to in making that change, we should not ignore the importance of ensuring that we give people the opportunity to have control of their own budgets. This is an important initiative.

I hope that I have addressed the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on Amendment 7, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, on his Amendment 12A, and have demonstrated to all noble Lords that our existing plans show that we are ensuring that there is proper monitoring and review of the arrangements we have introduced, and that it is not necessary to include these in the Bill.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this small debate. The noble Lord, Lord Best, emphasised that housing benefit was a high-ticket item. He is right, so any percentage cuts to that benefit are highly significant in terms of the income as it affects tenant recipients. He also emphasised, and he was absolutely right to do so, the folly as well as the cruelty of sending thousands of families into higher cost temporary accommodation. I agreed with every word he said—I hope that that does not damn his speech.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for a thoughtful contribution to the debate supporting the review. I am delighted that he agrees with the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Freud, that such a review is desirable and necessary. Contrary to what the Minister was saying, he is right that private sector rents are alone among the housing triple tenures in rising fast. They are rising faster than inflation. That, as I tried to argue, means that it is impossible to leave that sector because by paying those higher rents you cannot afford to save for the deposit that takes you out of it. In turn, that raises rents still higher because nobody is leaving that sector but other people are trying to enter, which makes it even more impossible to leave it in the future. It becomes a vicious upward spiral in which people are trapped. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, is absolutely right that that is exactly what is happening. Poorer tenants are also faced with that higher increased pressure on rents with only housing benefit to help them cope with it, and that housing benefit is being cut three times over—first by being connected not to the 50th percentile of rents but to the 30th percentile, secondly by being capped by CPI for the forthcoming year instead of actual rent levels, and thirdly, in the subsequent two years, by a further cap of only 1%, which the Minister has confirmed to us. That means that more tenants will follow the desperately sad route that the noble Lord, Lord Best, emphasised.

As my noble friend Lord McKenzie said, quoting the Guardian article that I missed, that will mean more families with children being uprooted and spending longer periods in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Many years ago, as a former chair of a housing committee, I saw how long it took those children, who were often traumatised by those events, to get over them. They had had to move home, move school and lose connection with their friends. At the age of seven or eight, they were reverting to bedwetting and the rest. That is what we are now going to be imposing on thousands more children because of the folly of this policy.

Finally, I come to the Minister’s comments. She emphasised that she thinks the policy is working and that according to her figures rents are already being driven down as a result. I listened carefully and I would very much like to see the evidence she has because it runs contrary to what the noble Lords, Lord Bates and Lord Best, and the National Landlords Association are saying; it runs contrary to my brief from Shelter and my experience of the housing market. It may be that the Department for Work and Pensions has a unique insight and extra special information denied to the rest of us, but it does not conform to what I know. Certainly it is the case that so far the CPI cap has applied for only something like 10 months of the current year. None the less, for the years thereafter—not next year, but two years thereafter—it is going to come down to 1%, so there is going to be an accelerating effect, a depression, on rent levels as a result of the rent benefit and housing benefit caps arising from the Government’s policy.

The Government are banking absolutely everything on the fact that by pressing and cutting down on HB, even though only 20% of those in the market have HB, you will reduce the overall level of rents and therefore tenants will not suffer. There is not a shred of evidence that I have seen or that has been offered tonight to support that contention. The Minister is gambling on the lives of children going into bed-and-breakfast accommodation in the ideological hope that 20% of those in the market can affect the rents that the other 80% will pay. They will not do it because landlords do not have to let, and they will not let, except those who have substandard accommodation that people who do not need housing benefit will avoid. That is a form of Russian roulette that none of us should be party to.

I hope that the Minister will write to me with her evidence because it does not conform to anything that I am aware of. In the light of that, I would like to reflect on what she has said and on what evidence she can send me. I will also reflect on whether what she is saying means that the Government are continuing adequately to keep under review the possible divergence that, from all the evidence we have, is already beginning to occur between rents and housing benefit. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.55 pm.

Health: Anorexia

Monday 25th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

19:55

Asked By

[Lord Giddens]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce the prevalence of anorexia and other eating disorders.

[Lord Giddens]

My Lords, what a pleasure it is to be able to introduce this debate. I shall start by saying how I got interested in anorexia and other eating disorders some while ago. It happened one Sunday when I got two newspapers—I was feeling flush at the time—and each had a colour supplement. On the front of one colour supplement there was a starving black teenager in Africa, emaciated and on the point of death, suffering from malnutrition. On the front of the other colour supplement there was a starving white teenager in the United States who looked identical in terms of her emaciated frame. It seemed to me that the dynamics of those two things must be completely different. In the first, there was a person dying from traditional starvation: not enough food to go around; in the second, there was someone dying in the middle of probably the first society in world history where there is far too much food to go around.

After that, I started looking fairly intensively at the history of anorexia and other eating disorders, especially bulimia. It is very interesting that there is a history. It goes back some way. We do not know the details, but anorexia seems to have been very uncommon historically and was mainly associated with fasting to death, especially female saints who fasted to death in pursuit of the greater glory of God. Bulimia has some analogues in history, but it was not even named until the 20th century. You can say that anorexia, bulimia and other eating disorders are essentially, in their mass form anyway, illnesses of our time. They started to spread rapidly in the 1960s and from beginnings in the industrial countries they then spread around the world.

As everyone knows, anorexia and bulimia are most frequent among teenage girls, but interestingly there is now a kind of extension through the lifecycle. There are children as young as seven who are already suffering from anorexia symptoms and there are cases of women in their 70s suffering from anorexia and bulimia combined. Male eating disorders have been called the hidden epidemic or silent epidemic. They are not out in the open to the same degree, although there is stigma associated with all forms of eating disorder. The latest stats we have on the UK suggest that one in five children in this country with a serious eating disorder is male, which is a substantial and seemingly growing proportion.

Anorexia may have a physical basis, but this cannot explain the spread of these phenomena. You find an interesting thing in some parts of the world where, in the same society, some people are starving to death from classical starvation in remote regions, and in the affluent cities people are starving from anorexia. It is a global phenomenon. This cannot be explained by physical reasons. Why did it happen?

I think that it is primarily because of the rise of supermarket culture; I do not simply mean the rise supermarkets themselves. Once you have the rise of supermarket culture, you have all forms of food available. You have to choose what to eat, and there is a sense in which everyone has to be on a diet, with a barrage of information about their bodies, their health and so forth. In the case of young women, as we know, they are also bombarded by images of what a desirable body is like. These are powerful images. We now see through the advent of the internet very young children picking up the image of the slim body as the embodiment of attractiveness. These two things come together and, like many other aspects of our culture, they develop an addictive, compulsive character. Anorexia is a compulsive cycle from which there is often no escape without specific medical and other help.

In our society we have a variety of food problems and problems with the relationship between food and the body. Therefore, anorexia and bulimia are the tip of the iceberg in terms of what has become normality. In our society, over 90% of women have been on a diet at some point in their lives. The figure for men is now over 50%. Interestingly, over 60% of women who have no history of weight problems are on a diet, which shows how extensive these characteristics are. We are dealing with a pervasive phenomenon in our society, rooted in a compulsive relationship to food. There is a sense in which, at the other end of the continuum, all of us have to wrestle with what to eat and drink in relation to our health.

Anorexia, as we know, can be treated. Bulimia can be treated but normally demands intensive treatment. About 20% of female anorexics who are diagnosed before the age of 20 die before the age of 40. It is a lethal affliction.

I ask the Minister four sets of questions. First, do the Government have a coherent policy on anorexia and eating disorders? If so, what is it? I found it difficult to locate, having been through the government websites. Do the Government recognise the connections between eating disorders and obesity? One linked factor is binge eating, which is characteristic of bulimia and some forms of obesity; all problems of the body, plainly.

Secondly, what are the Government doing about male eating disorders specifically? These still do not receive the same degree of attention as female eating disorders. One of the main agencies involved in analysing male eating disorders says:

“Nationwide, there is simply a massive deficit in programmes that specialise in men with eating disorders”.

Are the Government taking some steps to address this?

Thirdly, what is the Government’s attitude towards pro-anorexia and pro-bulimia websites? As the Minister doubtless knows, they have proliferated in recent times. They are connected with the social media whereby these ideas become propagated. Essentially, these websites argue that to be extraordinarily slim is a desirable thing, and they do so in a forceful way. The websites themselves can become addictive. There are many precepts and so forth on these websites, but I will mention just one. Supposedly, Kate Moss once said:

“Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels”.

You can see the lethal impact that that might have on a young person who is absorbed into these websites. Is there some way in which the Government can intervene to help control them and the impact they have, especially on young women and, as I have said, increasingly, young men?

Fourthly, what is the Government’s reaction to the case of Laura Willmott which has been extensively debated in newspapers this weekend? She suffered from anorexia and died recently aged 18. She was apparently making good progress under care. When she turned 18 she was treated as an adult and essentially fell through the system. A headline from one of the Sunday papers read:

“At 17 years and 364 days, she is a sick child. At 18 the NHS can watch her die”.

What is the Minister’s reaction to that?

20:05

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, I express my appreciation for the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, obtaining this debate. I note that there have been a number of debates on this issue; there was a debate recently in Westminster Hall at the other end of the Building. It is something in which I have been interested for some time. It is almost 30 years since I first published a paper on anorexia nervosa. At that stage I was of course interested in the psychological aspects of things: in individual and family therapy, and cognitive behavioural therapy. The papers I was publishing were on zinc, trace elements and gastro-intestinal hormones in anorexia nervosa, trying to see if we could understand a little better this devastating disturbance and the other associated eating disorders to which the noble Lord has referred.

Of course, as the noble Lord rightly says, these disorders did not appear in the past century. In fact, the first description of the disorder was in this city by Doctor Morton in 1689. He described a patient he had treated five years earlier: a young lady who had a disorder if this kind and died after a few months. The name itself was described by William Gull in London in the late 1800s. It is not a recent phenomenon, but it has become much more pervasive.

What is really striking looking back over the past 30 and more years is how little has changed except for the prevalence of the disorder. Most of the ways we have of understanding and treating these disorders have not changed terribly much. We have not really come much closer to understanding in an evidence-based way what we are dealing with. We can see some of the resultant phenomena. I came to the conclusion with gastro-intestinal hormones, for example, that most of what we were seeing, which was not very clear anyway, was probably consequential. It is clear that when a young person’s—or even an older person’s—body weight gets down to a certain level, their capacity to judge their body image changes. They become impervious to any kind of psychological intervention. It is necessary to get their body weight up to a certain level. In the case of young women, their periods start to return and their thinking begins to change. This is not simply a psychological phenomenon. It is not simply a biological phenomenon.

As the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, has also indicated, there are also sociological aspects to this, which we can think and postulate about. I guess we do that a lot in your Lordships’ House. One of the difficulties is trying to ensure that we have research that takes us forward in understanding these things in a scientific way. That is one of the reasons why I was a little disappointed when my honourable friend Tessa Munt asked of another honourable friend, Paul Burstow, who was the Minister in February 2012, what the Government’s guidelines were for the prevention of eating disorders. What targets exist? What is the departmental budget for the prevention of eating disorders? The answer was that there are no specific targets in respect of the prevention of eating disorders. Nor has the department set aside a specific budget.

I find that disappointing because it seems clear to me that after decades, during which a good deal of research has been done, mostly in specific areas—people will take a biological approach or a psychological approach and a few perhaps even will take a sociological approach, although not very many—it is very difficult to get a multidisciplinary research project put together without substantial backing from the Government, a major foundation or whatever. That is why I am a little disappointed that resourcing does not seem to be coming forward from the department. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to say that that is not true and that resourcing is available.

I am disappointed that it has not been possible to put together the kind of multidisciplinary approach to research, a bio-psycho-sociological approach, which might take us a little further forward. As the noble Lord has said, this is a difficult problem to get people out of and to understand. It has proved to be a very difficult problem on which we can make any progress at all. The figures tell us that it is getting worse.

20:11

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, for introducing this topic for debate tonight. The simple definition of anorexia is a “lack or loss of appetite for food”. Too often, we hear of awful cases of anorexia nervosa. I will leave the discussion on that and on bulimia nervosa to other noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has given us a very good grounding in them.

Numerous medical conditions give rise to the loss or lack of appetite for food. I think immediately of the many people with CFS/ME who are too exhausted to chew and swallow food and must be tube fed, either nasally or by a tube connected directly to their stomach. I think, too, of young girls who have had a bad reaction to the human papilloma virus—HPV—vaccine and who suffer fatigue, feverishness and an acute loss of appetite, with the accompanying weight loss. Some other conditions, including viral infections, hormonal imbalances, neurodegenerative diseases and brain tumours, have in their initial stages been labelled as CFS/ME because they present with the extreme fatigue, pain, digestive problems and other symptoms associated with that condition.

From the reports that I have had, there are many people with genuine intolerances to foods and drugs whose symptoms are profound after eating. The symptoms, which may be diverse, are a reflection of a disturbance of the autonomic nervous system and may include nausea, vomiting, bloating, abdominal distension and diarrhoea. Because they occur after meals, these people try to ascertain which foods cause their problems and they assume a restricted diet. This can occur after, for example, gastro-intestinal infection or HPV vaccination. These people, instead of being respected, as all patients should for their observations of themselves, often find themselves castigated. They are wrongly diagnosed as being anorexic, forced into psychiatric facilities and made to eat those foods that they know have provoked their symptoms. Historically, the same fate befell people with coeliac disease until the 1940s, when researchers realised that their symptoms of diarrhoea and malabsorption were caused by wheat, which was accepted by the medical profession. Interestingly, during the war, they were given bananas instead of bread.

I am particularly concerned that young people, mostly girls, are wrongly being diagnosed with anorexia nervosa. Too frequently, their parents are accused of causing their child’s illness and care proceedings are initiated. Several youngsters have been obliged by social services to be confined in mental health units and are subjected to harsh “treatment” before their medical consultants realise that they do not have the condition. In other cases, the young person is blamed for failing to co-operate and not wanting to get well. I am sure that their prognosis would be much better if they were treated with more compassion.

The mother of one young girl wrote:

“After the HPV vaccine she lost three stones in three months. When admitted to hospital the professionals’ first concern was that she was anorexic or bulimic. I even tried to say that she normally loves her food and she actually eats more than normal. Before vaccination her attitude to food was positive. (Her worst nightmare was someone stealing the fridge). Whilst in hospital she was shadowed by a nurse 24 hours a day for seven days to check if she was really eating or making herself sick. The final conclusion was that she doesn’t suffer either from anorexia or bulimia”.

This child and her mother have now been abandoned to the nightmare of CFS/ME. She continued:

“After this diagnosis was made we were pretty much left on our own as there is no ME specialist covering our locality”.

Another mother wrote:

“After … vaccination and since becoming unwell her appetite has fluctuated massively. Some days she eats very little, other days she eats constantly. She suffers constant nausea and vomiting and has to eat what she feels will keep down, which isn’t the healthy choices she would have made. Eating disorders have been mentioned because she often vomits after eating but that is far from the truth. She still has a healthy attitude to food but her body is too broken to make it possible for her always to eat healthily”.

Another mother whose daughter suffered badly from CFS/ME wrote:

“She did not have the energy to eat food and sadly did not get the help she required. So when food is not eaten they assume she does not want to eat. They do not face the reality that she has not got the energy to eat. Therefore they put her into a psychiatric unit for eating disorders”.

I know that this young lady was discharged several months after being admitted in a worse condition than before she was admitted.

I cannot stress enough the importance of getting the diagnosis right, of listening carefully to the patient, of taking a proper history, and of ensuring that the right treatment is given early. Young lives can be ruined, family relationships destroyed and huge amounts of taxpayers’ money wasted when this is not done. I ask the noble Lord the Minister what measures are in place to ensure that these awful histories that I have been hearing for years are no longer repeated.

20:16

[Baroness Crawley]

My Lords, the House is grateful to my noble friend Lord Giddens for bringing this desperately sad medical condition to our attention again this evening. While reliable statistics are a problem at the centre of this debate, and one that I shall return to, we understand from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence that 1.6 million people in the UK are affected by an eating disorder, of which 11% are male, the vast majority being young women. Hearing and reading about the case studies of some of these young sufferers is a sobering experience. The self-loathing, hugely distorted body image and seeking after some control—any control—over their bodies, is enough to make one ashamed of the societal pressure that we have put on these mainly young people. The cycle of bingeing as a self-punishment for not losing enough weight, as they see it, is often accompanied by self-harming and, in extreme cases, a spiral into sectioning and force-feeding. Children, parents and the whole family are affected as the young person tries every device possible to starve themselves. Trust is replaced by fear and worry.

Why, we ask ourselves, should a significant proportion of our young people want to starve themselves in 21st century Britain in order to have some control over their lives? Is it the pressure put on them through advertising and the media to attain someone else’s idea of the perfect body? Is it the connections made by society between thinness, worth and value? Is bullying on the internet exacerbating the problem, and does the easy access to internet pornography reinforce a falsehood about the way young people, especially young women, should look? We should do all we can to reinforce young people’s confidence and sense of their worth. In a time of austerity, we should think once, twice and three times before applying cuts to young people’s services.

In conclusion, there is at present a lack of data detailing the number of people in the UK suffering from an eating disorder. Although the Department of Health provides hospital episode statistics, they include only those affected by eating disorders who are in-patients being given NHS treatment. Those figures leave out those being treated in the community, as out-patients and privately, and those who have not been specifically diagnosed with an eating disorder. Could the Minister ensure that the Department of Health conducts reliable surveys to provide us with accurate statistics in future? This condition can blight a young person’s life for years and years and, in extremis, kill them. We have to reinforce our work in this area and our commitment to our precious young people.

20:20

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, on initiating this debate. I agree with everything that has been said so far. This is an extremely important subject, which we should address more often, both in this House and in another place. In a very densely packed sentence in its College Report 170 of 2012, the Royal College of Psychiatrists said:

“Eating disorders are serious mental disorders with high levels of physical and psychological comorbidity, disability and mortality”.

It is not just a free-standing condition, in other words.

Anyone who has ever been close to a serious eating disorder knows that it can prove extremely debilitating to the whole family in which the sufferer lives. Indeed, it is an ordeal for families that can lead to permanent effects, even if the person concerned appears to recover, although there can be and sometimes is good recovery. If there is to be good recovery, it is vital that there should be early interventions, which must be the right ones—not just any intervention. In too many parts of the country, the wrong intervention is provided because the services needed for that person are simply not available. If a sufferer from anorexia needs cognitive behavioural therapy, it may damage them to give them drugs, and vice versa. It is a very subjective illness.

My perception of how the illness is treated throughout the United Kingdom is that it is very unevenly dealt with. For a number of years, I was a Member of another place for a constituency in rural Wales. Today, as then, the services available in rural Wales—in an area affected by its rurality—are far less clear and certain than in many urban areas.

In opening the debate, the noble Lord referred to the internet and I agree with him entirely about its effect. There are far too many sites on the internet that worship the slender. I am shocked, too—for I still sometimes see teenage magazines in my household—by the primacy given to thinness in magazines. These are everyday, perfectly respectable magazines, purportedly edited by responsible people. With my children, stepchildren and grandchildren, who regard me as quite a decent sort of shopper, especially if there is a credit card in my pocket, I sometimes go into well known clothing stores. Some barely have anything larger than a size 10, yet that is a very small size which probably truly fits a minority of young women in their undieting state. It seems shocking that we are not capable of addressing in a more realistic way the natural state of our young women and young men.

I also believe that there is a complete failure in outcome monitoring, as the Royal College of Psychiatrists has said. We would have more consistent services if we knew the results. We even talk about paying for prisons by results but we do not pay for psychiatric services by results. It seems to me that one way of disciplining the relevant providers of services would be to judge their results. If they do not perform properly, someone else is available to do the job. The principles applicable to child safeguarding standards, which include removing child safeguarding from local authorities in certain circumstances, should also be applied to psychiatric and psychological services, especially those affecting eating disorders.

There are some innovative ideas around which really are not all that innovative. In some respects, it is a case of returning to what happened in the past. However, I suggest to your Lordships that annual medical examinations of every schoolchild, up to and including year 11, could be introduced. Looking around the House, those examinations were certainly undergone by everybody who is here today. Very simple and rudimentary checks, such as weighing, measuring and looking at teeth and feet, tell you an awful lot about a young person, especially if the figures can be compared with those taken a year or a term ago. I do not understand why we have abandoned these rudimentary measures, apparently on the grounds of cost, when any cost-benefit analysis shows that this kind of examination saves a great deal of money further down the line.

Finally, I wish to say a word in favour of school nursing and school health services. They seem to have been abandoned in an awful lot of educational institutions, yet the rumour mill that takes children to the school nurse saves lives. I wish we could look at that more closely for the future. There is a great deal to do and we do not seem to be doing it.

20:26

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Giddens for promoting this very important debate. I commence by declaring an interest as a trustee of the charity Action on Addiction, which provides day and residential accommodation for people suffering primarily from drink and drug addiction, but additionally we have many people who are cross-addicted. We deal with people with eating disorders, gambling difficulties, sex addictions, nicotine problems and a whole list of difficulties. Invariably, it is unusual to find a person with just one addictive issue that we have to address.

Anorexia nervosa is an extraordinarily difficult disease to deal with. The level of success when people leave at the end of treatment is often fairly small by comparison with the progress that can be made when dealing with people with drug and alcohol addictions and indeed, to a degree, with those with obesity. It is on the obesity side—the other eating disorders—that I wish to address my remarks. I address them as a founding member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Obesity, which is due to be launched in Parliament on 16 April and is long overdue. I hope that there will be a good response to it from the Government.

Last week, I was moved when I read the report highlighted in the Guardian which referred to the UK as the fat man of Europe. The full-page coverage of the report from the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges referred to the almost unstoppable growth of obesity and said that the number of people falling ill with it is almost beyond what can be coped with by the NHS. The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges is united—as are many other people—in seeing obesity as a problem of epidemic proportions and one of the greatest public health crises currently facing the United Kingdom.

I wish to pose a number of questions to the noble Earl on that topic. Does he agree with what the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges stated last week? What do the Government think about the report? The academy wants a dramatic increase in efforts to counter obesity and has made 10 recommendations for action. Time does not permit me to go into those tonight, but I specifically ask the noble Earl to address one of them. It asks the NHS to spend at least £300 million over the next three years to tackle the serious problem of the shortage of weight management programmes so that more patients can be helped in a supportive and sensitive manner. Since reading this, it is difficult to find the extent to which support is currently being given. As I will tell the Minister in a moment, people indicate that that support is declining rather than increasing.

I also heard in the course of my inquiries last week that an estimate has now been made that more than 70% of the million people employed by the NHS are classed as obese. Could the Minister please make an observation on that? As the principal person responsible for employing them, could he say what he intends to do about it, as it is an area in which the Government have a degree of responsibility?

Secondly, last week, prompted by the prospect of this debate, I went to visit an outfit in south London called Discovery. It is an organisation in the private sector, verging on a charitable operation, which provides two levels of service: contracts with the NHS to provide direct weight management programmes for individuals who are obese and in real trouble; and training for people in the NHS and related bodies who are endeavouring to start weight management programmes for those who are classed as obese. Discovery tells me that it is extraordinarily fearful about what the future holds for it under the changed arrangements set out in the Health and Social Care Act, which comes into force on 1 April. It says that the PCTs, which previously provided funding and contracts, are now disappearing. The contracts are also disappearing and not being renewed anywhere. Many weight management providers are facing the possibility that, although we have this growth in obesity, unless something happens in April, they may well go out of business later in the year. This is apparently a fear held not just within the organisation I mentioned but elsewhere as well. Therefore, I would like to know what the Minister intends to do about the immediate problem faced by people in this arena, when all the calls are for greater investment, not less.

20:32

[Baroness Gale]

My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lord Giddens for bringing this important debate before us tonight. As others have said, it is well known that the majority of those who suffer from food disorders are women, but there is a growing problem now among men. Many people who suffer from food disorders turn to websites for help, but often these websites glory in anorexia, giving tips on how to eat even less or avoid eating for long periods. Chatrooms are available to give more encouragement to continue not to eat.

I looked at some of these websites yesterday. They show photographs where all one can see are young women with their bones showing through their skin; they are horrific. One site even had the “Thin Commandments” for eating less. I will mention just three:

“Being thin is way more important than being healthy…Thou shall not eat fattening foods without punishing yourself accordingly… Losing weight = Life, Gaining weight = Death”.

Only last week, the Sunday Times Style magazine featured the fasting diet, which advocates the “5:2 diet”, which involves fasting for two days every week and then “the pounds will disappear”. This new fasting trend has been widely reported this month, with another national paper even working its way through an all-month diet plan, including a list of recipes for 200-calorie “fasting suppers” to help us on our way. The Sunday Times article encouraged people not to overlook the importance of rigidly counting calories and cutting down to one meal per day. It quoted a woman teacher at the University of Illinois, who said:

“If you are having more meals, be very careful about measuring exactly what you eat. Don’t guess. People don’t realise how calorie-dense certain foods are. You can blow 100 calories in less than a minute, which, in this scenario, is not good”.

It also includes advice from a woman professor at the University of Surrey’s psychology department, who said:

“If I get through the next two fast days, I can buy a new lipstick or treat myself to a massage. If I stick to four fasts, I can buy that new pair of shoes”.

Frankly, it is absolutely disgraceful to suggest that if you give up food you can buy yourself a new lipstick or a new pair of shoes, especially these days when people have to go to food banks. Yet, a national newspaper tells us to give up food and buy a new pair of shoes.

These articles tell women that it is okay to fast. Whether they are overweight or underweight, they are being told that it is okay not to eat and that body shape is the most important thing about them. It is well known that body image and low self-esteem affect many teenage girls. There is social pressure in which the fashion and advertising industries play a part. There are many ways in which responsible behaviour within these industries can be promoted.

My noble friend Lady Kingsmill, who I am pleased to see in her place tonight, produced a report for the British Fashion Council in 2007 called the Model Health Inquiry, which made 14 recommendations, including one that no model should be aged under 16 and that the ban should be rigorously enforced. I believe that that recommendation has been accepted. Will the Minister say whether the Government are working with the fashion industry to implement all 14 recommendations in the report, especially the one which says that Ministers and British fashion industry sponsors should review the level of financial support to the BFC as a matter of urgency, to allow it to sustain the wider role proposed in this report? I appreciate that the report is six years old but perhaps the Minister can say something about working with the fashion industry on this matter.

How do we get the message across to vulnerable teenagers and those who need help? Where do they go for help? Is the information on food disorders advertised in GPs’ surgeries? What support is given to schools and further education colleges to advertise on the premises? Is there a case for teachers learning how to look for the signs and then offering practical support? Left to themselves, sufferers may seek help on websites and get the unhelpful advice that I spoke of. We know that advertising works and I hope that the Minister will be able to give some idea of what help the Government can give in the places where young teenagers are.

20:37

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Giddens for initiating this debate. As we have heard, the causes of eating disorders are both complex and multifaceted. At times of stress many of us resort to what is euphemistically called comfort eating, and the consequential results impact on self-esteem that can cause a very negative spiral.

Whatever the physical or psychological factors are it does not help that in our modern society we are constantly urged on the one hand to look sleek yet on the other to consume fattening foods. More often than not the food industry through its advertising campaigns manages both in one ad. Why is it that only on television does the person stuffing a bar of chocolate down their mouths appear to be so thin?

The excellent work of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Body Image has shown that the constant portrayal of the man with the perfect six-pack or a young woman in a bikini does have an impact. It has highlighted the growing evidence that body image dissatisfaction is high, and on the increase. It is associated with a number of damaging consequences for health and well-being. We should contrast this with the way we are encouraged to eat foods packed with calories and made up of saturated fat and simple carbohydrates, the two food types most likely to make us put on weight. I remain concerned that so many so-called low-fat products are packed with sugar and calories.

Eating disorders can stem from a combination of issues, including distorted body image and low self-esteem. As I know from personal experience, someone with an eating disorder is very good at hiding the fact, often using a great deal of deception to fool the person or people to whom they are closest. This partly explains why there is a lack of data on the number of people who suffer from eating disorders. However, as we heard tonight, the numbers are great and the costs to the individual, their family and society can be devastating. Although eating disorders are considered to be a young girl’s disease, they can affect anyone at any stage in life, and up to 20% of sufferers are male.

It is clear that early intervention is vital. However, that relies on greater openness and understanding of the issues on the part of all of us. The excellent campaign launched by the eating disorder charity Beat just two weeks ago used as its theme, “Everybody Knows Somebody”, to flag up the fact that these illnesses are far more common than most people think. The Minister for Women and Equalities, Jo Swinson, in supporting the campaign, highlighted the fact that we are bombarded with all kinds of images, and that we need to equip young girls and boys to be more resilient to these pressures.

The Government’s Body Confidence campaign has worked for the past 18 months to identify non-legislative solutions to tackle the causes of low levels of body confidence. It is a great initiative that includes representatives from the health and fitness, fashion and retail, youth and education, media and advertising, and beauty sectors. That is to be welcomed, but we still have a fashion industry that portrays extremely thin women and girls, and we have also heard that we face a proliferation of websites promoting images of anorexic girls. What assessment has been made of the impact of the Body Confidence campaign? What action will the noble Earl’s Government take against these appalling websites? What action are they taking about the growing number of eating disorders among men?

The NICE guidelines on the treatment of eating disorders, published in 2004, are due for review in 2014. Many excellent services exist—we have heard about them tonight—but what impact will the new commissioning arrangements have on the fragmentation of these services? In my own area there is now a six-month waiting period for the first appointment for someone referred by a GP. Will the Minister ensure that best practice is maintained and that the gap between youth and adult services is addressed? Is it not time for a more coherent government strategy that encourages us all to understand better that what, when and how we eat really matters?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, for securing this short debate on eating disorders, not least because it affords us a twofold opportunity: first, to let sufferers and their families know that their voices and experience are influencing what we do at the highest levels of government; and, secondly but no less importantly, to give prominence to a range of disorders that so often are hidden.

The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, described eating disorders as desperately sad. I agree with her. The statistics are grim. Anorexia nervosa has the highest mortality rate of all psychiatric conditions. It disrupts education and quality of life, and in 20% of cases continues to create difficulties in independent living for up to 10 to 20 years after the onset of illness, as a number of speakers said.

Although relatively little research has been done into long-term outcomes for bulimia nervosa, binge-eating disorders and other less well known conditions, anecdotal evidence suggests that these disorders can, for a significant cohort of patients, have equally life-limiting, long-term consequences. These disorders can affect anyone at any time, regardless of gender, but most cruelly the peak age at onset for the majority of sufferers is the mid-teens.

The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, asked what the Government’s policy is in this area. The answer to that has several strands to it. Early intervention is vital, and that is why it is a key national priority for the Government. Our cross-government mental health outcome strategy, No Health Without Mental Health, takes a life course approach, recognising that the foundations for lifelong well-being are already being laid down before birth and that there is much we can do to protect and promote well-being and resilience through the early years, into adulthood and on to a healthy old age.

The strategy’s implementation framework, published last July, sets out that public services intervening early is one of the 10 key changes that will be needed to turn the mental health strategy into reality and the specific actions which local organisations can take to achieve this, including: children and their parents receiving evidence-based health promotion from birth; public services, including GPs, recognising people at risk of mental health problems and taking appropriate timely action; and schools taking a whole school approach to supporting all pupils health and well-being, including both universal approaches and targeted services for those at risk of developing mental health problems.

We are investing £54 million over the four-year period 2011-15 in the Children and Young People’s Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme to drive service transformation, giving children and young people improved access to the best mental health care by embedding evidence-based practice and making sure that whole services use session-by-session outcome monitoring. In February 2012 the Government announced a further £22 million over three years to the CYP IAPT programme. Some of this money will be used to extend the training offered by CYP IAPT to two further therapies—systemic family therapy and interpersonal psycho therapy. These therapies are invaluable in addressing some of the major mental health problems of adolescence, including eating disorders, as well as providing much needed support for the families of those affected.

The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, mentioned the tragic case of Laura Willmott. I, too, saw that coverage. I know that transition can be a huge issue, often pitching sufferers and their families into crisis at a critical time. Sudden changes in treatment and services can be bewildering and dangerous for patients and their families, and parents can find themselves excluded from decisions about care. I was very struck by the powerful remarks of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, on this theme. Charities such as Beat and Anorexia & Bulimia Care, which do so much to raise awareness as well as provide support and advocacy in action, are working with experts in the field on the feasibility of improvements to the care system, with a specific focus on introducing the option for students to receive care wherever they are.

It is this kind of grass-roots action that will make the difference the Government envisage when we have freed up health and social care services from micromanagement, empowering localities to make vital decisions that are tailored to meet the needs of their communities.

My noble friend Lord Carlile referred to the variation in services. I recognise his concern. New arrangements for the commissioning of services for eating disorders should also result in better planning and co-ordination of specialised services, greater equity of access, care and outcomes for patients, and a more proactive and systemic approach to service development, research and innovation. The child and adult specialised eating disorder services will be commissioned by the NHS Commissioning Board from April this year.

Within the board there will be a central team that will have a clear focus on specialised services organised around programmes of care. The team will develop a national service specification for each service while at the same time ensuring that it is sensitive to local needs. Work on eating disorders services has been underpinned by expert clinical reference groups on eating disorders and child and adolescent mental health services. The groups have explicitly recognised that targeted work is needed on the issue of transition.

However good our intentions, beneficial change does not always keep pace with the urgent desire of patients and families to feel the impact of those changes, but there are areas where direct action can yield swift dividends. The Time to Change programme, England’s most ambitious programme to end mental health stigma and discrimination, now has the potential, with funding from the Department of Health and the Comic Relief fund, to reach 29 million members of the public with its vital messages on mental health. As is so often the case, it is the courage of individuals as evidenced recently in a debate in Westminster Hall in which Mr Brooks Newmark spoke. Events like that do much to challenge stigma and secrecy, and I think the honourable Member is to be commended for shining the light on an underreported aspect of eating disorders. The fact is that they are not simply the preserve of teenage girls. Male sufferers are growing in number, and I shall have something more to say about that in a moment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, asked what we are doing to work with the fashion industry, a question echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. I commend the assiduous work of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Body Image under the expert chairmanship of Caroline Nokes. The Government’s own Body Confidence campaign has made great strides over the past two years in encouraging a more open and public conversation about body image. Working with a range of representatives from health and fitness, fashion and retail, youth and education, media and advertising, and the beauty sectors, we have been active in a number of areas: research, parent education, resources for teachers, industry awards and promoting public debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, my noble friend Lord Carlile and the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, spoke powerfully on the theme of websites. I am aware of the growing evidence of pro-eating disorder websites. They attract impressionable young people and intensify weight/shape anxiety as well as, disturbingly, introducing users to new methods of losing weight, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, told us so graphically. What can the Government do about this? Legislation is not the answer. Many of these websites are set up by young people with an eating disorder and we would not want to criminalise an already vulnerable group, while other websites are hosted overseas. However, we are committed to joint working with charities and the internet industry to speed up the reporting of damaging web-based content and the blocking of harmful websites. In January, my honourable friend Norman Lamb hosted a round table with key stakeholders on this very issue where, encouragingly, the development of a concordat was discussed. The Government will support this joint endeavour in whatever way we can.

The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, asked whether we recognise the link between these disorders and obesity, while the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, also spoke on that theme. The answer is that we do recognise it and we are doing a whole host of things to combat obesity, some of which I have referred to in your Lordships’ House before. Weight management funding will in future be addressed through the new public health system, but most data on eating disorders come from charities such as Beat, particularly in its report on the costs of eating disorders in England, as well as surveys and reports from the royal colleges and other professional bodies. The Health and Social Care Information Centre published its annual mental health bulletin last Tuesday. It provides information on eating disorders for the first time, and I commend it to noble Lords as a reference point.

The mandate to the commissioning board makes it clear that the NHS should measure and publish outcome data for all major services by 2015, broken down by local clinical commissioning groups. To support that, the Government will strengthen quality accounts, which all providers are legally required to publish.

I have a great deal more material, but signals are being sent to me that my time is running out. I would like to address all these issues in letters to noble Lords, particularly those concerning men with eating disorders; my noble friend Lord Alderdice’s question on research that we are helping to fund; and the role of schools, which my noble friend Lord Carlile and the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, asked me about.

In my own researches in this area, I have been much struck how many of those affected talk about how worthless and disempowered they feel. I think it is appropriate for me to use this opportunity to send a clear message to them: you are valued, you are not invisible, and with the right, targeted support, recovery is not only possible but probable.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Monday 25th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Committee (1st Day) (Continued)

20:56

Amendment 8

Moved by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

8: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Motability Operations leaseholders
(1) A person who is—
(a) a recipient of a sum or sums specified in subsection (4), and(b) a leaseholder of a car, powered wheelchair or scooter from Motability Operationsmay petition the Secretary of State if, during tax years 2014-15 and 2015-16, the sum or sums specified in subsection (4) are insufficient to allow them to meet their obligations under the lease specified in this subsection.(2) On receipt of a petition under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must increase the amount of the sum or sums specified in subsection (4) received by the petitioner to a level sufficient to make the payments required under the terms of the lease specified in subsection (1), or arrange for equivalent additional payments to be made to the petitioner to allow them to meet their obligations under that lease.
(3) The Secretary of State must, in each of the tax years ending with 5 April 2014 and 5 April 2015, consult Motability before making an order by statutory instrument increasing each of the sums specified in subsection (4).
(4) This section shall apply to sums—
(a) specified in regulations under section 79(3) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012;(b) specified in paragraph 11 of Part IV of Schedule 1 to the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 2006 (S.I. 2006/606).”

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, Amendment 8 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson. In moving the amendment, I am returning to a subject that I raised in your Lordships’ House on 17 January, 24 January and 13 February, and in a series of Written Questions that all relate to the issue of Motability.

During the debate on 17 January, I asked this question:

“Can the Minister confirm the Government’s own prediction, made earlier this month, that 27% fewer working-age people will be eligible for the Motability scheme once PIP is fully rolled out? Disability organisations say that the new proposal means that 42% fewer disabled people of working age will be eligible—an average of 200 people in every constituency”.—[Official Report, 17/1/13; col. 818.]

I received no answer from the Minister that day, and that failure to set out the Government’s own estimates of how many people will actually be affected has driven me to raise this issue yet again. On 24 January the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, the chairman of Motability, said that there are some 620,000 vehicles on the road,

“which is probably the largest fleet of its type in the world”.—[Official Report, 24/1/13; col. 1181.]

For Parliament to be asked to walk blindfolded into decisions that will result in some Motability users having their specially adapted vehicles repossessed is simply unconscionable. It is also deeply irresponsible.

One-third of disabled people live in poverty, and with some claimants losing as much as £150 a month if they fail to meet the newly tightened criteria—an annual loss of nearly £1,800—the situation is unbelievably bleak. The Disability Benefits Consortium, which represents more than 50 disability rights groups, reminds us that for disabled people, Motability vehicles are,

“their means of independence and participation, the lifeline that enables them to get to work, to GP appointments, to the shops, to take their kids to school”.

On 13 February, at the conclusion of the debate on the regulations, we got a little closer to the scale of what is about to happen. I quoted the figures and asked the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Freud:

“Does the noble Lord agree with those figures? If he disputes them, what figure would he give the House?”.

The noble Lord, Lord Freud, replied:

“My Lords, we know how many people will get the higher mobility component, a figure that will clearly be fewer under PIP than under DLA. I have provided those figures but, just for the record, the figure of roughly 1 million people on the DLA component in a steady state will reduce to roughly 600,000. That is the decline”.—[Official Report, 13/2/13; col. 741.]

When pressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, the Minister also remarked:

“Yes, my Lords, there is some churn”.

He added, after an intervention that I made:

“In closing, it is simply not possible for me to confirm, deny or reach any figures in answer to the noble Lord’s question on how many cars will go”.—[Official Report, 13/2/13; col. 742.]

Yet we are asked to sleepwalk our way into allowing people’s Motability cars to be taken away from them. I might remark that “churn”, when referring to people losing their means of mobility, strikes me as an unfortunate expression to put it mildly. It sounds like a calculating or statistical term when we are debating an issue with enormous human implications.

21:00

Amendment 8 has been accepted by the Public Bill Office and is in order because underpinning the link between the 2012 Act and this Bill is the fact that this Bill is about changes in the amounts of welfare benefits, and PIP is a welfare benefit. It is therefore in order to legislate on changes to any welfare benefit via this Bill, even those not originally included in it, and so, before it completes its stages, the Government and Parliament have the opportunity, if they so wish, to safeguard those who will otherwise see their Motability vehicles repatriated.

My amendment is simply a plea to the Government to think about providing a transitional arrangement—perhaps a two or three-year period of grace—for those who already have vehicles and who risk losing them. If this amendment does not achieve that objective, I hope that the Minister will at the very minimum say that the Government will bring forward on Report an amendment which does. This Bill cannot be used to change the eligibility criteria, but it can be used to prevent sequestration of vehicles.

At present, the enhanced rate of the mobility component is established by Section 79 of the 2012 Act. Section 79(3)(b) states that the weekly rate, or “the enhanced rate”, may be prescribed. Section 95 explains that “prescribed” means prescribed by regulations and Section 94 explains that these regulations have to be set out in a statutory instrument. The Government have committed that PIP will be linked to inflation. As the regulations setting the rate of PIP, the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013, agreed by the House on 13 February, do not make any reference—as we heard earlier today—to a link to inflation, the Government will need to announce new rates via statutory instrument each year. Therefore, subsection (3) of the proposed new clause in this amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult Motability before publishing the new rate.

Subsections (1) and (2) take a different approach. If an existing leaseholder of a Motability vehicle is being charged more by Motability than the enhanced or standard rate of mobility allowance awards them, they may under the amendment personally petition the Secretary of State for more money, and the Secretary of State would have to pay them—just the petitioners, not everyone receiving the mobility component—exactly enough extra money to meet Motability’s requirements.

I would like to prevent all the reductions which the Government are making to the Motability scheme, but this amendment does not do that—indeed it would be incapable of doing that at this stage. It takes the most extreme situation that will occur as a consequence of government cuts in public finance to save current users of Motability vehicles and to save the Government from the disaster of being seen to be responsible for taking away a lifeline for some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

Let me share one or two comments which I have received. The following letter arrived just this morning from a Mr and Mrs Stanton who live in Uxbridge. They state:

“We are both terrified that we will lose any monies that we desperately need just to carry on a normal life and, may we add, just to exist”.

Mr Stanton says:

“I have Crohn’s disease and was born diabetic, and recently have had two stents fitted after a heart attack … We are not layabout scroungers as Mr Cameron would like to portray us both, but in fact both had jobs each, myself 38 years, but no time off except for holidays and my dear wife 27 years until illness stopped her in her tracks”.

I have also looked at some case studies which have been provided by some of the disability rights organisations. I have many of them, but I realise that time is at a premium, so I shall cite only one or two.

“My DLA helps me lead a more independent life, be less reliant on parents and feel less of a burden on family. DLA helps me do this as much as I can. Without it, I may as well give up. I know one thing: without it, I wouldn’t be able to work at all. Why is this the case? The car for one thing. Without my mobility car I couldn’t get to the local shops. I may only live a mile from the local shops and for most people walking this isn’t a problem but for me it is next to impossible”.

There is also this comment from someone living in a rural area:

“I will be one of the house bound. I live in a rural location and rely on my hoist in my Motability car to lift my mobility scooter in and out. I cannot self-propel my wheelchair far enough to be useful. So I will be stuck at home. I feel powerless to cope with it”.

Finally, there is this comment from someone in Wales.

“We live on a mountain in the Welsh Valleys. Even our main high street is on an incline. We have no roads that are on the flat. I had until March 2014 left on my higher rate mobility claim, and to lose my Mobility Car entitlement would condemn me to being virtually house bound. I do have a mobility scooter but this limits me to short distances and the mercy of the weather. My mobility payments help cover the running costs of my scooter electricity usage and repairs. My future is looking very bleak”.

Let me say a word about attempts to blur the responsibility for the loss of Motability vehicles in the kind of case studies that I have just alluded to. On 13 February, in answer to Written Questions that I tabled, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, said:

“As an independent charity, Motability is wholly responsible for the administration of the Motability scheme, including setting policy on the recovery of vehicles. We are continuing to work closely with Motability to understand what impact the introduction of PIP might have on its customer numbers and to ensure the smooth introduction of PIP as it relates to users of the Motability scheme”.—[Official Report, 13/2/13; col. WA 157.]

That is true only up to a point. Motability can run the scheme only with government support. Motability did not change the ground rules. Motability did not introduce PIP. The Government must accept responsibility for those changes.

What will we lose? What is at stake? Oxford Economics, in a report drawn to my attention by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and which the Library kindly made available to me, entitled Economic and Social Impact of the Motability Scheme and published in 2010, reminds us of the many important benefits that the scheme brings to its users and wider society. It states:

“The impacts are difficult to measure but one estimate suggests that by enabling people to visit family and friends more frequently, Motability increased its customers’ well-being by the monetary equivalent of up to £3.2 billion in 2009”.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, will take that figure and one or two others which I shall give in due course back to his noble friends and others at the Treasury.

The Oxford Economics survey found that almost all—99% of—Motability customers had participated in social activities outside their home in the previous month. The vast majority of customers—73%—said that they are more independent now that they have a Motability car. Of those, 49% said that they are a lot more independent. It also found that having a Motability car improves disabled people’s financial independence: 60% reported that they were better off after receiving a Motability car. The car also significantly increases the degree of choice and control that customers have over their lives. Their average ranking of the extent of choice and control they have rises from 3.8 to 7.9 after receiving a Motability car. The car also affects disabled people’s financial independence. Of the Motability customers surveyed, 60% reported that, taking all the impacts of the car into account, they were better off after receiving the car rather than purchasing their own car or using other forms of transport. That was particularly the case for the youngest age group, the three to 24 year-olds, who would be expected to have the lowest income and wealth. The qualitative discussion groups consulted said that the financial benefits were secondary to the other benefits that having a Motability car brings to disabled people’s lives.

Having a Motability vehicle enables disabled people to make spontaneous and independent decisions to travel to places and to undertake activities of their own choosing. That increases their independence. Having a Motability car also enables disabled people to enhance their social lives. Since getting the car, 60% of customers said that their ability to visit family and friends had improved. In this comprehensive study, estimates are made of the economic value of some of the social impacts that are enabled by disabled people having a Motability scheme car. The study of social impacts has been able to quantify amounts of up to £1.3 billion a year in worth to the economy. In addition, customers’ enhanced ability to visit family and friends is worth the monetary equivalent of £3.2 billion.

Are we really willing to cast aside all these gains and condemn disabled or immobile people to revert to living without transportation? Even worse, are we really willing to sanction reforms that will result in existing vehicles being taken away from users who have qualified for their vehicles under arrangements already legislated for by Parliament? I cannot believe that a decent, humane or civilised country would do this and I trust that the Minister will give the principles that underline the amendment serious consideration and, before forcing us to divide on this at a later stage, will promise to come forward with transitional arrangements to prevent these sequestrations and repatriation of vehicles occurring. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Alton of Liverpool has very clearly explained the amendment to which my name is also attached. I declare an interest in that I am in receipt of disability living allowance, but I do not have a Motability car. I have used the scheme in the past when I was first able to drive, because it was the only realistic and economical way that I could have become mobile.

At the briefing that was held on the PIP regulations on 22 January 2013 with the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, and the Minister in another place, Esther McVey, it was my understanding that the timescale for someone having to return their car if they were no longer eligible for PIP could be relatively short, perhaps just a matter of a few weeks. At the briefing, the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, the chairman of Motability, expressed a strong wish to do as much as possible to help people. However, I do not believe that Motability has too much room for manoeuvre.

I will not relive the debate around the 20 to 50 metres issue—I am sure your Lordships’ Chamber has heard enough from me on that matter. However, my concern is for those who have very expensive adaptations, which are what they require in order to drive—they could be left without an adequate method of getting around—and for people who live in an area where public transport is not terribly accessible. The short timescale between notifying someone of their car being removed and it being taken away could make life extremely difficult. Without some further protection, it could lead to chaos for many disabled people.

I am also concerned that there is perhaps not a lot of sympathy for some people in receipt of DLA. In the media, they are often referred to as people with a “free car”. The Daily Mail just today ran a cartoon which trivialised those who claim DLA, and compared a disabled person who was eligible for DLA to someone who had a blister on their foot. DLA helps a disabled person with the additional costs of disability—transport being significant—and the individual in many cases also has to pay a deposit to access the Motability scheme. If a disabled person was notified that their car was being removed, the amount of unused deposit would be paid back to the individual, but this could quickly be used to pay for extra costs such as taxis. As a comparison, the journey from King’s Cross to Westminster by tube is relatively easy and costs a few pounds. That is easy enough for someone who is not disabled, but if you are a wheelchair user, it costs £17 in a taxi—or that is what I paid today. It would be easy to see how quickly the money returned from a deposit could be spent.

If at a later stage, on appeal, it turns out that the person did indeed qualify for the appropriate level of support, then a new deposit would have to be found, ahead of the budgeted date, and they may not have that money available. A new car would have to be found and adapted, and the process therefore starts again. Of course, we do not know what the potential success rate at appeal is at the moment, but if people have at least the guarantee of running through to the end of their contract for a Motability car, this would give many a more adequate time to make other provision.

I have heard many people say, “Well, disabled people should just use public transport like many others”. I do not disagree with that. Public transport is okay but, in many cases, is not much better than that. London is perhaps one of the best cities in the country for disabled provision, and I declare that I am a board member of Transport for London. However, “patchy” is the best word that I can use to describe transport outside London.

My noble friend Lord Alton talks about spontaneity. He is absolutely right. Motability cars are essential for spontaneous trips as well as for getting to work or hospital, and for taking your children to school. As a wheelchair user, I have to book train travel 24 hours in advance; trains have only a couple of wheelchair spaces. I am always grateful if there is an accessible toilet on board, but the situation is not great if you are going from London to Darlington. It is not easy for disabled people spontaneously to travel by public transport. I know of at least one ongoing court case around disability access to public transport and I was informed this morning of one major bus company whose wheelchair spaces do not give priority to wheelchair users. There is so much work that needs to be done in this area.

A Motability car gives access to work and hospital, as I have said, at, I believe, a considerably lower cost than that of local authority or other services, or indeed of pushing the cost elsewhere if the car is removed. A too-hasty removal of vehicles from disabled people does not really protect those who need them.

21:15

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I am very surprised to see the need for this amendment. Usually, when benefit changes are introduced, it is standard practice not to take them away from those who are currently in receipt of them. If the Government go ahead with the provisions in the way that is currently envisaged, it is clear that they will effectively be depriving people of a benefit which they currently enjoy, because what is a Motability car if not a benefit? It is every bit as valuable as a cash benefit and I find it difficult to imagine that the Government seriously intend to strip people of benefits which they currently enjoy.

I am very sorry that I missed the first couple of minutes of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I do not know whether he referred to the numbers but he cited the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Freud: that in a steady state the number of disabled people with mobility difficulties in receipt of personal independence payment will reduce from about 1,000,000 to 600,000. I am given to understand that of those, it is estimated that 27% might have a Motability car. I believe this equates to about 200 Motability cars per constituency. That is a large number of people who are likely to be beating a path to their MP’s surgery with a very real grievance. I hope that the Government will take that into their calculations when considering whether to press ahead with this provision.

I remember several occasions when Lord Newton, who is sadly no longer with us, would taunt the Government when we came to debate provisions of this sort—the bedroom tax was an example and others could be thought of—with the fact that changes of this character would not survive five minutes once they had been introduced and aggrieved constituents were beating a path to their MP’s surgery. That is the situation which the Government are facing with this provision, if they press ahead with it.

I cannot believe that the Government seriously intend to proceed with a measure which will take Motability cars out of the hands of disabled people who currently rely on them for their mobility and without which they will effectively be rendered prisoners in their own house. I will be interested to see what the sense of this Committee is as we listen to the debate but I would be very surprised if there was not widespread sympathy for this amendment right across the House. I beg the Government to take this one seriously and to make a constructive response to the very full case set out by my noble friend Lord Alton and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I also support the intention behind the amendment. I declare an interest as a vice-patron of Motability, while two members of my extended family—though not my immediate family—enjoy the use of Motability cars.

A number of us at first welcomed and were appreciative of the amount of consultation that the department engaged in concerning the new regulations for PIP, only to learn that, at the very last moment and without consultation, the Government had made two amendments, one of which was to withdraw the magic words “safely”, “reliably” and so on, while the other allegedly clarified what was meant by “virtually unable to walk” by confining it, as of right, to a territory of 20 metres, as opposed to the original territory of 20 to 50 metres that had informed previous decisions.

The Government, rightly and sensibly, moved on the first of these amendments and reinstated the test for the higher-rate DLA mobility component by introducing the key words “reliably”, “regularly”, “accessible” and so on, but failed to move on the second on the issue of 20 to 50 metres, assuring us that it made no difference in practice. When they were pressed on the statistics, however, the “no difference in practice” turned out to be a very real difference. Although the noble Lord, Lord Freud, suggested that of the 1 million, 600,000 would retain it and 400,000 would lose it, that was not the complete figure because 200,000 people who are currently on the lower-rate mobility allowance—needing psychological supervision and so on—would move up into the higher group, so there was a net loss of 400,000 but a gross loss of 600,000 people in higher-rate DLA who would now lose it, although to some extent that would be compensated for by the further 200,000 coming in from the lower group. Still, the gross figure is something like 600,000.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I am delighted to acknowledge that I am drawing on the Oxford Economics report that came out in December 2010, which is full of very valuable figures on this. We know from that report that about 28% of people on higher-rate DLA turn that mobility component into a Motability car. There are currently around 543,000 people driving a Motability car on the basis of three-year leases, and around 185,000 new cars are bought each year by Motability. It is the largest purchaser of new cars in the country, accounting for about 10% of them. This will have serious ramifications for jobs and the car industry, which Motability does so much to support.

However, I am not even going to argue about that. I am arguing on behalf of what Motability does for people’s independence. I remember being struck many years ago, back in the late 1990s when I first met the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, by what she said about the Independent Living Foundation. She said, and for me this was a mind-changing moment, that the ILF, which gave people what we now call personal budgets—generous, or at least adequately generous, sums of money to enable them to employ their own carers and so on—put that disabled person at the centre of the care system, not as a recipient at the end of that system, so that people could determine what time they went to bed and so on. The same is true of a Motability car; it puts the person who is enabled to drive it at the centre of their mobility, not dependent on the charity, good will, altruism, convenience and so on of other people. Of those people who have a Motability car, something like 76% of them drive it themselves, so it becomes their means of movement. The result of that is that it frees not only them to be mobile but their informal carer as well, because without that transport they are totally dependent on someone else to take them to places where they need to go. As one person quoted in the Oxford Economics study said, if they are housebound—that is, without that car—it makes their informal carers housebound too. Removing the car locks two parties into immobility.

The report goes on to show us how effective the Motability car has been in enlarging the horizons of people’s lives. It shows that, for example, most of the recipients had cars in the past that they could no longer use by virtue of their arthritis or their heart problems. Whereas before their disability two-thirds of the recipients of cars were in work, subsequently only 16% were able to hold down paid employment. The Motability car helped 12,500 of them get a job and 56,000 to keep their job. It was crucial for those who needed specially adapted cars that they could not provide for themselves or for people in rural areas, such as my county of Norfolk where, frankly, public transport is non-existent and a complete myth. That car took some of them—16%—to work; it took younger ones into education and training, allowing them, in due course, to get work; it took them to their medical appointments, the shops, their children’s schools and to see their families. It allowed them, as one of them said, to access life. This is what the Government are apparently proposing to take away.

We all accept that people’s disability needs can diminish over time, or may increase over time, but for the most part, those who have reached the threshold of higher-rate DLA continue to have very real and substantial mobility problems wherever that line is to be drawn, whether at 20 metres or 50 metres. Therefore, like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I urge the Government before Report to hold discussions with the noble Lords, Lord Sterling and Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and come up with a way forward on this. We have to have a transitional period—a period of grace—on this, either to the end of the lease or for a two-year period, whichever comes last, which would, at the very least, allow adequate time for the appeals procedure to go through without people losing a car in the mean time and then having to go through the routine that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, described to regain it.

We had a similar discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Freud, about adapted houses. At one stage, if people were underoccupying a house that had had £20,000 spent on adapting it, they were to move from there, go somewhere smaller and have all the adaptation put in again, but good sense prevailed. The Minister agreed that where such money had been invested it was wise for those people to be allowed to stay. That argument makes sense for the home, and it makes sense for the agency of mobility which is the Motability car. That transitional period of grace, whether it is to the end of the lease or for a two-year period, whichever comes last, would prevent the awful situation of cars being taken back in and piled up in scrapyards because nobody would want that supply of used cars on the market when there will not be the purchasing power to buy them. We would not see Ford and the rest of them finding that they suddenly had closed order books, and we would not see people losing their cars, appealing, regaining them and having to go through all the trauma of these arrangements.

At the very least, there is a huge moral, legal, practical and economic obligation on the Government to provide a way forward to allow that transitional period—that period of grace—to allow those who feel that they should keep their car to appeal and, I hope, to retain it and to allow those whom it is deemed must lose their car time to adapt. Without it, I warn the Minister that she has seen nothing yet.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I shall start by setting out our position. We certainly support the thrust of this amendment and the intention behind it. We certainly support the concept that there needs to be consultation between the Secretary of State and Motability. The precise formulation of proposed new subsection (2) of the amendment needs careful consideration of the idea of benefits being on an individual basis rather than more generally, but I do not think that particularly concerns the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I think the idea is to press the Government to come forward with some transitional arrangements.

We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, a comprehensive and passionate argument in favour of the amendment. Indeed, he has been assiduous in following this issue and has been leading on it now for some months. It is probably fair to say that, in all the discussion, the to-ing and fro-ing and all the consultation that was undertaken on the move from DLA to PIP, this did not originally have the prominence that it should have had. The efforts now to ensure that it is properly focused on are very important.

21:30

We have heard the reasons why Motability is so important to people. It enables them to visit family and friends, gives them financial independence, enhances their social life, enables spontaneous activity, enables getting children to school and offers access to work. However, there was some debate when we discussed the DLA/PIP regulations about how access to work would be substituted for in some way. The Minister’s response at that time was that it was under consideration. Having thought about that, if access to work can be a means of providing support, it would deal with only one of the reasons why people need and enjoy Motability arrangements. It would not cover all the other social components.

The arguments in favour and understanding of the importance of Motability arrangements to users cannot be overstated. It is hugely important. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Low, that there is no transitional protection for these arrangements. That is something which the Government should take on board. The root of this problem, of course, is that the Government have failed to allay the alarm about access to the enhanced mobility rate of PIP, given the new 20-metre walking criteria. Although we know that it is the Government’s position that, as a practical matter, they do not believe that it makes a difference, that is not how it is seen by people currently in receipt of DLA. The Government have a real job to do to; they must articulate more effectively why that is the case, if it is. We have not heard it effectively to date.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to a whole raft of questions that he had raised, particularly when we were dealing with the main regulations on this, which remain unanswered. I hope that he, and those of us here tonight, could receive a full follow-up on that before we get to Report stage.

What is being asked for here is a transitional arrangement which means that people do not in short order lose a Motability vehicle that has made a real difference to their lives and enhanced their quality of life, and without which their life would be diminished. It is not only a question of the individual’s quality of life. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, cited a number of figures about the savings to society—the costs that society does not have to incur because of these arrangements and the freedom they give to people who would otherwise potentially remain isolated and not be able to live so independently. Certainly, they would not be able to rely on public transport which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said, leaves something to be desired in some places, although not all.

Not only do the Government seem to be in a difficult position if we are to have wholesale repossession of Motability vehicles—I cannot believe, as others have said, that the Government really want to face that—but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said, we do not know what scale of appeals will be driven by these arrangements and all that that will entail for the department. It is incumbent on the Government, at the very least, to commit to take this issue away tonight, to seriously address how they can help those tens of thousands of people who are at risk of losing their Motability vehicle in short order, the effect of which would be really quite devastating on lots of individual lives. I do not believe that the Government want that. Undertaking to address this issue and the transitional arrangements tonight would go some way to alleviating the concerns that many people have.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. In responding, first, I will address the points that I have put under the heading of “uprating” and then come to issues linked specifically to Motability and PIP. I want to make it clear, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Alton, acknowledged, that this Bill, which is about capping the annual increases of certain benefits to 1%, does not include DLA or personal independence payments. It is really important that that is properly understood by everyone when we are discussing this matter.

If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Alton, correctly, having acknowledged that PIP is not part of this Bill, his amendment would seek to require the Secretary of State to consult Motability every year before he sets the annual rate of increase on PIP. However, I do not think that that is necessary. As I have said, PIP is excluded from this Bill and would be subject to a CPI increase. If there were any shortfall in the benefits over the course of a three-year lease and if the PIP annual uprating was to affect the level of benefit that a person was due to receive, any change in the rate of the enhanced mobility component would not impact on a claimant with a Motability lease directly because that would be borne by Motability as part of the risk to it of operating the lease.

Governments have worked with Motability for more than 30 years and, as I understand it, thus far we have never required protection for Motability leaseholders in the way that the amendment suggests. As noble Lords are well aware, the Motability lease is a private agreement between the claimant and Motability. It is entered into without any influence from the department. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, just under one-third of eligible claimants uses Motability.

That being said, I absolutely understand the points made in this debate about how those who take advantage of the Motability scheme value the vehicle provided. Therefore, it is essential that Motability remains available to those deemed eligible to receive it. Sometimes, as regards the way in which noble Lords talk about the changes that are being made, the impression could be given that the Motability scheme is coming to an end for everyone. We absolutely understand the importance of Motability. It is an important scheme and people must continue to have access to it, albeit that fewer numbers will have access than up to now.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

This is the Committee stage, not Report. The Minister said that we were suggesting in the way we talked about the numbers that this was in some sense a catastrophic activity—that the Motability scheme might come to a close, and so on. But on the figures that she has more or less confirmed for us, something like 600,000 people currently getting a higher rate of DLA will not get the enhanced rate of PIP. Just under 30% of all those on higher rate DLA turn that into a vehicle; that is just under one-third. So of the 600,000 people who lose the benefit, something like 185,000 or thereabouts of people who currently have a car will lose their car. That is not small beer.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I do not think that the noble Baroness heard me say that it was small beer. That is not the point that I am making at all; I am making the point that Motability is incredibly important to people, but it will still continue. Yes, some people will not be eligible for it in future, and I know that those who will be affected will feel it very strongly. However, I want to make the point that sometimes in the way in which this is talked about the impression can be given that we are removing Motability from everyone. That is clearly not what is happening.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

I am sorry that the Minister feels that that impression is being given. It is certainly not the intention of myself or, I think, anyone else who has spoken in debates to suggest that everybody is going to lose Motability. But one problem that we face is that we are all debating in the dark, because the Government have not been able to provide figures to tell us how many people are likely to lose Motability. It would be extremely helpful for us to know that. Perhaps the noble Baroness could also confirm that in this year’s annual report Motability said that about £17 million was given by way of government aid, and that the Government will support the scheme by about the same amount during the next 12-month period. By what amount will it be reduced in the next four or five years? That will give us some hint of the reduction in the number of vehicles that will be available.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I will have to write to the noble Lord on that question. I do not have that information in front of me.

I was going on to say that we are continuing to work closely with Motability to understand what impact PIP might have on the number of people who use the service and ensure that they are well placed to manage the introduction of the new benefit. Because Motability is based on an individual’s choice, it is difficult to predict the impact on Motability customer numbers from the introduction of PIP. Noble Lords have referred several times to what my noble friend Lord Freud said in response to other debates on this topic. I am not in a position to add to what he said at that time.

I understand that it would not be the noble Lord’s intention in pressing this amendment, but it is worth pointing out that one effect would be to give some kind of different treatment to those who had chosen to use Motability versus those who have not. We need to be careful that we do not run a risk of discriminating against those who have chosen not to use Motability. I am sure that that is not what the noble Lord intends, but it is worth making the point that there is a risk in that.

I move on to issues around Motability itself. As noble Lords have acknowledged there has been recently—only last week—an extensive debate in the House about the new regulations introducing PIP. The amendment does not address the issue of those eligible for PIP or the higher rate, once the transition is made from DLA to PIP. The amendment refers to the steps that the Secretary of State must take if someone who is a Motability leaseholder finds that they do not have sufficient sums to meet their obligations under the lease. In the case of someone who does not receive the enhanced rate of PIP, the amendment would not have an impact, as the person in question would not be eligible for a lease. That is an obvious point but it is worth mentioning.

21:45

As noble Lords have said, the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, as chairman of Motability, is looking at how Motability can help to mitigate the impact of the measure for those who may be affected by the move to PIP. Measures could include allowing people to purchase their scheme car, providing a package of information and advice, and allowing them to retain use of their vehicle for a short period after their benefit payments stop to give them time to make other arrangements.

Several noble Lords questioned the adequacy of the process whereby somebody is able to retain their Motability vehicle for 28 days between a decision being made and the point at which Motability has said that it would have to recover the vehicle. These proposals are certainly consistent with what happens now. The proposal for the 28 days is not a new arrangement affecting a transition from DLA to PIP. This procedure would happen now if somebody was no longer considered eligible for this provision.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

The noble Baroness made two points. The first was that the vehicles will be offered for sale to existing users rather than them necessarily being repatriated. Will she explain to the House what research has been done by the department and by Motability to establish how many people would be in a position to afford to buy their own vehicle? What work has been done to look at the maintenance costs of those vehicles, should they purchase them?

The noble Baroness went on to describe the circumstances in which people would be able to keep the vehicles if an appeal was pending. Surely that is precisely what this amendment is seeking to do: that is, to find transitional arrangements in all those circumstances. Would it not therefore be sensible for the Government to take the amendment away and to come forward with an amendment that does all the things that it seems to me we are agreed we need to address?

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

On the point about the cost of purchasing, all the evidence suggests that a Motability car in effect acquires through its VAT exemptions and tax exemptions something like a 40% discount on what it would cost to hire a similar car in the private market, and that is before any adaptations. Given the level of income of disabled people and the poverty that we know so many of them face by being out of the labour market and having the additional costs of heating and so on associated with their disability, I cannot see how that would be a realistic option for all but a very few of them.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

All I am able to add to what I have already said is that the department is continuing its discussions with Motability to see what arrangements can be put in place to ease this burden on people as the process of replacing DLA with PIP comes on board. We expect Motability to have some measures in place by the autumn of this year. However, on the basis of this debate, I will certainly go back to the department and obtain further information about where we are with those discussions and what evidence is being examined as part of that process.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, asked about advance payments that people make when leasing an expensive car with specialist adaptations and whether they lose that money if they lose eligibility, even if they are successful on appeal, as they will have lost the car. If someone loses their car as a result of PIP reassessment, any advance payment outstanding will be returned on a pro rata basis. I realise that that does not address the whole point, but I hope that it goes at least some way to addressing it.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, asked about the use of Motability cars for work and whether people who might not have access to a Motability car might be affected by this and lose their jobs. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said that in any case he thought that what my noble friend Lord Freud had said about the possibility of the use of access to work as a way of addressing some of these measures might not be an adequate response.

Although my noble friend had said that discussions were going on to see whether access to work was one way of addressing the concerns of some people who would lose Motability under PIP but who might be able to use access to work as a way of funding a car for use for work, if I understood the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie correctly I think he said that this was not satisfactory because it would not address social issues. I understand what he is saying, but I think that none the less while not addressing all the issues he has raised this is an important facility that is available to disabled people to apply for. If there is a way of using that facility to help people to fund their Motability vehicles in the future, I hope it could be made possible. I would not want it to be diminished just because it does not address everything.

Finally, my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson, if I may call her my noble friend, also raised the issue of public transport, particularly outside London. I will not go into any great detail, but I am aware that the Department for Transport as recently as December published an accessibility action plan for public transport, particularly focusing on transport outside of London, and outlined what measures could be taken to improve facilities on public transport. If she would like more information on that, I will happily give it to her and put her in direct contact with the Department for Transport if she would find that helpful. I am sure the department would welcome hearing about the experiences she faces regularly on her extensive travel up and down the country.

I absolutely appreciate the concern that has been raised by noble Lords in the debate tonight that people want to see Motability remaining available for disabled people as an affordable scheme. The benefits in question are not part of this Bill, as I have already said, and I do not believe that there will be a shortfall between these benefit rates and the obligations that people have as part of an outstanding lease in the years in question. However, even if such a shortfall were to arise, Motability would absorb the cost, so the impact would not fall on the claimant. I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness feel able not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

As we are in Committee, we can come back to the Minister as many times as we wish on this. I just want to pick her up on this, if I may. She has said nothing at all—unless I am being unfair to her, and I certainly do not mean to be—about the main thrust of all the arguments put by my noble friend Lord McKenzie, myself, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, the noble Lord, Lord Low, and, above all, the noble Lord, Lord Alton: that what is needed, at the very least, is a decent transitional period of grace. All that the noble Baroness has offered is the existing 28 days. That applies now, so there is no change. What movement, if any, is the Minister willing to offer us on the key point about having a transitional period of grace for those who will lose? Some 100,000 people—or 185,000, which is my crude estimate—could lose their cars in a relatively small space of time. Without a transitional period, there will be huge problems. What can the Minister tell us about that transitional period?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I regret that in the context of this Bill I am not in a position to be able to offer the noble Baroness the kind of response that I know she is looking for. I will, as I have promised, go back to the department and discuss further with colleagues and Ministers the issues that have been raised in the debate tonight. They are clearly important issues. I can see why people wanted to raise these concerns in the context of this Bill and I do not have any problem with the fact that this has been debated and discussed tonight. However, I am not in a position to offer the kind of assurance that the noble Baroness is looking for, but I will go back to the department and follow up in writing with further information, as I am able to, after I have had those discussions.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, for her reply, and especially her assurance that she will ponder on some of the things that have been said in your Lordships’ House this evening and discuss them with officials and come back to us in writing. I also thank my noble friends Lady Grey-Thompson and Lord Low, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for their contributions to this evening’s debate.

The Minister is quite right that this would not be the ideal vehicle; it is not the ideal amendment. No pun is intended. But you have to take what you can in parliamentary life and this is the only Bill that is before Parliament at the present time that is capable of amendment on this crucial issue. I felt that it was incredibly unsatisfactory when we debated this issue last, when it was lumped in with a number of other unamendable regulations that we took one after another. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, rightly said, this is not an issue that has been given sufficient attention in either House during the progress of all the Bills and regulations that have been proceeding, yet it is one that causes great anxiety outside your Lordships’ House. If the estimate that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has given is correct—that 185,000 vehicles could be affected—that should give us all pause for thought. We should all stop and think about the implications for the owners and users of those vehicles. It will place limitations on their freedom of travel and their ability to get to work, schools, health appointments, shops, engage in social life, and all the other issues that have been raised during the debate.

It is also extraordinarily unfair on Motability, particularly on the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, who does such important work on behalf of disabled people throughout the country and who is held in such high esteem here in your Lordships’ House. It is unfair to expect people to operate in the unknown. I was surprised, therefore, that the noble Baroness was unable to confirm whether the £17 million mentioned in the annual report of Motability will be the figure for the following years. I am grateful to her for saying that she will establish what the figures are. That will give us some idea of where the balance of responsibility then truly lies. Obviously, we cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. If Motability has not been given adequate resources, it will not be its fault if vehicles then come to be repatriated.

I was struck by what the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said about the appeals process. I tabled some Written Questions just a week or so ago involving that issue, among others. I tabled four Questions and got eight lines by way of reply in which the noble Lord, Lord Freud, said that the Government have no plans to fast-track appeals to Motability customers or provide financial support to the Motability scheme to help those people who lose their vehicle through personal independence payments reassessment. It could not be clearer that not only will there be no resources made available if this position continues to apply but there will be no plans to fast-track appeals from Motability customers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, rightly told us, in the 28-day period that people will have it will simply not be possible to deal with the avalanche of appeals that will arrive.

The noble Baroness also said that there had never previously been a need to protect Motability users in the way that is set out in the amendment. However, never previously were there circumstances in which people’s Motability vehicles were going to be taken away from them. Never before were we confronted with the sequestration or repatriation of vehicles that were awarded to people as a result of a properly established process created by the department and indeed by Parliament.

The noble Baroness also said that the amendment discriminates in favour of those who have opted into the scheme. Of course, that is true. I would rather that everybody who will find their mobility allowance limited as a result of the changes will be assisted. However, simply because we cannot help every group, that is not a reason for not helping any of them. Not being able to solve the problems of the entire world is not a reason for not helping anyone.

My modest amendment simply sets out to help users of the scheme at the moment as they stand to lose their vehicles. I hope that we will address what will effectively be an even worse form of discrimination should that proceed. The amendment simply seeks to create what the noble Baroness referred to as a period of grace—the time in which the issue can be resolved. Nobody should be placed in the invidious position of being told that if they cannot afford to buy their vehicle—we are talking about vast numbers of people who by definition are living below the poverty line and so will not be in a position to buy, maintain and continue to run their vehicle—it will be taken away from them.

I do not believe that the Ministers who are sitting on the Front Bench are the sort of people who would happily or willingly see such a set of circumstances occur. That is why I hope that between now and Report it will not be left to my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson, me or others to bring forward an amendment that by definition the Government will say does not do this or that. I hope that the noble Baroness will use the Bill as an opportunity to put right something that will otherwise come back to haunt many people, including the Government, in ways that I do not believe they would wish. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

Clause 2 : Up-rating of tax credits for tax years 2014-15 and 2015-16

Amendments 9 to 10A not moved.

Clause 2 agreed.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 10.03 pm.