House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
1. If she will bring forward legislative proposals to introduce a modern slavery act.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Government have a strong record on tackling the appalling crime of human trafficking. We have a clear strategy, robust legislation, good-quality support for victims, and strong enforcement against offenders, both in country and at the border. We are also working closely with our international partners to tackle the problem at source. Today is the 206th anniversary of the Act for the abolition of the slave trade, as well as the international day of remembrance for the victims of slavery, and it is entirely right that my hon. Friend reminds us of the issue today. We must continue our efforts to eradicate human trafficking, which can indeed be seen as a form of modern-day slavery.
Fiona Bruce
I thank the Home Secretary for that reply. She has stated that fighting human trafficking is a Government priority, but with the number of victims found increasing month on month, what consideration has been given to a new initiative such as an independent commissioner?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue, which has also been raised by others. The Government are not convinced of the need to introduce an independent commissioner and we have, we believe, a very effective inter-departmental ministerial group, chaired by my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration. Crucially, that group includes not just representatives from Departments across Whitehall, but also from the devolved Administrations, and we believe that that is working well. It is necessary, however, to consider continually our effectiveness in this area, and we will keep the work of the inter-departmental ministerial group under review to ensure that it is carrying out the effective work that we want it to do.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister has made ending modern-day slavery one of his top priorities. Does the Home Secretary welcome, as I do, the fact that he will open the hidden slavery in UK constituencies exhibition in the House of Commons on 22 April?
Mrs May
I am pleased at the excellent news that the Prime Minister will open the exhibition, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work in chairing the all-party group on human trafficking and on bringing forward that exhibition. I am sure that it will remind us not just of the hidden trafficking that exists in UK constituencies as a result of cross-border trafficking but also—unfortunately—of the fact that trafficking takes place within the United Kingdom.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
2. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of neighbourhood policing.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
We know that the public want a visible police presence, working with them to identify and tackle issues in their communities. Year on year the crime survey for England and Wales shows that that approach to policing is valued by the public, helping to build public confidence and bring crime down by 10%.
Simon Hart
For neighbourhood management to be really effective it requires the active involvement of other Departments such as those for health and housing. That works quite well in Dyfed-Powys, but is the Minister happy that it is working well everywhere else?
Damian Green
I agree with my hon. Friend that, for neighbourhood policing to be completely effective, it requires not just the police to work with others, but also with other Departments. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has written to chief constables and police and crime commissioners to emphasise that it is important, particularly in the field of mental health, for the police and the health service to work better together than they have in the past and to improve their response to that particularly vulnerable group of people. There is always more that we can do on that.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
A few weeks ago the Mayor of London said that he would not close front-office counters in police stations unless he could replace them with a superior— or equivalent—service. Today he closed 63. Does the Home Secretary agree with the assessment of the Daily Mail, which a few weeks ago described the Mayor as “faintly ridiculous” and changing his mind “every five minutes”?
Damian Green
I understand that as part of the changes to the overall policing and crime power, which, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, is the responsibility of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, 2,600 officers will be redeployed from back offices into neighbourhood policing. There should therefore be more police on the streets of London than before, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming that.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
The Mayor of London’s redeployment of counter staff will lead to 74 additional bobbies on the beat in a borough such as Barnet. Does the Minister welcome that redeployment of officers on to the streets?
Damian Green
I do welcome that redeployment, and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to it in his borough and other London boroughs. Getting effective neighbourhood and community policing is about officers rather than buildings.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister believe that someone who is set to leave London with fewer police constables and fewer police community support officers in 2015 compared with 2010 is a suitable candidate for future Prime Minister?
Damian Green
As this is Home Office questions, I will stick to the Home Office’s responsibilities, which include keeping our streets safe, which we are doing more effectively than ever before. Crime is down 10%, and it is down in the Metropolitan police area. I am sure the action the Mayor has taken today will make London’s streets even safer in future.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, Boris Johnson, aided by Home Office cuts, is to close 50% of London’s police stations, to lose 4,000 police constables and PCSOs, and to reduce police numbers in 17 of the 32 London boroughs. Will the Minister confirm that yesterday’s interview on “The Andrew Marr Show”, bad though it was, was the lesser of several evils the Mayor is inflicting on London?
Damian Green
I would have hoped that the shadow police Minister would have welcomed the fact that Metropolitan police crime figures are down by 3% in the past year, showing that the effective co-operation between the Home Office at national level and the Mayor’s office at London level is making London’s streets safer than ever before.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
3. What steps she is taking to record the employment status of foreign nationals who reside in the UK; and if she will make a statement.
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)
We are rolling out biometric residence permits to non-European economic area nationals in the UK granted leave for more than six months to make it easier for them to prove their entitlement to live and work. From next year, all non-EEA nationals will require a biometric residence permit, and we expect employers to check a migrant’s right to work prior to offering employment.
Gordon Henderson
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s answer, which I find encouraging, but will he explain how the success of that initiative can be monitored unless records are kept of where and by whom foreign workers are employed?
Mr Harper
I have two things to say to my hon. Friend. First, the sponsorship system provides a good mechanism for employers to track and record who is working for them when they come to fill skills shortages. Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will, with the roll-out of universal credit, collect as a routine matter the nationality of those who claim benefits.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
On the issue of foreign nationals and all others, is the Government’s response simply determined by the rise and threat of the United Kingdom Independence party?
Mr Harper
No, not at all—the speech that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made earlier today was informed by work that has been going on for a number of months in the cross-ministerial committee that I chair. It is a well thought-through policy area as we further tighten the immigration system. The hon. Gentleman will know that, since the Government came to power, we have reduced net migration to the UK by a third and will continue to reduce it.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the vast majority of people in this country will support his work and the emphasis in the Prime Minister’s speech? Nevertheless, there is still a net increase in immigration of 160,000 every year. Will the Minister assure us that he will continue to do all he can to reduce that number further?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend is right. We committed to reducing net migration from the unsustainable hundreds of thousands that it was under Labour to tens of thousands, which is much more sustainable. That is supported by the vast majority of British people, whomever they vote for. I am glad my hon. Friend also supports that policy.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I wonder whether the Minister could help me to spot the difference. Currently regulations and Department for Work and Pensions guidance for jobcentres state that EU migrants cannot claim benefits after six months unless they are
“genuinely seeking work, and have a reasonable chance of being engaged”.
The Prime Minister today, in what is supposedly a new announcement, said that migrants can claim after six months only if they
“can prove not just that you are genuinely seeking employment…but also that you have a genuine chance of getting a job.”
Is that not exactly the same? There is no difference at all—it is not a new announcement. How many people exactly does the Minister believe will be affected by this supposed change?
Mr Harper
The Prime Minister set out a number of changes today. The one the hon. Gentleman mentions ensures that there is a statutory presumption in the system, which does not exist today, that, after six months, people have to demonstrate that they are taking all possible steps to seek work and that they have a reasonable prospect of getting it. At the moment, there is no presumption that they must do so. That is a weakness in the system, which is why we will strengthen it.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
4. What steps she is taking to ensure that the UK’s visa system helps tourists and business people from China to come to the UK without a loss of control over immigration. [R]
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)
Last year, the UK Border Agency processed almost 300,000 visa applications for Chinese nationals, with 97% of visas processed within 15 days. China is a priority market for the UK, and we want to support both tourists and business people coming to our country.
Mr Walker
Following on from the Worcestershire business delegation that I took to southern China late last year, as per my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in June we have a return delegation visiting Worcestershire from Nanning. While ensuring that we have proper immigration controls, may I encourage Ministers to do everything they can to facilitate business visits that can bring bilateral trade and investment?
Mr Harper
First, let me congratulate my hon. Friend on his personal contribution to increasing UK trade with China. He will want to know that there was an increase in visit visas issued to Chinese nationals of 6% last year. In December, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out a range of improvements to the visa process, particularly to support business customers, and they will be implemented this year.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
5. What steps she is taking to improve the performance of the UK Border Agency.
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)
We have taken a number of steps to improve the performance of the UK Border Agency. As the Prime Minister said earlier today in his speech, we face a big task of turning around the tanker that is the UK Border Agency, and we will be setting out the next stages of those reforms shortly.
Lorely Burt
My constituent, Pooja Ramchandani, has been waiting for more than a year for a decision on her application for further leave to remain. The UK Border Agency target is for 75% of applications to be resolved within four weeks, and it has attributed the delay to additional work caused by the Olympics. Can the Minister confirm when the Olympics will cease to be another excuse given to people such as my constituent, a single mother whose child has permission for leave to remain?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend raises a specific case, and if she contacts my office afterwards, I will certainly look into it. Generally, on in-country performance, we have acknowledged that the UKBA was not delivering within its service standards in the past year. By the end of this month, however, it will be delivering the required performance standards in those cases, and I hope that that improvement will be sustained.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I welcome the helpful comments the Minister made in response to the publication today of the Home Affairs Committee’s report, and his commitment to having a service that has the confidence of the British people? It is important that we discuss immigration in an open and transparent way, whether in the Prime Minister’s speech this lunch time, or in last Friday’s speech on bonds by the Deputy Prime Minister. Does he agree that we cannot implement the proposals unless the UK Border Agency is fit for purpose and we have cleared the backlog of a third of a million cases? Is it not time to take the agency back firmly under the control of Ministers?
Mr Harper
I thank the right hon. Gentleman both for his question and for his work in chairing the Home Affairs Committee. I see the Select Committee as a partner with the Government, challenging us and ensuring that we keep focusing and improving the agency’s performance. Although it is an agency, I had not noticed in the past year any difference in the level of accountability that either he expects from me, as a result of its performance, or from this House, as is evidenced by these questions. However, I will reflect further on what he has to say.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow two excellent questions on the same issue. The Home Affairs Committee report on the UKBA published today has some astonishingly poor figures. In quarter 3 of 2012, 18% of tier 1 visas were processed within four weeks—astonishingly bad. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to try and fix that. Does he agree that we cannot have a coherent, fair and credible immigration system when the agency is performing so atrociously?
Mr Harper
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work on the Home Affairs Committee. I agree: the figures for quarter 3 last year were not good, and I acknowledged that in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt). I am pleased to be able to say that by the end of this month, the UKBA will be making decisions for tier 1 visas and others within the service standards that it sets out to its customers, and which they have a right to expect.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Successive Ministers have come to the House of Commons and tried to defend the work of the UK Border Agency. Is the Minister aware that time and time again the agency admits, and has to admit, to a backlog of thousands of cases that have not been dealt with and that go back years—sometimes five, 10 or more? That is a shambles, and the sooner that is recognised by the Government, the better it will be.
Mr Harper
I would say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, while the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice was doing this job, and since I have been doing it, we have not gone out of our way to defend the agency. We have acknowledged that it is a troubled organisation, but it has many hard-working and dedicated staff and we should not have broad-brush criticism that neglects the work they do. On his specific question about old cases, particularly legacy cases, I simply say that the Government inherited about 500,000 cases from Labour, which we have largely got under control. We are working through a relatively small number of cases and will get that done in the next few months.
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)
6. What steps she is taking to tackle cybercrime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
The Government’s approach to tackling online crime is set out in the national cyber-security strategy, which is underpinned by a £650 million programme of new investment over four years. This includes strengthening law enforcement capabilities by establishing the national cybercrime unit, which will lead the national and international response to tackling this issue.
Simon Wright
Many security experts report that small and medium-sized businesses are increasingly targeted by cybercriminals, but are not always well equipped to protect themselves. What progress are the Government making to ensure that small businesses get the support they need to pursue new business opportunities online with confidence?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend raises an important point about awareness and ensuring that we equip the public and business with the best advice and guidance on how to protect themselves from the threat from online criminals, which we do through Get Safe Online. We are focused equally on small businesses, however, which is the point he makes directly, and this spring the Government are looking to update the advice and guidance to business, focusing on those small businesses.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Cybercrime is not just about fraud; it is also about online bullying, which can devastate people’s lives and constitute a criminal offence. How confident is the Minister that local police forces have the expertise and the resources to deal with complaints about such crime?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the expertise within police forces. We are establishing the national cybercrime unit, not simply to deal with the most sophisticated, high-end internet crimes, but to be a centre of expertise and to make that expertise available to police forces up and down the country. That will put in place a more end-to-end approach in dealing with these forms of criminality, which cause so much harm.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
7. What assessment she has made of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Data Bill.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Government have committed to accepting the substance of all the Joint Committee’s recommendations. We are currently redrafting the Bill and are engaging with interested parties on our proposals. The Bill is vital to help catch criminals, including paedophiles, terrorists and members of organised crime, and we welcome the Joint Committee’s and the Intelligence and Security Committee’s conclusion that we need new law.
John Robertson
The Home Secretary obviously agrees with me that the Bill has been widely drawn and does not contain enough safeguards. What safeguards will she put into the Bill to improve it?
Mrs May
I can only repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I just said, which is that we will accept the substance of all the Joint Committee’s recommendations. It considered issues such as how widely the Bill was drawn and that of future-proofing, and we have accepted its recommendations. When it comes before Parliament, the Bill will be much more tightly drawn, in terms of some of the definitions and the issue of future-proofing. We are redrafting the Bill, and if he can be patient for a little while, I think when he reads it he will see that we have indeed responded to the Joint Committee’s recommendations.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary agree that the Joint Committee, on which I sat, confirmed the desperate need for new laws in this area—for one, to catch paedophiles and other types of criminals and terrorists—and so agreed with the Government’s policy of introducing such new laws?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend and all other Members of this House and another place for their work on the Joint Committee ably chaired by my noble Friend Lord Blencathra. Obviously, we have looked at the details of the Joint Committee’s proposals, but it was striking that, on a cross-party basis, every member agreed that we needed new legislation in this area.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
8. What support her Department is providing to police and crime commissioners and local authorities to tackle illegal Traveller sites.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
Both police and local authorities have powers to tackle unauthorised encampments. I understand that the police and crime commissioner in my hon. Friend’s constituency, Katy Bourne, is working with the community to understand and respond to its concerns about unauthorised Traveller encampments. This is an example of the value that police and crime commissioners can bring to local policing, getting to the heart of the issues affecting communities on a day-to-day basis.
Henry Smith
I join the Minister in paying tribute to the Sussex police and crime commissioner, Katy Bourne, for getting to grips with the illegal Traveller problem in just four short months. Does my right hon. Friend think that the Human Rights Act is a problem for law-abiding residents in dealing with this issue?
Damian Green
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Katy Bourne’s work. I am not an unqualified admirer of the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998, but the clue to what he said was when he talked about illegal Traveller incursions. There is no legal right to trespass: landowners, local authorities and the police have a range of powers available to remove trespassers and regain possession of land, and I would encourage them all to use them as strongly as possible.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
9. What progress her Department is making in reducing net migration to the UK.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
12. What steps her Department is taking better to manage immigration.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
17. What progress her Department is making in reducing net migration to the UK.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
As has already been referred to this afternoon, the latest statistics show another significant fall in net migration—down almost a third since June 2010. This shows that we are bringing immigration back under control. Our tough policies continue to have an effect, and this marks a further step towards bringing net migration down from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands by the end of this Parliament.
Nigel Mills
I welcome the fall in net migration. Can the Home Secretary confirm to the House that it was caused by fewer people coming to the UK and not more people leaving, as some have suggested?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The figure for net migration is reached by looking at the numbers leaving and the numbers coming in. The Office for National Statistics has been absolutely clear about the statistically significant fall in immigration and net migration, and it is the fall in immigration that has led to the fall in net migration.
Alun Cairns
The new “Life in the UK” test comes into force this week. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it should focus on encouraging immigrants to play a full part in British life, rather than teaching them how best to claim benefits?
Mrs May
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and that is exactly what the new “Life in the UK” test does. We have revamped the requirements for people taking the test. It is no longer about water meters and how to claim benefits, but enables people to participate fully in our society. It has sections on British history. The test enables people to understand what being resident in the United Kingdom is about and how to participate in our society, and I think that is absolutely right.
Mr Baron
The nation has always been tolerant of persecuted minorities—quite rightly—and, indeed, seen the benefits of immigration, but controls under the last Government collapsed into an absolute shambles. What more can the Government do to control immigration for the benefit of public services and how confident are they that the Prime Minister’s proposals, announced today, will be implemented in time for the EU transitional controls, ending at the end of the year?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out that, despite the significant falls we have seen in net migration, it is necessary for us to continue to look at the routes for migration into this country and the so-called pull factors and to ensure that we are enforcing our rules. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s speech today is important because it sets out the importance of embedding immigration across Government as an issue that is not just for the Home Office, but for other Departments. That includes the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health, and, indeed, local government. We are clear that we will do all we can to deliver those parts of my right hon. Friend’s speech that can be delivered before the end of this year. For anything that requires legislation that goes beyond that, we will maintain our commitment to it, despite the transitional controls coming off at the end of this year.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Can the Home Secretary confirm that net migration of British citizens has fallen by 47,000 under this Government because fewer British citizens are returning home and more are leaving? Does she regard it as a successful immigration policy if two thirds of the reduction in net migration under this Government is down to fewer British citizens in this country?
Mrs May
I have to tell the hon. Lady that her question is based on a false premise. It is not the case that two thirds of the fall in net migration is due to the number of British people leaving. The Office for National Statistics is absolutely clear that the significant fall in net migration is due to a fall in immigration.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
We need a firm, fair and sensible immigration policy, but that is confused by the inclusion of international students in the net migration figures. Those students contribute about £5 billion to the economy. America does not do that, Australia does not do it and Canada does not do it. Why do we continue to do it?
Mrs May
We continue to keep students who are staying for more than a year in the calculation of those who are immigrants into the UK because it is an international definition. It is the definition used around the world. It is very simple: those who are staying here for more than a year have an impact on public services and on the UK more generally. I am pleased to say to my hon. Friend that our policy of differentiation means that we have been cutting out abuse in the student visa system, while at the same time the number of overseas students applying to our universities has gone up. We are welcoming the brightest and the best.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
10. How many requests for a reconsideration of a decision to refuse leave to remain are outstanding; and what the oldest such cases currently being reconsidered are.
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)
The UK Border Agency has approximately 14,000 requests for reconsiderations outstanding. The oldest request dates back to 3 March 2010. It is worth reminding the House that these are all people who have had a decision on their application and have either exhausted their appeal rights or chosen not to appeal, so they have no right to be in the United Kingdom and they should leave.
Simon Hughes
I am grateful for the Minister’s answer. Now that the Home Office has agreed to reconsider all the cases in this category as soon as possible, will the Minister and his colleagues look at whether there could be a system for prioritising those cases that are clearly in urgent need rather than simply working through a date system, which I have to say has been pretty random in the past?
Mr Harper
The point I made at the beginning still stands. These are all people who have had a decision and have been refused the right to remain in the UK after going through the full appeal process. For those who submitted a reconsideration request prior to our policy change last November, we will work through all their cases in order. If the right hon. Gentleman has a clear case of where there is a particularly compassionate reason for looking at it earlier, I would welcome him getting in touch with me; otherwise, we will work through the cases in date order.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
Given those answers, will my hon. Friend confirm that the greatest single reason for the backlog in the UK Border Agency is the tendency of courts to go on allowing more and more appeals, thereby lengthening the process?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend is right that when the UKBA makes decisions, people in settlement cases frequently have a right of appeal. Some of those processes can often be very lengthy, so we will keep on considering whether there are ways of making the system smoother and more streamlined.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
11. What steps she is taking to increase the use of CCTV in communities where it is wanted.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
The Government support the effective use of CCTV to cut crime and protect the public. It is for local agencies to determine how best to deploy and use CCTV systems to meet local needs. Our surveillance camera code of practice will help them to do so.
Barbara Keeley
The context in Greater Manchester is that we have lost 825 police officers from the front line since 2010. In fact, Salford is now losing 27 police officers and nine police and community support officers to other parts of Greater Manchester. Given that context of losing such a lot of the visible police presence that reassures the public, why does this Minister and other Ministers also want to make it harder, which it will be, for the police and local authorities to get CCTV?
James Brokenshire
One point on which the hon. Lady might like to reflect is the fact that crime in Greater Manchester is down by 11%. We are not seeking to make it harder to get CCTV. The hon. Lady may shake her head, but we are not. We are supporting local communities in their approach. The fact is that, yes, CCTV can help to make a difference, but it also needs to command the support of the public. That is precisely what the code of practice seeks to assure.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
Since the last election, one in five councils has cut the number of CCTV cameras on the streets. Why is that?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Lady has clearly not reflected on the answer that I have just given. Ultimately, it is for local communities to decide what works best in their area. She quotes a figure, but no evidence of widespread reductions in town centre CCTV systems has been brought to our attention. Our code of practice is simply about supporting local communities. We believe in the use of CCTV. The problem under the last Government was that they spent hundreds of millions of pounds without working out whether the CCTV systems actually made any difference to cutting crime. That is our focus; that is what we will support local authorities to do.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
13. What assessment she has made of the number of student visitor visas issued in the last year for which figures are available.
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)
In 2012, 68,372 student visitor visas were issued, 11% more than in 2011. Such visitors come to take short courses or to attend university summer schools. Most can stay for up to six months, but in order to support English language schools, we now allow those taking specialist English courses to stay for up to 11 months on extended student visit visas.
Lilian Greenwood
The UK Border Agency’s border inspector has warned that student visitor visas are open to abuse, so why has the number of people entering the UK with them risen by 76% under this Tory-led Government?
Mr Harper
The hon. Lady ought to check what the chief inspector actually said. All he said was that the UKBA should monitor the route to ensure that it was not being exploited, and that is exactly what it is doing. If the hon. Lady looks at the nationalities in relation to which we have reduced the number of tier 4 visas, she will see that there is no sign of any increase in student visitor visas. In fact, nearly 50% of the people using the student visitor route are non-visa nationals, and a large proportion of those coming here with six-month student visitor visas are from the United States of America. There is no risk of abuse, but we remain alert to it and will ensure that we catch it out.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that the number of university visas has increased by 3% while at the same time the number of student visas is actually falling shows that it is possible to strip abuse from the system while also ensuring that the UK is open to the brightest and the best?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been a big drop in the number of students coming here, but that is because we have stripped abuse from the system. Five hundred fewer colleges are able to bring in foreign nationals, but, as my hon. Friend says, there has been an increase in the number entering our excellent universities sector.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
20. The Government have been caught napping by allowing the number of student visitor visas to rise by 30,000 since June 2010. Moreover, does the Minister accept that, in the words of Universities Scotland, he is damaging the brand of higher education by ensuring that genuine overseas students are included in the Government’s net migration target?
Mr Harper
That is a very good example of a Member reading out a question without having listened to my previous answer. The hon. Gentleman clearly did not listen at all to what I said in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen). The number of students entering our excellent universities sector has risen, both in the United Kingdom and in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman should also know that the student visitor visa is credibility-based. Entry clearance officers have full powers to say no to students if they believe that they are not genuine student visitors to the United Kingdom.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
14. What progress her Department has made on improving the detection and reporting of incidents of domestic violence.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
The Government have introduced new initiatives to improve the reporting of domestic violence. They include the domestic violence disclosure scheme pilot, and domestic violence protection orders to provide better protection for victims. Detections are, of course, a matter for the police, and we will continue to work with them to improve the reporting and resolution of these violent and abhorrent crimes.
Mr Slaughter
Preventing domestic homicides, which are still running at two a week, should be a priority for the Government, but leading victims’ organisations such as Standing Together Against Domestic Violence, in my constituency, are frustrated by the fact that the lessons of domestic homicide reviews are not being fed back to practitioners. Why is this essential work being delayed?
Damian Green
It is not being delayed. As I have said, these are indeed abhorrent crimes and continuing improvement is needed, but there has already been a great deal of improvement over the past couple of years. The Government have introduced two new specific criminal offences of stalking, have relaunched the teenage rape prevention and relationship abuse campaigns, and have extended the definition of domestic violence to include 16 and 17-year-olds and coercive control. All that shows the great seriousness with which we approach the issue.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
15. What assessment she has made of trends in the number of foreign criminals who have been deported since June 2010.
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)
The UK Border Agency removed over 4,500 foreign national offenders in 2012, and have removed over 11,000 foreign national criminals since June 2010. There has been an increase in the number of appeals being lodged against deportation, which is why we implemented changes in the immigration rules last July to prevent criminals facing deportation from abusing the Human Rights Act.
Graeme Morrice
The fact is that this Government are deporting 900 fewer foreign criminals a year than the previous Labour Government did. Why is this Government’s performance so poor?
Mr Harper
If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my previous answer, he would know that there has been a significant increase in the number of appeals lodged by criminals; in 2012, the figure increased by 1,000. That is exactly why we have strengthened the ability to remove criminals by implementing changes in the immigration rules, and to ensure that that is enforced by tribunals. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that we will take powers in primary legislation to do so.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Jamaicans and Nigerians make up a disproportionately large number of the foreign nationals in our jails. What assistance is my hon. Friend providing to the Secretary of State for Justice in negotiating compulsory prisoner transfer agreements with these two countries, and what progress is being made?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Nigerian Parliament has passed the legislation required to implement compulsory prisoner transfer, which means that in due course we will be able compulsorily to move prisoners to Nigeria, which I am sure he will welcome.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Might the trend in this area not be rather better if the Home Secretary had followed the advice of our hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), rather than that of others who have been consistently wrong?
Mr Harper
I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The amendment proposed by our hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton would in our judgment have made it more difficult to deport foreign national offenders, rather than easier. That is why the Government will look at introducing amendments to primary legislation, when we have a suitable legislative vehicle, to implement the commitments that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made to the House.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
16. How many local authorities have imposed a late levy on licensed premises to date; and how much income has been raised for policing as a result.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
The late-night levy was introduced in October last year. Since then a number of councils have been actively considering how a levy could benefit their area. The first formal public consultation to introduce a levy began in Newcastle last month.
Lyn Brown
I take that answer as being “absolutely none”. The Home Office told us that 94 of the 100 licensing authorities would impose the late-night levy, which would raise £10 million for police forces in its first year. Six months in, not a single pound has been raised. Is this not another illustration of the Government’s collapsing alcohol policy, and where is the Minister going to get the money from to police our night-time economy?
James Brokenshire
I find it quite interesting that the hon. Lady makes her point in the way she does, given that the last Labour Government promised that we would have a café culture, but instead we had 1 million violent crimes linked to alcohol. A number of councils are taking forward this policy, and we see this as a local issue: it should be for councils, with their police and crime commissioners, to decide if it works for them. That is precisely what we are doing, and I am surprised that the hon. Lady does not support local action to deal with the problems her constituents would like to see addressed.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
21. We hear about tough new licensing laws, yet no action is taken on tackling the problem of cheap booze, often consumed at home before going out. The Government’s alcohol strategy is obviously in disarray. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government have finally abandoned their plan to implement a minimum price for alcohol?
James Brokenshire
The Government have already taken a number of important steps to reform the licensing laws and strengthen the powers available to local communities to deal with the problem of alcohol-related crime. The Government have consulted on the important issues of pricing and low-cost alcohol. We are reflecting on the representations that have been received and we will respond to the House in due course.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
18. What assessment she has made of the capabilities of the police to record, investigate and detect rapes and serious sexual assaults.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
Rape and sexual violence are devastating crimes that ruin lives. We expect every report to be taken seriously, every victim to be treated with dignity, and every investigation to be conducted thoroughly and professionally. Our updated violence against women and girls action plan sets out our commitment to take a coherent approach to tackling sexual violence.
Mr Howarth
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Does he agree that people are sometimes being let off with a caution for lower-level sexual offences and that that is unacceptable? If he does agree, what is he going to do about it?
Damian Green
The Government will shortly be announcing a review of the caution regime. I am as determined as the right hon. Gentleman is to ensure that cautions, which provide a useful part of the criminal justice system, are used only in appropriate circumstances. I should say that the number of cautions used in cases of serious sexual abuse is low, with such cautions tending to be used for young offenders, for reasons that are clear in each individual case. However, I rather share his concerns about the use of cautions in this field.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
19. What assessment her Department has made of public support for reducing net migration.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
As my hon. Friend will have heard, I have made a number of references, in answer to earlier questions, to what we have done on net migration. I can confirm that the British public see immigration as the third most important issue facing Britain today—that was the response to an Ipsos MORI poll in February.
Jason McCartney
I commend Conservative Ministers for the progress they have made in cutting net migration by a third, as they head towards their target of tens of thousands. May I give them further encouragement by telling them that a recent YouGov poll showed 63% support for that target among Labour voters, even though the Labour party opposes the target?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I was aware that public opinion polling showed that eight in 10 British adults support the Prime Minister’s pledge to reduce net migration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands. I am encouraged by the fact that such a high percentage of Labour voters also support the target—it is just a pity that that message has not got through to Labour Front Benchers.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
T2. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Next month, Sir Jonathan Evans will move on from his role as director general of the Security Service, and I wish to pay tribute to Sir Jonathan for the 33 years he has dedicated to the service. During that time his contributions have varied from investigating counter-espionage, developing and implementing key policies on security, and, most recently, countering the threat of international terrorism. He has experienced the service evolving over the years and as director general has led the service through particularly challenging times of change and unrest, including the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings. His tireless work helped to ensure the delivery of a safe and successful Olympic and Paralympic games last year. I commend and thank him for his invaluable contribution to public safety and national security.
Lorely Burt
Recent Government legislation seeks to abolish appeals for family visitors, but one third of appeals currently succeed. Would it not be better to get a proper decision in the first place than to go through the whole process all over again?
Mrs May
We looked at this issue closely and what is clear is that in a significant number of cases the initial decision was not wrong on the basis of the information available at the time it was taken; in so many cases further information is put into the system between the initial decision and the appeal, and the appeal is then decided on a different basis. It is slightly cheaper, and it will take less time, for individuals to make a further application rather than going through the appeals process. As this is the only part of the visit visa system that has this appeal, we think it is right that we change the rules for this particular category.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
May I, too, give our thanks for the work that Jonathan Evans has done over many years for the security of this country? The Prime Minister has spoken today about immigration, and it is right to have conditions on benefits and public services, but will the Home Secretary confirm that she has no estimate of how many people, if any, will see any change in their jobseeker’s entitlement as a result? Will she also tell us why the number of employers fined for employing illegal workers has dropped by 42% since the election?
Mrs May
The Prime Minister has made a wide-ranging speech today, in which he has referred to a number of areas where the Government will be taking action to ensure that the United Kingdom is not seen as a soft touch and that people who come here are coming to contribute to our society and to our economy—that will be across the board in relation to benefits and to matters such as access to the health service.
Yvette Cooper
The Home Secretary did not answer my questions about whether the policies will have any impact, how many people will be affected by the new policies or why enforcement has become consistently worse since the election. Unannounced checks have fallen by more than 30%, the number of foreign criminals deported has fallen by 16% and there has been a 50% drop in the number of those refused entry to Britain since the election as well as a 50% increase in the number of long waits for asylum decisions. There is also the point I raised with her initially: the number of employers employing illegal workers being fined has dropped by some 40% since the election. What will the Home Secretary do to improve enforcement and the effectiveness of the system so that people can have confidence that it is working? It has got worse since the election, not better, so what is she doing to improve enforcement?
Mrs May
The right hon. Lady lists a range of issues, so let me pick one that has already been answered by my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration—that is, the one about foreign national offenders. My hon. Friend correctly said that the number of appeals from foreign national offenders has increased. In 2012, there were about 1,000 more such appeals, which extends the time it takes to deport those individuals. I will not take any lectures on how to deal with immigration from the party that left our immigration system in such chaos. We have spent three years bringing control into the system and we will continue to do that. On the back of the Prime Minister’s speech today, we will enhance enforcement and ensure that people who come to this country do so to contribute to our society and our economy; Labour did not do that over 13 years.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
T3. Intelligent use of new technology is bound to be vital in the fight against crime, whether through online crime maps or better IT procurement, but will the Government deploy it with due regard to liberty and privacy?
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
I am happy to give my hon. Friend that reassurance, and he is right. Online crime maps are useful in giving citizens knowledge about crime activity in their area; they are still hugely successful and two years after the launch of police.uk in January 2011, the site receives more than 200,000 hits a day. However, with street-level crime maps we have taken great care to ensure that the identities of individuals are protected because the balance between civil liberties and effective crime fighting is very important to us.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
T4. Following the Secretary of State’s Government’s 20% cuts, Nottinghamshire has lost more police officers than any county in the east midlands and police morale is badly hit. After cutting police numbers and bungling the police and crime commissioner elections, will she apologise to areas such as Clifton in my constituency, where crime and antisocial behaviour are a real problem?
Mrs May
We have published a draft Bill on antisocial behaviour, the aim of which is to make it easier to deal at a local level with the issues of antisocial behaviour that sadly blight too many communities across the country. The hon. Lady talks about reductions in officer numbers, but she might also reflect on the fact that in the past year, recorded crime in Nottinghamshire has gone down by 13%.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
T5. Further to the earlier questions on student visas, and given that Lancaster is home to one of our top universities, is any extra support available when a university needs speedier visas so that overseas academics can come to conferences and seminars that are vital to the university’s international reputation?
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and I am sure that he will have been encouraged by what I said earlier about student visas. He might be interested to know that last April we introduced the visitor route for permitted paid engagements, which is specifically helpful in such cases as it covers experts visiting to give a paid lecture, examine students and participate in or chair selection panels. They can do that for up to one month and receive a fee payment; I hope that is helpful to all those at his excellent local university.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I echo the Home Secretary’s remarks about Sir Jonathan Evans. On a different subject, the UN convention on the rights of the child clearly states that every individual under the age of 18 should be regarded as a child, yet we still treat 17-year-olds who are arrested as adults. Will the Home Secretary agree to undertake a review of that situation, which sometimes has disastrous consequences, to ensure that any 17-year-old who is taken into police custody is treated as a child?
Damian Green
As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am aware of some individual cases where there have been tragic events after the arrests of 17-year-olds. I assure him that we are keeping this under review.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
T6. Will the Home Secretary look favourably on a holistic approach to rural crime, so that illegal horse grazing and illegal fly tipping can be treated as what they truly are—rural crimes?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend raises an important point. In various parts of the country, there is real concern about the attention given to a number of issues that corporately come together under rural crime. I will certainly look at the specific issues she raised, but a number of police and crime commissioners were clear last year that they wanted to ensure that greater emphasis was put on rural crime, which blights many of our rural communities.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
In just the past few months, there have been seven gang-related shootings in Maghull in my constituency—a town with no previous experience of gun crime. The Home Secretary will understand the very real fears of my constituents that it is only a matter of time before an innocent bystander is hurt or killed. Will she make sure that Merseyside police have all the resources they need to protect residents and to stamp out this worrying trend in gun crime?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. Sadly, we have seen problems related to gun crime in a number of parts of the country and, as he says, there has been evidence of completely innocent individuals getting caught in those incidents. We have been looking particularly at offences in relation to guns, and indeed we are introducing a new offence relating to the provision of guns—the intent to supply guns—so that we can catch some of the middlemen who are making guns available. Often they are rented out by middlemen for a variety of crimes. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me, I will respond.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
T7. The breach rate for antisocial behaviour orders is running at 57.3%. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to change the law on antisocial behaviour so that we punish the perpetrators and empower local communities, and through that, cut antisocial behaviour and crime?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the effectiveness of measures to deal with the antisocial behaviour that blights so many of our communities. A lot of measures are slow, bureaucratic and quite expensive; therefore the Government have published a draft Bill to reform antisocial behaviour measures, to support communities. We thank the Select Committee on Home Affairs for the pre-legislative scrutiny applied to the draft Bill and we shall respond to the Committee’s recommendations in due course.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Has the Home Secretary found it at all embarrassing to be the centre of so much speculation about going for the top job in politics?
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
T8. I will make an effort to ask a better question than the last one. Ministers will be aware that alcohol-fuelled crime and antisocial behaviour have damaging consequences in seaside resorts such as Blackpool. Given that we are not proceeding with minimum unit pricing for alcohol, what additional measures, not in the Government alcohol strategy, will they now consider to tackle this social scourge?
James Brokenshire
The Government have already strengthened powers for local authorities in Blackpool and elsewhere; for example, to introduce early-morning restriction orders to control the hours when licensed outlets are able to trade. Indeed, we have given councils extra flexibility to act. As I have already indicated, the Government are reflecting on the representations made on the pricing of alcohol and we will come back to the House with our confirmed position in due course.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Earlier, the Minister spoke of the Government’s commitment to tackling cybercrime, yet that commitment does not seem to include either defining or measuring what cybercrime is, so could the Minister say whether individuals and small businesses are encouraged to report all cybercrime to the police?
James Brokenshire
I know that the hon. Lady has examined the issue over a number of years and I recognise her direct interest. I underline that the Government have acted on national cyber-security by virtue of additional funding, the creation of the national cybercrime unit and the establishment of Action Fraud as the direct means for reporting online cybercrime. I absolutely encourage the public and small businesses to ensure that those crimes are properly reported so that we can provide the most effective advice to prevent crime and bring those responsible to justice.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The Home Secretary will be aware of the legal case between Leeds United and West Yorkshire police, which was won by Leeds United, leaving West Yorkshire police to pay £1 million back to the football club, leaving us in a situation in which my constituents will be robbed of police officers to police yobs at football matches at weekends. May I urge the Home Secretary to intervene in this case to reverse that intolerable position?
Damian Green
My hon. Friend will be aware that it is not for Ministers to tell judges and courts what decisions to come to. Clearly, it is an operational matter for individual police forces to determine how to police football matches. I part company with him in his description of football fans as yobs, as football is a much safer game to attend for spectators than it was 20 or 30 years ago, largely as a result of better policing and widespread revulsion by respectable football fans at the yobs who used to deface the game.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
My young constituent, James Harrold, aged 19, from Middlewich, lost both his legs after being hit by a police car travelling at speed. In 2011-12, police vehicles were the cause of 18 deaths and many serious injuries such as those sustained by James. What are the Government doing to ensure that the number of such tragic incidents is reduced?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, and certainly the case to which she referred is very distressing. While speed limits do not apply to vehicles used for emergency service purposes if observance of the limit is likely to hinder that purpose, I can assure her that emergency services drivers remain subject at all times to the law on careless and dangerous driving, of which exceeding the speed limit may be a component. The Department for Transport has recently consulted on the issue of extending the exemption to other emergency services, but it has also looked at amending road safety legislation so that emergency drivers will be required to complete high speed driving training before they are allowed to exceed the limit, and it proposes to base that training on the code drawn up by the emergency services.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) will have to wait a moment, because the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) has been jumping up and down more persistently.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. My question follows on from the excellent question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw). I hosted a meeting of health academics from Turkey, who experienced difficulties in visiting the UK because of delays in securing a visa for the visit. Given the economic opportunities flowing from Turkey, will he join my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and me in seeking an expedited service for this economic priority nation?
Mr Harper
Our overseas visa and entry clearance services have delivered a very good performance, with over 90% of visas issued within 15 days. If my hon. Friend wishes to raise a specific example—and it sounds as if he does—in which there was a longer delay, I would be grateful if he gave me the details and I can investigate matters with the UK Border Agency.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary agree that police and stewards can effectively control football matches, as they did yesterday at Wembley stadium, when they were able to witness Wrexham football club’s glorious victory over Grimsby Town in the FA trophy final?
Damian Green
I feel I should take the opportunity to congratulate Wrexham on its glorious victory yesterday, and agree with the hon. Gentleman. In fact, the way to control football violence comes largely from the fans themselves. The vast majority of football fans are respectable and want to enjoy the game peacefully, and if they do so, the job of the police is made much easier.
Immigrants (NHS Treatment)
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health what moves the Government intend to take to prevent the national health service becoming an international health service.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
The current system of policing and enforcing the entitlement of foreign nationals to free NHS care is chaotic and often out of control. At a time when we are having to face the challenges of an ageing society, it places a significant and unjustified burden on our GP surgeries and hospitals and may well impact on the standard of care received by British citizens.
As the Prime Minister said earlier today, the Government are determined to ensure that anyone not entitled to receive free NHS services should be properly identified and charged for the use of those services. Currently, we identify less than half of those who should be paying and collect payment from less than half those we identify.
We also have some of the most generous rules in the world on access to free health care. Our rules allow free access to primary care for any visitor to the UK, including tourists, and free access to all NHS care for foreign students and temporary visitors. But ours is a national, not an international, health service, so last year, under my predecessor, we began a wholesale review of the rules and procedures on charging visitors for NHS care, with a view to making the regime simpler, fairer and easier to implement. In particular, we focused on who should be charged and how the rules can be applied and enforced more effectively. We have examined the qualifying residency criteria for free treatment; the full range of other current criteria that exempt particular services or visitors from charges for their treatment; whether visitors should be charged for GP services and other NHS services outside hospitals; establishing a more effective and efficient process across the NHS to screen for eligibility and to make and recover charges; and whether to introduce a requirement for health insurance tied to visas.
The initial phase of the review has concluded and we will shortly start a consultation on a range of options, including plans to extend charging to some visitors and temporary residents who were previously exempt so that the default qualification for free NHS care would be permanent, not temporary, residence; ending free access to primary care for all visitors and tourists; introducing a prepayment or insurance requirement for temporary visitors to pay for NHS health care; and improving how the NHS can identify, charge and recover charges where they should apply. We will retain exemptions for emergency treatment and public health issues.
We will work closely with medical professionals, NHS staff and partner NHS organisations during the consultation and then seek to introduce agreed changes as quickly as possible. We will need to take a staged approach, because some changes are likely to require primary legislation before they can be introduced, which will take longer to put in place. However, some changes can be made immediately, and we should proceed with those as quickly as possible.
Mr Field
I thank the Health Secretary for his reply. If he wants us to take him seriously, will he today give a commitment in respect of the directive his Department issued just as the House was rising for the summer recess, compelling doctors, if they have vacancies, to admit all those who have been in the country for 24 hours or more, including illegal immigrants? Will he ensure that someone in the NHS—not doctors—works out whether or not a person is entitled to claim, and will he implement such proposals forthwith?
Mr Hunt
The directive to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was issued by an independent NHS body, not my Department. The sorry truth is that it is consistent with the current rules on access to primary health care, which is what we believe is wrong. I think that one of the big problems in the current system is that we have free access to primary care for anyone visiting the UK, however short their visit is. Through that access to primary care, they get an NHS number, which should not entitle them to free care but is often treated by hospitals as such. That is what we have to put right. He is absolutely right that we need a system that properly identifies whether people should have care that is free at the point of access without impinging on the ease of access for British citizens, which is one of the things they treasure most about the NHS.
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is through access to primary care that the initial control must take place, but that all hospitals should have an overseas visitors manager who should be designated and required to collect overseas visitors’ moneys on a more regular basis and using a more joined-up and coherent way of working with the other agencies involved?
Mr Hunt
What my right hon. Friend says bears very careful consideration. He is absolutely right that primary care is a critical access point, and we need to look at that. We also need to look at the burdens we place on GPs. I think that ultimately the easy way we will do that is through proper digital patient records, which will allow NHS professionals to find out about the medical history of people accessing the NHS at any point, including whether they are likely to be eligible for free treatment.
With regard to hospitals, my right hon. Friend makes a very interesting point about an overseas visitors manager. One of the problems we have is that the incentives in the system positively disincentivise hospitals from declaring foreign users of the NHS. If they declare someone not to be entitled to free NHS care, they have to collect the money from that person themselves, whereas if they do not declare the person not to be entitled to free NHS care, they get paid automatically by their primary care trust or clinical commissioning group. The incentives in the system have acted to suggest that this is a much smaller problem than I believe it is.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
The NHS must not be open to abuse. Where people do not have entitlement to free treatment, steps should always be taken to recover the costs from individuals and Governments. That clear principle is shared by Members across this House.
For some time, hospitals have rightly had a legal duty to recover any charges owed from overseas patients. The previous Government proposed a number of further steps, including amending immigration rules so that anyone with substantial medical debts is not allowed back into the country. We welcome efforts to build on that, while always guarding against overblown rhetoric, which does not help the immigration debate. We therefore need more precision and clarity from the Secretary of State. First, on the scale of the problem, as ever with this Government’s announcements, there is already confusion to clear up. Earlier today, the Prime Minister’s spokesperson put the cost to the NHS of health tourism at £10 million to £20 million. On “World at One” this lunchtime, the Secretary of State said that he thinks it is more like £200 million. So which is it? Will the Secretary of State publish the evidence he has to support his claim?
Secondly, we need more detail on what the Government are proposing. Has the Secretary of State consulted those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on any proposed changes? There are practical questions on which health professionals will need reassurance. We have heard in the news today about the problems in the UK Border Agency. What assurances can the Secretary of State give to health professionals that they will not be used to plug the gaps that have been created by the Government’s severe cuts to the front line of the UK Border Force? Will they be given a simple way of checking eligibility and not be burdened by extra bureaucracy? Will these changes apply equally to planned and emergency care? If so, that could put health professionals in a difficult ethical position. Does the Secretary of State agree that care should always be provided in life-threatening situations, and will he take this opportunity to reassure health professionals on that important point?
Finally, the Secretary of State told “World at One” that one of the main reasons he was doing this was to relieve pressure on accident and emergency departments, particularly in London. While we commend moves to prevent abuse of the system, could he not better achieve his aim if he was not planning to close so many A and Es in London?
The Government have made a lot of assertions, but there is a real lack of policy clarity and evidence. Unless the Secretary of State can provide convincing answers to my questions, the House will be left with the distinct whiff of a cooked-up a story to suit the Government’s political purposes rather than a real drive to protect the NHS from abuse.
Mr Hunt
The Government are not going to take any lessons in overblown rhetoric when Labour Members talked about this problem for 13 years and did absolutely nothing about it. What was missing from the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks was a proper apology for Labour’s total failure to control our borders during a period in office that saw a quadrupling of net migration. We do not know how many people are residing in this country illegally, but in January the London School of Economics published a report stating that it could be nearly 900,000 people, in which case the cost will not be a few millions but many, many times that. In 13 years, Labour did not change eligibility for access to free NHS services and did nothing to improve the collection of proper dues from people coming from outside the European Union.
The £20 million figure that the Prime Minister’s spokesman used this morning is the amount of uncollected debt that is owed to the NHS by foreign nationals. If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to my response, he would know that we believe—of course it is impossible to get exact figures on this because of the total mess that the previous Government created—that we identify less than half the people who should be paying for NHS care and collect less than half the money that should be collected.
Of course we will work with very closely with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure a co-ordinated approach. If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said, he would have heard that the exemption for emergency care and for public health issues will remain in place, which is extremely important.
Let me finish by talking about A and E issues. The reality is that the LSE estimates that about 70% of those living illegally in the UK live in London, where A and Es happen to face some of the biggest pressures. University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust opened a new A and E only in the past few years and it was built for a capacity of 65,000 people a year, but it is now seeing 120,000 a year. If the right hon. Gentleman’s Government had done something about this rather than talk about it, A and Es across London would not be facing the pressure they are now facing.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State publish the names of those trusts that are abjectly failing to identify and recover charges from those who are not entitled to free care?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. Part of the problem is that when we should be identifying someone as a foreign national who should pay for their NHS care, that does not happen a lot of the time because of the incentives in the system. Under the NHS improvement initiative, which is taking place in London at present—it is worth looking at that closely, because it has a lot of promise—there is a centralised collection of debt from foreign nationals who owe the NHS so that that does not become the responsibility of individual hospitals, which is something that is putting them off registering people as eligible for their NHS care.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I invite the Secretary of State to comment on the view that one of the reasons why these proposals are being made at this stage is the conclusion of transitional arrangements for Romanians and Bulgarians at the end of this year? The Minister for Immigration is sitting on his right. Is it possible for the Health Department and the Home Office jointly to commission research so that we can have some actual figures on how many people might be coming at the end of this year?
Mr Hunt
The right hon. Gentleman will have to raise the matter of the actual number of people coming to the UK with the Home Secretary or, indeed, the Minister for Immigration.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the issues that we are dealing with are not just about foreign nationals from outside the EU or the European economic area. The rules for EEA members are complex. If people come here to work, we have an obligation under EU law to allow them access to free treatment, but if they are economically inactive or if they are temporary visitors, we should be able to reclaim the cost of that treatment from their home country in the EEA. The fact is that we do that very poorly indeed at the moment and that is one of the things we need to change.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
I particularly welcome the linking of visas to health insurance, but will my right hon. Friend explain what will happen if someone who is already in the UK is asked to pay but simply cannot? Will they be refused treatment?
Mr Hunt
No one will be refused treatment in a life or death situation. It is important that we state that up front. However, we also want to remove any expectation that people who are not entitled to NHS care are able to come to the UK and get it, and to ask whether we should be giving free NHS care to people such as foreign students who come to the UK and get it. If they went to Australia or America—our two main competitor countries—they would have to take out health insurance or pay a levy to access the local health care system. If those countries do that, I think we should do the same.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Is the Health Secretary aware that when I was in a London hospital some years ago I counted more than 40 staff from different nations? I am proud of my United Nations heart bypass. The message from this Government and many others, including the UK Independence party, is that those of a similar colour, of different colours and of different nationalities can change the bed sheets and operate, but woe betide them if they want to put their head on a pillow when they are ill. What hypocrisy.
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman should do a lot better than that. He should think of his elderly constituents—people with multiple long-term conditions—who are having to wait much longer than they need to because A and Es not just in London, but in many parts of the country, are clogged up with people who may not be entitled to free NHS care because we have a system that culturally and operationally is not able to track these measures. It is in their interests that we must ensure that the NHS is available to people who are entitled to free care. When people are not entitled to free care, the point is not that the NHS is not available to them, but that they should pay for it.
Mr Speaker
I have a choice on the Lib Dem Benches between two doctors. Let us hear from the good Dr Julian Huppert.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
The former public health Minister, the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), revealed in a written answer on 17 March 2011 that the sums not collected from overseas patients totalled less than £7 million a year. If we double that and double it again, as the Health Secretary suggests, that is £28 million. Private finance initiative schemes cost the NHS that much every two weeks. Which issue is more important in ensuring that we have a properly funded NHS?
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
There is a problem with recruitment in the NHS not only in England, but in Wales. Last year, Welsh NHS trusts tried to recruit 32 A and E consultants from the UK, but failed to do so and had to go abroad. Is there not a danger that the rhetoric in which the Government are indulging will put off the talented doctors that the NHS in this country needs?
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the overwhelming majority of our constituents who travel abroad put in place provision to protect themselves if they fall ill. My constituents and his will be appalled to learn that we do not expect the same of foreign visitors to the United Kingdom. May I congratulate him on his initiative, which began before the Prime Minister’s speech today?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is right. We have one of the most generous systems of health provision for overseas visitors of any country in the world. Most other European countries are less generous because they operate a social insurance system, which makes it much easier to collect the money that they are owed by the people who are not entitled to free care. We have to change the system here. The key thing that is wrong with it is free access to primary care, because that is the gateway into the NHS. Although primary care itself is not the most expensive part of the NHS, because of its gateway role, unless we control it, we will not get the overall system under control.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
If the child of an asylum seeker who is yet to have their asylum application determined requires NHS primary care, will they still be eligible for free treatment?
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
I am finding it rather difficult to ask a question, because I have been rendered speechless by the chutzpah of Labour Members in not saying that what the Secretary of State proposes is sheer common sense and in not agreeing with him. I have a simple question. How will GPs know which foreign nationals are entitled to NHS care and which are not?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend asks a very important question. We have to recognise the pressure on GPs and must be careful not to increase the bureaucratic burden on them. The long-term answer is to have proper digital patient records. If the first thing that people are asked for when they enter any part of the NHS is an NHS number that allows the person they are seeing to look at their medical history, which could be a trigger to identify someone who should be paying for their NHS care. We are seeing whether there is a non-bureaucratic way of achieving that in the short term, while we put that technological system in place.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State and the Conservative party should remember that the coalition has been in power for nearly three years and nothing has happened on this issue. There are two things that he could do. He could withdraw the circular today and he could consider introducing an entitlement card that people could carry with them.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
The Secretary of State has made it clear why the figure of £20 million a year is a ridiculous underestimate of the true state of affairs. He will be thanked by every British taxpayer in this country, no matter what the saving, because they are getting increasingly tired of services being accessed by people who do not have a proper entitlement to them.
Mr Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. Of course I want to do a good job for taxpayers, but also for the 3 million British citizens who use the NHS every week and who find a service that, although the Government have protected its budget, is under increased pressure. I want to ensure that the system whereby people from other countries access those same services is one thing, and one thing only: fair.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It would be useful if the Secretary of State provided clarity and accuracy on the numbers we are talking about. The Prime Minister’s spokesperson said that unclaimed costs amount to £20 million, but the Secretary of State seems to be saying £200 million. I wonder whether he can account for the difference. Did he just add a zero?
Mr Hunt
I explained where the figure of £20 million came from, and why I believe that it is probably the tip of the iceberg. If the hon. Lady really wants to know the answer, we do not know the full extent of the abuse of NHS services because the previous Government left them in such an appalling mess.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I understand that under the European health insurance card scheme the UK paid out about £1.7 billion for Brits abroad, but claimed only £125 million back. Is that also receiving attention?
Mr Hunt
Yes it is. We are always likely to pay out more than we receive under that scheme because we have a number of pensioners who decide to retire to slightly sunnier climes and there is a cost to the UK under EU treaty law with those decisions. My hon. Friend is right to point out that just as inadequate as our failure to charge people from outside the EU when we should is our failure to collect money from inside the EU when we are able to, and we must also look at that.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has clarified the Prime Minister’s figure of £20 million, but he used inflammatory language to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) about health tourists clogging up A and Es. He claims that £200 million could be the tip of the iceberg, but if he does not know the figure is that not the worst example of dog-whistle politics?
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who in raising this issue is, as always, streets ahead of those on his own Front Bench.
May I thank my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary for the extra £20 million funding that the NHS in Worcestershire will receive this year, and urge him to take that agenda forward and ensure that as much funding as possible goes to the residents of Worcestershire and to addressing the kinds of pressures that we saw over the last week in A and E?
Mr Hunt
Obviously, I want to ensure that as much money as possible goes to residents throughout the country by tackling abuse, and I would not want to minimise what the issue might be in Worcestershire. I stress, however, that the biggest problem we face is in big urban centres where there are large numbers of illegal immigrants, and we must get a grip of that problem for the sake of the elderly population in those cities.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
If the Secretary of State is concerned to protect NHS budgets, why is he allowing a £2.2 billion raid from the Treasury? Is that not a much more serious cut in the NHS services we can pay for in this country?
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) on his urgent question, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on following my private Member’s Bill, the NHS Audit Requirements (Foreign Nationals) Bill. When will that primary legislation receive Government time to start its passage through this place?
Mr Hunt
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent private Member’s Bill, which looked forward to many of the problems we are trying to address. Our first step is to identify the scale of the problem. We will then identify the right legislative response, but the response will not all be legislative. That is when we will consider including it in the parliamentary timetable.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
In answer to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), the Secretary of State said that when someone does not have the funds, treatment will not be refused if it is a life-and-death situation. For clarity, will he will us what the threshold will be? For example, if someone has a broken leg, or if someone needs another treatment that requires hospital admission, and they do not have the funds, will treatment be refused under his scheme?
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Roughly, in percentage terms, how many babies born in maternity wards are born to mothers from the EU?
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
The Secretary of State has explained that the July guidance was from an independent body and in line with the existing rules. Who wrote the existing rules? Will he confirm that he will change them?
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
When I tabled questions last year, I was told that we collect £51 million a year for treatment from EU countries, but that they collect £451 million—nine times more—back from us. Is this an issue not of immigration, but of coding, charging and collecting?
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Is the Health Secretary aware that general practitioners have been calling for the measures to be taken for some time? The Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire local medical committee wrote to me some time ago expressing its concerns that overseas nationals were coming here for expensive operations. It will be very pleased at what he has done today.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Now that Labour has realised it is legitimate to discuss immigration, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time for the Opposition to acknowledge that legitimate charges by the NHS to EU and other residents were not collected properly for 13 years; that identifying the £20 million as the tip of the unpaid iceberg is the right thing to do; and that a tightening of procedures on debt collection will be welcomed by my constituents and fair to all our constituents throughout the country?
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the vast majority of people in the UK will welcome these long-overdue proposals? Will he explain what he will do to ensure that those who are denied treatment because they are here illegally and not entitled to it cannot simply slip over the border to Wales or Scotland, which, unfortunately, are in the throes of an NHS run by socialist Governments?
Mr Hunt
We will work closely with the devolved authorities to ensure we have a co-ordinated response to the problem, but I agree that today’s announcement will be welcomed by the vast majority of people in the country, who will be astonished that the Labour party, even now, seeks to minimise the problem.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Given that the UK has one of very few genuine free-at-the-point-of-need health care systems, does my right hon. Friend agree that, without his sensible reforms, the UK will continue to be seen as the destination of choice for anyone around the world seeking high-quality, free medical treatment paid for by the UK taxpayer?
Mr Hunt
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is because I support the principle of free-at-the-point-of-use health care that I do not want anything to undermine it, and abuse of the system by people who are not entitled to free NHS care is the single thing that would most shake the public’s trust in an important part of what the NHS has to offer. That is why we must tackle this problem.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Secretary of State rightly recognises that accident and emergency is a special case, but when I broke my fingers in Brussels I was asked to pay by credit card at the end of my treatment. A lot of people who present at A and E have non-life threatening conditions. Is that something we could do here?
Mr Hunt
I understand my hon. Friend’s sense of unfairness at being asked to pay for her treatment by credit card, when we do not do that to foreign nationals who are treated in the NHS. I do not, however, want the NHS to become a service where the first question people are asked relates to their credit card or cheque book. If we are going to protect that much-cherished principle of NHS treatment, we need to get a grip on the kind of abuse that has run unchecked for far too long.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the House is divided by two schools: the Opposition, who believe that the NHS should not charge anyone, which is why they did nothing for 13 years; and Government Members, who believe that foreign nationals who should pay, must pay.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Does he agree that the previous Government’s failure to tackle health tourism encouraged overseas visitors to abuse our NHS?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is right. One reason why we are tackling this problem is not just the health agenda we have been discussing this afternoon, but that abuse of NHS services fuels broader immigration problems. That is one of the core reasons the previous Government failed to get a grip of net migration in particular.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust spent £305,341 on interpreter services between 2009 and 2011. Will my right hon. Friend include the costs of translation services when working out the costs of health tourism?
Mr Hunt
I would want to be careful to discriminate between the needs of British citizens and people who are entitled to free NHS care who have not had the education or support they need to learn English but who should still continue to receive free, high quality NHS care, and foreign nationals who are not entitled to free NHS care and who should pay the cost of any translation required.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
My constituents are absolutely furious that non-entitled foreign nationals are effectively getting free access to our NHS, and I welcome the steps my right hon. Friend is making to tackle this issue. Will he ensure that Her Majesty’s Government fast-track legislation, with an announcement in the Queen’s Speech, and challenge the Opposition either to bring down or pass that legislation in the next parliamentary year?
Mr Hunt
I have visited Kettering hospital, and I know just how hard its front-line professionals work and the pressures they are under. All I can say to my hon. Friend is that the Leader of the House of Commons is sitting here and has heard what he has said, and I would certainly support the early introduction of legislation on this matter.
Points of Order
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your advice on the tragic death of my constituent, Lucy Meadows, a transgender teacher who was vilified by the Daily Mail and other newspapers? The cause of death is not yet clear and we await the coroner’s report, but the police have said that there are no suspicious circumstances. Miss Meadows apparently complained to the press about their harassment—about them being camped outside her house, their attempts to pay parents to obtain photographs of her, and, failing that, downloading photographs from her family’s Facebook pages. To be on the receiving end of such behaviour must have been tortuous for her. An online petition against the actions of the Daily Mail has now received in excess of 110,000 signatures in just two days. The Press Complaints Commission failed her and is widely considered to be discredited. Therefore, can you, Mr Speaker, advise MPs on how complaints can and should be taken forward in such cases?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for notice of his point of order, and I am sure that I speak for the whole House in expressing our sorrow at his constituent’s tragic death. I hope he will also appreciate that I am not familiar with the details of this case and that it would be wrong for me to comment on it. Suffice it to say that abuse and vilification of the kind he describes are despicable and intolerable in a civilised society. It is not, however, clear to me that there is a point of order here for the Chair to address. Nor is it obvious to me that it is for me to advise him on how he and other right hon. and hon. Members should proceed in these circumstances. Suffice it to say that he has aired the matter today. The facilities of the Table Office and the Order Paper are open to him, and if, as more information emerges or his interest is extended, he wishes to bring these matters to the House’s attention, he can be sure of having the opportunity to do so.
Succession to Hereditary Peerages and Estates
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove male-preference primogeniture in succession to hereditary peerages and estates.
This motion is about building fairness, modernity and equality in our society. All hon. Members will agree with the simple premise that women play an integral role in society and that we want them all to have the opportunity to achieve their potential. I congratulate the Government on what they have done so far to increase fairness and equality in society since 2010, through initiating the Lord Davies women on boards review; encouraging women to set up businesses through business mentors; setting up the Women’s Business Council; setting the target that 50% of new appointments to boards of public bodies should be women; announcing a new system of shared parental leave; extending free child care; closing the gender pay gap; and extending the right to request flexible working. All these things will give women a better chance to play their full part in society, in the workplace and in public life.
Today’s motion is another step that needs to be taken to promote gender equality in our society. Currently, for most hereditary peerages, there is male-preference cognatic primogeniture, which means that the firstborn son will, in most cases, inherit the entire estate and that, if there are no sons, it will go to another male descendant. Now is a good time to consider this issue, as the Succession to the Crown Bill makes its way through Parliament. Like the majority of hon. Members, I welcome the changes it will bring. Her Majesty the Queen is leading the way and showing us how the monarchy can change and adapt for modern times, without losing the history and tradition that make it so special and fundamental to our culture.
During the debate on the Bill, many of my hon. Friends in this Chamber and the other place, including the noble Lord Lucas and Baroness Symons, asked why male-preference inheritance would continue to apply in hereditary peerages after being removed from the monarchy. I agreed with the Government that the Bill should focus on the monarchy, but we now have an opportunity to get rid of the current discrimination. The recent changes in the monarchy leave the aristocracy two steps behind, because, as it stands today, a woman such as Her Majesty the Queen can inherit the throne in the absence of men.
The 9 million viewers of “Downton Abbey” will no doubt be familiar with the story where the Earl of Grantham is unable to leave his title and estate to his eldest daughter, Lady Mary. We might think of “Downton Abbey” as depicting a quaint historical era, but that remains the situation today, and I believe that the time is right to address this issue. Hon. Members might ask, “Why bother to change something that affects only very few people?” I personally believe that this is about much more than titles and the aristocracy; this is symbolic. It is about the principles of fairness and equality. I urge the Government to consult, because it is another way to show how important women are to society and how much we need women to have an equal role in business, in the community and in the nation.
As many have pointed out, the current situation in the aristocracy is complex, with different rules applying in different family situations. Indeed, the noble Lord Strathclyde, the former Leader of the House of Lords, responding to a question on this issue, said:
“The Government believe that it is time to deal with the issue of succession to the Crown, and there is no simple read-across to succession to the hereditary peerage, which is infinitely more complicated and affects many more families.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 October 2011; Vol. 731, c. 380.]
He was absolutely right, but I was brought up to believe that anything is possible, and I believe we can change things, no matter how complex. Frankly, if we can get 16 Commonwealth realms to agree to Crown succession, I am sure we can achieve this, too.
The current situation is complex. Older baronies were created by means of a writ of summons to Parliament. These baronies became heritable over time and tend to descend through the bloodline, with preference for males, but not excluding females. Later peerages were mostly created by patent. These peerages typically descend to the male heir; however, special remainders have sometimes been granted for war leaders such as Nelson, Kitchener and Mountbatten that give the peerages an extra chance of survival. In Scotland, peerages vary according to their limitation, which could be to a male heir, an heir of either sex or a series of named individuals.
According to “Debrett’s Peerage and Baronetage 2011”, there are just 13 hereditary peeresses in their own right: six in England and six in Scotland, while one—Countess Mountbatten—is a peeress of the United Kingdom. In the majority of cases these days, a peerage is a dignity only and is not necessarily bound up with real estate. However, in some cases there is a direct link, known as an “entail”. I will not dwell at length on any individual story that brings to life this unfairness, as these are personal, family situations. However, there are many examples that we can consider, such as Baron Braybrooke, whose title will go to his fourth cousin once removed, rather than one of his eight daughters, whom I am sure are more than competent to succeed. The Duke of Rutland’s three daughters will not inherit their family seat, Belvoir castle. Of the 92 hereditary peers taking their seats in the House of Lords, there are only two women: Lady Saltoun and the Countess of Mar. This is clear evidence that there is something not right about the current system.
I am calling for a consultation on the issue today because I believe that in society we should have equality when it comes to gender. Women have proved time and again that they are more than capable of any task in business, politics, the community or public life. The role of women has changed dramatically in the course of history. In this day and age, it is therefore quite wrong that women are so unlikely to inherit peerages. I agreed wholeheartedly with the noble Lord Fellowes of West Stafford, who put it perfectly:
“If you’re asking me if I find it ridiculous that…a perfectly sentient adult woman has no rights of inheritance whatsoever when it comes to a hereditary title, I think it’s outrageous”.
Gone are the days when daughters in the nobility were simply married off, with titles and estates left to their “warrior-like” sons, who alone were considered trustworthy enough to protect the future title and estate. Frankly, that sounds rather laughable now, in a world where girls are significantly outperforming boys in education and where the skills of financial management and accountancy are far more important than those of physical warfare. We have come a long way in terms of women’s rights in many areas—the right to vote, to become a Member of Parliament and even to be Prime Minister. As chairman of the all-party group on women in Parliament, I want to increase the numbers of women in the House of Commons and the other place. This Bill may even be a way of achieving that.
Given that this is a complex issue, I believe the first step is to have a consultation, to find the best approach to bring about this change. Different approaches could be considered, including asking the monarch to change the patent for particular titles; sponsoring a private Bill relevant to a particular case; creating a new statutory framework that allowed families to change the rules voluntarily; or passing an Act of Parliament to create a new statutory framework. The UK would not be trail-blazing in taking this issue forward. In 2006, King Juan Carlos I of Spain issued a decree reforming the succession to noble titles. He said:
“Men and women have an equal right of succession in Grandee of Spain and nobility titles, and no person may be given preference in the normal order of succession for reasons of gender”.
Personally, I would favour the final option: a new statutory framework that would cover all situations, to ensure clarity and efficiency.
The role of women over the centuries has changed in society. The monarchy is about to change to recognise the important role of women. I believe hereditary peerages need to change, too. This is a matter of fairness and it is right that we as Members of Parliament did our best to get rid of discrimination and ensure fairness in all aspects of society. Today, let us celebrate the modern role of women and look to promote equality in all parts of society, so that every woman in this country can aspire to and achieve her potential. I hope the House will support this Motion and give me leave to introduce it.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mary Macleod, Oliver Colvile, Penny Mordaunt, Yasmin Qureshi, Jane Ellison and Mrs Eleanor Laing present the Bill.
Mary Macleod accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 May, and to be printed (Bill 153).
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
I wondered whether the hon. Lady was hailing a taxi. I am afraid that I am not available for that purpose, but I am happy to respond to her attempted point of order.
Caroline Lucas
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. I know that colleagues will want to get on with the main business, but I wish to raise a brief point of order.
The Justice and Security Bill goes to the other place for its final stages tomorrow, but this House has still not been informed whether the introduction of secret courts affects habeas corpus. Indeed, the House has had no fewer than four different answers from the Minister without Portfolio, ranging from “yes”, “no” and “not sure” to “I’ll check”. Will you rule, Mr Speaker, on whether the Minister without Portfolio should come back to the House before the Bill gets its Royal Assent to tell us what the right answer is?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. It is not actually a point of order for the Chair, but I would say that the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), has been in this House, if memory serves, for more than 42 and a half years and it will be 43 years in June. I think he takes his responsibilities to the House very seriously. If, as a result of the matters described by the hon. Lady, there is a requirement for clarification, I feel sure that the Minister without Portfolio will provide it at the appropriate time. We will leave it there for today.
Ways and Means
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
amendment of the law
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 299 / Noes: 243 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
In common with the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), I too drive a London taxi, and no reasonable offer will be refused.
This is the coalition Government’s fourth Budget—a Budget determined to stay the course and fill the sink-hole of debt left to us by the last Administration. Thanks to our actions, the deficit is down by a third—from 11% of gross domestic product under Labour to a forecast 7% this year. It is set to fall even lower to as little as 2% by 2017-18. All the while, we have kept interest rates at a record low and created 1.25 million new jobs while reducing the number of workless households by 250,000.
Local government, which accounts for a quarter of all public spending, is doing its bit to help to pay off Labour’s deficit—and the result? Since the general election, according to the Local Government Association’s own polling, residents’ satisfaction with their councils has increased. Ipsos MORI has found that two thirds of residents have not noticed any changes in the quality of council services. Well-run councils are making sensible savings, protecting front-line services and keeping council tax down. Of course more savings need to be made to pay off Labour’s debt, but we are on the side of people with gumption who protect and enhance public services, so this Budget is about rewarding aspiration and boosting growth; it is about helping businesses to create jobs, and about giving a leg up to wannabe home owners.
The housing market is critical to Britain’s economic success, yet one of the most tragic effects of Labour’s toxic legacy was its impact on that market. Whereas Margaret Thatcher gave a generation the hope of owning their own homes, Labour crushed their dreams, leaving us with a planning system bogged down by arcane rules and regulations, house building falling to its lowest peacetime rate since the 1920s, rising prices, falling mortgages, and tenants with no hope of buying. A lost generation of people were forced to stay where they were, living their best years in the hope that their lottery numbers might come up or the bank of mum and dad would bail them out. This is truly a toxic legacy.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
As usual, the Secretary of State is making a very good case. If most people do not notice any difference in the service provided by local government despite all the cuts, does that serve as a lesson for central Government as well?
Mr Pickles
My hon. Friend makes a very reasonable point. My own Department in central Government has reduced its running costs by 41% in real terms, so we have led by example.
The Government have set about turning things around. This is a complex area, and the solution requires action on multiple fronts. We have taken three important steps. First, we are radically reforming the planning system to crank up the engine and get things moving. Secondly, we are giving builders certainty so that they can get Britain building. Thirdly, we are intervening dramatically to help people step on to the first rung of the housing ladder. It may be helpful if I set out our approach to each of those issues.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State tell me how under-occupancy relates to the mortgage relief schemes that the Treasury announced last week? If, for example, one individual buys a house with three bedrooms, will that person be subject to the under-occupancy tests that apply to those in social housing?
Mr Pickles
I think that only the Labour party would confuse taxation with entitlement to benefit. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, since coming to office we have made great play of the need to release a number of unoccupied houses, and thus far we have made quite a push towards that. Every household in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency is now paying £900 to subsidise housing benefit. If his council wants to pay more, it can do so.
Mr Pickles
No. The right hon. Gentleman has had his chance to intervene, and his intervention was not very good.
Let me deal first with our reforms of the planning system. Labour’s top-down, centralist approach built nothing but resentment. Its regional strategies added a layer of red tape that paralysed planning. By the time of the general election, six years after Labour’s Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, only one in six councils had adopted a core strategy and only one in four had a five-year land supply.
Nor did Labour’s approach lead to better co-ordination. The regional spatial strategies of the unelected regional assemblies contradicted the regional economic strategies of the unelected regional development agencies. Fortunately, the Localism Act 2011 is now scrapping Labour’s regional planning. The national planning policy framework has streamlined 1,000 pages of confusing Whitehall guidance and placed local plans in pole position—safeguarding the green belt, introducing a new protection for valuable green spaces, amending bureaucratic change-of-use rules to make it easier to get redundant and empty buildings back into productive use, and kick-starting brownfield regeneration.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
One innovation that has been introduced is a simplified planning system for business neighbourhoods, but very little progress seems to have been made in implementing that in Trafford Park, in my constituency. What will happen to speed up that process?
Mr Pickles
I will certainly have a look at the particular circumstances to which the hon. Lady refers. I have been pleased to see the growth in neighbourhood plans, which are analogous to what she is suggesting. Indeed, I visited a village in my constituency that is looking forward to introducing them. They give people and businesses a much bigger say.
David Wright
I am grateful. City deals offer real flexibility for local communities, and we would like to work with the Department to secure a city deal for Telford. There is Homes and Communities Agency land on the ledger that could be shifted off, through a profit-sharing agreement with the Department, to make sure we get housing land and business development land. Is the Secretary of State willing to meet to talk about a city deal for Telford?
Mr Pickles
This is the second time the hon. Gentleman has asked whether I am willing to see him. I am; indeed, only this morning I sent out, at my own expense, for some high-quality tea and better biscuits for him. We are looking forward to seeing him.
Seven out of 10 councils have published a local plan, and the figure continues to rise. Nearly nine in 10 planning applications are approved—a 10-year high. Indications are that there are fewer planning appeals, meaning that local decision making is to the fore. The latest data from Glenigan show that planning approvals for new homes are up 62% year on year, and 33% up on the previous quarter.
However, brushing the cobwebs off the planning system is only part of the plan. As a result of Labour’s inaction, this country is crying out for more homes to meet that desperate demand, so this Government are helping to get development off the ground. Locally supported, once-mothballed large-scale sites—such as in Cranbrook, in Milton Keynes, in Eastern Quarry and in Wokingham—are now being kick-started. We should contrast that with Labour’s top-down eco-towns, which delivered not a single home.
Our programme is set to deliver 170,000 new affordable homes, almost 63,000 of which are already completed, by 2015. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors says that home sales have reached their highest level in more than two and a half years, while builders from Barratt to Bovis say that Government schemes are driving increased sales, putting people back on the property path.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
We can give moderate support to the expansion of the Firstbuy scheme, which sounds good. Indeed, I recently visited such a scheme on the old Jaguar site in my constituency, which has proved a great help. However, does the Secretary of State not agree that making the mortgage expansion scheme available to second home buyers would be quite obscene, given that we are imposing a bedroom tax on those who can ill afford it?
Mr Pickles
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, and if that were a way in which Mrs Pickles and I could obtain a second home in Frinton, it would indeed be a scandal, but that is certainly not the Government’s intention. However, in our endeavours to ensure that I do not end up with a nice little flat in Frinton, we have to be careful not to rule out people whose marriage has just broken down, or situations in which parents are acting as part-guarantors. By September, we will be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman on this issue.
We know that the demand is there, but it is also clear that for many individuals in very good jobs the housing ladder simply remains out of reach. Under Labour the number of first-time buyers plummeted to a 30-year low. Labour’s 2005 manifesto promised 1 million more home owners, but home ownership fell by a third of a million in the last Parliament. The industry is clear about what lies at the root of the problem. The British Property Federation says:
“Helping people needing a deposit has for some time been cited as the missing piece of a coherent housing policy”.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
What does the Secretary of State think the mortgage guarantee scheme will do to house prices? Is there a danger of increased demand and no increase in supply, and prices going up?
Mr Pickles
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. However, housing prices are at a more reasonable level now, we will be increasing supply and of course there will be a check on the scheme, through the Bank of England, to see that it is renewed every three years. So the worries that he raises are not correct—
Mr Pickles
The hon. Gentleman is jumping up and down. I have not said that I will give way, but I will.
Mr Sheerman
It is very kind of the right hon. Gentleman, who knows that I love intervening on him because I always get such a good response! It is supply that is wrong in this country; there is a national emergency in the supply of affordable housing. There are 1.5 million people on the minimum wage in this country. The waiting list in Kirklees has zoomed to having 17,500 people on it. These people do not have much money, they have little hope of ever buying their own home and they need a good affordable home now.
Mr Pickles
Of course they do, and it is a matter of regret that the number of affordable houses fell by 420,000-odd during Labour’s period in office, and we see a way in which we can achieve a number of affordable houses. As I said, we are well on track to deliver 170,000 and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased about that. I wish to make this contrast for him, because we have the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition’s remarks on Labour’s housing plans. He says:
“We didn’t do enough... I don’t have a solution for this, but in the end government has to invest in housing, and...it’s a massive challenge”.
I think we can all agree with that—we can all unite behind those principles—so where the last Administration wrung their hands, this Government are stepping in. In the past couple of years, we have made sure that first-time buyers and those looking to buy a brand-new property have been given a helping hand. We also reinvigorated the right to buy, building mixed communities, more affordable homes and giving social tenants a chance to move up the housing ladder. This Government believe in extending opportunity to everyone who works hard and wants to do so.
The Home Builders Federation has said:
“If people can’t buy, builders can’t build”.
It has also said that “people’s inability to buy” has been the biggest “constraint” on house building. That is why in the Budget we announced our help to buy scheme. It is here to help in two ways: it is offering an equitable loan and a mortgage guarantee.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Given that 60% of homes built in central London are being sold to overseas buyers, how does the Secretary of State think that the help to buy scheme will affect the prices of those properties and people’s ability to enter the housing market if he does not deal with that problem?
Mr Pickles
This scheme will not be available for foreign buyers; this is a scheme to help people from this country. That situation did not happen overnight, and the hon. Gentleman’s own Government signally failed to do anything about it. It is perhaps apposite for me to raise the issues to do with social housing.
As well as rewarding those who want to get on, we are taking tough action to tackle those who want a free ride and who are abusing the housing system. We are announcing today new measures to stop rogue landlords cashing in from renting homes to illegal migrants and we are also ensuring fair play in the allocation of taxpayer-funded social housing. We are tackling the widespread perception that the way social housing is allocated is unfair and favours foreign migrants over local people and members of the armed services.
It is true that one in 10 of all the new social housing tenancies in England go to a foreign migrant whereas in London one in five social housing tenancies belong to a foreign migrant. That is not fair to people who have worked hard and paid their taxes in Britain, so new rules will ensure that councils give priority to local people and to the armed forces when allocating social housing. That tough action will tackle the pull factors that led to unsustainable immigration under Labour and it will help community cohesion by ensuring fair play and removing the perception of unfairness that extremists exploit.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is very keen that the work force should be mobile and able to move around the country to where there is work. However, would that not make the person moving into an area no longer a local, meaning that they would not qualify for social housing?
Mr Pickles
As the hon. Lady knows, under this Government and the previous Government a number of schemes have enabled tenants in social housing to swap between local authorities. Those schemes will continue to operate.
We are offering a simple and proportionate response to housing needs. As my second favourite member of the Labour party, Lord Mandelson, remarked last week:
“I can’t quite remember which member of the government it was who claimed to have abolished boom and bust. Well, we abolished boom”.
Last week, Labour was again playing the politics of envy and division, attacking the fact that we are helping hard-working families in middle England, in both the north and the south. Let me be clear for Labour’s benefit. We are not about to introduce 110% or even 100% mortgages for those who cannot afford to pay, but 95% mortgages for people who, but for the financial crisis, could have put enough money aside.
The checks are in place. Applicants will need to prove they can repay the loan before they pick up the front door key. As I said to the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), this is not a scheme for second home owners, but the rules need to be carefully worded so we do not slam the door on parents who want to do a bit for their kids or prevent people from rebuilding their lives after family breakdown. Unlike Labour, this Government have not given up on growing families who are in properties too small for their needs, buyers looking to make that first step, or tenants who believe they can aim higher. We will continue to work closely with the industry to do everything in our power to make sure home hopefuls realise their dreams.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend educate me, as I am probably mistaken, but will it be possible for a first-time buyer to buy a house that is not a new build?
Mr Pickles
Two schemes will be available. The first is the homebuy scheme, which will start from 1 April and is for new construction. From January next year, it will also be possible for buyers to purchase properties other than new builds.
The Government are giving the housing market a kick-start and are maintaining momentum on supply. On planning, we will be reducing planning burdens, making better use of empty buildings, bringing people back to live in town centres and supporting shops. There will be funding of more than £1 billion for thousands of new affordable and privately rented homes, for which we know there is demand. We are putting spades back into the ground and more workers back on site, and giving people more options over where they live.
We are also building on the success of our rejuvenated right to buy. Between July and September last year, numbers doubled, but we will go further. That is why we have put before Parliament regulations that will increase the discount for Londoners, where house prices are highest, to £100,000. The measure will come into effect from midnight tonight.
We are reducing waiting lists for tenants who are ready to move on. Under our schemes, new homes will be built to replace those sold. What is Labour’s response? The Local Government Association Labour group says that the new right to buy is
“a cynical move by the government which is in effect forcing a fire-sale of community assets.”
I am sorry that the shadow communities Minister, the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), is not in the Chamber. He too attacked the scheme and bemoaned the fact that in the 1980s,
“we saw council houses being sold off in their millions, and now the Government are at it again.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2012; Vol. 541, c. 241WH.]
As the late Alan Freeman would have said, “Not half we ain’t.”
Labour are the enemies of aspiration. Every council tenant on every council estate who wanted to work hard and move up had the ladder of opportunity kicked away from them under Labour. It will be restored by the coalition. The Government have accepted Michael Heseltine’s proposals for devolving power to local areas, a natural extension of the measures in the Localism Act 2011. The Government are taking decisive action in favour of families with ambition.
The head of the CBI said that
“our call for a focus on the short-term boost of housing has been heeded, alongside an increase in longer-term big ticket infrastructure spending…by shifting £6 billion to housing and infrastructure, the Government has sowed the seeds for growth and jobs.”
The Budget is tackling Labour’s toxic legacy. It is prising open the door of opportunity and heralding a day long overdue, when those who have put everything into this country finally get the chance to own a little piece of the place they call home.
I commend the Budget to the House.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I draw the attention of the House to an indirect interest, declarable but not registerable, as my wife receives rental income from a property.
We welcome this opportunity to discuss the Budget and housing. The housing crisis has come upon us over many years—people living longer, a rising population, the breakdown of relationships and new families looking for a secure home. There is rising demand but not enough supply. The well housed—the majority—are affected only when they think about where their children can afford to live, whether they want to rent or to buy; while the younger generation, priced out of the market, see their dream of home ownership recede into the distance.
The Minister responsible for planning, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), expressed the consequences eloquently in his Policy Exchange speech earlier this year, when he talked about the misery of young families forced to grow up in tiny flats with no outside space, and working men and women in their 20s and 30s having to live with their parents or share bedrooms with friends. Doing something about that is a task for all of us. We have to harness land, money and consent to build the communities we need so that young people and families can build a better future.
Ministers have made big claims for what was announced in the Budget. Of course we welcome steps that will enable people to get a foot on the housing ladder, and where they work, we will support them; after all, helping people to get a home is exactly what we have been calling on the Government to do. But the proof will lie in the detail of the schemes and on progress in actually managing to build more homes. As always with the Secretary of State, the issue is not so much his stated intention as his delivery. Perhaps that explains why we have had four major housing launches over the past three years and more than 300 announcements on housing; and why, in his recent speech to the Conservative spring conference on what he had actually achieved, the Secretary of State devoted three words to building more houses, and 194 words to talking about closing down a bar in the basement of his Department.
In the past few days, headline after headline has queried the Government’s grasp of the detail of its latest scheme. The Chancellor did not seem to know, and neither did the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, whether the scheme could indeed act as a spare-home subsidy, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor memorably christened it; whereas they certainly know that they are forcing social tenants out of their own homes because they have a spare room.
Let us begin by examining the facts about the Government’s record. Housing starts fell by 11% last year to 98,000. The number of private homes started was down; the number of local authority homes started was down; and the number of housing association homes started was down—indeed, the figure of 19,460 was the lowest for eight years.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in 13 years of Labour government fewer council houses were built than in the entire period of the Thatcher Government?
Hilary Benn
I will happily confirm that we did not build enough council houses, although that began to change in 2007. Indeed, 70,000 affordable homes for which this Government have tried to take credit in their target of 170,000 were started by the Labour Government.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I urge my right hon. Friend to resist the temptation raised by the Secretary of State to be too political, and commend to him the partnership work of Labour Tameside council and New Charter housing trust, which together have set the ambition and the reality of producing one affordable home a day for the next three years. That is Labour in action.
Hilary Benn
I welcome the efforts that my hon. Friend has described. I said a moment ago that this is a responsibility for all of us, but I cannot promise to resist the temptations presented by the Secretary of State, given what he had to say.
Ministers do not want to talk about housing starts, because the figures are bad, so instead they want to focus on completions. Let us have a look at them. The facts are pretty stark. The number of completions in England in each of the first two years of the coalition Government was lower than in any one of the 13 years of the Labour Government. In other words, we completed more homes in every one of those years than the Government have managed in either year since they were elected. Indeed, the Secretary of State has the dubious distinction of presiding over the lowest level of completions by any peacetime Government since the mid-1920s. That is some achievement. No wonder the construction industry has been so hard hit. Eighty thousand construction workers are out of work, and output has fallen by 8.2%, contributing a great deal to the absence of growth in the British economy. The rate of home ownership has fallen, and there are 136,000 fewer home owners than when the Government came to power. That is hitting the youngest hardest, because the average age of a first-time buyer is now 37.
Official statistics from the Secretary of State’s Homes and Communities Agency show that affordable housing starts collapsed in the last financial year by 68%; homelessness and rough sleeping are up by a third since the election; the number of families with children and/or a pregnant woman housed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for six weeks or more has risen by over 800% since the coalition came together; and 125 councils have had families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for six weeks or more. As private rents have continued their relentless rise and incomes are squeezed, more people in work have to claim housing benefit to help them pay the rent.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I am struggling with an inconsistency on the Labour Benches. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), said that housing was essentially a private sector operation and that the public sector need not be involved in it.
Hilary Benn
I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that if he cares to look at the record of the Labour Government, he will see that 2 million more homes were built during those 13 years, 500,000 of which were affordable homes that we provided, and 1 million more families were able to buy their own home. That stands in comparison to the Government’s miserable record over the past two years.
Clive Efford
In response to the previous intervention, I remind Members that this Government inherited the biggest council house building programme for 20 years, but one of their first decisions was to scrap it, which is why we have so few social housing starts.
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend is correct. That is a consequence of the 60% cut.
The number of people on housing benefit has gone up by 300,000, almost entirely accounted for by people in work. When the Prime Minister launched NewBuy, the previous scheme, in March last year, we were told that it would help 100,000 people to get a mortgage. A year on, how many people has it actually helped? The answer is 1,500. Firstbuy, which was slightly more successful, has helped 6,000 people against a target of 16,500.
Then there is the strange case of the remarkably reclusive infrastructure guarantee. It was launched by the Chancellor in the autumn statement. He said that he would set aside £10 billion for investment in housing. It sounded good and we supported it, but we now know that not a single penny of it has yet been used to support house building. The facts are clear: lots of promises, precious little delivered, and not a lot for the Secretary of State to crow about.
Mr Sheerman
Many of my constituents are fed up with listening to Punch and Judy debates like this. They are getting tired of hearing, “They did this, but we didn’t do that.” Could we not offer the Government a proper agreement to discuss the way forward to deliver affordable housing now, because it is a national emergency? Is there not a possibility that the parties in this House could get together for a change?
Hilary Benn
Well, I have already told the Secretary of State that when he has proposals that will work and succeed, I will support them. If he wants the benefit of further advice from the Opposition, I would be happy to see him in his office, especially if he is buying the tea and biscuits himself.
Hilary Benn
If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I wish to make a little more progress.
I will now turn to the Budget. I have some questions to put to the Secretary of State. We know that the Government have a soft spot for people who earn a lot of money, but why is he proposing that his new deposit and mortgage scheme should be made available to anyone earning any amount, including millionaires, so that they can buy a house worth up to £600,000? Why is he changing the rules in that way, given that Firstbuy is currently only for those with family incomes below £60,000, and given that the Treasury document published last Wednesday states that the scheme is meant to help
“households struggling to save for the high mortgage deposits required by lenders”?
How many struggling top rate taxpayers does he expect to take advantage of the new scheme? No doubt they will be very grateful to him for his generosity.
In respect of the mortgage guarantee element of the help-to-buy scheme, can the Secretary of State clarify once and for all whether people who already own a property will be able to use it to buy a second home? He did not quite answer that earlier—[Interruption.] No, he did not. On Thursday, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills could not answer the question. When asked, he simply said:
“The scheme has not yet been designed in detail.”—[Official Report, 21 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 1102.]
At the same time, the Minister for Housing told “World at One” that second-home purchases would not be allowed. The BBC then reported that No. 10 had had to clarify the position. It seemed that the Housing Minister had been referring to another part of the help-to-buy scheme relating to equity loans. So yesterday we all turned on “The Andrew Marr Show” to watch the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and far from ruling it out categorically, he said, in a formulation that the Secretary of State has repeated today:
“Our intention is not to help people to buy second homes”.
If the Government do not want it to happen, why do Ministers not simply make it clear that it is not going to happen? Otherwise, reminiscent of last year’s Budget, we will have fanfare followed by farce.
In the event that these schemes are over-subscribed, what criteria will be used to determine which applicants are going to get assistance? I listened very carefully to the Secretary of State when he said that foreign nationals would not be eligible for assistance from the scheme, but where in the Government’s scheme description does it say that foreign nationals will not be eligible? I have looked at the mortgage eligibility criteria, and they do not say that. Has he taken any advice on whether EU nationals who are resident in the UK will be barred by law from taking part in the scheme?
What estimate has the Secretary of State made of the impact that “help to buy” will have on the housing market, given that we know that it is the lack of supply that has led to high house prices? The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has warned that the Government must be careful not to create “another housing bubble”. It seems that the scheme is not even a done deal with the lenders, because the Council of Mortgage Lenders has set out certain conditions that it wants to be met, or else, it warns, the scheme could be made “uneconomical”. How many additional homes, in total, does the Secretary of State think will be built as a result of the scheme?
Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend also seek clarity on whether, in the event of a family break-up and a parent wishing to buy a home, that parent will be restricted in the number of bedrooms they can have in that home, or is aspiration only for some and not for others?
Hilary Benn
That is a very good question that has already been asked. I am very happy to give way to the Secretary of State if he wishes to answer it. Does he wish to answer? No, he does not.
We need a lot of new affordable homes because of the decision taken by the Government nearly three years ago to slash the affordable housing budget, when £4 billion was taken away. We are then asked to be grateful to the Secretary of State when we hear in the Budget announcements that an additional £225 million will be made available, although it seems that only £125 million of it will be spent before 2015. That figure is dwarfed by the original £4 billion cut. We are told that this is a time for tough choices. A quarter of a billion pounds was identified by the Secretary of State to try to persuade councils to collect the bins in the way that he thinks is correct. It was such a failure that only one council took him up on his offer. A quarter of a billion pounds and one council: think how many affordable homes that money could have been used to build! If the Government want to be taken seriously on affordable housing, they have to will the means. That is why we called for the 4G auction proceeds and the bankers’ bonus tax repetition to be used to build 125,000 new affordable homes to get the economy moving.
The Secretary of State referred to councils. We know that he is presiding over cuts to the local authority sector that are bigger than in any other part of the public sector and that the cuts are being unfairly applied. Councils need as much money as they can find to help, in part, to build homes. When the Secretary of State was asked about these cuts earlier this year in front of the departmental Select Committee, he said that in his view the cuts were “modest”. In private, however, it seems that his views are rather different. When it was reported last month that the Chancellor was looking for further cuts from certain Departments, including CLG, The Times said that
“sources close to Mr Pickles”—
[Interruption.] It certainly was not me. The Times said that
“sources close to Mr Pickles made clear that he was not accepting the latest reductions, arguing that council services had already been cut to the bone.”
It seems, therefore, that the Secretary of State’s private views are rather different from his public views. We are used to hearing Liberal Democrats say one thing to one audience and another thing to another, but I am surprised that the Secretary of State is also doing so.
This is a familiar record. The Secretary of State, as the statistics show, is not very good at getting things done. It is not just me who thinks that; the Chancellor does, too. Apparently the Chancellor was in a fiery mood at the Cabinet meeting following the loss of the triple A credit rating and challenged Ministers about the poor rate of growth. The Daily Telegraph reported:
“Eric Pickles, the Communities and Local Government Secretary, was given a ‘dressing down’ for failings in the Government’s flagship enterprise zone programme, according to sources.
With less than a month until he unveils his Budget, the Chancellor criticised Mr Pickles over figures that show that one in three enterprise zones is failing to attract enough businesses. Mr Pickles is then said to have attempted to deflect the blame on to Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, by accusing him of failing to convince foreign businesses to invest in the schemes.”
It is a very familiar story: Cabinet members are so busy fighting and blaming each other that it is no wonder that they cannot sort out the problems facing the country.
The reforms to the national planning policy framework were supposed to streamline the planning system, but it seems that they have left councils less able to decide applications quickly. The national rate of decisions taken on major applications within 13 weeks has fallen from 62% in 2011 to 57% in 2012, and the same is true of minor applications determined within eight weeks, which are down from 72% to 69%, and the transition period is about to finish.
The planning Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, said recently that he wants further relaxation of the planning laws. We would be very interested to hear what he has in mind.
Richard Graham
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. May I confirm for him that the relaxation of planning laws introduced by the new planning Minister has been incredibly helpful to my constituents? It has ensured that work on three brownfield sites is now going ahead, which will be a great boon to the people of Gloucester.
The right hon. Gentleman also made a point earlier about the Secretary of State’s problems with delivery. Given that the right hon. Gentleman agreed earlier with one of my Liberal Democrat friends that delivery was a problem for his party when it was in power, is it not better to focus on the Budget announcements and—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Mr Graham, please keep interventions short. Sixty-one Members wish to get in and speak. If we are going to get on, we must have short interventions.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for agreeing that the Secretary of State is having problems with the delivery of housing. I have already indicated that we will support any measures that will help.
Councils will have to make proper assessments of their housing need. On the Prime Minister’s announcement today on council and social housing and migration, the Secretary of State knows that people cannot just get off a plane and get a council house. He will be familiar, of course, with section 160A of the Housing Act 1996, and he will know that councils already have the power to put in place allocation schemes, because the previous Labour Government issued guidance in 2009 and an increasing number of them are doing so. It would be helpful if we could get clarity about precisely what is being proposed, given that the housing lead of the Local Government Association, Councillor Mike Jones, who is a Conservative, has queried the need for the guidance, and given that this morning’s papers reported that the Government plan to impose an expectation on councils. How exactly is it possible to impose an expectation on councils? [Interruption.] I say to the planning Minister that I have a little bit more experience of Government than him—and it shows.
Ministers are looking to councils to identify housing need, but I say to them that the Growth and Infrastructure Bill will not assist councils in doing so, because clause 1 threatens to take away the power of local communities to decide whether housing is provided. The planning Minister, who is being very vocal, said that “vanishingly few” councils would be caught by that provision. However, to judge by the latest figures, as many as 21 local authorities could be stripped of their democratic accountability in taking decisions on housing planning applications if developers choose to go straight to the Planning Inspectorate.
How does the planning Minister think that will assist communities to take responsibility for housing provision? All of us have to face up to the need to provide more homes. That is the point that he has been making. However, is it better to let developers decide where houses should be built or to allow communities to take that responsibility for themselves?
I turn, finally, to one of the effects of what the Government are doing, which was not mentioned by the Chancellor in his speech on Wednesday. That is the effect that the decisions taken by the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will have on people on low incomes and their homes. So far in this debate, we have talked about the need to build homes so that people can move into them. I want to turn to the problem of people being forced out of their homes because of the Government’s bedroom tax and the Secretary of State’s poll tax.
One consequence of what the Government are doing is likely to be rising rent arrears. That is exactly what councils and housing associations up and down the country are anticipating. Last week, the evidence from the universal credit pilot showed rising rent arrears. That is creating a lot of uncertainty, not least for housing associations. A number of them have had credit rating downgrades recently. If lenders think that housing associations will have difficulty collecting rent, it could put up their borrowing costs, which could impact on their balance sheets and their ability to borrow. Ultimately, it will affect their ability to build the homes that the Secretary of State says he wants to see. All of that will create huge challenges for families, councils and housing associations, not least because of the debt that people will get into.
At the very time when the Chancellor has decided that the most important thing to do is to cut the top rate of tax, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has brought in his new poll tax and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has brought in the bedroom tax. What is so astonishing is that they are both singling out one group of people in our society. Whether they are working, seeking work or unable to work, the people who will be affected are those on the very lowest incomes, because that is why they get council tax benefit and housing benefit.
Given that the fundamental problem in the country is a lack of growth in the economy—the Chancellor’s crowning failure—have Ministers paused for a second to consider what impact those two taxes will have on the economy? All the evidence shows that when people who are on low incomes have money, they tend to spend it. In Leeds, £9.4 million—[Interruption.] I know that the planning Minister, who is chuntering from a sedentary position, does not want to hear this, but the people on the lowest incomes in Leeds are going to lose £9.4 million that they do not have because of rent increases and council tax rises.
Incredibly, last week the Secretary of State tried to blame local authorities for his policy, when he said that they
“seek to persecute and to tax the poor.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 611.]
That is extraordinary. The only person who is to blame is the Secretary of State. It is his legislation. He is the reason why bills are landing on people’s doorsteps that many of them will find hard to pay. Ministers know that people will do their best to stay in their own home—indeed, the Government’s assessment expects that to happen—because they want to stay with their friends, family and community.
Kate Green
Is my right hon. Friend interested in research just released by the Centre for Local Economic Strategies which shows that the Government’s welfare reforms, and the loss to family incomes, mean that on average 80% of money lost will be lost to the local economy as a result of reduced local shopping, reduced use of local transport, and reduced socialising?
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the reforms will have a damaging economic impact and be bad for families who cannot afford it, although they will try to stay if they can because they value community, friends, neighbours and a sense of place. Ministers know that even if people downsize, there are not enough smaller properties for them to move into. That is why this is a tax: people cannot avoid it because they cannot move.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
On the bedroom tax, does my right hon. Friend agree that Nos. 10 and 11 Downing street are social housing? Will the occupants of those homes be moving out in light of the fact that—[Laughter.]
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend is right on the first point, although I am not entirely sure that the occupants are claiming housing benefit. We wait to be informed.
People with disabilities will be forced to move and the new home will have to be adapted all over again. Divorced dads who are trying to keep in contact with their children will be told that they have to pay the bedroom tax on the spare bedroom where they stay at the weekend, but as we know, some people will have no choice but to move. The final absurdity—the Chief Secretary should be interested in this—is that if people do move to the right sized property in the private rented sector, because of higher rents the housing benefit bill is likely to be bigger than that paid on the social home from which the family was forced out.
Hilary Benn
I will conclude now, because many other Members want to speak. I have been generous in giving way but I want to finish on this point.
Last Friday a constituent came to see me in my surgery. He is a man in his late 50s who has worked for the past 42 years, until last December when he became unwell. He currently has to live on £71 a week and has just received a council tax bill for £108.25. He is not sure how he is going to pay it and he asked me—it is quite something when someone says this to a Member of Parliament, because we had not met before—“Can I tell you that I can no longer keep the heating on in my flat because it costs me £25 a week and I do not have the money to pay it?”
The Chancellor, the Secretary of State and other Ministers are fond of telling us that we have to make really tough decisions, but I wonder how difficult it was to decide to give those on highest incomes a tax reduction at the beginning of next month, while imposing a reduction in council tax benefit and the bedroom tax on people. They are taking money from those who are poor—that is what we are talking about—and giving it to those who are rich. That is why they should scrap the cut to council tax benefit and get rid of the bedroom tax.
The Secretary of State was full of his usual bravado and occasional bluster in what he had to say, but the cold hard reality of the collision of his policies with people’s lives shows that those policies are not well thought out and are incapable of being delivered. Because of that record, we have a promise of growth that has not materialised, a promise of localism that is not what it seems, and a promise of homes that have not been built. This Chancellor, this Secretary of State, and this Budget have nothing to offer the people of Britain.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I remind hon. Members that there is a limit of five minutes on speeches. If we could have short interventions, that would help to get everybody in.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
The Chancellor is a fiscal Conservative and monetary activist, and as such he eschewed shock and awe measures in this Budget, opting instead for sensible targeted relief that is welcome on this side of the House. Cuts to income tax mean that by 2015 a large number of income tax payers will receive a £700 cut compared with their tax bill of 2010. On child care, average two-child families with working mothers and fathers will get £2,400. Fuel duty has been frozen, and it is the longest freeze for two decades. The national insurance contribution cut of £2,000 is equivalent to someone just under average median earnings being taken on at no national insurance cost to an employer.
I support the house building programme that we have heard about. As someone on the dry end of the Conservative party economically, I have heard the criticism that it is Fannie Mae all over again. People wonder whether there will be lots of defaults when the interest-free period runs out, and whether the policy could lead to higher house prices because of supply constraints. I am sure I will hear those concerns again, but the reality is that we need an injection of confidence into British households. There is no question but that the ability to get on the housing ladder, including the encouragement to spend money, because consumer spending frequently attends the purchase of a new house, is the kind of confidence that the British consumer wants at this stage of the economic cycle.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend recognise that the key issue is the blockage in getting money to people and giving them the ability to borrow it in the first place? We expect our banks to ensure that they not only rebuild their balance sheets, but lend money and make it available.
Mr Ruffley
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point.
There were no shock-and-awe measures in the Budget, because the Chancellor is probably right to believe that we are not approaching a lost Japanese decade. Nevertheless, I am concerned about the Office for Budget Responsibility growth projections; it forecasts growth of 2.3% in 2015, 2.7% in 2016 and 2.8% in 2017. The forecast turns on one central OBR assumption that might be wrong. The OBR assumes that there is quite a large negative output gap—that, in simple terms, there is a lot of slack in the economy. Forecasting or estimating the output gap is very difficult. If its assumption is wrong, and if the output gap is smaller than it says, a huge amount of the £120 billion a year last year and the coming year is structural rather than cyclical. If that is the case, we will need shock-and-awe measures—deeper cuts than those implied in the spending envelope and, yes, a fiscal stimulus in deeper tax cuts.
Mr MacNeil
On the one hand the hon. Gentleman calls for deeper cuts, but on the other hand, he spoke a few moments ago of the importance of consumer spending. In an earlier intervention, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said that 90% of the money for which those who are being penalised by the bedroom tax are responsible circulates locally. Surely if the Government take money out of the economy, we will see not consumer-led spending, but further contraction in the economy and further gaps.
Mr Ruffley
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear the second part of my statement, when I mentioned deeper cuts in public spending and a fiscal stimulus with deeper tax cuts.
If we do not have the growth we want in the economy in the next 12 or 18 months, I would like capital gains tax holidays of the kind suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), to get investment moneys circulating. I also believe there could be a case for deeper cuts in corporation tax to approximate more closely the Irish model; Ireland has 12.5% corporation tax, which makes it more of a magnet for foreign direct investment.
That said, the Conservative party has indicated that it has the technology should we need to go further and faster in fiscal consolidation. The Conservative economic affairs committee, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, has discussed proposals from colleagues for a suspension of the carbon price. A key cost that is undoubtedly hampering business confidence is that, in 2011, about one fifth of the energy bill paid by small and medium-sized enterprises was attributable to green, renewable policies. Considering whether we want a holiday from that, and certainly not going further than European countries, would seem sensible.
On Budget day, the Chancellor said two important things about monetary policy. First, he explicitly said that the Financial Policy Committee must co-ordinate better in future, under Mark Carney, with the Monetary Policy Committee. At the moment, the regulators are pulling in different directions. The MPC has pumped in £375 billion by printing electronic money in exchange for purchasing gilts from the commercial banks, but that credit is not flowing into the real economy. On the other hand, the Financial Services Authority, and its successor body the FPC, are telling the banks not to lend any of that money and to rebuild their capital position to de-leverage. Those two impulses fight against each other and it is entirely sensible for the Chancellor to say that the FPC and the MPC must co-ordinate better.
Secondly, the Chancellor talked about forward policy guidance via thresholds to commit to looser monetary policy for a set period. That has had a good effect in Canada and the United States, and it will give British business the confidence that interest rates will not be jacked up just as the recovery begins and that economic activity will not be choked off.
I support the Budget with qualifications.
Mr Alistair Darling (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I shall follow up shortly the points made by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley) on the Bank of England, but first I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The big problem we face at the moment is lack of growth. Here we are, five years since the crisis hit most western developed economies, yet contrary to what has happened in the past, there is absolutely no sign that growth will return to this country.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
One of the many reasons we do not have growth is that the Opposition made the country such a client state that we are indebted up to our eyeballs and there is no room for growth.
Mr Darling
With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I anticipated that predictable nonsense. I am grateful to him for intervening, however, not least because he has given me another minute in which to make my case.
As the Office for Budget Responsibility points out, the recession is taking far longer to come out of than any we have seen previously. The principal factor is that in 2007-08 we had a complete collapse of our GDP and that situation has not been recovered in the past five years. Frankly, on the evidence presented by the Chancellor last week, I see little evidence that it is going to happen. As a result, we are borrowing very large sums of money: £120 billion last year, this year and next year.
As I was saying before the hon. Gentleman interrupted, in the Chancellor’s forecasts, yet again in the back three years of the forecast period we see an expectation that growth will go from 2.7% to 2.8% in 2017. That is exactly the same profile that we have seen in each of the Chancellor’s Budgets and autumn statements. The problem is that these sunny uplands are moving to the right each time he stands up. I cannot for the life of me see why anything will be any different in 2017 from the bleak outlook we see today. The problem is that as long as we have low growth we will have high levels of borrowing, and debt is now expected to peak at 85% of our GDP. When we advocate a different approach, the Conservatives and the Liberals say that we are talking about borrowing more, but this Government are borrowing more than they ever imagined they would in 2010, and they are doing so not to invest in things such as infrastructure, but because of the price of their economic failure. That is what many of us have a problem with.
Mr MacNeil
Surely by boasting that he would cut harder and deeper than Thatcher, the right hon. Gentleman set the tone for the cult of austerity that we are now living through.
Mr Darling
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but not in the way he intended, because that is nonsense too. Incidentally, in the leaked document from John Swinney, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, the Scottish Government too faced up to some difficult decisions. The difference is that I and—to give them credit—the coalition Government were open about the difficulties we faced, whereas the Scottish National party wanted to keep them secret from the Scottish people.
It seems that the Chancellor has given up on doing anything. As I said last week, we are in the middle of a lost decade—it happened to Japan and it is happening to us now—and there is no sign that the Government have any idea how to get out of it. The Government’s Budget response on infrastructure is fine, but it does not come along for two or three years. On housing, I agreed with everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the shadow Secretary of State, said. The problem is that last week’s announcement is more likely to create yet another housing bubble by driving up asset prices. Indeed, some of it might even sow the seeds that gave rise to the sub-prime mortgage problem we saw in the United States, because we are suffering from an acute lack of housing in just about every town and city in the country.
I was encouraged by what the planning Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), said over the summer. Unless we break through this logjam and get more housing built, prices will go up and up and people will face the same difficulties they did in the past. The irony is that we are not prepared to build houses, but we are prepared, it seems, to finance the inflation of a bubble in housing prices. That is absolutely the wrong thing to do. The bedroom tax illustrates the problem; there simply are not the houses for people whose income is being cut to move to. That illustrates the need to improve our housing infrastructure, although the problem applies to transport and energy as well. I do not object to some measures in the Budget, but nothing in it is likely to get our economy going.
The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds referred to the Bank of England and said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had effectively said, “I can’t do anything further in fiscal terms. It’s all up to the Bank of England now.” Most Members have warmly welcomed the appointment of Mark Carney. I think he will be a very good Governor, but with the best will in the world we cannot expect him to do everything the Government are supposed to be doing. It is useful that we can tell the markets what we think will happen to interest rates. I suspect that most people do not expect them to rise for the next two or three years, although they might rise in the United States, given that the US Government are following a different policy from that being followed here and in Europe.
I do not think, however, that the sort of measures the Chancellor has in mind and which the new Governor might announce in relation to forward guidance will do the trick and get our economy going. I have said before that quantitative easing has played its role and stabilised the banking system—I have supported what has been done so far—but there is little evidence of what additional QE would do for our economy. The risk is that the money simply goes into the bank vaults, not into the wider economy. The Bank will play its part, but monetary policy and fiscal policy have to be complementary, otherwise they simply will not work.
Time does not allow me to mention the eurozone, other than to say that the last week has confirmed my suspicion that the eurozone is almost psychologically incapable of sorting out its problems. Unless it does so, it will hold back growth not only in this country, but elsewhere. At the same time, I am committed to this country remaining part of the European Union—that is very important—although we need to use our influence. Governments can make a difference. In 2008-09, through the G20, Governments from across the world, from communist China to the Republican-led United States, came together and we did what was necessary to support our economies. And guess what? Our economy was growing in 2010. Look at it now.
Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am delighted to take part in this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling). Some of his remarks would have had more bite if he had not left us borrowing £428 million every day of 2010. It is a credit to this coalition Government that that figure has been substantially reduced.
As the first Liberal Democrat speaking in this debate, I would not be doing my duty if I did not praise the Chancellor for the decision to raise the income tax threshold to £10,000. This is a long sought-after victory, which I very much welcome, which will see 2.5 million taxpayers—many of them low-paid women—taken out of tax and 20 million taxpayers getting a £700 smaller tax bill than they did under Labour.
I want to use my time primarily to talk about two measures that appear on page 40 of the Red Book. The first is the major step forward announced on zero-carbon homes and the achievement of the target in 2016, which appears in paragraph 1.109. I am delighted to see that. I am delighted, too, to see that the intention is now to increase the standard of energy efficiency of new buildings from October this year. I very much look forward to the announcement by the Department for Communities and Local Government, which is prefigured in the Red Book. I also very much welcome the statement that a decision on allowable solutions will be taken by the summer; the construction industry is certainly ready for this measure. The Zero Carbon Hub has done the preparatory work and the Green Building Council has been pressing for it. I would like to think that the decision reported in the Red Book is at least in part a response to what they have said and to early-day motion 1004, which covers the same ground.
I asked the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Question Time last November whether the Government still intended to be the greenest Government ever. I was pleased that he replied emphatically, “Yes”. I was even more pleased when, in a speech to the Royal Society on 4 February, he reiterated the Government’s commitment. I want to say to the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government that, given the Prime Minister’s support, there can be no excuse for delay. We need an urgent decision on the carbon price for offsite generation for zero-carbon homes. The Red Book says that the decision will be taken by the Department for Communities and Local Government. I am sure that the DCLG and Her Majesty’s Treasury can sort out their respective responsibilities, but can we ensure that there is no delay in taking that decision?
The second point I want to bring to the House’s attention is the excellent news of more investment in homes for rent, with £225 million and 15,000 starts planned before 2015. That comes on top of 170,000 new homes planned for rent and 150,000 decent homes brought up to standard. There are many positive features to our housing programme. Like everybody else in the Chamber, I wish it was going further and faster, but I do not believe we should listen for a moment to the shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and his complaints, when his Administration reduced the stock of affordable homes by 420,000 and sold so many homes without having a replacement policy—a policy that Labour itself now admits was a failure. I welcome these housing measures in the Budget, but there is still much more to do to improve the quality of our 20 million existing homes and to build the many more we need to the highest environmental standards. I look forward to the coalition making yet more progress in the remaining two and a half years before the general election.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Listening to Government Members this evening, one would think that there was no economic situation in 2008, but in fact it started in America because of the irresponsibility of the bankers—not only in this country, but in America. It is also worth reminding the House, when the Government try to blame those on the Labour Benches, that in his last four or five weeks as President, George Bush pumped billions into the American economy, because he realised right away that the fault lay with the American banks.
I remind Members, too, of the catastrophe associated with Lehman Brothers, with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example. We need to remind the Government of those aspects because the Government were very light, to say the least, when it came to dealing with the bankers who caused the problem in the first place. What they have tried to do is to blame the previous Government for things that they never understood at the time. I remember that when we were in government, their solution to the problem was “Oh, well, we have too much red tape and we must cut it”. I do not remember any Members now on the Government Benches providing any solutions whatever at the time, yet they are pretty good at coming here and trying to blame us for a situation that their friends, the bankers, caused in the first place.
Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)
Under whose regulatory system did those failures take place?
Mr Cunningham
It was the previous Conservative Government, and that has never been acknowledged, so the hon. Gentleman should not rewrite history.
Another interesting aspect of the present economic situation is that local government has taken the brunt—33.3%—of the cuts. People talk about growth, without realising that it is only through local government that growth will happen. It is worth noting that in the west midlands, for example, unemployment is probably the highest in the country with about 8.5% unemployed, while for young people up and down the country it is as high as 21%. Given those levels of youth unemployment over which this Chancellor is presiding, I think it is offensive when he talks about aspiration and the aspiration nation. The UK has the third worst level of youth unemployment in the developed world; of the OECD countries, only Spain and Greece have higher levels. Since the recession started, the UK has experienced the fastest rise in youth unemployment of the G8 countries.
Speaking about aspiration, the Chancellor is dividing people into “aspirants” who aspire to prosperity and others. It is as though he does not know or does not care that there is a national lack of job opportunities available to young people. It is simply disgraceful for the Chancellor to talk about aspiration when one in five young people leaving school might not find work. The Government need an extensive programme to create jobs for young people and should support them in finding those jobs and training them.
Let me deal with manufacturing. I have often spoken about the west midlands and its success in manufacturing, and I strongly believe that the manufacturing sector can drive local economies and boost growth. I was therefore alarmed at the Budget’s lack of discussion of manufacturing industry. The Chancellor’s only mention of it was his claim that for the first time in 40 years we are manufacturing for export more cars than we import. Well, that started under the Labour Government and certainly not under the present Government. The Government try to take the credit for the success of Jaguar Land Rover, but Labour Members know that the previous Labour Government supported that industry.
Mr MacNeil
Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to congratulate his old friend on these green Benches—Alex Salmond—on presiding over youth unemployment in Scotland that is at a 20-year low, recently going down from 25% to 17%?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am not sure that we need to be dragged around the Scottish Parliament and Scottish leaders. This is supposed to be a Budget debate, and I do not see a true connection.
Mr Cunningham
I will accept your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Why was there nothing in the Budget about manufacturing green technology? If that was the Budget’s intention, it could hardly be any less green than it is. This Government launch initiatives, but then seem to forget them. In 2001, the Chancellor of the Exchequer pledged that 100,000 people would be able to buy their own home; 18 months later, only 1,500 had done so. I hope that this will not be the fate of the schemes announced in last week’s Budget, too.
Public sector workers have had yet another 1% pay cut levied on them. As I understand the Chancellor’s Budget statement, this will probably last until 2015. I believe that 1.4 million public sector workers, including nurses, paramedics, midwives and prison staff, are affected by that policy. Those jobs are spread out across the country rather than being just London-based. Rather than cutting those people’s pay by 1%, putting more money in the pockets of these workers would be an excellent way to stimulate demand across the country. Instead, the Government are stifling those workers’ spending ability. Furthermore, a high proportion of women in the public sector will be affected. I fear that the Government’s approach will hurt working women disproportionately. It certainly does not encourage aspiration.
Cuts in funding for Coventry city council will hit the most vulnerable people in the city. The council’s community services director must make a third of its £63 million budget cuts by 2016. Last week cuts of £6 million were announced, which will mean the closure of day care centres used by hundreds of elderly and disabled people, the axing of subsidies for transport to day centres, the ending of housing-with-care bedsit schemes for the vulnerable, and the cutting of housing-related support that is currently provided for the elderly and disabled. Roughly 160 carers are expected to lose their jobs. It is predicted that thousands of elderly people will be affected, as well as people with learning disabilities, Alzheimer’s and mental health problems.
We should judge our society according to how we treat the most vulnerable, the old, the sick and the young, not according to how we treat our millionaires. We are failing fast, and this Budget will do nothing to help those people.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
In the limited time available to me, I intend to explain why I welcome the measures in the Budget, and also why I consider the views of Opposition Members to be highly inconsistent.
Given the lack of growth in our largest trading nations, it is easy to understand why the Chancellor was left with so little room for manoeuvre. After all, growth projections in Germany and the United States—just two examples—have been downgraded. We need to recognise the context of the present position: the scale of debt inherited in 2010, the major issues that confront the eurozone, the local impact of the high prices of commodities such as oil, gas and food and the inflationary pressures that that involves, and the lack of growth in other nations.
Oliver Colvile
Did not the last Labour Government create a structural budget deficit as long ago as 2001?
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall say more about Labour’s inconsistency later.
All the issues I have mentioned have had impacts on the living standards of families throughout the United Kingdom. Decisions such as these are difficult to take, but they must be seen in context.
What I welcome most is the Chancellor’s drive to create the most competitive of economic environments. That will attract investment, and will also continue to encourage the private sector in the UK to invest. The further reduction in corporation tax goes to the heart of a sustained economic recovery, and underlines the economic imbalance that we inherited. The 20% corporation tax rate means that we now compare exceptionally well with our major competitors. In Germany the rate is 29%, in France it is 33%, and in Italy it is 31%. Those are material considerations for anyone who is thinking about where to invest, and for any United Kingdom investor who is thinking of expanding. We should also bear in mind the uncompetitive position that we inherited. The increase in employers’ national insurance rates led to the term “jobs tax”, with which we are now familiar.
The ultimate judgment will come in the grades that the World Economic Forum confers on the competitiveness of the various nations. Having ranked fourth in 1997, we were dragged down to 13th by the Labour party. At last, however, we have recovered enough to rank eighth—and that happened before the announcement of the welcome changes in the Budget. Neither the 20% corporation tax rate nor the employers’ national insurance relief were taken into account.
Other Budget measures that I welcome include the “help to buy” mortgage guarantee schemes. That is an area of policy in which no Government would ideally become involved. However, bearing in mind the context I referred to earlier, the Chancellor had little choice other than to get involved. The scheme will provide a welcome boost to the construction and retail industries and various elements of the service sector, and it will make a significant difference to many families who want to buy their own home.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
On “help to buy”, does the hon. Gentleman think it morally correct that millionaires can get support to buy second homes?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman recognises, I hope, that the economy needs to be kick-started. He always refers to the changes to the highest income tax rates and the 5% reduction that will take place next week. However, I remind him that the rate Labour introduced was temporary. If so, when was Labour planning to abandon it? The ultimate question that Labour Members have to answer is, will they reintroduce for the next general election the 50% rate that was in their manifesto? I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wants to intervene again. Obviously, he does not, because they are not prepared to say whether they will commit to doing that.
I am pleased that the homebuy scheme will be limited to three years because as I said, it is not a policy area that any Government would want to be involved with in perpetuity, because of some of the risks that have been highlighted. It simply is not a public sector initiative that any Government would want to undertake all the time.
If those who want to criticise such initiatives are to have any credibility, they need to offer some form of alternative. It is hard to believe the audacity shown by some Labour Members. Less than three years ago, they were responsible for, or were the loudest cheerleaders for, the policies that led us into this position, giving this country the most debt-ridden, overspent, unbalanced economy in modern history. Manufacturing had declined by more than 20%, public sector job numbers had ballooned and we had the highest debt level of any G20 nation. I notice that the Labour Members who were seeking to intervene and criticise earlier are now staring at their boots.
These initiatives are aimed at promoting growth and freezing or cutting spending. [Interruption.] The Labour critics really need to come up with some alternatives. Until they have accepted their responsibility, they will lack credibility and no one will listen. Even Lord Mandelson recognised that just last week. They came up with some sort of plans in the past. Spending the 4G auction money on 100,000 new affordable homes was one option; a two-year freeze on stamp duty was another. However, that money has already been used—on the national debt—so I look forward to hearing their alternatives.
This Budget will make a difference to families, and help to kick-start the housing sector and to make Britain’s economy much more competitive. I look forward to hearing the solutions that Labour Members will try—
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I became a Member of this House in 1992, and I have to say that this is the worst Budget I can remember—that is, since last year’s omnishambles of the pasty tax and the caravan tax. It will do nothing to reverse the decline of the economy, nothing for jobs, nothing for taxpayers and nothing for those forced on to benefits by this Government’s policies. The February unemployment figures show that any decline in unemployment during the previous three-month period is now faltering.
In my constituency, the picture is bleak. There has been an increase in unemployment, including among those aged over 50, and the number of people on jobseeker’s allowance for more than 12 months has also increased. Those in their 50s, in particular, will suffer when they retire because they will be unable to build up an occupational pension and will have to rely on the state pension.
I recently visited one of my constituency’s Work programme providers. Advisers there told me that most of the jobs they were helping people into were part time and paid the minimum wage, involving basic skills and offering limited prospects. However, the bigger problem is that the number of people who have been unable to find work after 12 months has grown by more than a third during the past year.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is in his place, might be interested to hear about the effects of the Government’s policy on excise duty. The Chancellor has knocked a penny off a pint of beer, and he made a big deal of it. When I heard about that, I thought back to the days of Denis Healey, when a penny off a pint meant something. Today, it is the equivalent of 0.2% or 0.3% off the cost of a pint. In other words, someone would have to buy 200 to 300 pints to get an extra pint for their money, so it is hardly going to have a huge impact on the pub trade.
As far as I am aware, there are no wine producers in my constituency—although there are some who brew at home—but Scotch whisky is a major industry, as it is for the UK as a whole. It is worth £4 billion a year and employs more than 35,000 people across Scotland, yet the Chief Secretary and his Treasury cohorts have done nothing whatsoever to support it. When I entered Parliament in 1992, the average price of a bottle of Scotch was £10.42, of which VAT and excise duty accounted for 68%. The average price after this Budget will be £12.89, of which VAT and excise duty will account for 78%. In other words, since 1992 the price of a bottle of Scotch has increased by £2.47, but the amount of VAT and excise duty has increased by £2.95. The industry is therefore producing whisky more cheaply, yet the customer has to pay more. The beer industry complains about this issue, but imagine the uproar if it had to bear the same tax burden as the Scotch whisky industry has to bear.
The Chancellor has responded to public pressure on fuel duty, but has totally ignored air passenger duty. The aviation and tourist industries have complained—as have the travelling public, in mass numbers—about this unfair penalty on those who want to travel.
Mr MacNeil
It is reputed to be the world’s most onerous tax on air travel, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is damaging Scottish airports terribly.
Mr Donohoe
I do agree with the hon. Gentleman on this occasion; it is not very often I can say that. The Government are doing absolutely nothing for air passengers, the aviation industry and those who work in it. They continue with this tax, while our competitors throughout the world are laughing at us. The Government are prepared to examine other measures, but not the tax that affects not only my constituency but others throughout the United Kingdom.
The Chancellor says that he wants to boost house building, but how is the bedroom tax going to help to do that? Surely it will add to the confusion about the sort of housing stock we require. I predict that it will be worse than the poll tax for people in my constituency; indeed, I am already seeing signs of that. It will prove to be the Government’s Achilles heel, just as the poll tax was for Margaret Thatcher.
Future growth forecasts have had to be revised, and the Office for Budget Responsibility says that in 2015 most people will be worse off. All in all, the Budget offers the British people nothing other than more of the same failed policies of the last three years. The approach simply is not working, and the Government should own up to that and change tack today, for the sake of the UK economy as a whole.
Reflecting on it, this is the worst Budget I have witnessed since being elected in 1992.
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
I welcome this responsible Budget, which targets help to individuals and businesses intelligently. Our time is short, so I wish to focus on three points: personal allowances, the employment allowance and exports.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), I welcome the raising of personal allowances to £10,000. That is being delivered by a Conservative Chancellor and, as a result, more than 42,000 people in my constituency will be paying less tax and more than 4,000 will be taken out of paying tax altogether. Before the Budget, I suggested to the Treasury that we set an aspiration for future years that nobody on the minimum wage should pay income tax. I know that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is not in his place, shares that aspiration. It will take some years to deliver and it will be an expensive measure, but it is fair and it is the right thing to do. I hope that aspiration will be set and I hope it will be in the 2015 Conservative manifesto.
Small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency welcome the employment allowance, which is a big boost to job creation. The private sector is the engine of growth, and Reading, the town I represent, is an economic powerhouse in the south-east. No matter what the Opposition may say, the private sector is creating jobs. This morning, I met the chief executive of Huawei, a Chinese IT and telecoms group, which is opening its head office in my constituency in the next few months. It is bringing hundreds of new jobs to Reading and creating several hundred more over the next few years.
In the past few weeks, Tesco has confirmed that it is starting recruitment at a new distribution centre in my constituency, and I am pleased that this brownfield redevelopment is taking place. I have been discussing it with Tesco and its advisers since 2011, and it means more than 1,000 new jobs in my constituency.
A couple of months ago, I met Ross Snape, the chief executive officer of United Asphalt, a successful independent business located in Theale in my constituency. He said:
“All too often we hear politicians and the press talking down the economy, which can have really negative effects on business and the decisions we make on investment and employing people…it is time to move on and face the challenges we have with confidence.”
I could not agree more. Many billions of pounds have been sitting on UK corporate balance sheets as deleveraging has been going on, but businesses based in my constituency have decided that it is now time to invest. They realise there are no easy fixes to the economy because of the problems that had built up.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
My hon. Friend is giving good local examples of job creation. Does he agree that as the Budget contains one of the proposals relating to the single pot of funding, a recommendation of the Heseltine review, his local area will be helped to develop even further?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that proposal, which will help not only my local area, but other areas. It also advances the whole aspect of localism, on which this Government are very keen, as I am. As I was saying, companies in my constituency have decided that it is time to start investing, and I hope that many others up and down the country will follow suit.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman says that some companies are starting to invest, but is that not related to what Keynes and, latterly, Paul Krugman have said: in the absence of government doing anything substantial, recessions will sort themselves out in the end, but years of unnecessary pain will have been experienced by many people because of government inaction or wrong policies?
Alok Sharma
Thanks to the measures taken by this Government, the deficit is coming down, we have record employment and interest rates are at record lows. I would have thought the hon. Gentleman would welcome all those things, just as businesses in my constituency do.
The Chancellor made the point in his Budget statement that for the first time in more than two decades we are exporting more goods to non-EU countries than to EU ones, and I welcome that. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), for whom I have huge respect, said that there is no growth, but, as he well knows, there is growth; we are expanding our exports to some of the world’s key economies, which is a result of the policies that this Government have put in place and of the good work being done by UK Trade & Investment and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Small and medium-sized businesses still tell us that there is a fear factor when they are looking to enter new markets. UKTI and the FCO have been great at targeting high-growth nations and opening new offices, but we need to turbo-charge that expansion. We need not only to target three, four or five cities in these huge economies such as India and Indonesia, but to go into the 15 or 20 top tier 1 and tier 2 cities. In those economies it is not only the national Governments who make decisions; the state governments make many of the big decisions on investment, which is why we need to turbo-charge our approach and get these offices across these countries quickly. The Government, together with UKTI, should provide practical help by taking on office space in these key cities, basing sector experts from the UK Government and UKTI there, and working with local enterprise partnerships to get out there and allow SMEs low-cost desk and office space for three, six or 12 months. The synergies that will be created as a result of all these companies coming together in one location, with sector focus and where we can also get local advisers involved, will do a huge amount to boost our exports. We want to go from having one in five SMEs exporting to having one in four, which is the European average. That will add billions of GDP to our economy. UKTI is doing a great job with the headstart scheme, but we need to build on such initiatives.
The final point I wish to make is about the local Labour party in Reading—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am not sure that this is totally relevant to the Budget, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to stray from what the good people of Reading want to hear about the Budget.
Alok Sharma
Of course not, Mr Deputy Speaker. What I wanted to say was about jobs. We have really good news coming out of Reading, but I never hear people from the local Labour party welcoming new jobs or celebrating business success. They do not do good news. They are anti-aspiration and anti-business, very much like many of the Opposition Members who have spoken in these Budget debates. Let me tell hon. Members what Geoff Foley in my constituency says about Labour Reading council:
“Reading Borough Council do not really give a thought to local businesses”—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I am sure that Reading borough council knows exactly what it is talking about, but I am not sure that this is relevant to today’s Budget debate. I am being very generous and I think we are going to run out of time, so one quick mention of Reading without the Labour party would be helpful.
Alok Sharma
Let me conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, by commending this Budget and urging everyone to support it.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
May I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?
I listened attentively to the Budget statement and tried to hear something that was positive, not just for exports, but for manufacturing, for business and for productive industries. There were just two things that we, of course, welcome: the £2,000 off national insurance contributions and the increase to 10% of the research and development credits for those investing, which I am pleased to say several companies in my constituency have already welcomed. The trouble is that those two things pale into insignificance when we look at the scale of the problem we face; they just are not going to tackle it.
The problem can best be measured by looking at the plan from 2010 and the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts attached to it. Two crucial elements were going to support that plan and those forecasts. I recall saying in the debates that followed that they seemed to be the two most solid pillars on which the Government were building, but that, as far I could see, there was nothing underneath to support them or the OBR’s very optimistic forecasts. Those two elements were: manufacturing exports—exports on the visible account; and the increase in output from manufacturing. We were told to expect a 10%—I believe the figure given was 9.8%—increase in output from the business sector, but what have we had in the two years to the end of 2012? An increase of less than 5%—barely half what was projected. The hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) said that we are doing well on exports—I am not sure whether we were more interested in exports or Reading—but compared with what was projected and with what we need, the outcome in those two years has been terrible. I believe that the projected figure was 6% and we achieved minus 0.3% to December last year in the value and volume of exports.
I am not saying it is easy, but one thing I am sure about is that either the OBR has no idea about forecasts or we need to reconsider the OBR model, as it continually gets everything so wrong. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), the former Chancellor, was kind enough to say that he thought the estimates were optimistic—that the sunny uplands kept moving to the right and that the further out the OBR went, the more optimistic it became, but that was the case from the very beginning and nothing has changed. We should now be in those sunlit uplands. I do not understand why the OBR, with its much-vaunted independence, continues to get things so hopelessly wrong. Somebody needs to rethink that model. It is not enough to take responsibility out of the Treasury and pop it somewhere down Victoria street—one should not think that that will put everything right. There we are; that is one problem.
One part of the Budget that I thought might lead to some positive movement concerned the construction industry and the house building sector in particular. In an intervention on the Secretary of State, I welcomed the Firstbuy initiative, and a development on the old Jaguar site in Coventry has made quite a contribution, but the extension of the mortgage scheme, which is much bigger, is—yet again—a measure that has not been thought through. The problem with this Government is that they are totally incapable of thinking anything through. They should not be consulting on whether millionaires can have subsidised mortgages for second homes. That should have been ruled out in principle right from the beginning, before the consultation began. Many things require consultation, but not that. I cannot imagine why it was left in as an option—well, I can; things were not thought through.
We are in real need with housing starts down 11%, 70,000 construction workers unemployed and the lowest house building programme since the ’20s. That is the scale of the problem and such tiny measures show that the Government are fiddling around the edges—fiddling while Rome burns, as it were. Central to it all is the attitude of the Treasury and the Chancellor. If the Chancellor has lost self-confidence to such an extent that it impacts on confidence in the business community and consumers in the UK, he must consider whether he any longer has the vision, courage and self-confidence—whether he ever had those things is, of course, another question—to do what is necessary and change course.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
I am grateful to follow the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson). I think it was the late Harold Macmillan who talked about economists telling people this and that, and about statistics. However, there are some realities in this Budget, which other Members have referred to, and I will also do so in terms of the impact on my constituency.
Let me begin with the general point about the £10,000 income tax threshold for next year. That is reality; that is not statistical. It means that next year, 4,000 individuals in my constituency will not be paying tax. More important for hon. Members to understand is the fact that the average total family income across Lancashire is approximately £26,600, and next year those people will pay no tax on their first £10,000 of income. To me, that is a huge selling point in increasing confidence. People will be able to go out to work and the Government will promise that we will not touch the first £10,000. It seems remarkable that we are in such a state that we can say that that is marvellous, but compared with what has gone on before it is extremely good news for constituents across Lancaster and Fleetwood.
Fuel duty has been frozen. In a huge rural area such as my constituency, where people have no choice, whatever their income, but to be dependent on their car to travel to work and to the shops, the ending of Labour’s plans to increase fuel duty provides massive support for the local economy.
There is the new employment allowance. Most businesses in my area are small, made up of two or three—if not six—people. The national insurance promises in the Budget will be a massive fillip to new employment and to encouraging people to get out there, set up their own business and start moving with the support of this Government.
Hon. Members will bear with me while I discuss a local theme that they would expect me to mention: shale gas. Many hon. Members have looked at shale gas as the great nirvana and something that will fill the energy gap, but that will affect Lancashire. Let me underline yet again that we in Lancashire are still not satisfied that the regulatory regime is right. We welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to an office for unconventional gas and the tightening up of those regulations, but people in Lancashire need to see that the regulations are thorough and tight. Given that farmers still take water directly from the water table through boreholes, Members will be able to imagine the worries in parts of my constituency.
More important than that is the question of who will earn money from shale gas. Lancashire people are quite generous, like me, in their commitment—[Interruption.] Well, we are far more generous than the people from the other side of the Pennines. We are generous in our commitment to the United Kingdom and in our willingness to support it, but as the law stands, the people who own the land, including the farmers on whose land this fracking might—I still say might—take place will earn precious little from it.
Mr MacNeil
Is the hon. Gentleman advocating an equivalent to a sovereign wealth fund for Lancashire? That was the source of the reason why all Norwegians feel they own the oil; is there a similar feeling in Lancashire towards this gas?
Eric Ollerenshaw
The hon. Gentleman anticipates me and for once—in fact, not for the first time—we agree. If Lancashire is to be used to fill the energy gap and if Lancashire will see fracking across the county, we need to understand that it is not Texas and landowners in Lancashire do not own the mineral rights. The Chancellor will gain through the tax system, companies will gain through their profits and, presumably, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Crown Estate will gain through the tax on mineral rights, but the local councils will gain precious little. I was pleased that the Chancellor said in his Budget that there would be specific proposals to allow local communities to benefit, but I tell the Ministers on the Front Bench that Lancashire expects more than one or two parish hall roofs to be fixed. We want to see something that will return money to Lancashire when the gas has been fracked, if that fracking is to go ahead. I need to make that clear.
Finally, on infrastructure, hon. Members talked about growth. For me, the key point was the Chancellor’s phrase about “clearing the economic arteries”. In the north-west, that means something substantial and we have had that from this Government. We have had the biggest investment in rail for the last 30, 40 or 50 years. It was all right Opposition Members saying that that would happen in future—it is happening now. I point to my own station in Lancaster, where £8.5 million is already being spent to vary the signalling so that trains can turn around in Lancaster and more platforms can be used. That is the small-scale work. Only last week, the Department for Transport finally agreed the M6 link road, which will be a bypass for Lancaster to the port of Heysham. It will bring thousands of jobs through a scheme for which the first plans were produced in 1948—that is perhaps a lesson to us all. It has taken this coalition Government to agree the money to get things moving and get the growth.
As the Secretary of State mentioned, there is still a great deal more for local councils to do. I am pleased that the Conservative councils in my area, Wyre borough council and Lancashire county council, have kept the council tax frozen. Not only that, but Lancashire has cut it by 2%—
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
The Budget the Chancellor delivered was not the Budget that my constituents or the city of Glasgow needed. The Budget Glasgow needs is one that gets the economy moving, helps people back into work and looks after the most vulnerable in our society. Instead, the Government are willing to give millionaires a £40,000 tax cut at the same time as 17,000 Glaswegians will have to cope with the impact of the bedroom tax. Thousands more will have to mitigate the damage to their family budget of the cuts to child tax credits, cuts to working tax credits and drastic cuts to the local services that many people rely upon. Wages are falling, jobs are being lost, household budgets are being squeezed and there is still no sign of a rethink. Just when will the Chancellor wake up and smell the Starbucks coffee?
Anas Sarwar
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has made many interventions, so let us hope that this one is sensible.
Mr MacNeil
Is the hon. Gentleman not disappointed, and should he not be ashamed, that he supports a Westminster Government over independence, so we have the bedroom tax imposed on Scotland? If he supported independence, we would not have the bedroom tax in Scotland at the moment.
Anas Sarwar
That shows us the myth of the Scottish National party. The hon. Gentleman says that the only way to stop the bedroom tax is independence; the bedroom tax will be introduced on 1 April 2013, but according to the SNP timetable, independence day will be 31 March 2016. Members can work it out for themselves.
Plan A clearly is not working. For some time, the Opposition have been calling for additional infrastructure investment to boost the construction sector and we have been urging the Government to act. The Chancellor could have used the funds from the 4G auction to build 100,000 affordable homes, stimulate the economy and help tackle the housing crisis, but instead he decided that public services and public sector workers should bear the burden. Not content with imposing a 1% pay freeze until 2015, he has extended it to 2016. Given the rate of inflation, that is an effective pay cut for hundreds of thousands of people across the country.
With 80,000 construction workers out of work, construction output has fallen by 8.2%. The Government announced an extra £225 million for affordable housing, but only £125 million of that will be spent before 2015 according to the OBR, and it is dwarfed by the £4 billion cut in funding for affordable housing that the Chancellor made in his first Budget. Even after that investment the coalition Government’s record will still be a cut of around £10 billion in infrastructure projects.
It says everything about the Government’s attitude that they cut real-terms pay for millions of public sector workers, while giving the green light to slash corporation tax for big business. Research by the House of Commons Library, published today, confirms that the reductions in corporation tax will cost £29 billion in total, £10 billion over the life of the current Parliament alone. That policy enjoys the full support of the Scottish nationalists, who want to see a future independent Scotland at the front of a race to the bottom, a low tax country with an economy like Iceland—or perhaps like Ireland. I have not seen the latest Scottish Government press release, so I do not know which country they are modelling their assessment on this week.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
Am I right in assuming that the hon. Gentleman favours a high-tax economy for Britain?
Anas Sarwar
No, I am suggesting that while people across the country—especially the most vulnerable—see their household income slashed and the poorest people are having to live in more difficult circumstances, the Government see their priority as giving millionaires a tax cut and cutting taxes for the biggest businesses in the country. I know whose side I am on. I am sad to say that I know whose side the hon. Gentleman is on, and I am sure people will punish him appropriately come the next general election.
Anas Sarwar
I have given way twice already, but if I have any spare time at the end of my speech I might let the hon. Gentleman entertain the House.
The Chancellor claimed the Budget showed he was on the side of people who want to get on; instead it has shown just how out of touch this Government really are. The low-paid workers the Government say will pay less income tax will still be worse off at the end of the month, when that saving is clawed back many times over—clawed back through VAT, clawed back through cuts to tax credits and clawed back from thousands of my constituents through the scandalous bedroom tax.
Yes, the Liberal Democrats can celebrate lifting the threshold to £10,000, but household income for many families in that bracket will fall as a result of the Government’s measures. At the same time, the value of an average worker’s pay has fallen by more than £1,000 and persistently high inflation continues.
In these difficult economic times, the Chancellor should certainly accept our proposals for the funding for lending scheme to be enhanced to target small and medium-sized enterprises better by rewarding banks that expand SME lending regardless of their mortgage book. Now is the time when our banks should be supporting SMEs, not hitting them harder. Throughout my constituency, whether I am speaking to small or large businesses, they all make the same complaint: the banking sector is holding back investment in this country, not promoting it. If we can get our banks lending again and get people investing, we will get more people back to work and see growth and regeneration in some of the hardest-hit communities.
The Chancellor should seriously explore our proposals for new regional banks that are committed to their regions and in touch with local business, making it easier for firms to secure the capital investment they require to create the growth and jobs Britain needs. Sadly, my constituents continue to suffer, trapped between this coalition Government, who continue to look out for the wrong people, and a Holyrood Government, who are distracted by their referendum obsession and happy to double Tory cuts and pass them on to local government, washing their hands of all responsibility and removing £250 million from Glasgow’s economy. We heard earlier from one of the SNP Members that we should recognise that the fall in unemployment was thanks to action taken by the Scottish Government. It is amazing that when unemployment goes up, it is all Westminster’s fault but when it goes down it is all thanks to the Scottish Government. It cannot be both.
The reason why I and countless others in the House went into politics was to help build stronger communities, not to use the poorest and most vulnerable people as electoral or political dividing lines, writing off millions of people as a drain on the economy for electoral advantage. We want to help to create a sustainable economy to fund world-class public services, ensure that society’s resources are distributed equitably and protect the most vulnerable people in our communities.
Last Wednesday I sat and listened to the Chancellor lay out his vision for the coming years. It is a vision that I and, I am confident, the majority of people in Britain reject.
Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)
I want to talk about three things: mortgages and how we support them, how local authorities can help and what can be done on commercial lending.
We should strip out all the fancy schemes. I talked to some of the people I used to work with at Simply Finance, and apparently there are about 100 viable 90% loan-to-value schemes. The situation is not quite as bad as it was in the past, but the credit-scoring system for those mortgages tends to be so severe that only about 10% of applicants ever get a mortgage. My only concern about our new scheme is that we should make absolutely sure that it results in people being able to borrow money, rather than having their application turned down. The Opposition believe that the scheme will provide second homes for millionaires. I agree with the Secretary of State that that can be sorted out easily.
If mortgage schemes work, they increase demand, but if demand goes up without an increase in supply, prices will increase. I am sure that is not the intention. We need to develop and build houses. To ensure appropriate development while protecting our country’s green spaces, we must innovate. At Eastleigh borough council we work with developers to purchase properties that would not otherwise be bought. We then rent them out. It would be a real help if the Government could lift the borrowing cap on councils building new homes to rent, which would supply an economic boost and provide affordable homes. In places such as Eastleigh, 30% of every new development is reserved for affordable housing. We have 5,830 people on the housing list, so it is vital that we do something about it.
To achieve a significant increase in house building, we need to reverse the banks’ failure to fund it properly, especially for small and medium-sized builders. Before 2007, the inability of banks to assess the true risks resulted in massive losses. Now the situation is reversed. It is the same old story; the banks go from one extreme to another.
We need to co-ordinate our housing policies, our commercial and mortgage lending policies and our planning policies. There is no point in keeping them separate. Banks, local government and builders are all part of the same whole. I am confident that this Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition can act accordingly, but we need to find a way for us all to work together.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
Contrary to the Chancellor’s mantra, Britain’s return to recession was not made in Europe. It was made in Britain by the severe fiscal squeeze that the Chancellor launched nearly three years ago. Problems in the eurozone spell trouble for the UK economy—of course they do—but the Chancellor never mentions the fact that Britain has benefited from the recovery of the USA economy, which accounts for 20% of our trade, and is currently growing four times faster than the eurozone is slowing, because the USA took the route of economic stimulus and stuck to it. Britain set out on the same path under Labour after the banking crisis, and the economy began to pick up. However, the coalition veered off as soon as the Tories and Lib Dems took office, turning the road to recovery under Labour into the road to ruin.
Cutting too far and too fast means that the Chancellor has missed all his key targets. In the year that is ending, his target deficit—the cyclically adjusted current deficit as a share of gross domestic product—is twice what he originally said it would be. Next year, the Office for Budget Responsibility expects it to be four times what he planned. He has also missed his public sector debt target: instead of falling to 67% of GDP in 2015-16, under the Budget it will fall to 85% two years later, in 2017-18. That is a surreal definition of success: debt falling upwards. Salvador Dali would be proud.
Zero growth has forced the Chancellor to accept higher borrowing targets—more than £200 billion higher over five years than he planned in 2010. Most of the cuts that have been announced have yet to hit home. Cuts and austerity will continue Britain’s economic inertia, with more disastrous, scorched earth economics to come. Growth, not cuts, should be the priority. Sadly, there is plenty of spare capacity in the UK economy, which could easily grow quite quickly for a few years by taking up the slack, with borrowing, the deficit and debt falling. Jonathan Portes, former chief economist at the Cabinet Office, said:
“A few years of 3% growth—and given the amount of spare capacity in the UK economy, there is no reason that should be infeasible…—and much of the problem will simply vanish”.
Growth is the magic bullet for overcoming our deficit and debt problems.
Mr Hain
Cuts have fuelled the recession because they have driven demand out of the economy. Getting the economy growing again, as I said, is the key to cutting the deficit, then stabilising and bringing down the debt burden. Once the economy is growing again, it will be much easier to deliver any remaining tax rises or spending cuts that may still be necessary because, as Jonathan Portes says, jobs will be plentiful, real incomes will rise and companies will invest again.
The Tory charge is that Labour would increase borrowing. The answer is, yes, in the short term, we would, but to reduce borrowing in the long term. Borrowing more today can mean borrowing less tomorrow by getting the economy growing again. President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package added to the US federal deficit in the short term, but as US interest rates fell, spending and output rose, and dole queues shortened. As a proportion of America’s expanding GDP, its overall deficit has shrunk every year since 2009, contrary to what has happened to our deficit. A budget boost that triggered real recovery in Britain could follow the same pattern, speeding up the growth of UK national income, cutting the deficit as a proportion of GDP and causing the debt burden to fall.
That is what the Budget should have been about, but old habits die hard as the coalition partners continue to peddle their big deceit. First, they said that the entire global banking crisis was caused by Labour recruiting far too many nurses, doctors, teachers and police officers, and that the trigger for the world financial collapse—sub-prime mortgage defaults in the USA—was all Labour’s fault. The second big deceit is their claim that today’s public sector deficit was caused by excessive Labour spending. To quote utterances of almost every Conservative MP as if on a dreary looped tape, too much Labour borrowing led to too much national debt, so the cuts are all Labour’s fault. They never admit the truth. They never say why, if spending was “out of control” and wildly excessive, the Chancellor in September 2007 committed a Tory Government to matching Labour’s public spending plans for the next three years, up to 2010.
The Chancellor knew only too well that Labour’s spending was affordable, otherwise he would not have signed up to that. The Tories never acknowledge that, until the global banking crisis, British Government debt was low, below that of France, Germany, the USA and Japan, and lower than when we took over from the Tories in 1997. Ten years of steady economic growth under Labour allowed us to pay down debt by the equivalent of £90 billion today, saving taxpayers some £3 billion a year in interest payments. We did fix the roof while the sun was shining.
Between 1997 and 2007, annual Labour borrowing averaged only one third of annual borrowing by the Thatcher and John Major Governments. This is the fourth dreadful Budget by a dreadful Government. It is the same old story from the same old Tories: Budget day blues for Britain. The Chancellor is playing a peculiar game of leapfrog with himself. Every Budget brings worse news. Every autumn statement confirms that things are worse than expected. The Government are failing on growth, failing to improve living standards, and failing on their debt, borrowing and deficit targets. They have got to make way for Labour.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Brushing aside the unhappy attempt by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) to rewrite recent history, I shall move on swiftly to discuss the Budget.
Let us begin with the introduction of £10,000 tax-free income.
Richard Graham
The right hon. Gentleman has had his chance.
I absolutely relate to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) and his aspiration that everyone on the minimum wage should in due course pay no income tax. That was a magnificent announcement of Conservative and coalition policy to help those who work hardest on the lowest incomes, and we should all applaud it.
Secondly, the Leader of the Opposition made a great deal recently of apologising for Labour’s axing of the 10p rate, and he now wants to bring it back, but while he is busy executing a second U-turn on 10p tax, my constituents, especially the many thousands who will benefit from the changes in the Budget, prefer the simple Conservative and coalition approach of zero tax for the lowest paid.
The whole House should unite in applauding the Government for announcing an employment allowance of £2,000, which can be used by small businesses for apprentices or new employees who are older, and can help to continue to bring down youth unemployment, which in my constituency of Gloucester, as a result of all the new apprenticeships that started last year, fell by 18% in 2012. Ten days ago, during national apprenticeships week, I visited three new apprentices in Gloucester, in real estate, golf clubs and ski centres, and if ever there was an example of how apprenticeships have spread through previously unknown sectors those three new apprentices proved it. That is why the Government should go on supporting apprenticeships and bringing the young into employment.
Today, housing is at the core of the debate, and I believe that it is the key to growth stimulus, as it was after the recession of the 1930s and the recession of the second world war. The Centre for Cities rightly said in its recent note that
“there is one area where effective interventions have the potential to generate jobs and growth in the short term: housing.”
It went on to say that
“100,000 new houses…could boost Gross Domestic Product by 1% and support up to 150,000 jobs.”
The Centre for Cities, which recently moved Gloucester up the ratings for cities from 49th to 21st, is clearly a research institute to be followed closely, and I agree with its conclusions on the ratings and with its analysis on the importance of housing.
The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said that he believed that the response to the Budget on housing was largely critical. He was right in one respect, as the National Housing Federation said:
“The Government should be focusing on unlocking investment to build more new homes”.
However, we cannot new build new homes unless there is a market for them, which is why the Government’s policy, through help to buy, of providing £3.5 billion for new homes, will make a significant difference to make sure that people can afford to buy those new homes. The National House Building Council said that it is
“great news that housing has been the centre piece of this Budget. This is a positive step for homebuilders and homeowners alike.”
Both Barratt and Persimmon welcomed the development, and Barratt said:
“We are now gearing up to meet the increase in inquiries that we expect to see.”
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman said that we cannot have new homes unless there is a market for them, but the problem is not the market but price and affordability; it is the supply of homes.
Richard Graham
That is precisely why the help to buy scheme, which guarantees 20% of deposits on new homes, will make a significant difference.
There is one aspect on which I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds Central and on which I hope the Government will be able to move faster: the need to restructure some of the arm’s length management organisations that provide social housing and enable them to use their balance sheets to build and regenerate, rather than just adding to the public sector borrowing requirement. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury knows well that I hope that that will move forward fast, and that discussions between the Homes and Communities Agency, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Treasury, which have been ongoing on for almost 18 months, will move forward swiftly so that we can deliver new housing in the social sector to my constituents as soon as possible.
New housing worked in the 1930s and 1950s and it can work today, so let us get on with it and build those new homes as soon as possible so that the economic growth that the Centre for Cities research anticipates can happen as soon as possible. I will be supporting the Budget to achieve that.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I intend to focus on three central issues emanating from the Budget: housing, infrastructure and employment practices.
Increasing the level of house building is vital to any economic recovery and to assisting families and young people to get on to the housing ladder, yet under this Government house building has fallen while rents have risen. Young people in Sunderland, where house prices are not as high as in other parts of the country, still face massive challenges in getting into the housing market. Those difficulties are augmented by the Government’s wider economic failures, and banks remain reluctant to give mortgages, even to financially secure applicants. Renters in Sunderland can only hope that the Government’s help to buy scheme will be more successful than the new homes bonus, which has led to housing starts falling by 11%, or the NewBuy scheme, which has helped just 1.5% of the 100,000 people who the Prime Minister claimed would be able to buy their home.
I welcome any action to help people get on to the housing ladder, but increasing credit without increasing supply will simply raise house prices, further widening the gap between those who own their own home and those who want to. Gentoo, the largest social housing provider in my constituency, manages over 29,000 properties in Sunderland, but it has over 22,000 people on its waiting list, and that is without taking into account new and emerging need. Simply put, Sunderland needs more homes.
In his Budget speech, the Chancellor used the phrase “work hard and get on” three times. What he does not understand is that people are working hard, despite stagnant wages, and they are getting on, despite cuts to vital services.
The Government are dithering on improving energy efficiency standards for new homes. Those delays are hugely damaging for investment in new homes and signal the Government’s abandonment of their “greenest ever” commitment.
I will now turn my attention to infrastructure and the Government’s response to the Heseltine report. Two things were clear from Lord Heseltine’s evidence to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee: first, his passionate belief in the Government’s ability to boost growth, create jobs and raise living standards; and secondly, his concern about the Government’s direction and the fact that
“the UK does not have a strategy for growth and wealth creation”.
I agree that local leaders are best placed to understand the opportunities and obstacles to growth in their own communities. That the Chancellor has finally committed to investment in infrastructure projects is welcome, but those projects should have been announced in his first budget, not his fourth. I welcome the single local growth fund, but it will not be operational until 2015. We simply cannot wait that long. We cannot accept a five-year gap between the announcement of the abolition of the regional development agencies and the devolution of funds proposed by Lord Heseltine. We will not see economic growth until our regional economies are growing.
Where growth takes place matters, too. A report on foreign direct investment by the Institute for Public Policy Research North shows that since the Government announced the closure of the RDAs, FDI decreased by 31% in the north-east from 2010 to 2011, while it has increased in the south-east by 102%. We do not yet know the size of the “devolved pot”. Lord Heseltine recommended that a fund of £49 billion was needed, but Government sources now suggest that it will be in the low billions. The success of the Heseltine plan will be determined not by the quantity of recommendations that the Government will implement, but by the size and timing of the investment.
My final point in response to the Budget is on employment practices. The Chancellor looked particularly pleased to announce that the private sector had created 1.25 million new jobs since 2010. Although I welcome new jobs, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) will get an answer to his question on what sectors those jobs are in and what hours people are working so we can understand better what is happening in the labour market, because I fear that many of the jobs are low-wage and low-hours. People on zero-hour contracts cannot take advantage of the Government’s child care help because they do not know when they will need child care. They cannot take advantage of the mortgage policies because they will not be eligible for mortgages.
It is vital that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor change course so that a lost Government do not lead to a lost decade.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I welcome the Budget on behalf of the almost 4,000 hard- working small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency—companies such as Dutton Contractors in Middlewich, which I visited on Friday and had the privilege of opening two new warehouses for. It is a family business that was started in 1974 by the father, John Dutton, who is a farmer. It sells and transports building construction materials. The son, Richard Dutton, has so developed the business recently that it now has 80 employees. The decision in the Budget to further stop Labour’s planned fuel rises is worth £7 to every family each time they fill up a family car, but it is worth considerably more to companies such as Dutton Contractors, which has a fleet of vehicles, so it very much welcomes the Budget.
Dutton Contractors also welcomed the £2,000 national insurance allowance. It was also welcomed, in particular, by Neon Freight Ltd, which is based in Holmes Chapel. Honours go to Ian Mallon, the proprietor of that freight forwarding company, and currently its sole employee, for giving the fastest response to the Budget. He sent me an e-mail at 1.28 pm—the Chancellor can barely have sat down. The e-mail’s subject was, “Employers tax/Budget”, and it reads:
“Great news… please send my thanks to G.O… I will be taking on staff this year.”
That is what I call a result.
Having said that, however, I am disappointed that the Government appear once again to have done nothing to honour their manifesto commitment—it is a coalition commitment and certainly a Conservative manifesto commitment—to recognise marriage in the tax system through transferable tax allowances for couples where one partner stays at home. Many people are genuinely bemused that such an important commitment should remain completely untouched well into the second half of this Parliament. They are increasingly bemused by the announcement of the introduction of tax-free child care worth up to £1,200 every year for children aged up to 12, but obtainable only by either single parents working or couples where both partners work. The Prime Minister said:
“This is a boost direct to the pockets of hard-working families in what will be one of the biggest measures ever introduced to help with childcare costs.”
But do families with one parent who stays at home not work hard, too? That has not sent out a positive message to mothers and fathers who stay at home and commit themselves to parenting; it does not say to them, as I think we should, “We value you.”
Fiona Bruce
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am not criticising the Government’s decision to support child care costs; I am saying that they have got the balance wrong by doing that while not at the same time honouring the coalition commitment for transferable tax allowances for married couples.
I have massive respect for those mothers and fathers who stay at home. I have never stayed at home to work and have always worked outside the home, but many parents do so sacrificially, and many parents in one-earner families, as Department for Work and Pensions figures clearly show, stay at home because they have to. Many have significant child care responsibilities for very young children, or care for sick or disabled relatives. It is interesting that the Government quoted OECD figures in support of its decision last week. Let me quote some OECD figures: the tax burden on a one-earner, married couple family on an average wage in the UK is now 42% greater than the OECD average.
I have raised this issue in respect of every Budget since I have been in this House. Two years ago, having tabled an appropriate amendment to the Finance Bill, I received from my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury a letter that said:
“Dear Fiona
I am writing to about the new clause on transferable personal allowances for married couples that you have tabled for the Finance Bill. I agree entirely that marriage is a positive institution and it is clear from our manifesto that we believe this should be recognised in the tax system.
We are keen to send a clear message that family and marriage matters and that strong and healthy families help create a strong and healthy society. We must do more to support families and the tax system is one way in which this can be achieved…you can rest assured that our commitment to bringing forward these changes remains firm and that we are assessing various options with a range of different costs and will bring forward proposals at the appropriate time.”
I believe that that time is now. If we genuinely believe in choice—a word much trumpeted last week on the announcement of support for child care costs—we should not be making it more difficult for mothers to stay at home but should give them that choice, too. The Prime Minister has said:
“If we are going to get control of public spending in the long term…we should target the causes of higher spending, one of which is family breakdown. We should do far more to recognise the importance of families, commitment and marriage”.—[Official Report, 2 June 2010; Vol. 510, c. 429.]
This year, I again call on the Government, at the third time of asking—it sounds a bit like calling the banns of marriage, but that is quite appropriate—to insert a provision into the Finance Bill, this time by way of their own amendment, to introduce transferable allowances for married couples. That is quite simply the right and honourable thing to do.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
As time is short and lots of hon. Members still want to speak, I will concentrate my remarks on two matters: something I was disappointed not to find in the Budget and something I was completely surprised to find in it.
The thing I was disappointed not to find was any change in the Government’s attitude to what has become known as the bedroom tax. I was not naive enough to think that they would make a complete volte face having realised it is such an insidious and wrong-headed policy, but I did think there might be some movement on the kinds of people in households who should be completely exempt. I am thinking of households with a profoundly disabled child or where a house has been specially adapted for someone with a disability. The Government say that people who have had their house adapted can apply for a discretionary housing payment, but it should not be at the discretion of the local authority to decide whether it is affordable to pay the rent on a house that has been specially adapted for an individual.
As someone who has had to adapt a number of houses, I know how difficult it is, how expensive it can be, and how upsetting it can be for the individual. I also know that very often the adaptations are made specifically for the individual, so if the family has to move out of their home as a result of not getting their housing benefit paid in full, the house will not necessarily be any good for any other disabled person. This is wrong-headed—it should never be discretionary. I hope that it is not too late for the Government to make sure that that group of people is exempt from the bedroom tax.
The thing I was surprised to see in the Budget was the change in the date for the introduction of the new single-tier pension. I recognise that this might be a bit academic for hon. Members in the Chamber today, but my Select Committee, the Work and Pensions Committee, was asked to carry out the pre-legislative scrutiny of the changes to the state pension. The Bill that was published had a start date of April 2017, and we had taken all our evidence on that basis. We had asked the industry whether it could be ready by April 2017 and asked the various user groups whether that was a reasonable time scale.
Having taken all that evidence and done the scrutiny work that the Government had asked us to do, it came as a complete surprise when we found in the Budget that the date was to be brought forward by a whole year and the measure will now be implemented from April 2016. It makes a mockery of the pre-legislative scrutiny process that we were not able to do our job properly and ask the right questions. Just a week before, the Minister responsible had said that there would be no slippage in the timetable and that April 2017 would be the implementation date.
One might think that perhaps, because the Budget was covered by all the usual purdah arrangements, the Government were unable to tell us that the measure was going to come in a year earlier, but the information was leaked and was all over the papers the Sunday before. Clearly, the Government knew they were going to change the date. This was obviously very tempting for the Chancellor given that some £5.9 billion is generated by bringing in the change to contracting out, because no one will be contracted out under the new single-tier pension. I am very angry, as you can tell, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this was landed on my Committee at the very last moment.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Budget reaffirmed the Government’s economic strategy of focusing on reducing the deficit, restoring stability, rebalancing the economy and equipping the UK to compete globally. With over 1.25 million new private sector jobs created and the deficit reduced by a third since the general election, Great Britain is clearly on the right course.
There is one issue, however, that I would have liked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to address—tackling the severe inherited levels of air passenger duty. That was a missed opportunity to boost UK competitiveness further still, to reduce the cost of business travel to stimulate trade and investment, and to help hard-working families who want to visit their friends or family or to take a well-earned family holiday.
The previous Labour Government inherited a very modest level of APD and, over time, significantly increased the rates, particularly for long-haul travel. Since taking office, my right hon. Friend has recognised this problem by delivering a temporary one-year freeze and limiting increases to the level of inflation. While this action has been very welcome, we should be going further to undo Labour’s damage. Most countries do not charge an international air travel tax at all, but of the handful that do, the UK has by far the highest such tax—more than double that of the next highest charging country, which is Germany. Levying the world’s highest air passenger tax is not a sustainable position for an island nation seeking to increase international trade and to attract millions of new in-bound visitors.
There is significant public concern about APD. Hon. Members have received hundreds of e-mails from constituents, and over 200,000 people have contacted their Member of Parliament to say that APD rates are too high. However, public concern has not, until now, been supported by detailed and credible evidence. Four airlines, including Virgin Atlantic, which is headquartered in my constituency, and EasyJet, the majority of whose services go from London Gatwick airport, commissioned an independent report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers that provides that missing analysis. It makes interesting reading with regard to the nature of APD and its role in the UK economy. It finds that APD is the highest tax of its type in the world by a considerable margin; that it is a highly distortive tax that is at least as damaging to the economy—and probably more so on a pound for pound basis—than corporation tax, and second only to fuel duty among major UK taxes; and that UK businesses in aggregate pay about £500 million in APD each year.
The report’s main analysis relates to the impact on the economy and tax revenues if APD were to be abolished. The report’s modelling suggests that by abolishing APD the UK could boost its gross domestic product by 0.45% in the first year, with continuing benefits through to 2020. Abolishing APD would also increase investment by 6% and exports, including earnings from foreign tourism, by 5% between 2013 and 2015. Abolishing APD would pay for itself, with increased business growth leading to higher tax receipts from other sources, outweighing the lost APD revenue, and it would lead to the creation of up to 60,000 jobs between now and 2020. The report acknowledges that it is uncommon but not unprecedented for tax cuts to pay for themselves.
Even though this has been a step too far for this Budget, I hope that I have made the case that abolishing APD would have been a significant contributor to the UK economy and the Exchequer and to boosting growth in what was otherwise an excellent Budget for hard-working families and businesses in my constituency and throughout the country.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
All of us who sat in the Chamber throughout last week’s Budget statement will be acutely aware of the context in which this debate is taking place. Global economic conditions remain extremely challenging and the impact on the UK economy has led to the downgrading of many of last year’s Budget predictions.
The people we represent, who listened to the statement outside this place, were realistic about the Budget, but they also hoped for measures that would encourage inward investment and growth; give businesses confidence and access to finance to create new jobs and help grow their export markets; ease the pressure on family budgets and small businesses alike; tackle inequality in society; and stimulate desperately needed growth.
Although talk of an aspiration nation is great rhetoric and a worthy aim, it is the job of Government not only to ensure that people are encouraged to have aspirations, but, if there is to be real improvement, to create the context in which they have the opportunities and support to fulfil them.
In the brief time available I want to focus on a few aspects of the Budget, welcoming some of the positive measures and highlighting a number of areas where more could be done.
I commend the Government for upholding their commitment to spending 0.7% of gross national income on international development. Given the current economic climate, it is understandable, though regrettable, that, despite the fact that this allocation represents a small fraction of overall Government expenditure, it comes under continuing pressure. However, by standing by the commitment, the UK is showing leadership in the international community. Aid well spent is a powerful tool to tackle severe global poverty, to assist some of the poorest nations in becoming more self-sustaining and to support global justice, human rights and security. Moreover, although it is spent abroad, it also contributes to protecting our own national interest.
In that vein, I also welcome the fact that at the same time as the Treasury is seeking to tackle tax avoidance in the UK—which we all welcome—it has also committed to prioritising dealing with international tax avoidance by UK companies, which is depriving many nations from the transition from aid to trade. I hope that it will be robust in its actions.
I also welcome the increase in the personal tax allowance, which will lift many of those in the lowest paid employment out of tax altogether. If it were part of a package of measures to tackle poverty more comprehensively, it would be even more welcome. However, as I noted last year, as an anti-poverty measure it is neither the most effective nor the most targeted approach. Although the poorest working families will benefit, raising the personal allowance will also benefit many others.
In the time remaining, I want to comment briefly on measures that will impact on Northern Ireland in particular. I welcome the reduction in corporation tax, which is a particularly sensitive issue given our land border with the Republic of Ireland, where corporation tax is significantly lower at 12.5%. Although it would not be a silver bullet, the devolution of corporation tax has been identified by industry, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the Northern Ireland Executive as an important tool in stimulating the economy and attracting inward investment. The UK-wide reduction, though modest, is a step in the right direction and will also lower the potential cost to the Northern Ireland Assembly should this tax power be devolved, as many of us wish. It is disappointing that that devolution was not announced in the Budget. I trust that the Prime Minister will have more positive news for the First and Deputy First Ministers when he meets them to discuss the matter tomorrow.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
The hon. Lady can be assured that virtually all the Northern Ireland Assembly parties support what she has just said. Does she agree that it is important that their meeting with the Prime Minister tomorrow has the endorsement of all major business groups, major community groups and people who are concerned about jobs and employment in Northern Ireland?
Naomi Long
I agree entirely that they have that endorsement, and the Prime Minister’s Twitter feed today suggests that all of those sectors are engaged in lobbying activity.
Being geographically more remote adds to household bills and business costs. The cost of fuel, for example, is a particular pressure, with Northern Ireland consumers facing the highest petrol and diesel prices in the UK and some of the highest in Europe. This impacts on households, business and our international competitiveness, so I welcome the cancellation of the fuel duty increase that was planned for September. The cost of energy generation more widely is also greater in Northern Ireland and the exemption from the carbon price floor is a welcome measure for energy producers and consumers alike.
Regrettably, the Chancellor offered no good news on another significant cost of our peripherality—air passenger duty. I recognise the previous work done to devolve APD for direct long-haul flights from Northern Ireland, but if we are to support essential connectivity, reduce business costs and grow our inbound and outbound tourism sectors, both of which contribute significantly to the Northern Ireland and UK economy, the Treasury needs to look at the issue again. A recent report by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which has been referenced by the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), indicated that reducing or abolishing APD could stimulate growth and lead to the raising of more revenue, rather than less. The Treasury appears to have dismissed that analysis, but I urge it to do its own study on the impact of APD on growth.
There are many other issues that I would like to raise, but little further time to do so. In conclusion, talk of creating an aspiration nation is a good thing but, at a time when unemployment figures in Northern Ireland are at their highest for 15 years, taking action that will match aspiration with real opportunity is much more important. I remain to be convinced that this Budget will do that for the people whom I represent.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) will forgive me if I do not follow on from what she said, but she spoke a lot of sense about air passenger duty and I agree with her.
One of the most powerful points made by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who led for the Opposition, was when he mentioned somebody who visited his constituency surgery only last week who, after serving in a job for 30 years, had been made unemployed. As it happens, I had a similar case of somebody who had served for 30 years but who had now, through no fault of her own, been made unemployed, could not find a job and was in negative equity. That brings home to all of us the human nature of what we are dealing with. Although we may bandy statistics across the House, we are dealing with a desperate situation—for which, by the way, I do not blame the Chancellor—and we should put at the forefront of our minds the appalling human tragedy of ordinary people who are being put out of work and who cannot find work.
In my view, the best way to recreate the conditions in which people can find work is to create a balanced economy that can recreate confidence. Unfortunately, our public spending is unbalanced: half of our £730 billion or £750 billion budget is taken up by health and welfare, which are ring-fenced, and that puts enormous stresses and strains on all other budgets.
Despite the attempt by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), with characteristic chutzpah, to rewrite history, I am not sure that it is possible to argue that austerity has caused this recession when, in fact, we are spending more than ever before—despite the fact that the figures were manipulated for this Budget—and borrowing more than ever before. The central thrust of the Labour party’s argument, which is that the problems have been caused by this Government, does not add up and the British people do not think that it adds up. They want more positive suggestions from the Labour party that show what it would do better in the face of the desperate international situation.
Richard Graham
Did my hon. Friend find it curious that the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) seemed to be unclear about why our exports are effectively stagnant, when they had been expected to rise by 6%? Surely he must know that exports to the EU have fallen off a cliff while other exports have risen.
Mr Leigh
Absolutely. That shows the sort of difficulties in the Labour party’s arguments. If it is to form a Government, it must come up with a viable alternative.
I do not support cutting for the sake of cutting. If Tesco has a problem in its bread department, it sells bread more efficiently; it does not cut the number of loaves it sells. I agree about that, but the Labour party cannot give simplistic solutions based on more wasteful spending, nor can it constantly say that our problems would be solved if we restored the 50% tax band, when every study proves that it reduced revenues to the Treasury. As we know, the top 1% of earners pay 24% of all tax revenues. Labour has to come up with something more intellectual and rational if it is to convince the British people that it is ready for government.
The situation is dire. The incomes of 2007 will not be seen again until 2019. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, we will need a further £9 billion of cuts to public services after the next election. In 2015, there will be £70 billion more borrowing than was predicted in 2010. Any Budget giveaways—I accept that this Budget is politically astute—will be soaked up by inflation rising faster than wages. That point has already been made about the 1p cut in beer duty. One would have to drink five pints every night for seven nights to save 35p a week. I am not sure that will impress anybody. The cut in corporation tax is welcome, but that is only a small part of the total cost to business. Business rates have increased by 13% in three years and are the prime motivator against growth in the small business economy.
The problems that we face are difficult, complex and international. I am still firmly convinced that we need a strategy based on levelling taxation as much as is possible. The attempt to bring corporation tax more in line with small business tax is a first step. We should try to flatten all capital taxes and business taxes. We should then move on to income taxes and get rid of the plethora of allowances, which fuels an industry based on evasion and avoidance.
At first sight, the excellent scheme that the Chancellor is trying to bring together to help with home loans is very good if it does not lead to a property bubble. However, it is a bit like somebody climbing a ladder with loads of our money, throwing it over the edge and saying, “May the fittest come and get it.” It is a bit like the person rushing towards the pool of Bethesda.
It would be much better to have a flatter, simpler form of taxation so that people make their own decisions and do not rely on Government handouts, and so that we do not have a huge industry based on evasion and avoidance.
We are creating a special child care allowance for people who want to put their children into child care. That is great, but why have we not fulfilled our pledge to introduce a married person’s tax allowance?
Fiona Bruce
Does my hon. Friend agree that we are out of line with international best practice in not recognising marriage in our income tax system?
Mr Leigh
We are out of line. I am quite prepared not to hold the Government to account on their solemn promise to bring in a married tax allowance if they get rid of the other allowances and restore universal child benefit and all the other things. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot make it tax and benefit advantageous for a mother—it is usually a mother—to go out to work if they do not help mothers who want to stay at home and add to the economy by looking after their own children. That is unfair and something has to be done about it.
We cannot carry on with Budgets that simply tweak things. We need a long-term strategy based on simplifying the tax system and on budgetary reform. We must remove as many of the allowances as possible. We must change the culture of constantly tweaking things with Budgets and instead look to the long term and create a more simplified and effective tax system.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Last Wednesday was my first Budget since entering the House and I had high expectations. [Laughter.] I know that shows my naivety. We all know how much our constituents are suffering financially as the economy continues to flatline, so I was expecting a Budget that would jump-start growth. I was hugely disappointed, and I believe that my disappointment was shared by the country.
We face the biggest housing crisis in a generation, but the Government’s housing and economic policies are making it worse. House building is crucial to this country, both to bring economic recovery and to get families on the housing ladder.
Sarah Champion
No, I am sorry.
Initially, I broadly welcomed the Government’s schemes to encourage people to buy new builds and to assist people with mortgage deposits. With the demise of building societies, banks have a virtual monopoly on mortgages. The percentage that is required for a deposit has been rising steadily, especially for first-time buyers. That has created an environment in which people who are more than able to pay for a mortgage cannot get one because the tens of thousands of pounds that they need for a deposit are unachievable.
However, I then started to consider the broader picture and the details of the schemes. First, it has been revealed that the Government’s mortgage scheme will not exclude people who are buying a second home. What about a third or a fourth home? How does that help people who are starting out? Not only are the Government pressing ahead with tax cuts for millionaires, it now seems that the mortgage scheme will help people, no matter how high their income, to buy a subsidised second home worth up to £600,000. Secondly, what interest rate will be charged, or will it be an interest-free loan? Thirdly, is it right that the taxpayer will effectively be underwriting the banks? The state will be facilitating banks to make profits on these mortgages.
My main question is, where are all the new homes for people to buy? The Government’s schemes mean that more people will be trying to buy the same number of houses. That will just push up the cost of a house unless more homes are built. The Government announced an extra £225 million for affordable house building, but according to the OBR only £125 million will be spent before 2015. That figure is dwarfed by the £4 billion cut in the funding for affordable housing that the Chancellor made in his first Budget. That stopped a very successful affordable housing scheme in Rotherham that was run by Transform South Yorkshire.
House building is at its lowest rate since the 1920s and the situation is getting worse. Housing starts fell by 11% in 2012 to below 100,000. The impact of that is that the Government have put 80,000 construction workers out of work and construction output has fallen by 8.2%.
Labour has proposed some practical measures to address that problem. We called on the Chancellor to use the money raised from the 4G mobile auction to build thousands of affordable homes to stimulate the economy and tackle the housing crisis. To improve the housing stock, we recommended that VAT on home repairs, maintenance and improvements should be cut to just 5%. To help young people who want to get on to the property ladder, the CBI’s proposal of a housing individual savings account should be considered. We also advocate giving first-time buyers a stamp duty holiday on properties worth up to £250,000. Finally, I support Labour’s recommendation to bring forward long-term infrastructure investment in schools, roads and transport to get construction workers back to work and to strengthen our economy.
Those measures would boost growth, get builders back to work building the homes that we need, and create apprenticeships for young people. I urge the Government to look more closely at the details of their schemes and to find ways to build more affordable homes and genuinely help first-time buyers. We need action now to get Britain building and to kick-start our economy.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank Sarah Champion for taking less time than she was allowed, which will mean that other Members can get in.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Overall, I think the Budget contains some helpful measures to help families with the cost of living, and it invests in the future of our economy within a responsible framework. As a Liberal Democrat, I am naturally proud of the rise in the personal allowance to £10,000 from April 2014—one year earlier than planned—which will give 24.5 million people a tax reduction of £700. I was also pleased at the introduction of the employment allowance, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. My constituents will certainly be pleased with the freeze in fuel duty, the scrapping of the beer duty escalator and the cut in duty on beer.
I wish to concentrate in my short speech on the overall £5.4 billion boost to housing, but I will make a slight digression to talk about child trust funds— I should declare that I am a grandparent with a granddaughter who has a child trust fund. I have received a number of representations on those funds recently, and I have been sent details from a campaign by Money Mail under the headline:
“The £34,000 curse of child trust funds: Six million children are barred from best savings deals”.
One could interpret that as stating that the next generation of young people might be deprived of a deposit for a house, and at the other end of the scale, for lower income people, there are clearly children with trust funds who are not receiving the levels of interest that they should in terms of equity. I wanted to raise that issue with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury who is sitting on the Front Bench.
The housing package is part of building a stronger economy and a fairer society, and includes a number of measures to support home ownership, new development and affordable housing. Over the past year or so, there has been agreement across the House that stimulating the construction sector is key to stimulating growth. It is a win-win situation with more jobs and more money created for our economy, without particularly sucking in imports. It is estimated that each extra home built each year creates jobs for three to four construction workers and those in associated industries, thereby improving business confidence.
During previous debates we have identified issues on the demand and supply sides of the housing market, and many have argued that the problem is not with planning as such. On the demand side, measures in the Budget have the potential to extend the supply of new houses, perhaps converting some of the hundreds of thousands of non-implemented planning applications into homes. Meeting the needs of those willing and able to buy, and the aspirations of those wishing to be home owners, is important, and will give this generation the same opportunities as my generation. At times tonight I have wondered whether the Labour party actually believes in encouraging home ownership.
Of course, home ownership is not the whole solution to our housing problem. I represent an area—Purbeck—that has a very high house-price-to-wages ratio and a high proportion of second homes. Although I am keen on the two schemes to stimulate mortgages, I am not keen on them subsidising second homes as that would make the situation in Purbeck and Dorset even worse. I like both schemes, however, because they involve first-time buyers and second steppers, and I think that we must put a shock through the whole market.
But—and there is a but—I think we have to do a lot more. I like the buy to rent stimulus, but we need to increase the supply of affordable housing over and above what we want to do and have done already. In the next phase we ought to look at the capacity of councils to borrow money for building housing, at direct building by councils, and at supporting arm’s length management organisations, which is incredibly important. An ALMO in my constituency is ready to start building but cannot get the borrowing capacity.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate, because the Budget last week revealed the true scale of the Government’s economic failure. As the next election grows closer, the Chancellor faced a test. He needed to boost household incomes and help cut the cost of essentials, but neither of those was forthcoming and his Budget failed to do enough for low-income households.
With an eye fixed firmly on the next general election, the Chancellor is pinning his hopes on a housing boom. His make-or-break blueprint for rebuilding the economy is unlikely to make a difference to the nation’s finances, as the focus has clearly shifted towards manifesto writing, positioning and early electioneering ahead of 2015. More than ever, taxpayers will now underwrite the mortgages of hundreds of thousands of home buyers, and take stakes in newly built houses in a multi-billion pound attempt to stimulate the struggling economy. However, he risks causing another unsustainable boom in the housing market, putting billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money at risk and offering little hope to hard-pressed working families who are struggling to get on the housing ladder for the first time.
We face the biggest housing crisis in a generation, but the Government’s housing and economic policies will make it worse by stoking house prices rather than helping families find a home. The Government have insisted that homes sold through the right to buy scheme will be replaced with more affordable housing on a one-for-one basis, but the Budget included £4.5 billion of funding for housing, with only £225 million of that to be spent on affordable homes. If we do not tackle the fact that we are still not building enough homes, we will create another housing bubble that will continue to push house prices out of reach of the majority.
Not only is the Chancellor pressing ahead with a tax cut for millionaires, it now seems that his mortgage scheme will help people, no matter how high their income, to buy a subsidised second home worth up to £600,000. Surely people struggling to get a mortgage, and those who want to own their first home, must be the priority for help, rather than the small number who can afford to buy a second home. If the Government concentrated at least some effort on collecting taxes from international corporations that operate in this country, and closing some of the loopholes in the tax system, there would be more money to go around.
With the coalition’s axe in full swing, I am appalled that the Government place so much effort on reforming the benefits system and punishing the sick and most vulnerable in our society, while those at the very top have seen their incomes rise as never before. The financial sector is at the heart of the economy. Huge, multi-million pound payouts to “banksters”, while citizens cannot even afford to feed themselves, undermine any efforts to break with the past and are a timely reminder that the country is being run by the rich for the rich. As the rest of the country faces austerity, just an hour after the Chancellor delivered his Budget speech, Barclays bank paid nine fat cat bosses £40 million in share payments. That makes a complete mockery of claims that banks are cleaning up their act when it comes to their bonus culture.
At exactly the same time as the bedroom tax comes into force, the Government are prepared to give 13,000 millionaires, including the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, a tax cut of £100,000—£3 billion in total a year—while more than half a million households that are home to a disabled person will lose £700. That is simply not right.
Graeme Morrice
The hon. Gentleman clearly indicates how his Government have got their priorities wrong.
It is time for this Government to recognise what is very much evident: that they have got this horribly wrong and need to think again before it is too late. We need a lasting change of direction by the Government, to one that demonstrates compassion, puts ordinary people first, and recognises the right priorities, or —ideally—a change of Government itself.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
Few things are as natural as the aspiration to own a home, but for too many of our constituents, the aspiration is too often out of reach. The high cost of housing is one of the most frequently raised issues at my surgery. The problem affects not only would-be first-time buyers, but many going through family breakdown. The deposit typically required for a mortgage on even a small starter home is higher than many working families’ annual income. Without parental support, raising that sort of money can be nearly impossible. The “help to buy” schemes announced last week will help to put home ownership back within the reach of hundreds of thousands of our constituents.
I am delighted that the Chancellor is extending right to buy further, so that council tenants can buy the homes in which their families live and local authorities will receive receipts from the sales, to be used to build new social housing. I am proud that, while under Conservative leadership, Dudley built some of the first new council housing in the area for a generation. Right-to-buy receipts, and the doubling of the affordable homes guarantee programme, will mean that more councils and housing associations will be able to build new social housing for local residents.
Last week’s jobs figures showed another increase in the number of people in work—the number in Halesowen and Rowley Regis is now the highest ever—but the fact remains that many people aspire more than anything else to a job that will give them more independence and create a better life for themselves and their families. I remember from when I was setting up my own small businesses that nothing was more rewarding than being able to offer somebody their first job, or to offer work to a person who had been unemployed for some time. Hon. Members know that Governments cannot magically create sustainable jobs, but they have a responsibility to do everything possible to avoid putting barriers in the way of those who can. Every £1 that we add to non-wage costs represents an additional barrier to small and medium-sized businesses taking on extra employees. That is why I am pleased that the Chancellor has launched his scheme. The £2,000 employment allowance is a direct boost for new jobs. It will help to bring more people into work and open up a new set of possibilities and aspirations.
Shortly before the Budget, I attended the launch of the youth budget in Parliament with a number of other right hon. and hon. Members, including the Chancellor. Fourteen to 18-year-olds from around the country came together to discuss young people’s priorities, which were drawn up following a national vote. That generation wants to get on, and the conclusion they came to in their youth budget could not have been clearer: they want the Government to bring down the deficit more quickly.
The House spends a lot of time talking about the economic effects of unsustainable deficits. The continuing turmoil in the eurozone is a current reminder of the dangers of failing to address the deficit. However, the young people gathered together for the youth budget remind us that, as well as being economically foolish, it is morally wrong for one generation to expect the next to pay for its overspending.
Members on both sides of the House will recognise that growth remains weaker than had been hoped for or expected, as it does in most other developed countries. There was much in the Budget and the Chancellor’s autumn statement that will help wealth creators to deliver the economic activity that we need to provide growth, but there is also much to help to make things that little bit easier for the millions of families who are working hard to get on and build a better life for themselves and their families. I believe that those who strive and those who aspire will see this Budget as a Budget for them.
George Galloway (Bradford West) (Respect)
That speech, much of this debate and this Budget demonstrate the parallel universe in which the governing class in this country is living. Earlier in the debate, nearly four hours ago—it feels like four days—we had the full vaudeville, music hall treatment. They chuntered and they chortled and they laughed—how they laughed!—until their tummies wobbled about the state we are in.
But there were some genuinely funny moments, the funniest of which was when the Secretary of State said that the Budget had sowed the seeds of growth and jobs in this bleak midwinter, which has now frozen out the spring. In the very month in which 4,000 grandmothers and grandfathers froze to death in Britain—froze to death in Britain, in 2013—and the very month in which millions of our citizens had to make a choice between eating and turning on their heating, the Secretary of State believes that this Budget sowed seeds for growth and jobs. No seeds can grow in this climate; hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches should know that.
The truth is that this Budget, produced by a Cabinet of millionaires, governing in their own interests and the interests of a very narrow class, has lost the confidence of the country. Indeed, the political system and the political class as a whole have lost the confidence of the people, who see their own situation, with mass unemployment and poverty stalking the land. Bradford, my constituency, is an almost perfect example. Youth unemployment has tripled in two years; one in eight is unemployed; our child poverty statistics are the second worst in the country; our schools are the third worst in the country; our hospitals are the seventh worst in the country; our young people walk the shuttered-up streets without education, training or jobs; and the Government and others in the media cry surprise when the devil finds work for their idle hands.
The Government have done nothing for Bradford—the Budget does nothing for Bradford—because Bradford is entirely beyond their ken. [Interruption.] Do I know where Bradford is? I am the person who, just one year ago, won a landslide election result—a by-election of historic proportions. I defeated the Labour party and, the party of the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), precisely because it thinks that yah-boo politics of the type we have seen in the debate is sufficient to meet the gravity of this situation. He should come to his seat and join the debate.
Here is the truth of the matter: our country is in grave danger. It is a country on the slide, which cannot keep its pensioners warm in the winter time, but can fly around the world setting fire to other people’s countries, apparently at the drop of a hat. It is a country that cannot pay for its young people’s education without charging them £9,000 a year to take shelter from the economic winds and study at universities, thanks to the betrayal of the yellow Liberal Democrats.
I have only 15 seconds left. Do you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, how many times in this House just this afternoon the words “immigrant”, “foreigner”, “alien” and “foreign migrant” have been mentioned? There is no U-turn by the Government, but there is no deviation to the right so low that they will not make.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
It is, of course, a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway). His speech was an oratorical interlude that demonstrated his perspective on the world and suited his style: blacks, whites and no greys. Although he denies practising yah-boo politics, I am afraid to say that that was pretty much what we heard.
Today, we are concentrating primarily on housing, and I want to make a constructive contribution on the narrow issue of developing the construction industry, trying to kick-start the economy in the process and meeting desperate housing need. I welcome any intervention by the Government, including the Budget announcement on the promotion of home ownership for those seeking, in many cases in desperate circumstances, to get their first toe-hold on the housing ladder. In particular, I want to look at the special circumstances faced by many people living in rural areas.
My own part of the world is, of course, west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. Cornwall as a whole has seen the number of houses double in the past 40 years, yet housing problems for local people have become significantly worse. What we have learned in Cornwall applies to many other parts of the country that are attractive to wealthy people—we have many such places in Cornwall—who can afford second homes. On its own, building houses is not the problem. In places that are highly desirable to those with large wallets, something more sophisticated is required than merely heaving in a load more houses and turning the place into a developers’ paradise. There is a big mismatch between earnings levels and house prices in our area.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman’s area, like mine, has a number of second homes on coastal development routes. Does he agree that we need the Government to plug this massive loophole, so that people do not take advantage of what appears to be there at the moment and build large buy-to-let properties with a significant subsidy from the public purse?
Andrew George
I entirely agree. As the Government introduce their proposals, I hope that they will discount any chance of the loan guarantee being used to support the purchase of second homes, and that it will go only to families that otherwise would not be able to buy a first home of their own. After I was first elected in 1997, I campaigned against the policy that had been introduced by the Conservative Government of providing a 50% council tax discount for second homes. In that case, hundreds of millions of pounds were being used every year to subsidise the wealthy buying second homes, when thousands of local families could not afford their first. This Government are finishing off the job. I persuaded the previous Labour Government to remove as much as they possibly could of the second home council tax discount, and that was the right step forward.
Before I was elected to this House, I worked with housing associations and others to find a way of constructing a new lower rung on the housing ladder through shared equity and shared ownership schemes. The rural exceptions policy allowed exceptions to be made on the edges of villages and towns, where planning permission would not normally be granted, to meet local housing need. It allowed the schemes to go ahead and meant that the development price of land was significantly lower than would have been the case if they had been given unfettered permission to develop the land and build properties at prices that local people could not afford. The exceptions approach and shared ownership were clearly the way forward. The problem was that in rural areas only two lenders, Nationwide and Halifax, were prepared to put money into shared ownership developments.
A lot of lenders question whether they are prepared to put their money in and support local families who are trying to get on to the housing ladder. Such properties do not result in the level of default—the amount is 0.45% in shared ownership as a whole, which is significantly less than that for rural housing stock—that a lot of lenders pretend. If the Government are looking at ways to tighten the definition and develop their loan guarantee scheme so that it will apply to families who desperately need help, I urge them to look at the shared ownership sector. They should find ways to enable the situation to come to life, but not just on the first, initial purchase; they should try to ensure that on the second and subsequent purchase they can facilitate and work with housing associations so that these families can move on. The lack of confidence that this market can have a life of its own is holding it back.
I hope the Government will look at ways of having, in effect, a rural housing investment bank through this measure, and I hope that they will see this as a constructive contribution to the debate.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I am glad I met a man from St Ives on this journey, because I agree with much of what the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) said about shared ownership.
I suppose it is because I have been in this House too long—there is usually a chorus after any Member says that—and because I have heard a lot of Budget and autumn statements that I have become more cynical about them as time goes on, but I want to start by saying that, as co-chair of the associate parliamentary manufacturing group, I believe that some of the concessions and planned changes affecting manufacturing industry in the autumn statement and the Budget were good for manufacturing, and were welcomed by people in the sector.
The Budget was supposed to be about aspiration. I would like that aspiration to be lifted much higher. Our country is changing fast, and my irritation with Budgets and autumn statements is that there seems to be no time for politicians to get together in a sensible way and think strategically about policy making and the direction of our country. Our country is changing fast. The social and economic structure is changing rapidly and fundamentally within my lifetime. I was talking recently to students at Northampton university, and their knowledge of the social structure of Britain is amazing. I asked them what percentage of people worked in manufacturing and some of them said 30% or 40%. They had no idea that about 9.5% of people work in manufacturing; it is 10.5% in Huddersfield. Some 30% work in what people call public services—education, health and local government —and roughly 60% work in private services.
Working in early years or later years care in private services means earning minimum wage or minimum wage plus. Working in retail and distribution also means earning minimum wage. No one can live the good life on minimum wage. I came into politics so that my constituents could live the good life. We all know the good life: we can put food on the table and have a nice house or flat, whether it is rented or bought through a mortgage. We all know the essential ingredients for a good life, but many of the good jobs that provided it, including in manufacturing, for example, have gone. They have been replaced by minimum wage jobs in retail and distribution, and in caring for patients.
Universities, apprentices and education were mentioned only once in the Budget, and that is a real worry. I care passionately about giving young people jobs and opportunities, and 90% of firms do not take on apprentices. That is a real concern and it was not addressed enough in the Budget.
Manufacturing is important in our country. My vision is of a high-skilled, high-paid Britain, but at the moment many of our people are heading towards a low-skilled, low-paid economy. In fact, those two can live side by side, and as Lord Heseltine told us, there is a grotesque change in our country that should be worrying every Member—the way in which London and the south-east are sucking the life out of our great towns and cities. The Budget has not addressed that, but we must address it if we are to get strategic policy right. This Budget did not do enough in that direction.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that demographic changes and the rising numbers of young people in certain communities make it even more important to have specific policies targeted at them in order to get them into workplaces and apprenticeships?
Mr Sheerman
The hon. Gentleman knows of my passion for skills training and apprenticeships. We should abolish unemployment until the age of 25. The Netherlands did it, so why cannot we? There was not enough in the Budget to address youth unemployment. When I was a shadow Home Affairs Minister, I knew the importance of putting money into deterring young people from crime. If someone is not a criminal by the age of 25, they do not become one, so if we keep young people in employment, training or education until then, they never get into inter-generational worklessness.
Those are the sorts of bold policies I wanted in the Budget. I wanted higher aspiration and for my constituents to see us not lobbing insults at each other, but finding common cause to get the country ready for the 21st century and to make ours a society of high skills and high pay.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
The announcement to help first-time home buyers is great, but the wording needs to be tight to prevent it from being misused as a licence for people to buy a second home or to add further to the buy-to-rent racket that has led to so much misery for those trapped in the private rented sector, while others have become property millionaires by sponging on funds from housing benefits paid for by taxpayers to help people who cannot afford to buy or who cannot get a council house. It would make more sense to spend this money on new council houses—or social housing as it is now known.
Next, there are mixed messages on alcohol tax and the coalition Government’s desire to tackle binge drinking and improve the health of the nation. One minute there is disagreement about whether there should be a minimum unit pricing of alcohol; then the Chancellor knocks 1p off the price of beer, rather than raising it by 3p, as would have happened under the ever-rising structure inherited from Labour. Thus the cost of a pint of beer has gone down by 4p on Labour’s pricing policy. This is not going to help tackle binge drinking or the growing health problems associated with excessive drinking.
We need a variable price structure to help traditional, community and village public houses, which would fit well with the coalition Government’s localism agenda and the last Government’s sustainable communities legislation. Tax on beer and lager should be raised significantly in the mega-pubs and to stop irresponsible discount pricing in supermarkets, but reduced in our neighbourhood public houses, which are closing at a rate of 18 a week, owing, in no small part, to the lack of a level playing field. It is these neighbourhood hostelries that, in the main, are less likely to cause antisocial problems. On 1 November last year, I told the House:
“We need to amend the tax levy on beer sold in our traditional public houses. We should have a tax-neutral approach to keep the Treasury happy and bring huge social benefits, including job retention and creation, rather than there being the loss of jobs that we continue to witness in the sector. Most publicans of neighbourhood and village public houses run responsible establishments. Their customers should be rewarded, not financially penalised because of the irresponsible marketing carried out by supermarkets and mega-drinking establishments.”—[Official Report, 1 November 2012; Vol. 552, c. 429.]
On tackling binge drinking and the often associated incidents of people being injured, deliberately or accidentally, from broken glasses or beer bottles, sometimes used as weapons in fights, I urge the Chancellor to give a tax discount to brewers who put their product in plastic bottles—more accurately polycarbonate bottles. Likewise, I urge him to encourage major drinks venues to use the same material for the glasses in which alcoholic drinks are served. This would dramatically reduce the number of people taken to hospital for injuries caused by broken beer bottles and glasses. I refer the House to the ten-minute rule Bill in the name of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), which he brought in on 4 September last year. In his speech, he pointed out that according to the Home Office there are about 87,000 violent incidents involving glass every year. Just think how much it costs the NHS to deal with the vicious wounds inflicted.
I urge the Chancellor to introduce a levy on football television rights. There is already too much money sloshing around in professional football, and it is only going to get worse. The next television deal will bring in £5 billion to inflate still further the obscene payments to premiership footballers and a big creaming off by their parasitic agents. I suggest a 20% levy, which the Chancellor could ring-fence and direct to be spent, as a £1 billion Olympic legacy, on school and grass-roots sport.
Thank goodness we have not had a repeat of the pasty tax nonsense, although we are left with the unfairness of VAT being levied on the Subway toasted sandwich. I urge the Chancellor to try a little harder with his attempts to be the common man and axe the 20% tax on toasties and the like.
Finally, how about this for a new income stream? I am grateful to Mr Richard Spendlove, doyen of the BBC evening radio airways across the eastern counties, for this suggestion. He points out that people will pay a small fortune for so-called personalised or elite registration number plates for vehicles, so why not, he asks, re-issue all those abandoned and forgotten numbers from the early years of motoring? Whenever such live number plates come on the market, they can fetch as much as £4,300, which was the asking price yesterday for registration number 88 VR. Mr Spendlove suggests that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency dusts down its records, identifies the tens of thousands of similar historic numbers that decades ago ended their days in the scrap yards of yesteryear and makes them available. The revenue generated could, I suggest, be used for road safety measures outside schools.
If the Chancellor wants to be popular, he should adopt all those suggestions.
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
To fill a Budget with populist gimmicks while wholly ignoring the economic fundamentals that are remorselessly driving this country into a semi-permanent stagnation is to degrade the high office of Chancellor. The home loans scheme has more than a whiff of sub-prime about it, luring those without the means to buy a house they cannot afford and thereby fuelling a housing bubble. The child care voucher is limited to where both parents are working and offers five times more to the richest fifth than the poorest fifth. And the penny off a pint of beer does not do much to compensate for the 9% cut in real wages that the OBR now expects by 2015 compared with 2009.
All this populist flannel misses the point. The real point is the total abandonment of any serious attempt in the Budget to tackle the fundamental problems of a desperately ailing economy. The tragedy for the people of this country is that during this depression we have Herbert Hoover at the controls, when the whole country is crying out for a Franklin Roosevelt. The harshly unrelenting facts of Britain’s inexorable decline speak for themselves. The OBR has been forced to halve the growth prediction this year, which it made only three months ago, from 1.2% to 0.6%. The deficit reduction—the ostensible aim of the whole brutal austerity machine—is going into reverse. The deficit now expected in 2014 is £120 billion—twice what it was expected to be just three years ago. By the time of the election in 2015, the Government will have been forced to borrow an extra £250 billion more than was forecast in 2010. With the plans in the Budget, any hope of the Chancellor’s achieving a firm and sustainable recovery is simply delusional.
The heart of any Budget is its macro-economic strategy. Uniquely, in this Budget, there was no credible strategy. The Chancellor’s policy is still so destructive and the failure so massive that it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the real objective is not deficit reduction, but to dismantle the public sector and shrink the state. One simply has to ask, “Why is the Chancellor so wilfully blind to an alternative?”
An alternative must start from recognising that when the household and private sectors are deleveraging, there cannot be a recovery if the public sector does the same. It starts from recognising also that monetary policy alone—throwing £375 billion of quantitative easing at the banks, dropping interest rates to the floor and letting the exchange rate fall by 25%—cannot by itself produce growth; or, as Mark Carney would put it, not much “escape velocity” there. An alternative also starts from accepting that until the collapse in aggregate demand is tackled, there will be no recovery.
How can that be engineered and paid for? There has to be, initially, a public sector-driven investment programme in house building, infrastructure, energy, transport and low-carbon technology until such time as the private sector can take over. That can be paid for by borrowing £30 billion at the dirt-cheap interest rate of 0.5%, or £150 million a year, which would rapidly pay for itself by taking back into employment 1 million workers, whom it is currently costing the country £10 billion to keep on the dole. However, this does not have to involve any public borrowing at all. The nationalised banks, RBS and Lloyds, could be instructed to prioritise lending to key infrastructure manufacturing projects, or the ultra-rich—the 14,000 millionaires who are about to get a £2,000 a week tax give-away—could be capital gains taxed on the £155 billion of gains they have made over the last three years, according to The Sunday Times. Or, instead of hosing down the banks with another huge tranche of quantitative easing, the money could be diverted to direct investment in industry.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I very much welcome the opportunity to contribute to this Budget debate.
We have heard much in contributions from both sides of the House about the level of the housing supply and the building that is going on. I am happy to report that in Milton Keynes we are getting on with it. We have 28,000 housing permissions in place and the Government have intervened to unlock some of the developments that have been gummed up in the system for too long, thanks in part to our friend the great crested newt—which, for an endangered species, seems to appear with remarkable frequency whenever there is a planning application. Those housing developments are not part of the hated regional spatial strategy, but are now part of a locally decided and locally managed strategy, which is just one component of our successful growth strategy—not the old, blunt housing targets, but economic growth alongside housing growth and infrastructure planning.
I warmly welcome the measures in the Budget and earlier announcements that will underpin and enhance Milton Keynes’s position as the part of the country that will lead in the rebuilding of our economy. All right hon. and hon. Members will want to claim that their home area is the best and is leading the country, but I can cite three recent independent surveys that confirm that Milton Keynes is leading the way. In November, the Experian company ranked Milton Keynes as No. 1 in a survey of towns that will lead growth in this country. In each of the next four years, annual employment will grow by 2% and output will grow by 3%, and this is sustainable and balanced growth, not just in the retail and service sectors but in manufacturing and high-tech industries as well.
More recently, March’s economic outlook report by PricewaterhouseCoopers put Milton Keynes’s growth ahead of the UK average. Mike Robinson, partner at PwC, said that
“businesses should be encouraged to capitalise on the expected upturn in consumer spending and opportunities created by local infrastructure investment.”
Finally, just the other week the business location index—part of the inward investment guide to England—ranked Milton Keynes as the best place in Britain to do business, based on its scoring highly on economic, human resources, environmental and infrastructure indicators.
Companies House records show that more than 2,000 new businesses started up in Milton Keynes in the last year, up 10% on the year before. Our inward investment is booming. Milton Keynes is already home to 700 international companies, and that is growing. We have a winning formula that is based on our local factors and the UK’s competitive tax strategy. Our strong position will be underpinned and enhanced by the policies announced in the Budget and other measures. The city deal and the Heseltine proposal for a single pot of money to decentralise decision making will help, boosting our infrastructure, particularly with the east-west rail project, which will link Milton Keynes to Oxford and, ultimately, Cambridge and is forecast to generate 12,000 jobs in the local region.
Our apprenticeship schemes are doing well. We have already doubled the number of apprenticeships locally to 2,000—that will increase further—and not just in traditional sectors, but in accountancy, law and manufacturing. That will develop our skills base for the future and make us even more attractive to inward investors. Finally, the policies to help people buy their first home and go further up the housing ladder will ensure that our housing strategy is linked to what we need locally. Of course there are many challenges ahead, but Milton Keynes is doing well. This Budget gives us the tools to get on with the job.
Let me finish by referring to the contribution from the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway). He criticised the Government for talking about sowing seeds in frozen weather. A horticulturalist will tell us that it is not only possible to sow seeds on frozen ground, but often desirable, because that can lead to the healthiest growth.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this Budget debate.
Like all right hon. and hon. Members, we waited to hear the Chancellor’s proposals that would kick-start the economy, lifting it out of the despair in which it finds itself. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government opened today’s debate, outlining Government policy in the Budget for a house building programme. I appreciate that our constituents across the United Kingdom have difficultly getting on to the housing ladder. Having listened to my colleagues here in England, I can say that there is undoubtedly a social housing build problem, with affordable housing described as a national emergency.
Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland have difficulty offering proposals to resolve the housing problem, because housing is devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, the Chancellor has offered some hope to homebuyers in the Budget, with interest-free loans of up to 20% of the value of a new build property. I appreciate that there is some confusion about the proposal, but I trust that homebuyers seeking to get on the housing ladder will not be lost in the midst of a policy that seems not to have been thought out before being announced.
On Budget day, my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) rightly welcomed a number of acceptable announcements. He endorsed the decision to protect Government front-line services in health and education. He also acknowledged that the Government had recognised the key role that capital infrastructure enhancement plays in stimulating economic growth. That is important not only for short-term economic growth, but for our country’s long-term prosperity. However, we face a serious problem, with little or no economic growth across the United Kingdom but, sadly, no sign of it changing in the near future. We need to stimulate our economy. The Secretary of State told the House today that we needed to give business a leg up. To do so, we need to bring confidence back into the business community. Businesses need to be sure that the Government have a plan to take us out of the mess we are in. No one can deny that there is a lack of confidence. As a result, those who have money are not spending or making the investments in industry that we need so much in our economy.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
Has the hon. Gentleman read the latest report from the Federation of Small Businesses bureau, which says that the level of enthusiasm and belief that we are heading towards a recovery is higher than it ever has been? Confidence is at an all-time high.
Dr McCrea
I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. I think that if we really went out into the community, we would still find a lack of confidence. If confidence were out there, those who have the money—and some certainly do—would be investing. We need to get those people to spend that money within our economy. On the other side, there is not only a lack of confidence, but a lack of finance. Small and medium-sized businesses are being starved and crippled by denial of finance.
I do not believe that we should talk down our economy, but we must be realistic about the economic situation in our United Kingdom. We want inward investment and we need to kick-start the economy. I would certainly like to see the Chancellor giving more encouragement. Many businesses are crying out for finance. They go along to the banks, but no matter how many times the Chancellor and even the Prime Minister have assured us that they are encouraging the banks to give them the money, that needed money is not getting into the coffers of SMEs. We have got to do more about that.
My constituents welcome the cancellation of the 3p increase in fuel duty, which would have been an additional tax burden not only on businesses, but on virtually every other person and family in our community.
Mr Gregory Campbell
Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Chancellor were in the business of freezing one duty and reducing another, it might have been more cost-effective and beneficial to the economy if he had frozen the beer duty and reduced the fuel duty?
Dr McCrea
I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion. In fact, that suggestion would have been profitable for the economy, especially bearing in mind that we in Northern Ireland already pay higher fuel prices than any other region of the United Kingdom. We also welcome the low cost of borrowing from the banks over a sustained period, but I have to say that there is another side to that because we should have some sympathy for many pensioners and other savers who depend on savings to supplement their income. They are suffering greatly from the very low interest rates.
I acknowledge the reduction of corporation tax to 20%, ensuring a single rate for businesses in April 2015. In welcoming this step, however, I would ask the Chancellor when corporation tax is going to be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, particularly bearing in mind the fact that we compete with the Irish Republic, which has a 12.5% rate. We want to be able to compete on a level playing field, or better, to bring inward investment into our Province. Northern Ireland’s population has a strong work ethic, but we need policies that will build confidence, bring that inward investment and help industries in the local community to invest in the future.
Air passenger duty is another issue. I believe it is detrimental to our economy. I acknowledge that APD exists for transatlantic flights from Northern Ireland, but we need to challenge this, so I call on the Chancellor to reconsider his position. There is anger, too, over the millionaires’ tax cuts, while at the same time there is the hurt over the bedroom tax. Where will our constituents find the houses for the downsizing? It is easy to talk about these imaginary houses, but that offers no relief to families that face turmoil in getting a roof over their heads.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Before I go any further, I should like to declare that I retain an interest in a small communications company, which I set up before I was elected to this place, that gives advice to developers on how to manage planning procedures and the planning system. For the last 20 years, I have been following the whole issue of development and planning.
I very much welcome the Chancellor’s proposals to introduce “help to buy”, which I hope will stimulate our economy as well. To my mind, however, the planning process is not the issue that has created many of the problems for development. We need to unlock credit availability and make mortgages much more available, especially for those first-time buyers who cannot raid the bank of mum and dad.
I am not going to pretend that I am an economist or that I necessarily understand banking regulation or the complexities that go with it, but I think that we cannot ignore the reasons why we are in this mess. To my mind, it was Bill Clinton and the American Administration who, wanting to encourage the less well off, especially among the Afro-Caribbean community in the United States, to buy their own homes, consequently created a sub-prime market in the 1990s. By weakening financial regulation, the US and British Governments created a new class of specialised mortgage lenders that subcontracted their liability. By failing to put up interest rates, the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England allowed the housing market to overheat. That is why we created this major crash.
In 2001, when the Labour Government created a budget deficit, they continued to make our problems much more disastrous than they needed to be, and they failed to control public expenditure, adding to our financial woes. In addition, the Bank of England failed to manage our inflation target and our monetary framework. Not only the Treasury, but the Office for Budgetary Responsibility have some way to go because they have failed to get their forecasts right in the process.
As my hon. Friends know, the Bank of England is responsible for managing the inflation target, but it is the Treasury that actually sets that target in the first place. For the last two years, I have been banging on and asking how those criteria have been set, but I have failed to get a reply. Plainly, something has gone very wrong indeed. The Bank of England is consistently failing to hit its inflation target. In producing a Budget, monetary policy cannot be divorced from the economics. In the years before the credit crunch, monetary conditions were too loose. There was an asset price bubble, house prices rose very sharply and if the banking crises had not erupted, general inflation would have been an even more serious problem. The Bank of England accommodated a serious asset price bubble with a huge and unsustainable level of domestic household debt. People have rightly criticised bank and financial market regulation, but much less attention has been given to defective central banking and overly loose monetary conditions that made possible the household borrowing and financial leverage.
I believe that the time has now come when the role of the central banks should be scrutinised properly. We must learn the lessons, the limitations and the defects of the inflation target regime. There has been a serious lack of transparency in the way the Bank of England conducts monetary policy. The details of its forecasting model, the assumptions it uses and the forecasts it generates have not been publicly available. Its public documents have been disappointing in respect of their clarity and presentation, and I am afraid that the inflation report has failed. I am firmly of the view that we need a proper review of the inflation target, how it is set out and how the central bank conducts its business.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
They say, “If you tell a big enough lie and repeat it constantly, people will believe it”—and that is what the Tory-led Government have done. We are constantly told that the last Labour Government left the biggest debt in the developed world. That is an odd thing to say when the Chancellor admitted to the Treasury Committee in 2011 that he did not even know that the UK had the lowest debt in the G7.
Of course the UK will have a higher debt and deficit than some other countries, and Government Members often make a comparison with Greece, but Greece has a totally different economy from ours; we are the sixth largest in the world. Of course our debt will be higher than Greece’s, but the real figure to look at—one that relates to economic competence—is the ratio of GDP to national debt.
Let me remind the House—I know Government Members have a collective amnesia about this—that in 1997, when the Labour Government came to power, the national debt was 42% of GDP; after 11 years of the Labour Government and before the global recession of 2008, the ratio of GDP to national debt was 35%. That is a reduction of 11%, and it was not achieved by a Government who were financially incompetent. In fact, that Government achieved an even greater reduction than the Conservatives.
The second claim that we hear is that Labour created the biggest deficit in the developed world by overspending. If that was the case, why did Germany, Japan, the United States and other similar economies have a problem? Why did they have banking crises? Why were they not in deficit? We know the answer. We know that there were global economic problems. We know that the financial crisis began in the United States with the sub-prime mortgages. In fact, it was a former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who took a bold initiative, saving our banking systems and, subsequently, saving half a million jobs as well.
Those are not just my views. The International Monetary Fund concluded that
“the UK experienced an increase in the deficit as result of a large loss in output/GDP caused by the global banking crisis and not even as result of the bank bailouts, fiscal stimulus and bringing forward of capital spending. It’s basic economics: when output falls the deficit increases.”
The deficit increase was not due to any of the actions taken by the Labour Government. In fact, all those actions made the economy better, and saved more jobs. In contrast, this Government’s policies over the past three years have done nothing to help the economy to grow.
Another reason for our financial loss was the fact that we are one of the main financial centres in the world. Given that there was a global banking crisis, of course we were likely to take the hit more than other countries. We should also bear in mind that up to 2008, while Labour was in power, the actual borrowing costs were low. Indeed, they are still low. That is because in the United Kingdom our bonds are strong and are performing well, because people know that the Bank of England is there to step in if there is any problem, and, of course, because over the last 300 years the UK has never defaulted on its debt. The Government try to blame austerity, saying, “We must introduce all these measures because we need to balance the books,” but the truth is that they are using austerity as a justification for downsizing the state, which, in ideological terms, the Conservative-led government have always wanted to do.
Even the Chancellor’s budget deficit programme is not working. Everyone knows that a budget deficit occurs when expenditure exceeds income, but one way of securing income is taxation, direct or indirect. When people are being laid off and are not working, they are paying no taxes. They are having to be supported by a benefits system, which is why—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am terribly sorry, but the hon. Lady’s time is up.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
It is not normally my habit to comment on earlier speeches, and I had intended to stick to the main ethos of what I was going to say, but I feel that I must draw something to the attention of the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). She began by talking about GDP ratios. Let me gently remind her that during the early years of the last Labour Government, they stuck to Conservative spending principles. Does she remember golden economic rules, and the end of boom and bust?
Yasmin Qureshi
Eleven years later, it was the Labour party that reduced the GDP ratio to 35%.
Paul Uppal
No; not 11 years later. [Interruption.] If Labour Members disagree, perhaps they will recall the views of Hamish McRae, the economist who writes for The Independent, who has commented on the issue at length. However, I digress.
The essence of today’s debate concerns housing policy. I am glad that the Government have confirmed that they will make up to £12 billion of guarantees available to support more than £130 billion of mortgages for new-build and existing homes in January for three years. I also welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to realigning the Government’s policy on the private rented sector by increasing the £200 million build to rent fund to more than £1 billion, and providing a £225 million funding boost to support a further 15,000 affordable homes in England by 2015.
Members on both sides of the House have made various points, but it might be wise at this juncture to refer not to politicians, but to housing and property experts. I do not know whether anyone has taken the time to read this week’s edition of Estates Gazette, which is the bible when it comes to real estate and housing issues. According to Richard Threlfall, KPMG’s head of infrastructure, building and construction,
“the Chancellor has thrown the UK house building industry a new lifeline.”
Nick Jopling, executive director of property at Grainger plc and chairman of the Urban Land Institute’s UK Residential Council, added:
“Stimulating the housing market through further mortgage support…will help improve transactions and liquidity in the market, which has for some time been constrained.”
Stewart Baseley, executive chairman of the Home Builders Federation, said:
“A lack of affordable mortgage availability remains the biggest constraint on housing supply”.
He also said:
“Government must be praised for its attempts to stimulate activity”.
Gerry Hughes, senior director at GVA, said:
“We welcome the healthy five fold increase in the Build to Rent fund. This will undoubtedly assist a sector that is struggling severely.”
I will cut my quotations short at this point, but let me emphasise that those are not the views of politicians, but the views of property professionals.
I think that last week’s Budget statement was seminal in many respects, and that the opening line was crucial. The Chancellor said:
“This is a Budget for people who aspire to work hard and get on. It is a Budget for people who realise there are no easy answers to problems built up over many years—just the painstaking work of putting right what went so badly wrong.”—[Official Report, 20 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 931.]
I believe that blue-collar workers out there, and the general population, understand the challenging economic climate, and agree that we need to tackle the deficit. The Chancellor stated that it had now been cut by one third, not one quarter, and that according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, we are on course to fulfil our fiscal mandate. However, tackling the deficit, although right and necessary, cannot be our only message. We need to reinforce and go further in regard to some of our flagship policies, taking low-paid workers out of tax and freezing fuel duty. Above all, blue-collar workers want to see more money in their wallets at the end of the month, and I believe that we are on course to achieve that. The Budget demonstrates that our priorities—the Government’s priorities—are in the right place.
The Leader of the Opposition often comes to the Dispatch Box and accuses the Government of being “out of touch”. The Budget shows that we are on the side of workers, of families, of people who want to get on and make a better life for themselves. It shows that the Government have their priorities at heart—the right priorities. Our priorities are in the right place when a Budget raises the personal tax allowance to £10,000 from April 2014, which means a tax cut for 24 million people. As a result, some people will pay £700 less in income tax than they did in 2010, and 2.7 million will be taken out of tax altogether. Our priorities are in the right place when fuel duty is being frozen once again, which makes this the longest freeze for over 20 years. Pump prices will be 13p lower than they would have been as a result of Labour’s plans, leaving the average motorist with £170 more in his or her pocket. We are helping the aspirational workers, but we are also helping the entrepreneurs, the risk-takers and the employers. The small business man has faced, and still faces, numerous challenges. Things are not easy, but, as a Government, we can help to make things easier, and help to make those businesses succeed. The fall in fuel duty will help them, too, but more importantly the package of business reforms will make a real difference in the pockets of businesses up and down the backbone of this country.
We will cut the jobs tax for every business by £2,000 in 2014. We are taking people out of tax: 450,000 small businesses—one third of all employers—will pay no jobs tax at all. I hope the Chancellor takes similar steps to increase the allowance in future Budgets. Taking more small businesses out of paying the jobs tax will provide a greater incentive to take on more workers during the continuing long-term rebalancing of our economy.
In talking about entrepreneurs and employers, I would like to commend the Government for cutting corporation tax even further. Under the previous Government, business taxes were at 28%. Now we have the lowest rate in the G7, and next month it will fall to 23%. When it reaches 20% in April 2015, we will have the lowest rate in the G20. This is great news for people who wish to invest and bring jobs to this country.
This is a Budget for aspiration and ambition and for all those who wish to work hard.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal). He asked us about the debt to GDP percentage ratio. Looking at the 1996-97 financial year, after 10 years of a Labour Government we not only had a lower debt to GDP percentage ratio, but our deficit was lower.
Paul Uppal
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s response, but does he not accept that for the first half of that Labour Government they stuck to Conservative spending plans laid down by the previous Conservative Chancellor?
Jonathan Reynolds
In the rare years since the end of the second world war when there has been a surplus, not a deficit, it is Labour Governments who have traditionally delivered that. That proves we are much better at the national finances, as well as at providing for the people of this country.
David Wright
Does my hon. Friend recall that the Conservatives were wedded to our spending plans right up until the global recession hit? They have never explained which action they would not have taken to save the banks.
Jonathan Reynolds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Just last week, when listening to the Chancellor deliver his fourth Budget and its dreadful assessment of the state of the British economy, it was hard to believe that if everything had gone to plan for him and we had managed to pull off what he proposed in the emergency Budget, we would be well down the road to balancing the books and debt would be peaking this year as a percentage of GDP. Such a plan now seems nothing more than a fantasy.
Larry Summers, the distinguished American economist and Treasury Secretary under President Clinton, told a conference I attended last year about the response he gives when asked what one event would make him completely reassess everything he believes to be true about modern economics. He said that since 2010, his answer has been, “If the UK Government manage to bring about a rapid recovery through their deficit reduction plan.” I thought that was quite a bold statement when I first heard it, but of course, Mr Summers knew what he was talking about.
When the Chancellor took office in 2010 and first came to the House, he said we would have five years of pain to eradicate the deficit, but then we would have done it. Last week, he came back to the House to say that there will be another five years of pain, and then we will have eradicated the deficit—maybe. There has been almost no progress, but the pain for our constituents has been very real.
Stripping away all the partisanship in this Chamber, there are surely Government Members who thought last week, “What if we had done things slightly differently?” The truth behind all that misplaced rhetoric in 2010 about the UK being on the verge of bankruptcy or that we would be the next Greece, all but destroyed business and consumer confidence, before the measures in the emergency Budget were even on the statute book. When the Government’s agenda did bite, the combination of that, the collapse of confidence they had already fostered and the worsening eurozone produced an economic disaster. We all see the casualties of that every day in our constituencies. We needed more from this Budget.
There are three issues I would like to address in the brief time available to me, the first of which is manufacturing. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) that this Government have done some good things in that regard. I am pleased that there are Members on both sides of the House who, like me, are passionate about manufacturing, a sector in which a fifth of my constituents still work. However, the Budget speech made no mention of the “march of the makers”, and it did not address the two main issues that still remain: that such businesses cannot borrow money when they need to; and that they feel that the Government do not give them sufficient strategic direction, be it on renewable energy, High Speed 2, aviation policy or anything else. I hope the Chancellor has had time to read the excellent report by the former director of the Institute of Directors, Sir George Cox, on short-termism in the UK economy. I hope he will take on board its main recommendation: that we need to develop a coherent and workable modern industrial strategy if we are to remain competitive. I agree with Government Members when they say we are in a global race, but at the moment we do not even have a map of the course.
Secondly, despite the job creation record that Government Members like to emphasise, unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, is still a major problem. We know enough about the Work programme to know that it has not been a success. Due to the combination of a lack of jobs generally and an inadequate payments system, it has not had the impact it should have had. We had on the statute book a range of measures that were getting people back into work; the future jobs fund, for example, should never have been dropped. Much of the Government’s borrowing—they announced £245 billion on top of their 2010 figure—is paying for the costs of failure. It is not unreasonable to wonder what might have happened if we had invested a fraction of that sum in putting people back into work.
My third point is about the equity of the Government’s agenda and how things have been shared, because the lower down the income scale people are, the harder they have been hit. The contrast between the tax cut for millionaires in the next few days and the bedroom tax is startling. The latter is a tax on people struggling with their child’s disability, struggling with their own or their partner’s ill health, or struggling to be a good parent in the event of the breakdown of their relationship. The fact that it may lead to higher costs for the Exchequer, as families are forced to move into higher-cost private accommodation, flies in the face of all reason. On this measure, more than any other, we need another famous Budget U-turn.
Let me deal with some specific Budget measures. I welcome the concessions on fuel duty, which does have a real impact on household income, and the scrapping of the beer tax escalator, which will benefit real ale towns such as Stalybridge. The nod towards the Heseltine report is also good, but it could have gone so much further. Had the Government pursued the previous Government’s Total Place community budgeting reforms, they could have improved public services while saving billions of pounds. However, Lord Heseltine’s logic that regional leaders are best placed to determine spending which will lever in private sector investment is surely correct.
I also welcome the commitment to spend 0.7% of our GDP on international aid, and here I have the opportunity to qualify remarks that got me on to page 2 of The Sun a few weeks ago. I am a supporter of international aid, but we have to acknowledge that it is contentious to increase it when our constituents are facing hardship. I just want the focus to be on what aid will achieve, rather than simply patting ourselves on the back for what goes into it. That is a reasonable way to build support for aid among the British people.
There is no doubt that whoever was in charge right now would face difficult choices about where the pain that the British people face should lie. However, the deal we have to offer them is that the pain will be worth it, and that the distribution of that pain will be equitable and will show empathy with people’s lives. On all those criteria the Chancellor has failed, and it is surely time for a new approach.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
In the short time I have—five minutes is a very short time—I will just rattle through a few points.
I welcome a large part of this Budget—it is very good news. It sounds more like a Conservative Budget, which is why the press have, on the whole, welcomed it; I believe that the Chancellor was transformed into a former Prime Minister, because there was a feeling that this is, at last, what the country needs. My question to our Front-Bench team, which they can perhaps answer later, is this: why has it taken nearly three years for us to do this? I suspect that their answer will be, “Because we are in a coalition.” I am a little tired of hearing that. I want a lot more blue narrative and less coalition narrative, because that is the way forward on sorting out our economy.
I welcome the reduction in taxes. Raising the income tax threshold to £10,000 is a wonderful way to go, but we should go further; how many constituents have we heard say, “If I do a bit more work, I will lose my benefits”? Let us give them income they have earned—let them keep it. Let us keep on that path, encouraging people back to work and off welfare. That is the right direction to take.
The beer escalator has gone—hurrah! A great friend of mine, who sadly had a heart attack, used to run the Hall and Woodhouse brewery in Blandford and before he died he said to me, “Richard, when you get into the House, please try to get rid of this beer escalator because we are losing thousands of jobs across the country as a consequence.” It is now gone—well done the coalition Government. I am absolutely delighted about that, and, in addition, 1p was taken off the pint of beer so we could all celebrate a bit on the night.
I am also delighted about the freezing of fuel duty. I am not going to be partisan and say that it would be much higher if we still had a Labour Government; it is frozen and that is good. But we should go much further and cut into that vast amount of tax that the Government take off the normal man and woman in this country, who, in many cases, simply cannot afford to fill up their car—the situation is ludicrous.
On the ceramics industry, I am delighted that the levy has been removed. May I put in a small request on behalf of the aggregate industry? A constituent of mine is paying £2 a tonne to take aggregate out of the ground, which is costing him £160,000 a year. That is a tax on a small family business employing 48 people in South Dorset that cannot afford that huge burden. Dare I say it—common sense must replace green taxes when jobs will be lost.
My concern is about the Government’s planned equitable loan, or mortgage guarantee—whatever we call it, those are the two arms of the new policy. I hope it works and that more houses are built as a result, but I am concerned that taxpayers’ money is being used to guarantee mortgages. If that goes wrong, we will not want to carry it with us in the years to come.
As for solutions, as a Conservative I believe that the supply side must be boosted. We must cut taxes further. As I have mentioned, we must get more people back to work by raising the welfare threshold. I believe that that is working extremely well in Sweden, although it went much against public opinion. We are still spending more than we earn and although we lecture the Opposition about what they did, we are doing the same thing. We must live within our means. We cannot go on printing money. Billions of pounds are being printed because there is no charge on interest. That is an inflationary move and could lead in months or years to come to interest rates rising. If that happens, our constituents, businesses and councils will be bust. It is as simple as that. We must tell the country the truth. We are in a hole and we must stop spending money we simply do not have.
Lastly—how time flies—we must consider the ring-fencing of budgets. Surely austere times are not the time to ring-fence budgets. If any budget should be ring-fenced, it should be defence, in my view, but even the Ministry of Defence must be looked at. All budgets should be open to consideration and, if needs be, to being changed. On the whole, I welcome the Budget, but we have a lot further to go—and, please, may we have a lot more blue narrative in the future?
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The UK economy continues to bump along the bottom with little or no growth in GDP and the revised OBR figure of only 0.6% growth for this year was a dark cloud over the whole Budget. In Wales, the situation is bleak, with the Office for National Statistics reporting 8,000 fewer jobs in the Welsh economy in the three months up to January. The austerity strategy set out in the 2010 comprehensive spending review aimed at the elimination of the deficit by the end of the Parliament has failed. The fiscal position is considerably worse than that forecast three years ago and worse even than that forecast this time last year—and that is with nearly 80% of the cuts yet to be delivered. We estimate that up to another 50,000 public sector jobs will lost in Wales in the coming years, following the 24,000 already lost. The Budget noted that Wales will get £161 million towards capital spending, but that conveniently masks the fact that there has already been a 40% cut to the capital spend budget from the CSR and that the re-allocation announced last week would come from strained revenue budgets.
Plaid Cymru welcomes some of the measures announced in the Budget. We welcome the freeze in fuel duty, but argue that it would be much better to have a long- term solution based on a stabilising mechanism. The announcement on when the £10,000 income tax personal allowance will be reached is welcome, as that is a long-standing Plaid Cymru policy. The £3 billion in infrastructure spending is also to be welcomed although, admittedly, it is a fraction of what is needed and was more of a political gesture than a serious economic intervention. We support the announcement of the introduction of an allowance of £2,000 a year from April 2014 for all businesses and charities to be offset against their employers’ national insurance contributions, as it will give businesses incentives to take on extra workers. We also support the move to change the terms of reference of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England to include a growth target. That is potentially the most significant announcement of the Budget and, again, is something that we have long called for.
I have some concerns about the second-home subsidy, not least because it would fuel another house price boom and after the inevitable crash, there will be serious consequences for the public finances.
There are several measures that Plaid Cymru would have liked to have seen included in the Budget. We wanted the Government to use the Budget and subsequent Finance Bill to implement the recommendations of the UK Government’s Commission on Devolution in Wales. We would have wanted the Government immediately to set about devolving minor taxes as well the income tax-sharing arrangements. We want the Treasury to implement the findings of the Welsh Government-commissioned Morgan report on devolved business rates, to incentivise Welsh local authorities to develop their local economy and expand their tax base. I will be tabling amendments to that effect to the Finance Bill, to test the will of the House.
The precedent for devolving taxes via the Budget was set with the devolution of air passenger duty to Northern Ireland in last year’s Finance Bill. On Thursday evening, I was amazed to see a senior Labour Assembly Member on the ITV political programme “Sharp End” dismiss the Finance Bill as an appropriate legislative vehicle to implement Silk. It just shows how visionless Labour has become in my country.
The measures I have just outlined would immediately trigger the borrowing powers—[Interruption.] That is the policy of the Labour party; they want borrowing powers in Wales. How will we get them without devolving fiscal levers? That just shows that Labour Members have no ideas.
The measures I outlined would immediately trigger the borrowing powers agreed during the bilateral negotiations between the Welsh and UK Governments, and are essential if Wales is to invest in infrastructure and create the economic boost that is so badly needed. We also want Wales to receive powers over corporation tax, as advocated by Silk, if they are devolved to Northern Ireland. Today, I read with interest in the Financial Times about the unanimous lobby for those powers in Northern Ireland, and the strong letter sent to the Prime Minister by the Northern Ireland CBI.
The tax cut for those earning more than £3,000, due to come into force next week, should have been overturned in the Budget. The renewal of Trident should be scrapped, thus saving £100 billion over its lifetime. A financial transaction tax, which would raise up to £20 billion per annum according to the Institute for Public Policy Research, should have been introduced. Plaid Cymru would have liked to see a mansion tax on domestic properties.
The Chancellor is boxed in by his own rhetoric and has run out of ideas. It is clear that the Treasury’s only economic strategy is to build up the barricades and hope that the rock star central banker can use monetary policy to turn things around.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
I welcome the Budget. It is a Budget for business and I am pleased that it is particularly good for micro-businesses, which have done especially well.
Today, we are talking principally about housing, where what the Government have done is commendable, but unless people have jobs and earn good salaries they will not be able to take up those good initiatives. The highlight is the employment allowance. The national insurance win is £2,000 off the employer’s NI bill. In my book, the Government could not have done anything better. That really plays to the agenda of micro-businesses. It enables them to get started. A very small business will be able to take on its first employee.
Many of the smallest businesses are run by women, so the reduction in child care costs in 2015, when 20% of the costs for the under-12s will be met by Government, is very welcome. For the first time, there is something that will help women running their own business; it will help the self-employed, not just those who are employed.
Many small businesses are in rural communities, and fuel is a huge issue. The fuel duty freeze is absolutely what this country needs. In September, petrol prices will stay the same and that is welcome. Clearly, we need to look at making fuel duty and the price of petrol predictable. Perhaps in a future Budget there will be an opportunity to look at a proper stabiliser, whereby when the price of fuel goes up, the tax comes down. Stability is vital, especially for small businesses. Likewise, a rural rebate on fuel duty would be welcome in some of our more out of the way communities.
The measure that will take corporation tax down to 20% faster and align it with the small companies rate is very welcome. I encourage the Chancellor and his team to look at what we could do to make that even easier for the very smallest companies. Perhaps he would support my all-party group working with the Office of Tax Simplification on the concept of a new flat tax for the smallest businesses, through the format of the business structure, so that whether it is a company, a sole trader or a partnership, there is a new mechanism. I appreciate that corporation tax as currently structured cannot fall below 20% because it would then be at the same rate as income tax, which would give rise to all sorts of problems, including people rushing to incorporate when it was not the right thing for them.
Here is another thought for the Chancellor for his next Budget: for the very smallest businesses, business rates can really cause a problem. I should like to see in the next Budget an extension of small business rate relief until the election, as that would be extraordinarily welcome. The Government could also look at trying to show those businesses that are paying business rates what they get for their money. The Chancellor and his team have been keen to enable those of us who pay income tax to see where that income tax is going, but the same argument ought to be true of business rates. Many business people say to me, “But I don’t get my bins emptied in the same way that I can see is the case if I pay council tax.” We should look at where those business rates go, and show the value for money that businesses obtain in paying them.
I had an interesting meeting last week with the valuation office. I asked it whether there was a way of making the valuation process fairer and, as I understood the explanation, it appears that the technology is there to enable revaluation to take place more frequently. A frustration that businesses share with me is that because of the time line—there is a five-year gap—there is a big difference between when the valuation is made and when people have to pay the new rate. I would not wish to underestimate the challenge, and I appreciate that the multiplier makes that not entirely straightforward.
That, for me, is the key to getting the country to move forward—helping our micro-businesses—and I welcome what the Chancellor’s team have introduced. I am delighted. Well done, and I hope that the Chancellor will perhaps take on board some of the thoughts that I have set out for the next Budget.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I am very pleased to be able to participate in this debate, not least to demonstrate how little the Budget will do for the economy of the north-east. We need no further evidence of the failure of the Government’s economic policies than the forecast on growth and GDP outlined by the Office for Budget Responsibility.
In June 2010, the OBR forecast that growth in the UK would be 2.8%. In fact, as we know, it was minus 0.1 %. We have also recently heard that the growth forecast this year, bearing in mind that it is only March, has been cut in half from 1.2% to 0.6%. Given all of that, the Government needed to shake off their complacency and take responsibility for the flatlining economy that they have created. They should introduce measures that would support growth, both nationally and in areas that are suffering most under this incompetent Government, such as County Durham.
The number of job seekers in my Durham constituency has fallen by just 69 in a year, but it is still up by 450 since the general election. Some 25% of those claimants are young people, unable to take their first step on the career ladder. What is equally worrying is the types of jobs that have been created compared with those that have been lost. Information that I have received from the House of Commons Library shows that the new jobs that have been created are predominantly non-skilled or low-skilled. At the same time, the number of jobs in skilled trades and administration is falling—by 2,000 in the last period. That shows a worrying trend of downskilling the north-east economy, just as we need to up our game to compete with emerging economies internationally.
What did the Budget do to rectify that? Absolutely nothing. The North East chamber of commerce said:
“The Government has fallen short of providing the raft of measures that businesses and investors need in order to kick-start growth”.
Ed Cox, director of IPPR North, said:
“George Osborne has missed an opportunity today to enable the North to play its part in leading us out of our economic stagnation.”
We can look at two aspects of that, the first of which is housing in the north-east. Again, we heard a number of lip-service announcements made in the Budget. I am pleased that the Government finally seem to be waking up to the fact that there is a housing crisis, but they appear to be stoking demand for housing, rather than looking at how to increase supply urgently and drastically. The Chancellor—he is probably the only one who thinks this—says that the fundamental overhaul of planning laws is helping homes to be built and businesses to expand. I think that he is wrong on both counts. House building is falling and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said earlier, so is the speed with which planning decisions are being made. Research from the House of Commons Library confirms that no peacetime Government since the 1920s have presided over fewer housing completions than this Government have over the past two years. And it is getting worse; house starts fell in 2012 by 11% to below 100,000.
It does not get any better when we look at infrastructure. In their first three years, this Tory-led Government have spent £7.7 billion less in capital investment compared with the plans inherited from Labour, and over the course of this Parliament they are set to spend £2.1 billion less on capital investment than would have been spent under Labour’s plans. That has knock-on effects for constituencies such as mine, which are getting practically no investment whatsoever in the basic infrastructure to support either the housing that is urgently needed or the new roads and transport links that are necessary if we are to grow the economy.
It also does not get any better for families in my constituency. The measures in the Budget relating to child care will not come into effect until 2015. Families in my constituency need jobs, growth and hope now.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
Last week’s Budget was a successful one politically. It worked because it identified that the cost of living affects all our constituents. I particularly welcome the fact that the Chancellor, by getting rid of the beer duty escalator and checking the fuel duty escalator put in by the previous Government, for example, recognised the rising cost of living for many of our constituents.
Before proceeding, I would like to refer to some of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who, as we all know, was a prominent member of the previous Labour Government. He mentioned the fact that the OBR had consistently failed in its forecasts over the course of this Parliament. He also mentioned the fact that we are borrowing at record levels. That is all true. But what he did not mention, or make any apology for, was the share of responsibility that he and the previous Government must admit to in the creation of our largest peacetime deficit. People will look back on the period between 2001 and 2007 in this country as one of the most, if not the most, profligate and irresponsible periods in the management of our public finances.
David Wright
If that is the case, why did the Conservative party support the Labour Government’s spending plans throughout that period? The Conservatives stopped supporting the spending plans only just before the global financial crisis. Can the hon. Gentleman explain what action he would not have taken to save the banks?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I happen to be a balanced budget Conservative. Even at the time, before I was elected to this House, I completely disavowed any move to stick to Labour’s spending. I thought that it was a big mistake at the time and I am quite happy to say that in this House. I think that it was entirely a mistake to do what the Labour Government did and run deficits at a time when the economy was growing at 3%. It was absolute madness to run deficits at 3% of GDP when the economy itself was growing at 3%. Not even the most starry-eyed Keynesian has ever suggested that we should be running deficits while the economy was expanding. As a direct consequence of this irresponsible period, in 2010 we were left with the largest peacetime deficit and the highest deficit-to-GDP ratio of any of the OECD countries. That period of stewardship marks the ultimate disgrace of the Labour party in terms of managing the national economy. We have now reached the point where we are borrowing £100 billion a year and the national debt is going up, as people have mentioned. As a consequence of this high level of deficit financing, we are going to leave a national debt in years to come that is higher than it has been for generations.
What serious proposals have Labour Members come up with during this four-day debate? Their answer is simply to borrow more money and to spend more money. They would accelerate our downward path and we would end up, as one economic commentator has said, with Club Med levels of debt similar to those of Portugal and Greece—without, unfortunately, the good weather. That is what Labour Members are leading this country towards. Members of the public will be absolutely astounded that Labour Members have expressed not one shred of remorse, regret or acknowledgement. They live in a world in which they did nothing wrong. Everything has been blamed on the coalition Government, who have tried to clear up the appalling mess—[Interruption.] Labour Members are chuntering from sedentary positions. They do not like to hear the facts.
People up and down the country realise and acknowledge that the Labour Government were entirely irresponsible. What solutions have the Labour Members come up with? Absolutely none. It is embarrassing to listen to some of their speeches. They talk about more growth despite the fact that the eurozone is flat on its back. They talk about more investment despite the fact that we are borrowing more money than we ever have before. When one asks them where this money is going to come from, they repeat, “The bankers’ bonus tax”, as though that would pay for absolutely everything they wish for, although it has already been spent about 100 times. It is depressing to see Labour Members, who fancy themselves as the next Government—they are very confident, I notice—offering such poor, ill-thought-through and pathetic solutions to a grave national crisis. People watching this debate at home will be appalled, frankly, by the level of argument, contribution and solutions that Labour Members have contributed.
I welcome this Budget. In very difficult times, the Chancellor has identified weaknesses and has managed to alleviate some of the distress that we suffer.
Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), who is now, we hear, a self-declared fan of a balanced Budget. No doubt his disappointment in his own Government has kept him out of the Chamber for the vast majority of today’s debate.
I do not know if you noticed, Mr Deputy Speaker, but on the day of the Budget this Chamber was colder than I have ever felt it before. It was as though a cold, chilly winter breeze was rolling through the Chamber as an ailing, failing, flailing Chancellor came to the Dispatch Box—but it was all too little, too late. I am so pleased to see the Business Secretary in his seat, because he will agree with me—or I will agree with him, most humbly—that the mistake that this Government made was to choke off the recovery. Just as the snow across this country is choking off the green shoots of spring, so this Government, by cutting too quickly and too deeply, have choked off the recovery.
What really chilled me to the bone was when the Chancellor spoke about an aspirational Britain, because I am old enough to remember aspirational Britain the first time around. It was aspiration for some, but not for others.
This Government are out of touch. I apologise for being late for today’s opening speech, Mr Deputy Speaker, but as a trustee of my local food bank my time was being taken up by people who are aspiring to put food on their table, aspiring to heat their homes and aspiring to stay in their homes.
Fiona O'Donnell
No, thank you.
When people look back on this Government, they will see five wasted years. The two greatest evils that they have committed are the bedroom tax and the cut for millionaires. They still have time to make more mistakes, but this country will never forgive them for those measures because they go to the heart of this Government.
I want to make some pleas on behalf of my constituency.
Fiona O'Donnell
No, thank you.
I want a more joined-up approach to government. Iberdrola is currently investing £10 billion in this country, but it is sitting on £3 billion because of the mess that is this Government’s energy policy. The coal-powered power station at Cockenzie in my constituency has closed and Iberdrola is not willing to invest until it gets some clarity from the Government. Some 1,000 construction jobs are on hold in my constituency, as are apprenticeships in a year when youth unemployment has risen by more than 7%. Will the Treasury team get together with the Department of Energy and Climate Change and get this in order, so that Iberdrola can invest in my constituency and the UK?
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) for the work that her Public Accounts Committee has done to let some sunshine on the disgraceful practice of tax avoidance in this country. I also praise the Government for meeting their commitment to spend 0.7% of our gross national income on development aid. I welcome that, but I want them to go further in the Finance Bill. There was outrage in this House and across the country at the practices of some companies headquartered overseas, and people in developing countries have the same right to be outraged if British companies do not pay their fair share of tax there. Will the Government take the opportunity provided by the Finance Bill to ensure clarity and transparency and that developing countries have the right to money that has been earned at the expense of their natural resources—the labour of their people—to be invested in their countries so that they can make their own choices? I hope that such a commitment will eventually be made.
The judgment on this Government has been set not by hon. Members, but by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the 200,000 children who will be in poverty at the end of this Government’s time in office who were not in poverty before, and the people who will be worse off in 2015 than they were in 2010. I urge the Government’s Front-Bench team to listen to the Opposition and to the people of this country, and to get their act together.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I hope to be able to call Members who wish to speak, but to assist the House I should state that the winding up speeches will start no later than 9.36 pm.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Last Wednesday’s Budget was more of the same. In spite of failing every economic test they have set themselves, the Government have just carried on regardless. I want to recap their economic journey and absolute failure over the past three years.
After signs of a recovery at the end of 2010, the economy has been flatlining and we will be lucky if we escape a triple-dip recession. Growth has been downgraded at every turn. Amazingly, just over three months since the autumn statement, the Government have had to halve their growth forecast for this year to 0.6%. Borrowing is up £250 billion since 2010 and the deficit will not be eradicated by 2015 as promised. In spite of the Government telling us how important austerity was to economic confidence and low interest rates, they have lost the confidence of Moody’s credit rating agency, which downgraded our triple A status, and we have been put on notice by two other agencies.
The Government have tried, as has happened again this afternoon, to blame everybody except themselves. They told us that austerity was the only way, only to receive a very embarrassing rebuke from the chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility, who said that public spending cuts wiped 1.4% from growth last year. We only have to look at how we are doing on growth compared with the other G20 nations. We are 18th out of 20. What the Government have been saying is absolute rubbish.
I could go on. Inflation, whether using the consumer prices index or the retail prices index, is well above the Bank of England’s 2% target. The Government have tried to say that we have more employment than ever before, but the rate of employment is lower than in 2008. One in 10 people is underemployed. Whatever indicator we go by, the Chancellor and the coalition Government are clearly failing. The public are starting to see that as well, with earnings falling by 2% a year in real terms. A recent poll showed that four out of five people feel that austerity is not working.
The Government are carrying on regardless. Is that really just down to economic incompetence? In the words of the Cambridge economist, Ha-Joon Chang,
“the coalition government isn’t as stupid or stubborn as it appears. It is sticking to its plan A because spending cuts are not about deficits but about rolling back the welfare state.”
If we look at this Budget, as with the other Budgets and autumn statements, we can see exactly what is happening.
The IFS analysis of the Budget shows that the Chancellor is funding some of his give-aways with underspends from across Whitehall Departments, including £2.2 billion of NHS savings. However, the IFS and others have shown that even with an increase in revenue from national insurance contributions, from 2015 we will need to make further public spending cuts or increase taxes to meet a £9 billion shortfall.
The housing measures are too little, too late. They reflect the Chancellor’s inability to sort out lending for mortgages, as well as for small businesses. Many people, including property developers, will welcome the measures, but I wonder what the impact will be on demand and on house prices at a time when earnings are still constrained. They have the potential to take us back to the financial conditions of 2008.
Most alarmingly, the Budget completely fails the anti-poverty test. The IFS, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Resolution Foundation, the New Economics Foundation and others have concluded that the poorer people are, the worse off they will be following the Budget. Raising the personal allowance does little for the million lowest-paid workers, many of whom do not pay tax in any case. Some 682,000 working families who receive child tax credit earn less than £6,420. If next week’s welfare cuts are also taken into account, the lowest-earning taxpayers will receive an income boost of just 32p a week. Of course, that does not take into account the impact of the 20% VAT hike, the 26% rise in food prices or the 20% rise in energy prices.
The Chancellor’s distributional analysis shows that the cumulative impact of the tax, tax credit and benefit measures means a net reduction in income for the poorest 40% of households in the country. Although there is strong evidence that increasing the spending power of the poorest families is a way to boost the economy, the Government have failed to do that. This is about the Government’s choices and they have clearly failed.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this crucial debate.
While this country faces the biggest housing crisis in a generation, the Government are using the Budget to help their millionaire friends buy second homes. Once again, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has left hard-working people who are on lower wages struggling and hurting. Building new homes is central to this country’s economic recovery and to getting hard-working families on the housing ladder, yet in Budget after Budget the Government have come up far short of the mark. In this Budget, the Chancellor introduced “help to buy”. Last year, he introduced NewBuy. It is clear that the policies that have been introduced to help people get on the property ladder have failed and that they are not the solutions that the country urgently needs to end the housing crisis.
In my constituency of Ealing, Southall, families are desperately struggling to find suitable and affordable homes. Just last week I heard from a family who have been waiting more than a year to find a bigger and more suitable home for them and their three children. Sarah has been sharing a two-bedroom flat with her husband, her two sons—one of whom suffers from a severe form of Asperger’s—and her two-year-old daughter. They have been told that they will have to make do with their two-bedroom flat for the foreseeable future because no new housing is coming up.
More needs to be invested into building affordable homes to meet demand; that is a sound, logical and reasonable investment for the future of our housing market and economy. Building more housing is not only a solution to end this housing crisis, but an effective way of boosting growth. For every £1 invested by the public sector, 56p returns to the Treasury. Removing the cap on housing revenue account borrowing in London could add 0.5% to GDP—growth that is much needed. By investing in the capital’s housing infrastructure, more than 19,000 jobs would be created. Why will the Chancellor not invest in housing and growth?
Throughout the Budget the Government have repeated that they are committed to helping those who aspire to work hard and get on, to caring for families and helping them with the cost of living, and to creating more growth. Why, therefore, do they not commit to build more affordable homes, thereby creating more jobs and growth and allowing hard-working families to live in better conditions, rather than helping millionaires buy second homes through their slapdash flagship policy?
The Government had the opportunity to invest in housing, create more jobs and provide a decent living to all those working hard to achieve, and to allow children living in overcrowded accommodation to have a better education. If children have extra space in their house, they will get more education and an improved place in which to live; their health will be improved and they will be able to contribute more to society.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
It was good to see the Chancellor pop into the Chamber a few moments ago, although I wish he had been here a few moments before that to hear the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) accuse him of “absolute madness” for saying in opposition that he would back Labour’s spending plans, right up to the world financial crisis in 2008. That was the case, however, and the truth is that it was not Labour’s spending, which repaired the damage of the Thatcher years, that caused sub-prime lending, the collapse of Lehman brothers or the world financial crisis.
Paul Blomfield
No, I will not, simply because of time; I would love to otherwise.
That crisis created choices, and the Conservative-led Government have consistently made the wrong choices. The Liberal Democrats also have something to answer for because during the election they argued—rightly, and alongside Labour—that the post-2008 Tory austerity plans were wrong: wrong because they caused pain and wrong because they would damage the economy. They were elected on that basis; they have no mandate for this ideological assault on public spending and the welfare state.
The Secretary of State opened the debate by talking about housing. That is a good topic because it says a lot about this Government’s wider economic policy: wrong choices and missed opportunities, epitomised by the lack of investment in housing. The Government have cut direct support for affordable housing by 60%. The stagnating economy has limited private sector investment, and as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) said, there was an 11% fall in housing starts last year.
The Secretary of State, who is currently checking his BlackBerry, attacked Labour’s record on housing. The Labour Government did not do enough, but let us set the record straight—[Interruption.] He should keep checking his BlackBerry. It is worth remembering that housing starts have been lower in every quarter since April to June 2010, the last quarter that Labour was in power.
The Chancellor claims he will solve the housing crisis with his latest right to buy scheme, but we have heard that before. Back in November 2011, we heard that the NewBuy scheme would help 100,000 people to buy their own homes. How many did it help? Only 1,500 people, just 1.5% of the target.
For many young families, the alternative would be social housing, but it is not. With nearly 5 million people on local authority waiting lists, the Homes and Communities Agency has reported that affordable housing starts collapsed in the last financial year by 68%. It has been estimated that as many as 60,000 extra homes would have been built had the Chancellor used the Budget to lift borrowing restrictions on councils and arm’s length management organisations. He could have done that, but he failed to do so.
Ideology and not practical policies drive the Government, so instead of helping with social housing, the Chancellor extended the right to buy, which is at the root of much of the problem of social housing supply. As private landlords win out, we lose vital social assets. When the Government extended the right-to-buy scheme in April 2012, the Secretary of State—he does well to smile—promised one-for-one replacement. How many have we seen? Three hundred and eighty-four new homes have been built to replace 3,495 sold, which is a 90% loss of socially rented stock.
Finally, the new homes bonus has an unfair impact. It is designed to incentivise local authorities to approve new housing development but is calculated on the value of property, which means that areas with low property values lose out. In my case, resources moved away from Yorkshire to wealthier areas, and from Labour councils to Conservative and Liberal Democrat councils. For example, it is estimated that Sheffield council lost more than £3.5 million as a consequence of the scheme. The Secretary of State might well smile, but people in Sheffield are not smiling.
As with the economy overall, so with housing: we need a plan B, and we need it now.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
The coalition Government have spent their time in office since 2010 telling us over and over again that they are trying to get the country’s finances in order. We have had their austerity, their new taxes and their extreme cuts, and yet two years later, our borrowing is still growing at an alarming rate. Despite the Government’s austerity, the Chancellor is expected to add billions to the national debt over his five years in office. Since his spending review in 2010, the UK economy has grown by just 0.7%, compared with the 5.3% forecast at the time.
Last year, the UK economy went through a double-dip recession. The Government’s failure on deficit and debt reduction is colossal. Lack of growth has meant huge Government borrowing to pay for the cost of their economic failure. The Chancellor has failed the test he set for himself. The economy is flatlining, prices are rising a lot faster than wages, the deficit is going up, and the UK has lost its triple A credit rating. Instead of delivering a credible Budget that demands confidence in our economy, the Chancellor delivered a downgraded Budget with no plan for jobs and growth, and a Budget that hits hard-working households further.
A wiser Chancellor would have been less dogmatic about the rightness of his policies and so left room to manoeuvre when he saw them failing. However, last Wednesday’s Budget was the work of a Chancellor who is in a hole but continues to pretend that the only way forward is to keep digging. We needed bold and decisive action last week, and a Budget that would kick-start the economy and help millions of people up and down the country who have been struggling to cope financially. I wonder whether Government Members know what that means: it means broken Britain, it means businesses closing their doors, it means small communities struggling to create local growth, it means a choice between paying the bedroom tax and eating, and it means national failure at the hands of this Government.
In my constituency, more than 1,000 people are being referred to local food banks. Food banks in 21st-century Britain is the reality of this coalition. Instead of borrowing to help millionaires, the Government should be borrowing to help jobs and opportunities, and to stimulate economic growth across the country. The Chancellor could have brought forward infrastructure investment in schools, roads and transport to get construction workers back to work and to strengthen our economy for the future. Those measures would boost growth, get builders back to work, build the homes we desperately need and create apprenticeships for our young people.
Britain needs a radical Budget for homes, jobs and growth, not another false dawn. We face the biggest housing crisis in a generation and the Government’s housing and economic policies are just making it worse. House building is crucial to economic recovery. Helping families to get on to the housing ladder should be a priority for the Government, and that is why we have been calling for this action for more than two years. The Government’s record on housing offers little hope to hard-working families who are struggling to get on to the housing ladder. Under this Government, house building has fallen, rents have risen, home ownership is becoming a harder goal for young people to achieve and, most worrying of all, homelessness has risen. The Government failed to back Labour’s call to use the money raised from the 4G mobile spectrum auction to build 100,000 affordable homes to stimulate the economy and help tackle the ever-growing housing crisis. The Chancellor could also improve existing housing stock by cutting VAT on home repairs, maintenance and improvements to 5%. I might add, however, that without a job it is impossible to buy a home or to improve it.
Next month’s planned tax cut for millionaires should be scrapped. When the Government came to power in 2010, the message was that we are all in this together. I wonder if my constituents who have lost their jobs and the millions who rely on food banks would agree that we are all in this together. What about the millionaires looking forward to a tax cut? Well, they are definitely in it all together.
Companies are not investing and people are not spending because they lack confidence in the UK economy. Economic confidence comes from believing that tomorrow will be better than today. The problem the Government have created is that the country no longer believes in a better tomorrow. In short, we desperately need a Labour Chancellor to deliver a Budget that supports hard-working families and struggling businesses. We need a Government who have a long-term plan for jobs and growth to build a better and fairer tomorrow.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank Members for their co-operation. We now will get the last two Members in.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Not everything in the Budget is unwelcome, but the cumulative effect of this Budget and previous Budgets and spending reviews is dire. I am fearful that in some respects we will never escape their effects—family lives have been blighted and futures lost as a result.
I was startled at the total lack of ambition and vision for the economy expressed in the Budget. There were one or two welcome announcements—the employer national insurance break is welcome—but where is the strategy for improving the quality of jobs that is so necessary to improve our productivity and competitiveness? The rise in private sector employment that Ministers trumpet is, to a degree, illusory. It represents, in part, the fact that the working-age population has grown, so it is hardly surprising that more people are in work. It represents to a degree a re-characterisation of public sector jobs into the private sector. It is a reflection of wage cuts and freezes that mean that people are in work, but worse off, and that 80% of the increase in jobs is in involuntary part-time work.
As the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) said, business rates remain a serious burden. They have risen by 13% in the north-west in the past three years. There was deep disappointment in my region at the decision last year to delay the revaluation, and disappointment last week that there was nothing in the Budget to help in the meantime or to take the opportunity to use the period of the freeze to review totally the purpose and structure of the business rate.
As I said in an intervention, business will also be hit by the impact of welfare reform on household budgets. Work by the Centre for Local Economic Strategies has shown that for every £1 cut in social welfare reform, 63p is being lost to Stretford’s town centre economy, as people cut back on shopping, socialising and the use of taxis and local transport, while the loss to the local economy across the whole of Greater Manchester is estimated at £400 million. The business announcements in last week’s Budget will not put that money back into our local economy, and I am concerned by the warning of further restrictions on annually managed expenditure in the June spending review.
I am glad that the Government recognise the pressures on those trying to buy their own home, and I recognise that home ownership is the aspiration of many of my constituents, but the Government refuse to recognise that renting is a valid and, indeed, necessary option for many families. The support being offered to renters is minimal and the policies divisive. If it is right to offer a public subsidy to enable a young person to get a mortgage to buy their first home, why is it wrong to give a proper subsidy, via housing benefits, to another young person aged under 35 to rent a home of their own? Let us remember that both young people could be in work.
If it is right to provide a public subsidy to a young couple wanting to buy a new and perhaps larger home for a growing family, why is it wrong to subsidise the same family if they want to remain in social rented accommodation and also need more space as kids grow and develop? As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) said, Government support to buy a home or get a mortgage will be of no use to those of my constituents who are either not working or in short-term insecure employment, which means that they are not attractive to mortgage lenders and have no choice but to rent.
Failure to support working families on the lowest incomes and those on out-of-work benefits feeds across to other policy areas. The child care announcements will benefit many better-off families, but as the Resolution Foundation pointed out, only 40% of those on universal credit will benefit from the maximum 85% rate, while those looking for work will not get any help at all when engaged in a job search. The same is true of the increase in the personal tax threshold, which is of no help to those on very low wages whose earnings are too low for them even to pay tax. The poor and the working poor have therefore once again totally missed out in the Budget, and as a result deprived families and communities will become more deprived.
Mr Speaker
I will call the Opposition Front-Bench speaker no later than 9.36 pm.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the many good things in the Budget, but I want to focus on one omission. The Prime Minister and the coalition have suggested that marriage should be recognised in the tax system, but yet another Budget has not recognised it. Other countries across the OECD have recognised it, but Great Britain has not. That point has to be underlined. The Prime Minister was right to commit to bringing us back into line with international best practice, and the benefits of marriage to individuals, families and society are considerable and plain to see, yet the Government have again singularly failed to deliver.
The greater benefits of marriage reach out beyond the family structure, leading to stronger and more cohesive communities. The Relationships Foundation has shown that the cost of family failure has increased to a staggering £44 billion, which means that failed relationships across the United Kingdom cost the taxpayer £1,470 each per year. In that context, the Government should be doing all they can to support family stability, and that is best secured by supporting marriage. They should be encouraging and supporting marriage and the bond of commitment, not making it harder to marry in this country than across the rest of the OECD. Again, the Government have failed to address that issue.
In recent years, the Government have said repeatedly that they back recognising marriage in the tax system, but the reality is very different. It was a headline commitment in both the Conservative manifesto and the coalition agreement. If that is not enough, public support for a transferable allowance is plain. A 2012 YouGov poll showed that 70% of people who expressed an opinion supported a tax allowance for married couples. So why the inaction?
On 3 July 2012, I asked the Exchequer Secretary two questions on this matter. First, I asked whether the Government would honour their commitment to recognise marriage in the tax system. He did not answer. Then I asked him about implementation. Nine months later, I hope to get an answer to that question. I want to quote what I said that day:
“Recognition of marriage in the tax system will require HMRC to make various operational changes, particularly in the IT systems. Can he reassure us that this preparatory work is already under way so that when the Government bring forward legislation to recognise marriage in the tax system there is no further delay? If he cannot do so tonight, will he make it an urgent priority to make a statement to the House setting out the time that will be required to change the IT systems and announce that he has instructed that work to begin in readiness for the introduction of the transferable allowance legislation?”—[Official Report, 3 July 2012; Vol. 547, c. 880.]
This issue is even more pressing today because, unlike the last Budget, this Budget is quite possibly the last opportunity the Government will have to introduce the necessary Budget resolution if transferable allowances are to be up and running by the next election. If they take more than 12 months and the Government wait until the 2014 Budget, that means there will almost certainly be no transferable allowance in place at the next election. That would be tragic. I very much hope that the Minister will be good enough to answer the question today and explain either that the process will take significantly less than 12 months, so that the system can be introduced at the Budget and fully implemented within the time frame of the coalition agreement—that is, before May 2015—or that the Government will amend the Finance Bill so that the IT changes can start now.
People feel alienated when manifestos are not delivered on and promises are not kept. It is not too late to put it right tonight.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Before I start, hon. Members will be pleased to join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) on the arrival of her new baby daughter Anna at 6 o’clock this morning—which might explain why she is not replying to this evening’s debate.
There can be no doubt that last week’s Budget certainly lived down to the low expectations that were billed for it. This was a Budget for lower wages and downgraded credit ratings; a Budget for lower confidence but higher debt; a Budget for poorer productivity, low growth or no growth at all in the economy. The Chancellor has been forced by his own failure to extinguish his deficit reduction plan, but keeps on whistling in the wind to convince his Back Benchers—perhaps even to convince himself—that he is sticking with it. This Government—or at least the largest part of this Government—were elected promising painful decisions in the short term, but said it would all be worth it in the end. As my right hon. Friends the Members for Neath (Mr Hain) and for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) said, although there has been pain for some—especially the most vulnerable in society—three years on, Britain has not advanced one jot.
The economy has flatlined, the country’s debts are mounting and now even the Office for Budget Responsibility says that deficit reduction has “stalled”. So much for the Chancellor’s plan A. After three years of austerity, stagnation and ever higher national debt, where has it left Britain? The triple A credit rating has been humiliatingly downgraded. The OBR says that this Budget will reduce, not increase, the prospects for growth this year, and all the time the Chancellor’s borrowing plans are being revised upwards, now reaching an astronomical £245 billion higher than forecast.
When the Chief Secretary to the Treasury replies, he will pretend that this is a Budget to build an aspiration nation, but it is just more of the same failed plan from a desperation Chancellor, presiding over a stagnation nation. As a result of his failure, the UK economy has grown by just 0.7%, compared with the 5.3% forecast at the time of the 2010 spending review. Now the failed plan of this failing Chancellor stands squarely in the path of progress, holding back the economy, making the situation far worse and digging us even deeper into the mire. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) said, Britain now faces the real prospect of a lost decade of economic decline, with confidence sapped and businesses retreating from investment in the productivity we need to keep pace with our competitors.
Yet after four days of debate on this Budget, those on the Government Benches are still in denial, while mystery surrounds some of the details of the Treasury’s accounts and the measures announced. As my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) and for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) said, we know that the Government plan a bedroom tax on some of the least well-off in the country, starting next week, which contrasts with their plans to offer subsidised mortgages, potentially to those who want to buy a second or third property for themselves—the spare-homes subsidy, as Ministers might like to characterise it. Under this Government, it seems that there is one rule for the rich, but only one room for the poor. Despite all the other competing priorities for tax and deficit reduction, the Chancellor has failed to propose any change to the obscene timing of the millionaires’ tax cut—a cut in income tax for the richest 1%, which will we vote against this evening.
When the Chief Secretary stands to speak, I am sure he will trumpet the changes to the personal allowance—it is what the Liberals believe they have achieved in their short period of collaboration. Before the right hon. Gentleman gets too excited with his achievement, let us take a look at it for a moment. The changes to direct taxes and benefits, including cuts to tax credits and child benefit, mean that the typical family will be £600 a year worse off by the next election—and that is before we include the hike in VAT to 20%, the cuts to maternity pay or the education maintenance allowance, or the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast of lower wages by the time of the next election. Those tax rises and cuts more than offset what the Government are promising in several years’ time on child care or changes to the personal allowance. Even the 1p taken off a pint of beer sinks without trace compared with the 5p the right hon. Gentleman has added through VAT.
When the right hon. Gentleman gets to his feet, perhaps he will explain to the House what sort of an achievement he thinks it is for him and his Liberal Democrat colleagues to prop up the failed plan of this failing Chancellor, which lightens the load for the typical millionaire by £100,000 while making life tougher for ordinary families up and down the country. Perhaps he will explain why there is no return yet of the 10p starting rate of tax to help millions of low and middle-income families, as we had hoped, and no sign of a mansion tax to pay for it, as the right hon. Gentleman’s Liberal colleagues had promised. [Interruption.] Will he tell hon. Members why there is no bank bonus tax to fund a jobs guarantee for young people out of work? [Interruption.] I will happily give way to the Chancellor if he wants to intervene on this particular point. [Interruption.] I was simply asking some questions.
As well as missing out on the chance to repeat the bank bonus tax, the Chancellor has gone soft on the bank levy. The banks paid £900 million less this year than the Chancellor said they would, on top of the £700 million less than they should have paid in the bank levy in the year before. Never mind the Chancellor; I would like to ask the Chief Secretary to explain his own support and that of his Liberal colleagues for the squalid plan to give away company shares to workers who sign away their employment rights, which even several former Tory Ministers, including Lord Lawson, could not stomach—and again, we will vote against that this evening.
Above all else, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will set out for us just how far he is prepared to support the failing Chancellor in pretending that things are getting better on borrowing when quite plainly they are not.
We all know that the Chancellor has crafted his reputational raison d’étre around reducing the national debt, yet it has risen by 38% on his watch. We know that his woeful performance, placing the UK in the relegation zone of G20 nations on economic growth, has unsurprisingly torn his deficit reduction promises to shreds. We know, too, that the Office for Budget Responsibility says that borrowing this year will be the same as last year and the same next year—“stalled” is the word it uses. Frankly, there is no improvement. There is no longer a deficit reduction plan; it has failed; it is no more.
Let us for a moment just pause and reflect on the Chancellor’s overriding political desperation to prove that the deficit is still falling. This incredibly coincidental, manufactured figure of £100 million is the sum total of deficit reduction he has sweated buckets to achieve from last year to this. This is not a deficit reduction of 1%; it is not even one tenth of 1%. At that rate, it will take more than 1,000 years to clear the deficit and balance the books. That is not a deficit reduction plan; it is a millennium goal. A deficit reduction from £121 billion to £120.9 billion is something that should embarrass the right hon. Gentleman, not delight him. That is not getting the deficit down; it is just rounding it down.
The Chancellor’s embarrassment demands that the whole of the Budget should revolve around that one desperate political fig leaf. Everything has been sacrificed in the failing Chancellor’s drive to spare his blushes. There has been the last-minute dash for £11 billion of in-year cuts in health, education, transport and local services in recent weeks—all in time for midnight next Sunday—including the axing of at least 800 nursing posts from the NHS so far this month. There has been the invention of what the Chancellor called “exceptional inter-period flexibility” to push at least £1.6 billion of this year’s spending into next year’s accounts. There has been the reclassification of the UK’s contribution to the European Investment Bank in the accounts, which helpfully takes £1.3 billion out of the spending totals for this year. The whole House knows that if the normal accounting conventions had remained unchanged, Government borrowing would be up, not down, as sure as night follows day.
Tonight, the only deficit deniers sit on the Government Benches. I believe that these distortions and manipulations are so serious that they merit not just the usual Treasury Committee inquiry into the Budget, but a review of it by the National Audit Office, and a Public Accounts Committee inquiry into the extraordinary so-called “Budget exchange” practices.
This is a Budget that serve only to hold Britain back. The few positive measures that it includes will not come into force for a year or more. Its many negative consequences—lower growth, lower investment, lower productivity and lower pay—will delay, or will deny Britain, the recovery that we need. The accounting devices that it deploys simply serve to shift today’s spending into tomorrow’s deficit, while the deficit reduction plan itself has now stalled.
This is a Budget which delays the growth and recovery that our economy requires, and which puts off the stimulus that our economy demands. It is a Budget not for aspiration, but of procrastination. Far from building the goal of one nation that we all share, it will result only in the stagnation that we all fear.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
Let me begin by joining the shadow Financial Secretary in his congratulations to the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) on the birth of her child, as I think will Members in all parts of the House.
The debate has been very well attended. I think that there were 46 Back-Bench speeches. It has also been very well considered and, at times, passionate. I thank Members on both sides of the House for their contributions.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government opened the debate in his usual pugnacious style. He talked about planning, housing, mortgages and the help to buy scheme, which he described in some detail. He did not mention the announcement on zero-carbon homes, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) referred to it in detail.
There were contributions from Members representing all parts of the United Kingdom, and, I think, from all parties in the House except the Scottish National party. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards)—
Danny Alexander
Will the hon. Gentleman give me a moment? I am going to say something about him. He made some serious points about borrowing powers. As he knows, they are being considered in the light of the Silk commission recommendations.
Many Government Members celebrated both the reaching of the £10,000 income tax personal allowance and the reductions in fuel duty, which one or two Opposition Members also welcomed. I will not single out every contribution, but my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) spoke passionately about those subjects. They also mentioned housing, including the important role played by affordable housing in the Budget.
Danny Alexander
Will the hon. Gentleman just let me finish the point?
The hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) made passionate speeches about manufacturing. The hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) celebrated the presidency of George Bush, which was somewhat surprising. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) called for a tax on television rights relating to football matches, which is not a suggestion that I shall be following up immediately.
Now I will give way to the shadow Financial Secretary.
Chris Leslie
The Chief Secretary mentioned housing. May I ask him about the new homes subsidy? In yesterday’s Daily Telegraph, he was quoted as saying:
“I do not want to get into all the details.”
Has he decided tonight to rule out making that scheme available for second or third homes?
Danny Alexander
We have made it clear throughout that there is no intention that this scheme should work to the benefit of second-home owners, but as I said yesterday and as the Chancellor has said repeatedly, we will consult on the detail of the scheme to make sure it benefits those whom it needs to benefit.
There is a very serious problem in this country: many people, especially young couples, can afford the monthly repayments on their mortgage but cannot afford the large deposits that are now required by mortgage—
Danny Alexander
Sit down; I am going to press on. The help to buy scheme, in its several manifestations, is designed to provide support.
We heard no apology whatsoever from Opposition Front Benchers for the mess they got this country into when in government. That is what we were looking for from the shadow Secretary of State for Local Government and the shadow Financial Secretary.
There were contributions from a number of distinguished members of the—
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
What does the Chief Secretary have to say about the Financial Times editorial which said that the Budget offered too little to boost growth now?
Danny Alexander
I disagree with it, for reasons that I will come to. I will now make some progress.
The right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) made a characteristically thoughtful contribution to the debate. He has made it clear, not least through his leadership of the Better Together campaign but also in response to an intervention, that the Scottish National party is not being open about the scale of the problems that an independent Scotland would face.
It was not the presence on the Opposition Front Bench of members of the former Government that was most noticed last week. Many Members will have sensed a presence in the Chamber, and looking up they would have seen Lord Mandelson, a former member of the previous Government, looking down. Afterwards, he gave his views on the Budget. He said in a speech the following night:
“I can't quite remember which member of the government it was who claimed to have abolished boom and bust. Well, we abolished boom…The whole argument about whether we’re cutting too far and too fast, it’s in the past. It is rather predictable party political stuff from over the despatch box, and it is a bit tiring to the public.”
The shadow Chancellor would do well to take note. Lord Mandelson then said the following, which is particularly significant in the context of an earlier intervention:
“I don’t think you can really take a chance, I think the markets, whose confidence in us to pay back what we borrow—that confidence is the determining factor. If that was seriously damaged by a lurch in policy I think that would be quite a risk which I would not blame the chancellor for refusing to take.”
That is sage advice from a former member of the previous Government, which Opposition Front Benchers would do well to take.
Last week’s Budget sent a message to hard-working families in each and every constituency up and down the country: if people want to get on in life, this Government will support them. If, in the short term, people want more money back in their pockets, we are taking measures to help them. They will pay less to fill up their car; they will pay less for a pint of beer; and, most importantly, if they earn less than £10,000 they will soon pay absolutely nothing in income tax.
If, in the near future, Mr Speaker, a constituent of yours wants to own their own home, this Government are making that a very real possibility through low-deposit mortgages, through mortgage guarantees and through doubling the affordable homes guarantee programme. For those who, in the distant future, do not want their children or grandchildren to still be paying off this generation’s debts, we are taking the steps to ensure that they will not. We are reducing the structural deficit, creating a tax landscape for economic growth and building an infrastructure for the UK to compete in the global race.
This evening, I want to talk about the steps this Government have taken to build a stronger economy and a fairer society. We are putting our faith in the private sector to help us build that stronger economy. We believe that the best way to do that is to create the most competitive tax regime in the G20. Further reducing the rate of corporation tax, which we announced in this Budget, will not only send a clear message that Britain is open for business, but will increase the return on those businesses’ investments and incentivise economic growth. Meanwhile, our £2,000 employment allowance, welcomed on both sides of the House, will be a real help for small and medium-sized businesses that want to expand and to employ more staff.
The Government know that if we want to see growth we cannot, as our predecessors did so catastrophically, look to one industry or one city. Several Opposition Members mentioned the importance of manufacturing industry, but when in government Labour became over-dependent on one square mile, thanks to the shadow Chancellor’s prawn cocktail offensive. We know that for a stronger, more balanced economy, we need growth across different sectors, and we need growth up and down the country. That is why we are taking forward the measures from the Heseltine review; it is why my right hon. Friends the Business Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister unveiled our aerospace investment in Bristol before the Budget; it is why we are supporting the asset management sector, which is so important, particularly to the Scottish economy and to Edinburgh; and it is why, as well as supporting renewables, we are developing proposals so that communities can benefit from any shale gas discovered in their area. It is right that local communities see the benefits of natural resources in their locality.
We also need to make sure that our industrial base is broad, as we have seen only too clearly the dangers of over-reliance on one specific sector. That is why my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is overseeing £1.8 billion of funding to support strategies in 11 key sectors, working to ensure that our economy makes the most of its potential in life sciences, construction and many other areas. While we build this stronger economy, we are also making sure that we build a fairer society. The Labour party likes to portray itself as the party of taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but everyone who was paying income tax at the l0p rate and was then paying income tax at double that rate will soon, thanks to this Government, be paying no income tax at all. That policy comes straight from the Liberal Democrat manifesto to the pockets of millions of hard-working families up and down the country, thanks to this coalition Government.
Of course we recognise that, despite these actions, times are still difficult for many families up and down the country. For that reason, we have taken the decision to cancel this September’s fuel duty increase, which was baked into the public finances by the Labour party. That cancellation has been welcomed across the House, but especially by Members with more rural constituencies such as mine.
I must also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) on his tireless and passionate campaigning on beer duty. I know that he has some wonderful pubs and a very good beer shop in his constituency, I know how many excellent breweries we have up and down the country, and I know that our scrapping of the beer duty escalator will be a real boon both for the pub trade and for the brewing industry.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary has mentioned the beer tax, but does he have anything to say to the Scotch whisky industry, which is suffering as a consequence of the Budget?
Danny Alexander
I say, as I said directly to the Scotch whisky industry, that this Government are giving considerable support to it as it seeks to broaden its reach into export markets across the world. The work of UKTI, in particular, is of great assistance to that industry.
We are building a stronger economy and a fairer society, and we are also helping people who want to get on in life. If you want to get on in life, last week’s was a Budget that will support you. It was a Budget that will give thousands of people the opportunity to step on to the housing ladder or step up the housing ladder. Our £5.4 billion housing package will boost home ownership and kick-start the building of new homes. The intention of the help to buy scheme is to provide help to people who want to get their first home or move home but cannot afford the deposit that today’s mortgages now require. This is a complex policy area, and we are working with the industry to find a practical and sensible way of taking the scheme forward without blunting its radicalism or its reach. I am sure we will achieve that.
Danny Alexander
I am going to press on, as there is no time left.
There are many other ways the Government are helping people to get on in life. Our tax-free child care measures, for example, will ensure that from autumn 2015 vouchers supporting 20% of child care costs will be available to families when both parents or a single parent is working, neither parent is earning more than £150,000 a year and the parents are not already receiving a more generous level of support through the tax credit system.
The Government are helping people to get on in life and plan for their financial futures. Thanks to the excellent work of my the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), we have already brought in auto-enrolment, which will help bring 9 million people into a workplace pension scheme, and we are also radically simplifying the state pension system and bringing that simplification forward through the single tier.
Of course, there is a lot of work to do in the longer term to strengthen our economy, but we must start by cleaning up the mess made by the Labour party. We believe that we are putting the right measures in place to bring the deficit down and to speed up growth. The Budget is another step towards building a stronger economy and a fairer society to help those people who want to get on, and I commend it to the House.
Question put.
2. Income tax (charge)
22:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 299 / Noes: 243 - Question accordingly agreed to.
3. Income tax (personal allowance for those born after 5 April 1948)
4. Income tax (basic rate limit)
5. Corporation tax (charge and main rate for financial year 2014)
6. Corporation tax (small profits rate and fractions for financial year 2013)
7. Contributions to registered pension schemes
8. Tax advantaged employee share schemes
9. Patent royalties
10. Limit on income tax reliefs
11. Calculation of profits on cash basis
12. Deductions in calculating profits
13. Arrangements made by intermediaries
14. Insurance policies etc.
15. Transfer of assets abroad
16. Deduction from interest payments
17. Disguised interest
18. Controlled foreign companies
19. Deductions after changes in company ownership etc.
20. Expenditure on research and development
21. Television programmes and video games
22. Real estate investment trusts
23. Tax relief for employee share acquisitions etc.
24. Derivative contracts
25. Tax mismatch schemes
26. Tier two capital
27. Tax treatment of financing costs and income (group treasury companies)
28. Community amateur sports clubs
29. Pension schemes
30. Drawdown pensions and dependants’ drawdown pensions
31. Employee shareholder shares
22:28 - The House divided: - Ayes: 299 / Noes: 240 - Question accordingly agreed to.
32. Seed enterprise investment scheme
33. Disincorporation relief
34. Attribution of gains to members of non-resident companies
35. Treatment for capital gains tax purposes of shares acquired under the EMI code
36. Capital gains tax on disposals of high value properties
37. Calculation of chargeable gains of companies
38. Capital allowances
39. Community investment tax relief
40. Lease premium relief
41. Manufactured payments
42. Close companies
43. Oil taxation (petroleum revenue tax)
44. Oil taxation (loan relationships)
45. Oil taxation (ring fence trades)
46. Annual tax on enveloped dwellings
47. Inheritance tax (treatment of liabilities)
48. Inheritance tax (non-domiciled spouses and civil partners)
49. Fuel duties (rates and rebates)
50. Alcoholic liquor duties (rates)
Description of wine or made-wine | Rates of duty per hectolitre£ |
|---|---|
Wine or made-wine of a strength not exceeding 4 per cent. | 82.18 |
Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 4 per cent. but not exceeding 5.5 per cent. | 113.01 |
Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 5.5 per cent. but not exceeding 15 per cent. and not being sparkling | 266.72 |
Sparkling wine or sparkling made-wine of a strength exceeding 5.5 per cent. but less than 8.5 per cent. | 258.23 |
Sparkling wine or sparkling made-wine of a strength of 8.5 per cent. or of a strength exceeding 8.5 per cent. but not exceeding 15 per cent. | 341.63 |
Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 15 per cent. but not exceeding 22 per cent. | 355.59 |
Description of wine or made-wine | Rates of duty per litre of alcohol in wine or made-wine £ |
|---|---|
Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 22 per cent | 28.22” |
51. Tobacco products duty (rates)
“Table | |
|---|---|
1. Cigarettes | An amount equal to 16.5 per cent of the retail price plus £176.22 per thousand cigarettes |
2. Cigars | £219.82 per kilogram |
3. Hand-rolling tobacco | £172.74 per kilogram |
4. Other smoking tobacco and chewing tobacco | £96.64 per kilogram”. |
Closure of Burnage Library (Manchester)
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
I rise to support and submit a petition on behalf of more than 2,500 Manchester residents opposed to the Labour council’s plans to close Burnage library in my constituency.
The petition states:
The Petition of a resident of the UK,
Declares that Manchester City Council has proposed to close Burnage Library; further that local residents are opposed to this decision and that the council should reverse its plans.
The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urges Manchester City Council to reverse its plans to close Burnage Library.
And the Petitioner remains, etc.
[P001168]
52. Tobacco products duty (herbal smoking products)
VAT on Toasted Sandwiches
Mr Leech
I rise a second time to support and submit the “Toast the Tax” petition, on behalf of the tens of thousands of employees and customers of Subway—I suppose I ought to declare an interest, as someone who occasionally purchases stuff from Subway. The petitioners are not asking the Government to revive plans for a pasty tax; they are simply asking for sandwich shop owners to be treated fairly.
The petition states:
The Petition of employees and customers of Subway,
Declares that VAT is being charged on toasted subs and sandwiches, further that as a result, the sandwich shop industry, which employs tens of thousands of hard-working people and supports thousands of small businesses, is now being placed under threat and that sandwich shop owners should be treated fairly.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to maintain its recent U-turn on pasties and additionally to remove or reduce the tax across the board, in line with our European neighbours.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001167]
53. Air passenger duty (rates of duty from 1 April 2013)
22:41 - The House divided: - Ayes: 293 / Noes: 16 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Human Rights in India
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
I was recently presented with a petition signed by some 2,000 residents of Derby—part of a wider petition numbering some 120,000 around the country—who are concerned about the lifting of the moratorium on the death penalty in India:
The Petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that the UK Government, together with the UN and EU, 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 or 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 prisoners facing the same situation and those 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 request that the Government bring these issues to light in the European Union and United Nations.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001169]
54. Air passenger duty (miscellaneous provision)
Changes to Welfare in Hartlepool
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition from my constituency, initiated by the Manor Residents Association and signed by more than 1,000 people from Hartlepool who are concerned about the Government’s welfare reform policy in general and the introduction of the bedroom tax in particular.
The petition reads:
The Petition of residents of Hartlepool,
Declares that the Petitioners support the Manor Residents Association in their protest against Government legislation in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 which will result in a further stealth tax on residents and families who are already reeling from the effect of Government austerity measures; further that the Petitioners believe that the “bedroom tax”, introduced as part of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, will have a major impact on the health and well being of those who are most vulnerable and least well off in our communities; further that this legislation ignores the needs of social housing tenants by introducing a tax designed to reduce Central Government expenditure; further that the Petitioners believe that the assertion that the legislation will encourage greater mobility within the rented sector and make better use of available housing stock flies in the face of common sense as there are already significant waiting lists for social housing in our towns and cities and that the notion that this legislation will enable families to come off benefits by downsizing is nonsensical when the reality is that families will be no better off than they are currently; further that, for many individuals on benefits, this will result in significant hardship, that stark choices such as feeding a family or keeping a roof over their heads will need to be made and that there will be an increase of homelessness amongst the most vulnerable in society.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to remove the “bedroom tax” on families.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001170]
55. Vehicle excise duty (rates for light passenger vehicles etc.)
CO2 emissions figure | Rate | ||
|---|---|---|---|
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
Exceeding | Not exceeding | Reduced rate | Standard rate |
g/km | g/km | £ | £ |
130 | 140 | 115 | 125 |
140 | 150 | 130 | 140 |
150 | 165 | 165 | 175 |
165 | 175 | 275 | 285 |
175 | 185 | 325 | 335 |
185 | 200 | 465 | 475 |
200 | 225 | 610 | 620 |
225 | 255 | 830 | 840 |
255 | — | 1055 | 1065 |
CO2 emissions figure | Rate | ||
|---|---|---|---|
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
Exceeding | Not exceeding | Reduced rate | Standard rate |
g/km | g/km | £ | £ |
100 | 110 | 10 | 20 |
110 | 120 | 20 | 30 |
120 | 130 | 95 | 105 |
130 | 140 | 115 | 125 |
140 | 150 | 130 | 140 |
150 | 165 | 165 | 175 |
165 | 175 | 190 | 200 |
175 | 185 | 210 | 220 |
185 | 200 | 250 | 260 |
200 | 225 | 270 | 280 |
225 | 255 | 465 | 475 |
255 | — | 480 | 490”; |
56. Vehicle licences for disabled people
57. Value added tax (health service bodies)
58. Value added tax (supplies of fuel)
59. Value added tax (energy-saving materials)
60. Stamp duty land tax
61. Landfill tax (standard rate)
62. Climate change levy (rates)
63. Climate change levy (supplies subject to carbon price support rates etc)
Carbon price support rate commodity | Carbon price support rate |
|---|---|
Any gas in a gaseous state that is of a kind supplied by a gas utility | £0.00091 per kilowatt hour |
Any petroleum gas, or other gaseous hydrocarbon, in a liquid state | £0.01460 per kilogram |
Any commodity falling within paragraph 3(1)(d) to (f) | £0.44264 per gigajoule |
64. Bank levy (rates)
65. Tax deductions for the bank levy and foreign bank levies
66. General anti-abuse rule
67. Trusts with vulnerable beneficiary
68. Unauthorised unit trusts
69. Residence and ordinary residence
70. Overpayment relief
71. Relief from tax (incidental and consequential charges)
Business without Debate
Petitions
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
I rise to support and submit a petition on behalf of more than 2,500 Manchester residents opposed to the Labour council’s plans to close Burnage library in my constituency.
The petition states:
The Petition of a resident of the UK,
Declares that Manchester City Council has proposed to close Burnage Library; further that local residents are opposed to this decision and that the council should reverse its plans.
The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urges Manchester City Council to reverse its plans to close Burnage Library.
And the Petitioner remains, etc.
[P001168]
Mr Leech
I rise a second time to support and submit the “Toast the Tax” petition, on behalf of the tens of thousands of employees and customers of Subway—I suppose I ought to declare an interest, as someone who occasionally purchases stuff from Subway. The petitioners are not asking the Government to revive plans for a pasty tax; they are simply asking for sandwich shop owners to be treated fairly.
The petition states:
The Petition of employees and customers of Subway,
Declares that VAT is being charged on toasted subs and sandwiches, further that as a result, the sandwich shop industry, which employs tens of thousands of hard-working people and supports thousands of small businesses, is now being placed under threat and that sandwich shop owners should be treated fairly.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to maintain its recent U-turn on pasties and additionally to remove or reduce the tax across the board, in line with our European neighbours.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001167]
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
I was recently presented with a petition signed by some 2,000 residents of Derby—part of a wider petition numbering some 120,000 around the country—who are concerned about the lifting of the moratorium on the death penalty in India:
The Petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that the UK Government, together with the UN and EU, 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 or 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 prisoners facing the same situation and those 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 request that the Government bring these issues to light in the European Union and United Nations.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001169]
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition from my constituency, initiated by the Manor Residents Association and signed by more than 1,000 people from Hartlepool who are concerned about the Government’s welfare reform policy in general and the introduction of the bedroom tax in particular.
The petition reads:
The Petition of residents of Hartlepool,
Declares that the Petitioners support the Manor Residents Association in their protest against Government legislation in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 which will result in a further stealth tax on residents and families who are already reeling from the effect of Government austerity measures; further that the Petitioners believe that the “bedroom tax”, introduced as part of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, will have a major impact on the health and well being of those who are most vulnerable and least well off in our communities; further that this legislation ignores the needs of social housing tenants by introducing a tax designed to reduce Central Government expenditure; further that the Petitioners believe that the assertion that the legislation will encourage greater mobility within the rented sector and make better use of available housing stock flies in the face of common sense as there are already significant waiting lists for social housing in our towns and cities and that the notion that this legislation will enable families to come off benefits by downsizing is nonsensical when the reality is that families will be no better off than they are currently; further that, for many individuals on benefits, this will result in significant hardship, that stark choices such as feeding a family or keeping a roof over their heads will need to be made and that there will be an increase of homelessness amongst the most vulnerable in society.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to remove the “bedroom tax” on families.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001170]
Energy Intensive Industries
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
I had not anticipated this number of Members attending the debate at this late hour. I am delighted to see them, as it shows the level of interest in this subject. Many other Members have raised the same issues, and there were some welcome announcements in the Budget last week, but I hope to press for more detail and more information on how this issue will impact on my particular constituency. If I am not able to take all the interventions that Members wish to make, I am sure they will understand.
Corby is a town built on steel: the steelworks and the tubeworks. In 1980 thousands of men were put on the dole, including my own dad, when Corby stopped making steel, but the tubeworks continued, and my granddad worked in the stores there. Today it is still incredibly important to our local economy. Six hundred and fifty people work there. These are good jobs that pay well, and in which people learn great skills. This year, Tata took on 13 apprentices at Corby. It dispatched 250 kilotons of tubes, and exported 40% of the product around the world. It contributes more widely to our local economy. I am told that there is a multiplier effect.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend knows, Tata Steel in Rotherham employs more than 2,000 people, and the effect that they have on the economy is considerable. That is why I think that the Government should introduce practical measures to support the industry.
Andy Sawford
My hon. Friend is right, and I know that she will continue to champion the steel industry in Rotherham. Steel is, of course, incredibly important to many communities around the country. I am particularly proud of Corby’s steel tubes, which can be found in Wembley stadium, in the Olympic park and in the millennium wheel. The red tubes can be found in buildings across the country.
I am pleased that, since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have been able to be active in the all-party parliamentary group for the steel and metal-related industry, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) and supported by many other Members. I have also been involved with the trade unions, particularly Community but also Unite. Together, we are concerned about the impact of rising energy prices, both because of rising wholesale prices generally and because of European Union and United Kingdom Government policies, especially those that rightly seek to reduce carbon output but, in my view, have wrongly had an impact on a set of vital industries which we need as a nation, and which are part of our sustainable future.
I am not talking just about steel. We have world-class energy-intensive companies that make a huge contribution to our employment, tax revenues and exports. The Environmental Audit Committee estimates that energy-intensive industries account for 4% of gross value added, and employ 125,000 people in the United Kingdom. Concern is shared by a number of industries. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) has expressed concern to me about the cement industry, and companies such as INEOS Chlor which are part of the Energy Intensive Users Group have given me helpful briefings.
Last week the ceramics industry was very much in the public eye when the Chancellor made announcements about it in his Budget statement. In my constituency, Morgan Technical Ceramics employs 200 people. It makes an incredible variety of products which are exported to more than 100 countries, but in the process it uses large amounts of gas, as do all ceramics manufacturers.
Three areas of climate policy are having a particular impact on industrial energy prices: tax, carbon prices and renewable subsidies. Of course, those apply in other European countries, but the United Kingdom Government have not listened to the calls from energy-intensive industries in the UK for help of the kind that the German and French Governments give their industries. That has two effects. First, it makes it very difficult for our companies to compete now, and secondly, when it comes to investment decisions and securing the long-term future of these industries, the global companies of which they are part are increasingly opting to move elsewhere. Morgan Ceramics, for example, tells me that it recently moved 300 jobs from the UK to France.
We have an urgent problem. Climate policies have added about 21% to current electricity prices, and the Energy Intensive Users Group estimates that the figure will rise to 58% by 2020. New extra climate-related taxes are likely to exceed current profits for many of our energy-intensive companies within the next few years, which means that their viability is in question in the medium term. Let me give two figures that illustrate the problem. The wholesale price of electricity in Germany in 2014 is forecast to be €40 per MWh, while the price in the UK is forecast to be €60 per MWh—and that is before taxes have been taken into account. That should be contrasted with the help that is being offered by Governments. The UK Government have provided a £250 million mitigation package to protect industry from the cost of the carbon prices floor and the EU emissions trading scheme. Of course, that mitigation is welcome, but the German Government are offering €5 billion in energy tax rebates to their energy-intensive industries, so we can immediately see that the concerns about a level playing field are very real.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. In addition to that disadvantage, is there not also a lack of clarity about how much money will be available to support energy-intensive industries, and when? That certainty is needed to secure jobs into the future, as has been mentioned.
Andy Sawford
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Like him, I am concerned about the lack of clarity, and particularly the time it has taken the Government to sort out the compensation package.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is being extremely generous in giving way, and it is fantastic that he has been able to secure this debate. Was he, like me, concerned to hear the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills admit to the Welsh Affairs Committee in January that the package was very slow in coming? He was almost admitting to a failure of his Department. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Business Secretary needs to do a lot more to push that along?
Andy Sawford
I was conflicted in preparing for this debate because, as so often with these things, the Ministers who are called to respond to the pressure we put on the Government are the very people who are listening and seeking to help. The Business Secretary has indeed acknowledged that progress has been slow. I was told in a ministerial reply on 25 February that the Government are analysing the responses to their consultation on the mitigation package, and are exploring the issue further. I hope the Minister will understand when I say that, given the vital importance of these industries, which employ 125,000 people, this uncertainty is not good enough and we need to hear the detail soon. I hope he can say when the Government will tell us how the mitigation package will work and explain the details.
The overall level of compensation is not adequate—neither the scale of financial compensation nor the duration of the scheme, which covers only the current spending review period. The Chancellor announced in last week’s Budget that there will be further support in the next spending round, which is welcome. However, on the long-term investment decisions, the scale and duration of support during the next spending round has not been made clear. Can the Minister give us further details today?
The Budget proposes a one-year extension to the current mitigation package, taking us through to 2015-16. Does that mean stretching the existing £250 million further, involving a thinner spread of money across the period, or will there be additional money? That was not made clear in the Red Book.
The announcement in the Budget of a 100% exemption from the climate change levy is good, and I am sure the Minister will remind us of that, but we must remember that it was already at 90%. The Chancellor made much of the specific exemption for the ceramics industry, which did not previously qualify for mitigation. That has been hugely welcomed and we should welcome it tonight. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) for his campaign, in which I know other Members are involved. I hope the Minister will not mind me describing the situation in these terms, but all those measures put together look like a sticking plaster. He must acknowledge that our energy-intensive industries have a long-term problem, certainly a long-term challenge.
To secure the future of France’s energy-intensive industries, the French Government brokered the Exeltium deal, through which energy-intensives have signed long-term power supply deals for low-carbon energy. That is the kind of measure we need in the UK.
Ofgem has already raised concerns about a 2015 electricity supply crunch. We know there is a lack of gas reserves stored in this country, and gas prices are highly volatile. Last Friday, the Bacton interconnector failed for several hours. Prices opened at £1.25 per therm and rose to £1.50 during the day, which shows the huge volatility within the industry. The ceramics industry is concerned that it could be the first in line if there are gas shortages. If production has to be turned off with two hours’ notice, which is a risk, given the uncertainty of supply, that could seriously damage the kilns. In the long-term we need more storage and the requirement to use it through a public service obligation, as is common in other European countries, to ensure energy security and reduce price volatility.
I have spoken about the importance of our energy-intensive industries, and how vital they are to my constituency and many others around the country, so I urge the Minister to maintain an ongoing dialogue between the Government, industry and the trade unions, which have played a helpful role. Will he commit to visit my constituency to meet Tata, with me and work force representatives, and to visit Morgan Technical Ceramics so that we can discuss the issues for that industry in more detail?
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend recognise that many energy-intensive industries are keen to make significant investment, which will result in energy efficiency, but are hampered because the enhanced capital allowance system is not broad enough to encompass much of that investment and a lot of it is not eligible? Will he therefore join me in calling on the Government to re-examine this area to see whether they could expand the scope of enhanced capital allowances?
Andy Sawford
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I have received a great deal of helpful briefing from industries on how they hope to secure their industry for the long term, and I hope we will hear from the Minister about the enhanced capital allowances. If he would commit to visit my constituency, that would be incredibly welcome. I ask him to provide much more detail on the various measures that have been announced and how we might go further, so that when companies look at their operations in this country, as Tata regularly does, they can be confident that they will be able to operate in a viable way in the future because of the policies that we have advocated and that the Minister has acknowledged.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) on securing this important debate. Without, in any way, wishing to sound patronising, may I say that that was a very good speech, and for someone who has been in the House for only a few months, It certainly augurs well for his career.
Let me say at the outset that I would be delighted to visit Corby. I think there had been an invitation from his distinguished predecessor but it fell with the by-election. I would be happy to visit Corby, not least as the Minister with responsibility in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, but also, wearing my other hat in government, as the Minister for business engagement with India. I am a huge admirer of the extraordinary achievements of the Tata group. I regularly meet its people, from both the steel part and the other parts of the company, but I have not yet had the opportunity to visit the Corby steel plant, so I would be happy to explore how I can find a date to do so.
I welcome this debate, not least because our energy-intensive industries make an important contribution to the UK economy and it is vital to keep them competitive. These industries are also vital to regional economies, particularly because, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, not only do they support jobs—good, well-paying, satisfying jobs that people can build careers on—but their products are important in the transition to a low-carbon economy. Some people might think it strange that, as the Minister with responsibility for tackling climate change, I have made a point of making the case for recognising the contribution that energy-intensive industries make to our economy and urging that they get special treatment, but I see no contradiction in that at all. I have made it clear since coming into this job in 2010 that we take the challenge of decarbonising the economy very seriously and are determined to deliver our commitments, in line with the Climate Change Act 2008, which was passed under the previous Government. However, we are equally clear that decarbonisation must not mean de-industrialisation. On the contrary, if we are going to build the low-carbon infrastructure—the renewable energy assets—that we need in the UK, we will need to bring forth a new age of engineering. There are huge opportunities, in not only steel, but a range of sectors that are necessarily energy-intensive. There are huge opportunities to become more energy-efficient, to drive innovation and to become more competitive, but these industries cannot subvert the laws of physics. There is only so much that many of them can do.
I was told when I first came into the job that those industries were not suffering in quite the way they suggested and that the playing field with Europe was not so uneven, but I was continually lobbied by a number of industries, not least the ceramics industry, which does a very good job, and decided that I would only get to the bottom of it if I went to Germany myself. It is no coincidence that Germany, which over the past decade has seen a massive increase in its share of the global market for manufactured goods, particularly those from advanced manufacturing, saw at the same time a massive deployment—probably the largest single deployment in Europe—of renewable energy. The two have gone neatly hand in hand, and Germany has managed much more effectively than we have to ensure a better balance of policy, supporting the deployment of renewables with the necessary subsidy to drive those nascent industries to cost competitiveness with their fossil fuel equivalents while being sufficiently differentiating in its approach to protect energy-intensive industries.
There is a fundamental difference, however. In Germany, as I found out, the burden of policy falls overwhelmingly on the consumer, not on industry. The balance is completely different from that in the UK. The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that €5 billion supports the energy-intensive industries in Germany, but replicating that model in full here would entail a considerable rise in consumer bills and I am sure that he would not advocate that.
We are constrained, particularly in light of the deficit we inherited and the absolute imperative of bringing down the national debt, but we are determined to be as flexible as possible. That is why when I came back from Germany—I went there with a number of major energy-intensive companies, visited the plants and spoke to German policy makers—I lobbied hard within Government to make the case for greater differentiation for the energy-intensives. That, along with the efforts of other colleagues, resulted in the £250 million package.
This is a coalition Government who understand the imperative of supporting appropriately our energy-intensive industries, but I do not pretend that £250 million is the last word or is even enough in the longer term. The fact is that if we are to support our energy-intensive industries and watch those manufacturers grow, they will require more support. I have made it very clear that the £250 million is the first step in a longer term programme of support recognising the need for greater fiscal differentiation, but it must be aligned with our deficit reduction programme.
I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman the details from the Dispatch Box this evening, but I can reassure him that we will shortly announce the outcome of the BIS-led consultation on the £250 million package. That will include the technical details, including the emissions factors that he was seeking. We must also still obtain state-aid clearance from the EU for the carbon floor price consultation. In addition to that and the EU emissions trading scheme, we are seeking permission from the EU to begin to put the building blocks in place for a more German-style approach to the architecture. Following the consultation with stakeholders, which closed in December, we have been analysing responses to ensure that compensation is targeted at those industries that are most at risk of carbon leakage, subject to final state-aid approval. As I have said, we will publish those results shortly. As set out in the Energy Bill, we will introduce an exemption for energy-intensive industries from the costs of contracts for difference under electricity market reform, again subject to consultation and state-aid clearance.
In the Budget the Chancellor was able to go further and to take another step towards building a more differentiated package, with the announcement of an exemption for mineralogical and metallurgical processes from the climate change levy—the ceramics sector. That is allowed for under the energy taxation directive.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
In Staffordshire, the news in last week’s Budget was received with great joy. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and many others have been fighting for the measure, but it was great news and well received.
Gregory Barker
I am glad to hear it. My hon. Friend’s representations played a part in the decision, but he is absolutely right; a number of hon. Members made the case. I have been to Stoke to see factories there and the challenges they face.
The measure will mitigate any competitive disadvantage that the UK mineralogical and metallurgical sectors face. It will help them to move to a more level playing field with their EU competitors. It also supports the Government’s growth agenda and our commitment to ensuring that manufacturing remains competitive during the shift to a low-carbon economy.
Industrial energy efficiency has a strong role to play. We cannot defy the laws of physics, but industrial energy efficiency represents a huge opportunity for UK plc to improve its international competitiveness. It is good for growth and competitiveness, and it drives our energy security. It is also key to managing costs and building margin growth. The Government are supporting industry to implement energy-efficiency measures that will help to reduce the impact of rising energy prices on industry.
We recently published our energy-efficiency strategy, which sets out our commitment to seizing the energy-efficiency opportunity, accelerating the deployment of 21st-century energy-saving measures. We will do that by connecting energy-efficiency knowledge and technologies to finance, seeking strong returns; supporting energy-efficiency innovation; harnessing the power of improved energy-use information, driving its availability and disclosure; and encouraging collective action on this new and better information.
We recognise the need to minimise regulatory impacts on industry. We have taken steps to simplify our key schemes on energy efficiency and carbon reduction. We have taken measures to simplify climate change agreements, the carbon reduction commitment and the EU emissions trading scheme to remove overlaps and reduce administrative burdens. Actions we have taken include consulting on and simplifying climate change agreements and introducing an opt-out for the EU emissions trading scheme for small emitters and hospitals. We have consulted on a process for the simplification of the CRC and on new regulations to implement the EU emissions trading scheme in the UK from this year.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The Minister is listing the many causes the Government are taking up on behalf of energy-intensive industries, but is there not a distinct lack of industrial activism? We are looking at significant structural contracts in Scotland and in Merseyside, but the British steel industry is losing out. In my area, we recently saw the loss of a potential carbon capture and storage project for Wilton, which would have added at least 30 years to existing infrastructure in the chemical industry there.
Gregory Barker
The hon. Gentleman is right to a certain extent. There are big challenges and we cannot turn around a supertanker in a short time. We have seen a consistent decline in manufacturing capacity in the past decade, and before then, but we are beginning to see a rebalancing of our economy. In the renewables sector, a great deal more of the equipment required, for example, for the massive expansion of offshore wind, has begun to be fabricated and manufactured in the UK, particularly along the east coast.
Tom Blenkinsop
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. On the issue of offshore wind, recently at Redcar contracts were promised with Tata Steel to provide the base structures and with TAG Energy Solutions in Billingham to provide the monopiles, but both lost out to foreign competitors. What are the Government doing proactively with industry to roll up their sleeves and get involved so that industry can win those contracts?
Gregory Barker
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that he is wrong about TAG; it has won a significant order, which was secured after a personal intervention by the Minister at the Dispatch Box. I spoke directly to the board in Germany, and intervened actively on industrial policy. I am therefore glad that he raised that issue, as TAG has a big manufacturing future ahead of it.
We accept that large energy-intensive industries in Europe benefit from tax rebates and other exemptions, which means that their prices are significantly lower than the average for their country. However, it is important to remember that many of the exemptions applied to those industries have distributional impacts. If industry does not pay them, other electricity consumers need to pay more. As the Minister responsible for fuel poverty, I have to bear in mind those distributional impacts and fairness for those who pick up the bill.
May I say something briefly about gas security, which is topical, particularly given what has appeared in the newspapers over the weekend and the cold snap that we are suffering? We are aware of industry concerns about current high gas prices and low storage stocks, but while high prices in a spike are uncomfortable, they are a sign that our market is working and that we are attracting the gas that we need through a diverse range of infrastructure. Price volatility is not something that we can completely remove, and nor should we seek to do so, from our market. It is the key mechanism that enables our market to balance efficiently at the lowest cost to consumers, and it incentivises investment in new infrastructure such as storage.
Our market is resilient to global events, and has spare import capacity built in. However, we take gas security and the risk of harmful gas spikes seriously, and we are determined to do more. We are working with Ofgem to review our market arrangements, to ensure that they continue to provide secure supplies to consumers at a fair price. At the same time, we are diversifying our energy mix to reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels, and have put in place robust policies to cut energy demand.
In conclusion, I very much welcome this debate on energy-intensive industries. I commend the hon. Member for Corby on making a compelling case. He is right to hold the Government to account on this issue, but I can assure him that we take it absolutely seriously. We are determined to do more within the context of the difficult economic and fiscal situation that we inherited, but we recognise the benefits of acting now to ensure that we maintain these industries at the same time that we build a secure low-carbon future. Those policies are designed to deliver efficient, low-carbon, secure and affordable energy supplies.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
BACKBENCH BUSINESS
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sudden Adult Death Syndrome
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the e-petition relating to preventable cardiac deaths arising from Sudden Adult Death Syndrome.
I shall explain the slight typographical error in the motion in a second, but Mr Amess, you will have to excuse me if, at times, my throat is a little raw; that, and my slightly delicate disposition when standing or sitting, can be explained by the fact that I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) took part in a charity bike ride from Salford to Liverpool yesterday for the Love Leah charity. We are both suffering, but it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon.
I thank colleagues on the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to hear my application on behalf of the Oliver King Foundation and for providing time in the busy parliamentary schedule for what I hope will be a preliminary debate, with a full debate in the Commons Chamber before the summer recess. Today’s motion enjoys the support of 65 MPs from seven different political parties and every region of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Some Members, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Halton (Derek Twigg)and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), have expressed their disappointment at not being able to be here in person, but they send their full support.
I will use my introductory contribution to set the scene and set out a number of specific areas. Today’s debate is the result of the sterling work by the OK Foundation in setting up an e-petition that attracted more than 110,000 signatures. That is no mean feat—getting 100,000 people to sign any petition is impressive, and it shows the dedication of those involved. I would like to place on record my gratitude to the family and friends of Oliver King, to Councillor Jake Morrison, to Dr Zafar Iqbal of Liverpool FC and to the many committed volunteers who have worked tirelessly to support the OK Foundation’s campaign. It is true to say that we would not be here today were it not for their outstanding efforts.
Unite the Union, the GMB, and the National Union of Teachers have also pledged support for the campaign, and I thank them for their very welcome backing. I also thank our local radio stations and in particular Pete Price and Tony Snell for all they have done to raise awareness of the OK Foundation’s relentless campaign, and to Marc Waddington of the Liverpool Echo for his comprehensive coverage of the issue.
I know colleagues will talk in more detail about the OK Foundation, but I would like briefly to pay tribute to the parents of Oliver King, who have used the tragic death of their beloved son as a mechanism to achieve what they hope will be a lasting and inspiring legacy. Oliver was just 12 years of age when he died of sudden arrhythmic death syndrome. He excelled at sport, but his family were totally unaware of his condition until they received the tragic news of his death in March 2011. Quite simply, Oliver could have been saved if an automatic external defibrillator had been to hand. However, despite their utter devastation at the loss of their child, Mark and Joanne decided to try to prevent other parents from having to go through the same heartache that they had, which has led them here to Westminster and today’s debate, and to their request for the Government to act.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not only for allowing me to intervene, but for securing the debate. A moment ago, he mentioned a number of hon. Members who could not be here. May I take the opportunity to do something for my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), who cannot speak in the debate by virtue of being a Government Whip? She has a constituency case that mirrors the one the hon. Gentleman describes—that of Joe Humphries, a 14-year-old who died on a training run last October. The tragedy for the family is indescribable, but his father has set up the Joe Humphries Memorial Trust, and a community launch will take place at Rothley parish church on 13 April. I know that they will draw a great deal of comfort and support from the words of the hon. Gentleman and from this debate, and they will know that this House is deeply concerned about this sort of tragic incident.
Steve Rotheram
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his contribution. Until I did some research, I did not realise what a huge problem SADS actually is. I drew out some statistics, which I will share with the Chamber: some 250 people die every single day in the UK as a consequence of sudden arrhythmic death syndrome or one of its counterparts, and some 270 schoolchildren die in British schools from SADS each year. The disease kills more people in Britain every year than lung cancer, breast cancer and AIDS combined; it is an absolutely huge issue, and it is fantastic that the OK Foundation has brought it to our attention in Parliament, because Oliver’s story is like that of any of the 60,000 SADS victims across the country each and every year.
The debate is crucial to raise awareness of the condition. We as parliamentarians have to date not done enough to address people’s concerns. I hope the fact that my right hon. Friend the shadow Health Secretary is in his place and will be responding for the Opposition demonstrates just how seriously we are taking the issue. I would like to place on record my thanks to the Leader of the Opposition for meeting campaigners in recent months, which is something that the Health Minister has refused to do so far.
I will briefly outline what sudden arrhythmic death syndrome is—or SADS, as it is known.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)
Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he just said in more detail? I am very concerned if he is saying that any Minister has refused to meet campaigners. If that is the case, I assure him that it should not be. I certainly do not have any problems with meeting anybody. I know that some people turned up at my constituency office unannounced on a Sunday morning, which was not very helpful—obviously, I was not there—but I am quite happy to meet any campaign group on the issue.
Steve Rotheram
It is fantastic that the Minister has agreed to meet campaigners. Some are here, and if she has time at the end of today’s debate, I am sure that they would be happy to spend a few minutes trying to organise something more substantial in future. I am sure that people will welcome what she has said.
SADS is a term that is used to describe a group of medical conditions that lead to sudden, unexpected and life-threatening instability of the heart rhythm. It has also been commonly referred to, as it is in the motion, as sudden adult death syndrome, but given its propensity to strike in children, it is now often referred to simply as sudden arrhythmic death syndrome. In the majority of cases, the unstable heart rhythm—the arrhythmia—develops a rhythm called ventricular fibrillation, in which the ventricles, which are the main pumping chambers of the heart, lose all rhythm and regularity and start beating at rates in excess of 250 beats per minute. Ventricular fibrillation causes sudden collapse, seizure-like activity and cardiac arrest—in other words, the total loss of heart function—but if it is diagnosed quickly and if cardiac massage and shock from a defibrillator are applied, normal heart rhythm and signs of life can be restored.
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. He has just touched on the importance of speed in an emergency, and I wonder what level of knowledge, understanding and expertise would be required of a member of the public to be effective in an emergency and to use the defibrillator to the best effect?
Steve Rotheram
All I can tell the hon. Lady is that if I can use a defibrillator, anyone can use one. We had people come into the House to demonstrate what an AED does. I was under the illusion that it was like something out of an episode of “Casualty”: someone picks up two paddles, says, “Stand back—clear,” and applies the shock to the person through that method. It is not like that. An AED is a small computerised unit that talks someone through the process, so believe me, literally anyone can use one. That will destigmatise the use of these devices for certain people who think that if they do it wrong, they will cause further complications.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I declare an interest as a first responder who on a number of occasions has had to attempt resuscitation. Defibrillators are indeed incredibly easy to use. One of the saddest things is turning up at someone’s house and finding people just standing around, worried or frightened that if they attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation, they will cause more damage. Actually, the training that is necessary is minimal. I therefore commend not only the e-petition, but the words of the hon. Gentleman up to now. This is something that is very simple. It is so sad to turn up two or three minutes in and find that people have not started CPR, at which point the chance of survival is so much less.
Steve Rotheram
I will highlight some of the statistical evidence relating to what the hon. Gentleman says, but if nothing else, if we can debunk the myth that we will do damage if we try to intervene and that the use of defibrillators will cause complications, that will be a start. The campaigners who have come here today do not believe that this is the end of a process; rather, it is the start of the momentum that they are building to ensure that this issue is more widely recognised.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate. He will share my sadness at the death last week of Eleanor Murphy, who was the mayoress in Barrow last year and who, along with her husband, the mayor, was able to raise £40,000 to buy 20 new defibrillators to be placed around Barrow. Does he agree with me that a great tribute to her life and their effort would be to encourage more firms and shops to agree to have defibrillators on the outside of buildings, which was their big cause towards the end, so that if someone collapses in the street, people do not need to go inside a shop, which might be closed, to be able to save their life? The Co-op is a particular example.
Steve Rotheram
Absolutely. What campaigners, or indeed anyone who is sensible enough to understand that we are in times of austerity, will say is that it is not for the Government to do everything. The example given by my hon. Friend of £40,000 being raised and the example of the OK Foundation, which has put defibrillators in all Liverpool schools, and of other organisations that are doing sterling work, prove that this is a partnership. This is something that charities can help with, but it does demand action from the Government.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Will he join me in congratulating small communities such as Lockerley in my constituency? I learned on Friday night that there is a defibrillator in the village hall, and I was told at a meeting there of, I have to say, predominantly quite elderly people that the instructions for the defibrillator were very easy to understand. They made exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman makes: the machine talks people through the process.
Steve Rotheram
Yes. Certain people expect us, as parliamentarians, to know everything about everything, but actually we do not know an awful lot about an awful lot. I hope that if it does nothing else, today’s debate and the publicity that will be generated through the campaigners will ensure that people are aware of exactly the point that the hon. Lady raises.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend, to the OK Foundation and, indeed, to the Backbench Business Committee. He mentioned that the OK Foundation has funded every primary school in Liverpool to have a defibrillator. Does he agree with me that that sends a powerful message throughout the country that that policy should be adopted in all our schools?
Steve Rotheram
My hon. Friend and city of Liverpool colleague will know that where Liverpool leads, others often follow. The hope is that other people will recognise that what Liverpool has done is progressive. It has been done with the help of the mayor of Liverpool, the city council and, of course, the OK Foundation and it will demonstrably save lives. We do not know when that will happen, of course, because we do not know when someone will have an attack, but at some stage, that provision will save someone’s life. That will be a tremendous legacy of all the work and campaigning that the OK Foundation has done.
What is perhaps even more heartbreaking than the sudden loss of life, if such a thing is possible, is the sudden loss of life when it is avoidable. There is a quick, simple and extremely effective device that can save lives. The treatment will not cost millions of pounds in research or development, nor is it a procedure that people require a medical degree to administer. Instead, it is as simple as first aid training in schools and defibrillators in public buildings.
At this point, I declare an interest: I unashamedly want there to be a defibrillator in every public building, in much the same way as there are fire extinguishers and fire alarms in every building. As the London Ambulance Service pointed out in its briefing for today’s debate,
“56 people died in London from a fire in 2011 compared with 10,000 Londoners who suffered an out of hospital cardiac arrest—yet fire extinguishers are statutory in every building—and defibrillators are not”.
We have them here in Parliament. If they are good enough for us in Parliament, they are good enough for every other public building.
I will shortly come on to the main argument with regard to my desire for defibrillators in public buildings, but before I do that, I am keen to touch on another element of tackling SADS: screening. Three young people die each week from SADS, and in more than half of the cases the cause is a genetic problem affecting the heart. I believe that targeted expert assessment of families in which there is a high risk of inherited cardiac disease or in which there has been a sudden unexplained death will lead to a considerable decrease in the number of SADS victims annually. No one is claiming that that is a panacea; it is simply a vital step in the diagnosis of those most at risk.
I praise organisations such as Cardiac Risk in the Young, which is subsidising screening for young people, ensuring that those who believe that they need an ECG—electrocardiogram—can afford one. The OK Foundation and others are also doing that, but screening should be more widely available.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman said earlier that Liverpool leads the way. He will be aware, as the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) will be aware, because we were both at the same event, that Liverpool John Moores university does an enormous amount of work on the screening of young sportsmen. A huge amount of work is being done and it is being done, again, in Liverpool.
Steve Rotheram
Again, I could not agree more. John Moores and other universities have done fantastic work. I looked at some of the material from the Football Association. It runs the association football medical screening programme for youth trainees, which involves the screening of 750 youth players. The International Olympic Committee has recommended that all countries screen their athletes to minimise the risk of SADS. That indicates the benefits of screening, so let us look at an early intervention strategy for at-risk groups as an initial step.
Even in the past week, it has been pleasing to see the Football Association and the British Heart Foundation form a £1.2 million fund to ensure that 900 defibrillators are made available to clubs in non-league football and the women’s super league. That is real action that will make a real difference, but although it is encouraging that sport has woken up to this condition and recognised what I would term its social and moral responsibility, there is more work for the medical profession to do and more support for the Government of this country and our partners across the developed world to give.
A simple ECG can expose whether a patient has irregular electrical or structural problems with their heart that can lead to SADS. Currently, however, standard cardiovascular risk assessment screening is not as precise as it needs to be in identifying symptoms relating to sudden cardiac arrest, which is why the British Heart Foundation is undertaking vital research into the genetics around SADS, on which it hopes to publish a report shortly. In the meantime, the Government can play a leading role in encouraging pathologists and coroners who determine that a person has died of SADS to inform immediate family members to ensure that they receive an ECG at the earliest possible opportunity. The Government should also support the medical industry’s work to improve the scientific precision of screening. Such Government measures should form part of the proposed new national strategy to improve heart safety and reduce preventable deaths from sudden cardiac arrest, as set out in the motion.
I hope that today’s debate and any subsequent debates will achieve a number of things, but it is pivotal that the imperative relationship between CPR and defibrillators is exposed: a defibrillator on its own cannot save a life; CPR on its own has an outside chance of saving a life, but the two together have a more than 50% chance of saving a life. How do we know? Ask people such as Fabrice Muamba. His collapse on a football pitch, in front of thousands of spectators at White Hart Lane and millions watching on television, was perhaps the most graphic illustration of SADS, and his recovery is the best example of what can be achieved with swift and targeted intervention.
Bystanders witness more than half the cardiac arrests that occur in public, but not enough people have the life-saving skills to help those heart attack victims. CPR is the first action in the chain of survival and is crucial in the first minutes after a cardiac arrest, because it helps keep oxygen moving around the body, including the brain, which is why the British Heart Foundation campaign tells us to phone 999 and press hard and fast to the beat of “Staying Alive”. It is a simple message, which works, and we have all seen it on television. CPR essentially buys a patient time. A defibrillator starts the heart, but cannot be used on a still heart, so unless CPR is administered, a defibrillator is effectively useless.
That point is crucial, and is at the heart of—forgive the pun—why colleagues and I, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh, chose to include first aid in today’s motion. Medical experts believe that CPR combined with a defibrillator shock can triple the survival chances of somebody who has suffered a cardiac arrest outside hospital. I shall repeat that: it can triple survival chances. That is extraordinary. CPR and a defibrillator shock can buy paramedics time to arrive, prevent serious brain damage and ultimately increase the chance of a full recovery. I am not sure that there is any need for further debate. If someone’s child or loved one had a cardiac arrest, would they not want to triple their chance of survival?
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. I add my sentiments to those expressed already on the wonderful work that the OK Foundation and the King family have done. I pay tribute to South Central ambulance service, which does wonderful training in my constituency. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although it is tremendous that community organisations have invested in equipment and training in their localities, a benefit of a national push, such as that that we had with digital hearing aids, is that it drives down the cost of equipment and training, no matter who pays for it? It is important to get across that message about why we should put more oomph behind such work.
Steve Rotheram
It is an excellent point, which I will mention later in my contribution. The hon. Lady is absolutely right. If we persuaded the Government, Government bodies, large organisations or a combination of people to purchase AEDs, the price would plummet because they would order in bulk. I think they are £1,200 to £1,500 per unit at the moment, but empirical evidence from other countries shows that, when they are purchased in large volumes, their price comes down to almost 40% of the original cost.
Finally, I shall address directly what the Government can do to help, and it is simple: legislation. It can be done in a controlled and progressive manner and, in the current economic conditions, it need not cost the earth. Legislate first in education: enshrine mandatory emergency life skills training in the curriculum; ensure that every child who walks out of school at 16 or 18 possesses life-saving skills, and ensure that this Parliament, here and now, commits to having a new generation of life savers. We have the support to do it. Will we need to come back with another 100,000 signatures to get the Government to act? According to a British Heart Foundation survey in 2011, 86% of school teachers agree that such skills should be part of the curriculum, 78% of children said that they wanted to be taught how to save someone’s life in an emergency, and 70% of parents thought that children should be taught emergency life skills in school. When we place emergency life skills education in the context of my earlier point about the relationship between CPR and defibrillators, we begin to see just how many lives we could save daily, monthly and yearly.
The Government, though the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, should introduce legislation such as the Canadian province of Manitoba’s Defibrillator Public Access Act. In Canada, public consultation and medical expertise identified the most likely places for a person to suffer a cardiac arrest—apart from in hospital, of course—and legislated to ensure that all those buildings, such as gyms, football stadiums, golf courses, schools and airports, had to have an AED fitted by January 2014.
There is also a financial argument: fitting AEDs could save the NHS millions of pounds, because survivors would not need the same degree of critical care or, potentially, aftercare. To discredit further the myth that it would be too expensive, let us once again put it into context: a defibrillator costs about the same as a PC and if we put AEDs in public buildings, that cost will come down, as the hon. Lady identified, as it does for other equipment ordered in bulk.
Dame Angela Watkinson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene again. It occurs to me that he said earlier that there are defibrillators in this building, but I am ashamed to say that I do not know where they are. I do not know if I am alone in that. It is important therefore not only to have them in buildings and for people to know how to use them, but for people to know where they can be found. There is no time in an emergency to wonder where one is—everybody needs to know.
Steve Rotheram
The hon. Lady is right, but there are people who know where the defibrillators are. On behalf of the OK Foundation, I asked a few police officers. We are very cosseted here. People such as police officers and other security staff know where the defibrillators are. She is right in that, just as there has to be a chart that says where the fire extinguishers or first aiders are—where someone can get treatment should they cut themselves—the same process should apply to identifying where the nearest AED is. It is not beyond the realms of Parliament for us to pull together legislation to cover the good point she raises.
I know about the costs associated with AEDs. The Association of Primary Schools and the OK Foundation said that every primary school in Liverpool should have one, which would be a considerable benefit. They have now got an AED, which they purchased together, fitted in each school. Pinehurst primary school in my constituency was the first to benefit, but now all 122 primary schools in the city have AEDs. As I said earlier, where Liverpool leads, the rest of the country needs to follow, because AEDs will save young people’s lives. We need to make that happen across the whole country and encourage our devolved partners to follow suit.
I conclude by reiterating why today’s debate matters. We cannot put a price on a life. If something practical can be done that has the ability to save a life and falls within what we politicians might call the envelope of affordability, we in Parliament have a duty to act. In times of austerity, when we look for ways of saving money and reducing the burden on the NHS, investing in screening research and equipping an entire future generation with emergency life-saving skills that will keep people alive, increase survival rates and reduce the demand on hospital care is a step we should all support. Every minute that goes by after a person has suffered a cardiac arrest reduces their survival chances by 10%. Although CPR can keep the heart going, it is not enough in itself. Britain should aspire to achieve survival rates such as those in Seattle, where more than 50% of sudden cardiac arrests lead to a full recovery. Our survival rate is currently somewhere between 2% and 12%.
Now is the time to act and for Parliament to say, “Enough is enough.” Now is the time for levels of screening of young people to increase, for teaching CPR to be mandatory in schools, and for the Government to initiate a new legal requirement for a defibrillator to be installed in all schools and prominent public places. We need a cohesive national strategy to improve heart safety in the UK. I hope that Government Front Benchers are listening. They have the political authority to address the issue. Let us hope that they have the moral fibre that is needed to act.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and everybody who signed the e-petition on securing this debate; 100,000 signatures is an incredible amount to reach. I pay tribute to everybody who signed. It is good to have the Minister and the shadow Secretary of State here. I am happier seeing the shadow Secretary of State here than I was to see him attend a college in Goole recently. As welcome as he is, normally, perhaps he can stay here in future; that would be more beneficial. Alas.[Interruption.] That was a back-handed compliment, by the way.
I also want to pay tribute to the OK Foundation and the British Heart Foundation for the work that they do in raising awareness. It is fantastic to hear about the work that has been undertaken in Liverpool. I do not necessarily agree that where Liverpool leads, the country always follows, or indeed that Liverpool always leads, but on this occasion I pay tribute to what has been achieved on the wrong side of the Pennines.
I intervened on the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton and talked about the work that I do with the Yorkshire ambulance service as a community first responder. I want to talk about that and how that has got me alive to the issue and really changed my views. It has made me quite passionate. Becoming a first responder has been the thing that I have been most proud of in my life. I am prouder of that than getting elected to this place. Before that, my proudest achievement was passing my driving test on the sixth or seventh occasion. Being a first responder has become the thing that I am most proud of.
I set up a scheme covering Goole, Hook and Airmyn: only three of the 75 communities that I represent, sadly. We did not have a scheme there. We had terrible ambulance response rates. I met the ambulance service and it set me a challenge to do something about it, so we set up a scheme. We have 10 volunteers. My staff in the Goole constituency office have all been trained and they provide cover during the day as first responders. In the evening, members of the community provide cover. We have all become good friends. We are all from different walks of life in the town. They cover evenings and I cover weekends, along with one of my councillors, who lives just round the corner.
I pay tribute to all the volunteers who put themselves forward for first responding in my constituency, both with Yorkshire ambulance service and in the Lincolnshire part of my constituency through LIVES, the Lincolnshire Integrated Voluntary Emergency Service. The volunteers do a fantastic job. They get no publicity for it, which perhaps we as MPs get. They deserve all credit for the lives that they save and the impact that they have. I have seen the impact in my short time doing such work. We set up the scheme about six months ago. We never expected to be as busy in our community as we have ended up being, having attended about 45 calls in our first four months, which is significant.
I want to talk about the training to prove how easy it is. We did our training as first responders over a weekend. It was two full days. The training included oxygen therapy and training for the other types of incidents that we attend. The CPR and defibrillator training took place on the first day. We practised scenarios and it was incredibly simple and easy. It is as simple as the hon. Gentleman said. The defibrillators spoke to us. The first thing they say is, “Tear open packages. Place one pad upper left.” I do not like hearing that now. It strikes fear into me, having had to use them. They talk people through the procedure and the training really is simple. I came away from that training thinking to myself, “How on earth can people not know how to do this?” It is staggering that we require people to be trained in all kinds of other things in their work environment. People have to learn the inside-out of all sorts of health and safety legislation for various jobs, but we do not teach people something as simple as starting chest compressions on somebody. As the hon. Gentleman said in his speech, people fear that they can do more harm than good, but if someone is in cardiac arrest, people can do no more harm than that.
So, we got our scheme up and running and we had our weekend of training. We do ongoing training every month. We have just had a weekend at the Hull York medical school in Hull going through various scenarios to try to enhance our skills, but that is an add-on to the basic training. I thought that we would not get many calls to begin with, but we were very busy. One of the first calls that I attended was a cardiac arrest, which, sadly, was at the furthest point of the three-mile radius that we cover. I got there first, within about six or seven minutes. Even though we had done all our training, I thought that six or seven minutes would be all right. It was a pretty terrifying drive on the way there for my first cardiac arrest.
I turned up in my first responder uniform and all of a sudden everyone was looking at me. However, the training kicks in and straight away I was doing chest compressions, getting the defibrillator up, getting the oxygen going and barking instructions at people to get what was needed from the bag. I thought, “If I can do this, anybody can.” It was the confidence gained from that weekend of training that led to my trying to resuscitate somebody. Unfortunately, it was not successful. I drove away that night, got home and thought about it. It had taken me a few minutes to get there. When I arrived, people were already there. A neighbour had tried to start CPR, but of course that was done through instructions over the telephone. The gentleman was not old and I thought to myself, “If only somebody had been there to start instantly. Why don’t we all know this?” I became passionate about it. Most of our calls tend to be for heart attacks, diabetics and strokes, which can end in a slightly more positive outcome.
The second cardiac arrest that I attended was in a nursing home. A responder from the neighbouring scheme and I were the first people on the scene. On that particular occasion, nursing home staff had not commenced CPR, for whatever reason, and I thought, “Well, why—in nursing homes?” There are so many calls—just on Saturday night, my phone went at 2.30 am about a cardiac arrest at a nursing home in Goole—and they increasingly tend to be from nursing homes. I thought, “Why do we not have a defibrillator in every nursing home?” I notice that the state of Texas passed a law in 2009 to require a defibrillator in every nursing home.
The Minister obviously cannot respond about the curriculum, although I am sure that she will pass such comments on to the relevant Minister, but she could do something about nursing homes. One of my requests is that she simply requires every nursing home, at its own expense—for heaven’s sake, most of them are private organisations—to have on site a defibrillator, which costs less than £1,000, including for the training.
I live two doors away from a nursing home in my village. As a result of reading about what we have been doing locally, the parish council is proactively trying to get a defibrillator in the nursing home for general community use. That is something that we can achieve simply and without great cost to the taxpayer. The same goes for assisted living centres or sheltered housing complexes, where we should require there to be defibrillators.
I have to say—playing a little to the gallery—that, since I started first responding, I have become such an admirer of our ambulance crews and their work. I am playing to the gallery, but of course we are not allowed to refer to people in the Public Gallery. I have seen how busy those guys are. They are constantly called out and they are called out more and more, for which they do not necessarily get credit. They are the true last emergency service: when all else fails, the ambulance service is called on. They sometimes struggle to respond to all the calls in our areas, and there is no doubt that we must do something about that. Demand on our ambulance crews for service is increasing every year, and we must follow through on that with proper resources so that we do not end up with their taking too long to get to a cardiac arrest or other emergencies.
As a result of that work and becoming quite passionate about it, I started to think about the role in schools. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton said that 270 young people die of sudden cardiac arrest every year. I worked in government in the United States about 10 or 12 years ago, when we put through the legislature of New Jersey a requirement for a defibrillator to be placed in every school in the state. That happened, and a several other states followed suit, but that was back in 2000, and here we are in 2013, debating this issue in the House—probably for the first time in a long while—with no requirement in this country. Frankly, that seems bonkers to me.
I talked to the East Midlands ambulance service, which covers the other part of my constituency, a few weeks ago after having seen the ITV programme about sudden cardiac arrest and life-saving skills in Norway, and we put in a bid to the local council. Just this morning, my local North Lincolnshire council considered my grant application for defibrillators, and I am told that it has approved the bid to put one in all secondary schools in the north Lincolnshire part of my constituency and in the schools in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers). Indeed, it will go further: the council portfolio holder rang me this afternoon to say that it will guarantee a defibrillator in every secondary school, not just those in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend, and that will happen soon.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
May I pay tribute to my constituents Robert and Maggie Underwood, who lost their daughter to SADS? They have managed to raise £18,000 to put defibrillators in 15 of my schools in Redditch.
Andrew Percy
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend’s constituents. I always think that it is a bit easier for us, as MPs, to bang the drum and to get people behind us, but it is fantastic for residents to do so and to raise such an amount of money, so I pay tribute to them as well. A lot of that is going on around the country, but frankly there needs to be more.
Our bid in north Lincolnshire was also to ask schools to filter training down to young people, as part of the deal of their accepting a defibrillator paid for from the grant, so it does not only relate to use on school sites. I hope that if there is a cardiac arrest—not that I hope for one, but if there is—a young person from north Lincolnshire with that training will be there, so that they can put their training into use, although I would prefer them not to have to do so. The Scunthorpe Telegraph, the local newspaper, rang me today to say that it is quite keen to get behind that and might want to run a campaign about it, so I shall wait to hear more. We can try to use the National Citizen Service to filter down that training.
Stephen Twigg
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his excellent speech. He mentioned the Scunthorpe Telegraph, and does he agree that the media have a crucial role? Will he join my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and me in praising the brilliant work done by the Liverpool Echo with the OK Foundation?
Andrew Percy
Members of Parliament are never backward in coming forward to praise their local newspapers, not least in the hope that it guarantees them a friendly quote next week, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Newspapers can be part of our going out to challenge—I do not want to say “shame”—businesses. I am a Conservative and I love businesses, but businesses make profits and do so on the back of their workers, to whom they have responsibility. [Interruption.] Well, I think that I am a Conservative. Of course, I am; or just the Brigg and Goole party these days, perhaps. [Interruption.] Well, I am certainly not a Liberal Democrat—no offence to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh)—because my views on Europe count me out.
Newspapers have a responsibility to go to businesses and challenge them, particularly big businesses. I understand that defibrillators would be expensive for smaller ones and those employing only one or two people, but we should ask big businesses, “What are you doing for the welfare of your workers? Where are your defibrillators?” Newspapers such as the Liverpool Echo and the Scunthorpe Telegraph have an important role to play in that.
Anna Soubry
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I congratulate him on his excellent speech, which follows another excellent one. Does he agree that there is a good argument that we can build an Olympic legacy based on the great volunteers who took part in the games by considering whether we can use some of the skills that they helped to bring to the games, and take those skills into the issues of training people and campaigning for defibrillators, which he has identified?
Andrew Percy
Indeed. My way to address the problem is to have a multi-faceted approach. In many ways, it has to come from the bottom up. We need people in communities to say, “I will be trained and I am happy to filter down that training, and I am even happy to knock on some doors to raise some money to get defibrillators in our communities.” A lot of parish councils have money in the bank, so we should go to them as well. We need a bottom-up approach through volunteers and the Olympic legacy, as the Minister says, but there is also a role for the Government to say to nursing homes and schools, “We want and expect you to provide a defibrillator, which is relatively cheap,” and of course to say the same to businesses. Is it not true corporatism to bring all three of those elements together? As I have said, there is a role for businesses in looking after the welfare of their workers in that way.
Goole high school has a pilot this year in which everyone in year 11 has been funded to go through the National Citizen Service. I have suggested to the head teacher that, as part of the community payback for that, all those young people should be trained in CPR this summer. Therefore, 100 or 200 young people in that community in Goole will leave at the end of the summer having received training, which is 200 more advocates for the whole issue and potentially 200 more life-savers.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Although it is a good idea to provide emergency life-saving skills within the National Citizen Service, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that if we legislated for every school leaver to learn CPR, we would make a huge difference?
Andrew Percy
I would be quite happy to see that happen. We can leave it to schools to decide how to deliver such learning, but even if we cannot put it in the national curriculum, we should say to schools that they should look to offer such training as an add-on.
I was clearly going to say something about Wisconsin next, as it is written here on a note, but it has gone out of my head. Something jolly good is happening in Wisconsin, which we should look at and perhaps copy if indeed it is a good thing.
Another way to address the matter is through teacher training programmes. Again, that is in the gift of Government and is relatively inexpensive to do. Simply put, we should require teachers, as part of their teacher training, to go through a morning of CPR training.
I end my contribution where I began, by congratulating the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton on securing the debate. I congratulate, too, all those who have taken part in the debate through the e-petition and who support this campaign. This is a matter of life and death, and a matter where not just minutes but seconds count. We all have a responsibility to do what we can to ensure that we improve the appalling rates of survival for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in this country.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I am pleased to be serving under your wise chairmanship, Mr Amess. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) who brought to this debate some very particular knowledge, the scope of which, I suspect, none of the rest of us has. It was really interesting to listen to what he had to say.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on introducing the debate, which he did not only with his usual thoroughness but in a very accessible way. That will be much appreciated by those involved in campaigning. Finally, I thank the Oliver King Foundation for keeping the issue alive and for raising awareness of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), who has left the Chamber, spoke about the print media. Although I accept that they can have a positive role to play in promoting such issues, it is a double-edged sword, because their coverage of bereavement is often both intrusive and inaccurate, so we should not indulge in an orgy of congratulation. If the Press Complaints Commission had had any teeth, the print media would often have been condemned for the way they have covered bereavement.
I shall cover some of the same ground as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton, but with perhaps a slightly different perspective. He was right to say that as much knowledge as possible needs to be disseminated about how to keep blood pumping, which is basically what we are talking about, and about the use of defibrillators. If we talk to people about being trained so that they will be able to act if a defibrillator is available—this issue was brought out well by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole and by my hon. Friend—the thing they are concerned about is not necessarily being taught how to use the modern device, but whether they will be able to recognise accurately what they are confronted with. That is often a barrier for many people, but I say rather brutally that the alternative to making a mistake is taking no action at all, which can be fatal. In many cases, that is the choice that people are confronted with.
My second point is about the availability of defibrillators and training in how to use them. Yes, we need them in schools and in public buildings, but there is also an argument, which should be debated, that they should be available in every workplace of significant size. At the end of the day, the powerful case that was set out by my hon. Friend to address the situation hinges on having both defibrillators available and people able to use them. Indeed, the more defibrillators that are available in more diverse places, the more lives will be saved.
My hon. Friend mentioned the availability of fire extinguishers, which is a really good comparison; another is smoke alarms. The impact that smoke alarms have had on detecting fires has been phenomenal. We are now at a point where almost every household has, or should have, a smoke alarm installed. I am not saying that every household should have a defibrillator, but the more widespread these safety and intervention measures are, the more effective they can be.
Finally, there is an overpowering case for screening. For several years now, I have been involved in the all-party group for cardiac arrest in the young, which does an excellent job in campaigning for widespread screening. Personally, I would like every young person to have the opportunity to be screened, because regardless of whether they believe that they might have a problem, the availability of screening would mean that they would, wherever possible, know what happens—in other words, we are talking about screening age groups that might be vulnerable to this sort of problem. However, screening is not easy to access at the moment. Also, where there has been a fatality or where someone has been diagnosed as being vulnerable, there is often a genetic component, so it is possible that other members of the family might be vulnerable as well, but in one case in my constituency, siblings wanted to be screened after they had tragically lost their brother, but they had to go to great extremes and be extremely persistent to access the screening service. That is clearly a problem that needs to be addressed.
Let me finish on a helpful note. Earlier, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) said that the campaign needed a bit of “oomph” behind it. That is a good way of describing what we would all like to see as a result of today’s debate. If the Minister can address the problem, she might perhaps be known as the Minister for “oomph”.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on securing this debate, after 110,000 people made their voices heard through the e-petition system. This is a genuinely important debate about action that we can take to help save lives. I join hon. Members in recognising the work of Mark King in setting up the Oliver King Foundation, Councillor Jake Morrison, and the King family and other supporters. They have indeed been the driving force behind bringing such prominence to the devastating impact of sudden cardiac death. My hon. Friend described the tragic circumstances surrounding Oliver’s death and the drive of Oliver’s family to prevent such a tragedy happening unnecessarily to anybody else. The family should be sincerely commended and thanked for their work.
In the Government’s response to the e-petition, they said:
“Sudden cardiac death is a very complex issue. It can be caused by a range of different conditions.”
I think that everybody affected by SADS understands that it is indeed a complex issue; there are no easy answers, quick solutions or magic cures for all cases. At the same time, however, there is recognition that more can and should be done, because lives can be saved. There are two facts that we cannot ignore: first, that 80% of sudden cardiac arrests occur outside hospital; and, secondly, that survival rates have not improved since the 1960s.
In my opinion, there is a consistent theme that runs through the e-petition and the related petitions, through the work of the Oliver King Foundation, SADS UK, Cardiac Risk in the Young, the British Heart Foundation, and through the work of people such as the Marshall family and Sue Murrin-Bailey in my constituency of West Lancashire. The theme is that the Department of Health should do more to enable communities to be better informed about this condition, better trained to respond when an incident happens and better equipped to save lives.
I will take just a few moments to highlight some of the excellent work taking place in West Lancashire that is helping to save lives and to reduce the number of deaths caused by sudden cardiac arrest. John Marshall was an incredibly talented young footballer from Ormskirk; he had represented England on 12 occasions and had been signed by Everton football club. Devastatingly, John died the day before his Everton career was due to start. John’s family—his mother Maureen, dad John, and sister Hayley—have spent most of the last 18 years raising awareness and raising funds, so that other families do not have to suffer the terrible loss that they did.
Thanks to the fundraising efforts of the Marshall family, working with CRY, free heart screenings were made available to young people at Edge Hill university—in fact, the latest screening event took place just 10 days ago. Alison Cox of CRY has said that since John Marshall died in 1995, more than 10,000 young people under the age of 35 have died suddenly from undiagnosed heart conditions, yet around 9,000 of those young people could still be alive if they had been tested for heart conditions.
I now move on to the work of Sue Murrin-Bailey, the former West Lancashire borough council mayoress. Providing defibrillators was one of her chosen charities during her year as mayoress; she worked tirelessly to raise funds and that work has continued since her term as mayoress ended. At a school where Sue is a governor, a parent collapsed with cardiac arrest: luckily an ambulance was nearby, so that parent was saved, but the case highlighted the need for much-needed life-saving equipment to be nearby.
Sue has raised £35,000, which has enabled the purchase of 21 automated external defibrillators, but having raised the money and purchased the equipment, Sue and the North West ambulance service have encountered other barriers. Astonishingly, there appear to be planning restrictions that are delaying the installation of the equipment in some public places. The Minister looks surprised; I was absolutely astonished to learn that. The problem is about locating yellow boxes in conservation areas. Perhaps we should put a higher price on the conservation of human life. I urge the Minister to speak to her colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to ask them to remove those senseless barriers. I am happy to provide the Minister with even more detail about the issue after the debate, if she wants it.
Sue Murrin-Bailey has been working with the North West ambulance service to identify the best locations for the equipment, through hot spot mapping to identify where the highest incidences of cardiac arrest are found and where the equipment is most needed. Once a defibrillator is installed, the NWAS catalogues the location on its database, which enables the location of the defibrillator to be provided to anyone when a 999 call is made. That information is vital when we consider that the use of an AED within four to eight minutes of sudden cardiac arrest increases the survival rate by 75%. All of these things are essential in the chain of survival, and as I said earlier, 80% of these cases occur away from hospital.
Many people experiencing sudden cardiac arrest are reliant on the people around them knowing what to do, and those first few minutes are key. People need to know that, first, they must call 999; secondly, they must administer CPR while a defibrillator is located and used—it is important that it is actually used—before, thirdly, they pass the patient on to receive advanced care.
A better informed public will not come about through telepathy or osmosis. The public need help and the Department of Health is surely the best equipped agency to lead nationally. As the Minister will understand, up and down the country, organisations, bereaved families and local communities have not been waiting for the Department of Health to take the lead on SADS. People have been out there doing something—raising money and providing equipment—but they recognise that more action needs to be taken now, so that more deaths can be prevented. What people want is the Department of Health to work with them in making a difference, in saving lives and in reducing the number of deaths caused by sudden cardiac arrest. Surely that is not too much to ask?
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on securing this debate. It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) and other Members who have made constructive contributions. Compared with some other debates that I have been involved with in recent weeks and months, the unanimity today is a refreshing change.
I pay tribute not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton and the other Members who are in Westminster Hall today, but to the people—more than 110,000 of them—who signed the online petition that was set up by the Oliver King Foundation. Indeed, I pay tribute to the King family, Jake Morrison and all those who have been instrumental in taking forward the campaign. I also thank the Minister for agreeing to meet campaigners; that is very important. It shows the public interest in and the importance of the issues that we are debating today.
As you might be able to tell from my accent, Mr Amess, I am not actually from Merseyside, Liverpool or the north-west.
Grahame M. Morris
Well, I am fifth-generation from that area actually, so I have a connection with it. However, I am from the north-east and I know that many colleagues from the north-east and from across the whole country are concerned and share the aims of the OK Foundation, so I hope the Minister will support the campaign to provide defibrillators in all public buildings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton referred to the protection that we enjoy here in the Palace of Westminster. I tried to find out precisely how many defibrillators there are in the Palace. There are notices about them at the end of every corridor, including my corridor, and I found that there are actually 16 defibrillators in the Palace. Somebody here obviously knows the importance of early defibrillation in the event of a cardiac arrest, and they are to be complimented for that. The general public should enjoy a similar level of protection.
This is a matter of life and death. As my hon. Friend said, an estimated 60,000 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests occur each year and, incredibly, of the 30,000 cases attended by medical professionals, fewer than one in five of the people affected receive the life-saving intervention they need following a survivable cardiac arrest. I did not realise until I looked at the numbers involved quite how mind-boggling they are. There are nearly 100,000 deaths each year in the UK due to cardiac arrest, which is more than 250 a day, making it one of the UK’s biggest killers.
Hon. Members have already mentioned the British Heart Foundation’s high-profile “Staying Alive” campaign and information film on hands-only CPR. The House will be relieved to know, Mr Amess, that I shall not attempt to sing it or repeat it, but that was a successful campaign. It is reported that in November 28 lives were saved by people who learnt how to administer CPR from the advert headed up the footballer Vinnie Jones, or were inspired by it to take further lessons and coaching, and I imagine that that number is even higher today.
I was surprised by the UK’s record on emergency life-support skills. A British Red Cross survey found that only 7% of people in the UK have first aid skills, compared with 80% of people in Scandinavian countries and a similar figure in Germany. I was surprised, because in the area where I grew up and have always lived, there was quite a strong tradition with the St John Ambulance, and so on, so I expected the figures to be higher, but perhaps it is a function of the society in which we live. That is a major omission and I hope that the Minister takes note of it.
A further survey of public support carried out by the British Heart Foundation found that 73%—almost three quarters—of schoolchildren wanted to learn how to resuscitate someone and give first aid, and more than three quarters of teachers and parents agreed that it would be a good thing to be taught in schools. I hope that the Minister will speak with her counterparts in the Department for Education and press for these life-saving first aid skills to be a core part of the national curriculum, to ensure that all young people leave school equipped with the ability to save a life. That would be really worthwhile.
We know that time matters when cardiac arrest occurs. For every minute that passes following a cardiac arrest and before CPR is administered, the chances of survival are reduced by around 10%. Although CPR can buy more time, defibrillation is the only effective treatment for cardiac arrest caused by ventricular fibrillation, where the heart quivers and stops pumping blood around the body. The British Heart Foundation has found that, for every minute that passes without defibrillation, chances of survival decrease by 14%. We have heard how CPR can improve the chances of survival. We have also heard about research that shows that applying a controlled shock within the first five minutes of collapse provides the best chance of survival. It is therefore essential that defibrillators are readily available, particularly in places where there is higher incidence of cardiac arrest or where it might be difficult for emergency services to arrive quickly.
I applaud the efforts of one of my local newspapers, The Northern Echo, which has been running the “A Chance to Live” campaign in my region, promoting the use of defibrillators in public places, particularly gymnasiums, where there is a greater risk of cardiac arrest occurring both before and after strenuous effort. I am pleased to note—we did a bit of a survey—that all the local authority and council-run gyms in the north-east have defibrillators and staff trained to use them. It has been reported, however, that 80% of private gyms do not have some form of life-saving equipment available; it does not seem to matter whether it is a small gym or one of the larger, more up-market leisure gyms. When challenged about the lack of defibrillators in their gyms, Bannatynes, headquartered in Darlington, issued a statement explaining that they did not have defibrillators because
“they are a specialist piece of medical equipment, which should only be operated by a qualified medical professional.”
I do not know if hon. Members have any contact with Duncan Bannatyne, or if he will get a copy of this debate, but having heard the comprehensive, complete and compelling case advanced by my hon. Friend, it is clear that it is not necessary to have comprehensive training to use a defibrillator. I hope that in the course of this debate we can put to bed this misconception.
As we have heard, modern defibrillators are designed to be used by untrained members of the public; they provide audio and visual instructions to the user and the machines will automatically diagnose the patient and deliver an electric shock only if it is necessary. To provide a medical opinion, as we have the Minister here, in my area in County Durham, Dr Harry Byrne, vice chairman of NHS Darlington clinical commissioning group, has described defibrillators as the
“single greatest advance in out of hospital cardiac assistance since the invention of chest compressions or CPR…You don’t have to be a trained first aider to use one. You just pull it out of the box and follow the instructions step by step. It even tells you what to do”,
as we have heard, from my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy).
A defibrillator is an essential life-saving piece of equipment and I hope defibrillators will become common, not just in schools, but in workplaces, too. Hon. Members have suggested that they should be in shopping centres and nursing homes. They should be in community buildings as well. Certainly, though, they should be in schools. I agree with my hon. Friend that they should be as common as fire extinguishers and smoke alarms. I hope that the Minister supports these measures and will be proactive in protecting the public and ensuring that everyone, no matter where they live and work, has the best chance of surviving cardiac arrest.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on the fine way that he introduced it. I pay tribute to the campaigners who have given Parliament an appropriate kick in the pants to ensure that this issue is debated with proper time. This is a great opportunity for us to look at what can be done and the best way to do it. I will be giving the Minister some proposals on how this can be taken forward that will not cost her any money—there are ways that Governments can spend money, but some suggestions are cost-neutral.
By a remarkable coincidence, in Bassetlaw we are about to launch a campaign. When we agreed to launch it, I did not know that this debate would take place. After we had set our campaign dates, I got some e-mails and twitters telling me about it—[Interruption.] Tweets, apparently. Anyway, I got them, read them and responded. There was a good bit of pressure, but we had already decided, because we have a campaign group that has been battling. People power has brought this debate here, and we had our own people power in our ambulance campaign in the east midlands, which was resolved today—the Minister will want to know this, because I doubt whether she had anyone in the meeting this morning, but I did.
In our area, we put forward the idea that, rather than have all our ambulance stations closed, going down to none, we should have them kept open and have three. We have won. All three are being kept open, as a result of people power. The number of fully crewed ambulances with qualified staff will remain as is, rather than being cut. I asked for six guarantees—I put it in writing—and got the formal answers on the record this morning. We won that campaign.
I offered the ambulance service a bit of a deal when I met it. Our group, the “Save Our Services” campaign, which just so happens to include Councillor Adele Mumby and Mr Gavin Briers, community first responders, and various others, has campaigned with me and the local council on this matter. I said, “Look, I’ve seen some figures that say Bassetlaw has a less than 2% survival rate. However, in Lincolnshire, it is apparently 11%. Hang on a minute. I don’t know who’s not been informing me about this, and I’ve not seen these figures before, but if our survival rate is under 2%, and Lincolnshire’s is 11%, something’s wrong.” When I looked into it, the community first responders were clear about what is needed: they said we need defibrillators everywhere in our community and we need training.
We have therefore agreed the Bassetlaw defibrillator campaign, which we are launching on 11 April. It will be an unusual campaign, compared with some. I have heard a lot of medical jargon, but we will not be using any of that, because I cannot follow it, and I am the MP. Many of my constituents will have more medical knowledge than me, but some will not be able to follow that jargon, so we will keep the campaign really simple. It is going to be like this. Every school will have to have a defibrillator; those that do not will get a visit from me to hold their governors to account. I do not care who funds this: the council, the county council or the school governors. The Lions are also raising money. What I do care about, though, is that the defibrillator is registered with the ambulance service, which can then do the training to make sure the defibrillator is properly used.
I have been to have a look at a defibrillator, and I was photographed trying one out. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton, I know how simple they are; us simple guys, we can get it. It is easy to use one, and I can do it. However, I want to make sure the systems are good, and I want people to think them through. That is important for the kids. When I was 11, a lad in my class at school died suddenly, so I am very aware of the problem. However, I also want to make sure the community can use these defibrillators, so we are not stopping just at schools, although if a school does not want to have a defibrillator, I will name and shame them. I am sure they all want one, and some have them already, but they should all want to participate fully.
To help, the Minister could have a word with the Secretary of State for Education, as others have said. I could suggest bits of the national curriculum that could be dropped. We could lose a king or queen who is long dead, and put in a bit about defibrillators. If the Minister or the Education Secretary wants to come up with other bits of the national curriculum we could lose, I do not mind, but they should get these issues on the curriculum, so that everyone in school learns about it. In areas such as mine, the children will then go back home and teach the old folk such as me—the grandparents and all the rest of them—the skills they have; they will tell them what to do. That knowledge will spread through the community like wildfire; that is what I want.
However, there is more than that. My neighbour, the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), is well trained, and I am glad that he is, because I do not live too far from him. However, nursing homes are provided by the health service, county councils and others, and they are licensed by the CSQ—
John Mann
The Minister knows them. She could have a word with these bodies and insist that homes have a defibrillator. What are they doing employing staff who have not been trained? We should insist they train them; we should make it part of the licensing process. It costs the Government nothing; it is also good business practice for the private homes and good public practice for the publicly run homes.
However, we can do more than that. The Retford, Gainsborough and Worksop Times has agreed to back and publicise the campaign, and it is going to do a sticker. Every building—say, a shop—that has a defibrillator will get good publicity. It will not need me to go there for a photograph to launch it, although I am available, if any shop wants me; they would regard that as good publicity. They can have the Minister if they really want. The sticker will tell people the defibrillator is in the shop. To me, that is a really obvious step.
However, I want more than that. We give a lot of money to sport. Another mate of mine got taken ill playing football. I pulled my hamstring, and he thought he had pulled his, but it was far worse. Luckily, we got him to hospital, because he had a heart attack just outside it. He lived, and he is perfectly fine now. However, that made me think, and it is part of the motive behind the campaign. Where are the defibrillators and trained people in all these community sports facilities? We give these facilities money. There is the Football Foundation, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) knows well. I think it spends £30 million a year. It should be built into the small print that people should get defibrillators when they get the money for their fancy new facilities. It does not matter whether it is public money, football money or lottery money. The Minister could be raising this issue with these bodies. The Government are also rightly putting money into school sports. We could use the leverage provided by money going into sport to say that defibrillators should be part of the deal. If we do that, we will get them without the Government having to put in lots of money; indeed, if they follow my suggestions, they will not have to put in any money.
I have two other suggestions that are also cost-free. On the planning system, people are always asking for planning permission. We have heard how the system can work against what we are trying to do, but, used sensibly, it can work for us. If someone wants to get planning permission to set up a new shop, a new factory or a new community centre, having a defibrillator should be built into the planning conditions; that is really simply, and it does not cost the state anything. Yes, it will take some time to make that happen, but we can establish the principle in council policy, and that is what we want to achieve with our campaign in Bassetlaw. People will retrofit. They will jump the gun.
Like me, the Minister is a good friend of the unions, and it would be great if the shop steward and the health and safety rep negotiated to ensure that every workplace with such a representative—it will tend to be the bigger workplaces—has a defibrillator. Indeed, it might be more than one if we are talking about some of the big workplaces in my area, which employ 1,000 to 2,000 people. There might be plenty of trained people throughout the work force who know what to do. That is an easy win; it is good publicity. Those suggestions are all cost-free for the Government.
[Mr Gary Streeter in the Chair]
I have a final suggestion. The Minister will like this, because it suits her area, just as it suits mine. I have about 80 parish councils in my area, and they are elected—well, allegedly, because there is never an election in most of them. However, through the democratic process, they are anointed as the village representatives. I shall contact them and go to those who are reticent. Every parish councillor should be trained up. Every parish, every village and every estate should know where the defibrillators are and publicise them so that everybody else knows.
If we get our act together, we can do something significant, without it costing the Government money. It is pure coincidence that Bassetlaw’s campaign is happening now. We waited until we had won our ambulance campaign. I did not want people going round saying, “You’re only doing this because you lost your ambulance stations.” No, the proposals are additional to the professional staff at the ambulance stations and all their brilliance. Now that my area has won its ambulance station campaign, we can deal with our defibrillator campaign properly and efficiently. We will name and shame.
I invite the Minister to come up to be photographed with a business or a parish council, or with councillors and county councillors who have donated a bit of money to assist the process. She can be photographed with me and them; it will be a great photo. However, I hope she will take these proposals forward, which are cost-neutral to the Government, and use leverage to get them moving.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on securing this important debate. I also congratulate the OK Foundation, as well as all the other small charities and groups of families and friends of people who have been saved or, sadly, lost their lives, on all the work they do in campaigning and fundraising for defibrillators and for life-saving skills to be taught in schools. I also congratulate charities such as the British Heart Foundation, the Arrhythmia Alliance, the Red Cross and St John Ambulance service for campaigning on the issue.
Each year 150,000 people die in incidents where their lives could be saved if only someone knew what to do, and 30,000 people have a cardiac arrest outside hospital. Many of those people could be saved if bystanders knew what to do, if someone started CPR immediately and if there was a defibrillator available. I want to talk about the chain of survival and the importance of someone starting CPR.
With every minute that passes in a cardiac arrest the chance of survival falls by 10%. CPR increases the chance of survival and prolongs the time a person remains in a shockable condition. If a defibrillator is used to administer a shock the survival rate increases to 50%. On “Casualty” it looks as if CPR makes people suddenly awaken and sit up. Of course, it does not. CPR simply keeps blood and oxygen pumping around the body, which means that the heart can still be shocked back into a rhythm. All the time someone is not breathing, and their heart is not pumping, part of their body and brain is dying. CPR keeps people alive and keeps them going until they can be shocked and can get to hospital.
Teaching emergency life skills in schools and the community is
“a no brainer, it’s just common sense”.
Those are not my words, but the words of Dr Andy Lockey of the Resuscitation Council. He and another 124,665 people have called on the Government to put emergency life support skills in the curriculum for all schools. With just two hours a year we could make every school leaver a life-saver. Those two hours a year could save some of the 150,000 people a year who die in situations where their lives could be saved.
The country looked on in horror just over a year ago, when Fabrice Muamba was playing for Bolton Wanderers against Tottenham and suffered a cardiac arrest. Fabrice was lucky, because he had his cardiac arrest in a public place where there were trained first aiders; because the paramedics were knowledgeable enough to give him immediate CPR on the pitch, so that his brain was saved; and because the medics did not give up, but worked on him for 78 minutes until his heart restarted. Just because he was with people who knew what to do, he survived. Fabrice is campaigning for emergency life support skills to be taught in schools, and for defibrillators to be available in public places. He joined those of us who took the British Heart Foundation’s petition, which was signed by the 124,665 people, to Downing street.
My sister’s friend Malcolm McCormick was also lucky. In April last year he went to school to pick up his grandchildren, and keeled over—effectively dead, not breathing, with his heart not beating. Malcolm was lucky because one of the people waiting to collect their children was a retained firefighter, who gave him CPR; because once a month another firefighter volunteers in the school tuck shop, and it was his Friday to work, so he came out and took control of the situation; and because a defibrillator was available, and he was rushed to a specialist hospital. Malcolm left hospital three days later with very sore ribs; but he was alive, with his brain intact. Four months later he was fit enough to be a games maker at the Paralympics.
Andrew Percy
Earlier I failed to mention the role of retained firefighters. An initiative by Humberside fire and rescue service is starting this month; retained firefighters in some east Yorkshire communities will respond to the issues that the hon. Lady is outlining. Does she agree that we need a broader debate about what the emergency services do? Perhaps there is a role for members of the fire service. There are some in the fire service who will not allow vehicles with defibrillators fitted to be dispatched or used in relevant situations, although they are standing there while there are no ambulances nearby. We must address that.
Julie Hilling
I agree that we need to maximise the use of knowledge and equipment in the community. I will talk later about the consortium in Bolton, in which the agencies are working together on getting defibrillators in place, and teaching people ELS.
There are many inspiring stories of people who have saved lives, many of whom are young people. I have talked about them several times in Parliament, but I want now to mention a young woman I met a couple of weeks ago. I was honoured to meet 15-year-old Samantha Hobbs with her parents when she came for a meeting with an Education Minister, which, sadly was cancelled, but can hopefully be rescheduled. One morning last year, Samantha woke to hear her father on the telephone to the emergency services, telling them that he thought her mum was already dead. Samantha did not hesitate. Even though her mum felt cold to the touch, she started CPR. Of course, CPR is very tiring and after a few minutes she was exhausted, so she showed her father what to do and coached him to take over, although he had never had any training. Thanks to Samantha her mum survived and is alive today; she came to Parliament with her daughter. She is alive because Samantha learned life-saving skills at her swimming club. They are campaigning for all children to be taught how to save a life.
I have been working hard to get ELS included in the national curriculum. I even introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to ask the Government to do it, but they are stubbornly resisting that common-sense move; so I am trying to ensure that every young person leaving school in my constituency and throughout Bolton leaves school a life-saver. The work is being done with the North West ambulance service, Bolton Wanderers community trust, Greater Manchester fire and rescue service, Bolton council, the British Heart Foundation and the Arrhythmia Alliance. We are enabling all schools to teach ELS, providing training in the community and campaigning for defibrillators in public places. The campaign has been wonderfully supported by The Bolton News, which has been running a campaign alongside it. We are making progress, but it would be so much better if the Government would take action.
Why cannot defibrillators be made compulsory, like fire extinguishers? Far too many companies and organisations are worried about the consequences of having a defibrillator. No one has ever successfully been sued for attempting to save someone’s life. As so many hon. Members have said, a defibrillator cannot be used on a person unless they are in a shockable condition. It tells the user what to do: where to put the pads and whether a shock can be administered. Companies, businesses and community groups should be far more worried about how they would feel about someone dying, when if they had only invested in a defibrillator and someone had known what to do, they could have saved them.
Will the Minister talk to her colleagues in the Department for Education about making the teaching of ELS compulsory? Will she ensure that health authorities provide teaching of those skills to the public? Will she work with colleagues to legislate for defibrillators in public places? The Government could save 150,000 lives a year. I cannot imagine anything worse than seeing a loved one collapse, and finding out afterwards that I could have saved them if I had known what to do. I have, I hope, made sure that that will not happen to me; I have become a Heartstart tutor. However, we need to give all people the skills, confidence and tools to save lives. As a firefighter in my area said, “When someone’s heart stops, they are dead. You can’t make them any deader, but you could save their life.”
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
We have heard some outstanding speeches this afternoon, and a good deal of consensus, which I am sure will be encouraging for the thousands, indeed millions, of people throughout the country who are campaigning on the issue that we are discussing. We must not forget that we are here for this debate because 110,000 people have signed a petition, in the belief that lives can be saved if Parliament will give the issue more attention and make changes. The debate would not be happening without the outstanding campaigning efforts of the OK Foundation and other heart organisations. I pay tribute in particular to Councillor Jake Morrison, one of the youngest councillors in the country and a shining example of the difference that councillors can make when they dedicate themselves to a campaign.
If it does nothing else, today’s debate will have achieved something, because the official record will contain a permanent memorial to Oliver King, and to the other young people mentioned in the debate, whose lives have tragically been lost. I want the debate to achieve far more than that, however, which is why I am leading for the Opposition today. I want today to be the start of a parliamentary journey in which the issues we are debating here will soon move to the Floor of the House and then, finally, into legislation supported, I hope, by a cross-party campaign. The debate is changing in the country. Every Member of this House will have seen campaigns in their local paper when lives have been lost, and those campaigns are calling for something to be done. It is now time for Parliament to show more leadership on the issue, which we have brought up the parliamentary agenda, and to make changes that will save lives.
We have heard from many hon. Members today, and the attendance of so many Members, not all of whom have spoken, shows the level of interest within Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) introduced the debate with a customarily outstanding speech, and he set out the issues very clearly. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) spoke from personal experience, and given his commitment, we should all listen to what he has to say. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) and my hon. Friends the Members for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper), for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) have all made outstanding speeches.
The reason why people talk with such conviction and passion is that we have all seen the devastating effect of the unexpected loss of a life, particularly of a young person, but not necessarily so because this affects young and old. People have seen the inexplicable grief that a family feel when someone is brought down in their prime, often at the peak of their powers, playing sport.
That was certainly the case with Daniel Young in my constituency. He died in 2005 playing football for Leigh RMI football club. He was an outstanding young footballer, and at the time his mother, Dionne, told me that she bought everything for him to make his young football career a success. He had all the latest gear, but she said, “If somebody had just told me to pay for a screening test, it would have been the best £30 I could ever have spent, but I didn’t know anything about it. I didn’t know he was at risk.” My journey began there, and I started to look into the issue.
When I held office in the Department of Health, I asked the Department to look at the issue and to consider the case for screening, as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton. While that work has been taking place, we have sadly seen further tragedies. Of course, we have spoken today about the loss of Oliver in Liverpool. He was another outstanding young sportsman whose talent was taken away from us. Oliver’s dad, Mark, was in a similar position to my constituent: he was not warned about the potential risks and, obviously, I am sure he now thinks about that all the time.
Close to my constituency, we have also recently lost a very young boy. Ciaran Geddes was seven years old, and he died in April 2012 playing football on his own. He was a member of the Winwick junior football club, who play in the same Warrington junior league in which my son used to play. That brings it very close to home, and it was such a young life. Ciaran’s mum, Marika, is now campaigning through the Ciaran’s Cause charity, which has given 27 defibrillators to schools across Warrington, with 10 more to be given soon. Marika says that, with every defibrillator the charity gives, she feels that Ciaran lives on. Three of the defibrillators donated to schools by the Oliver King Foundation have already been used, which brings home just how important it is to support those campaigns.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton West and for Liverpool, Walton have said, we all saw the case of Fabrice Muamba—what an inspiring story that is —which shows just what can be achieved, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley said, he was saved only because he fell at a premier league football ground. Obviously, he did almost die, but he survived because he was at the ground and because back-up was on hand. The poor kids who fall at grass-roots football locations are not so lucky, but simple support could be in place that might save many more lives.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I tried to be here for the start of the debate to hear the speeches that have been made on this most important subject.
There have been a number of high-profile deaths of young sportspeople on playing fields in Northern Ireland, where we have a very high rate of death by cardiac arrest anyway. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that there have been positive outcomes from those tragedies—we have heard of examples from across England—and in Northern Ireland a new community resuscitation strategy has been launched that aims to train people in emergency life support and to provide more defibrillators. So, positives are coming out of those tragedies, and we must all redouble our efforts, as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) said, to press people to really deliver.
Andy Burnham
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely spot on, because we see incredible activity across all four nations of the United Kingdom in the wake of those tragedies. Communities are pulling together, raising funds and donating defibrillators to schools and sports clubs, which brings me to my main point: leadership is now needed at national level to co-ordinate that activity and to bring clarity to the whole situation so that the public know where to find a defibrillator and how to use one. I hope I can persuade the Government to work with Opposition Front Benchers on that. There is no politics involved here; this is about saving lives where we can and doing things to make human progress in this country. Other countries are more focused than we have been, and because of that they are saving more lives.
My feeling is that provision is too random at the moment—it is happening in some places and not in others—and we need clarity on policy at a national level so that we can piggyback on all those local campaigns to make progress. I do not think there is a funding issue, because communities will find the money to put these things in the right places, but we must know where they need to go.
It is crucial to understand that, with the best will in the world, the ambulance service is often unable to make a difference for the people who sadly fall in a busy shopping centre, railway station or sports ground. Why? Because they are unable to get there within the Government target time of eight minutes, which is too late. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West said, it is about that chain of survival; it is about equipping people with the knowledge and the kit at local level to start making a difference so that, when the professionals arrive, there is somebody there to save. That is what we have to do.
If we look at the statistics, 12 young people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton said, die from sudden cardiac arrest in the UK every week. We underplay that problem. Until recently, the Department of Health NHS Choices website stated that the figure was 12 young people a year. The figure was corrected after it was pointed out to the Department, but it is important that the problem is not underestimated.
The clinching fact for why we should do more is that across the world, survival rates are very variable. According to the British Heart Foundation, in this country between 2% and 12% of people who suffer a sudden cardiac arrest survive, which is way too low. Elsewhere, in Seattle, as has been said, 50% of people survive, and in Japan, a public access campaign for AEDs has resulted in an immediate increase in rates of survival with minimum neurological impairment for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests.
The evidence is absolutely clear, so what about policy? What did we do while we were in Government? We must be honest. I am not here to say that we did everything right, but we did something. On the back of the focus on heart services, we introduced the national defibrillator programme in the middle of the last decade. It made a modest amount of funds available to purchase defibrillators to give to local organisations. However, I think that a mistake was made. As the programme was wound down, responsibility was passed to ambulance services.
There are two ways of looking at that. On the one hand, ambulance services have been doing brilliant work ever since as they have taken on the responsibility to improve communities’ capacity to respond. It is fantastic to see representatives of the ambulance service here today. I have certainly been impressed by what I have seen in the north-west. The team there is working with communities across the region to build their capacity to respond. The ambulance service has done good work, but national focus on the issue was lost when responsibility was passed down to the ambulance services, and we must acknowledge that.
That brings me to the crux of what I wanted to say, particularly to the Minister. I think that, between us, we can develop a set of simple policy calls that could make a difference and save lives. I will identify three in particular. As hon. Members have said, there is a compelling case for putting emergency life skills on the national curriculum and for making time available, perhaps as part of the personal, social, health and economic education component, to provide training for all young people. No young person should leave school without knowing how to provide CPR and use a defibrillator, because it is not all about defibrillators or CPR—the two together are important. If we train young people in those skills, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw said, they will go home and talk to others about them.
I have seen what the British Heart Foundation does in schools. The courses that it delivers for young children are outstanding. It would be easy to add such courses to the national curriculum. My children tell me all the things that they are doing in school: the things that they are learning to make in home economics, and the kings and queens that they know about. It is odd that we do not ensure that every young person in this country leaves school at 16 knowing how to save a life. What more basic skill could we give them during their school years?
Andrew Percy
On the right hon. Gentleman’s attack on kings and queens, as a former history teacher, I attach importance to learning about them. An easy way to do what he suggests without crowding the curriculum too much would be simply to require all PE teachers to have the training, so that they can disseminate it as part of PE, which is required all the way through school. It would be a simple way to teach it without crowding the curriculum.
Andy Burnham
Let me make it clear that I want children to learn about kings and queens. Yes, it must be possible. We are talking about a one-off course lasting a couple of hours. Surely it is possible to find the time to deliver it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion is one way to do so. My point is that every child should leave with a certificate to say that they have done the course, they know how to use the skills and they are confident in using them.
Julie Hilling
A number of schools across Bolton West are already teaching emergency life support skills and Heartstart skills through the British Heart Foundation. They are teaching those skills in different ways: some are using half an hour during the registration period; some are teaching it as part of PE; some are teaching it as part of biology. There are multiple places within the curriculum, but the important thing is that they are taught as essential skills. Schools can then work out where best to teach them. They can be taught in half-hour blocks, and two hours a year is nothing.
Andy Burnham
My hon. Friend is right. Let schools decide, but let us make it a clear legal requirement that they teach those skills. That is how to make a difference: by having a population that is much more educated in emergency first aid and CPR. The difference that it can make is huge. The Department for Education appears to be highly resistant; I do not know why. Surely we could link it to science or biology. Surely there are ways to deliver that teaching that are not irrelevant to the rest of the curriculum. That is our first request. Can we have a clear requirement?
Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton asked, is there not a case for a screening programme, particularly for at-risk young people, such as those who play lots of sport? I know that the UK National Screening Committee has considered the issue, partly because I asked it to, but still no firm recommendations have been made. Will the Minister consider it? It could be delivered for incredibly small amounts of resource in NHS terms; a screening test costs about £30 pounds. It should be available to any parent who wants to make use of it, particularly for young people who play sport every week. My son plays a lot of sport, and I watch him play every week. I have still not had him tested. It crosses my mind all the time that perhaps I should. It should be an easy thing to do; it should not be hard to find. The time has come to provide more screening.
My third and main point is to ask the Minister to give serious consideration to setting a minimum legal requirement for the number of defibrillators in public places. The time has come for that to be required by law. Hon. Members have referred to fire extinguishers and smoke alarms. There comes a point when technology allows something to be made much more widely available in public places and buildings, and I believe that we have reached that point with defibrillators.
Mr George Howarth
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that workplaces could be added to the list?
Andy Burnham
I am sure they could. That is my appeal to the Government. I am not being prescriptive and saying that I want this, that or the other. A compelling case has been made for schools because of the loss of young lives. Shopping centres are also a possibility because of the footfall, as are train stations, airports and so on, and workplaces, particularly where people are under the extra pressure of carrying out intense physical activity.
The Government can advise on what the minimum requirement might be, but it is important to have one. Then we would have national clarity on where the public can expect to find a defibrillator. They would know where to locate one, because defibrillators would be required by law. Communities are crying out for it, and we do not have clarity at the moment. Earlier in the debate, someone asked where we would find a defibrillator in Parliament. I would not know. We need to start thinking about clarity and signage. If we did so, we might be able to have a national open register of defibrillators. It is not beyond the wit of man to ensure through an app on a phone that people in a situation where somebody had fallen could find out in real time, via modern technology, where the nearest defibrillator was. An effort could then be made to locate it as soon as possible.
Such things could be done. Lives could be saved. There is no excuse for complacency. We are not talking about huge amounts of money. This House could apply its mind to the issue, bring a little more focus to it and make proportionate and sensible requirements for where defibrillators must be located. Those locations could be publicised, and the public could be educated about how to use them. Why are we not doing it? We should be. I am not making a political point; I am being as critical of our time in government as I am of the current Government. We should be doing it. The case for action is unanswerable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton has done us all a huge service by requesting this debate, which is long overdue. Other countries are way ahead of us in putting a proper, thought-through policy in place at every level: education, screening, prevention, and response through public access to defibrillators. My three requests can be given fair consideration by the Minister; if she were to act, we would secure something momentous for the people who have campaigned so vigorously on the issue over recent years. They know and people outside know that it is right to make a change, and some communities are just getting on and doing so; they are not even waiting for Parliament to do something, and that alone should be enough to make us think and act. If we made a commitment now, I am certain that in a matter of years we would see those statistics improve and more lives being saved which, at the end of the day, is the best memorial we can give to Oliver King, Ciaron Geddes, Daniel Young and all the young people who have tragically lost their lives.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter.
I thank everyone who has spoken in this excellent debate. A debate normally consists of one side of an argument versus the other side, but today we have had an outbreak of agreement and there has been no one side or the other. The debate is also momentous because I can say with my hand on my heart that I found myself in agreement with not only my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) but, most concerning, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), with whom I share history, because I was born and brought up in his constituency. I would be absolutely delighted to take up the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to visit, because it means a great deal to me. To be serious, however, because I was being flippant, this has been a good debate. I pay tribute to all those who signed the online petition and particularly to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) who opened the debate so well. He spoke with great passion and feeling and with considerable knowledge. We have had a good debate because of the outbreak of agreement and some well formed speeches, based on real argument, facts and figures, as well as on constituents’ experience.
Where are we? We all agree that defibrillators are good things; many hon. Members have spoken about the role that they can play and how we need considerably more of them. We all agree that we need more people trained in their use and in CPR and all manner of emergency measures for someone in a life-threatening situation. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) on her speech; she explained how training our children could bring us real benefits in the number of people trained, which would mean more lives being saved. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole, who spoke about his experiences as a community first responder and about how volunteers from the community, not only young people at school, could be trained in such skills. He gave some good examples of how effectively such a programme could be rolled out. Other hon. Members talked about the value of screening and, for example, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) for his comments on the need for screening.
Unfortunately, I am going to be somewhat of a fly in this otherwise rather pleasant ointment, because I do not agree with everything said about legislation. My view is that we do not need legislation. We already have all manner of programmes locally. I am not denying that our system is patchy and that some parts of the country are clearly doing a far better job than others, but it is understandable why the previous Government decided to put defibrillators and training down to the local ambulance trusts: they know their communities best and they are the people to ensure delivery, to the best of their abilities, to meet the needs of their communities.
I usually flinch from legislation, because it can take a long time to go through this place and because when we start to be prescriptive, we can run into all sorts of dangers. We have accepted that different communities have different needs, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw for his compelling case for defibrillator training to be rolled out through our communities, depending on the nature of the community. For example, his constituency has a large number of parish councils—mine does not have as many, but it matters not—and he discussed putting pressure on and working and campaigning with the parish councils to start installing defibrillators. The parish councils can look at their own communities and at what would suit the needs of those communities. He then made a good point about work forces and the possibility of defibrillators in every place with more than a certain number of employees, and that is where the debate begins, because the difficulty with legislation lies in whether we look at a workplace with 50, 100 or 1,000 employees. The hon. Gentleman described how he could work with the trade unions in his patch and in effect, as a result, roll out a campaign of asking the work forces whether they think something is a good idea in a particular workplace or not in another. If we begin to prescribe, however, we will not deliver the sort of service that we want.
Andy Burnham
I realise the situation is slightly unusual: the Minister is defending the policy of the previous Government and I am asking her to reconsider and to go further. She said that ambulance services are best placed because they understand their communities. I partly agree, but the problem is that ambulance services do not have the power to insist on defibrillators going where they are most needed. The ambulance services are not the planning authority or the owners of the big buildings; they can only use persuasion and cannot ensure that defibrillators go where they really need to go, where lives can be saved. That is why legislation is necessary. If she is worried about overly burdensome legislation, it could start with a simple requirement to have a defibrillator publicly available in towns of, for example, 30,000 or more; it could be a modest requirement to get the ball rolling, as other countries have done.
Anna Soubry
I am grateful for the intervention, but it rather makes my point. Once we stipulate, for the sake of argument towns of 30,000, we can imagine that in the towns without that level of population people will think, “Well, we’re all right, so we won’t do much work on it.” That is the problem with a more prescriptive approach.
While we are discussing ambulance services, and referring again to the speech of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, I wish to set the record straight on the East Midlands ambulance service. EMAS has been struggling for some time, with a number of difficulties that the hon. Gentleman and I are familiar with. As mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) has been involved in a campaign following the death of Joe Humphries, who did not live in her constituency but went to school there. As a result of her work, for which I am grateful, Leicestershire has 109 static defibrillators in public areas, 14 of which were installed in partnership with the Leicestershire police, and there are 24 Heartstart schools in the county.
The hon. Member for Bolton West also talked about the Heartstart scheme and its success in her area, although I can see that that may not be the case universally throughout the country. What is happening because of the debate, however, is that not only are we holding it and everything is being recorded in Hansard, but I will certainly go away and not hesitate to have that conversation with the relevant Minister in the Department for Education. An extremely forceful message has come out of this debate about the need for such training to be included in the national curriculum. I could not possibly give my own views on that, but the argument has been advanced extremely strongly and it has much merit and power.
Steve Rotheram
I was not aware that the Minister is an anti-legislationist parliamentarian.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), off the top of his head, suggested a population of 30,000 as a starting point. It does not matter whether the threshold is 30,000, 25,000 or 50,000; basically, there has to be a starting point. Even if the threshold is 30,000, once automatic external defibrillators are in place, they are there for life, and we can then start to concentrate on places with fewer than 30,000 people. We could do that for large factories or organisations before we go to the small ones. There is no magic wand and provision will not happen overnight, but we need to start somewhere.
Mr George Howarth
In some respects I share the Minister’s scepticism that legislation is always the answer; it can, on occasions, be a blunt instrument. The problem, however, is that whenever we look at what the alternative is, it is not straightforward. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) talked about parish councils, but not everywhere is covered by parish councils.
Anna Soubry
That, again, is a good point. Clearly, one size does not fit all. Every area has different needs.
Andrew Percy
The problem with looking to the ambulance services is that they do not have the money to provide defibrillators to each of their communities. I would also question whether they necessarily know their communities all that intimately, being organisers, as they are, on large, regional scales.
We have discussed areas of responsibility outside those of the Minister’s Department, but will she undertake to look at the situation of nursing homes, particularly in Texas? Will her officials contact the health department in Texas to see what impact there has been as a result of requiring defibrillators in nursing homes? Then we can come to an evidence-based decision on the matter.
Anna Soubry
My hon. Friend’s point is, again, good and well made. I am glad that we worked out which part of the United States it was that something good could be said about in this respect. I am more than happy to take his point away, as one of the many ideas that hon. Members have suggested in this debate, and see whether we can consider in any way, be it making provision mandatory or issuing guidance to nursing homes and other institutions—[Interruption.] I think my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole said that he was going to send it to me. I will be interested in anything that ever comes across my desk. I will give it due consideration and pass it on, if necessary, to those who have responsibility for nursing homes in the Department of Health. As I said, it is a good idea.
One could argue that only a limited number of hon. Members have participated in today’s debate. We should stop here for a moment, because all the Members who have spoken have come from the standpoint of having experienced someone—normally a child—dying suddenly from a heart attack. That touches people in a raw way, because it involves a child. Mercifully, out of all the horrors and badness invariably comes something good, which is a point raised by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). Hon. Members have raised many examples of the good that has come out of the terrible and tragic loss of a young life.
Julie Hilling
Does the Minister agree that we should take some of the luck out of the issue? Fabrice, Malcolm and Mrs Hobbs were lucky, but Oliver was not. We need to take the luck out of the issue, to ensure that people who suffer a sudden cardiac arrest have a good chance of survival. We can do that only if we have some sort of legislation that says, “You must have defibs and you must do training.”
Anna Soubry
I have given my reasons for why I do not believe legislation, at the present time, is the answer. I agree with the hon. Lady that a lot of the matter depends on luck. Certain areas seem to offer a better service than others because of some unfortunate tragedy that has befallen them. With the Oliver King Foundation and many other charities that we have heard about today, people have come together and raised money to install defibrillators or to ensure that school children receive the right sort of training.
We heard examples of the work of mayors. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) talked about the work of the mayor in his constituency, and the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) spoke about the work that had been done in her constituency by the mayor. She also mentioned the death of a young man and the work that his family has done as a result to ensure that other youngsters did not suffer a similar fate, and that the things that should be in place were there.
Andrew Percy
Again on legislation, I agree with the Minister’s point that we want a mixed approach to the matter, but if we expect communities to take charge of the matter themselves, we must understand that some communities do not have the capacity to do so. They might not be able to raise money quite as easily as more middle-class and better-off areas can. Some communities might be slightly better organised because they have a parish council speaking for them. We must bear in mind that not every community will have the resources or the individuals who feel confident enough to raise money for such provision.
Anna Soubry
My hon. Friend’s point is another well made point.
I will return to where this debate started—the subject of sudden adult death syndrome. Starting with screening, often when there has been a case of a sudden cardiac arrest, many people say, “Screening will have a big impact in the future.” As the right hon. Member for Leigh will know, the UK National Screening Committee, an independent expert body that advises Ministers about all aspects of screening, assesses the evidence for screening against a set of internationally recognised criteria. No doubt that is why the right hon. Gentleman listened to and followed its advice, which is that, while screening has a potential to save lives, it is not a foolproof process. The footballer Fabrice Muamba suffered cardiac arrest, and many of us will remember what happened to him at the game. We have heard many people describe the amazing medical assistance that he was given—I cannot remember for how long he was unconscious, but it was an incredibly long time—and that young man has made a remarkable recovery. However, I am told that he had received several screening tests throughout his career.
In 2008, the UK NSC reviewed the evidence for screening for the most common cause of sudden death in those under the age of 30, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, including looking at athletes and young people who participated in sport. A number of the cases that we have heard today involved, invariably, young men or boys who died while playing sport, notably football. The UK NSC concluded that the evidence did not support the introduction of screening. Sudden cardiac death is a complex condition and is difficult to detect through screening; there is no single test that can detect all the conditions, nor is it possible to say which abnormalities will lead to sudden cardiac death. However, in line with its three-yearly review policy, the UK NSC is again reviewing the evidence. This time the review will go further than only looking at the evidence for screening for HCM and will cover screening for the major causes of sudden cardiac death in young people between the ages of 12 and 39. The review will take into account the most up-to-date international evidence, including evidence from Italy, where screening is currently offered to athletes between the ages of 12 and 35.
There will be an opportunity to participate in the review process later this year, when a copy of the latest review will be open for public consultation on the UK NSC’s website. No doubt, a number of the organisations and charities that we have heard about today will take part in that consultation. I am told that although screening is not routinely available in England, work to prevent premature death from cardiovascular disease is a priority, as it should be.
On 5 March, the cardiovascular disease outcomes strategy—not exactly words that trip off the tongue—was published. It sets out a range of actions to reduce premature mortality for those with, or at risk of, cardiovascular disease. The NHS Commissioning Board will work with the Resuscitation Council, the British Heart Foundation and others to promote the site mapping and registration of defibrillators, and to look at ways of increasing the numbers trained in using them. I pay tribute to the foundation, which a number of hon. Members have mentioned, and rightly so, as we are all grateful for its work in, for example, placing defibrillators in Liverpool primary schools. That is, no doubt, because of the outstanding work of the Oliver King Foundation.
Ambulance trusts have had responsibility for the provision of defibrillators since 2005, and in my view they are best placed to know what is needed in their local area. However, it is important to recognise that defibrillators help only in a minority of cases. The majority of out-of-hospital heart attacks—up to 80%—happen in the home. Bystander CPR doubles survival rates, but it is only attempted in 20% to 30% of cases. It is clear that although defibrillators play an important part, we have to bear in mind, as I said, that 80% of heart attacks, if they do not happen in hospital, happen at home, and I absolutely concede that there is a real need for an increase in the amount of people trained in CPR, because we know that that also plays a hugely important part in ensuring that people who have a heart attack survive it.
When there is a sudden cardiac death, we need to take action to ensure that potentially affected family members are identified and offered counselling and testing to see if they are also at risk. We know that that does not always happen. There are continuing discussions with the chief coroner for England to determine how coroners’ services might help in the identification of potentially affected family members, so that more lives can be saved. The national clinical director for heart disease, Professor Gray, will work with all relevant stakeholders to develop and spread good practice around sudden cardiac death.
In conclusion, I will wait to see the latest recommendation from the UK NSC, following its latest review of evidence. The national clinical director for heart disease will continue to promote good practice and awareness around sudden cardiac death. However, as I have said before—forgive me for repeating myself—I will ensure that I speak to the relevant Minister at the Department for Education about all the arguments that have been advanced today for training in CPR and life-saving techniques to be part of the national curriculum. It is my understanding that that particular part of it is under review, and I will impress on him or her how strongly Members have spoken today.
Again, I thank everybody, especially those who signed the petition, for bringing the debate into this place and, effectively, for shining a spotlight on the matter. I hope that hon. Members will take the issue to their local press, as I am sure they will, and that the national press might also look at it. It is absolutely right that the more we ventilate it, the better the situation will be.
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
In debates of this kind, the mover of the motion may have a few moments to summarise or respond at the end.
Steve Rotheram
Thank you, Mr Streeter. First, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for taking part in the debate on behalf of the campaigners, and obviously I thank the campaigners, who have made a long journey in certain cases to come to Parliament today to hear what we have been saying and what the Minister has been saying. Can I just pick the Minister up on one point? It is very important to some people here; we have a doctor and other medical staff here. She continually made reference to heart attacks; I think that what she meant was cardiac arrests, which are a very different thing.
Steve Rotheram
I just wanted to put that on the record.
Many excellent points have been raised in the debate. What we have seen demonstrated during the past three hours is the clear and absolute desire for Parliament to act. I understand that the Minister has a difficult job. There are obstacles and challenges to overcome in relation to cardiac arrest and SADS, including raising awareness and overcoming people’s initial fear of helping someone who has sustained a cardiac arrest. The hope is that this debate will have teased out some of those things.
We have also heard about a number of issues that are not directly relevant to the Minister’s remit, so she may well have to have conversations not just with the relevant Education Minister, but with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and certainly with the Department for Communities and Local Government in relation to the planning issues. However, that does not mean that she or the Government can abrogate their responsibilities. As has been highlighted, some of these things are cost-neutral; they just need action. We are not asking for money or, at worst, they cost very little. They simply require political will.
A few weeks ago, after the debate was announced, I received numerous phone calls and e-mails from organisations and charities that have been campaigning for years on this issue, so it is only right that they receive recognition for their efforts. Therefore, in praising again the efforts of the OK Foundation, I would also like to pay tribute to SADS UK, the British Heart Foundation, Cardiac Risk in the Young, the London Ambulance Service, Hearts and Goals, the Arrhythmia Alliance, the North West Ambulance Service, AED Locator, the Community HeartBeat Trust, Kays Medical and Liverpool football club and the great Steven Gerrard, the England captain, who has also recently come on board and lent his support—my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) is shaking his head.
There is growing momentum for action, and campaigners will not give up on this issue until progress is made. Including first aid training in the school curriculum would take up 0.2% of the timetable, but have an incalculable value.
Andy Burnham
Can I add my own tribute to the organisations—most of them—that my hon. Friend has just listed? Obviously, we do not doubt the Minister’s good will, but I think that we will have been disappointed by the response, particularly on the issue of legislation. With that in mind, may I encourage my hon. Friend to return to the Backbench Business Committee and make a request to bring this issue to the Floor of House? It seems to me that Parliament might take a different view from the Government on the need for legislation. I think that we should try to test the mind of Parliament on this issue. I hope that my hon. Friend will not be put off and will pursue his campaign in that direction.
Steve Rotheram
I am happy to confirm to my right hon. Friend that I think that, following the discussion that I will have immediately after this debate, the next step will be for us to push the Backbench Business Committee for a further debate in the main Chamber so that we push this issue to a vote, because I genuinely believe that defibs will save thousands of lives every year. No one in their right mind doubts that, so it is for the Government to show their resolve and to back the campaigners. A national lead is needed on this issue. We have not been given that today, so we will push in the future for that lead.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the e-petition relating to preventable cardiac deaths arising from Sudden Adult Death Syndrome.
Written Ministerial Statements
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The McKay Commission
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)
In January 2012, the Government announced the establishment of a Commission to consider how the House of Commons might deal with legislation which affects only part of the United Kingdom, following the devolution of certain legislative powers to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales. Today, the Commission has published its report and I have placed a copy in the House Library.
The Government have made clear their commitment to maintaining the UK and to making sure that the devolution settlements work. The Government are very grateful to Sir William McKay and his colleagues for setting out how the House of Commons might deal with legislation which affects only part of the United Kingdom. The report represents a positive step forward. This is a very important issue, which is why the Government asked this expert Commission to look into it. We will consider seriously and constructively this report and provide a substantive response to it in due course.
Defence Estate Rationalisation
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)
The strategic defence and security review (SDSR), announced in October 2010, marked the start of the process of transforming defence and identified the need for rationalisation of the defence estate. This included the sale of surplus land and buildings and the delivery of associated running cost reductions. The Army basing plan announcement by the Secretary of State on 5 March 2013, enabling the return from Germany and implementation of Army 2020, indicated that there would be a further announcement concerning other changes elsewhere in the Ministry of Defence (MOD) estate across the UK.
Today I am providing an update to the House on the results of work to implement the SDSR’s commitments on rationalisation and on unit relocations on the wider defence estate. Service and civilian personnel at the affected locations will be briefed; we will also engage with the trade unions where appropriate. This work will now be taken forward into detailed planning.
Lightning II Aircraft Basing at RAF Marham
Our first two Lightning II aircraft (joint strike fighter) are currently participating in the US test programme and will remain in the US. We expect to receive front-line aircraft from 2015 onwards with an initial operating capability from land in 2018, followed by first of class flights from HMS Queen Elizabeth later that year.
I can now inform the House of the outcome of the further basing review recently undertaken in respect of the Lightning II aircraft.
Following the SDSR, a number of changes have occurred on the defence estate that justified a further review of the basing options for Lightning II. This review has concluded that RAF Marham is the most appropriate station for the main operating base. Given that RAF Lossiemouth will now host three squadrons of Typhoon and given the altered draw-down profile and out of service date for Tornado (in line with the SDSR decision to concentrate our fast jet fleet on Typhoon and Lightning II ), RAF Marham will have sufficient capacity for the basing of Lightning II, which will be operated jointly by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Further work will now be carried out to determine the precise investment requirements as the base transitions to support Lightning II.
Draw down at RAF Leuchars
No. 1 (Fighter) Squadron and No 6 Squadron currently based at RAF Leuchars which provide the Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) (Interceptor) North role will relocate to RAF Lossiemouth beginning summer 2014, with Typhoon flying operations ceasing at RAF Leuchars during autumn 2014, following a progressive transfer of the base from the RAF to the Army. The relocation of the Typhoons from RAF Leuchars will affect 347 service personnel who will transfer from RAF Leuchars to RAF Lossiemouth, it will also affect 148 civilian staff.
No. 6 RAF Force Protection (FP) Wing Headquarters and No 58 Squadron RAF Regiment, both based at RAF Leuchars, will be disestablished, with the personnel in No. 6 RAF FP Wing Headquarters and No 58 Squadron RAF Regiment being reassigned during spring 2014. The future of the squadron number plate is yet to be determined. This will affect 183 military posts. Those personnel will be reassigned to other RAF force protection tasks across the UK.
Relocation of flying units resulting in the closure of the airfield at RAF Wyton
Due to the significant running costs associated with maintenance of an operational airfield at RAF Wyton, it has been decided to relocate the flying units based there. No. 57(R) Squadron, who undertake elementary flying training (EFT), will relocate from RAF Wyton to RAF Cranwell by the summer of 2013. The relocation of Cambridge and London University Air Squadrons (UAS) and No. 5 Air Experience Flight (AEF) to RAF Wittering is planned by mid-2014, once preparatory work has been completed. We are working closely with the Homes and Communities Agency on the possibility of them acquiring part of the Wyton airfield since it has potential for new housing growth as identified in Huntingdon district council’s emerging local plan.
The opportunity has been taken to rationalise other light aircraft flying tasks in the region to achieve greater coherency and more efficient use of manpower and assets, delivering better value for money for the taxpayer. This will result in East Midlands Universities Air Squadron and No. 115(R) Squadron relocating from RAF Cranwell to RAF Wittering.
There are 18 service personnel who will be redeployed as a result of this change and two MOD civilians will be affected.
The closure of RAF Church Fenton
Reductions in the flying training pipeline, directed by the SDSR, mean that RAF Church Fenton is no longer required to host training operations and will close by the end of 2013. The units based at Church Fenton, including the Yorkshire University Air Squadron (incorporating No. 9 Air Experience Flight), will relocate; work is ongoing to determine the optimum location for the University Air Squadron.
There are five service personnel who will be redeployed as a result of this change and three MOD civilians will be affected.
Relocation of Military Scottish Air Traffic Control from Prestwick
The Military Scottish Air Traffic Control Centre (ScATCC(Mil)) currently operates from the NATS Air Traffic Control Centre at Prestwick in Ayrshire. ScATCC(Mil) controls military and some civilian air traffic within its area of responsibility, which roughly extends north from Newcastle. Technological advances mean that the system can be rationalised and it will be possible to cover the military control task for the entire country from the London Air Traffic Control Centre (LATCC(Mil)) at Swanwick. There will be no detrimental impact on air traffic control.
The phased relocation of the RAF presence from Prestwick will be completed by the end of 2013, and will be managed in consultation with NATS En-route Ltd, who will provide the necessary technical and equipment changes under the Future Military Area Radar Services contract. Around 30 service personnel will be redeployed as a result of this change, which will also impact up to six civilian personnel.
Disposal of the former airfield and technical site at Kirton in Lindsey
Following the vacation of RAF Kirton in Lindsey by No. 1 Air Control Centre (1ACC), the site has been used to house personnel employed at RAF Scampton. While this use will continue, alternative defence uses have not been identified for the former airfield and technical facilities, so a decision has now been taken to dispose of these parts of the site.
Rationalisation of Shornchffe Garrison
There is an enduring requirement for facilities at Shorncliffe Garrison. However much of the infrastructure is old, in poor condition and expensive to heat, light and maintain. MOD is therefore commencing redevelopment and rationalisation of the garrison to deliver a long-term, sustainable estate.
Shepway district council’s local development framework core strategy has identified Shorncliffe Garrison for a development of up to 1,200 homes to help regenerate the western end of Folkestone; the site will also contribute to the Government’s Plan for Growth housing strategy. Surplus land will be released in phases over the next decade.
Rationalisation of the Defence presence at MOD St Athan
In announcing the outcome of the Army basing review on 5 March 2013, the Secretary of State confirmed that 14 Signal Regiment would relocate to St Athan. This is likely to result in consolidation of the defence presence on the site into a military enclave centred on Churchill Lines (St Athan West Camp).
Discussions have been ongoing with the Welsh Government, which leases large areas of the St Athan site, to establish how defence plans can also complement economic development by enabling its aim to develop an aerospace business park within the St Athan enterprise zone. MOD has no current requirement beyond 2017 for the St Athan “Superhangar”, which will progressively be made available for commercial occupation. The intent remains to relocate No. 4 School of Technical Training from East Camp at St. Athan to Lyneham, Wiltshire in the medium term as part of the defence technical training change programme.
We also intend to move personnel of the RAF’s No. 71 Investigation and Repair Squadron from St Athan to collocate with other components of No. 42 (Expeditionary Support) Wing at RAF Wittering. The relocation of the squadron will affect 47 service personnel who will transfer to RAF Wittering. It will also affect 27 civilian staff.
The Future of MOD Ashchurch
The MOD Ashchurch site is currently the central MOD hub for vehicle operations. However, the Ashchurch depot facilities are coming to the end of their lifespan and parts of the site are no longer used. The facilities would need extensive renewal to continue effective operation, while the vehicle numbers that the site supports are reducing as a result of the SDSR. The MOD is reviewing a number of vehicle basing options and has identified opportunities for greater efficiency from relocating facilities, rather than investing in the infrastructure at the site. Consequently, MOD will be withdrawing from the site entirely unless retention of a small number of specific buildings proves better value for money.
This site has the potential capacity for up to 2,100 new homes. A public consultation has been conducted so that wider views and opinions can be taken into account in any future development.
Rationalisation of the MOD Bicester site
On 3 October 2011, the MOD made an application to Cherwell district council for outline planning permission to allow the release of the Graven Hill site at Bicester to accommodate a mixed use development, including 1,900 dwellings, and with the potential to deliver over 2,000 jobs and a new MOD logistics facility on part of the site.
Chemical Weapons Convention
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)
The UK’s chemical protection programme is designed to protect against the use of chemical weapons. The programme is permitted by the chemical weapons convention, with which the United Kingdom is fully compliant. Under the terms of the convention, we are required to provide information annually to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). In accordance with the Government’s commitment to openness, I am placing in the House of Commons Library a copy of the summary that has been provided to the organisation outlining the UK’s chemical protection programme in 2012.
Service Children's Education Executive Agency
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr Mark Francois)
I wish to inform the House that with effect from 31 March 2013, Service Children’s Education (SCE) will cease to have the status of an Executive agency within the Ministry of Defence (MOD).
SCE was formed as an Executive agency within MOD in 1996, following the merger of the Service Children’s Schools (North West Europe) Defence Agency and the Service Children’s Education Authority. The SCE mission statement is to provide a coherent and co-ordinated education service that delivers high standards of education from foundation stage to age 19 for dependent children residing with MOD personnel serving outside the UK. There are currently 33 SCE schools worldwide providing education for approximately 9,500 children.
The concept of SCE operating as a self-contained business unit has been diluted by recent changes to the defence operating model, in particular the centralisation of MOD corporate services. These changes, coupled with tighter manpower controls being applied to the agency, in common with all areas of the MOD, have meant that the efficient and effective delivery of agency objectives is now much more dependent on decisions taken elsewhere within the MOD. Moreover, the SCE operating context is changing significantly. The draw down of British Forces from Germany will see the number of SCE schools reduce, on current numbers, to 12. Managing this transformation without compromising educational standards, either in those schools that are closing or those that remain, will require sound policy decisions rooted in educational realities and informed directly by the needs of children and service families. The continued separation of policy making from delivery, as required by the agency constrict is therefore no longer helpful.
The SCE title will remain, so that the sense of a shared identity is retained by schools. The change will have no impact on teaching staff. Some rationalisation between the MOD and the SCE headquarters element will be possible. Initial savings are estimated to be in the region of £180,000 per year.
Afghanistan (Monthly Progress Report)
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I wish to inform the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, is today publishing the 25th progress report on developments in Afghanistan since November 2010.
On 3 and 4 February my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hosted a summit at Chequers, attended by the Presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan. They were joined by Foreign Ministers, Chiefs of Defence Staff, Chiefs of Intelligence, the Afghan National Security Adviser and the Chair of the Afghan High Peace Council. Key achievements included agreement on co-operation between Afghan and Pakistan military and security services, strengthened co-ordination of Taliban prisoner releases from Pakistani detention and a public statement in support of the opening of a Taliban political office in Doha.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made her first visit to Afghanistan 24-27 February. The visit focused on British-Afghan co-operation in areas including police training, counter-narcotics, counter-terrorism and migration. The Afghanistan Minister of Defence, Bismellah Mohammadi, visited the UK 24-26 February. He held discussions on the development of the Afghan National Security Forces, Institutional Development, countering the insider threat, and progress of the UK-Afghanistan-Pakistan trilateral with the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary, the Minister for the armed forces and the Chief of the Defence Staff.
The UN Assistance Mission Afghanistan reported that civilian casualties in 2012 decreased by 12% compared with 2011. Civilian deaths caused by ISAF and Afghan Forces fell from 14% of the total to 8%, while deaths caused by the insurgency rose by 9% to 81%.
In February, my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary approved £12 million from existing DFID funds to help deliver emergency food support to over 900,000 people in Afghanistan. This assistance will support activity over a five month period up June 2013 and target food insecure regions of Afghanistan to help reduce malnutrition-related rates of mortality and morbidity.
In his State of the Union Address on 14 February President Obama confirmed that the US military presence will be approximately halved over the next year, reducing to 34,000 US troops in Afghanistan to the end of 2014. The reduction in international forces is made possible by the increasing capacity and capability of the Afghan National Security Forces.
I am placing the report in the Library of the House. It will also be published on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk).
BBC Monitoring Scheme
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
Following the announcement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, 20 October 2010, Official Report, column 962 that from 2013 BBC Monitoring will be funded from the TV Licence fee, I can confirm that I will be the Cabinet Minister representing the Government’s interests with regards to BBC Monitoring. A new Monitoring Consultative Group (MCG) consisting of Government officials and BBC representatives will meet twice a year to discuss BBC Monitoring’s strategic direction, to review BBC Monitoring’s performance, and to resolve any issues as necessary.
This arrangement takes effect from 1 April 2013 and will be set out in the BBC Monitoring Scheme. I will place a copy of this “Scheme” in the Libraries of both Houses after that date.
FCO Services
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
FCO Services operates as a trading fund of the FCO. I have set the following performance targets for 2013-14:
An in-year surplus before interest and tax producing a net margin of between 1 and 5%.
A return on capital employed of at least 3.5% (weighted average).
Cost of corporate functions as a % of revenue of no more than 10%.
A utilisation rate for revenue earning staff of between 75 and 80%.
Customer satisfaction rating to be within or above the 2nd quartile in the UK Customer Satisfaction Index, as produced by the Institute of Customer Service.
Employee engagement in FCO Services using civil service survey of at least 60%.
FCO Services will report to Parliament on its success against these targets through its annual report for 2013-14.
Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will shortly commence a triennial review of the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission (MACC), to Cabinet Office guidelines. As part of the coalition agreement, all Government Departments are required to review all their non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) at least every three years. The review of MACC will commence during the final quarter of the programme (2012-13), and will be conducted in two stages. The first stage will examine the key functions of MACC. Providing the outcome of this stage is that the work of the commission should continue, the second stage of the project will ensure that MACC is operating in line with the recognised principles of good corporate governance. Copies of the review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (UK Appointed Person)
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr Jeremy Browne)
I am pleased to announce the recruitment of Mr Douglas Bain as the new appointed person for the United Kingdom, who will fulfil the requirement under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to be an independent overseer of reports on cases where a search is carried out, without prior judicial approval, on persons or property for cash that is the proceeds of unlawful conduct or intended for use in such conduct.
Mr Bain was recruited after a fair and open competition and took up the role on 3 March 2013. Mr Bain brings a wealth of relevant experience to this role and I am confident he will ensure that the use of this power is scrutinised effectively and rigorously. It was agreed with my ministerial counterparts in the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Administration that we would jointly recruit one candidate to cover all three Administrations. This will help improve the consistency in the scrutiny of this power and save the public money.
As there were no reports on cash forfeiture in 2011-12 for consideration by the appointed person for England and Wales, a separate report to Parliament under section 219 of the Proceeds of Crime act 2002 will not be laid for 2011-12.
Terrorism Suspects (Police Detention)
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
I am today commencing subsections 4 to 8 of section 117 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which provides for important enhanced safeguards for terrorist suspects in police detention. This implements a recommendation of the Government’s “Review of Counter-terrorism and Security Powers”, published in January 2011.
Independent Custody Visiting (ICV) is the well established system whereby volunteers may make unannounced visits to police stations to check on the treatment of detainees and the conditions in which they are held to ensure that their rights and entitlements are being observed. Section 117 amends section 51 of the Police Reform Act 2002, which places a statutory obligation on Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in England and Wales to have an effective Independent Custody Visiting scheme in their force area, by requiring PCCs to ensure equivalent arrangements are in place for any visit made to an individual held under terrorism powers. Independent Custody Visitors will also be required to prepare and submit a copy of the report of their visit to the relevant PCC and the Independent Reviewer Of Terrorism Legislation, currently David Anderson QC.
I have also today laid the revised Independent Custody Visitor code of practice, under section 51 of the Police Reform Act 2002. The revised code has been updated to reflect the new arrangements and requirements for ICVs visiting suspected terrorist detainees; to reflect recent changes to police accountability mechanisms, in particular the transfer of responsibility to provide ICV schemes to PCCs; and to take account of legislative changes since the code was last revised in early 2010. The revised code also benefited from a public consultation, which closed on 28 January. The revised code is available from the Vote Office and a copy of the summary of consultation responses will be placed in the House Library.
British Transport Police Authority
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
We will shortly commence a triennial review of the British Transport Police Authority (BTPA). The BTPA oversees the operation of the British transport police, set its targets, and allocates funding for its budget.
Reducing the number and cost of public bodies is a coalition priority. The triennial review process has been established to continue the Government’s work ensuring accountability in public life by examining all NDPB’s at least once every three years.
The review will be conducted as set out in Cabinet Office guidance. This review has two aims:
to provide a robust challenge of the continuing need for this NDPB—both its functions and form; and,
if it is agreed that it should remain as an NDPB, to review the control and governance arrangements in place to ensure that the public body is complying with recognised principles of good corporate governance.
Further details of the review, including detailed terms of reference, will be published shortly.
If you would like further information, or to contribute to the review, please contact Richard Davey by email (richard.davev@dfit.gsi.gov.uk)
I remain committed to the ongoing review of public bodies and my Department continues to work with the Cabinet Office to develop forward plans of reviews.
The report of the review, which is expected to be completed in six months, will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
GLA Transport Grant
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
Following consultation with the Mayor of London, I have today determined the GLA transport grant for 2013-14 at £1.988 billion.
This grant is provided by the Government to Transport for London to deliver transport services and investment in the capital, including London Underground.
In line with my predecessor’s 20 October 2010 letter to the Mayor “Spending Review 2010: TfL funding agreement” £894.960 million of this grant is designated an investment grant to support delivery of the tube upgrade programme and other projects, as set out in annex B of the 20 October letter, and the remaining £1.09 billion is for the purposes of TFL.
Grand Committee
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn)
My Lords, good afternoon. We are investigating the cold wind that seems to be blowing through the Moses Room, but I am not sure what will happen. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) (Consequential Provisions: Primary Legislation) Order 2013
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Astor of Hever
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that is has considered the Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) (Consequential Provisions: Primary Legislation) Order 2013.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, I am introducing this legislation, which provides access to additional benefits for service and ex-service personnel who are entitled to a new benefit, to be known as the Armed Forces independence payment, or AFIP, which is to be introduced on 8 April this year. The new benefit is another example of the Government delivering our commitment to uphold the Armed Forces covenant. The Armed Forces covenant has two basic principles: that those who serve in the Armed Forces and their families should face no disadvantage compared with other citizens; and that special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given most, such as the injured and the bereaved.
Only recently the Government announced that they would make £6.5 million available to spend on latest-generation prosthetics. We are also improving rehabilitation services across the country for service personnel and veterans who are amputees. We are putting in place support and help for those who have suffered serious injuries in the line of duty, and AFIP will further enhance that support. It is important that we introduce AFIP and make sure that those most seriously injured receive this support.
In my mind, there are three key features. First, AFIP will provide ongoing financial support for the most severely injured. They will not have to be assessed or reassessed to access these payments. Secondly, this will simplify and streamline the support that service and ex-service personnel receive. It means that additional support can be offered based on an assessment already performed under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme. Thirdly, all recipients will receive £134.40 per week, which will be tax-free and not means-tested. PIP will also be tax-free and not means-tested.
To explain the need for the order, it may be helpful if I provide some background to the new payment. In July 2012, the Prime Minister announced that the Government would simplify and enhance the financial support system for members of the Armed Forces who have been seriously injured, as part of the measures to uphold the Armed Forces covenant. Since that time, my department has been working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to consider how such support could be designed. This close co-operation resulted in the design of AFIP.
At the initial design stages of AFIP, we sought feedback from ex-service organisations and charities via the Central Advisory Committee on Pensions and Compensation. This was to ensure that we had input from those who represent in-service and ex-service families and the bereaved. Those whom we contacted included the Royal British Legion, the War Widows’ Association, the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen’s Association and Combat Stress, as well as service members. The feedback received was valuable and helped inform the final design of AFIP.
Who will get this new benefit and the additional access to benefits that will accompany it? All service and ex-service personnel seriously injured since 6 April 2005 will be eligible. To clarify, the “seriously injured” are defined as those awarded a guaranteed income payment of 50% or more under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme. It is important to note that AFIP will cover those with both permanent physical and mental injuries caused by service. It is the level of AFCS award that provides eligibility for AFIP. No additional assessment is undertaken and no further reassessment is required. This will provide ongoing financial security for the most severely injured. All those eligible will receive a flat-rate, ongoing payment of £134.40 per week. This will be tax-free and will not be means-tested. AFIP is to be introduced on 8 April this year. Seriously injured service and ex-service personnel who claim AFIP cannot also claim other disability benefits from the Department for Work and Pensions, including disability living allowance, personal independence payment and attendance allowance, no two of which can be claimed at the same time.
Other disability cost benefits, such as personal independence payment and disability living allowance, are used to provide access to a number of other benefits, schemes and services that are offered by other government departments, devolved Administrations and local authorities. These are often referred to in this context as passports. To ensure that AFIP recipients also have access to these additional benefits, we are bringing forward two packages of consequential amendments. The majority of these consequential amendments are to secondary legislation and so will form a package of regulations that was laid on 18 March this year. As for PIP, these included Motability, jobseeker’s allowance, legal aid, NHS costs, working tax credit, child tax credit, housing benefit and the council tax reduction scheme.
However, to establish access to three important passports, we are required to amend three other parts of primary legislation. That is what we are here to debate today. These minor but important legislative changes are in respect of carer’s allowance, Christmas bonus and the seatbelt exemption for medical reasons. The legislative change in respect of carer’s allowance will ensure that those who provide valuable support to seriously injured members of the Armed Forces in receipt of AFIP have access to DWP’s carer’s allowance, which will be £59.75 from April 2013. This change will specifically make provision for those who devote their lives to supporting our seriously injured people, providing some financial support for doing so. It is only right that a person caring for an AFIP recipient should have access to carer’s allowance.
As for the Christmas bonus, these provisions will ensure that all recipients of AFIP automatically qualify for the tax-free, lump sum Christmas bonus, which is paid annually by the Department for Work and Pensions. In cases where the injured serviceperson requires, on medical grounds, an exemption from wearing a seatbelt, the individual must hold a valid certificate of exemption from compulsory seatbelt wearing. Only a medical practitioner may issue this certificate. This amendment will enable the medical practitioner to seek reimbursement from the Department for Transport for the cost of medical assessment that is required in these cases. As I have set out today, these three minor, but important, new provisions are designed to ensure that our most seriously injured service and ex-service personnel are able to access the additional benefits and schemes that they deserve.
AFIP is another example of the Government’s commitment to uphold the Armed Forces covenant and deliver tangible benefits for members of the Armed Forces and veterans. AFIP will provide ongoing financial support for the most severely injured service and ex-service personnel on the basis of their Armed Forces Compensation Scheme award without assessment or reassessment. Furthermore, AFIP will provide them with passports to additional benefit schemes and services that are offered by other government departments, devolved Administrations and local authorities. The Government will track the progress of AFIP and will report on its implementation in the Armed Forces covenant report towards the end of 2013.
It is important that we address these issues, meeting the principles at the heart of the covenant, and that is why we propose to bring in AFIP for members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are seriously injured. I hope that the Committee will therefore be happy to consider the order this afternoon.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive explanation of the background to, and purpose of, this order. We support the principle of the Armed Forces independence payment, which is to be paid to those who have been most seriously injured, as well as the order that we are now considering and the access to the three important passports, to which the Minister referred. However, there are one or two points on which I should like clarification.
When the order was discussed in the other place earlier this month, the Minister of State, Mr Mark Francois, said that at the initial design stages of the Armed Forces independence payment, the Government sought feedback from ex-service organisations and charities via the Central Advisory Committee on Pensions and Compensation. He went on to say that the feedback received was valuable and helped to inform the final design of AFIP. However, paragraph 8 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which covers the consultation outcomes section, indicates a degree of division among the key ex-service organisations. It states that, while the organisations recommended change to only the eligibility criteria, they,
“disagreed with each other, some considering the eligibility criteria too narrow, others too broad”.
Therefore, I simply ask whether we are now in a situation where the ex-service organisations and service personnel have agreed on the eligibility criteria for the Armed Forces independence payment.
As the Minister said, the payment will be £134.40 a week, tax-free. As I do not think that it is in the documentation, can the noble Lord indicate how many seriously injured service and former service personnel are expected to receive AFIP, and how much more these personnel will receive each week with AFIP compared with the allowances or payments that they currently receive? Can he also indicate what the total additional cost per annum of AFIP will be compared with the cost per annum of the payments currently being made to the most seriously injured service and former service personnel in question?
However, I conclude by reiterating our support for the principle of the Armed Forces independence payment and for the order that we are now considering.
Lord Addington
My Lords, this is one of those situations where I think we are basically going to say, “We thank the Government for doing this but, there again, they should have done it”. There is a level of agreement flowing among us today from which I will not demur greatly. The only real question that I have is how we can learn from the simplicity and straightforwardness of this measure, and whether this can be borne in mind and fed back into the general benefits system. That would be very beneficial.
Also, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, a little more elucidation on the disagreement among the veterans and those with an interest in the order would probably help the House and all those outside. Although they come together to speak with one voice, they come from different angles and have a different approach. It would probably be beneficial for everybody who is interested in the covenant if we could have an explanation of how the argument is being constructed. Such an explanation is always useful because there is never one voice, even if we end up with one answer.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I hesitate to come in on this as it is not normally an area in which I would intervene, but I declare a previous interest as an ex-member of the Armed Forces Pay Review Board. I have a couple of questions to ask the Minister. He gave the definition of “seriously injured” and then went on to say, “50% or more”. Did I understand correctly that that is what qualifies someone for this allowance? The thought occurred to me that, inevitably, it is a bit of a cliff-edge assessment. If someone got to 49.9% there could be a problem, although that may not be the case.
The other aspect that I am interested in is the fact that an impact assessment has not been prepared for this instrument. There might be a perfectly rational response to that but, given the complication and the way in which this interacts with other legislation, I should have thought that even if it is not available now, there should be an impact assessment at some time.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, this has been an interesting, short debate on a matter of great importance to the Armed Forces. I have tried to keep up with all the questions but if I cannot answer all of them I will write to noble Lords.
First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for the Opposition’s support for the order. The first question was on eligibility. As far as I am aware, the four charities from which we have had responses still differ with each other on eligibility. I have the issues on which they disagree, which are not very serious. Rather than reading them all out, I am happy to share them with the noble Lord afterwards. There is nothing of major importance. One of the main issues was on the definition of “seriously injured” in relation to the disability.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the net additional cost of AFIP. It is £134.40 per week—the same level as the maximum rate available under the personal independence payment. He asked how many people will benefit from the arrangements. Approximately 700 individuals are currently eligible to claim AFIP and we estimate that approximately 100 service and ex-service personnel each year will become eligible for it.
My noble friend Lord Addington asked whether we will feed what we have learnt from this into the issue of general benefits. I do not have an answer but I will write to him on that. The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked why the figure of 50% was chosen. The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme awards a lifelong income stream of 50% or higher of income pension for serious injury.
Putting in place provision to ensure continued support for those seriously injured while in the Armed Forces remains a key component of the military covenant. AFIP is an important change, showing the Government’s commitment to upholding the Armed Forces covenant. It is only right that we provide financial support for those most seriously injured and AFIP will do that.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I asked why no impact assessment had been done on this instrument.
Lord Astor of Hever
I do not have an immediate answer but I will write to the noble Lord.
Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2013
Baroness Verma
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2013.
Relevant document: 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to open the debate on the Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2013.
The renewable heat incentive scheme is a world first, designed to improve the way in which we use energy in the UK. Since the scheme was launched in November 2011, more than 1,700 applications have been received to date, with about £25 million-worth of RHI payments expected to be paid out in this financial year. Installations that have already been accredited into this scheme have generated 118 gigawatt hours of heat.
The RHI is essential if we are to meet the UK’s legally binding target, as set by the renewable energy directive, of 15% of our energy coming from renewables by 2020. Heat has an important part to play in achieving this target and we are aiming for 12% of our total heat demand to come from renewables, increasing from less than 2% before the RHI opened, by this date.
Through the scheme we will continue to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and begin the journey that we need to make towards our goal of eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from our buildings by 2050. Renewable energy generation is essential to our economic growth and energy security. It reduces our reliance on imported fossil fuels and helps keep the lights on and our energy bills down.
The RHI scheme is administered by Ofgem and provides financial tariff-based support for commercial, public sector, industrial and community renewable heating installations for 20 years. It has already supported technologies and fuel uses, including solid biomass, solar thermal, ground and water source heat pumps, biogas combustion, energy from waste and the injection of biomethane into the grid.
We have seen participation in the scheme across small businesses, industry, the public sector and community projects. RHI support is being given to the Meikleour Trust, a Scottish estate that installed a 500-kilowatt thermal biomass boiler to supply heat via a district heating system to a range of buildings. In addition, the RHI is expected to generate £300,000 per year in support for Overbrook Farm in Derbyshire as it replaces its old petroleum gas systems with biomass boilers. However, the RHI goes wider than this and is supporting installations in schools, dairy farms and other major retail outlets across Great Britain such as Sainsbury’s, which has invested extensively in renewable heat, including biomass and ground source heat pumps.
The RHI is funded by the taxpayer and must be financially sustainable. It must help to deliver renewable heat in the most cost-effective way. It must do so by avoiding rapid reductions to tariff levels, which can create market uncertainty and instability, neither of which will help us to achieve the goals that I have just outlined. We have learnt lessons from the feed-in tariff scheme in developing this current mechanism. It introduces flexible controls which will provide certainty to investors and, through it, we will see continued growth in renewable technologies, helping us to meet our renewables and carbon targets.
These regulations amend the Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme Regulations 2011. They will implement the outcome of a consultation, published last July, which sought views on the best way to control spending under the scheme until March 2015. The consultation attracted 100 responses from a wide range of stakeholders. The results are set out in the government response published on 27 February. More than 70% of respondents supported the proposed degression mechanism. The feedback on the design of the proposed degression has resulted in adjustments to the proposals that were set out, although the broad principles remain the same.
The regulations build on the foundations laid down for controlling spending introduced under the feed-in tariffs scheme, following the consultations that took place on that scheme in 2012. The framework for financial control of the renewable heat incentive scheme will therefore also be based on a system of degression. Degression is not a new word: it is used in economics to define a system which gradually reduces, by stages, a rate or specified sum. A system that sets out clearly how and when tariff levels may be reduced, and by how much, will undoubtedly provide greater certainty to the industry—and certainty is what industry tells us that it wants.
Let us also not underestimate the current level of public interest in how taxpayers’ money is spent. More than ever, we need to constrain spending within budgetary limits, and the regulations aim to do that. Simply put, degression will reduce existing tariff levels if uptake of renewable heat technologies is greater than we require to meet our renewables target. They will help to safeguard against the possibility of overspend and against the detrimental impact on the supply chain of a reduced budget next year that would be caused if we spent more than expected.
Last July, the Government introduced an interim, or stand-by, mechanism of budget control for the RHI while we developed a longer-term approach. Under the interim mechanism, the scheme would have been suspended had spending levels reached 97% of the budget limit, which in real terms meant if we had forecast spending to reach £67.9 million in 2012-13, against a budget of £70 million. The interim mechanism would therefore have temporarily closed the scheme’s doors to potential investors.
As it happens, the scheme was not suspended, with spending levels expected to reach £25 million during this financial year. Nevertheless, a more sustainable approach is needed to deliver the certainty to industry that I mentioned earlier.
I will gladly hold up my hands and accept that the regulations are not at first glance simple to understand. If I may, I will therefore attempt to summarise the main features of the degression scheme. At its simplest, degression will mean that tariffs available to new applicants may be gradually reduced, but only if uptake of the various technologies supported under the RHI is greater than has been forecast. This will be done by monitoring uptake on a quarterly basis against a series of expenditure limits, listed in the schedule to the regulations, to which I will refer as triggers. The reason why I use this term is that if those limits are hit, they will trigger a fixed reduction to tariff levels. Monthly updates on progress towards all triggers will be published online so that stakeholders can readily access them, and one month’s notice will be given before any reductions are made to the tariffs for new applicants.
The key aspects of degression of which noble Lords should be aware are as follows. Those who are already in receipt of RHI support will not be affected by any future reduction to the tariff levels taking place as a result of degression. Applicants to the RHI scheme will receive existing, that is non-degressed, tariffs, if the date of accreditation for their installation, or date of registration for a biomethane producer, is before any new tariffs came into effect for the full 20 years.
The system includes a rule which means that degression will not be activated for a particular quarter—so tariffs will not be reduced—if total expenditure in any quarter is estimated to be equal to or lower than 50% of what we expected it to be at that point. In that way, the Government intend to avoid reducing tariff levels if only a few technologies are performing well and contributing towards heat targets. Where total expenditure is more than 50%, the regulations prescribe the assessment that government must make to determine whether degression has been activated, and whether any tariffs should be reduced and by how much.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, in this freezing cold, it is nice to talk about heat being released. As for these regulations, if there was a competition for the most inscrutable, least easy-to-follow set of regulations, these would surely be a contender. Can anyone honestly say they have read all these documents and fully understood them? I have spoken to the trade association, the Renewable Energy Association, and its expert who tracks this in great detail said he finds it almost impossible to follow. What hope do the rest of us have? I shall endeavour to work out what is happening here.
The bigger picture is that these regulations broadly aim to introduce a system for what to do in the event of overspend, so that the department can manage its budgets. The RHI as a policy differs from the electricity market because funds made available for this support mechanism come from the public purse—the taxpayer—not via the market. Therefore, the Treasury takes a keen interest. I can understand that, and the desire to stay within budget is of course laudable. However, to what extent is this really necessary? These are hugely complicated regulations, which, I am afraid, potentially undermine investor certainty, despite what the Minister has said. How needed are they?
In reality, as the noble Baroness has indicated, this policy remains drastically underspent. If anything, we should concentrate on how to boost uptake, not worry about paranoid penny-pinching in the event of overspend. The operational budget under the cost control mechanism is around £70 million for the current financial year and estimates of committed spend are only around £25 million. That is slightly more than a third of the budget spent, so two-thirds are unspent. The curious fact about this policy is that any underspend simply returns to the Treasury. It is not carried over to help the industry, but simply disappears into the Treasury. It is not even clear if it will come back to the taxpayer; it is not good for the taxpayer, but good for the Treasury.
That £70 million is already a reduction on the estimated budget of £133 million that was first put forward, so this policy is not in danger of overdelivering and overspending, but of underdelivering. Our target for renewable heat is around 12% of heat. This, it is said, can make a contribution to our legally binding 15% renewable energy target in 2020. We are currently at only a few percentage points and starting from a very low base. Where do we currently stand on the percentage of heat coming from renewable sources, and are we getting any more on track? The last data that I saw for 2011 showed that we were already off our proposed trajectory.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Baroness was able to follow very closely what I must admit was a very complex issue. She has raised a number of questions. I shall attempt to answer as many as I can but, if I fail to answer them all, we will write to her.
The noble Baroness must accept that this Government have been prepared to look at what is good for both consumers and the industry. That is why these reviews are important. I make no apologies for the fact that if in my own role in the department I feel that something needs to be revisited, I am very happy to do so. With these technologies being in their infancy, it is only right that we go over the issues. I am not dogmatic in my approach and would rather review a matter several times to get it right.
Perhaps the noble Baroness slightly missed the point that this Government are incredibly supportive of renewables being part of our energy mix. I have stood at the Dispatch Box on several occasions and have said that it is very important for our energy security that we have a range of energy mixes.
I shall attempt to respond to some of the questions that the noble Baroness raised. She must recognise that when we are using taxpayers’ money, we need the right balance between certainty, value for money and clarity for investment, and we need to respond to the market. We do not want to disadvantage any technology in the scheme of things, so when the noble Baroness says that we have many triggers for degression, it is also important to see that some technologies have reached a further stage of development than others. We do not want to exclude or disadvantage some of those that will have a longer lead time. Therefore, it may well be that there are a lot of triggers for a range of technologies, but I would rather be in that position at the moment than to disadvantage any technology that may need a longer lead time.
The noble Baroness asked why the number of applications was so low. I think that is an unfair comment. By and large, take-up has been relatively steady. Applications for non-domestic RHI may appear low but a greater interest is beginning to be shown. It is right that we address the issues behind the low take-up, and therefore this engagement with industry and other stakeholders is really important. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness that that is crucial to the debate but she also asked whether degression would put investors off. I absolutely think that it will not. Adopting such measures places much greater certainty in the hands of investors. We have learnt from other schemes not to repeat those mistakes again. We have tried to put mechanisms into place that support the longer-term aim of what we are trying to deliver. Of course, we still have plenty of learning to do. There is no doubt that we have to put our hands up to the fact that we may not have got it exactly right, but at least we are going in the right direction.
Baroness Worthington
I do not dispute that. Having some clarity is important for investors, but these are incredibly complicated proposals. Investors are simple folk. They want a clear plan and to know how much money they will get in return. In this system quite a lot of risks are involved. They have to carry the costs of all the preparatory work before they receive their money from Ofgem and if a policy cannot be explained in a few minutes, investors will get bored and go elsewhere. That is my concern.
Baroness Verma
I very much take that point on board. Much of where we have reached has come from talking to industry and stakeholders, so they are part of the journey towards making these recommendations. So, point taken, but some of these things are incredibly complicated. However one tries to simplify them, they will still have a degree of complexity about them.
The noble Baroness asked why budget management was necessary. There is a degree of uncertainty about how the market will respond over time, so it is right to be prepared for unexpected changes in the uptake that may arise. The noble Baroness also raised the point that budgets are not flexible, and spending less than the allocated budget in one year does not permit that underspend to be transferred to future years. It is about balancing what we need to do—which is in line with what the Treasury expects us to do—with ensuring that, as we hope, the uptake will not lead to as big an underspend as in the past, given that we are putting in place these mechanisms to encourage better uptake.
The noble Baroness asked what will happen after 2015. The Government’s policy on this was published in February in response to the July consultation and was cleared across all government departments. It will remain open to new applicants until 2020. The spending review commencing in June will provide a chance to set the scheme’s budget beyond 2014-15. The noble Baroness asked about booking tariffs and guarantees and referred to the EPA. We do not propose to bring forward the EPA at this time, but recognise that there are arguments for introducing measures to improve certainty, even though these can be difficult to evidence. We intend to monitor the introduction of degression and other planned improvements to the scheme. We will continue to work with industry and stakeholders to improve our evidence base, then see what other options may be available to us.
The noble Baroness asked about biomass. It is true that biomass accounts for the majority of the applications and accreditations on this scheme. However, we want to see more deployment across a fuller range of technologies supported by the scheme. This is why we continually review the scope, so that—as I said before—we do not exclude some of the technologies that have longer lead-in times or are still at early development stages.
I must respond to two more questions. The noble Baroness asked why the mechanism was necessary. It has been supported by 77% of the respondents we spoke to as being the most appropriate mechanism. As I said, they are on side with us. I completely understand the complexity of it, but we need to be able to provide them with clarity and they are supportive, so I think we are in the right space. Needless to say, that does not mean there is no room for improvement.
The noble Baroness also asked why it is necessary to separate the tariffs. I touched on that. There are different technologies and different tariffs. That is important and it is to ensure that one technology does not have an undue advantage over other technologies.
The noble Baroness rightly asked questions about the complexity of the scheme; we do not underestimate that. However, I hope that the regulations debated today will ensure that RHI continues to drive forward renewable heat deployment, which is what we all want, and is the most cost-effective way of doing so for the taxpayer. I have taken on board many of the points made by the noble Baroness; I shall read Hansard carefully to see whether there are any that I have missed. None the less, I hope that I have her support in commending the regulations to the Committee.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her responses. I am very impressed. I asked a lot of questions and I think she covered most of them, although there are a few outstanding, particularly on liquid biofuels and associated things. However, she acknowledged the complexity of the main matter before us and argued the need to provide certainty around the technologies. That is fine in the early stages but at some point we have to start backing winners. The targets that have been set for us are challenging. There is only so long that you can flog a dead horse. There are some technologies which, for whatever reason it may be—be it non-market barriers or there being no appetite for them—you just cannot get deployed, whereas there are others which seem to hit a sweet spot, where there are lots of reasons why people like them and, suddenly, off they go. Those are the things that you can build a business around. They can give you great potential for investment and, one hopes, lead to exports. It is great that we are trying to nurture as many technologies as possible, but that cannot be the case for ever. These reviews are important but, please, let us not have too many of them. A good, solid review after a certain time is the right way forward. Let us try to get back on track.
Perhaps the Minister could write to me on how we are doing in terms of our trajectory. I worry that, while we have this very slow start, we will have to go into a very steep curve to reach that 12% target and that discussions with the Treasury will become ever more difficult. If the Minister could let us know how we are doing, that would be great.
CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme Order 2013
Baroness Verma
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme Order 2013.
Relevant document: 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma)
My Lords, the coalition Government are committed to improving the take-up of energy efficiency measures across the economy. It is a truism that the cheapest energy is the energy that we do not need to use. Energy efficiency improves our energy security, reduces carbon emissions and improves UK competitiveness.
The CRC energy efficiency scheme, formerly known as the carbon reduction commitment, was one of the few energy efficiency policies put in place by the previous Administration. The aspiration of incentivising large users of energy across the public and private sectors to be more energy-efficient is one that we share, but we inherited an overly complex regulatory system.
The regulations before the Committee today are the product of an extensive dialogue with CRC participants on how best to retain the key drivers of the scheme while making it less of a bureaucratic burden. I am pleased that we have managed to more than halve the bureaucracy in the scheme. The CRC is a mandatory UK-wide trading scheme introduced in April 2010. The 2,700 large businesses and public sector organisations in the scheme represent around 10% of the UK’s total greenhouse emissions and typically spend more than £500,000 a year on electricity.
We listened to the concerns set out for us by CRC participants. Those concerns fell into three broad categories: that the rules of the CRC were too complex, difficult to understand and costly for participants to administer; that the CRC overlapped with other policies and, in particular, with the EU emissions trading system and climate change agreements; and that the CRC forced organisations to participate in ways which did not accommodate their natural business energy management structures and processes.
Having listened to those representations, we acted, and in July 2010 committed to simplify the scheme. We swiftly introduced a first round of legislative simplification, which came into force in April 2011, and committed to consult thoroughly on how to improve the scheme. The extensive formal and informal consultation by Ministers and officials has led to the order before your Lordships today. The Government set out their policy conclusions, which will be enacted by this order, in their response to the consultation published on 10 December 2012.
Our changes to the CRC address concerns about complexity and associated administrative costs, enable greater business planning by introducing two fixed-price sales of allowances each year, one forecast and one retrospective, and allow greater flexibility for organisations to participate in natural business units—that is, to reflect the way they choose to organise themselves. They also reduce the reporting burden by reducing the number of fuels reported, using only electricity measured by settled half-hourly meters for qualification purposes, and ending the requirement for footprint reports. They reduce scheme complexity by removing the residual percentage rule and climate change agreement exemption rules, and they reduce the overlap with other schemes so that input fuels to CCA facilities and EU emissions trading system installations are outside the scope of the CRC.
It is also important to note that maintaining the qualification threshold at 6,000 megawatt hours of settled half-hourly metered electricity only, instead of all half-hourly meters under the current scheme, will see the number of participants reduce by around 1,000 to 1,700. However, the overall impact of the simplification changes is only a small decrease—less than 5% of emissions coverage within the CRC scheme.
The majority of our changes will be introduced at the start of phase 2 of the CRC in April 2014. However, the Government are keen to maximise the potential benefit to participants and have concluded that it would be desirable to bring forward certain simplifications in advance of the beginning of phase 2, where the benefits of early introduction for participants will outweigh any difficulty in adapting to the new rules.
The Government have therefore decided that a number of simplifications will have effect from May 2013 and will apply for the last two years of the first phase of the CRC—that is, 2012-13 and 2013-14. These include a reduction in fuels from 29 to two. The CRC will now cover only emissions generated from the consumption of electricity and gas, the latter only when used for heating purposes. They also include the introduction of an organisation-wide 2% de mimimis, or minimum reportable percentage, threshold for gas. Therefore, if from 2012-13 a participant’s gas consumption is below 2% of their overall electricity consumption figure, that participant will no longer have to report on that gas or purchase allowances to cover its use. Also included is a meter-based exclusion for domestic gas supplies which have an annual quantity of 73,200 kilowatt hours or less, and an extension of the CRC allowance surrender deadline from the end of July to the end of October. The changes also include the abolition of the performance league table with the CRC administrator, the Environment Agency, and publishing participants’ aggregated energy use and emissions data instead.
Our assessment is that all these simplifications will radically reduce the administrative costs of participants by more than half, which equates to savings of around £272 million for CRC participants up to 2030. The Government are therefore satisfied that this order meets our objectives for simplification—namely, to optimise the projected energy efficiency improvements delivered by the CRC and to reduce its overall complexity. The simplified CRC will continue to deliver energy efficiency and carbon savings but at a significantly reduced administrative cost.
The Government have already committed to keep a close eye on the operation of the CRC and will review it in 2016. We will continue to monitor both its impact and the compliance costs of CRC participants so that our 2016 review is fully informed on both its impact and costs.
As the CRC is a UK-wide energy efficiency scheme, in addition to this order being laid before the UK Parliament it is also being laid and debated in the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly. If the order is approved by your Lordships’ House and the other place, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly, a recommendation will be made to Her Majesty in Council to make the order in a subsequent meeting of the Privy Council. We envisage this being completed before the summer. I commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to the order. I am glad that I am speaking to the simplified order in contrast to the prior order, and I hope that the Committee will not be detained very long.
The order coincides with the retirement of the government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Beddington. He argues that the evidence for climate change is unequivocal. The order implements the regulations to improve energy efficiency in organisations that are consumers of large amounts of electricity and, by improving energy efficiency, to reduce carbon emissions. The carbon reduction commitment scheme is the key driver for the UK to meet its domestic and international greenhouse emissions reduction targets. The climate change levy part of the policy instrument is levied on nearly all businesses that use electricity and gas.
The Minister has explained the over-burdensome nature of the original CRC order.
Lord Grantchester
The Minister explained the over-burdensome nature of the original CRC order and we agree with her. This simplified scheme is to be applauded, although there are a few concerns about the reduction of benefits as a consequence. Nevertheless, it is right that the Government proceed with the scheme. Despite cost-effective energy efficiency savings being available, the Carbon Trust reported as far back as 2005 that organisations’ emissions were not being reduced. Indeed, they have remained constant for the past 20 years, due to a lack of awareness at board and senior management level, a lack of financial incentives to reduce emissions and a lack of prestige associated with efficiency activity.
Generally, energy costs tend to be only 1% or 2% of operating costs for business. While I can confirm acceptance of the order today, I want to ask the Minister about one or two concerns arising from this simplified scheme. Since the scheme began in 2010, it has drawn considerable criticism for being too complex, burdensome, difficult to understand and costly to administer. It is good that the Government are bringing in a more practical scheme, but has something been lost in the translation?
While the memorandum explains that considerable savings will be made—a 55% reduction in overall administrative costs—it does not explain what percentage reduction in efficiency improvements and carbon emission reductions may result from the simplification. For example, it says that there is a reduction in fuels from 29 to two and that the scheme will cover only emissions generated from the consumption of electricity and gas. This is still important, but will the Minister confirm that the scheme will still capture a major percentage of the efficiency improvements targeted by the original scheme?
On this benefits side of the equation, there is a loss from the original scope of the order. The impact assessment puts this at around £183 million. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also commented on this in its 33rd report. It is not clear from the Minister’s department’s reply to the questioning on the validity of the order, when set against such loss of benefits, whether this is due to double counting of benefits as a result of reducing the overlaps between CCL, CCA and EU ETS instruments. Will the noble Baroness explain whether this loss of benefit is per phase or a loss for the total scheme to 2039?
Lord Deben
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Climate Change Committee. I am pleased that we are looking to make such arrangements as simple as they can be. One of the most important things that we have to do is ensure that this very important business of making Britain able to meet the statutory target of an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050 is accomplished with as little harassment and difficulty as possible. When the original scheme was introduced, I criticised it because of its complication. We now all agree that it would have been better to make it less complex, but it was an important step that I am not undermining in any way.
I have a particular question for the Minister, the answer to which I found hard to discover in the documentation. It is about the half-hour meter. This is a boring technicality but it is very important. For reasons that no one has ever understood, the original system depended not just on the amount of energy used but also on whether one had a half-hour meter. The difficulty is that many firms with a half-hour meter use less energy than firms without a half-hour meter. More importantly, there is a competitive problem. Some companies that have them—restaurants, for example—are competing with other companies that do not. One is paying and the other is not. It may be my own ignorance and inability, but I have been unable to discover whether the new CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme Order will overcome this problem. I was promised by the then Minister in the House of Commons that this would be put right “when the opportunity arose”, which I think was the phrase used. I should very much like to understand whether that comes into the purview of this order, and if not, why not. Will we now put this right? With a Government who are very committed to competitiveness, it would be sad if this quirk in the system should continue to make things difficult.
Let me explain why I feel strongly about this. There are many organisations which, in the aggregate, meet the requirements of the CRC. It was very important to have an aggregated system, because, if we had not, we would not have reached out. I congratulate the former Government on recognising that, for example, franchisees had to be part of the system, otherwise there would have been a major disadvantage for other companies which were not so organised. However, the difficulty is that some franchised organisations have a clear advantage over others because of the half-hourly meter arrangement. I shall say something that I hope the Minister will not be upset about. When I inquired into this matter previously, it became quite clear that the only reason for it was none of the reasons which Ministers of both sides have proposed; it was just administrative convenience. It happens to be true that people think that this is a convenient way of doing it rather than the right way of doing it. I do not want to make it more complicated—nor do I want to get into names of particular companies—but I can think of two restaurant chains, one of which pays the CRC and the other does not, yet their customers and turnover in many of their individual restaurants are very similar. That does not seem to me something that we should allow in this structure. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that, under these arrangements, the half-hourly meter element will be removed and that we will go to a much more sensible system, which is a proper, basic amount of energy used on this narrower basis of gas and electricity. It would be de minimis arrangement, but one which did not discriminate between organisations.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I welcome noble Lords’ support for the order. Whereas the previous order was very complex, I am pleased to say that I am bringing balance to the debate by trying to make this measure simpler. We have tried, through engagement with stakeholders, to ensure that we have much better informed and not excessively burdensome regulation for industry. We are trying to make sure that there is a reason to use CRC as a means of reducing carbon emissions.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked a couple of very poignant questions, so I shall respond first to those and then go to those of my noble friend. The noble Lord asked why schools in England had been removed from the CRC. Due to the continued growth of academies and their independence from local government, the CRC is not the best mechanism to achieve energy efficiency across the English schools estate. The Government therefore decided to withdraw all state-funded schools in England from CRC participation and implement alternative measures to incentivise and support those schools in obtaining both energy cost and emission savings. However, that does not mean that schools will not partake; it just means that they will take a different route.
The noble Lord asked whether the benefits of the scheme would be reduced. The loss of emissions coverage is very small, being less than 5%. The key drivers—awareness, publication of data and the financial incentives arising from needing to buy allowances—will still be part of the scheme. As I said in the previous debate, we want continually to review what we are doing so that we get the best outcomes from these measures.
My noble friend Lord Deben asked about half-hourly metering. I welcome his support for the order and thank him for it. If the Committee will allow me, I shall take away my noble friend’s question and perhaps give him a much more detailed response—I shall ensure that the opposition Benches also have a copy. If I was to give him a half-hearted response now, it would not satisfy the Committee and certainly not my noble friend.
Overall, I am pleased that noble Lords have seen the benefits of simplification and the fact that it will reduce administrative costs to industry by quite a large sum. It also allows greater flexibility for industry to organise its own businesses as it sees fit. I welcome the support of noble Lords and commend the order to the Committee.
Companies Act 2006 (Amendment of Part 18) Regulations 2013
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Companies Act 2006 (Amendment of Part 18) Regulations 2013.
Relevant document: 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie)
My Lords, the purpose of the regulations is to facilitate employee ownership by simplifying company law in the area of share buy-backs.
The independent Nuttall review of July last year set out the economic and social benefits of employee ownership, including improved business performance, increased economic resilience and greater employee engagement and commitment. The review also made a series of recommendations to the Government about how to increase the uptake of employee ownership in the private sector and what barriers needed to be removed to enable that.
One of Graeme Nuttall’s conclusions was that the company law provisions on share buy-backs are overly burdensome. The Nuttall review recommended that the Government consult on improving the operation of internal share markets to support companies with direct share ownership models. Companies that wish to encourage their employees to hold shares directly—that is, without the use of a trust—will often seek to buy back shares from employees who are leaving, or have left, the company to redistribute them to new employees. That allows the company to avoid the risks that, over time, shares earmarked for allocation to employees become predominately owned by former employees or others outside the company. Buy-back arrangements will depend on the departing shareholder, the seller, and the company, the buyer, mutually agreeing a price, inter alia. Once a buy-back is agreed, companies must comply with a number of company law provisions that regulate the process.
Having accepted this recommendation to examine company law about buy-backs, the Government held a consultation to obtain views and evidence on: the extent to which company law rules on buy-backs are an impediment to employee ownership; changes to the rules on the authorisation and financing of share buy- backs; the holding of shares in treasury; and potential problems or unintended consequences.
The regulations for the Committee’s consideration contain provisions that address the concerns raised in the consultation by reducing the administrative burden faced by companies when administering share buy-backs; increasing the flexibility available to companies in how they fund share buy-backs; and allowing companies to select the most suitable arrangements for their particular needs. Specifically, the proposals will, first, allow shareholders in any company to approve off-market share buy-backs by an ordinary resolution—that is, by a simple majority vote—and, where such buy-backs are connected with an employee share scheme, allow for approval to be granted in advance. This will reduce the need for multiple resolutions, saving companies both time and money.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, how we are changed from the heady days of only a few days ago when we were in the Chamber debating the ERR Bill and voting on this and that, to be reduced to only three people here for this purpose, although two seem to have drifted in for other reasons, and we are outnumbered by those in the Box. That is the reality of so much of the work that we do here, which is of course of very good quality and great importance but does not reach the heights of some of the other things that we do.
The Nuttall report is interesting. As the Minister said, it argues forcefully for an increase in the employee share ownership arrangements and makes its case with some verve. It is, however, short on detail on costs. The Minister kindly said that he thought that the outcome of what is in this modest proposal, to which I do not object, by the way, is that administrative burdens would be reduced, there would be more flexibility inside companies to provide shares for employees and that it would help growth.
Can the Minister explain how he arrives at that conclusion, because the impact assessment statement which accompanied the measure, which I have read, contains remarkably little about the costs? The assertion made early on is that there is simply no way to identify the various costs one way or the other. I do not disagree that it would be difficult, but it does seems rather odd to base an argument on the benefits that will flow to businesses if you cannot identify them in cash terms. Perhaps the Minister can reflect on that point and give me any update that he may have received.
Secondly, I note that the intention is that there will be a post-implementation review three years after enactment. Paragraph 56 of the government response to consultation, on pages 15 and 16, covers the issues and explains what areas will be looked at. Once again, it does not come up with anything tangible in cash terms. It just states that the review,
“will also look at any available evidence of monetised or non-monetised costs or benefits from the changes that have been made”.
Again, I would be grateful if the Minister would reflect on whether the post-implementation review goes far enough. It would be helpful, when government measures of this nature are being brought forward which strike at the heart of the legal structure within which companies operate, if some cost consequences were provided.
My third point is on whether this will achieve any lasting value. The general view that I have read in the comments about the Nuttall review is that it may have some effect but, as the impact assessment states, there are unlikely to be many benefits from employee ownership if it is not combined with enhanced engagement practices to reap the full benefits. There is a lot of literature that says that this should do a lot. The Minister said that he thought that staff would be happier, that turnover might be up and profitability greater. I am not saying that I am sceptical, but it would be interesting to know on what he bases that argument. Clearly, none of that will happen if more work is not done to introduce the benefits of employee ownership. Can the Minister explain what the department and the Government are doing to promote employee share ownership more widely so that people are happier, that turnover goes up and profitability is increased?
My final point is that employee share ownership affects significant tax issues. The Minister did not mention that, partly because it is obviously not for his department. However, for example, tax rules say that where a company buys back shares from a former employee within five years of that employee leaving, all the income paid to the person who is leaving has to be taxed as though it is a dividend. Is that to continue? If it does not change, it does not seem that there is much benefit in making sure that the shares of a former employee are bought back, whether or not it is done with sequential permissions under the articles. If the tax is going to be so great that no one is interested in doing it, it seems that that will vitiate what is being applied. However, there are ways around that in the sense that the scheme that seems to apply most to companies in this area is the creation of employee share ownership trusts, because sales to the trusts are taxed only as capital gains and, in the present environment, that is quite reasonable.
All those issues are ignored in this report. Therefore, as I said, my final point concerning tax is that it would be helpful if, in carrying out the post-implementation review, an additional point could be made that the taxation implications should be considered, perhaps with a view to looking again more widely at the whole way in which employee share ownership taxation takes place. If one could correct that, I think that there would be more take-up of the scheme and it would have an impact. However, until that time, it will not have much effect.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his earlier comments. I hope that this will be a short sitting, in marked contrast to the rather livelier sittings that we experienced in the main Chamber together last week. I also thank him for his comments and questions about this issue. Just to reassure him, where concerns have been expressed, we will keep matters under review and evaluate them at the time of the post-implementation review. This will include implications for taxation, which is an important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.
While the regulations have merit in themselves, they are part of a wider package of measures that implement the recommendations of the Nuttall review of employee share ownership. They simplify the company law provisions on the buy-back of a company’s own shares in a manner which reduces administrative burdens and increases the flexibility available to companies to administer and finance buy-backs in a way that best suits their needs. The proposals in the regulations were endorsed and enhanced by the consultation process, and, as I mentioned earlier, are mainly targeted at private limited companies that undertake buy-backs pursuant to, or for the purposes of, an employee share scheme. The measures are not only deregulatory but enabling.
Picking up the point about costs raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, he may be reassured that the independent Regulatory Policy Committee, the RPC, confirmed that these changes are deregulatory and impose little or no cost to business. Having said that there are no costs to Government from the measures, I can make no other substantive comments on costs, but it may help the noble Lord if I also mention the question of savings. It is not possible to quantify the potential savings to business, as these will vary greatly depending on a range of factors, including the size of the business, the scale of the share scheme and the quantity of the shares bought back over a given period of time.
For example, a company which has several buy-backs during the course of a year could benefit from being able to approve these buy-backs in advance, rather than having to focus on approval each time the buy-back is effected individually. I regret that it is not as yet possible to quantify this.
Lord Viscount Stevenson of Balmacara
I am sorry to press the noble Viscount on this, but I remind him that paragraph 18 of the impact assessment states:
“In the current consultation … an attempt has not been made to monetise any of the costs and benefits associated with the policy”.
This is an alarming point. If this is going to be standard practice for the department, what is the department there for? These are not major changes. I accept the Minister’s point that everybody seems to welcome them, but some evaluation of what they cost and of the benefits would have been helpful. The impact assessment goes on to state:
“The intention is to utilise the consultation period as an opportunity to obtain further information from stakeholders”.
However, the report from the consultation states that it was not possible to obtain any information on costs or benefits from the consultation. One has to ask: what sort of consultation was that?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord makes a fair point, but it remains the fact that there are no costs to define or describe. It was looked at in great detail. However, given that the noble Lord has raised the issue twice, if I can produce further information to satisfy him, I will certainly do so in a letter.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also asked what else the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is doing to promote employee ownership. There has been much discussion in the Chamber about this matter. BIS is developing a programme of work, overseen by my honourable friend in the other place, Jo Swinson, including developing model articles for employee ownership of companies. To respond to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about the tax implications, I can also confirm that work is ongoing on capital gains tax relief. I will be pleased to write to him with further details—in the same letter, I hope, rather than in a separate one. Further questions were raised and I will be more than delighted to round them up afterwards and be sure that there is a full response to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.
In conclusion, the Government state that these regulations meet the requirements of the Act and I commend them to the Committee.
Global Health
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Crisp
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they will take to promote skills mix changes and task sharing in low- and middle-income countries in order to improve quality, access and cost in health services in line with the report of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Global Health All the Talents.
Lord Crisp
My Lords, I very much welcome the opportunity for this debate on what action the Government are going to take to promote skills-mix changes and task-sharing in low and middle-income countries to improve quality, access and costs in health services.
I am very grateful to the noble Lords who are taking part in this debate and to the many others who contributed to the report on which this Question is based. I shall explain in a little more detail what I mean by task-sharing and skills-mix changes to make sure that we are all in the same position on that but, first, perhaps I may say a few words on the background.
Health and health services are very much about people and knowledge. The Department for International Development has a good record on both but on people, in particular, I think there is more that DfID could do, and I shall make that point here in relation to this issue.
There are four key points relating to the background. The first is that there is a pressing need in the world for more health workers. The best estimates I have seen are that there are about 1 billion people in the world who do not have access to a health worker. In Africa, it is estimated that there need to be about 1.5 million more health workers in order that 80% of the women who want to can have access to a skilled health worker when they are in labour. That is not even a high standard; it is not what we expect, which is 100%. Therefore, there is a massive shortage of health workers, and people die or are damaged or diseased for lack of access to a health worker who has some knowledge and who can help them.
The second point of background is that if, through the efforts of DfID, national Governments and everybody else, there is to be a real improvement in health in, for example, India’s million villages, then the staffing structure for looking after people in those villages will not be the same as it is in the UK. There will not be a GP in every one of those villages or, indeed, in Africa’s million villages. People will have to do things differently and there will have to be a different range of skills mix. Nurses will perhaps be doing what doctors are doing, and other people will perhaps be doing what nurses are doing, all enabled by technology. That is the real theme that we are talking about.
My third point is that we actually know what to do. The report demonstrates how a skills mix can be changed successfully to reach more people. Finally, the UK has a particular role that it can play in this, and I shall deal first with this final point.
I know that other noble Lords are going to speak about education and training and about the role of British institutions. In this country we have a fantastic track record of educating and training health workers and, indeed, others, and there is a part that we can play in that. However, I also suggest that we have an important role in training and educating more health workers, not least because of our history and links with so many of the countries that we are talking about—the low and middle-income countries—through the Commonwealth and through our history of education. We know that many people from those countries have emigrated to our country and have become health workers here, and we know that emigration is part of the problem faced by other countries. I make it clear that it is not the whole story. The best estimates I have seen are that 135,000 health workers from Africa have moved to other, richer countries over the past 35 years. That is a very big number but it should be compared with the 1.5 million that are needed in Africa. If everyone went home, the problem would not be solved. The bigger issue is getting more people on to the pitch to provide more education and training.
Those are the issues that we set out to address in the report, All the Talents. We undertook a review and were joined by expert witnesses. We had a group of parliamentarians who quizzed those witnesses, and we came up with four or five clear recommendations, which are the ones that I want to put to the Government.
Let me say a little more about what we mean by changed skills mix and better teamwork. We looked at examples from about 20 countries where access was improved because of using staff members to do different things from what would happen traditionally. The example we give in the brief version of the report is in Malawi, where some 135,000 manipulations of bones have been undertaken by technically trained people, not by doctors. As a result there has been improved access. Incidentally, they were trained by British doctors in this particular case in Malawi. So, we have seen improved access by changing the skills mix and allowing different members of staff to do work that others had previously done.
We have seen improvements in quality. The example given in the report is in the UK, where nurse practitioners doing more prescribing has improved quality as perceived by the patient. It is just as safe as it being done by doctors but it has improved quality, as perceived by the patient. Finally, there are examples of improving cost. The example that we use here is that in Mozambique for the past 25 years almost all the caesarean sections outside the capital have been done by nurses with additional training at a third of the cost of using doctors in that country.
These issues of changing skills mix, task-sharing and changing what professionals do can have profound effects on access, quality and costs. We looked at the success factors because we know that many such examples have failed. We identified some very clear success factors that are obviously spelt out in the report. They are about leadership, planning, training, supervision, ability to refer and teamwork. They are about some very obvious ways of doing things. We also identified failure in the absence of those things. It was also interesting for our all-party group to notice that a lot of the most innovative and interesting examples were happening in low and middle-income countries that did not have our resources and, to some extent, our baggage and vested interests. Here, we saw a compelling story.
We also decided that we would want to phrase the report in positive terms, in part thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and call it All the Talents. It is about how to bring all the talents of all the health workforce together to have the biggest impact on the biggest health problems in the world—those in low and middle-income countries. We think that it is a compelling story. If DfID and other organisations are to help national Governments to deliver healthcare in the million villages in India or the million villages in Africa we need this sort of change in how services are delivered to be effective. How can DfID act? We know that it is always difficult for Governments and international development agencies to deal with staffing issues. The argument is: if we train more people, will they not just migrate? How will we handle the professions and the recurring costs? Our four recommendations to DfID are clear. The first is to assist national Governments to develop their human resources and workforce planning. We must help them to make those changes. Secondly, we want to ensure that workforce innovations are mapped and shared. We need to collect and capture the innovation, then share it. Thirdly, together with others, we need to invest more in workforce research and develop better metrics. Fourthly, we should undertake systematic analysis of the effectiveness of role and skills-mix change. Changes can fail as well as succeed.
We are not the only people making similar proposals. As the Minister will know, Jeff Sachs, in a recent meeting in Parliament which we both attended, pointed out strongly that if we had a million more community health workers—the lowest trained group of health workers in the world—we would have a much better chance of delivering the millennium development goals. It will be interesting to hear the Government’s response to that as well. We argue in the report that professionals need to lead the changes but Governments, international agencies and DfID, with its very high standing—the highest standing of any development agency in the world—need to lead and to stress the importance of these sorts of issues.
People will be the biggest part of the solution in healthcare. They are not the only one—knowledge, science and technology are important—but caring hands, the knowledgeable helper, the professional and the well-trained non-professional are the biggest need and the biggest deficit in healthcare. That means investing in education and training, setting examples, supporting organisations such as the Global Health Workforce Alliance and promoting the needed solutions. I ask the Minister three questions. How does she respond to those four recommendations? How do she and the Government respond to the million community health workers campaign? Will DfID give people and health workers even higher prominence in policy?
Viscount Eccles
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is a tireless worker in the cause of global health, including, as we know on this occasion, through the development of a mix of appropriate and innovative skills in many places—here and elsewhere, but predominately in countries less fortunate than ours. He referred to the UK resource, and I want to go down a rather narrow path, talking about the UK’s capability to assist in the campaigns on tropical medicine and the contribution that we can make.
I should briefly declare my interests. I am involved with development at UCLH. I am also involved with the Hospital for Tropical Diseases and have on a number of occasions been involved with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It is usual for us in this House to discuss malaria and parasites, of which there are many different types which can lead to all sorts of very nasty results, and, lately, neglected tropical diseases. I am slightly less certain about our debating neglected tropical diseases. As a matter of fact, if you take the total UK capability, I am not sure that much is being neglected. As we know, ever since Manson and Ross connected the mosquito to malaria and the schools in London and Liverpool were founded, we have made an important contribution to fighting tropical diseases. Indeed, the Hospital for Tropical Diseases itself was founded nearly 200 years ago.
First, I want to talk briefly about London as a centre for excellence. It could perhaps be entitled “The Bloomsbury Campus”. The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in Keppel Street and the hospital, with its beds in Gower Street and outpatients and diagnostic laboratories in Mortimer Market, off Tottenham Court Road, are a real centre. Of course, we need to add the Wellcome Foundation, which is very close by. All those institutions are within walking distance and work very closely together. In particular, if a tricky case comes into the hospital, the conversations that go on between those institutions are close and entirely relevant. The people who practise in the hospital are also teachers and lecturers at the school, so there is a close combination of skills.
They have two agendas. The first is the domestic agenda, given the amount of travel and immigration. I expect that some noble Lords will know Dr Paul Clarke, who founded a tropical disease clinic called MASTA. Paul said to me one day, “John, you know that there are people who have come into Southwark”—he lived in Southwark—“from some strange places and have brought things that I have never seen before”. That is the domestic agenda. There is the rapid diagnosis of malaria and the concentration of quite rare diseases going on in the Hospital of Tropical Diseases. There is still some leprosy in this country, and it has often been misdiagnosed, and therefore having that capability is extremely important. Also important is the service whereby all GPs in the country can go on line or ring up for rapid advice if they are faced with a patient who they think may have returned from a foreign part quite recently.
On the overseas challenge, training, study and research are enormously endorsed by the Wellcome Trust, which makes large grants every year to both the London and Liverpool schools, as do Bill and Melinda Gates. It is an extraordinary amount of money, in one sense, and a great endorsement of the contribution of the Bloomsbury campus in London. Other institutions also make a contribution. DfID, as has been mentioned, is a strong supporter of this endeavour, as, indeed, is HEFCE, because they are either connected to or counted as higher education institutions.
This proliferation of support and the institutions involved bring challenges. Several departments of government are involved, and government departments are not always brilliant at talking to each other and providing a co-ordinated response. I wonder whether there is co-ordination.
Notably, the NHS, which is under pressure, changing configuration and always under some reorganisation, does not have the same agenda as DfID or the charitable institutions. I should like reassurance that DfID fully endorses this Bloomsbury campus and its contribution to those countries overseas which need that contribution, and that it will continue to give the participants enthusiastic support. Given that several departments are involved—notably the Department of Health and the NHS, with the ever present problems that they have to face—I ask the Government to make sure that nothing slips between the cracks.
Do the Government agree that the UK’s leading position in study, research, teaching and tropical disease clinical practice can continue to be a growth point for the economy? This endeavour has grown over the years and I see no reason why it should not grow further. Enormously satisfying careers are available in this activity and there is a huge job to be done overseas. If we can continue to get international support, surely this is an opportunity—and we are looking for such opportunities wherever we can.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
My Lords, All the Talents is an excellent report from the two All-Party Parliamentary Groups on Global Health and Africa. It gets straight to the point—that there is a critical shortage of healthcare workers in many countries—and it sets out clearly what can be done to tackle the problem. Crucially, it also provides us with the evidence that global health services can be improved by giving people extra skills and changing their roles to enable them to expand their capability. I congratulate the groups on their work in bringing the evidence together in this report. I also take the opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for his tireless commitment and great contribution to international development.
I was particularly struck by the example of the creation of orthopaedic clinical officers, or OCOs as they are called in the report, in Malawi. Currently—this is an astonishing statistic—there are only seven orthopaedic surgeons for Malawi’s 14 million people. Here in the UK we have roughly one per 30,000 people. It is an astonishing contrast. These OCOs were once local medical assistants, people who left school at around GCSE level and, after a two-year course in basic clinical care, ran the country’s small health centres. An 18-month training course in orthopaedics has enabled these medical assistants to develop sufficient skills to give good-quality care to around 90% of all injuries. They are expected to be competent to treat burns, septic joints, osteomyelitis and Malawi’s high incidence of club foot deformities. They can provide casts for the most common fractures and emergency resuscitation in the case of severe injuries. Every district hospital in Malawi now has at least one OCO and they are estimated to treat more than 30,000 fractures a year. What a great example of task-shifting that is, and there are others throughout this report that are similarly inspiring.
Of course, task-shifting, or task-sharing, is not a new concept. We have been reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, that there is a shortage of 4.2 million health workers world wide, with 1.5 million needed in Africa alone. Therefore, in many countries with severe shortages of trained professionals, health workers often have no choice but to get stuck in and carry out tasks which are not in their job title.
This makes the words of warning contained in the report all the more important. If changes to a health workforce are managed badly, they can lead to poor-quality and unsafe services. We must not risk more burden being placed on poorly trained, poorly paid workers who are expected to deliver an increasing range of priorities. But done well, as this report shows us, giving people new skills can improve access to services, improve quality and possibly reduce costs. The report’s list of recommendations forms a sensible checklist of what will make the difference between success and poor-quality, even dangerous, care. When a health worker takes on a new task or responsibility, it is essential that they are effectively trained, supervised and supported.
The report emphasises that successful skills-mixing starts with health professionals and local health organisations leading the changes, with Governments and national health systems enabling them to do so. We need more evidence of the effectiveness of skills-mixing to help support further development. I was struck by the point made in the report that significantly more investment is made in drug research than in human resources research, even though health workers account for a much greater proportion of costs. This was reinforced for me by OECD Health Working Paper No.54, helpfully provided by the Library, which emphasised the many barriers to be overcome and how Governments have to support the process to overcome them. In her response to this debate, will the Minister tell us what measures the Department for International Development is taking to assist Governments to develop their HR and workforce planning capacity?
The real benefit of skills-mixing is that experiences can be shared between countries. That is where international and national volunteering can play an important role. International development agencies such as VSO can assist national Governments to train medical staff and draw up sustainable plans for skill-mix changes. I declare an interest as a life vice-president of VSO and draw your Lordships’ attention to the work that VSO is doing with regard to task-shifting, or skills-mixing.
VSO sees these as positive ways of getting skills and health services to the grassroots, and as close as possible to those who need access to services and education. Skills-mixing also supports VSO’s belief that citizens are active agents of change and that communities will prosper if people are given the skills and opportunities to develop. But—and there is always a but—for this approach to be successful and sustainable, it must receive continuous investment. If community health workers and volunteers are to be given increased skills, responsibility and tasks, they must have the equivalent increase in support. They need the professional training and management that will ensure that they are able to deliver this work effectively, and their increased responsibility must be reflected in their remuneration.
In every situation, in every country, ongoing training and support are vital in health services. Health workers should be supported to learn continuously, and to be trained in the latest medical developments, healthcare approaches and effective techniques.
VSO makes this happen whenever it can. I will give just one example, still in Malawi, where VSO volunteers are training health workers because, again, the country has a critical shortage. VSO is pushing for improved supervision and management of these health workers. The Malawian Government are listening and making a concentrated effort to tackle the shortage through recruitment, training and retraining. I hope the common sense approach contained in All the Talents will give extra support to VSO's representations in Malawi. I know VSO will make some of these points tomorrow to the APPG's review on overseas volunteering, which itself acknowledges the importance of the direct exchange of knowledge and skills between people.
The UK has taken some positive steps in this area. DfID's £20 million four-year health partnership scheme enables volunteer British doctors, nurses and midwives to train overseas healthcare workers across many disciplines. These skilled health professionals offer practical assistance to their counterparts in the developing world, including one-to-one mentoring and developing guidelines to ensure that clinics run more effectively. Will the Minister give us any assurances that opportunities for skills mix changes and task-sharing are being promoted as part of the health partnership scheme?
Health workers—midwives, clinical officers, community workers, nurses and doctors—provide healthcare in many of the world's hardest to reach areas. They face daily challenges and do amazing work, but there are not enough of them to get the job done properly. They often lack support and supervision, the right training and equipment. In the best possible way, All the Talents states the obvious when it addresses these points. It makes sense to develop the talents of everyone working in healthcare, so that money is not wasted, quality can continue to improve, and above all, so that more people can access the health services that they need.
Baroness Flather
My Lords, I have just had tea with a friend from Nigeria. She said that she spoke to her mother over the weekend. Her mother told her about her cousin, who had come home from having a baby and had blown up because part of the placenta had been left inside her. Nobody could give her antibiotics—no antibiotics were available—so she died. This is what we are talking about today. I unashamedly say that I am passionate about women’s issues and how women in Africa and India suffer the most. I know because I have had opportunities to visit and see for myself what goes on for women. Nobody really cares: “A woman dies, so what? There are so many others”. That is why this debate and the report of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, are so valuable. Everything the noble Lord said is absolutely correct. Any support that can be given for what he wants done would be wonderfully valuable.
We have talked about birth attendance, village women helping and so on, but it has never been done in a proper way. The noble Lord is so right to say that if things are not done properly, it is better not to do them at all. My friend also told me that in her village, the woman with the smallest hands pulls the baby out and the mother usually ends up with a fistula. Things are not getting better; they are getting worse in the developing countries and we have to recognise that. Why are they getting worse? Because the population is increasing by a very large number and more people need help.
We know that family planning is absolutely essential. We have a shortage of nurses, skilled midwives and obstetricians and an increase in population to more than 7 billion people. Every day, 800 women die from easily preventable pregnancy or childbirth-related complications. There are 215 million women in urgent need of family planning services.
Current health systems cannot meet these demands. Mix changes could increase women’s access to services, which is exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is saying. We need access at least to the most basic of services because sometimes basic services can change a woman’s life. They can make the difference between life and death, or a woman being inflicted with a lifelong problem.
I am an active member of the APPG on Population, Development and Reproductive Health. We produced a report some years ago about maternal morbidity. No one knows the figures because we just cannot get them. However, we took a figure of 25%. The report was called Better Off Dead because, in many cases, the women would be better off dead than suffering through a lifetime of problems due to pregnancy and childbirth.
In India there were a lot of not quite hospitals but places where there were doctors and nurses. The problem has always been that doctors and nurses do not want to work in rural areas because they can earn more money in the towns. They would go to work in the towns and when people arrived at those rural centres there would be no one there. The idea was that either the nurse or the doctor would be there at all times, but this was not always the case.
While I have sympathy for the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, on tropical disease, the Gates Foundation has really taken that on board and has certainly done a lot in regard to African diseases. As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has mentioned, Mozambique, Tanzania and Malawi have seen success in the strategy of people being trained to do something. There are quite a lot of things that semi-trained people can do, such as giving antibiotics. In some places they perform surgery and it has been found that their obstetric operations are no worse than those of the doctors. If you have no one else, it is absolutely amazing that someone can do that.
I hope that this will become an issue with DfID, which has put girls and women at the top of its agenda for almost the first time. However, to be fair, Andrew Mitchell also put girls and women at the top of the agenda. We need to remember that the value of girls and women in African countries is pretty well zero. If women die or are sick, it is of no importance. If children die, it is of very little importance—perhaps a tiny bit more, but not much. It is there for us all to know and all to see.
We held a family planning summit last year. It was a wonderful thing for us to have done and I am very proud of the fact that our Government initiated it. Family planning by itself saves lives and money. One pound spent on family planning can save lives and many pounds if it is available. I hope that we will keep in mind that it is cost-effective and necessary.
I hope the Government will promote skills-mix changes and task-sharing in low and middle-income countries where family planning programmes are now being rolled out. That will improve access to family planning for the hardest to reach. They are the ones who will probably respond more to someone who is familiar with them than to someone who is from elsewhere.
Nothing can be more effective than this initiative, and I hope that the Minister will take that on board. I am not sure how much our Government can do, but perhaps the Governments in those countries could be involved. A lot of money was promised at the family planning summit, but the problem is always to get the Government of the country to support the programme. If the Government of the country do not support the programme, no matter what outside Governments do, it will never work as well as it should.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for initiating this debate. In particular, I thank him and the all-party groups for their excellent report. Its evidence-based approach with best practice case studies not only makes fascinating reading but shows how capturing people’s aspiration can be a positive force in meeting the healthcare challenges that we face both here and globally. As we have heard today, health is global and interdependent. It is no longer possible to separate health issues between countries. We increasingly face the same global threats and rely on the same people and technologies for solutions.
In previous debates in this House, I have referred to the book of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on the search for global health in the 21st century, but it is worth an extra plug. The book gives an excellent analysis of global health and provides a superb description of how richer countries such as ours can learn about health from low and middle-income countries. I note what the noble Viscount said about how proud we can be of our centres of excellence. I certainly also note what my noble friend said about volunteering and how training and support can be vital. We also need to understand how low and middle-income countries, with their innovation with limited resources, can be extremely valuable to us. If we see it as a two-way dialogue, perhaps we can gain public support for positive change.
As we have heard, there is growing interest in exploring how we use all the talent, skills and experience of health workers to their full extent. Developing a team approach so that all members of a team, under direction and leadership and with training, can collectively hold casework and workload can bring huge benefits that we have not been able to garner so far.
However, as the report recognises, attempts to make change without addressing those factors may well fail and can damage existing health services. Alongside the examples of success there are many cases where innovations have failed to achieve positive health outcomes and have not been sustainable because, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said, of poor design and an unsupportive environment.
In the report we are given examples where health workers in Africa have not been trained properly and in the UK where nursing assistants received little or no supervision when taking on new tasks. As the noble Lord said, training programmes must be relevant and lead to some formal qualification necessary for recognition or promotion if they are to be sustainable.
An interesting quotation was from Dr Peter Carter, chief executive of the Royal College of Nursing. He said:
“You don’t need registered nurses to do all of the tasks that historically have been carried out by qualified nurses. Healthcare assistants can do many of those tasks, perfectly satisfactorily, providing they’ve had the proper induction, training, and education. And where it goes wrong, in some parts (and I do stress some parts of the NHS) is where there has been task shifting onto unqualified people who’ve not been given even the most rudimentary induction into the fundamentals of nursing care”.
The All the Talents report shows us that giving people extra skills, designing jobs that allow them to work to the limit of their capabilities, providing better supervision and creating more effective teams can bring enormous improvements to healthcare. Under the right circumstances—and we have heard examples in today’s debate—nurses can prescribe and take on additional roles. Nursing assistants and community workers can treat common conditions, and we have even had examples of patients supporting each other. Someone who has been diagnosed as a diabetic can self-manage, and non-communicable diseases, which pose the biggest health threat, are good examples.
The report describes where such changes have greatly increased the population’s access to services, improved the quality of a service and reduced costs. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, gave some extremely good examples of that. However, I repeat that improvements can be achieved only if the changes are planned carefully and are implemented well. This of course is where the Government’s support and role are vital. There have been as many failures as successes, with examples of people taking on tasks beyond their competency without adequate training and support which can result in poor quality and even dangerous care being provided, as the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, indicated.
However, one of the fantastic things about this report is that such failures can be avoided if the lessons highlighted in it are learnt. I, too, should like to ask the Minister how the Government will support research to evaluate and strengthen evidence on best practice and what steps her department will take to ensure that that is shared as widely as possible across all nations. What action will she take to provide more education and training through DfID programmes, and what steps will the department take to assist national Governments to develop their human resource and workplace capacity?
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for securing this debate. His commitment to improving the health workforce is international and has been internationally valued. This debate on skills-mix changes and task-sharing is very welcome and is derived from the extremely interesting report, All the Talents.
One of the refreshing aspects of the report for me, as spokesperson for both DfID and the Department of Health, is that it applied its analysis and conclusions and took its evidence not only internationally, across a range of both developed and developing countries, but from across the United Kingdom. That meant that it brought fresh perspectives in both quarters. Often, the assumption is that in developing countries it would be good if more basically trained personnel undertook more work, whereas in the United Kingdom we need a workforce that is as regulated and as trained as possible. I note the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, to what Peter Carter of the RCN said in the report and I look forward to discussions in health debates. However, this report challenges us to think again and to look beyond our assumptions to what works and why it works in various settings and what does not work in various settings. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, emphasised leadership, planning, supervision and teamwork as being essential. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, also emphasised how important it is to do this work well, otherwise it will not work at all.
We fully support the principle that a strong health service needs skilled and motivated health workers in the right place at the right time. As the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, knows, we have promised to save the lives of at least 50,000 women during pregnancy and childbirth, and the lives of 250,000 newborn babies by 2015 in developing countries. We have promised to support 2 million women to deliver their babies safely with the support of skilled midwives, nurses and doctors. As the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, made clear, meeting these commitments means improvements across the health systems in developing countries but, above all, demands skilled health workers across all levels of the workforce. We strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. We are supporting the workforce in 28 of the countries in which we work. This includes training new health workers, building skills among existing health workers and supporting government planning.
Even in the wealthiest countries it is not easy to make sure that everyone, rich or poor, living in town or country, can see a health worker when they need to. Many countries, especially in Africa, suffer from a critical shortage of health workers, as we have heard. Tackling this shortage demands creative and innovative approaches. Task-sharing and organising the roles of health workers can be such a creative approach. Around the world, health workers are taking on new responsibilities as countries try new ways of building an effective health workforce in the face of financial constraints and a serious shortage of health professionals.
The excellent report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global Health, of which the noble Lord is co-chair, is a valuable addition to the thinking about the issue. The report pinpoints the factors that create success when reorganising roles and makes practical recommendations on how professionals, Governments and institutions can best support the talents of health workers. With increasing global focus on universal health coverage, the timing of this report is excellent.
I can assure noble Lords that we share their concern about the importance of this area. We agree that task shifting can improve health service access and quality. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and others that we support partner countries which wish to do this. In Ethiopia, for example, DfID is supporting the Ethiopian Government to expand access to health services through the training and deployment of village health extension workers. With one year of training, these workers can take on basic preventive and curative services that would otherwise be seen as the preserve of health officers, nurses and doctors, who remain scarce. UK support means an additional 2,000 community health extension workers will provide a package of basic health services for 5 million people. Other countries, such as Zambia, are looking to learn from Ethiopia’s experience with UK support. It is important to learn from the good and bad examples of where this is happening.
To answer the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on assisting national Governments with human resource planning, which is a key point, it is very clear that robust health workforce planning is recognised as being critically important. That is why DfID works with Governments, such as the Government of Nepal, to develop such national health workforce strategies.
There are other areas where strengthening the health workforce is key. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, is right to make reference to the significance of family planning. I thank her for what she said. The UK’s leadership of last year’s family planning summit encouraged new thinking about expanding access to contraception. It was notable that several countries included task-shifting for family planning within their summit commitments, and DfID is working with country partners on implementing these. For example, Zambia has just confirmed its summit commitment to allow community health assistants to provide contraceptive injectables, an excellent development that will expand access to family planning.
A number of organisations are focusing on task-shifting and I hear with interest what the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, had to say about VSO. In east Africa, a mid-level cadre of ophthalmic clinical officers provides most of the community eye care services. This cadre has only recently been admitted to the professional body for ophthalmologists, the East Africa College of Ophthalmologists. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, that through the United Kingdom Government’s health partnership scheme, about which she asked, the UK’s Royal College of Ophthalmologists will work with its east African counterparts to integrate these clinical officers and boost the quality of their work still further.
Sharing skills beyond those traditionally considered to be the responsibility of the health workforce can also be successful. Again, the Health Partnership Scheme is also supporting the East London NHS Foundation Trust to work with Butabika Hospital in Uganda. In this innovative project, recovered psychiatric patients work alongside community mental health services to provide care—an example of task-shifting.
My noble friend Lord Eccles has spoken compellingly about the UK’s track record on research—in particular, the practice of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the Hospital for Tropical Diseases and other institutions. He is, as are we, rightly proud of the international contribution that our institutions have made, not least in rendering neglected tropical diseases less neglected, as he says. I assure him that UK institutions successfully secure a high proportion of the global funds available for research, including from DfID. The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine are two among many centres of excellence for health research in the United Kingdom, and we expect UK institutions to continue to compete effectively for funding in the future.
My noble friend also asked about working across government departments. I would point out that the Department of Health, for example, funds the National Institute for Health. The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and other institutions can and do apply for grants, and there is a lot of discussion between DfID and the Department of Health on this.
As noble Lords will be aware, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, pointed out, DfID puts women and girls front and centre, recognising that they are likely to be the poorest and the most vulnerable in the world. Supporting women and girls brings particular benefits to the individuals themselves, as well as to their families and their communities. Task-shifting can bring particular benefits to women both as employees—many community health worker programmes prioritise women’s training—and as beneficiaries of expanded services. Pakistan’s Lady Health Worker Programme, which we support, makes it easier for women to access healthcare. However, as All the Talents points out, and as noble Lords have emphasised, task-shifting needs to be done well. Fragmented approaches, delivered separately from the wider health system or driven solely by efforts to cut costs, are not the way forward. Crucially, Governments need evidence of what works to be able to design effective programmes. Research and evaluation need to establish best practice and inform policy. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, are right in this regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, asked me, interestingly, about Jeffrey Sach’s campaign to train 1 million community health workers. We believe that the initiative to expand access to good-quality healthcare is welcome. However, we are concerned that the evidence to support such a dramatic scale-up in community health workers is weak. Any such initiative needs in-built evaluation plans to build evidence and understand impact. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, emphasised that and so do we.
The UK Government support research into task-shifting. DfID has commissioned a cost-effectiveness study on using community health workers to deliver essential health services, and the ReBUILD research programme looks at opportunities to reallocate health worker responsibilities in fragile and post-conflict situations. An overarching policy question for this research is: can they be a cost-effective investment for MDG progress? If so, can a defiaced set of competency-based roles and functions, founded on a strong evidence base, be specified to maximise value for money and health systems requirements for effective scaling-up?
How might things move further forward, given that we are already strongly supporting this in a number of countries? This November, there will be a Global Forum on Human Resources for Health in Brazil, convened by the Global Health Workforce Alliance and hosted by the Government of Brazil. This will be an important opportunity to ensure that the human resources for health agenda remains relevant to current global health policy discussions. Task-shifting will undoubtedly form part of this. We are playing our role in the run-up to this conference and looking forward to hearing the evidence brought to it. This will be a chance to map and share, in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, outlined.
In conclusion, I thank all noble Lords for taking part in this debate, and even more for all the work they are doing, nationally and internationally, to ensure that, wherever people need medical assistance or healthcare of one sort or another, we work across barriers to do everything possible to maximise their chance of receiving such support. DfID will continue to work with developing countries, to support them in their efforts to build health service quality and access, including where this means rethinking health worker roles.
The Deputy Chairman of Committee (Baroness Harris of Richmond)
My Lords, that completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. The Committee stands adjourned. I apologise for the lack of warmth in this room. This has been reported to the authorities.
House of Lords
Infrastructure: Expenditure
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hollick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much has been spent on infrastructure projects in the current financial year, and how that figure compares with that in the previous financial year.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Deighton)
My Lords, we are spending more on infrastructure projects this year. Capital spending by the departments responsible for economic infrastructure—DfT, DECC and Defra—is increasing. The transport budget, for example, rises from £7.7 billion last year to £8 billion this year, then £8.7 billion next year and £8.9 billion in 2014-15, which is more than at any point under the last Government. This has been possible because the Government increased infrastructure spending by £10 billion over the past two Autumn Statements, increases which the Budget committed to making permanent, with a further £3 billion a year from 2015-16.
Lord Hollick
I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, the Office for Budget Responsibility reported a rather different situation last week, when it announced that public sector net investment would fall by 34%, from £38.7 billion in 2010-11 to an estimated £25.5 billion in the current year, 2012-13. The OBR also forecast that, taking into account all the measures so far announced, including those announced in the Budget last week, there would be zero growth in infrastructure spend between now and 2017-18. Will the Minister please explain why these measures have failed, and continue to fail, to boost overall infrastructure investment, and which additional measures he plans to introduce to improve the dire forecast for the next five years?
Lord Deighton
My Lords, first, it is necessary to clear up the numbers. There is a significant difference between public investment numbers and investment in infrastructure. Public investment includes huge investments in health and in defence, so there is a significant difference there. Also, if you look at the national infrastructure plan, you see that approximately 80% of the investment that we expect over the next 15 years in fact comes from the private markets and not from public capital expenditure.
Lord Flight
My Lords, the national infrastructure plan has identified some £200 billion of energy infrastructure investment and £200 billion of communication and transport infrastructure investment. What proportion of that total does the Minister estimate might be under way by the end of five years, and to what extent are any delays caused not by the absence of finance—where sovereign funds and others are willing to put up the money—but by planning and environmental legal constraints in this country?
Lord Deighton
I thank my noble friend for that question, which focuses us on the issues to do with accelerating the delivery of this very important programme. With respect to the proportion that will be under way within this Parliament, this Government have focused activity on the top 40 programmes and projects, which accounts for about £200 billion of the £400 billion my noble friend refers to. Approximately 20% of those projects are currently in construction, and we would expect that proportion, by 2015-16 and the end of this Parliament, to be approximately 50%. There is no question but that the gate that most constrains our ability to accelerate the stream of projects is to do with the variety of planning regulations that surround any major public infrastructure investment.
Lord Soley
Do I take it from the Minister’s enthusiasm for private sector investment in infrastructure, with which I wholly agree, that he supports the expansion of Heathrow Airport?
Lord Deighton
If I may say, my Lords, those are two quite separate questions. I am very enthusiastic about private sector investment. Infrastructure investments lend themselves to financing in the private markets because they generate a cash flow that can repay those investments. The question about Heathrow Airport is an entirely separate one, although I accept that airports are a particularly attractive investment proposition for the private markets.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, is not the difference between the figures that he quoted and those quoted by my noble friend Lord Hollick that the previous figures were allocated but not actually spent?
Lord Deighton
I bow to the noble Lord’s extensive experience in managing public expenditure. There is absolutely a distinction between what is allocated and what is spent. There is a small additional amount this year that is underspent, but it is in the region of £2 billion, which is consistent with previous years. I agree that that is part of the difference.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, the Budget document says that the Government will create an enhanced cadre of commercial specialists in Infrastructure UK to promote infrastructure delivery. How many such specialists are there now, how many will be in the enhanced cadre and when will these specialists be appointed?
Lord Deighton
I thank the noble Lord for drawing attention to an important part of our intervention to improve the public sector’s delivery of these crucial projects. On the question of the amount of resources required, we are not simply discussing the resources in Infrastructure UK here; we are discussing the resources right across government, particularly in the government departments that are charged with delivering infrastructure: the DfT and DECC being the two primary examples. Between now and June, we will work precisely to define their requirements, based on the project load that they are managing, and what they ought to be staffed with in order to make that happen. That gap is thus being defined, and we have to assess what is in the departments as well as what is in Infrastructure UK in order to determine how to fill in that difference.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that had he continued with Alistair Darling’s plans for capital expenditure, capital expenditure would have been severely reduced?
Lord Deighton
My noble friend is precisely right that the restoration to capital expenditure which this Government have made through the 2010 spending round, the two Autumn Statements and the recent Budget, has restored capital expenditure levels to considerably above the previous Government’s plan.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, can the Minister clarify how much of the amount he quoted in his original Answer is in respect of Network Rail and how much is capital expenditure, whether it is considered to be in the private or public sector, and whether or not it was financed by government guarantee?
Lord Deighton
The plan for Network Rail is included under the high-level output specification, which is a £9 billion plan from 2014 to 2019. Of that £9.4 billion, approximately £4.2 billion has been added during the tenure of this Government.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, the Minister mentioned defence infrastructure. Does he not agree that it would be better over the next eight years to spend money on building warships in our warship yards rather than spending money in those yards not to build warships, which is what the plan appears to be?
Lord Deighton
I congratulate the noble Lord on being able to take the Question into the sphere of defence expenditure, which is not my expertise or my brief. One thing that I am working on in all our infrastructure investments is to make sure that they are highly productive. Spending the money that we are allocating well is probably the most effective thing we can do over the next three years.
Prisons: Suicide
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sheldon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people have committed suicide in prisons since January 2000.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the figures we hold on suicide are classified within the data on self-inflicted deaths. There were 960 self-inflicted deaths in prison custody between January 2000 and September 2012. Annual numbers have reduced from 92 per year in 2007 to 57 in 2011.
Lord Sheldon
My Lords, by last week there had been 982 suicides since 2000, including 15 children under the age of 18. Staff in prisons try to reduce those deaths but suicides continue.
Lord McNally
My Lords, inevitably it is true that suicides continue. But there has also been a concerted effort by the prison authorities and those with responsibility for the youth estate to try to avoid as far as possible these dreadful circumstances—dreadful for the prison staff who have to deal with them and dreadful for the families who have lost loved ones. The noble Lord makes the point that suicides continue. I would say that that is against a background of great efforts by the authorities to try to continue the welcome reduction of recent years.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
My Lords, any suicide in custody is terrible and a cause for real concern, but when children commit suicide it is an absolute tragedy. Three children have died in the past 18 months or so, as recently reported by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman in Wetherby, Hindley and Cookham Wood YOIs. Can my noble friend the Minister please tell the House what action the Government are now going to take to ensure that these exceptionally vulnerable children—as these were—are not held in young offender institutions but in facilities that are better suited to meet their very particular and challenging needs?
Lord McNally
My Lords, my noble friend is right. There have been three recent deaths—the first in youth custody for more than five years, so it is important to keep these numbers in perspective. The Youth Justice Board—YJB—which is responsible for the placement of young people in custody, is working closely with the Department of Health in the development of the comprehensive health assessment tool to screen and assess the needs of young people aged under 18 on reception. The Department of Health has developed a youth justice health and well-being needs assessment toolkit, which is now available to help with the planning and commissioning of health services for young people across the justice system. I should also add that the three recent deaths have been investigated by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
Since the instance of two or more mental disorders among the prison population is estimated to be 15 times that of the rest of the population and up to 35-fold higher in female prisoners, despite the assessment that the Minister referred to and despite the fall in suicides, there remains a major treatment problem for prisoners with mental health disorders, particularly when they move around and do not have stable placements. How is this going to be addressed by the Ministry of Justice and how will the changes to the NHS affect the provision of mental health services in prisons?
Lord McNally
The noble Baroness is correct. One of the abiding problems of our Prison Service is the need of so many prisoners in the criminal justice system for mental health support. We are talking with the Department of Health to make sure that we can assess prisoners and that those who are in need of mental health support are given it. Since 2007 all establishments operate an individually focused care planning system for prisoners identified as being at risk, the key benefits of which include an initial assessment and faster first response, the provision of flexible individual accountable care, better sharing of information and a multidisciplinary approach. I do not underestimate the fact—
Lord McNally
I know it is too long but it is worth getting on the record that the problems of mental health within the prison population remain and we need a more holistic approach to solving them.
Lord Elton
My Lords, my noble friend referred to prisoners identified as being at risk of suicide. Can he tell us how many of those there are currently, how many are identified as having mental health problems of any sort, and how many staff there are who are qualified to deal with their mental health illnesses while they are in prison?
Lord McNally
On the latter issue I will have to write to the noble Lord. On any one day in the Prison Service it is estimated that there are about 1,500 prisoners who are under care and supervision out of concern for the danger of self-harm or worse. I will have to write to the noble Lord about the actual number with mental health issues.
Lord Harris of Haringey
It must be this side’s turn eventually. I declare an interest as chair of the Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody. Given the importance of properly investigating the deaths, particularly of young people but of anyone who dies unexpectedly in prison, is the Minister satisfied with the level of resources available to the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman to carry out their function and, secondly, does he not agree that it is time that the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman was made statutorily independent of the Ministry of Justice and the Prison Service?
Lord McNally
On that latter point I will have to take advice. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his appointment to the independent advisory panel. It was set up in 2008 and its shared purpose is to bring about a reduction in the number and rate of deaths in all forms of state custody and to share the lessons that can be learnt from these deaths. The ministerial board incorporates senior decision-makers, experts and practitioners in the field. This extended cross-section approach to deaths in custody allows for better learning and sharing of lessons across the sector.
House of Lords: Debates
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
To ask the Leader of the House whether he will bring forward proposals to encourage greater interactivity of debate, and to allow time for interventions, in time-limited debates in the House and Grand Committee.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, our existing procedures allow for a degree of spontaneity. Interventions are permitted in moderation and we allow speakers in the gap. Most importantly, the Companion discourages Members from reading their speeches. Indeed, your Lordships have resolved that it is alien to the custom of this House. Not reading speeches would certainly encourage greater interactivity of debate.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I warmly thank my noble friend for his positive Answer. I am sure that he will have heard, as I have, concerns from many Members of your Lordships’ House that debate is in fact not living up to its name, partly for the reasons that he has outlined. Given that the quality of contributions remains extremely high, so the problem is not quality but rather interactivity, will he consider reconvening the Leader’s Group on Working Practices to look at this issue in depth before we get much further down the road of more introductions?
Lord Hill of Oareford
As I have said, there are a number of ways in which we can all try to make it easier for debates to be more spontaneous. If people are not stuck to a script, they are more likely to listen to the debate that is going on and respond to the points that are raised in it. It is open to any Member to take suggestions forward to the Procedure Committee—for example, as to how one might make improvements in this area—and I know that all noble Lords are concerned to ensure that the quality of our debates is as high as it possibly can be.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
My Lords, is it not the number of speakers in particular debates that causes the problem? Indeed, in some debates the time allocated is three minutes, an unrealistic time in which to expect someone to give way in a debate. Will the Leader of the House look at the possibility of limiting the number of speakers so that the minimum amount of time available was between seven and 10 minutes?
Lord Hill of Oareford
It would of course be open to the House, if it put proposals to the Procedure Committee, to decide that one way of addressing the problem that the noble Lord raises would be a limit on the number of speakers. As with so many things in this House, there is another side to the argument: if one had a fixed limit and the first noble Lords who put their names down to take part all had the same view, we would not have much of a debate. As often, then, this issue is not straightforward, but that is the kind of thing that one could look at. It is also true that there are a number of debates where we are short on speakers, so we have the problem of undersubscription as well as oversubscription.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I hope this will not be regarded as a breach of our convention that we do not criticise the other place, but I express the hope that we do not try to go down the road that they have increasingly followed in recent years where a debate turns into little more than a conversation between the Minister who is trying to make a speech and Back-Benchers who are incessantly interrupting.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
That has seriously reduced the quality of debate at the other end of the Palace.
Lord Hill of Oareford
Perhaps that sound is someone ringing from another place with a view on the quality of our debates. The response that the House gave to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin reminds us that we do not want slavishly to follow examples in another place.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, if there were to be a minimum ration of, say, five minutes for each speech, surely it would not matter very much if from time to time debates ran on a little longer. That would facilitate the kind of more spontaneous and lively debating that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, rightly calls for while ending what is, frankly, the demeaning practice of limiting the time for noble Lords’ speeches sometimes to three minutes, and sometimes to two minutes or even one.
Lord Hill of Oareford
The whole House has taken a view about time-limited debates. The advantage of them is that noble Lords know how long they have to speak, when the debate is going to take place and so on. The ingenious suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, about allowing things to run on would effectively take time from someone else, and they would have an equally strong view the other way. These are not straightforward issues. One point worth making generally is that the amount of time in the previous Session set aside for debates was actually greater than that in the previous three Sessions. The noble Lord will probably know that I have brought forward proposals to the Procedure Committee to try to increase opportunities for debate and, importantly, for topical debates in particular because I know that there is widespread demand for that opportunity.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, although I strongly agree with what my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding said, perhaps there is a case for allowing some “injury time” so that interventions can be taken during time-limited speeches. We could profitably adopt that proposal, and I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to consider it.
Lord Hill of Oareford
It all comes back to the view the House has taken about the length of time it wants to set aside for particular kinds of debate. The only way of doing that formally, as my noble friend is suggesting, would be to have a cap of the sort that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, suggested.
UK: Poverty
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Seccombe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their definition of poverty in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, the Government keep track of their progress on reducing poverty using a range of measures in their annual publication Households Below Average Income. They include the below 60% of median income measure, which is used internationally. However, a purely income-based measure of poverty is too narrow and does not capture progress on solving the underlying causes of poverty, such as family breakdown or benefit dependency. The previous Government spent £170 billion on tax credits yet missed their target to halve child poverty.
Baroness Seccombe
My Lords, I am sure that if each of us were asked “What is poverty?” we would have a variety of definitions, so I am grateful to my noble friend for answering the Question as he did. More importantly, can he tell us what measures the Government have taken to help working families and those who through ill health and disability are unable to sustain themselves?
Lord Freud
My Lords, we provide very significant support to families in need. Working-age benefits stood at £96 billion in 2010 and have been moving up faster than average earnings. Disability payments now stand at 2.4% of GDP, which is much higher than the norm in the EU where the average is 1.4%. We are designing universal credit to target our support efficiently on the poorest families.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, would the Minister include in his definition of poverty circumstances where families have routinely to resort to food banks to survive?
Lord Freud
My Lords, we have a benefits system that is designed to provide the basic needs of people who are poor. Clearly, there is increasing local provision of food banks. Actually, it expanded very dramatically under the previous Government. Interestingly, the really big expansion has been since September 2011 when jobcentre advisers were allowed for the first time to direct people towards them.
Lord German
My Lords, relative measures of poverty sometimes have bizarre consequences. An example has happened recently. As the economy contracted, hundreds of thousands of children were notionally lifted out of poverty. What credence does the Minister give to a better and wider form of measurement of poverty that looks at interventions and at ways of removing barriers for children, such as that proposed by Save the Children, which would allow things such as the pupil premium to be included in the measure so that we fully understand the impact that these things have on child poverty?
Lord Freud
My noble friend makes an important point. I should make it clear that I believe in the relative poverty measure, which is a way of measuring what happens over the medium-term period, although there have been some rather perverse impacts in the past couple of years in the current recession. What is really important is that we drive our attention to the underlying causes of poverty. That is what the current consultation is about. We will be reporting on how to tackle it in the spring/summer.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, the Minister has repeated an assertion that I have heard him make before. My experience, from talking to people in the clergy and social services, is that there has been a large increase in the use and availability of food banks. The Minister asserts that there has not. What is his evidence?
Lord Freud
Well, my Lords, I actually said the exact opposite. I said that there has been an increase in the use of food banks and that, indeed, there had been a large increase under the previous Government. We have since September 2011 been advising people of this local resource and other resources. We are transferring elements to the Social Fund so that local areas can create local welfare support for people who are in crisis. It is important that we have that kind of provision, either through local authorities or, indeed, through third-sector parties.
Baroness O'Cathain
My Lords, is not the use of the term “food banks” confusing to many people? They are actually temporary measures for people who are suddenly put out of work and do not have enough cash to feed children and so on. Normally, the food banks under the Trussell Trust give families food for three days while it puts them in touch with social services, charities and other organisations. If there is time, would it not be a good idea to have a full-scale debate on food banks, what they mean, how they are operated and how they should be supported?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that. The essential point is that we are moving to local authority support for people who are in trouble as that is the best place for them to get that support. Food banks may well be part of that. One thing that local authorities are looking at is providing support in kind to people who would otherwise have taken cash. It is a more effective way of doing it. Food banks are another aspect of that.
Lord Tomlinson
Does the Minister agree that the subject about which we hear so little these days, the big society, was supposed to have helped to eradicate the problems of poverty?
Lord Freud
I am pleased to tell the noble Lord that, on the most recent figures that we have, for 2010-11, relative poverty is at its lowest level since 1986.
Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2013
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
That the draft orders and regulations laid before the House on 4 and 7 February be approved.
Relevant documents: 19th and 20th Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 18 March.
Official Statistics Order 2013
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That the draft orders and regulations laid before the House on 14 and 25 February be approved.
Relevant document: 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 19 March.
Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
“Annual report to Parliament—
(1) Within a year of the passing of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State shall publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the costs to the Exchequer arising from the provisions of this Act. (2) A report under this section shall include a comparison of the costs to the Exchequer arising from the provisions of this Act against the costs that would have arisen had each of the individual relevant sums and relevant amounts, as defined in the Schedule to this Act, been increased by a sum equivalent to the change in the general level of prices, measured by the Consumer Price Index.(3) A comparison shall include an analysis of the effect of the provisions in this Act on each of the relevant sums and relevant amounts in the Schedule.”
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
My Lords, it is a pleasure to move the amendment on the Order Paper to insert a new clause after Clause 2, entitled “Annual report to Parliament”. It will give my noble friends on the Front Bench some comfort, perhaps, if I tell them that this is a probing amendment. This is a case of once bitten, twice shy.
However, it is important to spend some time reviewing the context in which the Third Reading of this important Bill takes place, particularly against the background of our not having had the advantage of having the Budget Statement available to us when we were on Report. We are now better informed in terms of the updated projections that have been done by the Office for Budget Responsibility, which inform this debate directly. I cannot resist the temptation to say to my noble friend that we are also better informed on CPI in that, as we were speaking on Report last week, the BBC was reporting that the February monthly figure for inflation had ticked up by 0.1% from 2.7% to 2.8%. Admittedly, that is two points away from the magic 3% that I was using in an amendment—as it happens, unsuccessfully—to try to get some inflation protection for people on benefits.
I mention that merely in passing. I will not go back to discussing what we did on Report because I would be out of order to do so, but it illustrates the point that inflation can be capricious. It is a difficult thing to forecast. Some commentators who know more about it than I do were saying that, for example, the recent weakness of sterling, which has dropped by 7% in recent days, increases the risk of inflation, and so does the new monetary policy framework that Mark Carney, the Governor-designate of the Bank of England, is going to work with. We therefore need to look at the Bill carefully.
This amendment is a rather clichéd parliamentary device, as an annual report to Parliament is the last thing I could get the clerks to accept as being in order. However, it gives us time to reflect on the full-blown consequences of this Bill as we launch it on to the statute book. I still have some deep concerns, which are not merely around the question of the reduced household budgets of low-income working-age families. As I said in Committee, the Bill sets a very dangerous precedent for future Governments. If you believe, as I do, in the value of social protection then implicit in that is your understanding that temporary or maybe even long-term benefit recipients are also entitled, over the longer term, to have a share in the national wealth of the country. We all know that that national wealth is stagnating and we are in difficult times; I understand that perfectly well. However, since 1992—and I stress that date, which is a long time ago—we have had the absolutely implicit foundation of an understanding across party divides: an acceptance that the uprating formula would be sacrosanct.
These are exceptional times. Certainly, if the Government had said, “For the forthcoming 12-month period, 1% is all we can afford”, as they did, I am perfectly willing to consider that. I am sure that other noble Lords are, too. On the savings in this Bill, colleagues may have an advantage over me because I am just off a train from the Siberian north and I have not had a chance to look at the new impact assessment—I assume that one exists—on the new costs of the Bill. Obviously the OBR’s estimates for inflation have changed from 2.6% and 2.2% to 2.8% and 2.4%. Again, there is an inflation uplift, which will adjust, in the Treasury’s favour, the savings that the Bill will make. The Bill covers two years of uprating but not this immediate year’s uprating, so an extra £500 million will be saved in the coming year. Of course, housing allowance, which is a different category of benefit, is not covered in the Bill so the totality of the savings is not reflected in the impact assessment, and last week’s impact assessment has been adjusted because of the OBR’s more recent and accurate estimates of inflation.
The Countess of Mar
We are at Third Reading, and the noble Lord has spoken for 16 minutes. He might believe that we have actually got the point. Is he going to be very much longer?
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
No. I have two remaining points to make before I sit down. First, we have learnt over the past few days that Mr Alan Milburn, the chairman of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, has made it clear that he thinks that income is important for low-income families when trying to deal with child poverty. Finally, we need to invite the Social Security Advisory Committee to look at all this between now and July.
A lot of work needs to be done, and an annual report would help to inform that work. It is not safe to allow this Bill to continue into its later stages until we are sure that we have some way in which to track its progress and can ensure that those at the bottom of the low-income scales do not get hurt as a result of its provisions. I beg to move.
Lord King of Bridgwater
I shall intervene very briefly, supporting the point made by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. My noble friend Lord Kirkwood and I had an exchange last time on this matter, and he has made it clear once again that he does not like this Bill. I do not like it either. I do not think that any Member of this House would like to have this Bill at all, were things more normal and better than we actually find.
Since we have debated the Bill we have had a Budget and we have had Cyprus. If anyone wants to think that the situation is improving, the most significant thing in the Budget was the absolutely frank admission by the Chancellor of the very serious debt situation that we face. We now realise that it will be extremely tough to turn the ship round. Since then, we have had the comments from the rating agencies, and my noble friend may recall an intervention that he allowed me to make in his previous speech that we had better watch out for the rating agencies.
We have already heard that we are on negative watch by the other rating agencies, and that is even in our present situation. If we ally to that some recognition that this Government are not going to be able to stick even to the programme that they have proposed, if we faced a further downgrade from the rating agencies we might start to move into territory where the Government have to borrow to meet our debt at interest rates that are significantly higher. It will not then be a question of benefits being uprated by only 1%; there could be, as in other countries, significant cuts. If we get higher interest rates as well, with the impact on a huge raft of people who depend on their mortgages and who are finding it an extremely tough battle to maintain them, and with the risk of a significant increase in repossessions around the country, we will be in a very tough situation indeed.
To summarise, the purpose of my noble friend’s amendment is simply that at the end of the year we should discover how much we have saved and what the impact has been. If the Treasury is not going to do that anyway, I do not think that we need to spend a lot more time on this amendment, writing complicated additional amendments into a Bill on a matter that will surely be part of the normal purpose of government.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, we have deep concerns about the Bill, certainly that it may be a precedent. We have made clear our opposition to it throughout its various stages. We believe that it is unnecessary and that it hits the poor, both those in and out of work, and will certainly increase child poverty. Sadly, the amendment before us will do nothing to help that. We could have a repeat of the debate that we have had at earlier stages, but I simply say to the noble Lord, Lord King, that one of the problems is that some of the austerity measures the Government are introducing are making debt worse, not better. To pray in aid Cyprus when talking about our situation seems extremely far-fetched.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, said that introducing such an amendment at Third Reading is a clichéd device. However, an annual review gives the Government of the day, and indeed the Opposition, a chance to take stock of how measures are working. In this case, the problem is that a 1% cut has been locked in without knowing what the effect will be. The noble Lord is right: inflation is ticking up. Therefore, even if we knew the amount that the Government will spend as a result of this measure, the locking-in will mean that it makes no difference. That is why the proposed review differs from a review, annual or otherwise, that we would normally have. We have debated this matter extensively and I have made our position very clear. However, I recognise that the House has spoken on this matter.
Lord Newby
My Lords, this amendment would require the Government to produce revised costings of this policy annually. I fully understand the inflation risk about which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, is concerned. However, as I said last week, while I share his concerns about measuring the impact of government policies, I believe that additional reports on the Bill are simply not necessary. As I said last week, the Government already have comprehensive arrangements in place to report on the impacts of government policy. We publish impact assessments of every Bill, including the Exchequer impacts. These are based on the OBR forecasts available at the time.
At Budget, we publish an updated account of the Exchequer impact of any government policy that has changed due to modelling or forecast changes and has not yet been implemented. The DWP publishes benefit rates and expenditure tables of all its benefits, and we produce analysis of the cumulative impact of government policies on changes to households across the income distribution at every major fiscal event. This analysis will use updated inflation projections and will look at the cumulative impacts of all changes, rather than artificially isolating just one policy. These mechanisms go further than any Government have gone before in increasing transparency and enabling the effective scrutiny of policy-making.
Since we previously debated this matter, we have had a Budget. As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, said, at Budget last week the OBR revised its forecasts for inflation slightly upwards. The forecasts increased by 0.3 percentage points for the purpose of uprating in 2014-15, and by 0.1 percentage points in 2015-16. As I said last week, it was always a possibility that the forecasts would change. Similarly, they can change again at the Autumn Statement, and again at Budget 2014. These forecasts could go up as well as down. However, Governments must make decisions based on the best forecasts available at the time. The OBR’s forecast at the Autumn Statement showed that while inflation is forecast to be above 2% in the near term, it is then forecast to fall back towards the target in the medium term. This has not changed. As I set out last week, the OBR is not alone in taking this view. The IMF, the OECD and the Bank of England all show inflation falling back to target in the medium term. Nor has the inflation target changed: it remains at 2%.
One thing that has changed since we were last in this House is the Budget announcement on public sector pay. The Budget announced that public sector pay awards will be limited to an average of up to 1% in 2015-16. This will be on top of four years of pay being either frozen or capped at 1%, which included the period when inflation was at 5.2%, far above the forecasts for the periods covered in the Bill. This is not a justification for the Bill, but it is a reminder that people face inflation risk in everyday life. The decision that the public sector should continue to face a further year of pay restraint was a difficult, but necessary, decision to support fiscal consolidation.
It is against this background that I repeat what I have said many times on the Bill: that this Government do not take decisions to find savings from welfare lightly. However, this Bill is necessary to make vital savings from welfare, to help reduce the deficit and to restore economic recovery. The Government have set out their plans for spending in advance to give confidence to the markets that we are taking the necessary tough decisions. We can do that only by using the best forecasts available at the time. These forecasts have changed, but they continue to show inflation falling back to target in the medium term. I hope I have reassured the noble Lord that the amendment is simply not necessary, and I beg him to withdraw it.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
My Lords, the House has a busy schedule for the rest of the day and, as I said earlier, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I am grateful to colleagues who have contributed. We are all of the same mind that we need to be very careful and monitor the consequences of these Bills. The noble Lord, Lord King, is correct that the Treasury does that annually, but I will make it my own business to make sure that working-age, low-income families do not suffer more than the Government feel they will in the course of the next five years as a result of this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:47 - Division on Motion 1A - Ayes: 199 / Noes: 230 - Motion 1A disagreed.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would like to suggest that consideration of Commons Amendments 24 and 136 be postponed to another day. I hope that anything which had that effect would meet with the approval of the House and, not least, of the Minister because, as we all know, we are very pressed for time.
The purpose of these amendments is to introduce what is known as a forum bar in extradition proceedings. A forum bar, which is an additional ground on which extradition could be refused, was introduced in 2006 but it was never brought into force. The reason, as given at the time by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland—and I wish she was in her seat—was that it would have put us in breach of our bilateral treaty obligations with all our extradition partners. She was, surely, right about that. On 8 September 2010, the Home Secretary announced a review of our extradition arrangements. Sir Scott Baker, a recently retired Lord Justice, was appointed, with two colleagues, to consider the question of our extradition arrangements generally and the forum bar in particular. They produced a massive report which I have beside me here and they came down firmly against a forum bar for all the reasons set out in Part 6 of their report, which I will not repeat. They thought it was much better that, where there is a contested forum, the forum should be agreed between the prosecuting authorities in the two competing jurisdictions, not by the court in one or other of them. Sir Scott Baker’s report was published on 20 September 2011 and nothing happened until October 2012 when the Home Secretary accepted most of its recommendations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble and learned Lord. I have moved the question that we now consider Commons amendments, which I hope the House would wish to get on with. The noble and learned Lord’s handwritten amendments have been scheduled for debate at a particular point. At that time, he can move the amendments he is speaking to or, indeed, the adjournment of the House if that is what he would wish to do. I do not believe that he reflects the sentiment of the House, which is that we have a lot of business to get through today. This is clearly an important piece of legislation and we should consider it in the order in which the amendments have been scheduled to be debated. I ask the noble and learned Lord to conclude his impromptu speech and save his more detailed views until the point at which we are scheduled to debate them.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, I hope that what I am about to suggest will find favour with the noble Lord and the rest of the House. I remind noble Lords that we have 20 pages of amendments before us to consider at some time tonight. They were never considered at all on the Floor of the House of Commons and have never been considered by us at all, until now. They could have been brought before us last year. They were not. They have been brought before us at the last moment, and it is almost disgraceful for us to be asked to amend the law in an important respect that will undoubtedly affect our foreign relations without the matter having been properly considered in this House and the other place. I am sorry that the noble Lord does not immediately rise to that debate, but I seriously suggest to him—and I hope that there will be support for this—that instead of debating these 20 pages of amendments, the whole part that deals with extradition should be considered in the next Session of Parliament. It could easily be dealt with as a new Bill brought before either this House or the other place at the beginning of the next Session. That would be the proper way to deal with a matter of this importance.
Lord Dubs
I support the noble and learned Lord in what he said. It seems rather curious that the Government have introduced amendments in the Commons at the last minute that, by definition, we cannot debate fully because we are dealing with Commons amendments. We cannot have the proper debate that we would be likely to have in Committee and on Report. We are being treated rather badly by the Government. This is an important issue. A couple of years ago, when I was a member, the Joint Committee on Human Rights spent a lot of time considering extradition—it is an important issue. In terms of parliamentary democracy, the Commons did not consider these amendments at all, and we are being asked to do so in a truncated form late this evening when we will not have a chance for a proper debate. Surely the noble and learned Lord has a good case.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I understand my noble friend Lord Taylor’s point, but I also understand fully the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. We bring our Chamber into disrepute if we try to deal with 80 pages of amendments in the course of this afternoon and evening, including, as has been said, 20 pages of not just brand new but highly complex legislation on which we ought to consult outside this Chamber. The issues concerned could not be of greater importance.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I endorse what has been said by noble Lords, particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. We have here a situation that is uncomfortably analogous to that which applies to the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill, whereby these Commons amendments are, in effect, being treated as if they were emergency legislation. Admittedly, they do not have retrospective effect, which I suppose is welcome, but the timetabling aspect is extremely unsatisfactory. This House does not have an opportunity to consider the amendments fully. There are a great many matters that your Lordships will wish to discuss, not least around Leveson, which itself has come late in the day—although one understands the reasons for that. There is no particular reason why the measures to which the noble and learned Lord referred must be dealt with today. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that it is asking too much of your Lordships’ House to deal with this matter sensibly, fully and thoroughly—as it needs to be—at such short notice, particularly when considering everything else that we have to discuss today.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I underline the importance of what has been said because we have been given an extra week’s recess, which none of us particularly wanted because many of us have many engagements in London that week. It is quite wrong to steam-roller something through. This is the Executive treating this House with something approaching contempt. That is something up with which we should not put.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, the business for today has been scheduled and there is a sequence for considering the debates. We can consider the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, at the point where it is scheduled to be debated. Meanwhile, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.
“Modification of NCA functions
(1) The Secretary of State may, by order, make—
(a) provision about NCA counter-terrorism functions (and, in particular, may make provision conferring, removing, or otherwise modifying such functions); and
(b) other provision which the Secretary of State considers necessary in consequence of provision made under paragraph (a) (and, in particular, may make provision about the functions of any person other than the NCA, including provision conferring or otherwise modifying, but not removing, such functions).
(2) If an order under this section confers an NCA counter-terrorism function, an NCA officer may only carry out activities in Northern Ireland for the purpose of the discharge of the function if the NCA officer does so with the agreement of the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
(3) That includes cases where an order under this section confers an NCA counter-terrorism function by the modification of a function.
(4) An order under this section may amend or otherwise modify this Act or any other enactment.
(5) An order under this section is subject to the super-affirmative procedure (see section 39 and Schedule 19).
(6) In this section “NCA counter-terrorism function” means an NCA function relating to terrorism (and for this purpose “terrorism” has the same meaning as in the Terrorism Act 2000 — see section 1 of that Act).”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I beg to move that this House agree with Commons Amendments 1, 26 and 137.
These amendments restore to the Bill the power to confer counterterrorism functions on the National Crime Agency by means of an order, subject to the super-affirmative procedure. Noble Lords will recall that this House removed what was then Clause 2 of the Bill at our Report stage.
We have reflected carefully on the concerns raised in this House about the level of scrutiny afforded by the super-affirmative process. We remain firmly of the view that this is an appropriate matter for secondary legislation and that the super-affirmative procedure provides substantial opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny and for Members of both Houses to influence the shape of the legislation. This question was debated at length in the House of Commons and although there were Members who shared the concerns of some in this House, ultimately the position of the Government prevailed when the matter was put to a vote.
In seeking to restore this clause to the Bill, your Lordships’ House will note that we have retained the important safeguards for the chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, in recognition of the sensitivity of the arrangements for countering terrorism in Northern Ireland. Primacy for the operational response to counterterrorism in Northern Ireland rests with the chief constable of the PSNI. The order-making power respects that; it cannot change that; and, indeed, it ensures that there is clarity as to the relationship between the PSNI and the NCA should counterterrorism functions be conferred on the agency in the future. What is important is that, should a future review of counterterrorism policing arrangements conclude that the NCA should have a counterterrorism role, that role, whatever it may be, must dovetail with the distinct counterterrorism arrangements in Northern Ireland.
We recognise that any decision to give the National Crime Agency a counterterrorism role will be an important one. We have no wish to diminish, impede or lose those aspects of the current arrangements that work well. However, with the creation of a National Crime Agency, it is reasonable that the Government consider afresh how the current counterterrorism policing arrangements work and to review whether there might be a role that the agency could play to enhance our response to the terrorist threat. These are questions that can sensibly be considered only after the NCA is up and running and then only after a full review. If a decision is made in the future that there is a counterterrorism role for the National Crime Agency, then the super-affirmative process, and the conditions that are tied to it, provide ample opportunity for this House and the other place to scrutinise the draft order to the degree that it deserves.
Under the super-affirmative procedure, the Home Secretary must first consult with persons affected by the proposed order. Thereafter, she must publish the draft order and a document which explains it. There is then scope for a committee of either House to report on the draft order which the Home Secretary must consider along with any other representations before the original order, or a revised version of it following such reports and representations, is placed before both Houses for approval. It will then be for both Houses to debate and agree the order before it is made. This is not a process that should be taken lightly.
Let me be clear: the power contained in this provision may not be used to remove any function from any body, including police forces. What this Bill proposes is the creation of a National Crime Agency charged with the responsibility to lead the fight against serious, organised and complex crime. Commons Amendment 1 is concerned with enabling the Home Secretary to give effect to the outcome of a review which, by definition, had concluded that the existing arrangements in respect of counterterrorism would be enhanced by conferring relevant responsibilities in this area on the NCA.
I again pray in aid the conclusions of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. In its report on the Bill the committee agreed with the Government that such a provision was not unprecedented, and indeed the notion that additional functions could be conferred on a statutory body by secondary legislation was well established. We have been clear throughout this process that the position remains that we have no preconceived notion as to the outcome of a review of counterterrorism policing arrangements and the future role of the NCA, if any, in those arrangements.
As some noble Lords will know, and indeed will have experience of, counterterrorism policing today is a partnership endeavour among all police forces. Chief constables each retain their full operational responsibility for policing in their force area, but they have put in place through ACPO a framework of agreements which underpin the present national counterterrorism policing arrangements. These consist of a range of national lead responsibilities and support roles distributed among several forces and undertaken by those forces on behalf of all forces.
It is right that in the future we should be giving consideration to how the NCA might be able to enhance those arrangements. We continue to believe that it is also right that we should build into the Bill the flexibility to implement the outcome of such a review in a timely fashion through secondary legislation, but subject to a high level of parliamentary scrutiny in the form of the super-affirmative procedure. The Government would rightly be criticised if they could not implement the findings of a review for a year or more for want of the necessary primary legislation. This is not about whether the NCA should or should not exercise counterterrorism functions. That debate is for the future. Rather, the issue today is about the mechanism by which such functions could be bestowed on the agency. The mechanism provided for in Commons Amendment 1 is therefore a perfectly proper one. I would urge the House to agree the amendment and to reject Amendment 1A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.
Amendment 1A (to the Motion)
Moved by Baroness Smith of Basildon
Leave out “agree” and insert “disagree”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, as we have heard from the Minister, at the Report stage of the Bill in November, your Lordships supported the deletion of the clause that provided the Secretary of State with the power to transfer by super-affirmative order counterterrorism functions from the Metropolitan Police to the National Crime Agency. The amendment was in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Blair, and my noble friend Lord Rosser. The reason for the amendment was not the transfer of functions, which may well be appropriate at some point in the future, but because such an important and crucial decision should benefit from the appropriate scrutiny of Parliament, which cannot be provided for without primary legislation. As the Minister said, government Amendment 1 would bring back that clause. My amendment, to disagree with that amendment, would delete that provision and retain the status quo.
The reasons for bringing this amendment back to your Lordships’ House are perhaps three-fold. First, the priority of any Government and any Parliament is the security of their citizens, and counterterrorism is, as the noble Lord would readily confess, a key issue in that security. I repeat and emphasise that we are not passing judgment on whether it may, in future, be desirable for the NCA to have responsibility for counterterrorism; only that such a decision must be evidence-led and appropriately consulted on and scrutinised. The Metropolitan Police have built up considerable expertise and skills in relation to counterterrorism and if the Government wish to remove that responsibility and function from the Met—the noble Lord referred to a review—they would need to have a very strong case to do so. I am sure that if it becomes the right course of action in time, that case will be made, and considered appropriately. However, we do not believe that this decision deserves anything other than full and proper scrutiny, which can only be provided by primary legislation. That view was fully endorsed last year by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report on the Bill, which stated:
“In our view, the potential human rights implications of a decision to confer counter-terrorism functions on the NCA are sufficiently significant to warrant primary rather than secondary legislation, to ensure that Parliament has the fullest opportunity to scrutinise the possible implications. We recommend that clause 2 be deleted from the Bill”.
Your Lordships’ House agreed with that conclusion and removed Clause 2 before sending the Bill to the other place.
In terms of effective scrutiny, which the noble Lord referred to in his comments, it is disappointing that the Government did not reintroduce this clause at the Committee stage in the other place but waited until Report. Similar comments were made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. I find it difficult to accept that this was a last-minute decision by the Government to bring this clause back. Why did they not bring it forward earlier, to allow the other place to have the opportunity to debate it in Committee and have a fuller discussion? The Minister said that it had full and, I think, considerable discussion in the other place. In fact, it had two and a half hours on Report and I am not convinced that that was long enough for the Commons fully to consider the matter. This is a big decision and a major issue. Whatever decision is taken in time by the Home Secretary and the Government about removing counterterrorism to the NCA, if that is what they so decide, I want the Home Secretary and the Government to have the full confidence of Parliament and the full confidence of all those involved in counterterrorism that the right decision has been made.
My second point is that, although the noble Lord is right in that the super-affirmative procedure allows for greater scrutiny than an affirmative resolution, it does not provide the level of scrutiny that gives that confidence for the Government or the Home Secretary that I spoke about. The Minister helpfully wrote to me about the super-affirmative order, for which I am grateful, and sent copies of the letter to other noble Lords, repeating the process that was originally in the Bill. He is right when he says that it provides the highest degree of parliamentary scrutiny other than primary legislation. That in itself recognises how important it is that this measure has appropriate scrutiny. However, the briefing note states:
“Whilst the process makes express provision for a role of Committee of either House (it is expected that this would fall to the Home Affairs Select Committee in the House of Commons) this does not preclude a role for those Standing Committees with interests in secondary legislation”.
The note continues to say that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee will continue to discharge their duties under this procedure. I did not know it had ever been suggested that they would not. Of course they would. That is not a reassurance but merely a statement of existing procedures for all orders that come before your Lordships’ House.
At the Report stage, we were assured that a super-affirmative order is, in effect, amendable. To an extent, that is right, but, crucially, it can be amended only at the draft stage that the noble Lord spoke of by permission of the Secretary of State and by the Home Secretary. The Secretary of State and the Home Secretary in the super-affirmative order must have regard to any representation made. Parliament does not have the power to amend; only the Secretary of State has that power.
Lord Condon
My Lords, I support Amendment 1A, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for the reasons that she has set out. I find myself agreeing with much of what the Minister said, apart from the mechanism that he advocates should be used in deciding this issue.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has said, this issue is so important to the national interest that the only mechanism that should be used to transfer responsibility for the lead on terrorism from the Metropolitan Police to the NCA or related agencies is primary legislation. Like the noble Baroness, I cannot imagine any urgent situation where primary legislation would impede the notion of national security and a super-affirmative order would be the better mechanism to use.
Lest I should be out of date in my feelings about this issue, I consulted the current Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police last Friday to see if my views and his were on the same wavelength. He is content for me to relay to your Lordships’ House that he shares my concerns that if there should be change—I am not against the notion of change—primary legislation is the vehicle that will best take care of the public interest on this issue.
I have said before in your Lordships’ House that I am not implacably opposed to any transfer. In saying that, I remind the House of my recorded interests in policing and that for seven years as commissioner this was a role that I discharged in leading the force that had this co-ordinating and leading responsibility. I believe that a super-affirmative order is the wrong way to take care of all the arguments and to preserve the public interest.
Important issues that will have to be considered if there is to be a change include the fact that more than 80% of terrorist offences on the mainland are played out, sadly, in London, and that in fighting terrorism hearts and minds and prevention are as important as detection. Therefore, an integrated approach, which the Metropolitan Police has built up over decades with school visits, visits to mosques and neighbourhood policing, is as important in the fight against terrorism as the drama of executing warrants early in the morning and dramatic seizures of explosives. This is an integrated effort that has been built up over decades.
In the 12 months to September 2012, arrests for terrorism increased over the previous 12 months from 153 to 245, an increase of 60%. The current arrangements are working very well in preserving the national interest on this issue. I am not aware of any arguing or lobbying by the security services for this change to take place. Perhaps I am out of date on that issue, but to my knowledge the Metropolitan Police Service and the other agencies involved in the fight against terrorism are not advocating these changes.
My fear is that the creation of the NCA—this fledgling, embryonic new body, which is not even fully functioning, which is already struggling with border issues and which I fear will be underresourced—has led to the administrative tidiness of considering the transfer of terrorism from the Metropolitan Police to the NCA. That may be the right thing to do in time. It is unlikely to demand an emergency overnight or within-a-few-weeks change that would lead to the notion of a super-affirmative order. I believe the national interest demands that only primary legislation should be used in this case and I urge your Lordships’ House to support Amendment 1A.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, a few minutes ago the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, raised the question of the quality of scrutiny of legislation by your Lordships’ House. This amendment raises exactly the same set of questions about the quality of scrutiny that is possible for executive decisions. The Minister said that no decisions have been taken and that whether this is something the Government will want to do is an open question. He said that we need to see how the National Crime Agency develops and that only then will it be necessary to review and perhaps bring forward proposals. If that is the case, why do we need to legislate in this Bill for this process to happen in this particular way? If the Minister was saying that for the next 10 years the Home Office will not be presenting any Bills to Parliament and therefore this is the only legislative opportunity that exists, then maybe there would be a case for it. However, I do not recall a year when the Home Office has managed with no Bills. Sometimes it has had as many as four Bills before the Houses of Parliament. Therefore, it is likely that there will not be a suitable legislative opportunity at whatever time in the future it is considered appropriate to carry out this review.
Such a review having been carried out, the assumption that any transfer would be a simple matter which could be considered through even the elevated super-affirmative process is naïve. The integration, as the noble Lord, Lord Condon, stated, of counterterrorist work with mainstream policing is extremely important. I have probably said this in your Lordships’ House before but I live close to the Finsbury Park mosque. On the occasion that the Finsbury Park mosque was raided, as I arrived at the Underground station Metropolitan police officers were distributing leaflets explaining to the local community what had happened, why it had happened and what safeguards had been taken to protect the religious parts of that mosque. That was because counterterrorism is integrated into mainstream policing and there was a recognition that the Metropolitan Police would have to continue to police those streets after such a raid. That is why the integration of and arrangements with the counterterrorist units within the various forces around the country are so important. Shifting some or all of that to the National Crime Agency is complicated. These are not straightforward issues and they certainly ought to be debated properly in Parliament. That is what we are likely to miss.
I have another concern. We all now need the National Crime Agency to be a success and I believe it probably will be but it is going to take a while. Every reorganisation takes time. Every time you throw all the pieces up in the air and wait for them to settle, there is a period when the organisations have to come together. This is saying to an organisation which is not yet formally established, as this legislation is not yet through, that there may be some massive change to its remit just around the corner. I do not believe that is good for the current functions of the National Crime Agency; nor do I think it is necessarily good for counterterrorism if that change is to be made at some point in the future.
The Government have never answered the question of what is the problem that they are trying to fix. They say, “There might be a problem. We might have a review at some point in the future and if we do have a review, we want to be able to push this through by super-affirmative resolution”. That is simply not good enough. These are important questions. There must be proper parliamentary scrutiny in the future when these matters are considered.
Lord Soley
My Lords, as a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I confirm that the Minister is right that we said that the super-affirmative procedure had been used before in similar cases and, in principle, could be used. However, that is not a key question. The key question has already been put and I do not wish to elaborate on it too much. Is it appropriate to use that procedure or would it in fact be better for quality-of-legislation purposes to have new legislation in the situation described in the proposed new clause? I tend to the view that if you are going to make a decision of that type, then new legislation would be better.
I asked myself whether it might become urgent to do that and whether we would then need urgent legislation, given that it deals with terrorism. I find it difficult to see the circumstances in which that might happen, but if it did then both Houses are quite capable of urgent legislation. However, that does not seem to be on the agenda. The real question is whether we would get the legislation right. In those circumstances, particularly given the nature of the cross-party consensus that one is usually able to build when you are looking for ways of dealing with terrorism, I would be surprised if it were not possible for a new Bill to be dealt with relatively expeditiously. The scrutiny given in both Houses, particularly this one, might be better than using the super-affirmative procedure, which I agree is an accepted practice, as we discussed at some length in the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, but whether it is best practice is a different question.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
My Lords, I approached this issue with an open mind and attempted to ask myself what benefits might be gained from doing this particular thing in this particular fashion. I do not think that I have ever been accused of being soft on terrorism. I genuinely believe that the first obligation of a Government is to protect their citizens. I therefore sought to discover, in asking myself and in listening to others, what might be the huge advantage and efficacy, first, of transferring from the Metropolitan Police to the NCA and, secondly, of doing it in this fashion. I am afraid that I failed to persuade myself that there is such a case.
Unlike my noble friend Lord Harris and the noble Lord, Lord Condon, I have no particular interest in the Metropolitan Police, although obviously I have an interest as a former Home Secretary. However, the points that they made about the nature of the fight against terrorism were very well made. This is not just a mechanistic operational question. It covers far more than investigations and intelligence. It covers community relations, counter-radicalisation, relationships in the community, and so on. I fully accept that there is a degree of resistance, sometimes unspoken, from police services throughout the country as the Met has the lead on this. However, I think that it has discharged that responsibility very well indeed. In the absence of any problem to be solved, we have to ask why a solution of this nature has been proffered.
My second point concerns the emerging nature of the National Crime Agency. Every time I read about the NCA, which has not yet been formally established, as my noble friend Lord Harris pointed out, it seems to have inflated its own powers and scope. I am not quite sure who now controls the fight against illegal immigration as the UK Border Agency has been split off into a different agency and there is a second agency that comes under the Home Office. I understand that there are thoughts about the NCA having responsibility for controlling our borders as well and now counterterrorism is being envisaged. My third point is that we cannot start this from scratch. The fight against terrorism relies on a reservoir of experience, a culture, an operational expertise, knowledge within the system and so on.
My final point is about the nature of doing this. If it was absolutely essential to transfer such powers immediately, in a very short period or without obstacle or difficulty, I could see the Government’s case, but I have not yet been able to envisage such circumstances. Indeed, if I envisage sudden emergencies arising, I would have thought that that was precisely the time you do not want to change the agency handling them. You would want to carry out such a profound change in such an important area over a period of time with a great deal of thought being given to the transition. If that is the case, why are we looking for some immediate expedient to transfer it with the minimum of parliamentary scrutiny?
Having approached this with an open mind, I have found what I have heard so far entirely unpersuasive. I have listened to everything that has been said but I do not think that adding parliamentary scrutiny to a questionable transfer would in any way impede the fight against terrorism. In fact, it would assist it.
Lord Blair of Boughton
My Lords, I am sorry that the House is going to hear a series of commissioners being referred to and speaking. I have cut my speech right down because there was nothing that I disagreed with in the speeches that followed the Minister’s speech.
I shall emphasise one thing and ask one question. I gather that in the other place it was said that this is a procedural matter. It is not a procedural matter, but a matter of national security. The deputy national co-ordinator of counterterrorism, a Metropolitan Police officer acting under the command of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, said in public this week that the terrorist threat is rising. As my noble friend Lord Condon said, and I can vouch for it from my time as commissioner, there has not been a single plot that did not arise in, pass through or aim at London. When the bombs go off, whether in London or Glasgow, only the Metropolitan Police can put thousands of officers on the road or fly people in Chinook helicopters to Scotland. That is because the Metropolitan Police is the size it is. The NCA will never be that size. That is one other aspect of why the Met is the right beast to do this job of enormous national importance.
I echo the points being made to the Minister. Has there been any evidence of failures in counterterrorism by the Metropolitan Police? There is no evidence that anybody seems to be aware of. Is there any evidence that having counterterrorism policing in a separate agency from territorial police forces is a good idea? No, there is not, and there is exactly the opposite if you look across the Atlantic with the divisions between the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the CIA, the New York Police Department, and so on. The person who first began to mention the idea that counterterrorism should be taken from the Metropolitan Police is one Boris Johnson. He made that point in 2008 at the Conservative Party conference. I would like reassurance from the Minister that the sectional interests of London Conservatives are not being put in front of national security because the reason that Boris gives for this is that it would allow the Mayor of London alone to choose the Metropolitan Police Commissioner without the influence of the Home Secretary. That is a very poor argument for imperilling national security.
Baroness Hamwee
What we are being asked to do this afternoon is to consider the procedure around a substantial issue, but it is the procedure. It seems quite logical that counterterrorism should be dealt with alongside and as part of dealing with serious crime and organised crime. They are often inseparable activities that fund terrorism, and I suspect they largely come within the remit of the NCA, or will do when it is in operation. The NCA will be able to task police forces. Can the Minister confirm that it will not have a lot of bodies on the ground, but will be able to task existing forces—including, presumably, the Met? Is this the way it is to operate?
I appreciate the problems about Northern Ireland, and I do not suggest that they are not important. I also take the point that it is vital not to disrupt effective working relationships, to which the noble Lord, Lord Reid, referred. Again, perhaps that is answered in part by the point about tasking.
We must at some point address overall how this House and the Commons deal with secondary legislation, but that is not a matter for now. The super-affirmative procedure seems to go as far as it can in allowing for consultation with an iterative-process response to comments on the part of the Government.
I did not think that I would ever hear myself say this, but this issue probably comes as close as anything to lending itself to a yes or no answer for this reason: whether there is a super-affirmative order or primary legislation, there will be regulations dealing with transitional arrangements and all the detail. Whichever procedure we have, it will not avoid those. The regulations will go through their habitual course.
Finally, can the Minister explain how, in legislative terms, counterterrorism is to be moved away from the Met, if it is? I am unclear whether any legislation is required for that part of the process. As I read it, counterterrorism is with the Met under a direction—not an order—from the Secretary of State. If that is so, then the Government’s proposals would mean far more involvement by Parliament than has hitherto been the case on this issue; I may have read this completely wrong and the Minister will put me right when he responds.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
My Lords, I find today’s business difficult. Two categories of difficulty arise. This provision is much less difficult. I find the case made by the noble Baroness speaking for the Opposition persuasive and familiar. I have heard it before. I agreed with it when I heard it in earlier stages of consideration. My difficulty when the Commons reject our proposals is that I always feel cautious about disagreeing with the Commons. However, in this case, they have not heard our reasons for removing this provision. I am inclined to go with the noble Baroness who spoke for the Opposition, and say again what we think, at least to ensure that the Commons hear and listen to it.
I have much greater difficulty with the provisions that we are going to look at today which we have never seen before. The point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lloyd of Berwick, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is very important. For us to have to look under this procedure at language and provisions which are entirely new and were not in the Bill that was worked on here, in a rushed debate, without time to take advice from outside, conflicts with the concept of the House of Lords as a serious revising Chamber. I hope that the Minister will think carefully about that.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, this has been a good and useful debate. I thank noble Lords for presenting their arguments, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. Perhaps I can reassure her that this is not about the Metropolitan Police any more than it is about any other of the territorial police forces in this country. This is about a procedure whereby we can use or consider using the National Crime Agency as a co-ordinating body within any future counterterrorism measures. That decision has not been made; it is subject to review. Many noble Lords have made speeches that are quite valid and contain valid points regarding that review. I listened to noble Lords in that regard.
I referred to our disappointment at our inability to gain a legislative consent Motion from the Northern Ireland Executive. It is a matter of disappointment but it does not remove the opportunity, as we will find when we discuss the next series of amendments, for the National Crime Agency to operate in Northern Ireland. That is not the point at issue. It has always been recognised that in counterterrorism matters the Police Service of Northern Ireland has a particular role of its own, and this legislation respects that role. We are not making a decision about the future of counterterrorism. We are putting in place an opportunity for Parliament —my noble friend Lady Hamwee is quite right about this—to put the conclusion of a future review in place without undue delay so that there is an opportunity, perhaps for the first time, to consider fully the implications of how counterterrorism is co-ordinated on a national base. It would not be understood by people outside this place if, having conducted a review, and that review having been announced to Parliament, we had to wait as long as a year for a suitable legislative vehicle to hitch primary legislation to. We all know that secondary legislation is a more efficient way of presenting issues to Parliament; it is not a method by which Parliament is bypassed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about the timing of the Commons amendments. At Second Reading my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced to the House that she was proposing to extend the commitment to reinstate this clause. At that point we were considering the debate in the House itself, and were also in discussion about seeking legislative consent in Northern Ireland. It was only at the conclusion of those elements that we were in a position to present it on Report in the Commons where, as the noble Baroness herself said, two and a half hours were devoted on the Floor of the House to considering this issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Condon, doubted whether it was proper for a change of this type to be considered in anything other than primary legislation. Much of what the noble Lord said covered the sorts of issues that will be relevant to a future review, of the type that we have not had before, into the way in which we co-ordinate CT and might involve the National Crime Agency. I hope that such a review would consider the very points that the noble Lord made.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, mentioned the complexity of the issue. Of course it is complex. This is about trying to find a mechanism for making a decision. In effect, all chief constables are responsible for ensuring appropriate and effective counterterrorism in their force areas. All force areas maintain a Special Branch, for example. There is already considerable activity at every force level. This enables the review to consider whether there is a role for the National Crime Agency in co-ordinating the activity at national level. It does not question the fact that the role of the Metropolitan Police, for reasons that have been stated in the debate, will be very important before, during and after the review.
I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who asked me what problem I was trying to fix. It is clear that we already have in place very effective structures for counterterrorism policing. This is about reviewing those structures in the context of the National Crime Agency. We do not have a National Crime Agency at present but we will have one in place. We are considering what if any role the National Crime Agency should have in further enhancing our response to terrorism. To seek continuous improvement does not suggest that there is a problem. Until there is a review, we cannot say whether there should be a role for the National Crime Agency to play.
The noble Lord, Lord Reid, emphasised that the fight against terrorism is complex. I hope that nothing I said suggested that I believed otherwise. I hope also that I did not say anything with which he fundamentally disagrees about the nature of terrorism and the resources that need to be devoted to countering it. It is right that Parliament should have in place a review mechanism for considering how it implements these things.
The noble Lord, Lord Soley, took the view that there should be primary legislation. I disagree with him. One thing that we have all learnt is that much of the decision-making on an issue such as this will be quite detailed. It is almost bound to be dealt with in secondary legislation, because if there is to be a transfer of resources, funds or whatever, it will be based on a secondary legislation-type activity.
The noble Lord, Lord Blair, asked a very pointed question about whether there was party-political consideration in this, and whether it was a measure to appease the Mayor of London and gain some party advantage. I admire the noble Lord and I think that the question was unworthy of him. That is not what we are considering here. We are considering a proper mechanism whereby a national force designed to co-ordinate the fight against crime might also at some future date be asked by Parliament to have a role in counterterrorism. That is what we are considering today, and the question is about the procedure that we offer.
There are two legitimate points of view. It can be said that this is such an important thing that primary legislation is the only way to bring it about. I would say the most effective way of bringing it about is through the super-affirmative process following a review, which is precisely why I am arguing the Government’s case here.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee perhaps summed it up as well as anyone: no decision has yet been made or will be made until after review, and there will be no review until the NCA is up and running. This is about future-proofing national policing through the NCA, about a future role for the NCA with the additional flexibility made through the order-making power, and about what the NCA might be able to bring to enhance the counterterrorism response in the future if such a decision is made.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
I am very grateful to the Minister. Indeed, he is right that there is almost nothing I disagree with in what he said, with one exception: his lack of explanation as to why one could not have legislation following a review. It is quite possible to have consultation in a review and then parliamentary scrutiny. He is presenting it as if one can only have a review and consultation if one is going to the affirmative procedure. What he has not explained is the need for that mechanism and the avoidance of further parliamentary scrutiny, not in the detail but on the major issue, should it arise, of the transfer of the lead on counterterrorism. That is a substantial issue.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am certain it is the nature of these things that following the review, Parliament would have an opportunity to debate the issue before the super-affirmative proposal is laid. I made the point earlier that any party affected by this secondary legislation has the right to be consulted. Parliament itself is likely to express a view when that decision of a review is made, before a super-affirmative procedure is even tabled. I cannot imagine an issue of this importance passing noble Lords’ attention and not being brought to the attention of the Minister in this House to account for what was being proposed. I cannot see that being a realistic scenario. I would expect to have to answer to this House for a decision of that nature. Indeed, the super-affirmative procedure provides for an opportunity for full consideration of the detail, as the noble Lord has said, of what is going to be required in the transfer of these powers.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked about tasking powers in the NCA because they apply to police forces in England and Wales and they would apply to the functions of the NCA. For the moment, that is limited to serious and organised crime, but in future it could include counterterrorism if such functions were confirmed through secondary legislation, or the super-affirmative procedure, in the future.
This has been a useful debate. I do not waver from my conviction that the House has a role to play in debating the issues, but I think that the provisions of the Bill, as amended by the Commons, provide the right mechanism for doing so.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I have listened with great care to the Minister, and I think he has done his best to reassure the House on the level of scrutiny that he proposes. However, I think he falls into the same mistake that his colleague Jeremy Browne made in the other place as seeing this as a procedural issue. He will have heard from noble Lords tonight with enormous experience—far more experience than either he or I have in these matters—that it is not regarded as a procedural issue but a very serious issue.
I said in my opening remarks, and the noble Lord, Lord Reid, made the same point, that the greatest responsibility that a Government and, I think, a Parliament have to their citizens is to ensure their safety and security. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, indicated his assent on that as well. As the noble Lord, Lord Reid, said, adding scrutiny to what he regards as a questionable transfer—although others would see it differently—but to something that raises concern, can only help rather than hinder any Government. Our Cross-Bench Peers with enormous experience in this, such as the noble Lords, Lord Condon and Lord Blair, with their vast experience of policing, raised real concerns about how such a transfer could be effective.
The Minister talks about a review and places great store by that review and the ability of noble Lords to contribute to it, but a review is not primary legislation. He says that a Government would seek to hitch to another Bill such a proposal to transfer counterterrorism from the Met to the new National Crime Agency. I would not expect Her Majesty’s Government to hitch something to another Bill, and I do not know what the Minister is gesticulating about, because this is a serious issue. It is hard to conceive, as other noble Lords have said, of a time when this would be in emergency legislation; it would be the wrong time, but noble Lords across your Lordships’ House would do their best to ensure proper and effective scrutiny in the interests of good legislation, for no other reason than to make sure that we get something so serious absolutely right.
The Minister will have heard that there are doubts as to whether such a transfer would be appropriate. It is because some doubts have been raised that there should be a proper process and procedure for parliamentary scrutiny to ensure that, if such a step is taken, at some point in future, after review and after the Government are satisfied that the NCA is operating correctly, those doubts should be raised in primary legislation. It is absolutely crucial; if the Home Secretary wants to take this step, she needs to ensure that she has the confidence not just of Parliament but of all those involved in counterterrorism. That is what proper and effective scrutiny through primary legislation would seek to achieve.
The Minister has tried, but he has failed to convince me that a super-affirmative order that is unamendable, even if the Home Secretary wants it to be amended, and which does not have the degree of scrutiny of primary legislation, is an appropriate way in which to move forward on something so serious and important to the nation. I therefore ask to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 28, 29, 44, 47, 52 to 60 and 138.
Perhaps I may focus on the most noteworthy amendments in this group. They are Amendments 28, 29, 44, 47 and 138, which, as I alluded to in the previous debate, relate to the National Crime Agency’s role in Northern Ireland. These amendments are a regrettable but necessary response to the Northern Ireland Executive’s decision not to take forward legislative consent for the National Crime Agency. To say that this is a disappointing outcome does not do justice to the implications that this will have for the effectiveness of the National Crime Agency, the integrity of the collective operational response to serious and organised crime and, most importantly, the protection of the people of Northern Ireland.
However, let me make it clear that the National Crime Agency will continue to operate in Northern Ireland, albeit that its activity will be limited to reserved and excepted matters such as immigration offences and drug trafficking. The amendments and the new schedule that are necessary to ensure that the Bill does not break the Sewel convention give effect to that limitation.
The new schedule introduced by Amendment 138 sets out those provisions that will not extend to Northern Ireland. As a result, for example, NCA officers will no longer be able to be designated with the powers of a constable in Northern Ireland, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland will no longer have oversight of the NCA in Northern Ireland, and the PSNI has been removed from the duties to co-operate and share information. These are important operational losses, but as transferred matters they are areas on which we in this House cannot legislate without consent.
However and importantly, the new schedule also provides a series of order-making powers whereby should the position of the Northern Ireland Executive change in the future, the NCA provisions can be extended to Northern Ireland, subject to the agreement of the Northern Ireland Assembly. We will, of course, do our utmost to minimise the operational impact of the Executive’s decision, but the limitations on the agency’s activity in Northern Ireland will have implications for the fight against serious and organised crime in Northern Ireland. I must not mislead the House on that point.
As I have indicated, the NCA will continue to operate on a UK-wide basis, including in Northern Ireland. Even with the restrictions in the new schedule, there is still much that the NCA can do to tackle serious, organised and complex crime in Northern Ireland, both through its own investigations and by supporting the Police Service of Northern Ireland and other agencies. The strong operational relationship that the Serious Organised Crime Agency has built up with the Police Service of Northern Ireland will continue with the National Crime Agency. NCA officers will still be able to be designated with customs and immigration powers and will therefore be able to take action against serious, organised and complex customs and immigration cases.
The NCA will still be able to focus on asset recovery work, whether through the excepted tax assessments under Part 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act or through taking forward civil recovery cases against property in Northern Ireland in respect of reserved or excepted offences such as immigration offences, fuel duty evasion and drug trafficking. More importantly, operational partners will continue to be able to access the wider specialist capabilities that will reside in the National Crime Agency, such as the new National Cyber Crime Unit, the NCA’s network of international liaison officers and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre.
I assure noble Lords that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is continuing to work with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice, David Ford, to secure agreement. These amendments do not in any sense denote an end to our negotiations. It remains our objective to ensure that the NCA can operate in Northern Ireland in the same way that it can in the rest of the United Kingdom. Until that time, these amendments are but a necessary stop-gap so that we respect the Sewel convention. We will continue to strive for an equitable agreement between the parties in Northern Ireland and, once secured, these amendments will ensure that we have the necessary order-making powers to give effect to such an agreement.
I hope that I can deal briefly with the other amendments in this group. Commons Amendment 2 to Clause 2 converts the existing power on the Home Secretary to set strategic priorities for the NCA into a duty to do so. The Home Secretary’s role in setting the strategic direction for the agency is obviously of central importance. The Government’s intention has always been that the Home Secretary would set the strategic priorities, in accordance with the power granted by Clause 2. By placing such a duty on the Home Secretary, we will ensure that the agency will always have clear strategic direction from the Government of the day.
The other amendments, namely Commons Amendments 52 to 60 to Schedule 8, are essentially technical and drafting in nature. I can provide further details if any noble Lord has a particular question about them. However, to keep our proceedings concise, at this point I beg to move.
Lord Empey
My Lords, the Minister’s proposals are, as he said, a matter of deep regret with regard to Northern Ireland. For those noble Lords who perhaps have not followed the case, the Northern Ireland Executive refused to allow the powers of a constable to be conferred on an NCA official. This means that, in practice, Sinn Fein vetoed the establishment of the National Crime Agency in respect of reserved matters.
This can be handled in different ways. We can hope, as the Minister says, that there will be a change of heart. There will not. My fear is that this will inadvertently result in Northern Ireland being used as a back door whereby people who are focused on crime could use the absence of the NCA to carry out their activities unmolested, unless the Police Service of Northern Ireland undertakes some of the roles that would otherwise have been carried out by the NCA in Northern Ireland. That will incur a cost that I doubt very much there are currently resources to meet. It also means that the national expertise that the National Crime Agency could bring to bear on these criminals will not be brought to bear. Common sense dictates that where you have a vacuum, people will fill it. While I accept the regrettable need for these amendments, I do not share the Minister’s current optimism that these matters will be resolved by negotiation. I just do not believe that they will be resolved.
I was always concerned about the devolution of policing and justice to Northern Ireland in the absence of a full agreement between the parties on how things would be done. There was no such agreement. It was a political necessity that was politically driven in the same manner as the euro was. The working out of the downstream consequences had not been done. It is therefore a matter of deep regret. Can the Minister tell the House what steps the Government will take if evidence emerges that there are elements of activity in Northern Ireland that are not dealt with by the PSNI, thus creating a vacuum in which people can indulge in criminal activities which could spread to the mainland? While I understand the conventions, I have to say to the Minister that devolution means precisely what it says. Power is devolved, but what is devolved can be undevolved. If there is therefore a national threat, I would like an assurance that the Government will meet it.
Lord Browne of Belmont
My Lords, I, too, regret that the role of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland has had to be limited due to the intransigence of Sinn Fein and the SDLP in blocking agreement to the legislative consent Motion for the NCA. Every year in Northern Ireland, hundreds of millions of pounds are lost to the Exchequer only to pass into the hands of criminal gangs, often to finance terrorist activities. To date, as a result of the joint work between SOCA and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, some 11 million drugs have been seized, 33 potential victims of human trafficking have been rescued, 23 million counterfeit and smuggled cigarettes have been intercepted, and £4 million of criminal assets seized. How will this work continue, when the National Crime Agency will have very little input into key issues in Northern Ireland as Clause 14 will abolish SOCA, which currently operates with the PSNI? After Royal Assent, that will not happen. I trust that the Government will continue to negotiate with the Northern Ireland Assembly in order to redress this balance.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I intervene briefly because for five years I had the privilege of chairing the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in another place. The first major inquiry we conducted was into organised crime. The report was received with concern, but also with considerable approval across Northern Ireland. I am deeply concerned to hear that the National Crime Agency is not going to be able fully and effectively to function.
Devolution was worked for very hard, but when it came to the devolution of policing and justice, many of us had considerable concerns and misgivings. Even so, we were glad that further progress was being made in what had been the most troubled part of our kingdom. However, the noble Lord, Lord Empey, was right in what he said in his concluding words. We have not dissolved the United Kingdom. Supreme authority rests with this Parliament. If those to whom we have devolved behave in such a way that not only do they endanger Northern Ireland, but by implication the rest of the United Kingdom, this Parliament cannot sit idly by. Although this should not be taken, any more than the words of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, as any sort of threat, it is a statement of the reality of the situation. Devolution does not mean independence. Devolution means responsibility, and if responsibility is not exercised responsibly, those who have devolved have a duty to regard that fact.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, when the Crime and Courts Bill first came to your Lordships’ House, I questioned the Minister as to whether it was—I think I used the term—“oven ready”, as there seemed to be so much left to do in the Bill. Given that what was then a 41-clause Bill now has 18 new clauses, it was right to ask that question. The extradition issues, as we have heard from noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, have been tagged on to the Bill. Indeed, the framework document which outlines everything the National Crime Agency should do and how it should do it is still not available, despite promises made at almost every stage of the Bill in your Lordships’ House and the other place.
One thing that emphasises that point is that no agreement was reached with the Northern Ireland political parties or the Assembly around what kind of architecture would work for Northern Ireland to ensure that, as we started the process, there would be a legislative consent Motion. To scrap SOCA, which has worked effectively with the PSNI in Northern Ireland, before the National Crime Agency is properly in place across the whole of the UK is an absolutely shocking state of affairs. It does a disservice to Northern Ireland and is hugely unfair to it.
I understand that having discussions and negotiations with all those involved to ensure that agreement can be reached can be difficult and very time-consuming. The Government were right to have discussions and negotiations with David Ford, the Justice Minister, and I would accept and agree that he has worked extremely hard to find a way through this to ensure that the National Crime Agency could fully operate in Northern Ireland. However, I say to the Minister that the responsibility has to be that of government. I realise that in their negotiations with David Ford the Government have worked hard, but what I am puzzled about, and where I have a question mark over the Government’s actions, is that those who have been involved more closely in Northern Ireland know that in order to reach agreement on this issue—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is very aware of this—you have to start early discussions with all the political parties, the elected representatives and all those who have a role to play. The comments made by Mark Durkan in the other place last week indicate to me that the discussions did not take place early enough.
I asked two Parliamentary Questions, one to the Minister and one to the Northern Ireland Office, about what discussions had taken place ahead of there being no legislative consent Motion before today’s debate. The Answer I had from the Northern Ireland Office was that:
“The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has spoken regularly to the Northern Ireland Justice Minister about the National Crime Agency. He”—
the Justice Minister—
“has been leading discussions with Northern Ireland Executive colleagues about the National Crime Agency. The Secretary of State has not discussed the matter in detail with other Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive. The Government remain committed to delivering a UK-wide crime-fighting agency focused on tackling serious, organised and complex crime”.—[Official Report, 28/2/13; col. WA 354]
If the Government are so focused, why were discussions not taking place with other Ministers in the Executive, who have a role in accepting a legislative consent Motion, and the representatives of political parties?
I have to say to the noble Lord that the response from the Home Office was dire. It said:
“Home Office Ministers and officials have meetings with a wide variety of international partners, as well as organisations and individuals in the public and private sectors, as part of the process of policy development and delivery. Details of these meetings are published on the Cabinet Office website on a quarterly basis”.—[Official Report, 27/2/13; cols. WA 333-34]
I was asking specifically whether Ministers had met and spoken to, and how often, the Northern Ireland Justice Minister and other Ministers in the Executive to try to get this moving. The response I get is that Ministers and officials have met “a wide variety of international partners”. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Discussions were needed not with international partners but with the political parties and representatives of the Northern Ireland Assembly. That may mean that the Government, or the Home Office, have been talking to the Irish Government, which is a fair way forward, but not to be having those discussions that I think were necessary has led us to the point where, like the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I do not know, and do not share the Minister’s confidence, that this can be resolved in the way that we would like to ensure there is a fully functioning National Crime Agency across the whole of the UK.
I ask the Minister, in the absence of answers to my Written Questions—if he has to write to me I will accept that but if he is able to answer today that would be helpful—when did Ministers first raise the issue of the National Crime Agency, with or without the counterterrorism functions, with the Northern Ireland Ministers and political parties? Who has led the discussion? Has it been the NIO or has it been the Home Office, and who did they meet? However, the crucial question has to be: what happens now? What next? The Motion before us today from the Government that removes application provisions from the Bill is, under the circumstances, perhaps the only way forward at this stage. However, I hope we are going to see a step-up and continuation of the process in the interest of fighting serious and organised crime effectively in Northern Ireland and that there is not going to be a step back by removing Northern Ireland from today’s legislation.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I understand the distress and disappointment, and if I may use the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, the pessimism that he feels about these issues is clearly reflected in other contributions that have been made by other noble Lords. On the other hand, I am optimistic because, despite the criticism made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, we have sought to address these issues properly. If we had been overassertive in the requirements of the United Kingdom in this regard, we would have alienated a legitimate discussion process that was correctly placed with David Ford, the Justice Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, and in the key position of securing these agreements. We were keen not to put him in the situation where we were seeking to second-guess where he was taking these discussions.
I will answer the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in writing because she asked particularly about dates and so on. I do not have that information. Ministers and officials have had a number of meetings with David Ford throughout this process. The noble Baroness will know that I have talked to her about this on occasions outside this Chamber when she has asked me how things were going on this. I remember saying that it is a difficult and delicate matter. All noble Lords with experience of Northern Ireland will understand exactly why that is so. The Government were right that while we were prepared to compromise on a number of challenging areas, the negotiations had not been held on the basis of securing consent at all costs. I think noble Lords will be pleased that that is the case. That must be the right position for the Government of the United Kingdom to take on this issue.
For noble Lords who think that the Government should have intervened directly, I should say that this is devolution, a devolved process. It is absolutely right that the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, David Ford, led these discussions. He has admirably served the interests of Northern Ireland in this regard with remarkable resilience, driving the discussions and negotiations at each turn, even in the face of some clear opposition. I have confidence in him, which is why I am ultimately optimistic that the people of Northern Ireland, through their elected representatives, will see the importance of having a combined national involvement with the National Crime Agency because of the capacity that it will bring to policing in Northern Ireland.
We are not in the business of creating gaps. The NCA was intended to close gaps in the current arrangements. That was in the Bill that we planned to create, but the Executive could not agree, which is why these amendments are before the House. We remain open to discussion and we have provided the necessary order-making powers to fully extend the NCA provisions to Northern Ireland should the position of the Executive change. Assuming the Executive stick to their decision, it is up to them to decide how to develop alternative capabilities for Northern Ireland to replace the work currently done by SOCA. As I have said, we are committed to providing as much operational capacity and capability as possible for the NCA operating in Northern Ireland. But, as I made clear, in the absence of legislative consent there are some things that the NCA will no longer be able to do, such as using Northern Ireland police powers to investigate serious and organised crime. This is to be regretted.
Lord Empey
Before the Minister sits down, perhaps he can address the question that I raised. In circumstances where agreement is not reached, where the Executive do not make alternative arrangements to pursue crime as was intended by the NCA, and where evidence emerges that crime is developing in Northern Ireland and is being spread to the mainland, what steps will the Government take?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I imagine that the noble Lord will be able to guess my answer, which is that any Government of the United Kingdom will respond in a responsible manner.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 3.
“Varying designations of authorities responsible for remanded young persons
(1) Section 102 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (where child remanded to youth detention accommodation, court must designate local authority to look after child and meet costs) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (7)(a) (authority that already looks after child to be designated) after “being looked after by a local authority” insert “otherwise than by virtue of section 104(1)”.
(3) In subsection (7)(b) (in other cases, court must designate authority for area where child habitually resides or offence committed) for “, the local authority” substitute “but subject to subsection (7B), a local authority”.
(4) After subsection (7) insert—
“(7A) In a case to which subsection (7)(b) applies, the court is to designate a local authority in whose area it appears to the court that the child habitually resides (a “home authority”) except where the court—
(a) considers as respects the home authority, or each home authority, that it is inappropriate to designate that authority, or
(b) is unable to identify any place in England and Wales where the child habitually resides.
(7B) If in a case to which subsection (7)(b) applies—
(a) the court is not required by subsection (7A) to designate a home authority, but
(b) it appears to the court that the offence was not, or none of the offences was, committed in England and Wales,
the court is to designate a local authority which it considers appropriate in the circumstances of the case.”
(5) After subsection (7B) insert—
“(7C) Where a child has been remanded to youth detention accommodation, the court—
(a) which remanded the child, or
(b) to which the child was remanded,
may designate a local authority (“B”) as the designated authority for the child in substitution for the authority previously designated (whether that previous designation was made when the child was remanded or under this subsection).
(7D) Where a child has at any one time been subject to two or more remands to youth detention accommodation, a court which has jurisdiction to make a replacement designation under subsection (7C) in connection with one or some of the remands also has jurisdiction to make such a replacement designation in connection with each of the other remands.
(7E) Where a replacement designation is made under subsection (7C) after the end of the period of remand concerned, the substitution of B for the previously-designated authority has effect only for the purposes of regulations under section 103.
(7F) Where a replacement designation is made under subsection (7C) during the period of remand concerned, the substitution of B for the previously-designated authority—
(a) has effect, as respects the part of that period ending with the making of the replacement designation, only for the purposes of regulations under section 103, and
(b) has effect, as respects the remainder of that period, for all of the purposes listed in subsection (6).
(7G) A court may make a replacement designation under subsection (7C) only if it considers that, had everything it knows been known by the court which made the previous designation, that court would have designated B instead.
(7H) Where a replacement designation is made under subsection (7C) in relation to a remand, the previously-designated authority is to be repaid any sums it paid in respect of the remand pursuant to regulations under section 103.
(7J) A court which has jurisdiction to make a replacement direction under subsection (7C) may exercise that jurisdiction on an application by a local authority or of its own motion.”
(6) A replacement designation under the new section 102(7C) may be made in respect of a remand ordered before this section comes into force, and the amendments made by this section have effect for the purpose of making a replacement designation in any such case; but, in such a case, the substitution of B for the previously-designated authority (and any entitlement to repayment under new section 102(7H)) does not have effect as respects any time before this section comes into force.
(7) Except as provided by subsection (6), the amendments made by this section have effect only in relation to remands ordered after this section comes into force.”
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, in moving that this House do agree with Commons Amendment 3, I shall speak also to Commons Amendments 4, 7 to 10, 32 to 37, 42, 43, 51, 61 to 92, 93 to 130 and 132. This group of amendments covers a range of issues in respect of provisions in Part 2 of the Bill, as well as adding some new provisions to that part, but I believe that they will generally be welcomed. I propose to focus my remarks on the most significant of these amendments.
Commons Amendment 3 makes a specific and technical amendment to the youth secure remand provisions in Section 102 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Under those provisions, local authorities are liable to pay the Youth Justice Board the accommodation costs of children subject to secure remand. As of 3 December 2012, courts ordering a secure remand must designate a local authority as the designated authority for the child. Full financial responsibility for the accommodation costs of securely remanded children will fall to the designated local authorities as of 1 April.
This amendment addresses a gap in the current law. When remanding a child, the court will tend to designate the local authority where the child lives. However, this is not always clear at the early stages of the case, so the court may designate a different local authority. By the next hearing, more information is generally available, so the court can change the designation to the local authority where the child lives. But under Section 102 of the 2012 Act, the liability to pay the secure accommodation costs for the period before the change is made still rests with the original local authority. This creates an unfair burden on a local authority where the child does not live, and puts at risk the effective recovery of costs by the Youth Justice Board. Therefore, Commons Amendment 3 gives the court powers to make a replacement designation, so all the accommodation costs can be recovered from the local authority that has subsequently been identified.
In addition, the amendment introduces the assumption that the court should designate the local authority where the child lives rather than the authority where the offence took place. The Government believe that in most cases it is right to designate the local authority where the child lives in accordance with the habitual residence test from which the duty for a local authority to provide accommodation and support flows. Of course, the court will retain overall discretion over deciding which local authority to designate.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I will confine myself to two topics. Taken in reverse order of importance, the first is what has become known in common parlance as “bash the burglar” legislation. The Minister emphasised the need for bringing this measure into force as quickly as possible. Given the paucity of cases to which this would apply, as we discussed when we were debating the Bill, I find this to be little more than an example of gesture politics of the cheapest kind.
The second more significant matter, which I entirely support the Government in raising, is Amendment 9 about making use of films and other recordings of proceedings. I would not have spoken at all on this matter except that there was a report in the press at the end of last week about the position in Scotland where it now appears that a drama is going to be broadcast based entirely on recordings in the criminal court. This is under Scottish legislation; it is not legislation that applies in this country. This is exactly what those who have expressed fears about filming proceedings in court were really worried might take place. Apparently witnesses, parties in criminal cases and, in this particular case, a retrial of a significant case regarding a serious offence have been filmed and will be shown on Scottish television, presumably, as a rather dramatic production rather than a factual and low-key look at how the courts work. The English legislation that we are debating does not facilitate that, and I would be glad to hear the Minister give a firm assurance that it will not be extended to allow that kind of development, which would be a significant change in the way that the Government have envisaged matters and one in which we should in no way seek to experience what Scotland is about to undergo.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I thank the noble Lord for his support for much of what has been covered. He referred to self-defence as “bash the burglar”. He may think that; I could not possibly comment. We believe it is important that if the legislation is passed, no one should fall into the trap between Royal Assent being given and this becoming law so that it can be used as a defence. If we are making these changes, it is important that they happen as quickly as possible so that we prevent any occurrence of people who act. I contend that anyone confronted with a burglar, faced with such a situation where they are protecting their home, their family and their loved ones, is often faced with that instant decision. It is important that we give that instant protection. I therefore believe that the Government have taken the right way forward on this. I am sure that, on reflection, the noble Lord would agree with me.
The noble Lord mentioned broadcasting and, again, I welcome his support. As I said, we have put four locks in place. He raised the specific issue of broadcasting in Scotland and the filming of all parts of a trial. I assure him that we are not proposing to allow this at all. The safeguards that I have outlined will protect such an extension. He raised the specific issue of witnesses. I share his concern. The Government’s intention is to provide that level of protection. With those clarifications, I beg to move.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 4.
“Part 4A amends the selection procedure for certain senior judicial appointments until Part 4 of the Schedule is in force,”
Lord McNally
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 5.
“Enforcement by taking control of goods
(1) Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (procedure for taking control of goods) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 17 (enforcement agent may use reasonable force to enter etc where paragraph 18 or 19 applies) for “or 19” substitute “, 18A, 19 or 19A”.
(3) After paragraph 18 insert—
“18A (1) This paragraph applies if these conditions are met—
(a) the enforcement agent has power to enter the premises under paragraph 14;
(b) the enforcement agent reasonably believes that the debtor carries on a trade or business on the premises;
(c) the enforcement agent is acting under a writ or warrant of control issued for the purpose of recovering a sum payable under a High Court or county court judgment;
(d) the sum so payable is not a traffic contravention debt.
(2) “Traffic contravention debt” has the meaning given by section 82(2) of the Traffic Management Act 2004.”
(4) After paragraph 19 insert—
“19A (1) This paragraph applies if these conditions are met—
(a) the enforcement agent has power to enter the premises under paragraph 16;
(b) the enforcement agent has taken control of the goods by entering into a controlled goods agreement with the debtor;
(c) the debtor has failed to comply with any provision of the controlled goods agreement relating to the payment by the debtor of the debt;
(d) the debtor has been given notice of the intention of the enforcement agent to enter the premises to inspect the goods or to remove them for storage or sale;
(e) neither paragraph 18 nor paragraph 19 applies.
(2) For the purposes of a notice under sub-paragraph (1)(d), regulations must state—
(a) the minimum period of notice;
(b) the form of the notice;
(c) what it must contain;
(d) how it must be given;
(e) who must give it.
(3) The enforcement agent must keep a record of the time when a notice under sub-paragraph (1)(d) is given.
(4) If regulations authorise it, the court may order in prescribed circumstances that the notice given may be less than the minimum period.
(5) The order may be subject to conditions.”
(5) In paragraphs 24(2) and 31(5) (no power to use force against persons except to extent provided in regulations) omit “, except to the extent that regulations provide that it does”.
(6) Omit paragraph 53(2) (controlled goods to be treated as abandoned if unsold after a sale).
(7) Omit paragraph 56(2) (securities to be treated as abandoned if not disposed of in accordance with notice of disposal).
(8) In consequence of the repeals in subsection (5), in section 90 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (regulations under Part 3)—
(a) omit subsection (4) (procedure for regulations under paragraphs 24(2) and 31(5) of Schedule 12), and
(b) in subsection (5) omit “In any other case”.
(9) In Schedule 13 to that Act (taking control of goods: amendments)—
(a) in paragraph 37 (repeal in section 66(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1972) for the words after “etc.),” substitute “omit subsection (2).”,
(b) in paragraph 74 (repeal of sections 93 to 100 of the County Courts Act 1984) after “93 to” insert “98 and”,
(c) in paragraph 85 (amendment of section 436 of the Insolvency Act 1986) for “436” substitute “436(1)”,
(d) in paragraph 125 (amendment of section 15 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996) for ““by execution issued from the county court”” substitute “the words from “by execution”, to “court” in the first place after “by execution”,”, and
(e) in paragraph 134 (which amends Schedule 17 to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000) for “paragraph 16(a)” substitute “paragraphs 16(a) and 16D(a)”.”
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
I beg to move that this House do agree with Commons Amendments 5. I shall speak also to Amendments 6 and 31. As the debates in this House and the other place have shown, there is broad agreement that more needs to be done to protect debtors from the unscrupulous practices of a minority of bailiffs, while at the same time ensuring that legitimate creditors can collect the money that they are owed. The Government are committed to achieving this. On 25 January, the Ministry of Justice published the Government’s response to the Transforming Bailiff Action consultation, which sets out the key reforms that we are undertaking to deliver on this commitment.
It may assist the House if I give a brief overview of the Government’s reforms, which centre on the implementation of Part 3 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Among other things, they will remove antiquated and confusing laws, provide clarity about the power of bailiffs, allow for the introduction of regulations setting out what goods a bailiff can or cannot seize and introduce a clear and fair charging regime. Furthermore, new mandatory training and an enhanced certification system will ensure that the individuals carrying out this difficult job are the right people, and will build on the existing remedies available if things go wrong.
The Government believe that the framework for the regulation of bailiffs in Part 3 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 generally strikes the right balance between ensuring that all bailiffs operate to appropriate minimum standards and not subjecting the industry to overburdensome regulation. As such, I hope that the House can readily agree Commons Amendment 5, which will enable us to correct a number of inadequacies in the legislation. Having done so, we will be able to move quickly to bring Part 3 of the 2007 Act into force.
The key changes made to the 2007 Act are threefold. First, the amendment removes the ability to make regulations that would confer a power on enforcement agents to use reasonable force against debtors. It is one thing to countenance the use of reasonable force to enter premises; it is quite another to authorise such force against a person. Here the 2007 Act plainly got the balance wrong and it is right that we should provide this additional safeguard.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, Amendment 6A relates to an amendment passed in this House to provide for an ombudsman service as a basic minimum of protection for victims of abuse by bailiff services. The lack of an independent regulatory system for bailiffs affects hundreds of thousands of our most vulnerable citizens, and we know that the recent and ongoing welfare benefits legislation will swell the numbers of such victims in the coming years. The purpose of bringing back this amendment to the House is to provide an opportunity for the Minister to explain the action taken since our debate. In December, the amendment had strong support from the Conservative Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, chair of the Enforcement Law Reform Group, said that he did not know one bailiff who would not support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, spoke eloquently about the importance of your Lordships’ House approving such a reform, but the Minister at the time could give no assurances.
Full ombudsman services are provided in health, housing, local government, financial services, legal services, telecommunications, prisons and other sectors, but we know that members of the public are probably more vulnerable to abuse of power by bailiffs than by almost any other cadre of workers. After all, bailiffs cone into our homes to seize our property. Little could be more offensive than that. Yet, in response to our amendment, the Government in the other place have rejected even this most minimal of protections for people who will inevitably include many mentally and physically disabled people who cannot fend for themselves.
I thank the Minister and his officials for a meeting last week when they explained many of the actions taken since our debate in December. I am grateful to the Minister for giving an assurance to this House—I think he gave this assurance—that every individual who is subject to abuse by a bailiff will have access to one or other ombudsman. It is a splintered system, not a complete system, but, if they can find their way through it, every victim will have access to the Local Government Ombudsman, the Parliamentary Ombudsman or the Legal Ombudsman. I hope the Minister will confirm that he said that. I should be grateful if he could make very clear that the Local Government Ombudsman will be able to deal with complaints about private bailiffs as well as in-house bailiffs. As the Minister made clear, the one area that is left out of this is companies. I have concerns about small businesses—perhaps one or two-person businesses—that may get into terrible debt trouble and have very unpleasant experiences. They will have no access to an ombudsman.
In his opening remarks, the Minister referred to training. I do not think he mentioned this, but I should be grateful if he could confirm that there will be a specific module on identifying vulnerability and vulnerable people. I should also be grateful if he could clarify that the training will not only include how to identify a vulnerable person but will be very clear about what the bailiff should do having identified a vulnerable person. It is no good identifying them if the bailiff proceeds to act inappropriately.
In December, I probed a lot about the length, breadth and depth of the training, and I am delighted to hear that there will be training of in the region of three months, including this rather important module. However, I should like to pursue the matter a little further. The Government’s response to the consultation referred to mandatory training. I should like an assurance from the Minister that there will be a set standard that a bailiff is required to meet. I am familiar with training in certain areas where the company simply has to tick a box to say that the bailiff has attended training. I am even familiar with security officers who will quite happily get someone else to complete the training for them and somehow or other the box gets ticked. We need an assurance that there will be a standard that bailiffs are required to meet. Will there be any independent verification of meeting those standards?
Finally, will the Minister say something about the work on information for victims that he mentioned at our meeting? We have a splintered and confusing system of ombudsmen for victims in different scenarios. It would be helpful to have on record the work going on with the CAB service, the web and so on to try to make sure that people know that they have access to an independent ombudsman. As the Minister said, the Government will reform the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 to prevent the use of force against the person. Again, I should be grateful if the Minister could—perhaps he cannot—give some timeframe for that legislation.
In summary, the Government will introduce a certification process with no independent regulation of bailiffs and a rather incomplete and splintered form of ombudsman service. However, we can expect the quality of enforcement services to improve somewhat from a very low base. Of course, one cannot generalise, but we know that some very unpleasant things happen out there. There will be a staged process, to which the Minister referred, of implementation review. I hope the Minister can confirm that the results of those reviews will be made public and, at that stage, perhaps the Government will finally accept the crying need for independent regulation of bailiffs. I await the Minister’s response.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I join the noble Baroness in welcoming the Government’s moves to tighten up the arrangements for bailiffs. Like her, however, I regret that they have failed to take the ultimate step of establishing a clear and relatively straightforward regulatory system. I am slightly puzzled by some aspects of their response to the consultation. For example, in paragraph 18 of their response, the Government say that they will implement Section 64 of the Act and “produce regulations” about the regulation of enforcement agents, which is a somewhat circuitous expression. Nor is it entirely clear where that would be heading.
Equally, the response goes on to say at paragraph 134 that the Government,
“will continue to work with stakeholders from the enforcement and advice sectors in developing the content of the regulations and will also work with HM Courts and Tribunals Service and the judiciary on the court procedure”.
I take it that that means that, ultimately, the Government will produce regulations to be approved by both Houses. Perhaps the noble Lord would be able to confirm that. It is clear, as the Minister has pointed out, that much of the work—or, any rate, the function—of the industry is directed towards recovering sums due to local or central government, hence the involvement of the Local Government Ombudsman. That work is likely to be enhanced considerably as councils seek to recover, if it is economical to do so, the likely shortfall in the collection of council tax now that a significant cut has been made in council tax support, and many people will now be called upon to pay council tax who have not hitherto done so, in rather small amounts. That may make collection uneconomic.
Be that as it may, and quite taking the point about the Local Government Ombudsman’s position, would it not be sensible, if we are thinking in terms of sensible regulation without offering competing avenues for this, for the Local Government Ombudsman’s responsibilities to be widened so that he can undertake that regulatory role for the whole system? Why not? Hopefully, local authorities, either singly or collectively, will in any case employ staff directly rather than contract out. It is in the contracting out of the service that we see so many of the problems.
It is interesting that the advice sector did not agree with the not unexpected majority of the enforcement sector and creditors in saying that the existing complaints process was sufficient and did not require any further government intervention. The advice sector thought that the processes,
“have proved to be ineffective or inadequate”.
Given the Government’s propensity to rely on the voluntary sector to make good the damage inflicted upon advice services generally—the withdrawal of legal aid and legal advice, for example—one might have thought that they would pay rather more attention to the advice of the sector in this sensitive area. As the Minister has, in fairness, readily recognised, there have been too many instances of abuse for us to be comfortable with the present position.
Finally, the Government propose a rather curious process of review at one, three and five-year intervals. It is not clear quite what form that would take, but I ask the Minister for an assurance that if it is seen that there is no significant improvement in how the system is working, they will revert to the concept not merely of support, advice and certification but of a proper regulatory system to which people can have ready and inexpensive access.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I will re-emphasise why we are not introducing an independent regulator. The legislative changes that we are making to protect people in debt from aggressive bailiffs together with the new laws and mandatory training and certification scheme, which bailiffs must pass before going into business, will provide enough protection against aggressive bailiffs. Bailiffs who do not follow the rules will be barred from the industry. We will also clarify the complaints process so that debtors know how to seek redress and what the responsibility of creditors and enforcements agents are.
As I have explained, in the process, the appropriate regulator in each of the areas where bailiffs are used will be able to be appealed to. We mentioned this small degree of commercial debt—less than 1%—and I would be happy to receive any representation from either the CBI or the Federation of Small Businesses if they thought that this was a genuine loophole causing a real problem.
Every individual will have access to an appropriate complainant authority. As the noble Baroness pointed out, we have indicated that we are looking for something like a three-month training programme; it will not just be a tick-box exercise. We are looking at other parts of the forest, as it were, to see whether there are training modules and practices that we can readily adapt. I confirm that the local government ombudsman will have responsibility for private bailiffs when they are acting for local authorities.
The noble Baroness rightly raised the problems of dealing with people who may have some difficulties with mental capacity. We would hope that in the training will come a clear responsibility to recognise and assess such situations. Where they identify that a vulnerable person is involved, they will refer back to the relevant authority to further instructions and, where necessary, bring in other assistance to deal with the situation.
As I have said, we are developing training that we consider a minimum requirement. We have not yet been able to gauge exactly the length of time that the training would take. However, we are clear that, at a minimum, bailiffs will need to understand the role that they play, the law that governs their powers, the practice of taking control of goods, the fees that they can charge and, as I have said, specific training to deal with vulnerable people.
On whether the system will allow complaints against bailiff firms as well as individuals, most complaints about bailiff companies relate to the fees charged by their bailiffs, the type of goods seized and the ways in which they were seized. All these issues will be dealt with under the new regulations and will be subject to the means of redress. The behaviour of individual bailiffs on the doorstep will be regulated through the certification system. Poor behaviour can be addressed by the removal of a certificate. We are working with the advice sector to identify any complaints that would fall outside the regulation. All bailiffs will have to be certified, and I can confirm that training will be independently accredited.
We will bring forward the regulations by negative resolution. The regulations have already been subject to a full and open consultation. Comments were invited as part of this process and were included with the consultation paper. Officials are currently working with stakeholder groups to refine the regulations, and we plan to make them available by the summer. As set out in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the regulation will be subject to the negative procedure for statutory instruments.
As I said, I believe that what has been put forward in a way is greatly to the credit of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who has championed these ideas through the House. I hope she recognises a victory when she sees one. I certainly hope, as I said before, that the House will agree to Amendments 5, 6 and 31.
Baroness Meacher
I thank the Minister for his response and say that my amendment to the Motion is not moved.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 7 to 10.
Lord McNally
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 11.
“Awards of exemplary damages
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a relevant claim is made against a person (“the defendant”),
(b) the defendant was a relevant publisher at the material time,
(c) the claim is related to the publication of news-related material, and
(d) the defendant is found liable in respect of the claim.
(2) Exemplary damages may not be awarded against the defendant in respect of the claim if the defendant was a member of an approved regulator at the material time.
(3) But the court may disregard subsection (2) if—
(a) the approved regulator imposed a penalty on the defendant in respect of the defendant’s conduct or decided not to do so,
(b) the court considers, in light of the information available to the approved regulator when imposing the penalty or deciding not to impose one, that the regulator was manifestly irrational in imposing the penalty or deciding not to impose one, and
(c) the court is satisfied that, but for subsection (2), it would have made an award of exemplary damages under this section against the defendant.
(4) Where the court is not prevented from making an award of exemplary damages by subsection (2) (whether because that subsection does not apply or the court is permitted to disregard that subsection as a result of subsection (3)), the court—
(a) may make an award of exemplary damages if it considers it appropriate to do so in all the circumstances of the case, but
(b) may do so only under this section.
(5) Exemplary damages may be awarded under this section only if they are claimed.
(6) Exemplary damages may be awarded under this section only if the court is satisfied that—
(a) the defendant’s conduct has shown a deliberate or reckless disregard of an outrageous nature for the claimant’s rights,
(b) the conduct is such that the court should punish the defendant for it, and
(c) other remedies would not be adequate to punish that conduct.
(7) Exemplary damages may be awarded under this section whether or not another remedy is granted.
(8) The decision on the question of—
(a) whether exemplary damages are to be awarded under this section, or
(b) the amount of such damages,
must not be left to a jury.”
Lord McNally
My Lords, I beg to move that this House agrees with Commons Amendment 11. With this I shall speak also to Commons Amendments 12 to 19, 38, 46 and 131, and to the government Amendments 17D, 17H and 131BA to those amendments. This group of amendments, together with a new clause which your Lordships’ House has already added to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, implement legislative parts of the Leveson cross-party agreement. Clearly these have been the source of much interest over the last week, since the Prime Minister announced last Monday that he had reached agreement with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on proposals for a royal charter. As part of that agreement, the three parties also agreed proposals and exemplary damages and costs that are designed to incentivise publishers to join the new regulatory framework. These proposals are the subject of this group of Commons amendments.
I will first explain the key features of the Commons amendments. Commons Amendments 11 to 15 relate to exemplary damages, which are already available under the common law. They are, however, very rarely awarded, as they are reserved for the most serious cases. They are designed to punish, and only where there is no alternative. That general position will not change, although the new scheme for relevant publishers will change the position for them in relation to certain types of cases relating to the media, namely cases for defamation, misuse of private information, breach of confidence, malicious falsehood and harassment, as specified in Amendment 19.
Commons Amendment 11 incentivises publishers to join the regulator by making it clear that a court may contemplate awarding exemplary damages only in cases where a publisher has not joined the regulator, with very limited exceptions. This is on the basis that a publisher joining the regulator will face the prospect of regulatory fines of up to £1 million. However, subsection (3) of the new clause also provides that if a court is persuaded that a regulated publisher has acted in a way that would lead the court to award exemplary damages but for their membership of the regulator, and the regulator has acted manifestly irrationally in its approach to sanctioning that conduct, the court may exceptionally make an award for exemplary damages in that case. I know that this is one of the points on which my noble friend Lord Lucas has sought clarification in his Amendment 11A. I hope that he will agree that this is a very limited and clear exception to that rule, being available only when a court concludes that the regulator has acted in a manner that is manifestly irrational—a very high bar.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux)
My Lords, I now call Amendment 11A. I have to advise the House that if Amendment 11A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 11B by reason of pre-emption.
Amendment 11A (as an amendment to Commons Amendment 11)
Lord Lucas
Lord Lucas
In moving Amendment 11A I shall speak also to the other amendments in my name in this group and, indeed, to one that does not appear in the groupings list, Amendment 17G, unless the list has been amended subsequently, as this amendment is clearly part of the same series.
I start by declaring an interest: I run the Good Schools Guide. It seems to me that the Good Schools Guide is clearly going to have register under these clauses. I am not going to address myself to the virtue or otherwise of this approach to press regulation—I am sure that others will do that better than I could. I am going to confine my remarks to, “Well, if the Government are going to do it this way, how could they do it better?”. As far as I understand it, the procedure today is that, as with the other groups, we will deal with everything as a whole. But if we get to the point where we are faced with a widespread disagreement with what the Government are doing and an unwillingness to listen, we have the option of re-debating each of the amendments one by one when we reach their place in the Marshalled List if the noble Lord whose amendment it is chooses to move it.
The crucial thing from my point of view is exactly what the Government intend to do with their manuscript amendment. I was comforted very much by what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said—that this is essentially a device to make sure that the Commons has Easter to think through exactly how to deal with small bloggers and, given the width of the Commons’ powers, also to make any other necessary changes to these clauses. Therefore, if we are dealing with small amendments and things we think need further thought, that government amendment is enough to enable these to be achieved, and therefore all we need to do is speak to the Government today and, over the next three weeks, good sense will gradually percolate through and result in the Commons—when the Government’s amendment comes back to us—having taken the appropriate action elsewhere within this group. I hope that that is the correct understanding. I am sure that my noble friend will confirm if that is the case.
I start with Amendment 11A. I understand what my noble friend says about the purpose of the lines that I am seeking to take out—they are to deal with circumstances when the regulator has gone doolally—but I think that this is the wrong way to do that. I can see that as a possibility, but by doing it this way the Government are introducing uncertainty into the whole question of whether exemplary damages apply to a publisher. By joining a regulator, you can exempt yourself from exemplary damages. You sign up to the regulator, you do things its way and you are not in danger of exemplary damages. You do not have to get insurance against exemplary damages—which is not exactly going to be cheap—and you know that you have gone down the road that Leveson has recommended.
By introducing this uncertainty, saying that the courts can overturn your exemption, you are inviting every opportunist attacker to have a go at you, to see if he can tip you into exemplary damages. I cannot see that introducing that level of uncertainty, danger and risk in a procedure which is supposed to encourage people to sign up to avoid that risk, is the right way of doing it. If we are worried about the regulator going native then we need to provide for that in the charter and provide some way of bringing a regulator back to where they should be. Indeed, I suspect that if we had that then it might well be that Parliament would legislate again anyway. Surely this added uncertainty is not the right way to deal with the problem.
I turn to the next amendments in my group, Amendments 17C and 17G. The object of these paragraphs is effectively to force publishers to use arbitration. I have two objections to that. The first is that there ought to be a real incentive for those who offer the arbitration, for the regulator, to make it good and something that publishers want to use. If there is no such incentive then there is the tendency, as exemplified in Australia for instance, for the arbitrator to start to get really rather eccentric views on what publishers should be doing and to seek to widen its own authority by pushing the boundaries and the rules in ways which I am sure Parliament is not currently envisaging.
It seems to me best in principle that an arbitration, if that is offered, should be offered freely. I am sure that those like me who have had some experience of the uncertainties of the court will go for arbitration first as a matter of course if it is well done—and no reason why it should not be.
Secondly, however, there are many cases in the world of publishing that are seriously complicated things. They can be dealt with by arbitration but actually are far better dealt with by the courts. Surely we want to allow the decision to continue to be made by either side in the argument that a particular case would be better dealt with by a court, with the additional powers and procedures that courts have. I cannot see why we are effectively ruling that out by this particular pattern of penalties.
We come to my amendment to Amendment 18, which is to take out subsections (3) and (4). I think that I am proposing this amendment because I do not understand the wording of those clauses. I understood my noble friend when he addressed this and said that, clearly, he wanted to see the Huffington Post included as a publisher. But it seems to me that subsection (3) removes, at least if not the Huffington Post in the exact way that it operates, many Huffington Post-like potential publishers from the scope of “relevant publisher”. It says:
“A person who is the operator of a website is not to be taken as having editorial or equivalent responsibility for the decision to publish any material on the site, or for content of the material, if the person did not post the material on the site”—
in other words, if the material appeared on that site by another agency.
Well, fine; but suppose the publisher—whatever they be called; “Comment is free” would be a pretty good example—had offered payment to the person who posted that article on the website, or had commissioned it, or had merely given permission for it, as one has to with “Comment is free”. You cannot just post something on that site; you have to get its agreement to posting it. Effectively, in the likes of “Comment is free”, you are creating a newspaper, but it is not made up in the usual way; it is made up of unpaid—although there is no reason why they should not be paid—contributions from outsiders. They may well have been moderated, as is allowed in subsection (4), which effectively means edited. Permission has been given and sometimes contributions are sought, in that they might say, “We would like something like that—who shall we ask to make the posting?”. The wording of subsection (3), as it is now, allows some very major businesses to escape this set of clauses entirely. They may not exist at the moment but, if you allow them to exist under this clause, I think that they will get through. That may be my misunderstanding of how the wording operates, but it certainly seems the case to me.
Amendment 19A is my original take on how to deal with the small bloggers problem. Essentially, most publishers of any ambition are going to have to join this regulator, and my noble friend clearly expressed the intention of the Government and Lord Justice Leveson that this should be the case. But a lot of these publishers, particularly at the early stages of their existence, when they are pretty sharp-edged and contentious, do not have much income. They survive on the sheer effort of a few individuals, who may scrape a living through journalism elsewhere, or do something else to keep body and soul together, but are not earning a lot from the publishing enterprise that they have founded. If the regulator charges a large fee for annual membership or charges little bloggers full fees for access to the compulsory arbitration service, we are effectively creating quite a high barrier to entry for new publishers. We are saying that they will have to find £100,000 or £200,000 to deal with those charges before they are allowed to become a publisher.
I am sure that that is not the Government’s intention, but it is one of the reasons why their own amendment does not go far enough, and dealing with this issue is probably a matter for the charter and not for the Bill. But it is important to make sure that we are not in this Bill introducing a barrier to entry for new publishers, who will generally feel obliged to register. Unless there is a very clear moment when they transition from being a small blogger, in the words of the government amendment, to a not small blogger, they will register early for their own protection. But if they face the sort of fees that a vexatious litigant could use to really punish them, just by putting them through the procedures, we will put in place a real barrier. I am sure that my noble friend realises that there are people around the world with whom you can get into severe difficulty if you say what you think about them, such as the Scientologists. That is not an uncommon feature, and we should not create a barrier for entry into such controversial and, in the overall scheme of things, worthwhile activities.
My other amendments, Amendments 131B and following, are slightly further on. I am sure that this is my misreading, but it seems to me that there is nothing in the wording that exempts the New York Times, or Le Monde, from having to register. We are going back to our imperial habits and stretching our net across the world. They are certainly publishers of news on a large scale about the United Kingdom, but they are surely not intended to be caught and have to register just because they choose to report what is going on in these islands, on page 59. If that is the intention, I feel that it is the wrong one.
The second part of Amendment 131B is really a companion to the limitation of fees and costs for small publishers. If the regulator has to run at a loss on small publishers, subsidising their fees and arbitration costs out of the fees and costs charged to larger publishers, it may decide that it really cannot be bothered and say, “You’re not big enough yet—go away”. If the regulator says that to you at the moment, you are caught, because you cannot join the regulator and, therefore, you are in for exemplary damages, without the option. I do not think that that should be the case.
Lord Soley
My Lords, I shall address this matter fairly briefly. I congratulate the Government on having moved as they have, and the noble Lord on his opening comments.
I want to make two points, but they are quite important ones. What is welcome and what we need to remember when we discuss these issues is that there is a world of difference between an individual who might say something factually incorrect and even insulting as an individual and a very large-scale international organisation such as News International doing the same thing. That is really where this problem has come from. People reacted to Leveson from the press side by saying that it was an attack on 300 years of press freedom, but that is nonsense. Press freedom was about small individuals and small groups fighting for the right to publish their views, and that remained the case until quite late in the 19th century, when the press barons emerged and these large-scale and powerful organisations developed. That is when it became difficult, because you could no longer feel the same about an attack by an organisation such as News International that was factually incorrect and severely intrusive, and that of an individual. That sort of balance needs to be kept in mind.
When I listened to the Minister’s opening comments, I felt that the Government were aware of the difference between the large and small organisation. But it is a problem for the small organisation. I started a blog in, I think, 2003, then came here and converted it to “Lord of the Blog”, and then it became “Lords of the Blog”, which is still operating, and is run by the Hansard Society on behalf of the House. I think that it is relevant—and this refers in a way to some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—and we need to be aware of the impact on charitable organisations and the smaller groups.
My second main point is that we need to review the legislation over a period of time. Part of the reason why we need to do that is the rapidly changing technology; it is so fast and so dramatic that it is difficult to keep up with it. I do not believe that all the press will suddenly go out of business because of the internet, but they are under more severe financial pressure because of it. Frankly, good newspapers are likely to survive—and likely to survive also because of their online material. We have to break away from the old culture whereby, if you felt that you could not publish a story, you got someone to put it on the internet and then, lo and behold, it suddenly appeared in News International newspapers, or wherever—and anyone could have put it on. It was easy to get round the rules.
As someone who set up those blogs, I would have welcomed at that time some sort of code that was external to what I was inventing myself. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that you may be threatened by that. He may be right. I do not want to disagree with a great deal of what he said as I have a lot of sympathy with it, but I think he may be overafraid of this. When I started the blog in 2003, I was not concerned about individual attacks on me—any MP gets used to that fairly quickly and takes the rough with the smooth—but I was concerned about attacks on third parties or statements about third parties. We saw a dreadful example of that recently with the challenge to Lord McAlpine. In my view, none of this regulation threatens good investigative journalism. Indeed, I gather that the BBC programme tonight on Boris Johnson will be pretty critical and that is a regulated media outlet, so we should not be too concerned about this issue. However, vast changes are taking place.
To give another example, after the Iraq war, at the request of some Arabs in my then constituency, I set up the Arab-Jewish Forum, which was essentially a conference organising group, but I have recently converted it into a blog organisation for Arabs and Jews in this country, although, inevitably, it will go worldwide. In doing that, I am worried about regulations. A group of Arabs and Jews will regulate it. I will also keep a close eye on it although, as someone of neither Jewish nor Arab heritage, I will be less good at that than the moderating group. It would be good to have guidelines on what to do if something is factually incorrect. Although what we are discussing is not directly relevant to that issue, it underpins it and may indicate a way forward in dealing with the emerging internet communications, which will replace newspapers to a large extent, although not completely, in my view. We will then need constantly to review the legislation.
I carefully followed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in which he raised important issues, with which I have sympathy, and to which I wish to add two comments. First, an organisation may value being a member of a regulatory body as that gives you some guidance, even if it is not a complete code, and a structure within which to work. I ask the Minister to address my next point when he winds up. Secondly, it is very important that we develop a way to review this legislation over time given not just the complexity of setting up a regulatory body for the press for the first time but the fact that the technology is changing so fast it is very difficult to keep up with it.
Lord Skidelsky
My Lords, I would like to speak to Amendment 11B and a group of consequential and related amendments, and I am sorry not to have got to my feet quicker. These amendments seek to implement the Leveson report as Lord Justice Leveson provided for—no more and no less. I broadly welcome the Government’s Amendment 11 and the Minister’s explanation of it but would welcome assurance on a number of specific points.
There are three amendments on exemplary damages: Amendments 11C, which provides that the existing common law test does not apply in this case; Amendment 11D, which provides that vicarious liability should apply in this form of exemplary damages; and Amendment 13A, which provides that the court will have regard to the means of a defendant when making any award. It is very important that the law is clear that for exemplary damages to apply, the conduct does not have to be carried out with a view to a profit and with a deliberate disregard of an outrageous nature of the claimant’s rights; in other words, there are two alternative tests and not one. The Government’s amendment is unclear on that matter and I should like clarification on it.
Amendment 17E makes clear that to benefit from costs protection the publisher would have to participate in the self-regulator’s arbitration scheme. Amendment 17J provides that the current hold on the commencement of Sections 44 and 46 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act in respect of publication proceedings will remain until a way forward is found. In relation to this, there will be cross-party talks in which Liberal Democrats and Conservatives will be able to take different positions. The reason for that is that Sections 44 and 46 of LASPO abolish the recoverability of success fees for the loser and would have disastrous effects on media claimants such as the Dowlers and the McCanns. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what the Government propose to do about the effective elimination of a success fee.
Two further amendments where assurances are sought are Amendments 19C and its consequential Amendment 19D, which concern the inclusion of data protection actions within the definition of publication proceedings. Amendment 19E provides that the Information Commissioner will take into account membership of an approved regulator when considering the exercise of his powers. In both these cases, we understand that the Minister will be bringing these back as part of the post-Leveson data protection consultation. We seek the assurance that decisions on this matter will be subject to cross-party talks in which Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will be able to take different positions.
Amendment 19B would require that the recognition panel which approves the self-regulator is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. No one would expect this body to act in secret. I seek an assurance from the Minister that the relevant special interests would be promulgated in good time for the start of its work.
Amendment 131A concerns relevant publishers which hold broadcasting licences. We seek assurance that this is not intended to cover the whole publishing activity of such licence holders but only their broadcasting activity. As regards Amendment 11B, which deals with the exemption from immunity of self-regulated newspapers to exemplary damages, I understand that a further amendment is to be agreed to this clause. Therefore, I need say nothing further about it and it can be considered in another place.
Amendments 17A, 17B and 17F would enable bloggers and small publishers who decide to join a self-regulator to obtain the costs protection that they deserve on the basis of it providing a low-cost arbitration service. I understand that this is the subject of continuing cross-party discussion and will also be dealt with in another place. Other noble Lords will have something to say on the position of bloggers and the need for small publishers to be excluded from the definition of relevant publishers. That has already been alluded to. I merely commend my two Amendments 18A and 18B as a contribution to the debate.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
My Lords, I speak in favour of Amendment 11. We need it because we need the Leveson cross-party agreement on press regulation and because we need a raucous, unfettered press, but one that does not prey on the vulnerable and the innocent. I believe that we have achieved this balance through the proposed royal charter, and we have achieved it with all-party consensus, thanks in part to the persistence of my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. As part of that, the three parties agreed proposals on exemplary damages and costs designed to provide incentives for publishers to join the independent press regulator, as set out in these amendments.
I have been disappointed, if not surprised, by the response from some sections of the press to the cross-party agreement. In our debate on Monday, my noble friend Lord Fowler referred to that great practitioner of investigative journalism, Sir Harry Evans, and to a speech he made recently in which he abhorred the negative response to the Leveson report, in particular the suggestions that it was an attack on the freedom of the press. The freedom of the press is, as he said,
“too great a cause, too universal a value to a civilised society, to be cheapened as it is in the current debates. Every year upwards of a hundred journalists, broadcasters and photographers die in the name of freedom of the press”.
My great friend, Marie Colvin, was one of them. She died because she so passionately believed in making public the stories of the forgotten. In the case of her last despatch, it was the people of Homs. She knew about state control of the press and experienced it in East Timor, in Chechnya, in Sri Lanka and, finally, in Syria where the state targeted the media centre she was working from and killed her.
The royal charter and its independent press regulator, properly underpinned—to use that very unhappy term—will mean the end of unethical work practices and achieve a proper environment for journalists to ply their important trade. It protects both the freedom of the press and the rights of the individual.
Lord Black of Brentwood
My Lords, I declare an interest as executive director of the Telegraph Media Group and chairman of the Press Standards Board of Finance. I want to speak to Amendments 11 to 19. This group of amendments covers issues that are wide ranging and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, so ably demonstrated, extremely complex. They go to the heart of some fundamental issues of law and justice, impinge on matters which are central to the European Convention on Human Rights and impact on the nature of investigative journalism. To echo some of the comments that were made at the start of business, it cannot be right that they are introduced after barely two hours of debate in another place, at the tail end of a Bill with only a handful of days before the end of the legislative Session, and in a way which does not allow for proper scrutiny.
On the radio last week, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the meeting late last Sunday night to agree on issues of press regulation,
“focused on technical legal definitions of what represented exemplary damages. It dealt with a tiny, tiny piece of the jigsaw ... It was about filling in one piece of the canvas”.
That statement shows how very dangerous this whole issue is because important issues that relate to freedom of speech were treated simply as a,
“tiny piece of the jigsaw”,
agreed not with the industry that is going to be affected by them but with a lobby group, and they are now being pushed through at breakneck speed. The amendments from the other place are wrong in principle and fundamentally flawed. They are almost certainly contrary to European law and so will collapse or be struck down. They deal with problems of an analogue past and are, in the words of the Guardian, “illiterate about the internet”. They are a constitutional nightmare. This late-night legislative fix will end up bringing discredit to us because we should have spent time analysing, scrutinising and amending them.
It has been argued that these issues were examined by the Leveson inquiry and are a key part of the complex system of media regulation he devised. That is not the case, however, and this House has to understand that. These far-reaching proposals have had no analysis or study anywhere and certainly not by Leveson. I understand that criticising Sir Brian Leveson is akin to criticising Florence Nightingale, but his inquiry utterly failed to scrutinise the key legislative issues that arose from it. As the Economist described it this week, aspects of this controversial report were just plain “sloppy”.
Leveson never invited evidence on statutory underpinning or published a draft statute to be examined in detail, and never looked at the massive implications, particularly for the regional press, of the establishment of an arbitration service. Crucially for this group of amendments, he never looked in detail at exemplary damages. He never invited or received submissions. The only reference I can find in the acres of evidence was from Ofcom, which suggested he might look at,
“procedures to give courts power to penalise parties ... in legal cases where the party has not taken account of the complaints-handling process offered by the new body”.
Ofcom then adds that its,
“experience in fairness and privacy cases has not led us to believe that it is necessary to have such powers. It would inevitably lead to more litigation”.
This is hardly a ringing endorsement.
Noble Lords should also know that Sir Brian devoted just four paragraphs of his 2,000-page report to the issues before us, on the basis that they were “worthy of consideration”. In his report, he says that the matter has been,
“fully discussed by the Law Commission and I see no value in repeating their argument”.
The Law Commission report, which he used as a basis for a finding that exemplary damages were necessary to make his system work, was published in 1997 before the enactment of the Human Rights Act which changed the law in this area. There would have been no point trying to, in his words, “repeat the arguments” as that Law Commission report, which was supported only by a minority of those consulted and was inconsistent with the conclusions of the Supreme Court Procedure Committee chaired by Lord Justice Neill in 1991 recommending abolition of exemplary damages, was shelved at the time and has never been accepted. The proposals it contained on exemplary damages—the same ones we are looking at today in this group—were recently dismissed in the leading textbook on the law relating to damages as,
“a retrograde step, with its inevitable and twin results of allowing the civil law to enter the very different domain of the criminal law and of providing windfalls for claimants which are in truth unmerited”.
Before moving on to some detailed issues, I want to deal with the point that will be made that I am just tilting at windmills and that no one has anything to fear if they are part of an approved regulator. This is the so-called “incentive”, the carrot and stick to provide statutory support to underpin a regulatory system. Regrettably, that argument is a mirage, because the way this legislation is structured means that membership of a regulator is not a complete protection against exemplary damages and costs orders. I am thinking in particular of proposed new subsection (3) of Amendment 11. While the Bill provides that exemplary damages should not generally be awarded against a “relevant publisher” which is a member of an approved regulator, the court can disregard this prohibition and make an award of exemplary damages in strikingly wide circumstances that render the apparent protection of being a member of a regulator entirely illusory. All the court needs to do is to be satisfied either that the regulator when looking at a case behaved “irrationally”— unlike the Minister I do not think that is a very high bar for some judges—or that it would,
“have made an award of exemplary damages ... against the defendant”,
even though it was a member of the regulator.
That is compounded by the new clauses in subsection (2) of Amendment 17 on awards of costs—which are the real issue in cases like this and which could have a far greater impact than damages themselves—which mean that the court can award costs against a member of the regulator where the issues could have been resolved by the regulator's expensive arbitration service or it is,
“just and equitable in all the circumstances”
to award costs against the defendant. In other words, there are so many loopholes that membership of the regulatory body might be largely irrelevant.
As structured, the Bill does not provide any form of carrot and stick: in fact, it provides a disincentive to membership because it establishes a system of double jeopardy. A publisher could be part of an approved regulatory structure, for which it will, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, have to pay a lot of money along with exposure to fines, and then it could still face the prospect of exemplary damages and crippling costs in court. Why on earth should publishers do that and face paying twice? I fear that this Bill makes it less likely that publishers would want to join an approved regulator. Some smaller publishers in the regional and periodical press, in particular, may as well just take their chances and stay outside. If the Government want a new regulator with universal coverage—which is absolutely right—this is a bizarre way of going about it.
I am not a lawyer, but I have the benefit of an opinion from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, Desmond Browne QC and Anthony White QC, which makes clear that the provisions contained in the amendments to this Bill are likely to be unlawful because they single out for punishment a particular category of defendant rather than a particular kind of conduct. As the opinion states:
“This is particularly objectionable where the category of defendant singled out includes the press. To punish the press for what others may do without punishment is inconsistent with the special importance that both domestic and Strasbourg jurisprudence attaches to freedom of the press”.
Because the proposals will catch many publishers, from individual bloggers to NGOs, they go beyond the recommendations of Leveson. This Bill is not even itself, in the jargon, “Leveson-compliant”.
We could face the absurd situation whereby a newspaper undertook an investigation in conjunction with a programme such as “Dispatches”; this is not unknown. Both could publish the material at the same time on different platforms, one online and the other on television. If there was a legal action on grounds of defamation, the newspaper, whether or not it was a member of an approved regulatory body, could be exposed to crippling costs and damages. However, under the amendments the TV programme that broadcast the same material would be exempt. That is a completely untenable position as a matter not just of law but of fundamental justice.
As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, mentioned, there is a great deal of jurisprudence in English case law which sets out the case against exemplary damages. They have been described as anomalous and indefensible in judgments from, among others, Lord Diplock, Lord Devlin and Lord Reid. Indeed, in one of the most recent cases where this issue involving the media was raised—that of Max Mosley v News Group Newspapers—Mr Justice Eady, who some say is no friend of newspapers, concluded that exemplary damages,
“could not be said to be either ‘prescribed by law’ or necessary in a democratic society ... There is no pressing social need for this. The ‘chilling effect’ would be obvious”.
That point about the chilling effect is extremely important because these clauses—as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, rightly said—import a huge amount of uncertainty into the law; and uncertainty is the enemy of investigative journalism. Why should newspapers pursue a story that could leave them exposed to exemplary damages and costs unless they are operating against the background of a law that provides certainty?
The amendments allow for an award against a publisher where conduct is judged to be “outrageous”—as described in subsection (6) of Amendment 11—or
“such that the court should punish the defendant for it”.
Yet legal precedent rules that the use of this test for outrageousness is “far too vague”. Lord Diplock, in a wonderful phrase in one ruling, rejected it as being merely one of,
“a whole gamut of dyslogistical judicial epithets”.
Given that almost all publication of information concerning an individual engages his or her Article 8 rights—those of privacy—the focus of any action will inevitably revolve around whether a defendant's conduct was “of an outrageous nature”—something on which views will differ. Uncertainty and unpredictability in the area of freedom of expression are wholly undesirable.
There are further problems that will chill investigative journalism. First, subsection (4) of Amendment 11 gives the court power to look at a publisher’s “internal compliance procedures” to see whether material was obtained “in an appropriate manner”. That will invite claimants to include in legal cases questions about how information was obtained, with massive repercussions for confidentiality of sources. Journalists and publishers will inevitably be pressed to disclose information about sources in an attempt to avoid crippling financial penalties. It will positively discourage whistleblowing.
Secondly, there is the issue relating to costs in Amendment 17. The Bill turns on its head the principle that generally costs follow results. If these provisions become law, publishers—and this is particularly crucial for the local press—who do not agree to arbitrate a dispute, something which can be very costly, face the prospect that when they are sued in a libel or privacy case, they may have to bear the entire costs even if they are successful. This issue does not affect the traditional media, as is highlighted by the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He made that case extremely well.
The case against exemplary damages and costs orders in English law is overwhelming, and the implications are, as I have tried to set out, disturbing. However, even if this House decides to go down that road, it will face an even stiffer test in Strasbourg, where I am sure this Bill will eventually founder because of its incompatibility with Article 10 on freedom of expression.
I mentioned the case of Max Mosley, which ended up in the European Court where this issue of exemplary damages was considered. The Court concluded that it,
“is satisfied that the threat of ... punitive fines would create a chilling effect which would be felt in the spheres of political reporting and investigative journalism, both of which attract a high level of protection under the Convention”.
We should take real note of the what the court said about how these measures would impact not on celebrities who have for too long been the focus of this debate but on political reporting.
Furthermore—and this is an important matter for Europe—the Bill discriminates between substantial commercial publishers whose business model allows them to afford membership of an approved regulator and small publishers or bloggers, such as those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which cannot afford membership or may regard it as unnecessary or undesirable. That discrimination is impossible to justify under Article 10.
Everything about these proposed new clauses is wrong. They were cobbled together late at night over pizza, with no thought for the legal and constitutional issues involved. They exhibit no understanding of the digital world into which all publishers are moving. They are alien to decades of English law, and almost certainly illegal under European law. They would provide a serious blow to investigative journalism. They would disproportionately impact on smaller publishers and, in particular, the regional press. If ever there was a case where this House should have asked the Government and the other place to think long and hard, and to take their time studying the massive implications of what is being proposed, it is this. However, we do not have the ability to do so. I may be a lone voice making these points, and the cross-party deal with Hacked Off on its proposals means that these amendments will inevitably become law. I understand that. However, my noble friend is an honourable man and I ask him simply to pause and think again.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
My Lords, I support the amendments and welcome the framework agreed by the parties. It is not perfect Leveson, but it is about 80% or 90% Leveson. In fact, the 10% to 20% that is not Leveson is a compromise in favour of the press, and we should be clear about that. It cheers my heart to hear those who have absolutely railed against the Human Rights Act, the European Convention on Human Rights and the court in Strasbourg suddenly praying in aid that great wealth of rights law, now that those people are confronted with the possibility that the press might have to be properly regulated.
First and foremost, only a week ago last Monday night, we created an entrenchment clause to protect the charter from meddling from behind closed doors by politicians, privy counsellors and Ministers. It was a way of using law to protect press freedom; indeed, I hope the Defamation Act will do so, too. The other way in which we can protect press freedom is by returning to high ethical standards. That is what is forgotten by those who hyperventilate about the great horrors of a regulatory system. It beggars belief that the noble Lord, Lord Black, who sat on the PCC for years and was basically hugger-mugger with those who were not really interested in what was happening to the victims of press excesses, now speaks about the “chilling effect” of this regulatory framework.
The costs element in this new arrangement is an important aspect of the Leveson incentives and is at the heart of the matter. The problem with the PCC was always that it had no teeth, and one had to find a way of dealing with that. However, as for the business of exemplary damages, perhaps we should make it clear that they would be used only in the most exceptional circumstances where the most egregious conduct took place. Almost invariably, it would go hand in hand with criminality of some kind. The criminality can be dealt with in some ways, but we know that the civil and defamation courts should have at their disposal some way of registering the horror of what happens to victims.
Noble Lords should have in mind circumstances such as when medical information has found its way into the hands of journalists that discloses, for example, that a woman has had an abortion, that someone has had psychiatric treatment, or that someone has a disease such as Huntington’s chorea that will manifest itself at a certain point in their lives. How dare the media expose such information? It is right that the courts should be able to respond appropriately when such things are done. We know that, except in exceptional circumstances, they are going to be dealing only with those who refuse to sign up to being part of this regulatory framework. This hyperventilation about exemplary damages is yet another manifestation of the huffing and puffing that we have seen in the press recently about the Rubicon being crossed and the end of freedom of the press as we have known it for hundreds of years, when the reality is far from that.
This is a moment for this House to reflect on the fact that over the past few months, while Lord Leveson was conducting his hearings and since he reported, there have been regular polls, and every poll conducted with the public showed that they want to see a proper regulatory framework. Indeed, all the polling indicates that the public support Lord Leveson’s report. More recently, as agreement has been reached across parties this week to create the framework that we are discussing tonight, all the polling indicates that the public want something of this sort to happen. So we should welcome it.
I am a human rights lawyer who believes strenuously in the freedom of the press, but I also have seen the horror of the impact on victims. They are not celebrities and the famous, but ordinary people. We in this House have to bear them in mind. That is what this framework seeks to do. I, like others, have concerns. I am worried about who will be given immunity and believe that we still need careful thought about who is covered by the immunities that we are talking about. I, like the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, want reassurances about freedom of information applying to these processes. However, we in this House should welcome the fact that somehow we are going to move forward on this and that we are not going to say that it is business as usual. Business as usual is not good enough.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I declare an interest as having been for a few years a member of the appointments commission of the Press Complaints Commission and for 10 years on the Scott Trust, which owns the Guardian, the Observer and other newspapers.
I congratulate the three main parties and their leaders on coming to an agreement over what must surely be as difficult a set of issues as one could devise. No one in this House is mindless of the fundamental importance of freedom of the press in all its guises. Having said that, I am afraid that I reject the hypothesis very eloquently put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Black, that anything by way of control of the press is beyond the pale. The measures that the three leaders of the three main parties came to agreement on are profoundly sensible and, I believe, modest, and I think they deserve support.
I do not say that because the British public are expecting it. There are occasions when this House has to stand against the vast majority of the public if in all conscience we believe that they are wrong. We have done that many times in our history. However, I do not think that this is one of those times. This it not the thin end of the wedge, as is constantly said, because we will all be on our guard over the next few years to see whether what we intended comes about, and whether what we did not intend comes about. I have no doubt that the overwhelming sense, in this place and the other place, is such that if our hopes and expectations are not realised, we will do something about it, and that will be to protect the freedom of the press, not to grind away at that freedom.
I will make a couple of quick points. The first is that you could not have a more modest provision of exemplary damages than you have in this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, if I may say so, did not give the full picture. He gave a telling account of the meaning of the word “outrageous”, but not the full context in which that word appears. New subsection (6) in Amendment 11 says:
“Exemplary damages may be awarded under this section only if the court is satisfied that … (a) the defendant’s conduct has shown a deliberate or reckless disregard of an outrageous nature for the claimant’s rights”.
“Outrageous”, “reckless” or “deliberate” is an extremely high hurdle, and I think that judges can be relied upon to keep it as an extremely high hurdle. I do not share the noble Lord’s misgivings in that regard.
The second issue relating to exemplary damages is as follows. New subsection (2) in Amendment 13, on the amount of damages that can be awarded, is worth quoting in full. It says:
“The court must have regard to these principles”—
the ones mentioned earlier—
“in determining the amount of exemplary damages”.
The first of these limitations is that,
“the amount must not be more than the minimum needed to punish the defendant”—
not the minimum needed to adequately punish the defendant, or to sufficiently punish the defendant, let alone to effectively punish the defendant.
My noble friend Lord McNally might like to take that away and think about that, because it actually rather screws the Bill, if I can use that common phrase. It seems to me that £1 of damages would, on that definition, satisfy that test, because £1 is a punishment, even if it is utterly inadequate and rather laughable. There are no qualifications to that phrase. That is another reason why the noble Lord, Lord Black, and the newspapers, are getting overly concerned—let me put that kindly.
Finally, I make a point about the meaning of “publisher”, because the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others have mentioned the extent to which this could impinge on smaller publishers rather than the great national newspapers and so on. I am sympathetic up to a point, but I do not like, and I hope the House will not like, the provision in Amendment 18 that is headed “Meaning of ‘relevant publisher’”. Subsection (3) of the new clause says:
“A person who is the operator of a website is not to be taken as having editorial or equivalent responsibility for the decision to publish any material on the site, or for the content of the material”,
and—this is the killer—
“if the person did not post the material on the site”.
In other words, if you are the operator and you did not actually post the offensive, outrageous, et cetera, material, you are free. That is quite inadequate.
If this provision is to be in the Bill, it needs to be expanded. This would allow a publisher or operator of a website to get away in the circumstance where, for example, the person who posted the awful stuff was a subsidiary company or a partner or was paid to put the stuff on the website. If you were a really malicious operator, you could think up a shell company in the Seychelles that could post the most dreadful stuff about a person or a group of people, and under this clause the operator of the website would not be liable. That needs looking at. However, as I say, all in all, I believe that, in this most difficult of circumstances, the Government, aided by the Opposition, have come up with a good set of provisions.
I end by asking my noble friend Lord McNally to tell the House, when he sums up, whether there is another example in our legal set-up where damages are dependent not on the offence but on the nature of the offender. This plays back to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood. I am concerned that it is legally unprecedented to punish not according to what you have done but according to who you are. I think that we should know that.
Lord Inglewood
My Lords, I should like to address a few remarks to my noble friend Lord McNally about the general scheme behind the provisions in the Bill on which he has to some extent helpfully elaborated already. In so doing, I shall go on from where the noble Lord, Lord Soley, left off when talking about changes in the digital world. At the start I declare an interest as chairman of the Cumbrian Newspaper Group, but I am not going to talk about any of those interests at all. However, noble Lords may know that I am also chairman of the Communications Committee of this House. I do not want to breach any confidence, but at one o’clock in the morning this coming Wednesday, the committee will publish a report on digital convergence. A substantial part of that report deals with issues around the topic we are discussing today.
I think I am allowed to say in public that one of the things the committee was very interested in is the phenomenon known as television-like material as defined in the European Union audiovisual media services directive. This is material which can be viewed through an internet protocol television set but it is not broadcast and it is not a website. Your Lordships will be aware of this service because my noble friend Lord Dobbs has just had a great hit on Netflix, which is an example of one of these businesses. It is a fast-growing and significant part of the media landscape. In the committee’s view, because of the way that regulation is being proposed for broadcasting, the press and websites, TV-like material falls completely outwith the various definitions and so is not going to be caught. The committee does not think that that is the right way to proceed.
I turn first to the specific provisions of the Crime and Courts Bill and the amendments we are discussing. In addition, looking at the structure of the draft royal charter, it seems that embracing TV-like material of the kind I have described is only going to be possible, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, if the entrenched law can be amended. Is it wise to start off with a big lacuna in the scheme; that is, before the draft charter has even got on to the statute book?
I am not here to make any further point than to draw the attention of the House to what the committee considers to be a potential problem with the overall scheme of regulation in this area. If the provisions as currently drafted go forward, they will leave a hole through which people may be able to drive and coach and six.
Lord Allan of Hallam
My Lords, I want to make some similar points to those just made by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and in doing so I should like to declare an interest. I work for Facebook, which is a website operator. The points around definition have been made effectively in the scope of the amendments and in the comments of my noble friend Lord Lucas. They exemplify how hard it is to define anything in this area. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and his committee have found in trying to draw out these definitions, the more one goes into it, the more one finds that in many cases it is an imprecise science. It is hard to define precisely what it is one intends to regulate and does not intend to regulate.
The comments of my noble friend Lord McNally were extremely helpful in clarifying the Government’s intention not to include a wide range of services or individual activities within scope and I picked up on two particular phrases that he used. The first was “press-like” and the clear intention to regulate such services, and the second was “future-proof”, in that these provisions should be future-proofed. Subsection (7) of the proposed new clause set out in Amendment 19 refers to the concept of “News-related material”, but nowhere does it talk about the format of that material. Referring to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, it seems on first reading that “TV-like” and “radio-like” services would be covered. The new schedule set out in Amendment 131 provides an exemption for those who are licensed under the Broadcasting Acts, but again what we see increasingly is the ability to launch services over the internet that are TV-like and radio-like, but where no licence is required. If the legislation is to be future-proofed, it is important to understand whether it is the Government’s intention to restrict this to services that we would regard as being press-like today—most people in common parlance would understand that as being primarily the printed word—or if in the future someone launches a video or audio channel that consists primarily of news-related material—the new online TV-type and radio-type services—it is intended that it should be included in the scheme we are debating today. This is an important clarification for the increasing number of businesses and individuals who would like to move into this field of activity and for the increasing number of consumers who would like to receive their news through these new channels rather than the traditional ones.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for participating in this debate, which has echoed a number of occasions on which we have been able to touch on these topics in the context of several Bills over recent months. We have not always stood opposite the noble Lord, Lord McNally, although he has been quite strong, particularly as we saw his cherished Defamation Bill begin to slip away from him. However, I think I see it looming in the background, and the noble Lord has cheered up again, which is nice. We also touched on them in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, where we did a great deal of work with the excellent amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. They were not moved, but they certainly raised the issues that we are considering today. Of course, we now have the Crime and Courts Bill before us, so there is endless flexibility, and long may that last. I should like particularly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, who has been tireless in tabling amendments that give effect to the detail of the Leveson recommendations and reinforce the fact that the royal charter and its statutory underpinning have been agreed by all three parties in an historic agreement.
We need to recognise that the debate on Leveson has moved on. The most important thing now is to be clear on what the government amendments intend to do and avoid any unnecessary scaremongering. I shall focus on a number of the amendments before us and, like the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, I should like the Minister to comment on how he intends to respond to them.
My first strand is on exemplary damages, but I have been sufficiently warned off by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, even to go down this route. However, there are a couple of points that I would like the Minister to respond to. I understand that a considerable amount of time was spent in the all-party talks on the question of what happens to damages when it transpires that the facts of a case have changed in that the court has facts which were not available to the regulator. Can the Minister help us on this issue as it has happened in recent months? Can he confirm that this is a matter which will be returned to?
Amendment 11C clarifies that the common law gateway for exemplary damages will not apply. Can the Minister confirm that the “for profit” test is not required if the “outrageous” test is met? Amendment 11D makes it clear that a relevant publisher will be vicariously liable for wrongdoing by an employee or a person contracted to work for a publisher which results in liability for exemplary damages in accordance with the ordinary common law tests. Can the Minister confirm that further work will be done on this question? It is a key issue that is dealt with succinctly in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. Vicarious liability bears on the morality and culture of the press. It is important that the Government should put on the record today that they agree with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and that they intend to return to this issue in the Commons to the extent that this may be required. The recent history, after all, shows that it matters. We do not want a situation where publishers literally have a get-out-of-jail-free card, and it would be strange if the media were to be in a privileged position in relation to vicarious liability compared with all other interests in this country. Lastly in this group, Amendment 13A is intended to reassure small publishers that, in deciding the amount of exemplary damages, the court will have regard to the means of the defendant. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will return to this issue when it is considered again in the Commons?
The second group of amendments that I would like to look at contains those amendments that are intended to make it clear that to benefit from cost protection the publisher would have to participate in the self-regulator’s arbitral scheme. With regard to Amendment 17E, the Government’s intention is that in order to benefit from cost protection the publisher would not only have to be a member of an approved regulator but would also have to participate in the scheme. There are those who have argued differently. Surely it makes no sense to provide benefits to publishers simply on the basis that they recognise that an arbitration scheme exists. The point here should be that it is the active participation by publishers in the scheme that entitles them to get cost benefits. In any case, as Lord Justice Leveson pointed out, an incentive to join an arbitration scheme is good for all publishers and will help them and the claimants. Can the Minister confirm that this is his understanding of the situation and that the Government stand ready to confirm this position in the other place?
Amendment 17J asks for clarification, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, about the commencement of Sections 44 and 46 of the LASPO Act 2012, which was taken through the House by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, so he should know his stuff on this. I should be grateful for some confirmation about the issues that arise from that question. Amendment 19B would require that the recognition panel, which approves the self-regulator, is subject to freedom of information. This is an important matter which surely should be brought forward at this stage. After all, it is something that can be dealt with by secondary legislation. No one would surely expect that the recognition body wishes the power to act in secret. This really is important, so will the Minister give us an assurance that the relevant statutory instrument will be brought forward in good time before the regulator starts its work? Amendment 131A concerns relevant publishers which hold broadcasting licences. The drafting here is a little opaque. We seek an assurance from the Minister that a person who holds a broadcasting licence is excluded only in so far as they publish news-related material in the course of their broadcasting activities. Can the Minister confirm that this is not intended to cover the whole publishing activity of such licence-holders but only their broadcasting activity?
My Amendment 131F, which was put down earlier and is part of this group, has, I think, been overtaken by events. I refer to the extensive introduction which the Minister gave to Amendment 131BA, which provides for:
“A person who publishes a small-scale blog”.
I think it is meant to be a peg to allow for further discussion and debate for this event to happen in the House of Commons. On the basis of that understanding, for which I am grateful to the Minister, I will not press that amendment when the time comes.
Finally, there has been some talk about dates and the time that all this comes into effect. I should be grateful if the Minister could be very clear about what he understands the implementation date to be.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to what has been a very thoughtful debate. I should perhaps start with the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Black, because I am not sure whether it was the case for the defence or a warning of battles to come. He said that Lord Justice Leveson was as immune from being criticised as Florence Nightingale. I would have thought that the lady would have got a fair old battering from the noble Lord, Lord Black, if his speech was anything to go by.
Looking round the Chamber and listening to the contributions, and following this debate right through, I have never been in any doubt that many of the politicians in this Parliament would literally lay down their lives for the freedom of the press. It is not the case, as has been suggested in some of the very newspapers over which the noble Lord, Lord Black, has influence, that this is some Orwellian plot against the freedom of the press. As my noble friend Lord Phillips said, if by chance we saw what follows as an attack on the freedom of the press, I believe that the people who would be most likely to leap to the defence of the press would be not some of the media barons but noble Lords in this Chamber tonight and Members in the other place.
Although it was a well thought out and well delivered critique, I regret a little bit that nowhere in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Black, was there any apology. There was no recognition of the law-breaking on an industrial scale, no understanding of how deeply wounded the victims of press intrusion have been and no recognition of the deep disgust of the general public, which is reflected in the opinion polls that we have seen. I understand the message that was delivered. He asked me to pause. I genuinely ask the noble Lord, Lord Black, to pause and think whether he could not go back to those with whom he has immense influence and say, “Rather than trying to wreck this, couldn’t we see if we could make it work?”. To my mind, the prize is a great one—a free press, but a free press operating to the highest standards of ethics and one that is law-abiding. I believe that that is within our grasp if we can work together on this.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Before my noble friend sits down, and I congratulate him on the legislative equivalent of a marathon, I ask him whether he sympathises with the view that to have 44 important and often complex amendments put together in one group—the third group today contained 85 amendments —is not conducive to the quality of scrutiny that the Bill deserves. I mean no disrespect to him.
Lord McNally
I appreciate my noble friend’s intervention. At one stage during my speech I began to have sympathy with Chancellors of the Exchequer. In many ways, of course, this is not an ideal situation. On the other hand, if you take into account Baldwin’s cri de coeur against the press—was it in 1932 or 1933?
Lord McNally
God bless you, sir. This is the great value of this House; you ask a question and you get an authoritative answer. Baldwin’s cri de coeur was 80 years ago. I was thinking while the noble Lord, Lord Black, was speaking that it is 20 years since David Mellor warned the press about the last chance saloon, and it is 10 years since I was told from this Dispatch Box that a very minor amendment was the slippery slope to a state-controlled press, so we have not been discussing entirely new and fresh issues.
We have done what we have quite miraculously, I think, because it has needed a leap of faith and a generosity of spirit from all three parties. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have come together and given national leadership on an issue that probably would never have got through in any other way. This has its flaws but is still a way forward that has eluded Parliament, as I say, for 80 years.
Lord Skidelsky
Before the Minister sits down, may I have his assurance that, in the cross-party talks that will take place on a number of outstanding issues, Conservative and Liberal Democrat participants will be able to take different, independent positions?
Lord McNally
As one who has had the good fortune to watch the traffic of the cross-party talks, and who has a strong view that my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness is in line not for a knighthood but for a sainthood for his patience in those talks, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that all three parties have shown a robust individualism in the talks but, thank goodness, have also shown the generosity of spirit that has made agreement possible. If we can get the balance right between clear, vigorous discussions and generosity of spirit, we will get this done. I do not know whether we are getting a fish in the boat or a ship to port but, whatever it is, I recommend it to the House.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Before my noble friend sits down, I have one question. He will remember vividly that the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, moved an amendment to the Defamation Bill on Report, which this House carried. My noble friend anticipated at Third Reading that that would be dealt with in due course by an agreement that would supersede the amendment. The passage of time has fulfilled his prophecy, and I am sure we are all glad of that. I am assuming that now the Defamation Bill will be able to proceed, as it merits, to Royal Assent by the end of the present Session.
Lord McNally
Noble Lords cannot imagine the tingle in my shoulder blades when I realised that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, had risen to his feet. I thought, “My God! What question of law is he going to ask me to pronounce on?”. I am very pleased to understand that there is all-party agreement and that after the due process of whatever they do down the other end the Defamation Bill will be returned without the Puttnam amendment, although when the history of this saga is written, it will be said that the Puttnam amendment did its job. I am not so bitter about it, especially since the Bill is coming back without it.
Lord Puttnam
Nothing in the world will delight me more than to see the Defamation Bill passed in its original form.
Lord Lucas
My noble friend has been suspended above his seat for a longer time than the Maharishi Yogi ever achieved. At risk of prolonging that, before my noble friend sits down, will he confirm, in order that he might get his supper this hour rather than next, that the matters that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, raised in his speech will be under active consideration in the Commons before this Bill returns to this House?
Lord McNally
I will look at what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, raised, but I warn the House against the idea that what is going back to the House of Commons is a reopening of these discussions. We have said what we want to see passed, we have asked noble Lords to withdraw. I have explained. I do not want to mislead the House. The Commons will be able to consider only their amendments that have been amended by this House. For example, if we do not today amend Commons Amendment 14, that amendment will no longer be in play during the next round of ping-pong. We are not sending the Bill back to the Commons for another go. Quite frankly, that would be extremely dangerous. My reply was carefully crafted by many hands far more expert than mine in a way that I hope gives the assurances that were sought in raising the amendments, not least those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, However, the way that ping-pong works keeps the debate very tight and I do not want to mislead the House that it allows a rerun of negotiations on this. To even suggest that would be a bad mistake.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for all the time he has taken on my amendments. I would quarrel with him in his interpretation of how ping-pong works. I spent time talking to the clerks at this end and in another place before I put down my amendments, and my understanding is that the other place has very wide powers to suggest amendments in lieu; it is not restricted to individual amendments. The Government’s amendment on small bloggers will allow amendments to be made at any other position within this group of amendments. I may be misquoting the clerks—I am quite capable of that—but that was what entered my brain as a result of the conversations I had before I put down my amendments. In particular, I should be sad if the conversations that I started on my Amendment 18C were not to have any result.
My noble friend doubtless remembers what a difficult performance a three-legged race is on school sports day. He has had to indulge in a four-legged race today with his left leg tied to the Labour Party and his right leg tied to the Conservative Party, and he has been finding it extremely difficult. He has provided an excellent illustration of the problem, dealt with by my noble friend the Leader of the House at Questions today, of reading out a pre-prepared speech when what had been said was something completely different. I said in my address to Amendment 18C that I felt that the way in which the Government had drafted this clause would allow large news organisations to create structures that were in no way subject to the Bill. My noble friend did not address that at all in his reply, because it had been pre-prepared and did not allow him to reply to the remarks that I had made. I particularly feel that the Government have not understood the way in which the world is moving on the internet, and have not allowed for the sort of structures that seem to be arising even now, let alone those that will come.
I hope that the Government will take advantage of the freedom that I believe that they have to think through the wording and ensure that they are giving themselves the powers that they wish. To come back to what my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood said, we are trying to achieve a regulator here that will be participated in, agreed and effective. I am sure that another look at the questions that I have raised with Amendment 11A would consider whether introducing uncertainties in this way in the position of someone who registers is really the best way of getting people to sign up. Other than that, however, I am grateful for the answers that my noble friend has given. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord McNally
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 12.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 13.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 14.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 15.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 16.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 17.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 18.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 19.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 20.
“Restraint orders and legal aid
(1) Section 41 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (confiscation in England and Wales: restraint orders) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (6).
(2) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) A restraint order must be made subject to an exception enabling relevant legal aid payments to be made (a legal aid exception).
(2B) A relevant legal aid payment is a payment that the specified person is obliged to make—
(a) by regulations under section 23 or 24 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, and
(b) in connection with services provided in relation to an offence which falls within subsection (5),
whether the obligation to make the payment arises before or after the restraint order is made.”
(3) In subsection (3)—
(a) after “subject to” insert “other”, and
(b) omit paragraph (c).
(4) In subsection (4), for “But an exception to a restraint order” substitute “But where an exception to a restraint order is made under subsection (3), it”.
(5) After subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) A legal aid exception—
(a) must be made subject to prescribed restrictions (if any) on—
(i) the circumstances in which payments may be made in reliance on the exception, or
(ii) the amount of the payments that may be made in reliance on the exception,
(b) must be made subject to other prescribed conditions (if any), and
(c) may be made subject to other conditions.
(5B) Any other exception to a restraint order may be made subject to conditions.”
(6) After subsection (9) insert—
“(10) In this section “prescribed” means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.”
(7) In section 459 of that Act (orders and regulations)—
(a) in subsection (4)(a), after “section” insert “41(5A),”, and
(b) in subsection (6)(a), after “section” insert “41(5A),”.”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 20. I shall also speak to Amendments 21 to 23, 27, 30, 39 to 41, 45, 48, 50, 134, 135 and 139. This group of amendments deals with two aspects of the operation of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Commons Amendments 22, 23, 39 to 41, 50, 134 and 135 seek simply to return the reach of the civil recovery scheme under the Proceeds of Crime Act to the position it was believed to be in before last year’s Supreme Court judgment in the case of Perry v SOCA. The amendments to the 2002 Act do not introduce any new policy and we are certainly not breaking any new ground.
The amendments mean that the courts will again be able to make civil recovery orders against property anywhere in the world, provided that there is a link back to this jurisdiction. For example, the High Court of England and Wales will be able to make an order in respect of a Spanish villa bought by a criminal who is resident in England, or with money made from unlawful conduct committed in England.
The amendments also make it clear that requests can be made to other civil investigations where the evidence is located overseas to help facilitate the civil recovery process. These Commons amendments also put beyond doubt that investigation orders can be made against persons as well as property to assist in identifying further property which may become subject to a civil recovery order.
There is one difference between the restored Proceeds of Crime Act and how civil recovery operated prior to the Perry judgment. In the absence of a legislative consent Motion, the new schedule inserted by Commons Amendment 139 provides that the relevant amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act do not extend to Northern Ireland. This means that for many offences the civil recovery regime in Northern Ireland does not have the international reach of the civil recovery regime in the rest of the UK. This is regrettable, especially for the people of Northern Ireland. However, as with the National Crime Agency, which we debated earlier, we have taken a series of order-making powers to enable us to extend the provisions to Northern Ireland at a later date. Of course, any extension will require consent from Northern Ireland for matters that are within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The second issue addressed by the amendments relates to the provision of publicly funded legal aid to wealthy individuals whose assets are restrained under the Proceeds of Crime Act. The 2002 Act prevents restrained funds being released to a defendant for legal expenses in relation to the offences to which the restraint order relates. Prior to the Proceeds of Crime Act, there was a risk that individuals might recklessly dissipate assets through lavish spending on their defence in order to try to secure an acquittal at any cost. However, this has led to a public perception that rich offenders with significant restrained assets are receiving vast sums of free legal aid when they could afford to make a contribution to their defence.
Since the Proceeds of Crime Act was introduced, a system of means testing for legal aid has been introduced for all Crown Court defendants. Those who can afford to pay some of or all their legal aid costs are required to do so. While anyone charged with a criminal offence and facing imprisonment or loss of livelihood is entitled to legal aid, I think the whole House would agree that if the defendant can pay some of or their entire legal bill, they should. After all, as we ask people on modest incomes to pay something towards their defence costs, it is only fair and reasonable that we ask millionaires to do so.
Commons Amendments 20, 21 and 27 amend Section 41 of PoCA to allow payment of a contribution towards, and up to the full amount of, defendants’ publicly funded legal aid costs. The detailed mechanism of how this will operate in practice will be set out in regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. In framing such regulations, we will take into account the compensation paid to victims and the funding of further asset recovery work by law enforcement and prosecutors. We can already freeze criminals’ assets to make it easier to recover these ill gotten gains and compensate victims, but that often leaves the state picking up their legal bills, even if the offender has plenty of money to pay them as well. I hope that the whole House will agree that our aim should be to increase the overall amount of money being taken from criminals. The new clauses inserted by Commons Amendments 20 and 21 will enable us to do just that. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I will make a few comments, in particular in relation to the civil recovery process. The Government are right, following the Perry judgment, which left a huge hole in our powers to recover criminal assets, to bring forward the matter and put it on a legislative footing. However, we come back to the very strange position in Northern Ireland, which was confirmed by the Minister here and by Jeremy Browne, the Minister in the other place.
The primary purpose of the schedule is to ensure that it is not possible to make a civil recovery order against property located outside the UK if the unlawful conduct occurred in Northern Ireland but the property is located outside Northern Ireland. This is a strange position. If somebody lives in Birmingham, Manchester or London and they stash their ill gotten gains in another part of the world such as Dublin or Spain, there is a legislative remedy to seek an order to have the funds returned. However, if somebody lives in Belfast, Armagh or another part of Northern Ireland and they have their ill gotten gains just a few miles away across the border, they are completely outside the remit of the legislation of this country. Criminals in Northern Ireland will be able to invest their criminal gains across the border in the Republic of Ireland, just a quick drive down the motorway, with complete impunity as the courts will have no way of seizing those assets. I find that a shocking state of affairs to face.
I took some time yesterday and on Google maps followed the border along. I always think of the town of Belleek where, if you walk down the high street, your mobile phone signal beeps from one side to the other because the border is so close that it is switching from the Irish server to the UK one. If you follow the border along, it is very difficult. A criminal could buy land in that area. We do not assume that everyone in Northern Ireland is going to do this, but criminals will know that if they live in Northern Ireland but store the proceeds of their crime just a few miles across the border, they are going to be outside the remit of legislation and nothing can be done. I have to agree with Ian Paisley MP, who said in the other place that,
“the situation gives gangsters and criminals in Northern Ireland who are involved in serious and organised crime a free rein in part of the United Kingdom, and that must be addressed”.—[Official Report, Commons,13/03/2013; col. 373.]
Another worry that the Government must have is criminals moving to Northern Ireland because it will make it easier for them in that situation. It really is a shocking state of affairs.
I heard what the Minister said earlier and I understand his view that it is right to leave all the negotiations to David Ford. However, the point was made by the MP and others that this impacts on the United Kingdom as a whole and on places other than Northern Ireland. I feel that David Ford, for all the efforts he has made, deserves a bit more support from British Ministers in talking to the political parties, Members of the Assembly and Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive to try and reach a solution. It damages us all if people can move to Northern Ireland to store their ill gotten gains from anywhere else in the world and nothing can be done about it.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank the noble Baroness. She has raised an issue that I have identified already. I should reassure her that the Government are giving all the support to David Ford that he would ask for. However, in many ways the solution to this problem clearly lies with the people of Northern Ireland because it is the Northern Ireland Assembly that controls the Northern Ireland Executive. Indeed, this is long term an unacceptable state of affairs because of the very difficulties referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. We are well aware of it. That is why we have tabled order-making powers. As with other measures where we have not been able to get a legislative consent Motion, we are making every effort successfully to deliver a legislative consent Motion. We will then be able to ensure that these particular powers apply to Northern Ireland. There are dangers if they do not do so.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. I do not want to detain the House. Is he saying that he does not see any role or any responsibility for Home Office or Northern Ireland Ministers in trying to resolve this position?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I started off by saying to the noble Baroness that we have given all the help that we believe will be helpful to getting a solution to this problem. We would do nothing other than do all we can to ensure that we get the legislative consent Motion which a number of measures under the Bill require to bring Northern Ireland fully into the provisions of the legislation that is being provided for in the Bill.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 21 to 23.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 24.
“Extradition
Schedule (Extradition) (extradition) has effect.”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 24 and will speak to Amendments 25, 49, 136. I could use the wording that I have here, which is that I move that the House do agree with those amendments.
This group of amendments makes important changes to our extradition and deportation arrangements. Extradition and deportation are, of course, two entirely distinct legal processes and should not be confused. The fact that they are both being dealt with together in this group is simply for convenience.
Commons Amendments 24 and 136 amend the Extradition Act 2003 to provide for a new forum bar to extradition, to remove the Home Secretary’s obligation to consider human rights issues in extradition cases to non-European Union member states and to address several technical deficiencies in the 2003 Act in regard to Scottish devolution matters. Part 1 of the new schedule to be inserted into the Bill by Amendment 136 will amend the 2003 Act by requiring the judge at an extradition hearing to consider the issue of forum—that is, where the offence should be prosecuted. The Government’s decision to introduce a forum bar to extradition responds to the widespread concern within Parliament, as well as among the public more generally, that insufficient safeguards are currently built into cases of concurrent jurisdiction.
As noble Lords may be aware, there is an existing uncommenced forum provision in Schedule 13 to the Police and Justice Act 2006. This provision has not been commenced for good reason; simply put, we do not believe that it is fit for purpose. It would be cumbersome in practice and lead to wholly unacceptable delays in the extradition process. Instead, the Government’s forum amendments to the 2003 Act introduce a very carefully constructed provision, which has been designed to provide greater openness and scrutiny in relation to the question of where the most appropriate jurisdiction for trial is for those facing the possibility of extradition, while minimising delays as far as possible.
Our forum amendments allow a judge to bar extradition, on forum grounds, if the extradition would not be in the interests of justice. In considering whether to bar extradition, a judge will have to consider whether a substantial measure of the alleged offences occurred in the UK and a list of other facts such as where the most harm occurred, the interests of any victims, the location of witnesses and the person’s connections with the UK.
In cases where the prosecutor has taken a formal decision not to prosecute in the UK, because there is insufficient admissible evidence available or because it is not in the public interest for such a prosecution to take place, a prosecutor’s certificate can be issued to that effect. This will prevent extradition being barred on forum grounds. The purpose of the prosecutor’s certificate is to ensure that the subject of the extradition request, who may be wanted for a very serious offence, does not escape prosecution altogether because a domestic prosecution is not possible, but the judge decides none the less to bar extradition on forum grounds. The amendments point to particular circumstances where a prosecutor’s certificate may be appropriate: namely, in cases where there is sensitive material which cannot be disclosed in open court because, for example, doing so would compromise national security or the investigation of terrorism or serious crime, or in cases where it is not in the public interest for such a prosecution to take place.
I believe that these measures will make our extradition arrangements more open and transparent and will ensure that, in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, due consideration will be given by the prosecutors to any decision about whether or not a person could be prosecuted in the UK. Under these new arrangements, prosecutors will know that they will be called upon to justify any decision in front of a judge in open court, not behind closed doors, as happens at the moment, and that any decision to issue a prosecutor’s certificate is judicially reviewable in the High Court.
Part 2 of the new schedule will transfer the discretion to consider final human rights representations from the Home Secretary to the courts. At present, the Home Secretary is obliged to consider human rights issues raised after a person has exhausted their appeal rights because she is a “public authority” for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998. By specifically preventing the Secretary of State considering whether extradition is compatible with the ECHR and transferring examination of such matters to the courts, the amendments will strike a better balance between two competing considerations: on the one hand, ensuring late human rights issues which are deserving of the court’s attention are properly considered and, on the other hand, ensuring that people are not able to abuse the system and delay extradition endlessly by means of raising last-minute, specious human rights points which can then be the subject of judicial review.
It is legitimate for the Home Secretary to play some role in the extradition process and that will remain the case. Ministers will still sign an extradition order for Part 2 countries: that is, those countries not covered by the European arrest warrant, to confirm that there are no statutory bars to extradition once it has been approved by the district judge. This covers issues such as the death penalty, ensuring people are tried only for the charges on which they have been extradited, onward extradition from a third country and transfers from the International Criminal Court. These are areas where diplomatic assurances are occasionally required and it is right that Ministers, rather than the courts, should continue to deal with these.
Part 3 of the new schedule makes provision in respect of Scottish extradition proceedings. In extradition proceedings in England and Wales, it is possible for a point of law to be appealed to the Supreme Court. In extradition proceedings in Scotland, the final court of appeal is the High Court of Justiciary. There is one exception to this in that there can be an appeal to the Supreme Court against the determination of a devolution issue raised in Scottish extradition proceedings. Devolution issues include questions as to whether the Scottish Ministers have acted in a way that is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights or EU law and so can arise in Scottish extradition proceedings. However, the 2003 Act does not take account of devolution issues in Scottish extradition proceedings being appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has expressed concern that this could create problems in certain cases about the power to detain a person pending the outcome of an appeal to the Supreme Court and the time limit for extraditing a person following such an appeal.
The amendments provide that where the authority or territory that issued the extradition warrant seeks to appeal a devolution issue to the Supreme Court, the court has power to remand the person whose extradition is being sought in custody or on bail. Where the person is remanded in custody, the court may grant bail at a later date. The amendments ensure that the court has this power until the person is extradited or the extradition proceedings are discharged. They also set up the time limit for extraditing a person where a party to the proceedings seeks to appeal a devolution issue, raised in Scottish extradition proceedings, to the Supreme Court. Part 3 of the new schedule essentially ensures that a consistent approach is taken in the 2003 Act to appeals to the Supreme Court in extradition proceedings.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, perhaps I may speak to Amendment 24B, which is included in this group. Earlier today I suggested that Commons Amendments 24 and 136 should be postponed for the reason that these amendments, unlike all the others we have been discussing today, were not considered at all on the Floor of the House of Commons, and are only being considered at this very late stage in this House—one that is, let me say, barely full. This is not the way to legislate. It is also so unnecessary.
When I said earlier today that these two amendments should be postponed, I think I made it clear that the Government should withdraw these two amendments now and bring them back early in the next Session of Parliament when we can debate them properly both in the other place and here. I cannot see what the Government can possibly lose by taking that course. Yes, there would be some delay, but as it is seven years since we have had a forum bar on the statute book and it has never yet been put into force, I find it impossible not to ask what the hurry is now. Although there would be a delay of a few extra months, it would not make all that much difference, and at least it would mean that we had done justice to these very important amendments, which now we shall not be able to do.
I agree with almost every single word of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in his excellent speech, but he will not actually expect me to support the detail of his amendment. That is because we already have the Scott Baker review, which was published just under two years ago. What we ought to be doing today is implementing that review rather than legislating in its teeth and asking for another review in three years’ time. I repeat, what a way to legislate: to appoint a group like that led by Lord Justice Scott Baker to go into this question and then to ignore what it said. I believe that I am right in saying that the noble Lord, in proposing his amendment, did not once refer to Lord Justice Scott Baker’s report. Again, what a way to legislate.
I turn to the merits of the new forum clause and ask how it would fare judged against the Scott Baker report. I can say that it has all the defects of the 2006 forum clause, which was so strongly criticised by Lord Justice Scott Baker, with some more defects besides. The basic mistake is to believe that the question of where a defendant should be prosecuted when there are different countries claiming jurisdiction should be decided by a judge, on the grounds, so it seems, that that will produce a fairer result. I can understand that view but, in my strong opinion, it is not the way ahead. Where there are competing jurisdictions, the question can only sensibly be decided by agreement between the two competing jurisdictions. One of the main considerations in these cases must always be where the bulk of the evidence lies on which the defendant is to be convicted, if he is to be convicted. That is essentially a question for the prosecuting authorities. They will have all the material at their disposal. How is that material to be put before the judge? Are they to appear before the judge and argue the toss before him—is that what is proposed? If it is to be a judge, why should it be a judge in England rather than a judge in the requesting state? At pages 222 and 223 of the report, the authors give nine distinct reasons why a forum bar is not the way ahead. I would have liked to have heard the noble Lord’s answer to each one of those reasons. However, I will content myself with simply reading their conclusion, at page 228:
“However, in our firmly held view the issue of forum is better decided by the prosecuting authority than the court. A decision about where a case should be tried is par excellence a prosecutorial decision, as is a decision whether it should be prosecuted at all: the prosecuting authority will be familiar with the detail of the case, the available evidence and the viability of proceeding in one jurisdiction rather than another”.
That conclusion should have been accepted by the Government but it has not been.
That is only one of the reasons given in the Scott Baker report. Another, which I think the noble Lord has already touched on, is that it would necessarily generate satellite litigation. I will read what the report says the district judges, the people who decide these cases, had to say on that question:
“The evidence of the District Judges dealing with extradition cases was strongly to the contrary”—
in other words, against a forum bar. The report continues:
“They cautioned that if brought into force the sections would generate litigation and that it would be very difficult to control the evidence of the party seeking to resist extradition. For example, it will be contended that wide ranging disclosure of documents is necessary when an ‘all the circumstances interests of justice’ test has to be met”.
One of the many reasons why the 2006 forum bar was never brought into force was that it was thought to be too complicated. If the 2006 Act was complicated, how much more complicated is this forum provision, where we have prosecuting certificates of the designated prosecutors being questioned, under proposed new Section 19E in Amendment 136, before the High Court in judicial review proceedings? How is that going to speed up the process of extradition, which is the whole object of these proceedings? It is madness to think that it will; it will not.
Another reason that has been given—this is the last that I shall mention—is that enacting these provisions will automatically put us in breach of our international obligations. That is certainly a point which was carefully dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and I agree with what he said. In respect of category 1 countries, for example, we already have a system for deciding between two countries where there is a dispute as to where the proceedings should take place. That is known as Eurojust, and it is a system that is operating now and without any difficulty. If we pass a forum bar, we will have to opt out of Eurojust. Are we to be the only country to do so? No other country, so far as I know, has suggested anything similar to a forum bar.
What about the category 2 countries? Exactly the same applies as when we had existing extradition arrangements. Why should other countries which are not in Europe be satisfied with the decision of our court about which is the most suitable jurisdiction for the defendant to be prosecuted? Those are reasons which were given by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, and they were absolutely sound. No answer to that objection has yet been given.
I come back to where I started. These are but three of the reasons why this forum will not work. I prophesy that it will not ever be brought into force. Like the 2006 Act, it will be found to be impracticable and actually impede the speed which is so essential in these extradition cases. I wish the noble Lord had accepted my suggestion that this matter should now be withdrawn by the Government and brought back again in the next Session when we could debate it properly. However, I understand that it is now too late to hope for that.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, earlier today the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and one or two other Members of this House raised the question of the Government’s procedure in this matter. I have to say that I cannot recall an instance where the Government have introduced a fundamental amendment not in Committee or on Report, but actually when the Commons were discussing the Bill and amendments to our amendments. There would have been plenty of time in the early stages of the Bill in either House for the Government to have introduced the amendment. I cannot understand why this seems to be an afterthought.
Governments usually do these sorts of things when there is a real sense of urgency, when there is a dramatic reason why they have to move quickly. I cannot for the life me understand why they felt it necessary to do this at the last minute. Having heard the Minister earlier today, I feel that he was caught. Had he been a Back-Bencher—and I hope he is not going to be a Back-Bencher as a result of all this—I suspect that he would have agreed with out arguments. However, being the Minister, he is rather debarred from saying on the spot that the Opposition or other Cross-Benchers are right and the Government are wrong; he cannot say that. However, in his heart of hearts I suspect that is what he may have been thinking.
It seems to me that this is not a proper way to treat either House of Parliament, when there is absolutely no reason why the Government should behave in this way. The difficulty we are in is that there is no easy way of testing the arguments because the rules of procedure for this part of the Bill, when we are dealing with Commons Amendments, give us a very limited opportunity to be critical. We do not have the flexibility that we have in earlier stages of legislation. We are caught in a position where we have a very serious matter, and where we cannot do justice to the process of scrutiny in order to come up with a better answer. The Minister may have said one or two things which are now going to be difficult to put to the test.
The Minister mentioned the death penalty. As somebody who is very keen on campaigning internationally to abolish the death penalty, I had understood that it was absolutely accepted practice by Britain that we would never under any circumstances let anybody be extradited to a country where there was no assurance that the death penalty would not be used. Why the Minister mentioned the death penalty, I do not know, but I hope that the existing policy will hold good.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, despite the criticism of noble Lords about the quality of debate that we might have on this issue, I feel that we have had an opportunity to discuss the matter in some depth. It forms part of the Bill that is before us as a result of the Commons amendments. It is our responsibility to discuss the Bill and it is my responsibility to encourage noble Lords to see these particular amendments through. I believe that they are in the interests of good governance and in the interests of this country. The measures we have introduced on the forum will make the extradition process more open and transparent. Making the courts the sole body to consider human rights issues, which has not been discussed much but is a very important change, will ensure that people are not able to abuse the system and delay extradition endlessly by raising specious last-minute human rights points which can then be the subject of judicial review. Together, our proposals will improve our extradition arrangements and, in my view, make them fairer.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has asked my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to commission a review of our proposals and their impact on the speed of extradition procedures, as well as on our current and future extradition relations. This is the substance of his Amendment 24A. As the noble Lord will be aware, we commissioned a review by Sir Scott Baker. His report, referred to extensively by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Berwick, was a comprehensive and detailed analysis of our extradition arrangements. The findings of Sir Scott Baker’s panel were very carefully considered by the Government. He has helped us to come to a view about the changes that needed to be made to our extradition procedures, including those we have brought forward in this Bill, with a view to not only improving those procedures but addressing public and parliamentary concern about their fairness. I can assure the noble Lord that once the new forum bar is operating, these arrangements, together with other changes to the Extradition Act, will indeed be subject to the normal post-legislative scrutiny process, which was introduced by the previous Administration, three to five years after Royal Assent.
I now turn to Amendments 136A to 136C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. As I have already said, it is important to improve the protections offered to individuals under the Extradition Act. That is why we have introduced our own forum provisions. However, the interests of justice demand that our extradition arrangements are properly balanced to ensure that, while there must be proper safeguards in place for those subject to extradition, our arrangements do not allow a person to escape justice altogether. Therefore it is important that the test for whether extradition should be barred on forum grounds contains no implied presumption against extradition, even where it is clear that no prosecution is possible or likely in the UK. If the Crown Prosecution Service or another prosecutorial body decides after proper consideration—importantly, that will now be tested in open court and I am pleased that the noble Lord welcomes that position—that a domestic prosecution cannot take place, extraditions should not be barred on forum grounds. Justice will otherwise not be done and potential victims will see their assailant, in some cases potentially a suspected terrorist, walk away scot free.
There has been concern from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, about whether we can ensure that the bar does not refuse to provide any information—in other words, what will happen in the absence of information? This is not the case under our treaties and, under the Extradition Act 2003, a requesting state must provide certain information. That is not being changed by these arrangements.
Amendments 136A and 136B propose a non-exhaustive list of factors for a judge to consider when deciding whether extradition is in the interests of justice. Our strong preference is for an exhaustive list, so long as it is the right list, in order to prevent unnecessary delays in the extradition process arising from individuals raising irrelevant considerations in front of the judge. We believe that the strength of connection to the UK is a relevant factor—I am sure that noble Lords will agree—and we have included it for the judge to consider among others. However, we do not believe that nationality should be identified as a factor in its own right. The UK has historically not had a bar on extraditing its own nationals, which is reflected in all current extradition treaties. There is no intention to introduce such a bar.
Amendment 136C seeks to strike out the provisions in Schedule 19 transferring responsibility for determining human rights representations from the Home Secretary to the courts. The determination of human rights issues is properly a matter for the courts. The courts already consider such issues during the extradition process. This change, which was recommended by Sir Scott Baker in his review, will ensure that human rights issues arising late in the process are properly considered by the courts while also ensuring that people are not able to abuse the system and delay extradition endlessly by means of raising, at the last minute, specious human rights points with the Home Secretary that can then be subject to judicial review.
I shall answer some specific questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. He asked what the purpose was of the prosecutor’s certificate. The purpose of the forum bar is to ensure that prosecutors give due consideration to whether a prosecution should take place in the UK. That does not always happen at the moment. Our proposals ensure that a decision on forum is either taken in open court or, in a case where a certificate is issued, in the High Court following any judicial review.
The noble Lord also asked for a definition of clearly unfounded human rights claims. The “clearly unfounded” test is well established as it is already set out in Section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. An established body of case law now exists around the term, and I shall now evidence some of it: appeals that frivolously cite Article 2 or 3, or that simply repeat arguments previously considered and dismissed on appeal where there has been no significant change of circumstances.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, asked about treaty breach. I assure noble Lords that the legal advice that I have received is that our forum bar proposals are consistent with our treaty obligations and, for that matter, with the European arrest warrant framework decision.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
I hope that the Minister will forgive me but this is an important matter. I know that it would be exceptional but would he make that advice available to the House by putting it in the Library?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I do not think that it is the practice of Ministers to make legal advice available.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
It is not practice, but in this instance perhaps the Minister could do so.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am afraid that I have to follow practice in this respect because I believe that advice given by law officers to the Government is always considered to be confidential. However, I have reported the substance of that advice to the House in this debate, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept it.
I turn to the issue that the noble and learned Lord raised right at the beginning of our debate, before we even started considering Commons amendments. I understand his concerns about this matter but, as I made clear in my Statement to the House on 16 October last year in response to the review by Sir Scott Baker of UK extradition procedures, the Government wished to legislate as quickly as possible to introduce provisions on forum. We made that clear at the time.
The Government have worked hard, taking into account the views of prosecutors, to develop an approach which will be acceptable to Parliament and the public. The Official Opposition gave a relative welcome to these proposals when they were tabled in the other place, which I think shows broad acceptance that we have got these proposals right. If we were to remove these proposals from the Bill now, it would be a year or more before those facing extradition would see the benefit of this new and important safeguard. In light of these comments and the response I have given to this debate, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and all noble Lords to support Commons Amendments 24, 25, 49 and 136.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, a number of questions and points on the impact of the forum were asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, in his powerful speech, by my noble friend Lord Dubs in his significant contribution and by me. I am not sure that they have all been fully answered. The case has been made that the proposed change in extradition arrangements will not speed up the process but will work the other way. I do not think that point has been fully addressed either.
This major change in our extradition arrangements is being taken through without full and proper consideration and without Parliament having the opportunity to test and challenge the case for the Government’s proposals or to reflect on the Government’s responses. Parliament is, frankly, being effectively bypassed on this important issue by the way that the Government have dealt with it and the lack of time they have given in tabling their amendments. We have not had the opportunity of considering the amendments in depth. I am afraid that is the reality; I do not honestly think the Minister can suggest otherwise.
I do not think all my questions on the deportation amendments have been answered either. I hope that, at least, the Minister will respond in writing to the unanswered questions and points raised on extradition and deportation in this brief debate. I ask him seriously to consider doing that because he has not responded to all the questions and points that have been raised, albeit that he has, I accept, responded to some of them. We note the Government’s position on our amendment. They have indicated that there will be scrutiny of how the arrangements work, albeit that they are not prepared to agree to an amendment to the Bill. However, I do not intend to pursue that matter any further.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Before the noble Lord sits down, he will know that it is always my wish to make sure that the House is informed on matters that may have been raised in debate. I undertake to write to him on these matters and will copy in other noble Lords who spoke in this debate.
Just to clarify the point I made about legal advice, because I do not want to get this wrong, I was correct in what I said. It is not the practice to publish legal advice, nor to confirm or deny that law officers’ advice has been sought in any case. These are matters of legal professional privilege and, as a non-lawyer, I defer to that privilege.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, the House will be glad to hear that I do not wish to add anything to what I have already said. I hope that in some further reply, written or otherwise, the Minister will at least answer some of my questions on the Scott Baker report, which were of some importance. Having said that, I shall not press the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 25 to 37.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 38.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 39 to 50.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 51.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 52 to 130.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 131.
“EXCLUSIONS FROM DEFINITION OF “RELEVANT PUBLISHER”
Broadcasters
1 The British Broadcasting Corporation.
2 Sianel Pedwar Cymru.
3 The holder of a licence under the Broadcasting Act 1990 or 1996 who publishes news-related material in connection with the broadcasting activities authorised under the licence.
Special interest titles
4 A person who publishes a title that—
(a) relates to a particular pastime, hobby, trade, business, industry or profession, and
(b) only contains news-related material on an incidental basis that is relevant to the main content of the title.
Scientific or academic journals
5 A person who publishes a scientific or academic journal that only contains news-related material on an incidental basis that is relevant to the scientific or academic content.
Public bodies and charities
6 (1) A public body or charity that publishes news-related material in connection with the carrying out of its functions.
(2) “Public body” means a person or body whose functions are of a public nature.
Company news publications etc
7 A person who publishes a newsletter, circular or other document which—
(a) relates to a business carried on by the person, and
(b) only contains news-related material on an incidental basis that is relevant to the person’s business.
Book publishers
8 (1) A person who is the publisher of a book.
(2) “Book” does not include any title published on a periodic basis with substantially different content.”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
“Small-scale blogs
7A A person who publishes a small-scale blog.”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 132.
Lord McNally
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 133.
Lord McNally
The Lord Speaker will be pleased to know that it gets a lot clearer from now on.
I beg to move that this House do now agree with the Commons in their Amendment 133. This amendment removes Part 7 of Schedule 15, which would have required contracts between the Secretary of State and probation trusts to place an obligation on trusts to make appropriate provision for the delivery of services for female offenders. This included making provision for women to participate in unpaid work and rehabilitative programmes with their particular needs in mind. As noble Lords will recall, Part 7 of Schedule 15 was inserted into the Bill at Third Reading when the House agreed an amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. With his customary courtesy, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has explained to me that family and religious observations have meant that he cannot be with us tonight, which I fully understand, although I see some familiar faces around the Chamber of noble Lords who are involved in this matter.
I know that the Commons’ decision to remove Part 7 of Schedule 15 will have been a disappointment to many in this House. As the high quality and impassioned contributions to the earlier debates on this issue showed, addressing the needs of female offenders is a key priority for many here. I therefore reaffirm that the Government are committed to addressing the factors associated with women’s offending, and to taking a different approach where there is a need to differentiate provision for female offenders. We recognise that we will rehabilitate female offenders and enable them to lead positive and productive lives only if we a take a different approach where it is required.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, in her foreword to the Strategic Objectives for Female Offenders published last Friday, Helen Grant, the Ministry of Justice Minister responsible for women, wrote:
“The issue of women in prisons is a deeply emotive one, in which there is very genuine interest from Parliamentary colleagues”.
I am sure that the noble Lord, as a member of the Government who purport to be as genuinely interested in the issue of women’s justice as Helen Grant professes, will understand why I say that a number of genuinely interested colleagues are deeply upset that this amendment is coming up at such a late hour, because understandably they and others have had to leave the House. Tragically, this is an all-too-familiar story where women’s justice is concerned, about which we should all feel ashamed.
If the Committee in the other place was genuinely interested, I cannot imagine how it accepted, without debate, the Minister’s assertion that the amendment successfully introduced at Third Reading in this House by my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf—sadly, he cannot be here tonight, as noble Lords have heard—was unnecessary. The amendment sought to obtain much needed statutory protection of measures to ensure that the distinct needs of women offenders were prioritised and met. It was said to be unnecessary because it specifically mentioned probation trusts and, because probation was under review, it did not make sense to legislate on probation provision, and because the Government were already committed to working on women’s provision, the legislation was not needed. The genuinely interested Committee threw out my noble and learned friend’s amendment, denying other genuinely interested colleagues any opportunity of considering it at Report. What a message such treatment sends to those who are encouraged to believe that the Government are genuinely interested in the position of women in the criminal justice system.
If this was the first occasion on which similar dismissal had been the fate of proposals concerning the specific needs of women offenders, it could perhaps be more easily understood. The point about probation is a semantic quibble because, whatever the outcome of the review, someone will be responsible for the provision of services to female offenders. But the point about legislation is important, because the amendment is an attempt to ensure that consistent and continuous action is taken by successive Ministers, rather than a continuation of past practice, which I can best characterise as being seven times bitten and, understandably, eight times shy.
The strategic direction announced by the Minister includes sections on enhanced provision in the community and transforming rehabilitation, with at its heart an advisory board. In principle, I welcome strategic direction, because a strategy is a single aim uniting the contributions of all those concerned. But as this one contains nothing new and is noticeably short on detail, I can best describe it as pretty thin wine. While not against advisory boards per se, I am not happy that the Minister should put so much hope in this one, because boards do not provide leadership or take positive action, and positive action, not yet more advice, is what is so badly needed.
The Minister said that the board had been convened,
“to develop polices to tackle female re-offending, to help women into gainful employment and safe environments, and off the ‘conveyor belt to crime’”.
Of course, nobody could be against such aims, but I am deeply cynical about how they will be implemented and overseen, in view of bitter experiences in the past. Over the past 16 years, I have heard much the same from a succession of Home and Justice Secretaries and Prison and Women’s Ministers and I have seen a plethora of policy, advisory and women’s issues boards set up to develop policies and to help women off the “conveyor belt to crime”, after recommendations made in two thematic reports of mine when I was Chief Inspector of Prisons, a report by the Prison Reform Trust, three reports by the Fawcett Society and finally the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, only for them to disappear without trace. I note that, like its predecessors, this board is expected to,
“take a creative, innovative look at the scope … for improved sentencing options”,
as well as,
“designing the system to ensure that women’s needs and priorities are recognised in the provision of services in the community and through-the-gate of prison”,
and working with partners within and outside the criminal justice system,
“to ensure that the needs and profile of female offenders are recognised and understood”,
while also promoting “community sentencing options”.
Here I make no apologies for repeating what I have said time and again in this House: history, and particularly recent history, proves that nothing will happen until and unless some named person is made responsible and accountable to a Minister for making it happen. As nobody has been appointed in the case of women, virtually nothing has happened.
Baroness Corston
My Lords, I support Amendment 133A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. He suggested that my report had sunk without trace. Perhaps I may reassure him that I have not. Having waited over a year from the day when the noble Lord, Lord McNally, promised this House that we would have a strategy for women offenders which would be published “quite shortly”, found the statement released last week was acutely depressing. It was thin and took us back to the days of the women’s offending reduction programme. It is extraordinary that this can happen, particularly as I know that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and his parliamentary colleague Helen Grant MP have been visiting women’s centres up and down the country and must have got the same message.
Why has nobody recognised the plight of women at risk of offending? It was reported in the papers that the women’s prison population had gone down by 400 since the previous Government started implementing my report. Given that the women’s prison population is, at any one time, just under 5,000, that is a proportionate reduction that the Minister might be quite proud of if it happened in the male estate. Why has it happened? It has happened because of the focus on women at risk. Magistrates’ courts up and down the country now do this work but there is no reference to it whatever. Will the Government please stop talking about payment by results? I have been in Parliament for 21 years and I have never known a Government who wanted payment without results.
Women’s centres, which work with women offenders who have been sent there by the court and women at risk, can have reoffending rates as low as 10%. There is no prison system in the world that can boast reoffending rates of 10% and yet these centres are now writing to me to say that their funding is being cut and they are finding it hard to cope. The £3.78 million, to which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred, is all well and good but probation trusts are, as I understand it from correspondence I have had with Helen Grant, being given the job of ensuring that that funding is spread. A smaller pot of money is being spread further so centres like Anawim in Birmingham—I challenge anyone visiting that centre not to be profoundly impressed with the work it does with very troubled women—are finding it difficult to cope. A lot of the women about whom constituents visit Members of Parliament in their advice surgeries are ones whose chaotic lifestyles lead to prison. Work done with them saves local authorities a lot of money.
I want to contrast what is happening with this advisory board with what happened before. We had a Minister, Maria Eagle, who regularly made Written Ministerial Statements on progress. That went alongside a very detailed strategy that was a thick document, not the two pages—it may have been three but it certainly was not more—that we had last week. This advisory board will work only if it has absolute overall strategic direction and a multidisciplinary team of civil servants working alongside it. I do not see that happening.
When I hear the Government say, “We are implementing Corston”, which I do not say out of arrogance but I gather that within the Ministry of Justice I am a noun and a verb, I feel my blood boil because it is not true. This Government do not understand the situation with regard to women generally, what gender-specific services are and what kind of priority should be given. If they did, it would not have taken one year and 10 days to publish what is a thin, mean document.
A huge opportunity has been missed because you cannot reinvent a broken wheel. Centres such as Anawim write to me saying, “You know what work we do and we are now finding that we are turning away women who lead chaotic lifestyles and are at risk of losing their children”. This is alongside a Bill under which we are speeding up the adoption process. What happens is that instead of helping these women who are at risk of offending to turn their lives around and keep their children, we do nothing for them and let someone else adopt their children.
Lord Hurd of Westwell
My Lords, I must add a word of praise for the two speeches that we have just listened to and a word of exhortation to the Minister to pursue more effectively the lines that he set out. We can welcome the steps that he outlined, so far as we understand them on first reading. Whether those steps will be taken or in some way accelerated by the fact that we are having this debate and passed an amendment at an earlier stage, I do not know. However, in attempting to make his case, I thought that the Minister’s heart was not in it. He did not really explain why my noble and learned friend’s amendment would be unhelpful. He took some pride in saying that life has moved on—meaning that the Government have moved a step or two—and that the amendment was therefore out of date. However, the Minister has not been too chary in the early part of our proceedings today in moving government amendments that updated the Bill. It would not be beyond the wit of his department to commission an amendment that would have filled any gap and brought us up to date on the Government’s latest actions, which, I understand, came to a head last Friday.
This is a black hole in our criminal justice system. In my time as Home Secretary, I visited a good many prisons, and I have visited several in the past year or so through my involvement with the Prison Reform Trust. Nothing is more desponding, gloomy or soul-destroying than a visit to a women’s prison. I do not know quite why, and I have not sorted out the logic of it in my mind, but there is something particularly disagreeable and unnatural—awful, really—about a woman in prison. When you consider the kind of offences in which women are characteristically involved, particularly those concerned with drugs, you are filled with a feeling of pity and anger that this defect in our criminal justice system should yawn so widely and take so long to deal with.
The noble Baroness, Lady Corston, is of course to be congratulated on her report, which has helped to move things on, as has the tireless work of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. They have illustrated clearly in their powerful speeches the defect. What is lacking is accountability and a person or persons whose responsibility it is to put this wrong right. Short of that, I fear that we are just being subjected to an amiable, and certainly sincere, smokescreen. They have proved beyond doubt that that is not sufficient. This has drifted on year after year, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, and now we are offered not a statute, or a promise of legislation, but an advisory board. There is an advisory board sitting in this Chamber, but unfortunately its advice is not being taken.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, intends to press his amendment to a vote. I am sure that the Minister does not need to be told this, but I would ask him to take away and report to his Secretary of State and to all concerned in the Ministry of Justice the strong feeling in this House that there is a black hole in our arrangements and that we look to this Government to put it right.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham. I believe that what happened in the Commons, the way in which this whole area was tossed aside and not debated at all, was disgraceful. I believe that the very least that the Government can do is to answer the three questions that my noble friend has put to the Minister. I would lay the greatest emphasis on having an annual report on progress that is made in the whole of this area.
I am especially concerned about the differences in the treatment of men and women for two reasons. First, there is a distinct difference in the backgrounds of women who are in prison for very short sentences. As we have heard, such sentences account for the vast majority of women—and indeed men—in prison. As one example, 5% of the prison population are women, and yet 31% of self-harmers in prison are women. The Government should receive full marks for starting to outline, at last, these plans, as we have begun to get a picture of what we hope will happen in the future. I am very supportive of these plans as there are so many women in prison who should not be there, certainly not to serve short sentences as is currently the case.
Secondly, and above all, these women should not be in prison because of the effect that it is having on their families. How many of those families will find their own way into prison as a result of having had their family broken up, having been taken into care or placed with relatives and, above all, having lost that very particular relationship between mother and child? I believe that that is the worst aspect of all. How many facts are we given about the number of families who are repeatedly in and out of prison in a continual spiral of offending?
Good luck to the Government with their plans, but please let us have a report on what is happening, and let us have real progress. Quite apart from the women concerned, I believe that we will find that this kind of treatment could be as applicable to men in our prison service. We need a whole overview of what goes on.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I would be surprised if some Members of your Lordships’ House were satisfied with a report as infrequently as annually. The questions, rightly, will come quite often to my noble friend, as they have done over the years. I know that this is something that he holds close to his heart, as does Helen Grant. I note that the document published on Friday—which I, too, thought was shorter than expected—is headed Strategic Objectives for Female Offenders and does not purport to be a complete strategy.
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend one question which follows on from what the noble Baroness has just said. It concerns the effect on children of their mother’s imprisonment. I suppose that this is a plea to include that in the strategy. The developing knowledge about the effect on children of separation from their mothers is something that we should take very seriously, and no doubt we will be considering it in the Children and Families Bill. I hope that my noble friend can reassure the House that the whole-system approach which is referred to in the strategic objectives is a whole system that will extend in all the ways we know it should, and not just to the narrow punitive and personal rehabilitative aspects that we have mostly been talking about this evening.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, the Commons amendment seeks to strike out Part 7 of Schedule 15 to the Bill, which provided much-needed statutory provision for women offenders. Part 7 was successfully introduced into the Bill at Third Reading in this House but was subsequently struck out in Committee in the House of Commons without further debate.
The Government have just published their promised Strategic Objectives for Female Offenders setting out their priorities, and they have also announced the setting up of a new advisory board for female offenders chaired by a Home Office Minister which is intended to support the Minister,
“in providing strong leadership on delivery of our strategic priorities”.
However, these developments do not remove the need for statutory measures to ensure that the distinct needs of women in the justice system are prioritised and met. I understand that there have been 10 previous reports across the UK on the matter of women in the justice system, but none, it seems, has been implemented in full. In the light of the publication of their strategy but in the absence of any statutory backing, how will the Government ensure that all contracting areas in the new environment make provision that is appropriate to the particular needs of women, and how will the Government ensure that progress is sustained and built upon?
It is not clear why the Government do not want to take this legislative opportunity to deal more effectively with women who offend. To begin with, funding is not ring-fenced for service provision delivered by women’s centres or women’s services, and a number of them fear significant funding cuts or even closure. The inclusion in the National Offender Management Service’s Commissioning Intentions for 2013-14 of an intention that provision should take into account the “specific needs” of women offenders falls far short of any statutory guarantee of women-specific provision. There is evidence in recent research published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission that commissioning procedures and outcomes have already had a negative impact on the funding of women-only services, including services for women offenders and those at risk of offending. In the Strategic Objectives for Female Offenders the Government recognise that the,
“relatively small number of female offenders presents particular challenges”.
Unless there is statutory underpinning for women’s community provision, there is a risk that this will result in inadequate provision.
Provision for women offenders in the community is probably best described as patchy and its future uncertain. Unless and until the courts are confident that effective community penalties are available in their area then vulnerable women will continue to be sent to custody to serve short sentences for non-violent crimes. I know the figures are well known, but over half the women in prison report having experienced domestic violence and one in three has been sexually abused. Most women serve very short sentences, with 58% sentenced to custody for six months or less; and 81% of women entering custody under sentence had committed a non-violent offence compared with 71% of men. Women also account, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has said, for 31% of all incidents of self-harm, despite representing just 5% of the total prison population.
The recent joint inspection report on the use of alternatives to custody for women offenders found a lack of women-specific provision for both unpaid work and offending behaviour programmes and noted that,
“women-only groups, where run, were often successful”.
It found that,
“women’s community centres could play an important role in securing a woman’s engagement in work to address her offending and promote compliance with her order or licence”.
At the moment, it looks as though government funding for the national network of women’s centres will be substantially reduced and that, for some, it may run out very soon. The future of the centres under payment- by-results commissioning is uncertain. Placing community provision for female offenders on a statutory footing will at least help to protect the vital role played by women’s centres and other local services in the effective delivery of community provision for women.
If the Government are not prepared to legislate now on this issue, do they have plans to do so at some stage in the future? It is not proposed changes in the provision of probation services or a changed landscape that is preventing the Government making statutory provision. That, frankly, is a red herring: a Government wanting to legislate would not be deterred by that issue. If the Government have no intention at all to legislate, then at least will a Statement be made each year to Parliament, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, asked, on the progress being made towards improved provision for female offenders? That, surely, is the least the Minister can offer when he stands up to give his response.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their various contributions to the debate. It is very interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said that there had been 10 previous reports and that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, spoke about the various bits of information. It is not information that we need, nor reports or statutory commitments in a Bill. It would be very easy to accept it and go on just as before. Part of my problem with the interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is that he always seems to think that a new structure or reporting method would solve these things. As with the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, every women’s prison I have visited has depressed me profoundly; and yes, if you ask my opinion, at least half the women we have in our prisons should not be there. However, it is no use the other side making pious observations now they are in opposition. The fact is that they were in office for four years after the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Corston.
Baroness Corston
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, must know that during our time in government, 39 women’s centres were set up—£15 million was spent setting them up—to divert women from custody. I take great offence at his suggestion that nothing happened.
Lord McNally
I am not suggesting that nothing happened, but I am suggesting that the problems that we are facing now are very real. We have made progress on this. We have ring-fenced funds in a time of very real problems for government funding. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, did not make even a passing reference to the fact that we are for the first time dealing with prisoners serving sentences of less than 12 months. I know that the previous Government tried that and then abandoned it. However, every time a Government try to make progress with an advisory committee it should not just be dismissed. I have been working for six months with Helen Grant and she is someone who is going to take responsibility. The Secretary of State has made her the Minister for Women’s Prisons, separating it out from other prisons so there is a line of responsibility.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Over the years I have come to recognise that in the Minister we have a fully paid-up supporter of the probation service as well as a fully paid-up supporter of making improvements to the women’s justice system. Therefore, I am conscious that we are talking to somebody whose heart is certainly in making the improvements that we all know to be necessary. I also thank all those who have contributed to this debate. In various ways they have emphasised just how genuinely interested this House is in making progress and how disappointed it is that over the past 16-plus years we appear to have been there and then not there, and then there again and not there again, and so on. This has got to stop.
I do not discount what the Minister says about the commitment of Helen Grant and the leadership she is going to apply. That is not my point. I am not making suggestions for new structures. All I am saying is that in every other organisation things work where you have a determined Minister assisted by someone who is responsible and accountable to that Minister for the delivery. That is what is missing and it has been missing over and over again. It is not new and it is not something that I am plucking out of the sky, because it happens everywhere except here. I just pray that one day this penny will drop because I fear that Helen Grant, well intentioned though she is, will find that the advisory board will not be the mechanism and she will not be able to oversee the consistent delivery all over the United Kingdom. It is consistency that we want.
I deliberately did not mention all sorts of things that are in Transforming Rehabilitation because this is a much more general issue, but I am extremely encouraged by the Minister’s response to the suggestion of an annual report. That will be an excellent opportunity for this House to demonstrate not just its commitment to this but its very genuine interest and wish to apply the collective experience and knowledge in this House in the best interests of both the Government who are responsible at the time and the women whom we hope are going to benefit from what can be done. I am conscious that the Government have laid down things that they intend to do, which I hope that we can monitor, and on the hopeful note from the Minister, I withdraw my amendment.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 134 and 135.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 136.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 137 to 139.
Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
23:49 - Division on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 43 / Noes: 159 - Amendment 2 disagreed.
12:54 - Division on Amendment 5A - Ayes: 35 / Noes: 137 - Amendment 5A disagreed.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 1 and 3 in this group. These are probing amendments, but I want to start by saying how much we deprecate the fact that we are having to debate this significant and retrospective piece of legislation at this hour and to complete all the stages before we draw stumps this evening.
It might be helpful if I set out from the start how we are approaching these matters. We accept from Second Reading that, whatever our fundamental concerns, the Bill will retrospectively make regulations lawful that the court has thus far considered to be unlawful and that notices that were inadequate are now to be treated as satisfactory. What we are seeking to probe by these amendments is whether individuals adversely affected by this will be in no worse a position as a result of this Bill than they would have been had the regulations and notices been lawful in the first place. This, in particular, requires focus on the reconsideration and appeal situations so that we are clear how they are to operate.
Where individuals have been sanctioned and are not part of the stockpile, they may have appealed already. Their appeal may have been stayed because of the High Court decision, may have been successful or may have been unsuccessful. Where such individuals have been successful in their appeal, it is presumed that the position would stand. Can the Minister please confirm this? Where appeals have been stayed, what is the position? If the appeal was based on the unlawfulness of the regulations or the notices—a defence that is no longer available—are appellants now able to bring forward new reasons that they thought unnecessary to explore before? This raises the question of those who have not hitherto appealed a sanction. It is understood that, under the rules, the time limit for an appeal is generally one month from the date of the recent decision, but this can be extended if the decision-maker does not object or if the First-tier Tribunal extends the time limit. Has any specific guidance been given to decision-makers on this matter or to those who have been sanctioned?
For those cases that have been stockpiled and will now proceed to be sanctioned, the key issue is how, in retrospect, the individual can now be assured of availing themselves of good cause provisions, the opportunities to mitigate and the hardship provisions. My noble friends Lady Sherlock and Lady Hollis will develop these themes in subsequent amendments, but it would be helpful if the Minister could set out for us what consideration has been given to this issue to ensure that there is fairness.
In so far as the stockpile of cases is concerned—those for which no decision to sanction has yet been made—it is understood that no sanctions will be pursued when someone is now in work. Can the Minister please expand on this? Does the individual need to be in full-time paid work for the purposes of being ineligible for JSA or is there another test? What if the individual has been in work since the failure to comply but has fallen out of work again? As was raised at Second Reading, there will be those whose employment is not very secure or whose hours, particularly with the proliferation of zero-hours contracts, will fluctuate. The point in time when a decision on sanctions for them will be made could determine whether or not they end up being sanctioned. How will this point be dealt with?
On a related point, again touched on at Second Reading, will the Minister say something about national insurance credits? Have the sanctions that have been imposed led to any national insurance credit restrictions? If so, will the Minister explain the technical linkage with JSA sanctions? Would those restrictions flow automatically or in some separate, if parallel, process?
These are just some of the questions that present themselves and we seek assurance from the Minister that these matters have been fully analysed and that no further detriment arises to claimants. In the time available, we have not explored all the interactions between requests for revision, supersession and appeals, nor all the nuances of appeals. As a general point, though, as well as dealing with the specifics of the above, it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that it is the Government’s intent that claimants should be in no worse a position in respect of these matters than if the regulations and notices had been valid in the first instance. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I support my noble friend in his amendments. Timely and efficient appeals systems are always necessary and in these circumstances they are essential. The social security appeals system is under strain and that strain will be intensified as a result of what claimants will now be experiencing. What are those difficulties? The number of social security cases going to tribunals in general were 418,000 in 2010-11, 70% higher than just two years previously, while, as far as I can tell, this year’s statistics are up a further 14% or so, and appeals against sanctions as such are only a modest proportion of these.
Social security appeals represent half of all tribunal cases. The tribunals are receiving social security cases faster than they can clear them, so that although half of all cases take 14 weeks or less, one-quarter take between three and six months to be heard and 10% take between six months and a year, so only half of those cases meet the key performance indicator, the KPI, of 16 weeks laid down by the department. During that time—that extra long waiting period already experienced—claimants’ circumstances change, they lose oral evidence based on memory and above all they are left without any benefit, some of them for months, and suffer real hardship. Timeliness and efficiency, therefore, are key.
We need the Government to tell us what problems they will meet in unleashing the stockpile of sanctions cases into a system already under strain, with the inevitable appeals that will follow, and how they propose to resolve them. How many cases are currently outstanding? Do the Government have the capacity to increase sitting days beyond the 80,000 or so required at the moment to deal with the full backlog? How long does the Minister expect claimants to have to wait? How many, and what percentage, will be over the three-month KPI target?
The second issue is not about numbers but about verdicts and outcomes. Of those cases going to appeal, some 40% overall are won by the claimant. Former presidents’ reports on this are, frankly, an excoriating indictment of the DWP decision-making process and their findings over the years are confirmed by the recent November 2012 report analysing appeals. The main reason why appellants win is that they produce additional oral evidence not previously taken into account by DWP. However, the reports and the research have noted that tribunal judges were continually frustrated by the behaviour of decision-makers within DWP. In the latest statistics, about one-third of local decisions on sanctions were reconsidered by the decision-maker and, of those, half were in favour of the claimant. Of those not accepted by the decision-maker, just over one-third are going on to tribunal.
Why are those tribunal judges so continuously frustrated by decision-makers’ efforts within DWP? First, we are told by tribunal judges that decision-makers choose not to accept additional, usually oral, evidence without having any good reason for refusing it. That is because they have often failed properly to engage with the claimant. Something like 65% of all appeals come into this category. Secondly, there is little evidence that decision-makers reconsider cases at all. They were, the report said, reluctant to do so and did not bother to explore any discrepancies in evidence or to follow up requests for further information.
Thirdly, decision-makers did not weigh medical evidence at all appropriately, especially for mental health claimants, nor did they seek further information when dealing with a progressive condition. That applied to something like 15% of the appeals that went to tribunal. Most damning of all, they often made different decisions from the tribunal decision-makers on the basis of the same evidence presented to the tribunal, which meant that decision-makers got it wrong, according to law, in 30% of the cases lost by DWP. In other words, had the decision-makers within DWP done their job properly, these reports suggest that DWP would either not have had the appeal because the decision-maker would have rightly reversed the original decision, or at appeal the DWP would have won most of the appeals that it lost because the tribunals would have accepted that all the appropriate evidence had been properly assessed. That is a pretty searing judgment of the current system.
What are the implications for those caught by this Bill? The problem is clearly threefold. First, local offices are making flawed decisions, including on sanctions, and that is before we get on to the disgraceful area of targets. Secondly, decision-makers are not doing a proper job reviewing those local office decisions and are endorsing flawed decisions that they should have corrected. Thirdly, the tribunal service cannot keep up with the increased number of appeals coming its way. Of course, this will get far worse now that legal advice and support are withdrawn and, as a result and as we shall argue later, tribunal cases will take twice as long to process.
Will the Minister reduce the pressure on tribunals and better support claimants by requiring decision-makers to do a more conscientious review of the original decisions? It is clear that at the moment too many of them are not doing a professional job—bluntly, they need to brought face to face with the evidence. Are decision-makers informed of the tribunal’s findings and is their performance reviewed when their decisions are overturned by the tribunal? Could that perhaps be a KPI? What guidance and additional training will be made available to decision-makers to improve their performance? If the Minister is going to review any targets, could we please have a new performance indicator, a really useful target that reduces the number of successful appeals by claimants from the current 40% or so down to, say, 20% or even 15%? That would really transform decision-makers’ behaviour.
Given the trivial basis for sanctioning claimants uncovered by the Guardian, many of whom we can expect to appeal, thus increasing the backlog before eventually being overturned at appeal, as many of them will be, will the Minister ensure that cases going to appeal are pre-reviewed and re-reviewed by decision-makers to improve their own poor-quality decision-making? Will he also ensure that the number of tribunal sitting days is appropriately increased to meet the target of within 16 weeks, so that they are timely, and that—I am trespassing into a following amendment—sufficient advice is given to claimants, as my noble friend Lord Bach will argue, to reduce the number of unsuccessful appeals, given the delays? I hope that the Minister will be able to answer these questions and those of my noble friend tonight and in the process perhaps allay our very real concern for these claimants who are going to be caught up in an appeal system that is increasingly flawed and failing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, the purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the reconsiderations and appeals arising from decisions relating to sanctions that are dealt with by the Bill are considered in a timely and efficient manner, and that appeals take into consideration the delay between the failure to participate and the issuing of the sanction.
I am happy to give a commitment to the House that DWP will process the stockpiled cases, and any reconsiderations and appeals that follow, in a timely manner. It is not in the department’s interest to procrastinate on these cases any longer than necessary. I also note that the department is already required by Article 6 of the ECHR to deal with social security disputes in a reasonable time, while the First-tier and Upper Tribunals are also bound to deal with appeals in a fair and efficient manner. When the Bill receives Royal Assent, I assure noble Lords that processing the stockpiled cases, including any appeals and reconsiderations, will be given a high priority. Purely from a business perspective, DWP will want to unwind these cases and any follow-up activity as quickly as possible so that it can utilise its resource in dealing with more current claims.
The associated amendment seeks to ensure that when the First-tier Tribunals and the Upper Tribunals are determining an appeal against a sanction decision issued in reliance on the provisions in the Bill, they have regard to the circumstances around the Reilly/Wilson case, particularly any delay resulting from the case. I understand, given the noble Lord’s statement at Second Reading, that he is concerned that, because there may have been longer than usual between the failure to participate and the issuing of a sanction, the claimant will be unable either to remember or to provide evidence of any good cause they had for the failure.
I will spend a moment describing the process that happens between a claimant failing to participate and the issuing of a sanction. When a claimant gets referred to a DWP decision-maker for a sanction decision, a letter is sent asking them to provide evidence of good cause. The letter says:
“Will you please contact me before”—
and then a date is inserted—
“to explain why you did not undertake this activity. You should note that unless you provide a good reason for not undertaking this activity, your benefit may be affected”.
So the stockpiled cases would, at the time of the failure, already have been asked once to provide good cause. The fact that we did not deal with these cases immediately will not have prevented these claimants from providing evidence of good cause at the time of the failure. The decision-makers will have all this evidence on the stockpiled cases already, so the risk that they have been unfairly treated is significantly minimised.
I know that not all claimants will have provided their evidence of good cause the first time they were asked for it, although this is of course entirely their fault. However, I reassure noble Lords that in these cases, where a claimant is attempting to argue that they had a good reason for a failure that occurred many months ago, decision-makers and First-tier Tribunals will make an objective decision based on the evidence before them. They would of course take into consideration any claimant’s argument that they had good cause, but that they cannot provide evidence because of the length of time since the failure. It would be up to those hearing the appeals to judge on a case-by-case basis whether they thought this argument was strong enough.
I also note that this amendment only seeks to ensure that the appeal, and neither the decision to issue the sanction nor the reconsideration, takes into account any time delay caused by the Reilly/Wilson case. I assume that this was not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. There is this oversight, and claimants in the stockpile would at the time have been asked for evidence of good cause. The tribunal is also already bound to have regard to all relevant matters.
Picking up the issues raised by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness on national insurance credits, prior to the changes to the jobseeker’s allowance sanctions regime from 22 October last year, national insurance credits were paid during the period of the sanction. National insurance credits are not paid when the benefit is sanctioned on or after 22 October. The Bill does not change these arrangements. The payment or not of national insurance credits with respect to stockpiled sanction decisions will therefore depend—
Lord Howarth of Newport
I wonder whether the Minister would reconsider the language habitually used by DWP. When he talks of a stockpile he is referring to human beings in very anxious circumstances who are waiting for their cases to be considered. Does not this language rather dehumanise them?
Lord Freud
The noble Lord makes the same point as JRR Tolkien, who did not think that “growth” was the right way to refer to hobbits at Bilbo Baggins’s birthday party. If the noble Lord can think of a better word than stockpile, I will happily use it. I cannot think of one off the top of my head. If the noble Lord finds that offensive—
Lord Freud
Yes, but there are six billion people around. I am trying to refer to a particular group. I hope that by the time we get to the next amendment I will have found a better word, so bear with me for a little while if I cannot work that one out on my feet.
On the point about people going into work: if a claimant has been off jobseeker’s allowance for longer than the length of their sanction then they will be deemed to have served their sanction, and therefore will face no penalty. I cannot go through the absolute detail of the proportionate amount but it is likely that we will do this proportionately for those who have been in work, so there will be a record of that.
On the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, a lot of the issues surrounding what the tribunals are doing are in ESA cases, while we are dealing here with JSA cases. We are talking about rather small numbers; I will go into more detail on them. This is a very small group of people, and the concerns about how quickly they may go through the tribunals, and the pressure they put on those tribunals, are to that extent much more manageable than if theirs were the more complicated ESA cases. Likewise, much of the concern around those cases has been around the medical area and that, of course, will not arise in this particular instance.
The decision-makers receive in-depth training, including on the importance of impartiality, what constitutes evidence, and the balance of probabilities. Clearly a large number of their decisions—three-quarters—are upheld. By putting decision-makers in between, for instance, the WCA and the tribunal, we were trying to weed out those areas where the DWP considered that the tribunal would find against, and thereby reduce the volume. That is what has been happening, and clearly we watch that very carefully. Having dealt, I hope, with all the issues raised, I beg the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I indicated at the start that these are probing amendments. That highlights part of the problem of having this truncated process: that we do not have the chance to take away and read the Minister’s comments. We have to try to absorb both what is said and what is not covered this evening.
In relation to deferred decisions, I will not use the term to which my colleagues objected. The Minister said that these would be dealt with in a timely manner. However, the thrust of the presentation made by my noble friend Lady Hollis was to ask whether there was the capacity to deal with this. Decision-makers are struggling under current arrangements, and adding this extra burden will make life more difficult.
On national insurance credits, I was trying to probe the point that when they are withheld because of sanctions, post October, in circumstances where the regulations that underpin the sanctions were originally found to be unlawful, the Bill switches lawfulness back on in respect of the sanctions component. Does that automatically run where national insurance credits have been withheld? What is the connection between the two? Does it automatically flow from whether a sanction has been levied, or does it require another process that authorises the withholding of the national insurance credit? If the original decision was based on an unlawful position in respect of the regulations, is the restoration of the lawfulness of those provisions under the Bill enough to authorise the withholding of national insurance credits? That was the point I was probing, perhaps not in sufficient detail.
On those cases that have been deferred where no decision has been made, I think that what the Minister said was a change from what we previously understood the position to be. I thought that the point had been made very clearly before that if somebody was in work, there would be no sanction. It seems that some nuances to that have been introduced by the Minister’s reply. Now it will depend on how long they have been in work in comparison to the length of the sanction that has been levied. That seems to be a new formulation, which we have not heard articulated before.
I did not hear from the Minister an assurance that we were seeking. Leaving aside the issue of making the regulations and notices retrospectively lawful, is it the Government’s intention that individuals should otherwise be in a worse position than they would have been had the regulations and notices been lawful ab initio? How does that interact with the appeals process? We have not unpicked all those issues this evening.
Having said all that, I do not think that we can get any further. I hope that the Minister will reflect on this discussion. If we could get something further in writing before we rise later this week, it might give us some reassurance. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) The Secretary of State will, within a month of this Act coming into force, lay a report before Parliament outlining whether in his view claimants affected by the introduction of this Act have access to adequate legal advice and support, taking into account the availability of legal aid for claimants appealing a sanction imposed under the 2011 Regulations or the Mandatory Work Activity Scheme Regulations after the coming into force of this Act.”
Lord Bach
My Lords, Amendment 2 is in my name and those of my noble friends Lady Sherlock, Lady Hollis of Heigham and Lord McKenzie. My first point is that this is about as mild an amendment as could possibly be imagined. All that I am asking is that the Secretary of State should lay a report before Parliament within one month of the Act coming into force. The report would outline the Secretary of State’s view on whether claimants affected by the introduction of the Act would, in the crucial words,
“have access to adequate legal advice and support, taking into account the availability of legal aid for claimants appealing a sanction … under the 2011 Regulations or the Mandatory Work Activity Scheme Regulations”,
both of which were declared unlawful. It is a limited request, and one to which I hope the Government will listen sympathetically in the course of this short debate.
It goes without saying that every claimant has the right of appeal. It would be pretty shocking if they did not. However, what use is a right that cannot be enforced? That is where the problem arises. At present any claimant who has sanctions imposed can obtain legal advice as to an appeal, whether the appeal is in the form of a review to the department or to the First-tier Tribunal. If a claimant is eligible, they are, as we speak, entitled to legal aid. Therefore, in reality they can get the advice perhaps from a solicitor or, more probably, from a not-for-profit organisation such as a law centre, the CAB or an advice centre.
This advice is not expensive—about £150 for this sort of case. It does not make the lawyers rich. It is quality advice. It often tells the claimant that he or she has no chance in any review or appeal. On the other hand, it may tell the claimant that he or she has a proper legal appeal. Early advice of this sort stops people going to the First-tier Tribunal. It does not encourage them to do so. The advice does not extent to representation. What it does is give these citizens some limited access to justice, which a mere right of appeal does not do.
Of course, in a week’s time on 1 April, legal aid will no longer be available to a claimant in this kind of case however poor, disabled or marginalised he or she may be. It has been taken out of scope. The question arises: from where is the client who believes that he or she may have an appeal to get advice? Law centres, CABs and other advice centres rely on legal aid as a major part of their income. How will they survive? Will it all be done pro bono by other lawyers? I would argue it is not possible in the real world for that to happen. There is not the expertise in this field of law or the time for busy lawyers to do pro bono work to cover all these cases. All pro bono lawyers agree with that. There is no satisfactory answer to the question: where will these people go?
Her Majesty’s Government’s more general assertion has been that welfare benefit law, under which these sanctions arise, is simple, not complicated, easy to understand and is not really law at all. One only has to state that point of view to know what rubbish it is. The thousands of pages of legal textbooks, the comments of tribunal judges from top to bottom and the experience of real life gives the lie to a trite and convenient lie. In this amendment, I invite the Government to live in the real world and do their proper duty to ensure adequate legal advice and support.
My remarks so far have concerned all claimants who face sanctions since the introduction of the new regulations on 12 February this year, following the Appeal Court judgment. However, there is a past and pressing problem for those claimants whose cases have been put on one side as a result of a Court of Appeal judgment. The decision to sanction those people will either not be made, or it will have been made under what were ruled to be unlawful regulations, their time for appeal not having run out by 12 February. In both cases, they would have a reasonable expectation of knowing their fate some time ago. Any decision to sanction them would, of course, have been subject to appeal. Of course, claimants are entitled now to get legal advice and, if eligible, entitled to legal aid for that advice. But in a week’s time, while still theoretically they are entitled to legal advice for an appeal, they will not be entitled to legal aid, which means in practice that many fewer than should will be able to get that advice. How can it be just that those people are put into a worse position by a delay that is absolutely no fault of their own but is, frankly, the responsibility on the other side—in this case, the department and the Government behind it? That is according to the Court of Appeal—in other words, as we stand now, the law of the land. It would be wrong for any of them to be deprived of their right to legal aid in those circumstances. Does the Minister agree? If not, why not?
My amendment asks the Secretary of State to take into account the availability of legal aid for claimants in that situation. In my view, the Government can do no less. It is a modest amendment to which the Government could give their blessing. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I support the amendment of my noble friend. I have to declare a sort of interest as a former Minister responsible in the DWP for the tribunal services before Leggatt centralised them. As a result, I would visit tribunals and, five minutes into the hearing, I could tell whether the claimant had or had not received legal advice and support or welfare advice and support before entering the appeal. Those who had presented a coherent account with the appropriate accompanying papers and evidence, were prepared for the questions asked of them. It kept the process simple and straightforward, and the cases that I saw took on average about 40 minutes to complete. In each case, the decision, usually up to half the time in favour of the claimant, was the right one.
Then there was the other sort of case that came to tribunal, people who came with their sheaf of papers in a carrier bag, which they shuffled through without any advice, unaware of what it was that the tribunal needed to know and what would count as relevant evidence. I recall one man, Indian or Pakistani, who was there with his wife; his eyes never left the floor, and he sat hunched over as he tried to explain in poor English and a low, faltering voice, why he was appealing against a refusal of DLA—and he could not. The superb chair, who we now call a judge, spent nearly two hours trying compassionately to coax his story and evidence out of him in some sort of order. It took more than twice as long as the previous case, and his appeal was upheld.
What lessons may we draw from the situation in which there is no prior legal help or support for advice? Social security decision-makers, as we argued on the previous amendment, frequently fail to review decisions properly. Unless the claimant is savvy enough to put his case in ways that fit guidance on reconsideration, we end up with an unnecessary tribunal case, and the tribunals handling such cases clear, as a result, two or three cases a day instead of five or six. I plead with the Minister to learn from this. I do not know whether he has sat in on any social security tribunals, but he would quickly see which claimants had had prior advice and which had not. Remove the advice and the need does not go away; it is merely displaced to the very much more expensive and time-consuming stage of the tribunal itself. Instead of advice being given in advance, the whole untangling of that mess has to be done by the tribunal judge in person. That seems to me key. The need does not go away; all you are doing is transferring it to the most expensive and laborious way of addressing it.
Legal advice, which we are told we cannot afford, is not a luxury; in my view, it is essential because social security is complex and most claimants, by definition, are probably poorly educated, not especially articulate, confused about what they are due and need help at the early stages. They are aggrieved. However, as my noble friend Lord Bach said, early advice may discourage people from pursuing unfunded and unfounded cases. Legal advice also helps ensure greater consistency and a common approach across regions. We are getting a lot of research evidence suggesting the unevenness of responses from decision-makers and tribunals trying their best to produce the consistency that local offices are not.
The Minister knows that we are seriously worried about what will happen when existing claimants are brought on to UC, which I very much want to work. I fear that the tribunal system will be completely overwhelmed unless there is legal aid and welfare advice available at the preliminary stage to screen out weak cases and to put into good order appropriate cases for the tribunal; otherwise, I believe that the system will buckle.
We are therefore deeply worried about the situation of claimants under the Bill who will not know what their rights are and whether the proposed sanction is valid. In some cases, they may have been stalled for many months. They do not have fresh evidence to bring to bear and can no longer rely on their memory to give a coherent account of what happened when. Did they have good cause? At the preliminary stage, legal or welfare rights advisers can perhaps help them find out, track hospital or school records, organise paperwork and explain to the claimant what will happen, why he has lost his benefit and whether the case against him is soundly based. If that welfare rights officer or the legal advice is not there to do that, the tribunal judge will have to, as I have seen with my own eyes. Can that individual stop the sanction? Is it possible for him to comply? Jobcentre staff cannot or will not now give that advice, especially given the evidence about targets. Claimants need the supportive, friendly, neutral, professional, cheap advice from outside the system. However, of course all this hinges on whether the department wants people to get the right benefits and the right outcome. Does it?
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, is it not the case that every Government of the United Kingdom since 1948 have been committed to the principles and values articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Is it not also the case that Article 7 declares that all are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law? If the Government deny legal aid in these cases, will they not repudiate that historic and fundamental commitment?
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, in responding to this amendment, I should like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Bach, who has fought tirelessly on this subject for many months.
As we have heard, it is currently possible for a claimant who meets the eligibility criteria to get free legal advice and assistance to cover preparatory work for a hearing. Legal aid may also be available for higher tribunals and courts appeals on a point of law. However, from 1 April, all welfare benefits will be out of scope for legal aid. The context for this Bill makes this all the more complicated because, as we heard from the Minister, the law on sanctions has changed, so claimants may struggle to work out what applies to their case. Further, since there may often be significant delays between alleged breach and appeal, claimants may also struggle to work out what good cause or recompliance mean so long after the event, subjects to which we will return on a later amendment. This brings me to my questions for the Minister. First, will he clarify the position? If a claimant would have been entitled to legal aid to help prepare his case had he appealed within a month of a decision to sanction him, will he still be entitled to legal aid on the same basis should he appeal after 1 April? If the answer is yes, how will this happen? Who will provide the advice and who will pay for it? If the answer is no, given that the Courts and Tribunal Service is likely to be inundated with cases once the deferred decisions pile is unleashed, what assessment have the Government done of the likely delays and the consequent additional cost to the Courts and Tribunal Service of having so many unadvised appellants arriving at once?
If the Government are unable to give satisfactory answers to all these questions, I suggest that the Minister should accept this very mild amendment. If he does not, and my noble friend Lord Bach chooses to press it to a vote, we on these Benches will give him full support. The very least that the Government should do is provide a considered view—impossible beforehand, given the timetable—of the effect on access to legal advice and support of a group which Parliament never intended to be affected by the provisions of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act. We are pleased to support this amendment.
Lord Freud
My Lords, before I deal with this amendment, I ask the Committee to indulge me as I answer a couple of questions on the last round from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, which may be relevant.
On the question of what sanctions mean for national insurance, if the failure to participate was after 22 October 2012, national insurance is not credited but if it was before 22 October 2012 then it is. On going into work, no sanctions will be applied to people who no longer receive jobseeker’s allowance. That might save some writing.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
On the point about national insurance credit, I am not sure that the Minister’s answer deals fully with the issue that I raised. Perhaps the noble Lord will look at the record tomorrow and write in due course.
Lord Goldsmith
Does the Minister not think that what has just taken place illustrates how wrong it was to bring this Bill in and try to fast-track it through? He is answering, on the hoof, important questions in relation to the entitlement, not of stockpiles but of people. We have this problem because the Bill is being fast-tracked through. The amendments so far have been admirably moved. In relation to Amendment 2, the Secretary of State will, within a month of the Act coming into force, do something which we would normally expect the Minister to tell us before the Bill is passed. Will the Minister kindly reflect on that and consider whether it is not an absolute disgrace that the Bill is being passed in this way, as the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House, of which I am happy to be a member, said last week and other noble Lords made clear at Second Reading?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I may be to blame for moving off the particular amendment. We are not having a Second Reading debate now: we are dealing with a set of amendments. Amendment 2 seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State will have to publish, within one month of the Act coming into force, a report on whether claimants would have sufficient access to legal advice and support including legal aid. After 1 April, claimants who appeal to the First-tier Tribunal in England and Wales on welfare benefit issues will not, as a matter of course, be able to claim legal aid. This will be the position for all claimants affected by the legislation where they have applied for legal aid after 1 April. I hope that clarifies the position for the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. There will not be entitlement to legal aid after 1 April.
It is important to note that the change in legal aid in no way affects a claimant’s right to ask for reconsideration or appeal to the tribunal. This change in legal aid eligibility will have a limited impact on the claimants affected by sanction provisions in this Bill. Official statistics show that, of the 170,000 claimants sanctioned on ESE or MWA schemes, only around 5,000 appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. Based on these data, we therefore estimate that only between 1,500 and 2,000 claimants in the cases that have been stockpiled—cases, not people—will eventually appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. I also think that due to the nature of these cases it is likely that the vast majority of cases brought before the tribunal will be about a factual dispute where the claimant will need to present their case in plain language and will not require legal support. They will still be able to ask for support from, for example, a citizens advice bureau.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I thank other noble Lords who have spoken, all of them in favour of my amendment. I also thank noble Lords who have asked questions of the Minister in regard to this matter.
I have to say that I sometimes wonder whether the Government really understand how important these issues are. We enjoy a system of law that enjoys a reputation that is well deserved over many years. One of the jewels in the crown of the English legal system is that people, when they hear about it, know that it applies to everyone, not just to the rich and powerful but applies, sometimes to a limited extent, to those who are at the bottom of the pile. That is the glory of the legal system. What the Government do not seem to understand is that it does not matter whether there are 20 cases, 500 cases, or 5,000 cases; these are fellow citizens who should be entitled to the protection of the law like everybody else. Is the Minister really saying that if the numbers were much greater the Government would change their attitude? I do not think that that is what he is saying.
This measure is particularly unfair to those who, through no fault of their own, have been caught by the hiatus that has been caused by the Court of Appeal saying that the regulations put forward by the Government were unlawful.
Lord Freud
Perhaps I may make absolutely clear the point about the numbers. There was a lot of comment from noble Lords opposite that the system would be overwhelmed by the numbers because people did not have legal advice and the system could not therefore cope. The point I am making is that that argument does not stand in the light of the rather small number of cases—between 1,500 and 2,000—that might come towards the First-tier Tribunal as a result of the Bill.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
If I may intervene, approximately 500,000 sanctions were issued last year. Something like 3,500 or 4,000 of those cases went to appeal. That was last year, before this additional provision hits them. The Minister may wish to reconsider his statistics.
Lord Bach
My Lords, perhaps I may go back for a moment to the hiatus caused by the Court of Appeal decision. It means that those who stood to have the protection of the law as it stood at the time that they were sanctioned or due to be sanctioned will, if the Minister is right, no longer have that protection, merely because of the passage of time and because something has intervened that is absolutely no fault of theirs, but is, I am afraid, the fault of the Government. That seems to be against any British sense of fair play. I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“( ) A report under subsection (1) will include, but not be limited to, information on the following—
(a) the number of penalties imposed, the type of failure for which they were imposed and the duration of such penalties;(b) the number of demands for reconsideration and the number of subsequent appeals;(c) the effectiveness of the appeals process;(d) the number of penalties imposed upon claimants in receipt of Employment and Support Allowance;(e) whether sanctions originate from a Work Programme Provider or JobCentre Plus;(f) the extent to which claimants understand the reasons for penalties being imposed upon them;(g) the extent to which sanctions are being promoted and whether targets are being applied in relation to penalties;(h) the support available for claimants upon whom a penalty has been imposed, and what additional support such claimants are seeking; (i) how penalties are being applied to those with a mental health or other fluctuating health condition;(j) the effectiveness of the hardship and mitigation provisions;(k) the effectiveness of sanctions in changing claimant behaviour; and(l) the application of the public sector equality duty.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, in moving Amendment 4 I will speak also to Amendments 5A and 6. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lady Lister on Amendment 5 and what appears to be a very worthy extension of the scope of the promised review and report, which we can also support. Amendment 4 relates generally to the criteria for Clause 2, and Amendment 5A has been tabled with the strong support of the shadow Secretary of State following press revelations of the existence of sanctions targets and league tables operating in London. It insists that the review specifically report on this matter.
Clause 2 brings some redemption to what is otherwise a deeply unsatisfactory Bill. The clause exists because of the perseverance of my right honourable friends Stephen Timms and Liam Byrne in another place and gives us the hope that at least something positive may yet come from this débâcle. The clause requires the appointment of an independent person to prepare a report on the operations relating to the imposition of penalties. The sanctions which are in scope for the review are those imposed for failures in the period from June 2011, when the defective regulations were first introduced, until February 2013, when the Court of Appeal judgment was delivered. We are told that the sanctions involved amount to around 25% of all JSA sanctions, which is clearly a minority of such sanctions. For those both delivered and withheld, covering the ESE and MWA programme, this amounts to in excess of 300,000 sanctions, mostly relating to those assigned to the Work Programme. The huge growth in the number of sanctions and the amounts involved—on average some £600 for ESE sanctions and £800 for MWA sanctions—are real causes for concern. There are suggestions that the growth of sanctions is a significant cause of the proliferation of food banks.
Recent revelations about targets and league tables are deeply worrying and reinforce concerns that the sanctions regime is being used to control benefit expenditure rather than for its proper purpose of supporting conditionality and changing behaviour. Ministerial denials will cut no ice until these matters have been fully and speedily investigated. We would be appalled if the reports of the suggested behaviour were true, as they would demonstrate not only that a climate of fear is being created within jobcentres but that staff are being actively encouraged to refer customers for sanction, especially to fine customers that they can claim are not fully available for work if they make mention of looking after a grandparent or having informal arrangements sharing custody of children. Jobcentre Plus is supposed to support vulnerable people, not try to trip them up on technicalities.
The review should also cover what management statistics are routinely kept and what use these are put to. At what point of it all are statistics around appeals on reconsiderations subject to any comparison, either intra a Jobcentre Plus area or between areas? Are the data broken down into individual decision-makers and matched against appeal performance? Do these form part of any discussion at appraisal time for individuals? Noble Lords will recognise that it is not even necessary to have formal targets to create a culture where these issues are seen to matter.
At Second Reading the Minister said:
“I have heard today concern from Peers about how DWP issues sanctions to JSA claimants more generally. I would like to make it clear that the department will discuss with the Opposition the terms of reference of the sanctions review”.—[Official Report, 21/3/13; col. 756.]
This is to be welcomed. Can we take it from this that the review need not be limited just to those sanctions identified above? Of course, a discussion with the Opposition does not necessarily mean agreement, which is why we have particularised, in Amendment 4, specific questions posed by the right honourable Stephen Timms in another place. We have added to the list the important matter which my noble friend Lady Lister spoke to at Second Reading concerning the public sector equality duty. I am sure that my noble friend will pick up that issue shortly and expand on her telling intervention that the Government know that they are treading on thin ice on this matter. It is too late for this legislation to be able to benefit from the scrutiny of the JCHR, which makes it imperative that it is covered by the review.
The items included on the list are for the most part self-explanatory and have been discussed numerous times before. However, now is the time to have an independent assessment of what is actually happening in practice. These include how penalties are being applied to those with a mental health condition, or rather fluctuating health conditions, which has been a longstanding concern under this Government and, to be fair, under the previous one as well. As we need to know how in practice the sanction and hardship provisions are really affecting people’s ability to survive, it is important that the review and report are thorough and that sufficient time is available to do the job effectively. However, this should not preclude an interim report, which is what Amendment 6 suggests.
This is fast-track legislation which we now have very limited time to consider further. The independent review was an important consideration for us in our approach to this Bill and we need to nail this down as tightly as possible tonight. Paragraphs (a) to (l) of the amendment must be deliverable, and if the Government are approaching this in a spirit of co-operation it really should not present them with a problem. Will the Minister commit now to these being included in the terms of reference for the review?
Above all, however, we need to be certain that we get to the bottom of the alleged existence of targets and league tables, which is why Amendment 5A is essential. If the Government are committed to their mantra of low targets, they should have common cause with us in accepting this. If they want to tidy the wording for Report, then so be it. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 5 as well as in support of Amendment 4, moved by my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton. Amendment 5 complements and amplifies Amendment 4. The point behind it is that the sanctions in scope of the review established in Clause 2 of the Bill represent approximately only a quarter of all JSA sanctions imposed over the relevant period.
If we are to understand how the sanctions regime is working, the review needs to set the narrower group of sanctions in the scope of the Bill into the wider context of the operation of sanctions more generally. I have tried to make sense of the sanctions statistics, and it seems that there has been a massive increase since March 2010 in the number of fixed-length sanctions applied in relation to work-related programmes, and a smaller increase in other varied-length sanctions, albeit in both cases with some month-to-month fluctuations.
The review needs to help us understand what lies behind these statistics in the round. The sense that I am getting from voluntary organisations working in the field is that there is a growing concern about the general operation of sanctions. I am particularly grateful to CPAG and SPAN for the information they have sent me at very short notice.
I do not propose to pursue the question of whether or not jobcentre staff are being set sanction targets. My noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton has already addressed that point admirably. However, I want to say something about the wider culture that is giving rise to such claims. It has been brought to my attention that some jobcentres are pursuing a practice of “botherability”, which includes bringing in claimants at weekends. CPAG sent me the example of a client of the CAB in the north of England.
The client is a lone parent with two children aged eight and six. The eight year-old has reduced hearing and gets low-care DLA. The client is claiming JSA, housing benefit and council tax benefit. She received a letter at the start of March 2013 calling her into the jobcentre for a compliance meeting a few days later, at 9.30 am on a Sunday, which was Mother’s Day. She asked for a different date but was told that her benefit could be sanctioned. She decided to go to the interview as she could not afford not to, but her two little girls were very disappointed as they were planning a treat for her on Mother’s Day morning. She has been on JSA for six months and says that she has jumped through all the hoops. Last week she said that she had applied for 22 jobs. She does not understand what she has done or not done that has necessitated a compliance interview, especially on Mother’s Day. She says she is pretty disgusted with the way that claimants are treated—can your Lordships blame her? I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on such practices. Is he aware of them? Does he condone them?
It seems to me that whether or not formal targets are operating, such practices are indicative of an oppressive culture that is aimed at punishing claimants rather than helping them to find work. The point has been made to me that in assessing the overall impact of sanctions we need to be looking at those cases not just where sanctions have been applied but where they have been threatened, sometimes inappropriately; in other words, when claimants have been led to believe that failing to do something is a sanctionable offence when it is not.
I wish to focus on the paragraphs of Amendment 4 that deal with mental health conditions, the effectiveness of hardship provisions and the application of the public sector equality duty. Mind has argued that the incentive structure represented by conditionality and sanctions in back-to-work support for people with mental health problems is a misplaced and counterproductive response to the barriers they face. It cites recent DWP research which found that some staff believe that conditionality and sanctions are not useful or appropriate for some groups of participants, including people with disabilities or addiction problems, and some staff acknowledge that the stress that can be caused can be counterproductive in terms of claimant engagement, which also has implications for paragraph (k), which concerns,
“the effectiveness of sanctions in changing claimant behaviour”.
Mind cites a number of service users who have been in contact. I will take just two examples. The first is:
“I got a nasty letter which said my benefit was at risk because I didn’t attend an appointment and I had to give a really good explanation within a week or my benefit would be cut. It quoted all these regulations I broke. I freaked out because I couldn’t understand what I hadn’t done … It turns out there was a mistake”.
Another example is:
“I was made very anxious and sleepless by what I perceived as threatening letters and terms from Jobcentre Plus and A4e. I became depressed because I could see that my hopes to return to work were being made unrealisable by this route”.
Let us put ourselves in the shoes of these people and imagine how stressful it must be for anyone, never mind someone with a mental health problem, to be treated in that way. Further examples can be found in evidence submitted by Citizens Advice Cymru to the ongoing Welsh Affairs Committee inquiry into the Work Programme. A number of them are where there was failure to take account of mental health problems as good cause for non-compliance—an issue to which we will return when debating Amendment 7.
A 20 year-old female sought advice from a CAB in south Wales. She had missed four appointments and was sanctioned. She suffers from periodic depression and memory problems and relies on her social services support worker to remind her of appointments. On these occasions, the support worker failed to do so. She could not apply for a crisis loan as she had been sanctioned, and she has no money at all. She is also worried that she will lose her accommodation.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, if I might intervene, there are several noble Lords in the Chamber who from a sedentary position keep saying that this is ridiculous. The only ridiculous part of the debate this evening is the fact that we are debating such a serious issue at 12.20 am, and we should be allowed to hear my noble friend in peace.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I thank my noble friend, particularly as I am quoting from a lone mother who is very upset. She says:
“The sanction is over a missed Thursday 9am appointment. My next appointment is 3pm on a Monday. My advisor is well aware that my son is at school for 8.50 am, it takes 25 minutes to get to WP, I collect my son at 3.15 pm yet I’m expected to attend at 3pm for 30 mins. So I’ll be taking him out of school at 2.30pm. I want to help him do well at school, attendance is a high priority of mine”.
Here we have the threat of sanctions demoralising a lone mother who is trying to do the right thing by her son. How making her feel useless and overwhelmed is going to help her in her jobseeking is a mystery to me.
As I have said, I have not been able to do full justice to the briefing that SPAN sent me. I therefore suggest that it be invited to submit evidence to the review established under Clause 2. Indeed, what provision will be made to enable outside organisations with experience of what is happening on the ground to feed evidence into the review?
Of course, the public sector equality duty is not just about lone parents. An international review of the evidence about the operation of sanctions within conditional benefit systems, conducted for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation a couple of years or so ago, warned that evidence suggests that the administration of sanctions is not rational and equitable. The studies conducted in the US have identified racial bias in the imposition of sanctions.
At Second Reading the Minister emphasised that,
“we are trying to design a much more flexible welfare system in which we individualise responses”.—[Official Report, 21/3/13; col. 753.]
It is difficult to quarrel with flexibility and individualisation, but the downside is that they leave greater scope for discrimination, in the negative sense of the term, and they can undermine rights. It is therefore all the more important that the sanctions review allows us to judge whether the administration of sanctions is indeed rational, equitable and consistent with the public sector equality duty.
The Government’s willingness to discuss the terms of reference of the sanctions review with the Opposition is, of course, welcome. I hope therefore that the Minister will accept Amendments 4 and 5, in the interests of ensuring that the review is as thorough and informative as it needs to be, and that the Government will express a willingness to take evidence from organisations on the ground.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
My Lords, as far as I am concerned this is an important debate on an important amendment and, indeed, it is an important suggestion that we should have a review of the sanctions regime. Most colleagues already know this, but I am a non-executive, non-remunerated director of the Wise Group, an intermediate labour market provider in Glasgow that is subcontracted to the Work Programme, so I have had experience of some of these matters. There are difficulties that need to be ironed out and I hope that this review will take the opportunity to do just that.
I strongly urge my noble friend on the Front Bench to pay careful attention to what is being said, although I think that the amendment is a little ad longam to put in a Bill. I am with the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, in spirit, but I am not sure that the amendment is necessary. I think that we get the point that he is trying to make—I certainly do.
To the need for a review in this amendment I would add the question of the costs, which have been calculated as a maximum of £130 million. At the risk of being pedantic at this time of night—and I apologise to the House—I refer the Minister to page 6 of the impact assessment and Annexe A on the methodology of the calculation. Paragraph 18 describes the total value of the money allegedly at stake in this Bill. Frankly, I cannot understand it, but that may just be the hour of the morning. It states that the total value equals the number of sanctions multiplied by the number of weeks, although, in passing, I have to say that sanctions are variable in weeks—they are not all fixed-week sanctions, so I do not know quite how you can multiply by a number of weeks when they vary. That is multiplied by the percentage of cases of under-25s multiplied by the rate for under-25s and the percentage of cases of over-25s multiplied by the rate for over-25s. However, the final clause puzzles me, because that total value is,
“multiplied by reduction due to successful appeals and hardship”.
You have a multiplier multiplied by a reduction. Either my arithmetic is not good, which it is not, or the language in that paragraph is wrong. If the language in that paragraph is wrong, I would like to be told, because that is what we are being invited to consider as the potential cost to the taxpayer as a result of these changes. If the impact assessment has not got the methodology of the calculation correct, it would be good to know.
My other point is about recompliance. My experience in the Wise Group is that although many of these sanctions are originally set at, say, 26 weeks, the participant in the programme gets the message that they are going to lose out rather quickly and they come back into compliance. They are therefore reduced from a 26-week penalty to a four-week penalty as a matter of course. I do not know to what extent that is factored into the calculation of the total value. There are a number of methodological problems that I do not understand. One of the things that this report should do—I am not suggesting for a moment that we need answers to all these things this evening—is to look carefully at exactly what the total amount at stake in this Bill is. We look forward to getting that confirmed one way or the other.
Briefly, my view is that the Work Programme was introduced with indecent haste. The flexible New Deal programme was in the middle of its operation and in 2010, in a very short space of time, everything was changed. I understand the need to take away everything that went before, but everyone I now talk to tells me that the loss of corporate knowledge is a difficulty in working with the department. A lot of serious and expert people are no longer in the positions that they had. Bringing this programme in so early and losing such a lot of corporate knowledge over a short space of time is bound to lead to symptoms and consequences of this kind.
Part of the problem generated by these sanctions is that the notices that are given to participants in these programmes are often handled not by prime contractors but by subcontractors. I do not believe that some of them are authorised by the Secretary of State as they should be under the Jobseekers Act 1995, which is part of the reason why some of these notices are not detailed and informative. Therefore, it does not surprise me that the court took the view that it did. That is something that this review should be looking at as well.
Finally, one thing that I am clear about from my Wise Group experience is that a lot of participants in these courses do not appeal against sanctions because they cannot do without the benefit for the duration of the pending appeal—it is a serious loss of money to them. I hope that this will be investigated in the review, but we really need to look at whether the sanctions are being properly scrutinised in terms of the numbers who go to appeal. I think that people just throw in their hand because they cannot afford to do anything else.
In conclusion, there is a lot of important work to be done. I hope that the review will be serious in undertaking that work and making the results and conclusions available to the rest of us so that we can get this sanctions regime better adjusted for future use in the jobseeker’s allowance regime.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I will address Amendments 4, 5, 5A and 6 together. The purpose of these amendments is to place in the Bill detailed requirements for the independent report set out in Clause 2.
I should be clear that Clause 2 provides for an independent review of the operation of provisions relating to the imposition of sanctions which would, without this legislation, be unlawful. The amendments could be seen to imply a much wider review; it is not a full review of the operation of sanctions, although clearly there could be wider relevance. At least one of the things covered in the amendment is not within the scope of the Bill: paragraph (d) asks about the number of penalties imposed upon claimants in receipt of employment and support allowance. I can answer that today, as the Bill is only concerned with JSA claimants.
The Government are happy to consider a wide range of areas for the review, but it would be unhelpful to lock down the terms of that review at this stage. Despite my earlier comments, the amendments list a number of areas the review could usefully consider. I am happy to confirm what I said on Thursday, and give a commitment that we will discuss further with the Opposition the scope of the review. Within that process, we can look at the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on provision for outsiders.
Amendment 5A would ensure that the independent reviewer makes an assessment of the extent to which senior managers in Jobcentre Plus have used targets in the operation of sanctions. This amendment is completely unnecessary. There are no targets for sanction referrals. The Government have made a point of removing the vast majority of targets within Jobcentre Plus. It is regrettable that loose drafting of an internal e-mail suggested otherwise. If noble Lords look at sanctions, there is no clear trend in the proportion of the caseload who receives them. Prior to 2007, the rate was running at around 4%; since then it has fluctuated between 3% and 5%. There is not the clear trend in the growth of sanctions which some people have been claiming.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I do not doubt the Minister’s honesty and integrity in his statements about targets at all. However, the staff clearly do not believe him. It is clear from the evidence that we have seen—the leaked e-mails and all sorts of other examples coming to Members of Parliament and so on—that the staff in local offices believe, because they are told by their managers, that they have to increase the number of sanctions. In the e-mail, the manager of the particular jobcentre was criticised and told that she would be subject to first-stage disciplinary hearings because that office was something like 93rd out of 101 in sanction production; they should have been producing something like 25 a week and were only producing four or six a week. Therefore: “Guys, we should raise our game”.
The e-mail was not loosely drafted. It was very precisely drafted; we have all seen copies of it. That e-mail, from someone senior in the office to their staff, made it very clear that if they did not increase a number of sanctions, they, too, would be involved in a disciplinary process. That is believed by those staff and by staff across the country. I do not doubt the Minister’s word, or that he does not intend that to be the case. What is he going to do, therefore, to ensure that local offices no longer behave in this way?
Lord Freud
My Lords, let me make very clear the difference between having targets, having business or management information, and doing something with that information. Clearly, you collect these data not just to answer parliamentary questions but to run the business. It is used to look at where there are outliers and peculiarities, and what the norms are. When a particular jobcentre may be well outside the norm on either side, you might want to ask it why that was the case. Was it justifiable, and what were the dynamics of that? In some cases you are clearly looking at particular parts of the operation that are not operating in line with the norms. That is not having a target culture. A target culture—as the noble Lords opposite will know, because they were running one in many parts of the public services—is where you incentivise and drive performance based on particular targets. We do not do that. We do not have targets. We do, however, have management information and, as I say, we need to understand why outliers exist.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, will the Minister explain why this senior staff member—the manager of the office—told the staff underneath her that unless they increased the number of sanctions she would be subject to the first stage of a disciplinary procedure, and that that, in turn, would mean that she would have to discipline them? How does he explain that?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I am not going to pick up a particular case because I do not have the detail on it. It would not be appropriate for me to hazard a guess on what was behind a particular e-mail or a particular concern.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I hear what the Minister has said, and he is held in high regard across the House. In view of what my noble friend Lady Hollis has said, will he therefore initiate an investigation into how this memo came about? Will he come back to the House to explain what action the Government are taking on this? Somebody is clearly acting against government policy, and it should be stopped.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Will the Minister also, therefore, ensure that all DWP local offices receive the same information—that this is to be deplored?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I must repeat what I have just said. Clearly, we have internal management information. It is vital that we keep it, and we publish a lot of it. We need to understand why some areas, some jobcentres, have higher rates than others and why some have lower rates. Some may have very good reasons for having lower or higher rates, while others may not. We therefore need this information to correct the anomalies, and that is normal business practice. It may be that in particular cases a jobcentre manager is told, “You are running very high or very low figures, and you cannot justify the reason for that, so you need to get more into line”. It may happen. I have not got the particular details.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
In that case, what is the difference between coming more into line and targets?
Lord Freud
The noble Lords opposite know exactly how targets operate because they operated a target regime. Targets are when people are incentivised to perform to particular figures.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
What if they are incentivised by the threat of being punished?
Lord Freud
They are usually incentivised to reach targets, and we do not run a target regime. The no-targets message has gone out repeatedly.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, I fail to understand the Minister. Surely if someone is asked to regulate their business, as he calls it, in order to get to the norm, what is the difference between that and a target?
Lord Freud
The difference is that where someone is not performing in line with the rest of the business for no good reason—in other words, where there is nothing different in the underlying constituency of the business—they are not operating the business in line with the standards that we have. That is entirely different from having targets, because it is understood that no figures are going out with instructions to achieve something. The message that there are no targets goes out repeatedly to jobcentre managers; there has been a reminder from the Work Services Directorate that there are no targets; and we will investigate if people have misunderstood that approach.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
It is Committee, but the Companion guides us by stating that, during any stages:
“Lengthy or frequent interventions should not be made, even with the consent of the member speaking”.
My noble friend is very tolerant and I know that he will keep responding to interventions. However, the hour is late and there have been several interventions.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, this is Committee. Many of us are deeply distressed about the Bill. To seek to curtail a discussion where clearly the Minister is saying that people will be asked to comply with a norm if they have no good excuse not to, is to my mind—and, I suspect, to the minds of other noble Lords—little different from a target.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I have answered the question. I will re-emphasise that we do not have targets, we have management information. I may not have convinced noble Lords on the other side, but they should be very familiar with running targets because that is how they tried to run the economy. We do not run targets because they create perverse behaviours. We collect information in this area, not least because it is required for public purposes. Furthermore, we need to run a business and we need to understand what different areas are doing in order to do that.
Referrals for sanctions are made on the merits of each case. Decisions on sanctions are based on evidence presented that is independently reviewed by decision- makers. The fact that only three-quarters of decisions made are upheld by these decision-makers proves the robustness of the process. Furthermore, there is an independent appeals process against decisions, so even if a target regime were in place, which it is not, claimants who were wrongly sanctioned could successfully appeal.
The flexible business model means that managers need to understand the reason for outliers. While differences can be for good reasons such as local labour market conditions, senior managers need to monitor the overall situation in order to spot and correct anomalies.
Given what I have said, it would be odd to require the independent report to cover a sanctions target that does not exist. However, we are happy to give reassurances that we will make clear the position in respect of targets and league tables. I have done my best today, but clearly more may need to be done for some noble Lords.
Lord Rooker
At the risk of upsetting the Whip, I have a question. The Minister does not seem to have addressed one of the examples given by my noble friend. Will he give a personal guarantee that no office will open and call people in on Easter Sunday? How many offices are opening on Sundays? Are they in England, Wales and Scotland? What is the policy of offices opening on Sundays to call in people in the way we heard in the example earlier on? He must address that because this is obviously something quite new.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I do not have the information on Sundays, particularly Easter Sunday. The underlying issue is compliance checks using different days for attending the jobcentre, which are an important element of Jobcentre Plus’s toolkit to combat benefit fraud and confirm conditions of entitlement to benefit. That can include asking claimants to attend a jobcentre on a day other than their normal signing day. That is not something that is different under this Government.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am sorry to intervene, but does the Minister think it is reasonable to ask a mother to come in on Mothering Sunday?
Lord Freud
My Lords, clearly, I cannot talk about examples when I am not familiar with the particular example. It may have been a strategy. As I said, there is a general strategy to prevent non-compliance by using the device of asking people to come in on different days. Sometimes people are asked to come in on every day of the week. The example I am thinking of is the five workings days, but I have seen examples of that. I saw that example under the previous Government to be honest. I do not know why noble Lords opposite are looking aghast as this was absolutely standard procedure under the previous Government and nothing has changed. It was standard procedure and has been maintained because it works in areas where we are concerned about benefit fraud.
On Amendment 4, it is worth noting that for sanctions more broadly much of the information that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, sets out in his amendment is already published by the department. For example, we have published, and will publish every six months, tables setting out the number of sanctions issued and the number of reconsiderations and appeals. The latest figures published for employment, skills and enterprise schemes and mandatory work activity show that up to October 2012 around 170,000 sanctions were issued. There were just over 50,000 reconsiderations, with claimants being successful in just over half of them. Following this there were about 5,000 appeals to the First-tier Tribunal, with claimants being successful in around a quarter of them. I hope that gives enough reassurance to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that the independent review will be comprehensive and in the spirit of Clause 2. I therefore urge them to reconsider the position and not press their amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, raised a point on hardship and the new hardship regime. The new hardship regime will not apply to these jobseeker allowance claimants. It will come into effect only when universal credit is in place. The lone parent’s caring responsibilities are taken into account when setting work search requirements. In the example used by the noble Baroness, they can be used in citing a good reason for non-compliance.
I turn now to the linked Amendment 6, the purpose of which is to ensure that there is an interim report on the operation of the provisions relating to the imposition of a penalty, as well as the report after 12 months that the Bill already requires. I am as keen as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that the review is expedited and we will endeavour to complete it as quickly as possible. However, it may help if I set out why an interim report would be unhelpful in providing a complete picture. A claimant who has a sanction imposed on them has 13 months to bring an appeal against that sanction, so by imposing a six-month deadline for an interim report we would miss those appeals made at a later point. That could then give a misleading view of the overall picture in a way that could be unhelpful. As I said earlier, we are committed to producing a report as soon as is reasonably practicable and it would be far better to wait for the full annual report. I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider the position and not press that amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lady Lister for her support for this amendment. I believe that my noble friend made a powerful contribution and painted what I think we would all agree is a very troublesome picture of what is happening on the ground in too many instances. She specifically asked whether the review would receive evidence from outside bodies, and I do not think that the Minister has addressed that point. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, too, for his support, at least in spirit. I believe that he is absolutely right that the projected cost of £130 million is excessive. Of course, from the Government’s point of view, the higher that figure, the greater the weight given to the opportunity of retrospective legislation. But I think that the noble Lord’s analysis is right.
The Minister’s response was desperately disappointing generally. On the question of targets, let me be clear about what Amendment 5A says. It seeks a report that,
“will include an assessment of the extent to which jobcentre managers have applied targets on the issue of sanctions”.
I accept the Minister’s words—he would not wish to mislead us—on whether Ministers have targets, but the question is whether as a practical matter targets are being applied within certain Jobcentre Plus premises. The noble Lord says that it is about business information and that it is necessary to spot outliers, but the one document that we have as an example is worth reading. It says:
“I have until 15 February, along with other area managers, to show an improvement, and then it is a performance improvement plan for me”.
A PIP is the first stage of the disciplinary process, as my noble friend Lady Hollis identified. It goes on to say that,
“if I am on a PIP to improve my team’s Stricter Benefit Regime referral rate I will not have a choice but to consider implementing PIPs for those individuals who are clearly not delivering SBR within the team”.
It seems to me that there is an awful lot of pressure there, whether you label it as pressure driven by targets or by some other means. It is pressure, and it is changing the culture of the organisation. What does it lead to? It leads to advice like,
“listen for telltale phrases ‘I pick up the kids’, ‘I look after my neighbour’s children/my grandchildren’ or just ‘I am busy’—all of which suggest that the customer may not be fully available for work, even cases where a parent shares custody can be considered if the arrangement is informal. Not that I am suggesting you go there, but you need to consider each case individually”.
Is not the Minister troubled to understand that those sorts of memos are floating around within Jobcentre Plus? Is that not entirely contrary to what he himself has asserted? I cannot believe that he would feel comfortable about that happening. That is the purpose of the amendment—to find out what is happening or has happened in Jobcentre Plus generally. It is not a question of whether the Minister has set down a particular target but what is happening within those Jobcentre Plus premises and the impact that it is having on people being referred for sanctions.
Again, the hour is late, and I will withdraw the amendment, although when it is called I propose to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 5A, which is the key issue dealing with the sanctions and the revelations that the press have identified, because there is a pressing and clear need for that to be addressed.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“( ) A report under subsection (1) will include an assessment of the extent to which jobcentre managers have applied targets on the issue of sanctions.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I beg to move. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Sherlock
“Guidance
Within a month of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State will issue guidance on the way in which claimants may be entitled to mitigate any penalty imposed upon them under the 2011 Regulations or the Mandatory Work Activity Regulations following the coming into force of this Act.”
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to prepare guidance on how claimants might mitigate any penalty. This is necessary because there are some serious questions for the Government to answer about how the sanction system will work in practice after a delay of many months, potentially longer, and how a claimant is able to limit the effects in the way in which Parliament envisaged when it passed the legislation.
I want to turn briefly to the question of recompliance raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope. The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise) Regulations 2011—the regulations that were found to be at fault by the Court of Appeal—explain the consequences of failure to participate in the scheme covered by those provisions. Regulations 8(4) to 8(6) provide that a claimant who fails to participate in an activity may face a loss or reduction of benefit for a period of two, four or 26 weeks. Regulation 8(7) provides that if someone has been sanctioned for 26 weeks but has recomplied, the period for which benefit is stopped is reduced to four weeks—a point explained by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. Recompliance is defined in Regulation 8(8), which refers to the claimant as “C”. It states:
“C will be taken to have re-complied where”,
on the same date, before or,
“after the date on which the Secretary of State determines that C has failed to participate in the Scheme, C complies with … (a) the requirement as to participation in the Scheme to which the determination relates, or (b) such other requirement as to participation as may be made by the Secretary of State and notified to C in accordance with regulation 4”.
Here come the questions, and I apologise that they are not very exciting. Can the Minister tell the Committee how this will work some months after the event? Let us say that a claimant with a fluctuating health problem has failed to turn up for a training course imposed as part of skills conditionality and has been sanctioned for 26 weeks. The course ended last September. Had he been sanctioned at once, he could perhaps have attended the remaining days of the course and had the sanction reduced from 26 weeks to four weeks. Can the Minister explain how that person could now show compliance? It is obviously too late for him to recomply under Regulation 8(8)(a), but perhaps he could recomply under sub-paragraph (b). If so, can the Minister explain how that will work? If the person has been given any subsequent direction and has complied with it in any way at all, will that count as recompliance; does the recompliance have to be specific to the particular scheme that he was put on; or does it have to be specific to the requirement made of him at the time—that is, that training course? Presumably, the Government would want to make sure that this person was not treated any less fairly than he would have been had the Government’s regulations and notices not been found to be unlawful, but how would the Minister do that? If he is not in a position to explain to the Committee in detail now, I would press him to accept the amendment, which simply asks that he issues guidance explaining to jobcentre staff how they should act in order to put the claimant in the position in which they would have been but for the delay caused by the failure of the regulations to be accepted by the Court of Appeal as lawful.
My second question relates to the question of good cause, which the Minister referred to at an earlier stage. If a claimant fails to participate in the scheme, they are notified by the DWP and will be sanctioned unless they show what is known as “good cause” for their failure to participate within five working days.
Let me give another example. I am interested in exploring how good cause works in this time-delayed world. Let us imagine a single mother who was due to attend a course but missed the registration on the first morning because her 13 year-old son was up all night vomiting and she could not take him to school. She could not leave a sick 13 year-old at home alone the next day, so she phoned up the course and explained what had happened and that she would not be in that day. She talked to the receptionist who took a message and said that it would be passed on. The message was not passed on and when she turned up the next day she was told that she could not join the course because she failed to be there for the start. I should say that I have heard of real cases where precisely these things have taken place, and I am sure that the Minister has as well. Can the Minister help us to understand what would happen in that circumstance?
I understood from what the Minister said early on that that lone parent would have been written to at the time that this alleged breach took place, asking if she had any good cause for failing to turn up for the course. So what happened then? Presumably the decision-maker did not make a decision at that stage, so perhaps this would be sat on from that point, say the previous September, until it got around to being processed from the pile of deferred decisions. Would she at this stage have to explain more about what happened? For example, if there were not enough information in the explanation, did the decision-maker go back at the point at which this happened last September to say, “Tell me more”, or will that happen, say, the following April or May? If so, will she be expected to recall precisely what happened with this child’s bout of sickness last September, when it is now potentially April or May? Will she be asked for evidence for a bout of sickness that may not have required a medical appointment if the child was recovered within 24 hours? If she did give all the information but she was then deemed not to have good cause, presumably she could now appeal. If so, can the Minister explain to the Committee how the normal standards of evidence will be relaxed, if at all, given the serious time delay, to deal with the evidential problems and the possible recall problems that come with that?
Finally, can the Minister explain which set of regulations will apply to someone who committed the alleged breach under the old sanctions regime? Will he or she be sanctioned using the provisions that applied at the time of the alleged failing, because of course the ability to reduce the sanction by recomplying has since disappeared? Can the Minister reassure us that in fact someone will be able to reduce a sanction period by recompliance even if such an option no longer exists under the current regulations?
I apologise for having to go into such detail at this stage, but I did not choose to be conducting a Committee stage at quarter past one in the morning. I do think, if we are going to be asked to fast-track a Bill of this complexity and importance, that it is very important that the Committee is given every opportunity to understand precisely what the Government are trying to do to these people. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel)
My Lords, I must inform your Lordships that the result of Division 3 on Amendment 5A should have been Contents 35, Not-Contents 139—not 137 as announced.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend by saying that I am mortified about the additional numbers on the other side as the result of our strenuous debate. I thought that we might have persuaded a few more to abstain.
I hope that the Minister can agree to this amendment. There are three broad reasons why we need new guidance and clarity on the sanctions regime: the issue of targets/norms, good cause and compliance. The Joseph Rowntree research that came out in December 2010 shows that claimants have a low level of awareness of sanctions and that the more disadvantaged they are, the higher the risk of sanctions and the less knowledge they have about them. This applies to young claimants, those with a disability, those with a poor education, those with large families and those from an ethnic minority. The research shows that they are not out to flout the system but that they have poor information or non-intentional behaviour such as forgetfulness. In that context, I want us to support my noble friend’s amendment.
I turn first to the issue of targets. The Minister was at some pains to explain to us earlier that “targets” is a relevant word only where you are rewarding behaviour, but when you are punishing it, that is a “norm”. We know that if you exceed, you get a target, and that if you underachieve, that is a norm. It is clear that targets or norms, whatever we want to call them, are the enemy of mitigation. Using them to allow the Secretary of State to claim clean hands while the staff do the dirty work under pressure from above is completely unacceptable. We need clear evidence, guidance and clarity from the Minister on the sanctions regime to ensure that targets do not stand in the way of mitigation. If people are allowed to mitigate and sanctions numbers therefore reduce, so will the targets, and staff will obviously have an incentive to fail to ensure that claimants follow good procedure and appropriate behaviour because they themselves face disciplinary action. That is a moral, or immoral, position, into which they should not be put.
Secondly, we need this guidance to ensure that claimants are aware that they may be able to mitigate sanctions by establishing good cause. My noble friend gave the example of the lone parent unable to attend an interview. Every parent in this House has had a child who has been sick and they may have missed an interview as a result. There is no doctor’s evidence because, by the next day, the child is well. Certainly that happened to me on numerous occasions. However, in this new, suspicious, look-for-any-benefit-cutting-excuse, hunt-them-down culture, of course we all now assume that any lone parent will keep her child at home and away from school simply to avoid an inconvenient interview. She says that the child was poorly, but why believe her? As she can provide no evidence, the office has got her and another tick is put on the whiteboard.
The third reason for needing guidance on mitigation is that, as the courts have indicated, claimants need to know and have a right to know how they may end their sanction by complying with jobcentre requirements. This issue marks the crucial line as to whether we are using sanctions to reduce the benefit bill or whether we are using them to change behaviour. If it is the first, giving little information or hope for people to find their way back into the system, then the Minister risks creating a growing underclass without income, without much hope and without any help. But people, as Carlyle pointed out 150 years ago, will not starve quietly. Some may have families to help them, and they will be the relatively lucky ones. Some may beg, while others will cross the line into thieving, drug selling and semi-criminal behaviour. This is what the Rowntree trust warns us of. They will come to regard social security laws, in so far as they understand them, and increasingly other laws, as not applicable to them. We will all then pay a high price. If it is the second—that instead of simply trying to cut the benefit bill on any hook we can find, we want people to change their behaviour and sanctions are part of the tough love regime, as I believe they should be—then we absolutely must encourage people to end sanctions by complying with what they are expected to do. When they do so, we should rejoice, even though it means fewer ticks on the whiteboard of targets to be met.
Research evidence shows up that up to two-thirds of those sanctioned do not know the whys or wherefores, or what they can do about it. The Minister, whose integrity we totally respect, accepted at Second Reading that that was indeed the case and that therefore the issue of sanctions had to be revisited. If the issue has to be revisited, he should now accept my noble friend’s amendment, because it amplifies what he himself has already agreed. Mitigation means ending the culture of targets and, incidentally, protecting any whistleblowers in the process. It means ensuring that people have the help that they need to claim good cause where that exists and it ensures mitigation so that claimants will know how they can end the sanction by conforming to benefit requirements. I hope that all in this Committee agree on these three goals. In which case, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
Lord Freud
My Lords, this amendment, which would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the way in which claimants can mitigate any penalty imposed under the ESE or MWA regulations after the Act comes into force, is unnecessary, as this information is provided to claimants as a matter of standard practice. When a claimant is issued with a benefit sanction, they are as a matter of course sent a letter explaining the decision made and what effect it will have. The letter clearly tells claimants that if they want to appeal the decision, they should fill in leaflet GL24, If you think our Decision is Wrong, and that claimants can,
“get this leaflet from your Jobcentre or Social Security Office”.
Attached to the sanctions letter are two leaflets: leaflet 1NF1, on appealing against a decision and leaflet JSA9, the hardship leaflet). I have both of these leaflets with me today.
The leaflet on appealing against a decision explains in plain English who the claimant should contact if they want to know more about the decision or, if they think the decision was wrong, how to appeal it and what support they may get in formulating that appeal. The hardship leaflet explains what financial support is available, the eligibility criteria and how to apply for hardship, and provides the form they must fill in to claim hardship. The whole process is done as a matter of course and, indeed, is on the record and available for anyone to see how those leaflets work.
I turn to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on recompliance. If a claimant has been issued with a 26-week sanction but has complied in the intervening period, they will be served with a four-week sanction. Recompliance is not particular to any scheme and can include participation in any other scheme. Of course, the sanctions regime has changed, so if the failure to participate was before 22 October last year, the old regime, which includes the re-engagement, applies. However, if the failure to participate is after 22 October, the current sanctions regime, which has no engagement and which builds up, will apply. That goes on the time of the failure to participate.
The noble Baroness was concerned about the time between the failure and the sanction being imposed on the stockpiled cases. I am sorry that I have not yet found a better word than stockpiled but it is for cases not people. As I said on an earlier amendment, the process of finding that information takes place immediately on the failure. They receive a letter and need to provide good cause at that point. Clearly, where there is a problem and there needs to be amplification, and there is a problem of information or evidence, the decision-maker will have to take that into account in the normal way, given that there is a gap and it is a justifiable lacuna.
As a matter of course, the cases that we have stockpiled will get issued with a sanction and receive the standard letter, and those accompanying leaflets that I outlined. This amendment is therefore superfluous and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Baroness Sherlock
I thank the Minister for that reply and, in particular, for clarifying that it will be the sanctions regime that was applicable at the time of the alleged breach that would prevail. I will just ask him to clarify one point more specifically. I was glad to hear him say that any subsequent direction can count as recompliance and that it did not have to be something specific to the particular scheme or course originally. It can count, but will it?
Lord Freud
If it fits the norms within which that re-compliance operates, then it will. I am not sure whether there is huge distinction, in this case, between the may and the will.
Baroness Sherlock
I am not trying to be pedantic, although I confess that it is a hobby. The reason it matters in this case is that normally, if I were sanctioned for not participating in a course, the obvious way to comply is to start going to the course. As the course has long since finished, there are all kinds of unrelated things that may have happened in between then and now, which would not be the obvious way for me to re-comply with a direction on something that has long since ceased. Therefore, the fact that these things could count does not necessarily mean that they will. The reason that I wanted guidance was precisely to make clear to jobcentre staff that in these circumstances they should interpret any form of compliance as being enough. I encourage the noble Lord to say that on the record.
Lord Freud
What I will say on the record is that we will ensure that guidance to jobcentre staff will make this absolutely clear.
Lord Freud
My Lords, we will make sure that the particular options here are laid out for jobcentre staff so that we do this consistently. I can add that recompliance will count if it is a scheme under the ESE regulations.
Baroness Sherlock
That was worth waiting for. I thank the Minister for that. I still think that this amendment is worth while. Although the Minister regards it as superfluous, the information that goes out to claimants actually relates specifically and only to complaints and hardships. The other obvious way to mitigate the effect of a sanction is recompliance and in fact none of that information does relate to recompliance. However, in the light of what he has just said, and given the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.