House of Commons

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

Monday 2 December 2013

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

1. What steps she has taken to reform the police.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that we have scrapped national targets, improved police accountability, reformed pay and conditions, abolished bureaucracy, set up the National Crime Agency and College of Policing and brought in elected police and crime commissioners. Those are the most radical reforms in the history of policing.

[John Howell]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will she also confirm that crime has fallen to the lowest level on record?

[Mrs May]

Again, I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that crime is down on both the reported measures of recorded crime and the crime survey. Recorded crime is down by more than 10% under this Government, and that is backed up by the independent crime survey, which shows that crime has halved since 1995 and is indeed at its lowest level since the survey began in 1981.

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

Has the Home Secretary had an opportunity to look at Lord Stevens’ report, which was published last week? In it, he says that the police are in danger of

“beating a retreat from the beat.”

Is it not time for us to reaffirm the importance of neighbourhood policing and the wider social justice purpose of policing?

[Mrs May]

The figures show that the proportion of police on the front line has gone up under this Government.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Home Secretary will know that I am a strong supporter of the police, but I hope she will bear in mind the lack of confidence that exists in the way that complaints about the police are investigated. For the public to have confidence in the police, it is important that complaints are properly investigated. I have some serious issues in west Yorkshire about how a particular case has been dealt with. Will she look again at how West Yorkshire police investigates complaints about its own police officers?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of ensuring that complaints against the police are dealt with properly and the concern that members of the public often have about the police investigating themselves. That is precisely why we are giving extra resources and powers to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. In future, the IPCC, rather than the police themselves, will investigate serious and sensitive complaints against the police. I am pleased to say that for the other complaints that will remain with the police at local level, many police and crime commissioners are looking at how they can introduce a degree of independent oversight or consideration of those complaints.

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

Greater Manchester police is constantly having to reform because its numbers have been cut by more than 400 since 2010. For the next 12 weeks, our local police and 150 specialist officers are being deployed to control a very small protest against the development of shale gas at Barton Moss. I am concerned that the police response to what is a small protest is complete overkill and very costly and that crime could soar in my constituency given that our diminished force is now being diminished even more.

[Mrs May]

I am pleased to say that crime in the Greater Manchester area is down by 9%. The hon. Lady raises the issue of how a particular protest is being policed by Greater Manchester police. That of course is an operational matter, which is entirely for the chief constable and officers of Greater Manchester police.

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

Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the Government are taking firm action to ensure that police forces accurately report crime statistics?

[Mrs May]

I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the Home Office does ensure that there are rules about what particular crimes should be recorded. This is a matter that will be looked at, and is looked at, by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. Under our new arrangements, the police and crime commissioners have, in at least one case, taken action. In Kent, the PCC asked HMIC to come in and look at the recording of crime to see whether there were any problems and to ensure that lessons were learned.

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

In an unprecedented step commissioned by the Opposition and a royal commission in all but name, Lord Stevens reported last week with the most comprehensive analysis in half a century of British policing. He sounds the warning bell that the Government’s reforms, and cuts to the front line—10,460—and partnership working risk returning our police service to a discredited model of reactive policing. Does the Home Secretary agree with Lord Stevens and does she support his recommendation that there should be a guaranteed level of neighbourhood policing? It is what works and it is what local people want.

[Mrs May]

Of course, Lord Stevens produced a number of recommendations in his report and I am happy to say that the Government have put quite a few of them in place through all the reforms we have been making—reforms that have, I might say, been opposed at every stage by those on the Labour Front Bench.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

2. What steps she is taking to tackle the supply of illegal drugs.

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

8. What steps she is taking to tackle the supply of illegal drugs.

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

We are committed to tackling the supply of illegal drugs in the UK and overseas. Action to restrict drug supply is a priority for the police and the new National Crime Agency. The coalition Government’s new serious and organised crime strategy emphasises the importance of tackling the organised crime that is associated with the drugs trade.

[Mr Robin Walker]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he agree that it is vital that the police target resources to crack down on the supply of drugs and will he therefore welcome the success of Operation Silence, recently launched by West Mercia police to target drugs in Worcester? Would he agree with the local police officer who said:

“To be as determined and tenacious as our drug dealers is morally the right thing to do”?

[Norman Baker]

Yes, I do agree with that. I am pleased to hear that robust action is being taken to damage that trade in my hon. Friend’s area and elsewhere in the country. I agree that visible law enforcement activity can be effective in restricting the supply of drugs and I am pleased to see the partnership in West Mercia and Warwickshire to steer drug misusers into treatment.

[Mr Amess]

Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Border Force and the National Crime Agency on their recent seizure of 850 kg of cocaine and does he agree that that shows that our approach to securing borders and tackling organised crime is paying dividends?

[Norman Baker]

I congratulate the National Crime Agency and Border Force on that seizure, which is believed to be the largest cocaine seizure in Britain for more than two years. It is a good example of the benefits that intelligence sharing and partnerships between law enforcement agencies can bring about in disrupting drug traffickers and other criminals. That is a key element in our efforts to tackle organised and serious crime.

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

If tackling illegal drugs is a priority for his Government, can the Minister explain to the House why police seizures of drugs fell by 9% in the past year to the lowest level since 2005?

[Norman Baker]

The hon. Gentleman might also reflect on the fact that drug use is at its lowest level since 1996. The number of drug offences in 2012-13 was also down by 9%, so we are clearly making significant progress in these matters.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Are not the Government adding to the supply of illegal drugs by criminalising a relatively low-harm drug, khat? That action will drive a wedge of antagonism between the police and two already marginalised communities. Is not the experience that every drug that is banned has an increase in its use and supply?

[Norman Baker]

No, that last point is not true at all. Some of the action we have taken on so-called legal highs, for example, has been very successful in driving down the use of those substances. As for khat, the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to exchange views with me at great length in the Select Committee on Home Affairs last week and I refer him to the comments I made on that occasion.

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

24. Can the Minister assure me that when new drugs or legal highs are discovered, he will take swift action? We do not want inordinate delay due to research, because of the harm done to people.

[Norman Baker]

I agree. We have a very good early warning system in this country, which is perhaps further ahead than those elsewhere in Europe. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that as a consequence of the action we have been keen to see occur, last week we saw a week of action from the police, the National Crime Agency, Border Force and others that led to 39 arrests and the seizure of thousands of pounds of cash, a firearm and 9 kg of substances from a head shop in Kent.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), does the Minister personally agree that khat should be reclassified as an illegal drug?

[Norman Baker]

I am tempted to say that I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago and at great length in the Home Affairs Committee. I went through the careful procedure that led the Home Secretary to conclude that the matter should be dealt with in the way that she dealt with it. That matter was decided long before I was a Minister in this office.

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

5. What steps she is taking to tackle online crime.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

The Government are taking a range of steps to combat online crime. They include significantly strengthening law enforcement’s capabilities through the creation of the national cybercrime unit, the establishment of specialist regional policing teams and training 5,000 police officers in digital investigation skills.

[Stephen Mosley]

Investigating and preventing online crime often requires specialist technical skills. Will the National Crime Agency be able to bring in non-police specialists, to ensure that it has access to the widest range of technical skills to tackle cybercrime?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes an important point on the need for specialist capabilities in the new national cybercrime unit, and indeed in the National Crime Agency. The NCA has established a specials programme to encourage people to volunteer to provide specialist knowledge. I do not know whether my hon. Friend, who has a strong background in IT, is making his case for being a special in the National Crime Agency, but that is certainly something that we are seeking to encourage.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

20. The Olympics were overseen by police Operation Podium to stop online criminal ticket touting. Will the Minister look into working with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to make the rugby world cup an event of national significance, and to stop real fans being ripped off?

[James Brokenshire]

I think the hon. Gentleman will be aware that ticketing fraud has been looked at by colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and Operation Podium was a great success for the Metropolitan police. The economic crime unit in the National Crime Agency is very focused on combating all forms of fraud. Certainly, we will continue to reflect on the need to take firm action on all fraud, wherever it occurs.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

6. What assessment she has made of the expected level of immigration from Romania and Bulgaria between 2014 and 2018.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

My hon. Friend will know that we consulted the Migration Advisory Committee on that question, and it advised us that making an estimate was not practical because of the number of variables, so we have not done so.

[Nigel Mills]

I am grateful for that answer. Having seen the numbers last week for the increase in migrants from the EU, does the Minister still believe that we can get total net migration down to the tens of thousands in this Parliament without having some restrictions on immigration by Romanians and Bulgarians next year?

[Mr Harper]

If my hon. Friend looked closely at the net migration statistics last week, he will have seen that what was interesting about them was not only the reduction in emigration by European Union nationals, but the fact that the increase in migration from the European Union involved people from not eastern Europe, or Romania and Bulgaria, but some of the southern European states, reflecting the weakness in their economy and the strength of ours.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Yesterday was the national day of Romania, celebrated in Bucharest, and also in White Hart Lane, where a young, talented Romanian, Vlad Chiriches, was man of the match. Is it still the Government’s position, as set out on the website in Bucharest, that we want Romanians to come to this country to live and work, provided that they do not claim benefits? How many members of the Government support the retention of the restrictions?

[Mr Harper]

Of course, since 2007, Romanians and Bulgarians have been able to come to Britain to study, if they are self-sufficient, or to work in a skilled occupation, where they have asked for permission to do so. All that is happening at the end of the year is that the general restrictions are being lifted. Of course, if they want to come here to work and contribute, they are very welcome to do so; the changes set out last week by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary make it clear that we do not want them coming here just to claim benefits. I think that those reforms are welcome and are supported by Government Members.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I congratulate the Government and the Minister on getting non-EU immigration figures down. I want to be helpful to him. He will know that the respected think-tank Migration Watch UK has predicted that between 30,000 and 70,000 Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants will come to the UK every year for five years. What figures, within those parameters, does he favour?

[Mr Harper]

As I said, we consulted the Migration Advisory Committee. I have seen a range of forecasts. I have seen the Migration Watch UK one, forecasts from the two countries concerned, which are much lower, and other forecasts that are much higher. The fact that there is such a range of forecasts from independent commentators demonstrates how sensible the Government’s decision was not to join in.

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

Three million Bulgarians have left their country to work in other countries over the last few years, because they have had the right to access 15 European countries. Is not a lot of the rhetoric that we have heard recently just scaremongering, following on from the disgraceful situation in the Eastleigh by-election? [Interruption.] I see a Member squinting; in that by-election, it was said that 3.1 million Bulgarians—more than half the population of Bulgaria—would be coming here in January next year. Why does the Minister not publish the actual number of Bulgarians who have come here to work in the past few years, so that we do not have this rhetoric running around the media?

[Mr Harper]

I wish that I could control the rhetoric running around the media, but unfortunately I cannot. Today I did an interview with the BBC in which I was more or less told that there is no problem, which was interesting, because, as I gently pointed out, it is running an entire week of programmes on the subject. That suggests it has a strange sense of priorities. To answer the right hon. Gentleman’s point seriously, the Government have been clear that if people want to come here to work and contribute, as Romanians and Bulgarians have done since 2007, that is absolutely fine. The changes we made last week are about ensuring that people do not come here to claim benefits. It is also worth noting that 79% of the new jobs created since the Government came to power have gone to British citizens.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Although I welcome the measures that the Government have taken on benefits, which will have an effect, are not the concerns about immigration from Romania and Bulgaria really just the tip of a wider problem? With much of southern and eastern Europe still heading into recession, tolerance of the free movement of people is quite close to reaching its natural end.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is why our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week that we very much want to look at free movement and how we negotiate future accession arrangements for large countries. He set out a range of things we might want to consider, other than just time limits—for example, relative income levels in countries—which I think has great merit.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The Minister did not really answer the question from the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), so let me give him another go. Given that figures published last week show that net migration rose to 182,000, from 167,000, over the previous year, before the impact of any Romanian and Bulgarian immigration in January, does he think that the target, as set out in the Prime Minister’s solemn manifesto pledge, of having a net migration in the “tens of thousands,” to quote the hon. Member for Amber Valley, by May 2015 will be met—yes or no?

[Mr Harper]

When the right hon. Gentleman’s party was in power, net migration reached 2.1 million. I should also point out, to help the shadow Home Secretary, who was challenged on this yesterday by Andrew Neil, that most of that immigration was from countries outside the European Union. There was a large bar chart showing that on the television screen, but she denied what is reality.

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

9. What steps she has taken to restrict access to benefits for immigrants.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

My hon. Friend will have noted the steps set out last week by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to tighten up the benefits system and ensure that those coming to Britain do so to work and contribute, rather than to take out of the country.

[Mr Turner]

A thought-provoking article on migration published last week by Civitas shows that the British sense of fairness dictates that there should be some link between what people put into the welfare state and what they get out of it. Does my hon. Friend agree that in the case of new immigrants there is very little link at all, and does that not need to be looked at?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend is spot on. A number of the changes we set out last week do exactly that. For example, we are limiting the period over which a jobseeker can keep claiming benefits to six months. Colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions have strengthened the habitual residence test to ensure that it is tougher. We have also made sure that if people who come here are not exercising treaty rights and we remove them from the United Kingdom, we can stop them returning unless they demonstrate that they are going to do so.

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

Much of the detail on access to benefits is determined locally, and it is quite difficult, even after checking with the House of Commons Library or the website, to understand what some of the precise definitions mean. What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that local authorities and the various agencies interpret what he thinks is a toughening consistently across the country?

[Mr Harper]

On the hon. Lady’s point about benefits, those are not decisions for local authorities but for the Department for Work and Pensions, which trains its staff very carefully and gives them clear guidance. They are rolling out the new habitual residence test, which is robust and has a clear script with questions that people are asked. There will be further changes on access to housing benefit. We will make sure that where these decisions are for local authorities they are provided with clear guidance so that they can make the right decisions in the tougher regime.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

On 1 January, when the transitional controls on Romania and Bulgaria are lifted, will entry also be permitted to non-EU citizens who have Bulgarian or Romanian passports? If so, will the very large number of Moldovans who have Romanian passports be entitled to benefits, like Romanians and Bulgarians?

[Mr Harper]

I may be missing something, but if people have Romanian or Bulgarian passports and are citizens of Romania or Bulgaria, they are entitled to come to Britain because those countries are members of the European Union. Indeed, they could come to Britain today; the transitional restrictions are only about whether they can come here to work. People with a Romanian or Bulgarian passports—citizens of those countries—are of course able to come to Britain today.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

My constituents are pretty accepting of migration and have been for very many years, and I have always been liberal about migration to our country, but what does worry them is not just the benefit position but whether we have enough school places and social housing. Do we have enough public services to meet the challenge of a fresh wave of immigration?

[Mr Harper]

It is very good, of course, that the hon. Gentleman takes a very liberal approach; he will have been delighted, then, when his party was in power and had net migration of 2.1 million over its period in office, but I do not think that was the general view. On the availability of public services, it is exactly because of the pressures on school places and on access to GPs that the Government have reduced net migration by nearly a third since the election. We want to make sure that people who are coming here are doing so to contribute and to pay their way, and that immigration is properly controlled.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

10. What changes she plans to make to the deportation appeals system.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

We are making changes in the Immigration Bill to reduce the number of appeal rights and to ensure that those convicted of criminal offences will, in most cases, be able to be deported first and their appeal to take place from overseas.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to the Minister for tightening up the previous Government’s deportation regulations so that the scandalous waste of time it took to deport Hamza and Qatada can never happen again. Can he confirm that the proposals he has tabled are unlikely to be struck down by the European Court of Human Rights? If they might be, is he prepared to take action against the European convention on human rights first?

[Mr Harper]

We have looked very carefully at this, and we are confident that the measures in the Immigration Bill, including the changes that clause 14 makes to put article 8 on a proper statutory basis, are robust. The Home Secretary has made it clear that at the election we will have to deal with the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the convention. Indeed, that has been reinforced by comments from Lord Sumption, who pointed out that the Court is now engaged in judicial law-making, which is in constitutional terms remarkable, taking many contentious issues that should be questions for political debate and turning them into questions of law to be resolved by a tribunal. I could not agree with him more.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

11. What assessment she has made of trends in the number of referrals from the police to the Crown Prosecution Service for domestic violence offences.

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

The Home Office chaired a meeting with the former Director of Public Prosecutions in September. This has led to a six-point plan to increase the number of referrals from the police to the Crown Prosecution Service. I am meeting the new Director of Public Prosecutions this week to discuss what more we can do to secure more convictions. However, it should be noted that last year saw the highest ever conviction rate for domestic violence prosecutions.

[Julie Elliott]

I thank the Minister for that answer. However, as we know from the crime survey, instances of domestic violence are increasing quite dramatically at the moment, and there has been a 13% fall in the number of cases referred to the CPS from the police since the election. Is a six-point plan really enough to tackle this serious problem?

[Norman Baker]

I agree that it is a serious problem, and that is why the Home Secretary and I have been working to deal with it. The six-point plan includes Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary looking specifically at police referrals to the CPS, reviewing the use of out-of-court disposals for these cases, and convening a national scrutiny panel to look at the trends in, for example, rape referral levels. We are taking these matters very seriously. As I said, I am meeting the DPP this week.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s decision last week to introduce Clare’s law and, in parallel, domestic violence protection orders. Does the Minister agree that those two steps will do a great deal to protect women against domestic violence?

[Norman Baker]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and welcome the action she has taken for a long time on these matters. The pilot schemes for both Clare’s law and the protection orders demonstrated that they were useful. They were well used in the pilot areas and make a difference in driving down the incidence of domestic violence.

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

Referrals are going down, but reported cases of domestic violence are going up. Today’s The Times also reports leaked figures showing that other crimes, including burglary and street robbery, are going up. Does the Minister now regret the Government’s complacency and the way in which they have undermined crime prevention specialist units, neighbourhood police and domestic violence support services?

[Norman Baker]

I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong on almost all counts. On the piece in this morning’s The Times, the hon. Gentleman might want to know that crime recorded by north-west police has fallen by 17% since June 2010 and that West Yorkshire has seen a drop of 15% in the same period. We welcome the fact that we now have a system whereby people—and women in particular—have more confidence to come forward to report domestic violence. [Interruption.] I hope you can hear me above the hubble-bubble opposite, Mr Speaker. I hope the situation will lead in due course to an increase in the number of prosecutions and convictions. Given that the matters are now firmly in the public mind, as they should be, historical cases are also coming forward and they are pushing the figures up.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

12. How many random inquiries on immigration status have been made in public places in each of the last six months.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

None.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

That is a surprising answer, because a number of us have witnessed immigration officers at Metropolitan line and other tube stations around London stopping people and asking them for their immigration status. Will the Minister assure me that no immigration officer would ever stop anyone randomly in a public place, ask them for identity documents and then call in the police to assist them with their inquiries, when there is no requirement to carry identity cards at any time in this country? Indeed, such identity cards do not even exist.

[Mr Harper]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not conduct random operations; we conduct intelligence-led operations, as did the previous Government, and they are very successful. The street operations we have conducted this year have led to the arrest of almost a third of those encountered. They are very successful in enforcing our immigration laws. We do not stop people at random; we are not empowered to do so by law and even if we were, we would not do so as a matter of policy. We stop people when we think there is intelligence to indicate that they are breaking our immigration laws, and I make no apology for that.

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

I thank the Minister and his staff for the support they gave recently to a constituent of mine to clarify a situation and smooth over the problems.

The number of illegals being identified by the police at the ferry terminals in my area—which is part of the common travel area—has fallen only slightly. Is the Minister able to tell the House the number of people in that category who are stopped but not properly processed and who simply disappear?

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s opening remarks.

I do not have the figures to hand, because I was not aware that he intended to ask that question. I will look at the issue in detail and write to him, but on the common travel area in general, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims signed an agreement with the Irish Justice Minister in, I think, December 2011. We are taking steps with the Irish Republic to strengthen the common travel area to make sure that our borders continue to get more secure.

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

13. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Education on preventing violence against women and girls.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The Department for Education routinely attends meetings of the violence against women and girls inter-ministerial group. We are committed to working in collaboration with the Department of Education to deliver actions from the violence against women and girls action plan to help young people better understand issues such as consent and healthy relationships.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Given that two women a week die at the hands of a partner or ex-partner and, alarmingly, that 50% of young men and 43% of young women feel it is acceptable for men to be aggressive towards their partners, the situation needs collective action. What in particular is the Home Secretary doing in conjunction with the Education Secretary about the introduction of compulsory relationship and sex education, not just in the secondary maintained sector, but in the primary and secondary sectors?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to point to the appalling figures for the number of women who lose their lives each week in this country at the hands of a partner or former partner. Sadly, that figure has not changed for many years. Regularly, for a number of years, about two women a week have lost their lives in that way.

I share the hon. Lady’s concern about the figures showing the number of young people who think that abuse within a relationship is normal. That is something that we must change. It is why the Home Office will shortly relaunch our very successful “This is Abuse” national campaign, which shows young people when actions constitute abuse and helps them to understand that.

Early next year, Home Office Ministers will meet Ministers from the Department for Education and teaching unions to raise awareness among staff and pupils about risks linked to violence against women and girls. I am pleased to say that the Department for Education is providing funding to the PSHE Association to work with schools that are developing their personal, social, health and economic education curricula, which includes sex and relationships education.

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

14. What steps she is taking to ensure that all appropriate powers are available to seize the UK and overseas assets of people engaged in human trafficking.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

The Government are committed to tackling human trafficking and are determined to build on the UK’s strong record in supporting victims. The proposed modern slavery Bill, the first of its kind in Europe, will strengthen our response by increasing the number of successful prosecutions and convictions. The new serious and organised crime strategy makes it clear that attacking criminal finances is at the heart of our efforts to pursue all organised criminals. We are committed to strengthening legislation and ensuring that existing powers are effectively deployed both here and overseas.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Given the challenges of seizing traffickers’ assets, will he ensure that greater urgency is given to getting hold of them and making sure they go to compensate the victims of these horrendous crimes?

[James Brokenshire]

I think that it is important to underline to my hon. and learned Friend the steps that are being taken. Last year, about £1 million was taken off human trafficking offenders by way of enforcement of confiscation orders. Equally, I am absolutely clear on the need for more action. That is why the new National Crime Agency has been tasked with making the tackling of modern slavery one of its priorities, and why we are introducing the modern slavery Bill to up prosecutions and up such enforcement action. Indeed, the Bill will include provision for a new commissioner to get a stronger operational response on the recovery of assets and on other prosecutions.

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

One of the poisonous sidelines in the deplorable trade of human trafficking is of course the existence of rogue and criminal gangmasters. Are the Government minded to support Labour’s call to extend the gangmasters licensing regime to cover sectors to which this devastating trade has now spread, because it has gone beyond its traditional areas into construction, social care and other sectors where these rogues and criminals reside?

[James Brokenshire]

I can say to the hon. Gentleman that the National Crime Agency is working closely with the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and, indeed, has been involved in an important operation in Cambridgeshire in the past few weeks. Evidence is being taken by the Centre for Social Justice as part of our preparations for the modern slavery Bill. We are focusing on provisions that relate to enforcement by policing and law enforcement agencies, but we will clearly keep operational matters under review.

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

On the basis of figures about UK citizens receiving consular advice for alleged trafficking and the fact that very few seem to be brought to justice overseas, is the Minister giving proper attention and resources to ensuring that UK citizens who ply this evil trade abroad are properly brought to justice?

[James Brokenshire]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on the need to look at this complex issue both domestically in the UK and overseas. That is why we are working with other Governments and our embassies to strengthen support services for victims and to prevent these appalling crimes from occurring. The National Crime Agency has a focus on looking internationally and co-ordinating its work with overseas law enforcement agencies, so ensuring that where there is evidence, those involved in these pernicious crimes will be brought to justice.

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

15. What steps she is taking to reduce net immigration.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

We have reduced net migration by nearly a third since its peak in 2010. Immigration continues to fall, with immigration from outside the EU at its lowest level since 1998. We will continue to take steps to keep immigration under control, while allowing the best and the brightest to come to Britain to contribute to our economy.

[Gordon Henderson]

I welcome the Minister’s answer, but will he assure me that the Government will remove people who are not here to work and prevent them from coming back, unless they have a very good, legitimate reason for doing so?

[Mr Harper]

From last week’s announcements, my hon. Friend will have noted that we are changing the relevant regulations so that if EU citizens in Britain are, for example, involved in low-level criminality or rough sleeping, and not exercising their treaty rights, we will be able to remove them and prevent them from coming back, unless they can demonstrate that they will immediately be exercising those treaty rights. I think that those changes will be welcomed in the country.

[Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)]

Will the Minister address that part of his responsibilities in this policy area as they affect would-be foreign students coming to study in this country? On 17 October, he painted a pretty positive picture in a written answer to me on this issue, but that stands in stark contrast to what the UK university sector is saying about a massive loss of income and of international good will for our country.

[Mr Harper]

I am surprised by that, because figures published last week showed a 7% increase—an increased increase on the previous statistics—in the number of such students going to our universities. There is no reason why a student who is properly qualified, who can speak English and who can pay their fees cannot come to a university, and if they get a graduate-level job, they can stay afterwards to work and to continue contributing, so I am not sure why the university sector is saying that. The increase in the number of students does not support its argument.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

Although I can understand, given the grotesque underestimate by the previous Government, my hon. Friend’s reluctance to predict the number of Bulgarians and Romanians likely to come to this country, may I encourage him to give the public and local authorities some indication so that they can plan? Furthermore, even at this late stage, may I invite the Government to support new clause 1 to the Immigration Bill to extend the transitional arrangements—and let us see the courts of these islands, or indeed the European Court of Justice, defy the will of Parliament?

[Mr Harper]

On the first point, predictions only have any value if they are accurate. I am sure that my hon. Friend was listening carefully to my earlier answer, but the figures from independent commentators—from the countries concerned to Migration Watch and other forecasters—are wide-ranging. Indeed, from what I think I heard an Opposition Member say, there is a political party in this country that thinks that all 29 million citizens of those two countries are going to arrive at Heathrow airport on 1 January. With that range of forecasts, it would not be wise to make any predictions.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

16. What changes she is considering to terrorism prevention and investigation measures.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

TPIMs provide some of the most restrictive measures available in the democratic world and, unlike control orders, they have been consistently upheld by the courts. The Security Service and police believe they have been effective in reducing the threat posed by TPIM subjects, and the Government have made it clear to the police and Security Service that every available power under TPIMs should be used to its fullest possible extent.

[Kevin Brennan]

In the last year under the Homes Secretary’s scheme, Ibrahim Magag and Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed have absconded. Does she have any idea where either man is, and will she confirm that, contrary to what she said last time she was in the House, she has no idea where Mr Mohamed’s passport is?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to make verbally the amendment I made in Hansard. In my statement to the House about Mr Mohamed, I told the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, that I thought the police had his passport. I wrote to him afterwards explaining that that information was incorrect. The police did not have his passport, because when he returned to the UK, he was not in possession of a passport and therefore it was not possible to remove it from him.

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

The Home Secretary’s weak TPIMs regime reaches a milestone on 26 January 2014, when seven out of the eight TPIM orders expire and cannot be renewed. This includes the TPIM governing AY, who is believed to be a key member of the group behind attempts to blow up transatlantic flights with liquid bombs and who travelled to Pakistan to learn bomb making, and AM, who was involved in the same plot. Lord Justice Wilkie concluded that he was “highly intelligent” and

“prepared to be a martyr in an attack designed to take many lives.”

Will she explain why these individuals will be freed from all restrictions by the end of January 2014?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady is aware of the legislation, as is everybody else, but I take issue with her description of TPIMs. As she will have heard me say in answer to her hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), TPIMs provide some of the most restrictive measures available in the democratic world. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation stated:

“In terms of security, the TPIM regime continues to provide a high degree of protection against untriable and undeportable persons who are judged on substantial grounds to be dangerous terrorists,”.

The hon. Lady talks about people coming off TPIMs as if no one had ever come off a control order. In fact, 43 people came off control orders because the previous Government revoked them because they were quashed in court, or in six cases because people absconded and were never seen again.

[Lorraine Fullbrook (South Ribble) (Con)]

18. What steps she is taking to broaden entrance to the police service.

[The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Damian Green)]

We have moved away from a single point of recruitment and are introducing entry direct to senior police ranks to encourage the most able and those with strong evidence of delivery. There are now different routes to enter as a constable, including having a level 3 qualification, a police qualification or relevant policing experience.

[Lorraine Fullbrook]

Some claim that a person cannot serve as a senior police officer without having served in the lower ranks, but direct entry is successful in the armed forces and the prison service. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the College of Policing should look at best practice in those professions to ensure that direct entry encourages the best and brightest talent from all walks of life to join the police service?

[Damian Green]

I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that the College of Policing will do exactly that. Clearly, many of the best and brightest people already join the police service, but we can always make it better. The proposals are designed to ensure that a wider talent pool is available to the police.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

19. What involvement the UK has had in Project Spade; and if she will make a statement.

[The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Damian Green)]

In July 2012, prior to its incorporation into the National Crime Agency, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre received information via Interpol from Toronto police as part of Project Spade. The NCA CEOP command has now undertaken additional assessment of the data provided, and information was provided to police forces on 26 November. Investigations in the UK are therefore ongoing. Being part of the NCA brings advantages for CEOP, including the ability to draw on specialist skills, resources and the international network.

[Dr Huppert]

The Prime Minister and Home Secretary talk often about the need to combat child abuse images, and keep asking for more powers. We now know that when excellent police work happens in Canada, which released 386 young children, and 2,345 specific suspects are passed on to CEOP and the British police, the British police do nothing for 18 months. Does the Minister agree it is important for the police to get the basics right, not to keep asking for more powers?

[Damian Green]

That is precisely why CEOP has been moved to the National Crime Agency. Since its launch, the NCA can already demonstrate operational success in tackling child exploitation. As part of a recent operation by the NCA, which has been up and running for only a couple of months, 25 individuals were arrested on suspicion of involvement in the distribution of indecent images of children. The move to the NCA has made CEOP even more effective than it was in the past.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

My Department continues its work to bring forward a modern slavery Bill, which will strengthen our response to that appalling crime. We propose to introduce new legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows, and will publish a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. The Bill will clarify existing legislation and enable the courts to restrict activity that puts others at risk, ensuring that more traffickers are identified, disrupted and brought to justice. We are determined to build on the UK’s strong track record in supporting victims and fighting traffickers.

The House will be aware of Friday’s tragic incident in Glasgow, in which a Police Scotland helicopter crashed into the Clutha pub. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims, their friends and families. The national police operational co-ordination centre stands ready to assist Police Scotland in any way it can, and the National Police Air Service has also offered air support to Scotland for critical incidents.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

I am sure the whole House joins the Home Secretary in her condolences to those affected by the growing tragedy in Glasgow.

Recently in Fleetwood, a joint operation between Wyre borough council, Fleetwood police, and local pub landlords through Pubwatch targeted the illegal use of drugs. Interestingly, a drug sniffer dog was used among customers, which was totally welcomed by customers and landlords alike—except, perhaps, by the one person arrested. Does the Home Secretary welcome more of those joint and direct operations by police and local councils on the front line to bring back confidence in our communities?

[Mr Speaker]

I thought the hon. Gentleman was applying for an Adjournment debate, but then I realised he has already had it.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he gives me the opportunity to welcome joint action at local level. I commend Wyre borough council, Lancashire police and publicans for their work. I am pleased to say that we will announce shortly a number of local alcohol action areas, which will seek to tackle alcohol-related crime and health harms, and diversify the night-time economy beyond businesses centred on selling alcohol.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I join the Home Secretary is sending our sympathy to those who have lost loved ones or been affected by the tragic helicopter crash in Glasgow. We pay tribute to the emergency services who are still working hard to help people.

The Home Secretary will be aware that before the election the number of prosecutions and convictions for rape, domestic violence and child abuse was going up year on year as a result of the bravery of victims and hard work by the police, Crown Prosecution Service, Government agencies and support workers. The police recognised today that the number of prosecutions and convictions for rape has fallen since the election, even though more crimes are being recorded. The number of cases being referred by the police to the courts has dropped by 33% since the election. Will she tell the House why that has happened?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the figures; they are a concern and the Government are looking at them. My hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Prevention will be taking this issue forward. As he said in response to an earlier question, there was a meeting at the Home Office between Ministers and the Director of Public Prosecutions a couple of months or so ago to look at the issue and find out where the problem lies. Historic incidents are now being reported— we have seen a number of reports of claims of crimes in relation to Operation Yewtree and others—but it is right that we look carefully to ascertain what the issue is. That is exactly what the Minister for Crime Prevention will be doing when he takes this matter forward with the incoming Director of Public Prosecutions later this week.

[Yvette Cooper]

I have to say that there seem to be a lot of meetings that are just not working. The trouble is that this is not just about rape: prosecutions and convictions are down for domestic violence and child abuse, too, even though the number of reported crimes in those areas is also increasing. The police are referring 13% fewer domestic violence cases and 28% fewer child abuse cases to the courts since the election, before which the figures were going up. Those are shocking figures: there are more crimes and more serious offenders are getting away with it. The police are being hollowed out and specialist units cut. The Home Secretary said three years ago that tackling violence against women was her priority. I urge her to start treating it as such.

[Mrs May]

I note that we are seeing higher conviction rates for rape, and we should all welcome that. I tried to answer the right hon. Lady’s question in a way that was serious and sensible. This is a matter that we need to be concerned about and consider, but we cannot know what the answer is until we have identified why, for example, we have seen fewer referrals from the police. Until we—[Interruption.] The right hon. Lady is muttering from a sedentary position and making certain assumptions. I take a simple view: it is right and proper to consider the causes behind these figures. Only when we do that will we be able to ensure that the action we take will address the issue. I repeat that she must recognise, as I am sure she does, that the figures for higher reports of violence and abuse include a significant increase as a result of historical operations—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the Home Secretary. I remind the House that topical questions and answers are supposed to be brief. We can be led in that now by Mr Martin Vickers.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

T2. My constituents are concerned about immigration from Romania and Bulgaria and would like to see the transitional period extended. Public opinion in neighbouring EU states shows that that view is widely shared. Have the Government had discussions with other EU Governments on united action?

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

It is not possible to extend transitional controls due to the terms of the accession treaties signed by the Labour party when it was in government. Eight other European countries will remove those controls at the end of the year. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has, however, been working with our European colleagues to tighten the rules so that we see a reduction in the abuse of free movement.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

I welcome that fact that now, under Clare’s law, victims of serial perpetrators of domestic violence will be able to get disclosures from right across the country. The Home Secretary knows that victims are probably at their most vulnerable at the point of disclosure, so will she ensure that organisations such as Women’s Aid and domestic violence advisers have sufficient resources to be able to protect those victims at that point?

[Mrs May]

I recognise the interest that the right hon. Lady has taken in the question of Clare’s law and the work that she did to promote the concept behind it, following the sad and tragic death of one of her constituents who did not have access to information about their partner. What we have seen among the police forces that have been piloting Clare’s law is a real understanding of the need to work closely with other organisations such as Women’s Aid to ensure that there is support for victims. I am pleased to say that the Government have ring-fenced £40 million for local support, including for independent domestic violence advocates, who often play a key role in such cases.

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

T3. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to stop illegal immigrants from getting driving licences?

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

We are indeed taking steps. It is not right that someone who is here illegally should be able to access UK driving licences, which are used not just for driving but to get access to benefits and services. The Immigration Bill strengthens our ability to issue licences only to those who are lawfully here and enables us for the first time to revoke licences held by those who should not be here.

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

Does the Minister share my concern at reports that, because of pressure on police numbers, police officers are increasingly attending domestic violence incidents singly, which makes it more difficult for them to separate partners and puts the officers themselves at risk?

[Norman Baker]

I am confident that the police can deal with domestic violence incidents more effectively now that domestic violence protection orders are in place, which enable them to separate the perpetrator and victim immediately by requiring the perpetrator to leave the premises.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

T4. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is right for the Government to review the implications of the free movement directive, particularly for EU migration—and I welcome her remarks last week—and to look at individual measures such as imposing a cap on numbers of European migrants, once they reach a certain threshold?

[Mrs May]

I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to look at the issue of free movement—and it will be possible to do that because the Conservatives have a commitment as a party to renegotiate the treaty and to look at free movement within it. In future, we should consider a number of measures regarding the accession of countries into the EU and into free movement, so that we can protect public and other services that are available to our citizens.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that the police and crime commissioner for the Thames Valley has blamed her 20% cut in spending on the police for the cuts he has made to the community safety funds for local government. My authority of Slough has been cut by £40,000, while the right hon. Lady’s has been cut by nothing. Can that be fair in an era when Slough has already reduced crime by 5% and needs these resources to carry on making progress?

[The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Damian Green)]

I am happy to tell the hon. Lady what is fair. What is fair is that recorded crime in the Slough community safety partnership is down by 26% in the 12 months to June 2013, which is greater than the overall figure for England and Wales. That was between 2012 and 2013, so I am sure the hon. Lady will welcome this improved service to her constituents.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

T5. After the wave of mass immigration under the previous Labour Government, my constituents believe that this country is full, and do not want to see unrestricted immigration from Romania, Bulgaria and, as it now turns out, up to one third of Moldova. At this late stage with a month to go, I urge the Home Secretary to think again and not to waive the transitional controls.

[Mr Harper]

Obviously I understand why my hon. Friend’s constituents are concerned, given the appalling job that was done by the Labour Government. In fact, under Labour twice as many people arrived from outside the European Union as arrived from within it. However, as I said earlier, the transitional controls under the accession treaties that Labour signed can last only until the end of the year, and eight other European countries are removing those controls. That is why we have announced changes to ensure that anyone who comes to this country comes to work and not to claim benefits.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

A number of my constituents who have been given leave to remain in this country, in some cases after appealing, are now spending several months waiting for the paperwork to come through, with the result that a number of them cannot take up job offers. What steps is the Department taking to deal with that?

[Mr Harper]

If the hon. Lady knows of any specific cases and has not already written to me about them, I suggest that she do so. Since we split up the UK Border Agency, UK Visas and Immigration has been concentrating on improving its customer service standards. We have already reduced the backlog of cases by a significant amount in the current financial year, and we will continue to do so. The new director general is focusing on improving performance for our customers.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

T6. What action is the Home Secretary taking to ensure that child victims of trafficking are receiving all the support to which they are entitled, and would she consider piloting a system of independent guardianship?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

Ultimately, child trafficking is a form of child abuse. When such crimes take place, not only should those responsible be brought to justice, but victims should receive all the support that they need. Local authorities have a strategy duty under the Children Act 2004 to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, and the Department for Education, recognising the specific needs of child victims of trafficking, is considering ways of strengthening support arrangements for them.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary will, I hope, be aware of the tragic murder of my constituent Bijan Ebrahimi, whose killer was sentenced last Thursday. He was attacked because his neighbours thought, quite unjustifiably, that he was a paedophile. I have written to the Home Secretary, but may I urge her to do all that she can to ensure that the Independent Police Complaints Commission has the resources that will enable it to report as quickly as possible? Resolving this matter is very important for community cohesion in the area.

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady has made a very serious point about what is, as she says, a terrible case. I have not yet seen the letter that she sent to me, but I will look at it extremely carefully. We are providing extra resources for the IPCC to try to ensure that it can do its job effectively in looking into the way in which complaints about the police have been dealt with.

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

T7. What improvements are planned to exit and entry checks at ports of entry on the Irish sea which form part of the common border area with the Irish Republic?

[Mr Harper]

I know that this matter is of concern to my hon. Friend and his constituents, because he wrote to me about it early this year. As I said earlier during Home Office questions, we continue to work closely with the Irish Republic following the protocol signed by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims. We work closely with the Republic in sharing intelligence to strengthen the controls that ensure that our country is properly protected.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Given the record number of animal experiments that were recorded in 2012, what action are the Government taking to create a downward rather than an upward trend?

[Norman Baker]

I am pleased to say that we are taking strong action in that regard, in particular by promoting the alternatives to animal experiments to the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research. We are leading the world in that regard.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

T8. At a time when Britain is showing strong leadership internationally against sexual violence, is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary aware of the work done domestically and locally by the Norfolk Says No campaign against domestic abuse, which completed a great week of work last week?

[Norman Baker]

I congratulate those who are involved in the Norfolk Says No campaign. We need more such examples of excellent local practice to ensure that our message reaches women in their daily lives, and police and crime commissioners have a role to play in the matter.

Energy Bills

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

15:34

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)]

With permission Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the action the Government are taking to reduce the impact of Government policies on energy bills.

British households pay some of the lowest prices for gas and electricity in Europe, but that is no comfort to those who have seen energy bills rise considerably over the past 10 years. The latest round of price rises announced by the energy companies has been particularly unwelcome, coming ahead of what is likely to be a cold winter. In such circumstances, it is right that people ask whether these rises are justified and what the Government are doing to keep energy bills affordable now and in the long term.

The main driver of the energy price rises has been rising wholesale energy costs, and the need to upgrade energy infrastructure to ensure security of supply in the long term. Wholesale and network costs make up over two thirds of bills. Supplier costs and profits make up around a fifth. Energy companies need to be more open about these costs so that consumers can judge which suppliers are acting responsibly and keeping their costs down.

Working with Ofgem, the Government are making this possible by forcing the energy companies to open up their books and justify price rises to their customers. We are increasing competition in the market to bear down on prices and provide people with a proper choice of supplier, and as I announced in the annual energy statement, Ofgem, working with the competition authorities, will report annually on the state of competition in the market, looking in depth and across the energy sector at profits and prices, barriers to entry and consumer engagement. Ofgem’s reforms for competition in the retail market are already making it easier for people to understand their bills, work out where they can get the best deal, and switch providers easily.

But it is also right that the Government are open about their social and environmental policies, which make up just under a 10th of the average bill. Our policies provide for immediate help for the most vulnerable with direct cuts to bills, as well as long-term savings on bills through energy-efficiency programmes and support for low-carbon energy that boosts energy security and tackles climate change. For example, the warm home discount cuts the bills of 2 million vulnerable households by £135. The energy company obligation provides permanent long-term savings on bills, including to the most vulnerable, by helping people to upgrade their homes and making them easier and cheaper to keep warm.

Support for cleaner energy increases our energy security and boosts investment in our thriving renewable energy industry, with tens of thousands of green jobs being created, but unlike the winter fuel payment, which provides around 12.5 million pensioners with help with their bills, and cold weather payments, which last year provided over £146 million to cut bills for the most vulnerable, policies such as the renewables obligation, ECO and the warm home discount are paid for directly by consumers through their bills, rather than through general taxation. So it is right that Government keep these social and environmental obligations paid for by energy bill payers under continuous review, and where we can act to reduce their impact on bills, while maintaining the integrity of our policy, we will, but as we do this, we must act responsibly. We must ensure—[Interruption.] We must ensure that the changes we make maintain the support provided to the most vulnerable, maintain the investment in clean energy and do not have a negative impact on our carbon reduction ambitions.

In this spirit, the Government have reviewed the cost profile of social and environmental policies and I can today announce proposals that would reduce the average household bill next year by £50 on average. First, the Government will provide £300 million—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let us have a bit of order in the House. The Secretary of State is doing his best to plough on—[Interruption.] No, he is doing his best to plough on through his statement. Let me say to the House that the opportunity to question the Secretary of State will arise, and that is what he would expect, but the Secretary of State is entitled to be heard courteously from start to finish.

[Mr Davey]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

First, the Government will provide £300 million in both 2014 and 2015, £600 million in all, for a new rebate to all domestic electricity customers worth £12. Secondly, we propose to consult on remodelling the ECO so that it is easier and cheaper to deliver. The changes to the ECO would result in between £30 and £35 off average bills next year, although the precise reduction in individual households’ bills would depend on their energy supplier. The existing dedicated support in the ECO for low-income and vulnerable households—affordable warmth and the carbon saving community obligation—will both be maintained at current levels and extended from March 2015 until March 2017. The other element of the ECO, the carbon emissions reduction obligation, will also be extended by two years but reduced by 33%. These changes are subject to consultation, which will be carried out early in the new year. In addition to Government action, the electricity distribution network operators are willing to take voluntary action to reduce network costs in 2014-15, which would enable suppliers to pass on an average one-off £5 reduction in domestic electricity bills.

I have been clear from the start that support for low-carbon energy should not change, and it will not. The Government recognise that green energy investment incentives such as the renewables obligation, contracts for difference and feed-in tariffs are essential for investment in future home-grown clean energy generation. Without this low-carbon investment, energy security would be jeopardised as Britain would become ever more dependent on imported oil and gas, and energy bills in the future would be increasingly subject to high and volatile fossil fuel prices. The Government will also ensure that their overall approach will cut just as much carbon as planned. New measures, worth more than £540 million over three years, will boost energy efficiency even further by introducing new schemes for home-movers, landlords and public sector buildings.

In future, when people buy a new home, they could get up to £1,000 from the Government to spend on important energy-saving measures—equivalent to half the stamp duty on the average house—or up to £4,000 for particularly expensive measures. The scheme will be available to all people moving house, including those who do not pay stamp duty, helping around 60,000 homes a year over three years. The Government will also introduce a scheme to support private landlords in improving the energy efficiency of their properties, which will improve some 15,000 of the least energy-efficient rental properties each year for three years. Together, the home buyers and private rental schemes will be worth £450 million over three years. In addition, £90 million over three years will be spent on improving the energy efficiency of schools, hospitals and other public sector buildings.

The Government will deliver a significant boost to the green deal, increasing the funds available to local authorities this year through the green deal communities scheme from £20 million to £80 million, to help support “street-by-street” programmes for hard-to-treat homes in a cost-effective way. We will keep the green deal cashback scheme open, which will protect jobs in the energy efficiency industry before the new measures take effect.

All the major energy suppliers have confirmed that they will pass the benefits of this package on to their customers. The reduction in individual household bills will depend on the energy supplier: some companies have not yet announced price rises for 2014, or have limited their rise until the Government’s review of green levies concluded. Others have announced price rises and have indicated that they will reduce their customers’ bills as a result of these changes. Energy companies will now make final detailed decisions about how to apply these measures, but these cost reductions will ensure that average energy bills are lower in 2014 than they otherwise would have been—on average, by £50 per household. As the major energy companies have now confirmed, there will be no need for price rises in 2014, unless of course there is a major change in wholesale or network costs. Some have gone further, with commitments to hold prices down for longer.

Today’s announcement of cuts to energy bills is just part of the concerted action the Government are taking to help hard-working families, including through income tax cuts, the council tax freeze and the fuel duty freeze. This help for people with energy bills is being achieved while we maintain and extend support for the fuel-poor and continue to back green energy, and by boosting energy efficiency. I commend this statement to the House.

15:43

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

May I start by asking the Secretary of State a very simple question: does he accept that the sum total of everything he said in his statement today, which includes spending £600 million of taxpayers’ money and weakening the obligation on energy companies to deliver energy efficiency, is that the energy companies will still be allowed to put up people’s bills this winter? Does he really think that is a good deal for consumers?

The Secretary of State claimed that today’s announcement would lead to a £50 reduction in people’s bills. To be clear, will he confirm that if the average increase in energy bills this winter is £120, even if the companies do pass on the reductions from the cut in levies, the average household bill will actually be £70 higher than last winter? As I understand it, one supplier has announced that it will wait until March before passing on any price reduction, and another has made no commitment at all on reducing bills. What powers, if any, does the Secretary of State have to ensure that this reduction is passed on fully and immediately?

The Secretary of State will know that for the past two years we have said that the energy company obligation is bureaucratic, inefficient and poorly targeted. The scheme was designed and implemented under his Government. Indeed, the Prime Minister boasted in the House on 23 January that it was “bigger and better” than the schemes that had gone before it. When did the Secretary of State decide that the scheme needed to be cut? Was it this weekend? Could that explain why an impact assessment will not be published until next year? Will he also tell us how many fewer households will receive energy efficiency measures this year and next year than was originally planned under the scheme?

The Secretary of State wants to talk about the total number of households that will be helped, but if the scheme was meant to run for two years and will now run for four, does not that mean that half as many people will receive help in each year? Will he also tell us what discussions he has had with the insulation industry about the effect of this announcement, and what assessment he has made of any potential job losses in that industry?

As for the warm home discount, will the Secretary of State confirm that all he has actually done is move the cost from people’s bills to their taxes? Evidence that we published last month, and in our Green Paper last week, showed that increases in wholesale costs—which the Secretary State blamed in his statement for rising bills—cannot explain the price rises we have seen in the past two years, and neither can increases in network charges and policy costs.

Last month, the Secretary of State appeared to agree with our criticism of the way in which the energy companies had put up their prices, when he said that they were treating their customers like “cash cows”. In the light of that, will he confirm that there was not a single measure in the package that he announced today that will cost the energy companies a single penny? Hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is being spent, the energy companies are helping fewer households with energy efficiency, and people’s bills will still be higher this winter than last, yet the energy companies are still allowed to carry on overcharging people. Whatever the Secretary of State says today, if we genuinely want to get people’s bills down, nothing less than a price freeze and action to stop the energy companies overcharging will do.

[Mr Davey]

Members will notice that the right hon. Lady did not welcome this cut in energy bills for her constituents. Her constituents will want to know why she is not prepared to welcome it, and the constituents of every Labour Member who stands up to speak today will also want to know whether their Member of Parliament welcomes it.

We looked at the Opposition’s energy freeze proposal, and it was clear that it would not work. The energy companies would put up bills before it and afterwards. It was, and remains, a con. Worse than that, it would undermine competition and investment. Our proposals are real measures based on real facts, and they are going to help people across the country.

The right hon. Lady asked about the big six. We made it clear in our discussions that we expect them to pass on these cuts so that average bills go down by £50, and that is what will happen. She wants to know what we have said about the big six. We have pushed real competition measures. The big six were created by Labour. In 2000, there were 17 companies in the sector. By the time Labour left office, there were just six. The big six are Labour’s big six. This coalition has produced competition, which is really having an effect.

It was interesting to listen to the last Opposition day debate on this subject, in which the right hon. Lady revealed that she had not even read Ofgem’s proposals for competition in the wholesale market. That shows how much she is not on top of her brief. On the ECO, she has tried to suggest that we are cutting support for fuel poverty, but it is quite the reverse. As I made clear in my statement, we are not only maintaining support for the fuel poverty schemes within the ECO but extending them for two more years.

The right hon. Lady asked what had happened to the impact assessment. I have made it clear that we are going to consult, as she would expect. We will publish the impact assessment when we publish the consultation paper, as we would normally.

The right hon. Lady talks about the insulation industry. I am extremely concerned to ensure that it keeps people employed and keeps investing in people’s homes so that they can have permanently lower bills. Our proposal on the stamp duty—£1,000 off for people who move their homes, even if they do not pay stamp duty, to help the lowest-income home owners—will help the energy-efficiency industry, and it is welcoming it.

Finally, the right hon. Lady asked about shifting costs from bills to taxes. I would have thought she had spoken to the fuel poverty campaign groups, because it is they that have wanted this, as it is more progressive. So not only are our policies helping the fuel poor, but they are far more progressive than those we inherited from Labour.

[Mr Tim Yeo (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that an even bigger proportion of average fuel bills is accounted for by the transmission and distribution charges, and that further cuts in fuel bills could therefore be achieved if there was more pressure on the monopoly providers of transmission and distribution, such as the National Grid Company, whose prices are currently not subject to any competitive pressure or any market forces?

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend will have heard in my statement that the electricity distribution network operators will indeed be contributing £5 to this package next year. He will also know that Ofgem has called in the plans of the DNOs and the transmission distribution companies to look at them again, and it is for the independent regulator to scrutinise them with the care we expect.

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

Despite the Secretary of State’s ploughing, he has markedly failed to deliver a straight furrow. Despite his criticism of the big six—they were the big six for the three years of his coalition Government and Labour’s big six for a week—there is not one penny coming from those companies to help reduce costs now, and this delay in the implementation of the ECO scheme means that there will be even bigger bills to be paid in the future.

[Mr Davey]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady is completely wrong. The ECO scheme remains—let us be clear about that. The affordable warmth component of the ECO not only maintains at its current level, but is extended for two years. Similarly, the carbon saving community obligation continues in force now and is extended. The only part of the ECO that is being cut at all—but it still remains—is the carbon emissions reduction obligation. She ought to welcome that, not least because the proposals published by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) suggest that the Labour party would get rid of that part of the ECO.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that moving towards general taxation means that the cost of the social and environmental measures he wishes to take will be borne by those who are better off, rather than by people with very low incomes and vulnerable households, whom we seek to help?

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; moving some of the costs that were on the bill and having to be paid by all bill payers, no matter whether they pay tax or not, to taxation results in a more progressive system overall. One would have thought that the Labour party would welcome that.

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

Does the Minister understand that an increasing number of people in this country are now terrified to use their heating because they are frightened of what their bills will be as a result of the very large increases? We are returning to the fuel poverty that existed under the last Labour Government—[Laughter.] I thought the Tories would cheer at that. It is because they do not want to recognise the fuel poverty that existed under the Tory Government, and it was the Labour Government who brought in the necessary measures to help so many people. This inadequate statement would not even have been made without the pressure from the Leader of the Opposition.

[Mr Davey]

It was the last Labour Government’s Energy and Climate Change Secretary who said that

“alarming people about energy issues is not a mature way to conduct politics”—[Official Report, 13 January 2010; Vol. 503, c. 773.]

If only he had kept to his word. This coalition Government have taken energy bills seriously, unlike the previous Government. They killed competition, whereas we are increasing it. They did not take the measures that we are taking, and they should be ashamed of their appalling record.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Why has the Secretary of State not taken the simple and straightforward option of abolishing VAT on household energy bills? That would deliver greater benefits to householders and be far less complex.

[Mr Davey]

I think my hon. Friend knows that that would be illegal.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give me a personal guarantee that his hasty changes to the energy company obligation will not curtail or delay the ECO-funded Nottingham greener housing scheme, which is providing external wall insulation to the thousands of tenants and residents on Clifton estate who live in hard-to-treat solid wall houses? Will he meet me and representatives of the scheme to ensure that fuel-poor residents in hard-to-treat homes across Nottingham will be protected?

[Mr Davey]

As a lad of Nottingham and someone who has been on a visit with the hon. Lady to a number of homes that are benefiting from the ECO scheme, I agree with her. We must ensure that communities around the country are benefiting, which is why we have increased the money for the green deal communities from £20 million to £80 million. I am happy to look at the case that the hon. Lady has raised.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Government had not increased cold weather payments and the basic state pension and had not protected winter fuel payments, many vulnerable people would be even worse off when facing increasing energy bills?

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. One of the first acts of this Government was to confirm the trebling of cold weather payments, so that people who were on low incomes had the money when they needed it. Under the triple lock, we have seen some of the biggest ever increases in the basic state pension, which has been greatly welcomed by pensioners up and down the country. By contrast, when Labour was in power, it oversaw an increase in the state pension in one year of just 75p.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

How will these decisions help people in rural areas who depend on off-grid fuels?

[Mr Davey]

One of the things we have done is to look at the rural sub-obligation, which is a fourth component of the ECO, to ensure that it is working more effectively for people in rural areas, and we will be providing further details later.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that these problems have built up over many years and were not tackled by the previous Labour Government? He may also wish to know that in 2006, under the previous Government, fuel poverty in St Albans was at 6.4%, and it rose to a height of 13.7%. Does he agree that freezing energy for one year only would do nothing and that we need a sustained approach to cutting the number of taxes on people?

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend is right that fuel poverty rose to record levels under the previous Government. On their definition, the figures have come down under this Government. It is also interesting to note that the average increases in gas and electricity prices in the last Parliament under Labour were higher than the average annual increases in gas and electricity prices under this Government.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

The fact is that many of my constituents will still struggle to afford to put on their heating, because this is an inadequate response to rising prices. I asked the Secretary of State in June whether he had raised with the energy companies the issue of profits. He said that he had not. Since then, in any other such meetings, has he raised any concerns about their level of profits?

[Mr Davey]

As I recall, the hon. Gentleman asked me whether I had raised the matter in a previous meeting. Since being Secretary of State, I have raised the issue of profits and prices with the big six energy companies on many occasions.

[Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)]

In 2010, EDF sold its three English networks for £5.8 billion at a 27% premium on Ofgem’s value. In 2011, E.ON sold its networks at a 40% premium. Does the Secretary of State think that returns allowed on UK-regulated energy networks have been and are too generous? If so, is Ofgem fit for purpose.

[Mr Davey]

Ofgem is fit for purpose. It needs to ensure that the returns on network business are fair to enable profits, but not beyond that. That is why it has acted. It has asked the network companies to justify the current investment programmes that they have put to it.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Is it not true that we were sold the privatisation of utilities on the supposed knowledge that there was a transfer of risk from the public sector to the private sector? What we have seen today is a transfer of risk from the billed utility customer to the taxpayer, so the same people are paying the same money through a different route while the companies get off scot-free and with a £600 million taxpayer bung.

[Mr Davey]

I do not recognise anything that the hon. Gentleman has just said. If he does not understand the difference between bill payers and tax payers, he needs to ask the fuel poverty lobby groups that are saying that people in his constituency on low incomes will benefit from this change, which moves some of the cost from bills to taxes. He really ought to talk to the fuel poverty lobby groups.

[Mr Anderson]

What about the companies doing their bit?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) is now squawking like a parrot with indigestion. He must calm himself. He is normally a calm man and he aspires to statesmanship.

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

Last week during Energy questions, I pressed the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), on the insulation of solid wall properties in rural areas, and he made some comforting remarks. Further to the Secretary of State’s answer to the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), may I be assured that the programme to insulate solid wall properties in rural areas will not be slowed down by what he has announced today?

[Mr Davey]

I said that the rural sub-obligation would be improved to ensure that people are benefiting from it. We have some evidence that during the first year of the ECO it was not getting through to rural people, so reforming that would be a real benefit. It is true that there will almost certainly be fewer solid wall insulations done as a result of the changes. We have not hidden that, but we have ensured that there is a minimum floor to give the industry confidence. The measures we are proposing for the energy efficiency industry—the stamp duty incentive and the money for private sector landlords—will also help to ensure that the solid wall insulation industry continues to get support.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

You may well be right that the Energy Secretary is doing his best, Mr Speaker, but it is simply not good enough. After today, people will still see their energy bills going up, so would they not be right to conclude that he and the Prime Minister are simply too weak and unwilling to stand up to the big energy companies?

[Mr Davey]

Not at all. People will look at the Labour party and see a party that is offering a con, a party that will undermine competition and reduce choice, meaning that they end up paying higher bills, and a party that is going against the national interest. We need to see investment in our energy industry to ensure that we keep the lights on. People around the country would not thank any Government who did not ensure that we had the investment for energy security.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Leader of the Opposition hiked up energy prices when he was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and is now trying to claim credit for keeping them at that hiked-up level. Unfortunately, we have heard the same clap-trap from the Secretary of State today as we heard from the Leader of the Opposition when he was Secretary of State. My constituents want the Government to source the cheapest energy rather than the greenest energy. When is the Secretary of State going to start doing that?

[Mr Davey]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution, as always, but I must say that the most secure and effective policy is a mixed diverse approach. The mixed diverse approach ensures energy security but as, over time, we see reductions in the cost of alternative energy, such as clean energy, it also becomes increasingly good value for money.

[Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

That was like a bad sketch in “The Fast Show”, with the Secretary of State saying, “The consumer gives the energy companies £120. I will give them £600 million and they can give the consumer £50 back.” He repeatedly referred to the most vulnerable consumers. Many of those in my constituency are forced to use expensive prepayment cards; what is the Secretary of State doing to protect them?

[Mr Davey]

They will get this benefit.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend not think that problems with the energy market, such as those relating to long-term generating capacity, built up over many years but had been ignored, including when the Leader of the Opposition was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change?

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the reasons why we have to increase investment so much over a relatively short time, which comes at a price, is the failure of the last Government to invest in energy infrastructure. People warned them, and warned the former Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, currently the Leader of the Opposition, to do something; he failed.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State says that he is spreading the money for the energy company obligation over an extra two years. That delays measures that would help people to keep their bills down. Is not the truth that people in fuel poverty will pay higher bills for longer after this statement?

[Mr Davey]

Not only did I not say what the hon. Gentleman said I did, but that is not true. Fuel poverty programmes, such as the affordable warmth programme and the carbon saving community obligation, remain in place, remain at the same rate in each year, and are being continued for two more years, so this is more investment to tackle fuel poverty.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Within the next decade, we must invest £110 billion, probably more, in our energy infrastructure—the pipes, pylons and power stations—to keep our lights switched on. Does my right hon. Friend agree with energy experts and industry players that a freeze would jeopardise that investment, which would mean that the poor old taxpayers were even more hard-pressed because they would have to foot the bill?

[Mr Davey]

It would be worse than that: it would be the poor old consumers who did so, because the cost of capital would go up. There would also be a reduction in investment in green energy, which the Opposition claim to support, so the Opposition’s policy is both irresponsible and reckless.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Around 100 people from my constituency, and hundreds more, face two extra hours on their working day after npower announced it was closing its Thornaby office, and that those people would therefore have further to travel. The company says that it is doing that, and sacking hundreds more and transferring the jobs to India, to help keep bills down. Has npower told the Secretary of State how much bills will come down by, at the expense of those lost and transferred jobs?

[Mr Davey]

This was discussed in a little more depth in oral questions to the Department of Energy and Climate Change last week. I made it clear that other Secretaries of State, particularly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, and I will look at what we can do to help people who are affected by npower’s redundancy package.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I welcome the Energy Secretary’s announcement, and congratulate him on the robust defence that he has rightly made of the Government’s position. Further to an earlier question, may I ask him what more can be done for those in rural areas who rely on oil to heat their homes?

[Mr Davey]

The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), has been doing a huge amount of work on this. There will be a new code, or protocol, on working with industry to make sure that a lot of the policies that we have introduced, such as the “buy early” campaign, really help people who are off-grid in rural areas and who are dependent on fuel sources like oil.

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

The Energy Secretary talked about there being no need to alarm people, but I have never known a time when older people in my constituency were more alarmed, probably because of the £300 by which their bills have already gone up. Despite the cut to green energy levies, bills will still go up by £70, so those older people do not need alarming; they are already alarmed. Is it not time that the Secretary of State stood up to the energy companies and supported a price freeze?

[Mr Davey]

I was quoting the leader of the hon. Lady’s party when I talked about not alarming people; I was making it clear that he said one thing when he was in government and changed his mind in opposition. The hon. Lady, like many of her hon. Friends, failed to welcome the announcement of an average of £50 off household energy bills; she should welcome it, and welcome the fact that this Government, through our tough competition policies, are taking on the big six that Labour created.

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

I welcome the positive response to the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change’s recommendation that some of the costs of the levies be transferred to general taxation, as a fairer way of funding those levies. What is being done to assist people in switching, and to ensure that they realise that that is now meant to be simpler, and the best way for them to get the best deal?

[Mr Davey]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s welcome. He is quite right: we looked at what the Select Committee said on those issues, and considered it carefully. He is also right to say that switching is a really important part of the way to help people, because there are some good deals out there. In the annual energy statement, I talked about our ambition to improve and make switching easier, and we are already working with he industry to bring about quicker switching.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State said that he wanted to make bills easier for the public to understand, but the public know that even after this reduction their bills will rise over Christmas and rise next year. Exactly what has he got out of the energy companies and, as we say in Telford, when are they going to dob some money in?

[Mr Davey]

The really important thing for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents is that the average energy bill in his constituency will go down by £50, compared with what it otherwise would have been. If we had listened to the Labour party and continued its policies, for example with the renewable heat incentive, bills would be £179 higher.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

My constituents will see through the crocodile tears of Opposition Members, because they know that energy prices doubled under the previous Government. Is my right hon. Friend aware that EDF, the local energy company in my constituency, is offering customers significant decreases through fixed-term tariffs? It is also ensuring that customers know about other companies’ deals. Does that not show that increased competition is the best way to get energy prices down?

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we came to power we found that there were far too few energy companies and that the big six had it all their own way. As a result of the measures we have taken, through deregulation and the retail market review, we are seeing independent suppliers come in and offer some really good deals. He mentioned making energy bills simpler, which will help people know their options and be able to choose to switch to lower prices and better deals.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

Is there any part of his statement that the Secretary of State might wish to review in the light of what his own Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), said yesterday, which was that the cuts in ECO will result in far less carbon being saved over the next period? Does he accept that ECO’s original intention, which was to cut bills by up to £400 for those who benefited from it permanently, is now seriously at risk as a result of what he has undertaken today?

[Mr Davey]

We approached the review with the intention of ensuring not only that we kept the support for the fuel-poor and the investment for green energy, but that it was carbon neutral. The package we have put together, not only with the energy efficiency investments we have announced today but with announcements that will be made in the autumn statement, will show that it is indeed carbon neutral.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Would it be possible to tackle the problem of VAT on fuel by ignoring a European Union directive and saying that we are just not going to collect it?

[Mr Davey]

I think that would be very unwise. I am sure that the Chancellor’s lawyers would explain that it is not legally possible.

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

We need to ask what the Secretary of State has been doing for the past three and a half years. He has blamed everybody but himself. When the issue first arose, he told people to wear pullovers. What he is offering people today is less than 90p a week off their energy bills. How does that square with the bedroom tax? It will affect a hell of a lot of poor people in this country. This must be one of the cruellest Governments we have ever had.

[Mr Davey]

I must say that the hon. Gentleman, to whom I normally listen with attention, is wrong on every point. For example, he did not draw attention to the fact that the warm home discount is delivering £130 directly off the bills of the 2 million lowest income households in our country, including over 1 million of the poorest pensioners, something that I thought he would welcome..

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

It is this Government who have introduced a code of practice for off-grid suppliers, raised the basic pension and increased cold weather payments in a multiple way. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this reduction will help the vulnerable and elderly, in particular, in my constituency?

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He is also right to put this announcement in the context of all the other things the Government are doing, whether it is the income tax cut that is taking some of our lowest paid out of income tax altogether, delivering a £700 tax cut for people on the basic rate of tax, the council tax freeze or the fuel duty freeze. These things are never admitted by Labour Members, but our constituents are benefiting from them every day in every way.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents who get their energy from SSE saw their prices rise on 15 November. They now understand that they will be paying more through taxation and probably will not see any money from the energy company until April at least. The question they will be asking is whether this Secretary of State ever actually asked any of the energy companies for a price freeze—and if not, why not?

[Mr Davey]

I am surprised that the hon. Lady mentions SSE, because it has announced a £50 price cut from next year and a pledge to keep prices flat until spring 2015, subject obviously to wholesale energy costs. I would have thought that she would welcome SSE’s announcement.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The best way to cut electricity and gas bills would be to abolish VAT on them. Will the Secretary of State, as an enthusiast for the European Union, confirm that it is the European Union that prevents VAT from being removed? What efforts have he and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made in Brussels to get a derogation from those restrictions?

[Mr Davey]

I am being tempted by my colleagues on the Back Benches. I hope they can cast their minds back to a former Conservative Government who wanted to put VAT at 17.5% on energy bills while my party campaigned against that. As I want to ensure that our coalition parties are working closely together, I respectfully repeat that that proposal would be against the law.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

All one needs to know about this Government is summed up in the first few words of the Secretary of State’s statement when he said that this Government were taking action “to reduce the impact of Government policies on energy bills.” I want to increase the effect of Government policies on energy bills, because I want a Government who are going to stand up to the energy companies and make sure that we reduce bills. Why will the Government not do that?

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Gentleman shows his lack of understanding of the policy. It is very important that we have Government policies to tackle fuel poverty and boost energy efficiency, and I would have thought he would welcome that. We are combining those policies with our very strong policies on competition. I only wish that when Labour was in government it had pursued competition policies as rigorous as ours.

[Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend describe to the House just how much control he has over global gas wholesale prices?

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Neither I nor my predecessor, nor the Leader of the Opposition when he was doing my job, has any control over international gas markets. That is why Labour’s policy of a price freeze makes no economic sense whatsoever. During that freeze we could find some small suppliers making serious losses or going out of business if wholesale prices went up. That would reduce competition and we would be back to the big six. Of course, that is what Labour wants, because it created the big six.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Hundreds of people in Splott and Tremorfa in my constituency who suffer from some of the highest levels of fuel poverty and energy debt in Cardiff have signed a petition calling for a freeze in energy bills, but instead they will see their bills continue to rise. Is the Secretary of State just telling them to pipe down and settle for his announcement?

[Mr Davey]

It would be interesting to see the petition, because I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not show the people who signed it the small print, which shows that the price freeze would reduce competition, reduce investment, and is a complete con.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that the best way to secure lower energy bills and more investment in the energy sector in the long term is for Government to cut corporation tax further, to cut the regulatory burden on companies, to increase competition, and to scrap altogether Government-imposed green and social levies on energy bills?

[Mr Davey]

There were moments in that question when I thought my hon. Friend was doing a good job, but I am afraid I cannot agree with everything he says.

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

Is it not the case that this Minister and the Prime Minister only dare ask the big six to freeze energy prices, while the Leader of the Opposition will make the big six freeze energy prices?

[Mr Davey]

I am more impressed by what people do when they are in office. The Leader of the Opposition did nothing on competition when he was in office. He helped create the big six and he kept them in business. Frankly, we would like an apology from him and his party for the way they sucked up to the big six.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while it is right to take action to reduce energy bills, the only sustainable way to raise the living standards of hard-working families is by sticking to this Government’s long-term economic plans of deficit reduction and creating a responsible recovery?

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. It is vital that we do everything we can on energy bills, as we have announced today, but it is equally vital that we make sure we run the economy in a sustainable way. When we came to power, inflation was 3.5% and rising; now it is 2% and falling. By tackling the cost of living and inflation, we are delivering real help to people. That is why disposable incomes for UK households are higher now than in any year between 1997 and 2010.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have been contacted by companies in my constituency that are very concerned about the chaotic way in which the Government’s latest policy has emerged. Will the Secretary of State tell us exactly how many additional replacement energy-efficient boilers will be installed in households as a result of today’s announcement?

[Mr Davey]

There are likely to be a lot more, because we are extending the affordable warmth scheme: we are keeping its current rate for this year and next year and we are extending it for two years. That will mean more boilers in the homes of people who are fuel-poor.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

I welcome any measures such as this that help families who are struggling with the increased cost of living, but in the longer term has my right hon. Friend considered a complete separation of the retail and wholesale markets and the impact that that would have on retail gas and electricity prices?

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. Certainly, we and, indeed, Ofgem have been looking at how we can reform the wholesale market in a way that deals with the problems. Ofgem’s suggested “secure and promote” reforms—which the Labour party appears not to have read—will ensure that we will have much greater competition in the wholesale market, which means that independent generators will be able challenge the big six and their vertically integrated model. There are, therefore, alternative models to ensure that we get competition working in the generation markets, which has not happened for far too long.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

More than 5,000 people in Chesterfield signed a petition urging the Government to freeze energy prices. They will be mystified as to why the Minister thinks it is a good idea to put money saved from energy bills on to the tax bill instead. In answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), the Secretary of State said that he had discussed profits and prices with the big six energy companies. Did he tell them that he thought that profits and prices were too high?

[Mr Davey]

We have actually gone further than the hon. Gentleman wants. We have asked Ofgem to do a full review of the financial transparency of the big six so that their customers, this House and the public can see where and how they are making their profits. That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman ought to be welcoming.

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

The Secretary of State has been asked twice about rural areas such as mine, where many households are off the gas grid and use liquefied petroleum gas and heating oil. Not only that, but they are desperately low-income households. The Secretary of State’s statement gives nothing to those people, apart from telling them to continue to pay their tax, which will subsidise the energy companies.

[Mr Davey]

When I was asked that question on the two previous occasions mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, I replied that one of the components of the energy company obligation has not been working, namely the rural sub-obligation of the carbon saving community obligation. We are reforming that to try to make sure that it works better for rural areas. We are doing an awful lot for people in rural areas, not least through the renewable heat incentive, which will be launched next March or April. We have not announced the actual date, but it is designed to help people who are off the gas grid.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

I do not know whether the Secretary of State is being conned by the big six or whether he thinks he is conning us, but I know one thing: the poor are the ones who will suffer more than anybody else. What is the Secretary of State doing to those energy companies that force prepaid meters on people who can hardly afford to pay their bills and who, because they are on a prepaid meter, get themselves cut off and who may then die as a result of poor weather? What does his statement do for those people?

[Mr Davey]

It is worth pointing out to the hon. Gentleman, first, that disconnections are at an historical low and, secondly, that he is wrong about the impact of the statement for the fuel-poor. It is actually very good news for the fuel-poor: not only are we maintaining the programmes as previously planned, but we are extending them for two additional years, which one would have thought the Labour party would welcome.

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

On energy efficiency, we know that contractors who sometimes literally bet their house on green deal installations have tragically been let down by this Government, with only just over 200 out of an anticipated 10,000. Precisely how many fewer solid wall external cladding insulations will there be next year because of the reforms that the Secretary of State has announced today?

[Mr Davey]

First, the hon. Gentleman is wrong about the green deal; he was referring to green deal finance plans. He talked about insulations, but an awful lot more have gone on because of the green deal, with the success of green deal assessments—more than 100,000 of them—even though they have not necessarily been financed by a green deal finance plan, so he is completely wrong.

One thing we have done to reassure the industry is to have a minimum of 25,000 solid wall insulations a year for the next four years. I hope and believe that there will be a lot more than that, but that will give the industry the reassurance and confidence that I think it needs.

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

The Secretary of State has panicked because he knows that Labour’s two-year price freeze has struck a popular chord. Is not the inconvenient truth of his fix with the big six energy companies that consumers across Tameside and Stockport, as well as the rest of the country, will still pay much more in energy prices, and that his plans do absolutely nothing to reset the energy market, which Labour’s price freeze would allow?

[Mr Davey]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong on every count. This Government—working positively with the independent regulator, Ofgem—are delivering reforms to reset the failed market that we inherited from the last Government. It is a shame that not a single Labour Member has welcomed the average £50 cut that will help households.

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

I listened to the Secretary of State announcing his policy of a £50 cut on Radio Humberside at 9 o’clock this morning. For people in Hull, will he confirm that they will still end up paying higher energy bills under his Government? The average bill is going up by £120 a year, so they will still pay £70 extra this year.

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Lady is right to say that electricity and gas prices have been going up for some time, but we do not have a magic wand to say to international gas markets, “No, the prices cannot go up.” If Labour Members have found a magic wand, perhaps they would like to lend it to us.

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

If the Secretary of State is so confident about the impact of his measures, why are the Government trying to water down the fuel poverty target?

[Mr Davey]

We are not trying to water down the target. We have had a two and a half year analysis and consultation, as I would have thought the hon. Lady would know. My predecessor commissioned Professor John Hills to do a detailed and independent study on fuel poverty, which was not done under the previous Government. If she looks at the proposals that we have come up with, having consulted widely, she will see that they have been welcomed by fuel poverty groups. Why? They have been welcomed because the proposals will ensure that our resources are much better targeted on people in real fuel poverty—in what I call deep fuel poverty. Again, I would have thought that the Labour party would welcome that; it is a shame that it is not doing so.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Are not future rip-offs very likely, given the extraordinary deal on Hinkley Point nuclear power station which guarantees compensation to a French Government-owned company if British Government energy policy changes at any time over the next 35 years? Will the Secretary of State give us a promise of full transparency on the conditions of that extraordinary deal, so that we can know who is deciding it? Will it be decided by Parliament or by the Government in a private deal, in secret, with a nationalised company?

[Mr Davey]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of the impact of the nuclear deal, and actually he is disagreeing with his own Front-Bench team, who welcomed the deal. We have said in the Energy Bill and I have said at the Dispatch Box that we will be transparent. When the final investment contract is signed, which we expect to happen halfway through next year, it will be published, making it the most open and transparent nuclear deal done by any Government in history, not just in this country but across the world. He ought to welcome that.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

My constituents will take two things away from today’s statement. One is that they will still be paying much more for their fuel this winter, and the other is that the big six energy companies, despite a 75% rise in profits last year, will still be making more money. Why does the Secretary of State expect my constituents to share the pain, but the energy companies not to share the gain?

[Mr Davey]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady is mixing up two things. Today, following our detailed review of Government policy costs, we can announce that on average households will see their bills fall by £50, which she ought to welcome. Our policy for the big six and other energy companies is to have fierce, robust competition. One of the best ways to ensure that energy bills come down is to enable people in the retail markets to switch and to ensure that the big six face real competition in the generating market. It is competition that will push bills down in the long term.

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) is absolutely right. The profits of the big six energy companies rose by 75% last year, while average household costs increased by £100, yet the £50 cut in fuel bills will come at no cost to the energy companies. Why are the Government not prepared to stand up to these big companies?

[Mr Davey]

I am never quite sure where the Labour party stands on profit. One of its number said in 2009:

“The energy companies need to make sufficient profits in order to invest in the future”.

That was the Leader of the Opposition when he was doing my job.

Helicopter Crash (Glasgow)

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

16:31

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement to update the House on the crash of the helicopter in Glasgow on the evening of Friday 29 November.

As the House will be aware, at approximately 10.25 pm on Friday evening, a helicopter operated on behalf of Police Scotland crashed on to the roof of the Clutha bar in Stockwell street, Glasgow. It was reported that about 120 people were in the bar at the time of the accident. Police Scotland has overnight confirmed nine fatalities, including the pilot of the helicopter and the two police officers on board. A further 32 people were injured in the crash and 12 remain in hospital. Three of those casualties are being treated in intensive care, where their condition is described as serious but stable. The search of the building continues, and it remains possible that more casualties will be found.

I am sure the House will wish to recognise the outstanding work of the emergency services for the speed, professionalism and courage of their response on Friday night and into the early hours of Saturday. The police, fire and ambulance services all responded magnificently, working in difficult and dangerous circumstances. In particular, we should recognise that police officers had to deal with the deaths not only of members of the public, but of two of their colleagues, PC Kirsty Nelis and PC Tony Collins.

Some of the most remarkable stories of courage and selflessness from Friday night and Saturday morning have come from staff and customers of the Clutha bar and passersby who came to their assistance in the immediate aftermath of the accident. They responded with no thought for their personal safety. Hon. Members will know that among them was the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), who happened to be one of the first on the scene. He is not in the House today, because he is in the Philippines in the course of his duties as shadow Secretary of State for International Development. He has been characteristically understated in describing his role, but I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say that his response, which was instinctive, did him credit.

In addition to meetings with members of all three emergency services in the command centre this morning, I met Councillor Gordon Matheson, the leader of Glasgow city council, at the city chambers, where I also signed the book of condolence. Glasgow city council will now take up much of the burden of caring for and comforting those affected by this incident.

My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary has been in regular contact and his Department, through its air accidents investigation branch, now has the duty to investigate and report on the causes of the accident. Investigations of that sort are inevitably complex and can be lengthy. I know that all those affected will be looking for answers, but the gathering of evidence, especially at this early stage, will be vital to that investigation. I hope the police and other investigatory agencies will be given time and space to do their job. The House will also wish to know that there has been close contact between Her Majesty’s Government and the Scottish Government since the incident. The Prime Minister spoke to the First Minister on Saturday and offered any assistance from the emergency services or other agencies south of the border, should that be required.

Today, I wear a badge that was given to me this morning by Councillor Matheson. It reads simply: “People make Glasgow.” The response of the people who make Glasgow has demonstrated all the courage and character that has made that city famous throughout the world. We in this House, and the people we represent in communities throughout the United Kingdom, today stand in solidarity with the people of Glasgow as they mourn their loss and start to come to terms with their grief. People make Glasgow, Mr Speaker, and today I wear that badge with pride.

16:36

[Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. This has been a dark weekend for Glasgow and our whole country. When we should have woken to celebrate St Andrew’s day on Saturday, we were instead met with unexpected tragedy, and when I attended mass on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition in St Andrew’s cathedral on Saturday, yards from the site, there was a real sense of shock.

I have lived all my life in Glasgow, and I know that when we hurt, we grieve together and we mourn together. Today, all Glasgow and all Scotland are united in grief. I echo the Secretary of State’s tributes to the nine people whose deaths have been confirmed, and the whole House joins together to send a message of deep sympathy to their loved ones. We also remember the people who are still being treated in hospital.

Today, with the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar), I visited the command centre in Glasgow to thank the representatives of the police, fire and rescue and ambulance services. Their response to this tragedy has been exemplary. We also thank staff in Glasgow’s hospitals who provided care and comfort to the injured and their families. I pay tribute to them and to those who are still at the Clutha Vaults bar leading the recovery. I also pay tribute to my right hon. and personal Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), who assisted at the site on Friday night and was very moved in his television appearances. He has asked me to pass on his apologies today as he is on parliamentary business in the Philippines.

Our minds are still focused on those who died and suffered injuries, but we must establish what happened on Friday night to prevent such tragedies in the future. The Secretary of State noted in his statement that the air accident investigation has begun, and the deputy chief inspector of the air accidents investigation branch has said we can expect an initial report soon. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether we can expect that report before Christmas?

Questions are beginning to be asked in Glasgow, and families and others need answers. Will investigations now under way cover the manufacture and operation of this helicopter, including the circumstances of the incident but also implication for its future and further use? I recognise that the Secretary of State has embraced a strong cross-party approach to this issue, which I appreciate. Will he continue the cross-governmental and cross-party work that I think has united our country in showing that, whatever divides us, in moments such as this, we are prepared to work together?

Finally, the Secretary of State indicated that Glasgow city council and the Scottish Government have already offered practical support to the residents of the city, particularly to those most involved. What support will the UK Government offer to Glasgow and to the families of the victims of the crash?

The whole city of Glasgow and the people across Scotland and the United Kingdom are joined together in grief and shock. It has been a dark weekend, but as we heard at the Church of Scotland sermon at Glasgow cathedral on Sunday:

“Darkness shall not snatch everything from us.”

I know the people of my city of Glasgow. Out of this weekend, I know that it is not the darkness that will live on; it is the spirit of the people who did not turn and run from the Clutha Vaults pub, but who ran towards the danger and worked arm in arm to lift men and women to safety. Out of this tragedy, that is the most powerful tribute.

[Mr Carmichael]

I commend the hon. Lady for her response and for the approach that she has taken. We have been in close contact throughout the course of this weekend and I very much expect that to continue. If I may say so, the ability of the Government, the Opposition and the Scottish National party to work together is the very least we can do in these circumstances. To take any other approach would be wholly inappropriate, given the magnificent response we have seen from the people of Glasgow.

On the question of the early report of the air accidents investigation branch, it would be impossible to give any undertakings at the moment. I can say that the earliest possible publication of the interim report will be made. I very much hope that in the course of the investigation any information that can be supplied to the families will be supplied. Should there be any difficulties in that regard, my office, and I am sure the office of the Secretary of State for Transport will stand ready to address any issues.

On the support to be given by Glasgow city council, the council is best placed to deliver that support. It has all the facilities in the communities and knows best where to find the people who need assistance and comfort. I am in regular contact with the leader of Glasgow city council and I value the strength of the working relationship between his office and mine. I am confident that should there be need for assistance from Her Majesty’s Government in Westminster, he will not be slow in asking. We will do everything within our power to give him the assistance he needs.

[Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)]

On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I thank the Secretary of State for Scotland for his well-judged comments and for the content of his statement, which we all endorse completely. He and I share a strong empathy and ongoing attachment to the city, through the university of Glasgow. I am sure he and others will agree that the sentiment and sense of the song popular down the generations, “I Belong to Glasgow”, had a particularly poignant ring to it in the heart of every Scot around the world during this sad St Andrew’s weekend.

In rightly paying tribute to the emergency services and to ordinary citizens for what they have achieved, and are continuing to achieve, at considerable risk to themselves as a result of these appalling events, I ask my right hon. Friend to thank one other branch of public life that we, across the political spectrum, do not always praise in this House: the media. The broadcast media—BBC Scotland, in particular, but the commercial sector in Glasgow and the west of Scotland in general—and the print media have shown great responsibility and sensitivity to those involved, particularly to those who have lost loved ones. We hope that that will be maintained, and that the privacy of those who are having their loved ones returned to them will be respected in the future, too.

[Mr Carmichael]

My right hon. Friend reminds me that he and I share the experience of having gone from the west highlands in our latter teenage years to be students at the university of Glasgow. I revisited my own time there recently and carry with me to this day fond memories of the warmth of welcome that was given to me and the strength of community I found as a west highlander arriving in Glasgow in the early 1980s. I am sure my right hon. Friend’s experience was the same, and I am certain that it is the strength of the community that has produced the remarkable response we have seen in the course of the last three or four days.

With regard to the self-denying ordinance of the media outlets, I think my right hon. Friend is correct to draw attention to the restraint exhibited thus far, and I am sure that he shares my hope that that approach will continue.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

We will all have been shocked by the tragic scenes in my constituency at the heart of the great city of Glasgow on Friday night. Our thoughts and prayers are with all those individuals and families suffering at this really difficult time. Although we have seen the saddest of scenes, we have also seen the best of our citizens, with people not running away from the scene but running to it to help their fellow citizens—the perfect illustration of human kindness and human decency. I pay tribute to the brave men and women of our emergency services, who risk their own lives to protect the lives of others. We cannot even begin to thank them enough.

On behalf of the people of Glasgow, I would also like to thank people for the kind messages of support we have had from people right across the UK—whether it be from Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester or London—all saying that this weekend “We were all Glaswegians.” Will the Secretary of State tell us what additional support his Government will give to the people affected by this incident to ensure that they get the love, care, support, and also the answers, that they need?

[Mr Carmichael]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who has been an exceptionally eloquent advocate for his constituents and community over the course of this weekend. As to his question about extra support, as I said earlier, if the leadership of Glasgow city council sees an opportunity for us to assist, I stand open to do so in any way, within our capability. I know that the city council leader will doubtless be in contact with us.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Like everyone else in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, we are deeply saddened by what happened in Glasgow, which happens to be my father’s home town. Does the Secretary of State agree that, whatever happened to that helicopter, the pilot will have tried his level best to put it down safely and that it was probably a traumatic incident that disallowed him from putting it into the river or on a flat piece of ground?

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman, of course, has a distinguished service history, which doubtless informs his views. Obviously, the purpose of having an air accidents investigation branch is to have people who can carry out these investigations. It would probably be ill advised of me at this juncture to speculate about the actual circumstances, which will doubtless become clear in the fullness of time.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the comments made across the House; my thoughts have clearly been with the emergency services, the victims and their families. Understandably, it is taking a lot of time safely and thoroughly to search the remains of the Clutha. Sadly, that leaves many families in limbo. Has the Secretary of State had assurances that the emergency services had all the equipment and expertise they required to ensure that no one was left alive in the Clutha in the immediate aftermath of the crash?

[Mr Carmichael]

As I indicated in my statement, I understand that the search of the bar continues. The helicopter was removed from the roof while the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) and I were at the command centre this morning—we were able to watch it happening. The ongoing investigation will, of course, require a very delicate and detailed search. I completely understand the difficulties and frustration that that will cause for many people who remain anxiously waiting for news of their loved ones. In the long term, however, what we all want is to get to the truth of the matter. I know from my former professional experience, having worked at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service early in my career, that the early stages of evidence gathering are the most important and can have a significant bearing on the ability to establish the cause of these incidents. I have no reason to believe—and nobody has suggested—that there was any under-resourcing of the emergency services operation. In fact, I would be astonished if that turned out to be the case.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

The helicopter that came down so tragically has been described as a Scottish police helicopter. Will the Government, or the police, be able to add to any assistance that may be requested from Glasgow city council by helping Scotland to meet its operational requirement, either through the national service or with helicopters from England and Wales?

[Mr Carmichael]

I understand that an offer of that sort has already been made, and that, in the meantime, cover is being provided from a variety of different loci until a replacement helicopter comes into service later this week.

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

I am sure that the Secretary of State will wish to join me in paying tribute to the chaplains of the police and fire and rescue services, the Rev. Neil Galbraith and Father Jim Thomson, who did an outstanding job in offering comfort and spiritual support not only to officers but to the families of victims.

Have the Government, or, indeed, the air accident investigators, a view in terms of risks versus value on the policy of requiring police helicopters to take part in routine air patrols over densely populated areas, rather than being deployed to deal with specific incidents?

[Mr Carmichael]

I echo the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the chaplains. Today, I met social workers in Glasgow who have also been closely involved in giving comfort and counselling to those who need it, and I hope that they too may in time be able to avail themselves of any support that they may need. There is often a cost to those who have to give the counsel and the comfort, and not just to those who are most directly involved.

Use of the helicopter is an operational matter for the chief constable of Police Scotland, who would be accountable for his decision to the Justice Secretary in the Scottish Government.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I associate myself entirely with the remarks of both the Secretary of State and his shadow. Rescuing victims from collapsed buildings is an extremely complicated task, which in this case is being made far worse by the fact that a very heavy upside-down helicopter is on top of the rubble. A few years ago, through the fire service parliamentary scheme, I had the privilege of visiting the Fire Service College at Moreton-in-Marsh and observing the specialist training given to fire officers to enable them to go into collapsed rubble, locate victims and extract them. Does the Secretary of State agree that we are fortunate indeed to have in our United Kingdom some of the very best specialist skills in the world to deal with incidents such as this?

[Mr Carmichael]

Indeed. Not only is there training of that sort, but rehearsals are conducted regularly by the city council, the various rescue services, the Procurator Fiscal Service, and all the other agencies. Since Friday night, we have seen the value of the work that is done in that regard. I am not familiar with the facility to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but in recent days we have observed the benefit of all the training that has been given to our emergency services.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

As a Glaswegian, may I thank everybody for all their kind words, particularly the two Front Benchers? Perhaps a book of condolence in this place might not be a bad idea, so that we can show solidarity as a nation with the people of Glasgow.

[Mr Carmichael]

The question of a book of condolence in this place would initially be a matter for the House authorities. It seems to me to be an entirely appropriate suggestion and anything I can do to assist it, I will happily do.

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

May I thank the Secretary of State for this very difficult statement and for allowing me early sight of it this afternoon? May I also join him, from these Benches, in paying tribute to the magnificent response from the emergency services? I do not think any of us will forget the deepening chill we felt on Friday evening as the true horror of these events became apparent. The response from the people of Glasgow to this tragedy has been nothing short of tremendous—people rushing to the scene of the accident instead of running away, the many instances of human kindness we have witnessed throughout the weekend, and the way this tragedy has united us and brought us together in adversity. Will the Minister join me in expressing gratitude to the people of Glasgow for the way they have responded and offer condolences to those who have been bereaved by this tragedy?

[Mr Carmichael]

I have no hesitation in joining the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in expressing that view. What he says about the instances of human kindness in Glasgow is absolutely correct. In Glasgow this morning, I met police officers who told me about instances where colleagues of theirs simply going about their duty, or even off-duty, were approached by ordinary members of the public in supermarkets, on the street or wherever to simply ask how they were. At its most basic level, that is the sort of warmth and concern that typifies the people of Glasgow, and we have seen it at its best in the last few days.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

May I join those who have offered their commiserations to the victims and their families and friends, and who have expressed their gratitude to the emergency services who contributed to responding to the sad events of this weekend? No one could have predicted that something like this would happen within 10 miles of my own constituency, with the appalling repercussions. I would like to add to the tributes and, if I may, I would like to express the view that public representatives from all backgrounds behaved impeccably, none more so than our right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy). It is both poignant and appropriate that he is now in the Philippines witnessing aspects of another terrible tragedy. Glasgow itself contributed magnificently to the appeal for the Philippines, because it is a kind-hearted and a great-hearted city, and it knows that this House will be with it in good times and in bad.

[Mr Carmichael]

There really is nothing I can add to the comments concerning the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy). It struck me when the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) was speaking that his constituency and mine are just about as different as it is possible to get, but I am sure, knowing that helicopter incidents are by no means unknown in my constituency, that there would have been a shared experience and reaction to the news that broke on Friday night from Shetland all the way to the Mull of Galloway. It was something that united communities across Scotland.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

On behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends, may I express our deepest sympathies and condolences to the bereaved and our best wishes for a speedy recovery to those who have been injured? May I tell the Secretary of State and the House that, given the very close bonds that exist between the people of Northern Ireland and Scotland in particular, this morning in the Northern Ireland Assembly all the parties and all their representatives stood together in paying tribute to the emergency services and offering their deepest sympathies and best wishes to the people of Glasgow and Scotland?

[Mr Carmichael]

The right hon. Gentleman brings to our attention a very important aspect. The relationship between the west central belt of Scotland and Northern Ireland is a long and historic one which is not always the easiest, but it does bring with it links and connections that, at a time like this, are of great importance. It was for that reason that I was particularly pleased to receive a telephone call this morning from David Ford, the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, expressing exactly the sentiments the right hon. Gentleman has just expressed.

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

The great cities of Liverpool and Glasgow stand together in times of adversity, and once again the people of my city stand shoulder to shoulder with those suffering loss, trauma or injury from the tragic events over the weekend. One of the lessons we have learned from disasters affecting our citizens is the need to provide ongoing counselling and support. Despite this being primarily a role for Glasgow city council, can the Secretary of State ensure that resources are made available, should they be requested?

[Mr Carmichael]

On the ability of Governments, be it here or in Edinburgh—or at local government level in Glasgow—to provide the facilities that are necessary, that is the very least that can be done, given the magnificence of the response we have seen from the people. The need for counselling is well understood and appreciated—as I have seen from my own professional experience—even in relation to the investigation of a much less dramatic road traffic accident. Such incidents can change the life of the police officer or ambulance person who has to attend them. That is well understood.

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

As someone who has had the privilege of working and living in Glasgow, the humanity and heroism demonstrated by Glaswegians came as no surprise to me, but my constituents would want me to add their prayers and condolences to mine. It is a cliché but a none the less powerful one: Glasgow is a candle in the dark.

[Mr Carmichael]

I fear that I may soon run out of superlatives when it comes to describing the behaviour of the people of Glasgow. I am sure that the hon. Lady’s words will have been heard in the city and very much appreciated.

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

In recent years I have become a regular customer in the Clutha Vaults. In fact, last Saturday afternoon I was scheduled to meet some comrades there. I say “comrades” deliberately, because it was that kind of place. On many a Saturday afternoon, I solved the world’s problems in the Clutha—only to wake up on a Sunday morning to discover they were still there.

Just recently, I met some firefighters in the Clutha Vaults who were expressing concern about the terms and conditions of their jobs. I hazard a guess that it was the same firefighters, and other emergency workers, who responded so quickly to what happened.

The first victim of the tragedy was a man from Paisley, Gary Arthur, and I am sure that the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), will join me in passing on our condolences to Gary’s family. I want also to mention my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy). He does not often frequent pubs, and I am sure he would be the first to admit that the Clutha Vaults would not have been on his list of priorities as a place to visit. But the important thing was that, although he could have driven by without anybody knowing, instead, he reacted. For me, that is a measure of the man.

Glasgow needs a Clutha, so I ask the Secretary of State to work with the commercial sector to rebuild the Clutha Vaults from the ashes, because Glasgow dearly needs it.

[Mr Carmichael]

I was privileged to meet the owner of the bar in Glasgow city chambers today, by happenstance as much as anything else, and he described to me the quite magnificent bar that I have heard described by others, which was famous in the city for being friendly and welcoming and for providing some great music and other sorts of entertainment. In fact, that is what was happening at the point when disaster struck. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would have been an adornment to it, and, like him, I want to see it resurrected.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

Naturally, our thoughts and prayers extend to the people of Glasgow at this time, including those who have lost loved ones or whose loved ones are injured in hospital. Inverclyde is sharing in Glasgow’s grief because we too have lost a member of our community. I speak of PC Kirsty Nelis, who lived in Inverkip in my constituency. Kirsty served with distinction as an officer in my constituency, and she had been commended for her bravery. Her family must be feeling a tremendous loss, and the community is grieving for her loss. She was well respected and a very good officer.

[Mr Carmichael]

When I was at the command centre this morning, I briefly met Sir Stephen House, the chief constable of Police Scotland, who had come directly from meeting members of the families of the two officers who were killed. He was clearly very affected by that meeting, and it struck me that the police exist very much as a family. That is why I thought it appropriate to make reference in my statement to the fact that the police in Glasgow are dealing not only with the loss suffered by members of the public, but with the loss of members of their own community and family. For that reason, their response, at a professional and an emotional level, deserves recognition. I am sure that they will get all the support they need from their chief constable and other senior officers in coming to terms with their loss.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It was my privilege earlier this year to spend some of my police parliamentary scheme placement with the Police Scotland helicopter branch. Indeed, I spent time with colleagues of those who have sadly lost their lives. I saw at first hand the incredibly important work that the branch does in urban and rural areas, often saving lives. We should not forget that today. While the Secretary of State for Transport is still in his place, may I also make a point about the air accidents investigation branch? It has been pointed out that the branch has a large amount of work to deal with on other incidents as well as this one. Can the House be assured that all the resources and support that the branch needs will be forthcoming?

[Mr Carmichael]

Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Should he have any concerns about that at any stage, I would ask him to come directly to me or to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to let us know about them.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I echo all the sentiments of condolence that have been expressed so far. My constituents from West Lothian in east Scotland, and from the Falkirk district of central Scotland, share the sense of shock at this tragedy that was thrust with violence into the scene of celebration at the Clutha Vaults in Glasgow on Friday night. We also share the appreciation of and pride in the courageous response of the citizens. In fact, I saw a clip on television in which I was sure I could see my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) in the doorway of the pub, handing people out who had been injured. The people who helped in that way did so without regard to the danger to themselves. I also pay tribute to the ongoing work of the police and rescue services.

Will the Secretary of State make every effort to ensure that the full information is given at the earliest opportunity to the families of the injured and deceased, including to the families of those who were missing for some time? I say that because I had a close family member who was involved in the terrible tragedy at Dunblane, and the lack of information at the time caused a great deal of hurt and anger. Will he also pass on to the editor of one Scottish newspaper what I hope will be the unhappiness of the House at the distasteful suggestion in his paper today that an act of malice involving a laser pen might have been part of the cause of the tragedy? That suggestion is distasteful and should be deprecated.

[Mr Carmichael]

Speculation at this stage of the proceedings serves no purpose, and I absolutely deprecate any suggestion of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has just outlined. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy) said earlier, the media response so far has, by and large, been responsible and commendable, and I hope that that will continue.

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of passing information on to the families most directly concerned. I do not like coming back constantly to my professional experience, but I know how important that is because I have been there and seen the difference that that flow of information makes to families who are having to come to terms with their grief and loss. However, all the professionals must strike a balance between providing information at an early stage and providing information that they can be sure is accurate. That is not an easy balance, but I am sure it will be met by the air accidents investigation branch and the members of the Procurator Fiscal Service in the west of Scotland, who will doubtless have, at some stage, to conduct a fatal accident inquiry into this matter.

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

This follows on from the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Pamela Nash). I know that the Secretary of State appreciates the frustration and distress of families who were waiting over the weekend for news of their missing relatives, so can he provide an assurance that the search and rescue and recovery operation, which clearly was undertaken with great professionalism, was carried out as quickly as possible? If he is not in a position to give that assurance just now, will he do so at some point?

[Mr Carmichael]

What I can tell the hon. Lady is that that was very much at the heart of the discussions that the hon. Member for Glasgow East and I had with senior police officers at the command centre today. They must be scrupulous in the way in which they follow protocol, because, obviously, the consequences of their getting it wrong would be simply unthinkable. However, I can give the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) the assurance that they very much understood the importance of getting information out to families at the earliest possible opportunity.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

First, may I add my condolences to the friends and families of those who have lost their lives? Many years ago, along with the then convenor of police in Strathclyde, Jimmy Jennings, I fought hard for the maintenance of the helicopter service, so I would not want any possibility of a knee-jerk reaction grounding of these pieces of kit. As someone who has operated with that piece of kit, I can tell the Secretary of State that it is the best piece of kit that any police force can have. I would not want any knee-jerk reaction to ground any of the helicopters, even though this is the third accident within Strathclyde.

[Mr Carmichael]

I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that in other parts of the United Kingdom that helicopter remains in service. It is a helicopter that is widely used not just in this country, but elsewhere in the world, for this very sort of work—for police, ambulance service and other sorts of work. I might be wrong, but I think I am correct in saying that the Scottish ambulance service continues to use this same helicopter. Obviously, should the investigations of the AAIB disclose something that would require it to be grounded, I am certain that it would be. It is not that long since, on the same precautionary principle, there was a grounding for a very short period, which would be appropriate.

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

My mother and father grew up in the Gorbals area of Glasgow. They said it was where they learnt the meaning of the word “community”, and my goodness we have seen the strength of that community since the awful events of Friday. I am aware that the Secretary of State has had the opportunity to sign a book of condolence in Glasgow. May I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) in asking for a book of condolence to be opened here too, so that not only members in this place and the other place, but the whole Westminster community has the opportunity to send their condolences to all those people whose lives were shattered on Friday night and to express our admiration for that sense of community, and our gratitude and respect for the emergency services?

[Mr Carmichael]

As I said to the hon. Member for Glasgow North West, I very much welcome the idea, but it is a matter for the House authorities. Should there be any difficulty with that, I would be more than happy to make Dover house available for the same purpose.

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Just before I call the hon. Gentleman, I simply mention that I have heard what has been said and I can see no difficulty whatever with the idea. It makes a great deal of sense and should be capable of being introduced without delay. My understanding from past precedent is that ordinarily such a book of condolence would be lodged in the Library, and that might suit Members. An alternative might be that it could be lodged in my office. If we are agreed on the principle, it is simply a case of facilitating it in practice, and I will attend to that.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Cunningham: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Cunningham]

On behalf of the people of Coventry, may I offer our condolences and support to the people of Glasgow? Coventry is no stranger to these situations, as we have seen from the war. More importantly, about 15 or 16 years ago, an aircraft came down on a Willenhall council estate and killed five people. Anybody who has experienced such an accident, particularly if they are an MP or a member of the public, will know that it is very traumatic and that it takes a long time to recover from, so the area needs all the help that it can get.

[Mr Carmichael]

I will, if I may, tie the hon. Gentleman’s comments to your own, Mr Speaker. It is apparent that this is a shared experience. Across the United Kingdom, there are communities that have suffered loss and grief from similar such incidents. I know from the conversations I had with police officers in Glasgow this morning that they have been contacted by officers from other parts of the country. It is clear that the incident affects the whole of the United Kingdom. It is not for me to suggest how the House authorities make such decisions, but as a Member of this House, I personally would be very pleased if they were prepared to proceed in such a way.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Secretary of State and colleagues both for what they have said and for the way in which they have said it.

Point of Order

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

17:15

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may recall that in October I raised a point of order with you, Mr Speaker, relating to the failure or refusal of the Minister for Immigration to reply to letters that I had sent him. You spoke very firmly indeed about the importance of the responsiveness of Ministers to Members of this House. I raised that point of order having advised the office of the Minister for Immigration that I would do so. After that point of order, on the two cases to which I referred, I got letters the next day signed by the Minister, although the content was unsatisfactory. Since then, all letters that have been sent to me on notepaper with the name on top of the Minister for Immigration have been signed by somebody called Lord Taylor of Holbeach. They have been signed with courtesy, but if they are on the notepaper of the Minister for Immigration, they are not authentic unless they are signed by that Minister. There is no doubt in my mind that what has happened in this past month or more is an act of petty spite by the Minister, because of the fact that I raised a point of order.

Mr Speaker, I do not mind the Minister insulting me; I have been insulted by better people than the Minister whose main claim for distinction was having sustained a fracture when dancing on a table, but it is an insult to my constituents that they are treated in that way and, after you spoke in the way that you did, Mr Speaker, it is an insult to you. That being so, I ask for your ruling and comments on the way in which the Minister for Immigration has been conducting himself so that in future my constituents can get the service to which they have a right. The Home Secretary has not signed a single letter to me in three and a half years, and I can put up with that, because she obviously regards herself as superior to me, but I do not regard the Minister as superior to me, and that being so I want him to sign the letters.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, of which I did not have advance notice although I am, of course, aware of the chronological sequence of events about which he has just reminded the House. Whether any discourtesy was intended or not—I confess that I do not know, although I have no reason to think that a Minister would want to behave in a way that could be thought to be petty or spiteful—it seems to me, frankly, to be proper form for a letter sent on the headed notepaper of a particular Minister to be signed by that Minister. Although not all Members will necessarily be as exacting in their requirements as the right hon. Gentleman, if he regards it as proper that he be addressed in such a way it would make a great deal of sense, in terms of making the world go round and treating with courtesy someone with 43 years’ uninterrupted service in the House, to do things in the way that he has asked. It should not be a matter of any controversy from now on. I hope that the Home Secretary can pass on the message to the Minister for Immigration and that the Minister for Immigration will behave in a seemly manner both towards the right hon. Gentleman and towards other Members. Perhaps we can leave it there for today.

Bills Presented

Driving Whilst Disqualified (Repeat Offenders) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Rehman Chishti, supported by Henry Smith, Keith Vaz, Gordon Henderson, Mr David Ruffley, Jeremy Lefroy and Gareth Johnson, presented a Bill to allow Magistrates’ Courts discretion to refer a third or subsequent offence for driving whilst disqualified to the Crown Court for sentencing; and to grant the Crown Court the jurisdiction to impose a custodial sentence of up to two years for such offences.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February, and to be printed (Bill 139).

Causing Death by Driving Whilst Disqualified Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Rehman Chishti, supported by Henry Smith, Keith Vaz, Gordon Henderson, Mr David Ruffley, Jeremy Lefroy and Gareth Johnson, presented a Bill to increase the maximum penalty for causing death by driving whilst disqualified to fourteen years and an unlimited fine.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February, and to be printed (Bill 140).

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

17:21

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

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

Before I start my speech on Second Reading, let me, too, pay tribute to the firefighters and professional emergency services in Glasgow. As a former firefighter, I know the training that those in the emergency services go through, but nothing prepares anyone for the scenes they will have encountered when they arrived. I have had a huge and devastating disaster in my constituency, at Buncefield, and the fact that the public went in rather than walking away proves what a great nation we all live in today.

As I am a Minister of the Crown and an MP who is dyslexic, it was an interesting experience to be given the Mesothelioma Bill. It is an honour and a privilege, however, and I hope that colleagues will bear with me if I occasionally get the word “mesothelioma” wrong.

I think we can all agree that working people should have proper protection from personal injury or disease arising as a result of their work. When the principle is breached through negligence or a breach of statutory duty, it is obviously right that that person should be compensated by their employer or their employer’s insurer. However, many sufferers of diffuse mesothelioma, the aggressive cancer caused by exposure to asbestos, are unable to find an employer or relevant insurer to claim compensation from. They developed a fatal disease through the fault of their employer yet they are still unable to seek compensation through the civil courts because the responsible employer no longer exists or the records are insufficient to show who the insurer might have been.

My brief states that the “previous Administration” made some noise about this issue over the years, but in fact previous Administrations have done so—yet there is still no provision on the statute book. I am confident, however, that we can get these measures on the statute book as soon as possible and I shall explain why in my speech.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am pleased to see this Bill, only three years after the Labour consultation, and I am particularly pleased that the Minister is in charge of its progress through this House. Will he admit that this is not the scheme that Labour published in February 2010, that almost all the concessions the industry sought during the consultation have been conceded by the Government and that this is a now a scheme that shows that the Government have not stood up to the interests of the big insurance companies?

[Mike Penning]

No, no and no. The previous Administration undertook their consultation just before the general election. I will not get into party politics, but as the former Minister started on the subject, I will continue on it. After 13 years, suddenly there was a consultation, which was very wide ranging and did not develop the scheme. I cannot find out exactly what the previous Government wanted to do, because under the rules I am not allowed to see that, but all the indications are that what they would have proposed would not have passed into statute without huge cost to the taxpayer, or to people being insured today. None of that cost is incurred under the Bill.

The Bill is part of the ongoing commitment by the Government and the insurance industry to correct the market failure that everyone accepts there has been in respect of mesothelioma cases. It tackles the problem in two ways: first, by providing a power to set up a payment scheme and, secondly, by providing the possibility of establishing a technical committee that will, where there are disputes, make decisions that are binding on the insurance industry.

Diffuse mesothelioma is a fatal disease caused exclusively—this is crucial to the Bill—by exposure to asbestos. It has a long latency period, often of between 40 and 50 years, but after diagnosis average life expectancy is, sadly, only eight to nine months, with very few exceptions living beyond that. The long delay between exposure and developing the disease, combined with inconsistent record keeping in the insurance industry, means that too often people struggle to trace an employer—the employer may no longer exist—or the insurer who provided the employer’s public liability insurance, against which they can make a claim for civil damages. The insurance industry and the Government recognise that this is unjust, and that a provision must be brought forward in the Bill.

The obvious question is: why is legislation being introduced? Despite recognition of the failure of the market, the insurance industry has not been able to put forward a scheme of its own that would compensate those concerned. Disputes between insurers, and the different interests of companies that still offer employers’ liability cover, or active insurers, and those no longer offering cover, or run-off insurers, have prevented the industry from agreeing a voluntary levy; I think that was looked at in the consultation.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mike Penning]

I want to make progress. I am very conscious of the time, so I will not take an awful lot of interventions. Colleagues will have the opportunity to speak, either later on Second Reading or in the later stages of the Bill.

Industry representatives asked for legislation imposing a levy to support the payment scheme. The Bill establishes a payment scheme that will make substantial lump-sum payments to eligible sufferers from mesothelioma—and, crucially, eligible dependants of sufferers. The scheme will be funded through a levy on insurers active in the employers’ liability market, meaning that the active employers’ liability insurance market will bear the cost of the scheme.

[Mr Jones]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I know that the insurance companies are trying to sell this as a generous scheme, but all estimates say that it will be worth about £350 million. Last year alone, the profits of Lloyd’s of London were £2.7 billion. Does he not think that, from that perspective, the insurance companies are getting away very cheaply?

[Mike Penning]

Nothing is perfect, but there was nothing there before, and if we had carried on the way we were going, nothing would be there, going forward, for people who are suffering so much, and who need help today. [Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Gentleman chuntering; he has had an opportunity to intervene, and perhaps later he will make a speech. That would be more useful than chuntering. As a friend of mine, he should know better, because I will not respond to that sort of chuntering. It just wastes time in the House.

The scheme is intended to be an alternative to seeking civil damages, which we still want people to do, if the opportunity arises. The driving principle is that where adequate records are not available—this is why the scheme was developed—the disease has been diagnosed, and there has been negligence or a breach of the statutory duty, a person should still be able to access payment for their injury. That is the crucial part of the Bill. Payments should be made, wherever possible, to the sufferers themselves, while they are still alive; I think that everyone would want that, but sadly it has not been happening. The scheme will therefore be straightforward, simple, and quick to process claims.

Sadly, we expect roughly 28,500 deaths from mesothelioma between July 2012 and March 2024, when the scheme is expected to come to its conclusion. We are seeing a peak at the moment.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Penning]

I will give way one last time, but then I will have to make some progress.

[Mr Dodds]

I simply wanted to say, given the Minister’s experience in Northern Ireland—the Bill extends to Northern Ireland and the Assembly has passed a legislative consent motion—that many people there will warmly welcome the fact that legislation is being put in place. I would have liked it to go further, but I commend the Government for bringing it forward.

[Mike Penning]

I am very pleased that I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman. The legislative consent process has taken place in Northern Ireland and in Scotland, which is important in ensuring that the Bill can go forward.

If the Bill is passed before the end of the year, the first payments could be made by July 2014, which I think is what we all want. Around 300 people a year could receive an average payment of £115,000, less benefit recovery, which will be around £20,000 on average. Timing is key, because the number of mesothelioma cases is expected to peak in 2015. We must act now and launch the scheme as soon as we can, with the regulations made as soon as possible after Christmas. I expect the regulations to be in place by April 2014.

Let us look quickly at the eligibility criteria. First, an individual has to have been diagnosed with the disease on or after 25 July 2012. Secondly, they were employed at the time of exposure to asbestos, and that exposure was due to negligence or breach of statutory duty on the part of the employer. Thirdly, they have not brought a claim for civil damages against an employer or the employer’s insurer. Fourthly, they are unable to do so—this is not a replacement for civil action. Fifthly, they are not already receiving damages or other payments relating to the disease from another source.

Eligible dependants of diffuse mesothelioma sufferers may apply to the scheme in cases where the person with the disease has died before making an application or while the application was being processed. Eligible dependants will receive exactly the same amount of money as the sufferer would have received.

A sufferer must have been diagnosed on or after 25 July 2012 to be eligible for the scheme. There are always difficulties with cut-off dates, but without one the costs would be unlimited. I know that it is unfortunate, but we have to be pragmatic as we move forward. With a cut-off date, we can proceed with the agreements.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Penning]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will make some progress.

The date of 25 July 2012 was when the Government announced that we would be setting up the payments scheme and so created a reasonable expectation that eligible people diagnosed with the disease on or after that date would receive a payment. The Bill does not, and cannot, look to respond to all the people who have been affected by asbestos diseases. The issue of individuals who have developed asbestos-related diseases but cannot trace a third party will have to be addressed outside the Bill. The Bill is not an appropriate instrument—I know that some people think that it is—for taking that forward.

Mesothelioma is a distinctive disease, because it is always fatal and always caused by asbestos. That allows for a straightforward scheme to be put in place as soon as possible. A streamlined scheme, such as the one we have brought forward, could not cover all the other diseases. It would otherwise be very complicated and expensive for the taxpayer.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Penning]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I am not going to give way.

The costs of other schemes would be disproportionate and the agreements we have with the insurance companies —I know that some colleagues do not like them—would make that very difficult. We are 100% committed to delivering on the Bill. This measure represents a huge step forward, and it should be recognised as such. I thank the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), who is no longer in his place, for doing so.

The scheme will make payments to eligible people according to a fixed tariff and according to the age of the person who has the disease. The payment will be based on roughly 75% of the amount of average civil damages. Those who have followed the Bill’s progress through the other House will realise that it raised the figure from 70% to 75%. The figure of 75% is probably is not as important as the 3% levy, which is very important.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mike Penning]

I will not give way.

Setting the payments at the right rate is crucial to the success of the Bill and the ultimate establishment of a payment scheme. The payment rate of 75% of average civil damages takes the levy right to limit of what insurers have indicated they could absorb without passing the costs on to new businesses—an absolutely crucial issue. It is the absolute maximum that would be realistic within a fixed-payment scheme.

The levy on insurers will be imposed on active employers’ liability insurers at large today, not the individual insurers who took out the premiums, who were covered in cases that come under the scheme. The scheme could be jeopardised if the levy were set disproportionately high. That could delay the introduction of the scheme, preventing the payment mechanism from being in place at the time of the peak of mesothelioma deaths, which, according to the actuaries, will be around 2015. I am sure we will debate that as we go through the Bill, but I hope that that will not detract from the importance of ensuring that it gets on to the statute book as soon as possible. As everybody in the House will understand, the scheme must strike a careful balance in making a substantial payment to eligible people while ensuring that the contribution made by the insurers is fair and not excessive. Crucially, the proposed levy rate must not be so high as to risk increased costs on business, thereby adversely affecting British businesses, which no one in the House would want.

In addition to the payment scheme and the levy, the Bill makes provision for the possibility—I stress, the possibility—of establishing a technical committee to adjudicate on making binding decisions on disputes between insurers. I think we would all prefer that to these matters being in the courts.

The Bill and the principles behind it merit the support of the whole House.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Penning]

I am coming to the end of my comments.

We have no doubt that the principle of the Bill—[Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Front Benchers chuntering; they will have their opportunity to speak in a minute. Let us just get on. If the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) wants to speak, as lots of Members do, she will be welcome to do so. That is why I am not giving way every five seconds.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister is expecting to speak for a second time in this debate, but he is not prepared to give way during his speech now. Can you confirm that it is a matter of discretion for the whole House as to whether somebody is allowed to speak for a second time in a debate?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

If a Minister seeks to speak for a second time, it is with the leave of the House. As the hon. Gentleman knows, whether any Members, including Ministers, decide to give way to an intervention is entirely a matter for them and not for the Chair.

[Mike Penning]

I am conscious that lots of colleagues want to speak in this debate, which has been shortened because of the two very important statements that took place earlier. I have given way three times and there will be plenty of opportunities for Members to speak. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has probably got his press release, yet again, but that is unnecessary in this sort of debate.

I hope that the House will see the urgent need to push this Bill through and get it through its Committee and Report stages so that it goes on to the statute book and I am able to move the regulations that are under consultation as soon as possible. It can then provide compensation for our constituents who have been suffering from this terrible disease or, if they have died, for their dependants who need assistance from the scheme.

17:39

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

I am very pleased to follow the Minister in opening this debate. As he has said, this Bill marks an important step on the long road to justice for mesothelioma sufferers and their families. I welcome the progress that has been made so far, but the Minister is right to say that we should take this opportunity to see whether we can go a little further before the Bill completes its passage through the House.

I am very pleased to see so many colleagues present, many of whom represent constituencies where the disease is prevalent as a result of their industrial history. I know it will be important for colleagues on both sides of the House to be able to speak about their communities’ experiences, over many decades, of the consequences of this terrible disease. Although I totally share the Minister’s wish for the Bill to make progress through this House so that a scheme can be put in place and payments can flow to victims in the next few months, I do not think we are so pressed for time this evening that we should not give the opportunity to every one of our colleagues to make the case on behalf of their constituents, because this issue is felt very deeply in many of the communities they represent.

I know that many colleagues will want to join me in paying particular tribute to the asbestos victims support groups, which have done so much to campaign for a fairer deal for victims and to keep parliamentarians briefed, not only for this debate, but over many years.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will my hon. Friend also add the congratulations of the House to the trade unions, which have not only campaigned on behalf of asbestos victims, but won literally millions of pounds of compensation for people who would not have got it unless they had been members of a trade union?

[Kate Green]

I am very happy to join in that tribute to the work of trade unions, a number of which have worked over many years not only to advocate the cause of individual victims, but to maintain the pressure that has ultimately led to the scheme under discussion.

I also pay tribute to our colleagues in the House of Lords who have already carefully scrutinised and, as the Minister said, improved the Bill. In particular, I acknowledge the work of my noble Friend Lord McKenzie, who, under the previous Labour Government, launched the consultation that has resulted in this Bill. I pay tribute to his assiduousness and his determination to secure justice for the victims of this terrible disease. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord Freud, who has demonstrated his equal determination and commitment to righting a long-standing and terrible wrong by introducing the proposed scheme.

The Bill follows a series of earlier pieces of legislation passed by previous Labour Governments to improve the lot of victims of asbestos-related and industrial diseases. In 1969, Labour introduced the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969, requiring employers to insure against liability for injury or disease to their employees arising out of their employment. In 1979, Labour introduced and secured the passage of the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, which provides lump sum compensation payments to people suffering from certain dust-related diseases or, if they have died, to their dependants, when a claim for damages is not possible because the employer or employers are no longer in business. In 2008, we introduced the mesothelioma payment scheme, which provides lump sum payments for people suffering from diffuse mesothelioma who are unable to claim compensation from other sources.

[John Woodcock]

I am really glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned the progress made by the previous Labour Government, because so many of us, including those who became Members before me, have wanted to see faster progress and have pushed for it for so long. The Minister was simply not right to say from the Dispatch Box that nothing was done in the period leading up to this Bill.

[Kate Green]

It is right to say that progress could have been faster and that more could have been done, but we should not overlook the fact that, over four decades, it is Labour Governments who have, until now, made the progress that has been made. As I have said, it was my noble Friend Lord McKenzie who began the process of consultation that has brought us to where we are today.

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

I am very supportive of the Bill, as I was of previous ones—my grandfather died of pneumoconiosis—but do the Opposition welcome the Bill and will they support it in the House tonight?

[Kate Green]

I am happy to answer that question, as I would have done during my speech. The Opposition welcome the progress that has been made, and we will not oppose the Bill this evening, because we share with the Minister and Members from both sides of the House a wish to process payments and get them to victims as quickly as we can. That is not, however, the same as saying that the Bill cannot be improved further. We believe that it can be improved, and I will outline some of our suggestions for how that might be achieved.

As I have said, the Bill has already passed through the House of Lords, and the work done in that place has undoubtedly improved it already. We will support the Bill on Second Reading, but it does not go quite as far as necessary in bringing justice for victims. We will therefore seek further improvements as the Bill continues its parliamentary passage. I want to make it very clear that we are not doing so to score political points or to delay the Bill unnecessarily. Everyone understands the importance of establishing a scheme and getting payments flowing as quickly as possible. However, this House will fail the victims of this terrible disease if we do not do the best we can to recognise their appalling suffering through a fair system of payments.

Victims have been left for years without any compensation, while the insurance industry has continued to benefit from billions of pounds in premiums. It certainly seems to the Opposition that the Government have not yet done everything that could be done and all that needs to be achieved, despite the progress that has been made and the undoubted good intentions of the Minister and his colleague in the House of Lords.

[Mr Anderson]

The Minister spoke about the fact that insurance companies want to keep the 3% levy because they are worried about the ongoing impact on them. Is not the reality that, for 50 years at least, insurance companies got in money that they were not spending? That money has evaporated, but we should now turn to it so that people can get 100% compensation, not the paltry 75% that is on offer.

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend is right. Over many decades, insurance companies have taken in premiums and in every way resisted paying out to victims. It is good to have reached the point at which the industry is finally facing up to its collective responsibility, but it still has a long way to go.

The Minister rightly described mesothelioma as a cruel and vicious disease that is caused by exposure to asbestos, and as a long-tail disease that is diagnosed years and often decades after it has been contracted. It is invariably fatal and, once a diagnosis is made, cruelly quick: following diagnosis, most victims have only about nine months of life left. The effects of the illness are horrifying for sufferers, and for the loved ones who watch them die. The true disgrace is that the link to asbestos has been known for many decades.

One consequence of the long period for which the disease can lie dormant is that, following a diagnosis, it is of course more difficult to attach liability, given that the circumstances that brought about the condition often took place many years previously. As a result, many sufferers have until now been forced to rely only on statutory payments and welfare benefits. Although I am pleased that the industry will at last take a small step towards meeting the obligations it owes to sufferers, it is only right and proper that it should finally do so.

I understand that, as the Minister said, the scheme will be established as one of last resort, which is to be relied on only if no employer or insurer can be traced. That might be a reasonable position for the industry, but we must ensure that it does not exacerbate the pain and difficulty for claimants.

During the short period from diagnosis to death, sufferers become desperately ill, yet at the same time they are expected to go to often huge lengths to trace a former employer, perhaps from many years back; to identify that employer’s insurer, perhaps via the Employers’ Liability Tracing Office; to obtain the necessary medical records and wait the 40 days that agencies have to respond to such requests; and then, ultimately, to take legal advice and access the scheme. I think we can see how that would eat into the tragically limited time remaining to sufferers following diagnosis, so we must do all we can to speed up and smooth the process.

I recognise the progress made in speeding up the process and helping victims to trace their employers’ insurers. Following its introduction in 1999, many insurers signed up to a voluntary employers’ liability code of practice, but none the less tracing rates remained deeply disappointing, never exceeding 50%. In 2012, the success rate was just over 34%; and even accounting for those cases now proceeding via ELTO, the success rate in 2012 still reached only 61%. Clearly, there is considerable scope for better support for victims to pursue insurers.

It seems, however, that the industry, in its negotiations with Ministers, has sought to do the very minimum it can get away with to make amends to sufferers. As noted, payments will be set at just 75% of average civil damages—admittedly, as the Minister said, an uplift on the 70% initially proposed. It is claimed that the industry cannot afford to pay more without passing on the additional cost to current employers’ liability customers. The notion that this multi-billion-pound industry, which has been collecting premiums for decades while doing all it can to avoid payouts and which is to be gifted £17 million by the Government under this Bill and lent a further £30 million to help with the scheme’s introduction and the smoothing of the first year’s payments, cannot and should not be more generous is simply not credible.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady have a view on what level of compensation could be paid without insurance companies passing on the cost to current policyholders?

[Kate Green]

There are two questions wrapped up in that one question. First, on present figures, what does it appear the industry can afford? I will say something about that in a moment. Secondly, does the industry have to pass on the cost to its customers, or could it choose to absorb it? We are talking about roughly 10% of the total value to the industry of the employers’ liability market. I appreciate that that is not a small sum, but as colleagues have pointed out, the industry has had decades to accumulate profits as a result of the premiums it has collected.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It is not just about the accumulated profits to which my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) have referred: insurance companies are still making huge profits. Lloyd’s of London made £2.7 billion in 2012, Royal and Sun Alliance made £233 million between January and June 2012, and Aviva made £605 million between January and June 2013. These companies are not unprofitable, so their attitude to a levy costing £350 million is an insult to the victims.

[Kate Green]

I hope we bring the industry to understand that it would be right and proper for it to be more generous to the victims than the current scheme appears.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

In contrast to the previous speaker, the hon. Lady is being generous in giving way. She will be aware that compensation under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 is 100% of liabilities available before the courts. Should that not be the guide?

[Kate Green]

I can say that the Opposition will be pushing for payment levels to be increased, and we believe they can be, given that the industry has accepted that a levy of 3% of gross written premiums is affordable and given that the impact assessment has shown that payments set at even 80% or 90% of average civil damages are affordable within a 10-year period. The Minister said that the proportion of GWP that the levy represented was more important than the 75% level derived from that 3% figure. It is our reading of the figures, however, that there is scope for the industry to be more generous, even within its own accepted cap of 3% of GWP. I hope to explore that in more detail with the Minister in Committee. As the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) said, there is a strong moral argument, of course, for setting payment at 100%, as is the case, for example, for the Motor Insurers’ Bureau scheme—all the more so because under the Bill recovery of any benefits paid will be set at 100%.

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

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Is this not a familiar tune we are hearing from the Government? Whether it is, in this case, the insurance companies, or, in the case of the statement earlier, the energy companies, they do not seem prepared to stand up to powerful vested interests or to stand up for vulnerable people in need of support.

[Kate Green]

I hope that collectively the House can strengthen the Minister’s arm and send a strong message to the industry that we do not consider the scheme to be good enough yet and that we expect and demand improvements.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Obviously, we want to try to help people who are suffering—everybody has accepted that—but these are complex areas. The hon. Lady has spent much of her speech attacking the insurance industry, which might be fair enough, but it rather raises the question: what was going on during the 13 years Labour was in power?

[Kate Green]

First, the hon. Gentleman might have missed the history I just rehearsed of the legislative process to date, and secondly, he is right that the condition and the legal circumstances surrounding it have been extremely complicated—there has been considerable litigation in this area, not just in the UK but internationally. I share his frustration that it has taken so many years to bring justice to victims, but it is not true that no efforts were being made. In particular, as colleagues have noted, in making what progress has been made, we have been powerfully supported by our colleagues in the trade union movement, so there has certainly not been utter indolence when it comes to securing justice for victims.

[John Healey]

This might help my hon. Friend. I am very impressed by the case she is making about the need for the scheme to be simple, smooth, speedy and more generous. Does she know that, in its briefing, the Association of British Insurers has said today that it would expect the scheme to run for about 40 years and therefore that any calculation of what could be afforded as a level of compensation—and to whom—should be seen in that context and not that of the short four-year term on which the Government have so far based their calculations?

[Kate Green]

Four years certainly seems a remarkably short period over which to cost the scheme, given the many decades over which the industry expects it to continue. It is a concern—one that we will discuss further in Committee—that the figures seem to have changed since the Bill moved from the Lords to the Commons, and changed back again, in a manner that might be said to favour a particular outcome that suits the industry. We will want to question that in more detail when considering the range of figures being presented.

While the Bill has been proceeding, the Ministry of Justice has been consulting on its proposals to expedite and streamline the process for taking legal action, and to introduce fixed fees for mesothelioma cases, and we have real concerns about the MOJ’s plans for the fate of the scheme before us. Evidence suggests that fixed fees are likely to exert a downward pressure on the level of civil damages, notwithstanding the 10% uplift in damages that has not yet been applied to mesothelioma suffers under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Indeed, our suspicions are borne out by the view of the insurance industry that this Bill and the MOJ process should be seen as part of a single package.

I recognise that the Minister cannot answer for changes that the MOJ will make to court rules, but it is of concern that there will be no parliamentary scrutiny of those changes. I warn him that as the Bill proceeds we will seek assurances that the MOJ’s actions will not adversely affect the scheme in the Bill. Moreover we should remember that these already quite meagre payouts, which are already to be reduced by benefits recovery, will be further depleted by legal fees and fees for medical certificates. We are anxious that the deal looks less and less good for sufferers, and we will return to those points in Committee.

As has been noted, hundreds of sufferers will lose out because the scheme does not take effect until 25 July 2012, which was when the Government published their response to the consultation set up in 2010 under Labour. Although I recognise the time spent by Ministers in detailed negotiations with the industry, we must recognise that between February 2010 when the consultation opened and July 2012, more than 700 people will have died without access to justice. We therefore believe there is a strong argument for the earlier start date of February 2010, and we do not think it credible to suggest that an industry whose very purpose and lifeblood is the anticipation and management of risk has not been preparing for the likely introduction of a scheme such as this since the date of the initial consultation.

As the debate in the House of Lords exposed, this is not a matter of insurers reserving policy—I accept that a more rigorous framework might apply to provision for risk—but a simple matter of business planning. Surely it would have been prudent for insurers to have assumed from 2010 that there would be a payment system with which they would be required to comply, and to have made provision for best and worst-case scenarios. That, too, is a matter we expect to explore further in Committee.

I am sure the Minister will assert that there is a cost to the industry of an earlier start date, and I hope we will have some definitive figures for that. Lord Freud said the costs at 100% of civil damages would be £119 million, and he undertook to calculate figures at the lower percentage—then 70%—introduced by this scheme. It would be helpful to know from the Minister before we go into Committee what progress has been made with those calculations at the level now proposed of 75%.

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

My hon. Friend, quite rightly, points out the faux concerns about cost and affordability. Does she agree that insurers are not doing this out of the goodness of their heart? For many years, they received payments for exactly this eventuality, and they should therefore be made to compensate those who are now sufferers.

[Kate Green]

I can only agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope the industry does not assume that the House will let it get away with the minimum it can propose. I assure the House that the mood of many colleagues from all sides is determinedly that we should do the best we can for victims—we and the industry owe them that.

As I think the Minister has alluded to, there is also a debate to be had about the scope of the Bill. It will exclude the self-employed unless they can determine they were de facto employees, and exclude family members who may have been contaminated—for example because they washed a brother’s or husband’s overalls. It will cover only mesothelioma and exclude all other asbestos-related illnesses. I heard what the Minister said about that, and again, I hope we can explore that issue further in Committee. Lord Freud offered welcome assurance about Ministers’ intentions in relation to other forms of asbestos-related disease when the Bill passed through the House of Lords, and I hope we will be able to secure firm commitments from the Minister on that.

[Mike Penning]

rose—

[Kate Green]

I sense he may be about to give me that assurance.

[Mike Penning]

I can certainly assure the hon. Lady on her second point. On her first point, it is right that the House has those calculations before we go into Committee, and I will ensure those figures are made available to her in the Library.

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to the Minister. Taking advantage of his generosity, he will see the amendments that the Opposition table in the next few hours, so will he bring forward figures for a range of different scenarios, including 75%, 80%, 90% and 100% of average civil compensation?

[Mike Penning]

I ask the hon. Lady please not to push me too far; but I accept those points and my civil servants are listening.

[Kate Green]

I would never push the Minister too far.

We had hoped to have received fuller details of the scheme’s operation by now, but regrettably the regulations have yet to be published. I am sure, however, given the shameful history that precedes this Bill, that Members will agree it is vital that the scheme is seen to be run in a transparent and wholly independent manner. In the House of Lords, Lord McKenzie asked for more information about the oversight committee, and I have seen the letter that Lord Freud wrote to peers on 4 September on that matter. That offers some reassurance, but we would like to see provision for the oversight committee included in the Bill. That is of particular concern because, as I understand, the insurance industry could—and intends to—bid to run the scheme. I confess that I am not entirely comfortable with that notion, but if ultimately the industry is selected to manage the scheme, the role and make-up of the oversight committee becomes all the more important.

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

May I suggest to my hon. Friend and the Minister that a precedent that could be considered is the miners compensation scheme for those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease? That had clear oversight, including democratic engagement both at UK level and also in the regions, which gave the surety that every last penny piece was paid out to the people who deserved it.

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that advice, and he is right to draw attention to the importance for local communities of a scheme that is transparent, credible, and which they are able to scrutinise and interrogate.

I expect that other issues will arise during our deliberations on the Bill, for example in relation to medical research, where I welcome the commitments made by the Government in the House of Lords, and on the differential between the levels of award made before a sufferer’s death and the level that can be obtained afterwards by his or her dependants. Frankly, that difference has little to commend it for a condition where death is the certain outcome. I recognise that the situation arises not from this Bill but from existing fatal accidents legislation, but I hope there may be scope for a more generous and flexible approach to mesothelioma.

There remain many complex and important issues to explore, and while we share the Government’s ambition to get the scheme in place and payments flowing, it would be a dereliction of our duty as parliamentarians if we did not scrutinise the full detail of the scheme and do all we can to maximise its generosity for sufferers. Victims have waited long for justice in the face of what can only be described as a hitherto intransigent industry. Now it is time to right a long-standing wrong, and give some small peace of mind to victims and their families in the midst of the most terrible suffering.

Let me conclude with the words of my constituent, Mrs Elaine Haskins, who first drew my attention to the terrible injustice and cruelty that victims have long lived with. Her husband died of mesothelioma in 2005—a death she describes as

“very stressful and painful. Two of the insurance companies were not traceable and the others did everything possible to get out of paying a penny. The sad thing was my husband died before he could see justice for his suffering and death.”

For too long we have let down too many victims of this cruel and terrible disease. Let us resolve today that we will right that wrong, and at last give justice to those victims.

18:10

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak on this issue, on which I have a great deal of knowledge from working in the insurance industry for five years before I became a Member of Parliament and from representing a constituency with very high levels of mesothelioma. Britain has the highest rate of mesothelioma in the world and sadly that rate is rising. In the past five years, the south-east of England has had the highest rates of deaths from mesothelioma compared with anywhere else in the UK. Medway, with its heavy industry and dockyard history, is a particular hot spot.

Mesothelioma is a horrific disease that is contracted exclusively by exposure to asbestos. Those who are diagnosed are often dead within a year. For many years, lawyers and insurers have taken their time to settle claims through civil procedures, leaving great financial uncertainty for sufferers and their families. A great deal has been done to speed up civil claims for victims and tribute ought to be paid to the work of Senior Master Whitaker for making that happen. However, there remains a small yet significant group of people who contracted mesothelioma but could not be compensated either because of poor record keeping by their employer or their employer’s insurer, or because neither existed any more.

The Bill will help to rectify that and is therefore welcome, but it still contains shortcomings that, if Ministers, insurers and lawyers were open-minded, could be rectified at little extra cost to them. Before going into detail, I congratulate Lord Freud on his sterling efforts to introduce the Bill. From my own experience of working in the insurance industry and alongside lawyers, I know that the negotiations would have been very difficult. He deserved the praise he received from peers on both sides of the House as the Bill progressed through the other place, but it still lacks fair compensation for victims of this dreadful disease.

In my preliminary discussions with interested parties, there was consensus on one point: the Bill will give sufferers something. That is true and something might be better than nothing, but the Bill puts the something squarely in the pockets of the insurers and lawyers, and not as much as there should be in the hands of the victim. The victim is the one who turned up to work and was exposed to asbestos. The victim is the one who happened to work for a company that kept shoddy records. The victim is the one who will die through no fault of his own. The Bill has room for improvement, based on further compromise.

Their lordships debated the Bill on a set of assumptions that have been revised since it has progressed to this place. The goalposts have moved. It is a shame that what should be a simple piece of legislation has become so mired in suspicion and confusion regarding what is and is not included in the levy. When the Bill was discussed in the Lords, Lord Freud made it clear that the levy could not be more than 3% gross written premium. That was to ensure that insurers financing the scheme would not incur additional costs that would be passed on to their existing customers. At that point, the levy agreed with the insurance industry was 75% and equated to, as illustrated in the Department for Work and Pensions’ own analysis in support of the Bill, 2.79% GWP in the first four years of the scheme and 2.27% GWP in the first 10 years of the scheme.

Since the debate in the Lords, the assumptions relating to legal costs have changed. Their lordships debated a fixed legal fee of £2,000, but we are now debating a fee of £7,000. In truth, there is total confusion about who will pay the fee. As the Association of British Insurers understands it, it will be paid by claimants out of their compensation which the Government will uplift accordingly. Not only is it unclear what precisely the fee is for, but what the other 25% is paying to administer. It would be helpful if the Government clarified who pays the legal fees. Is it the claimants out of their compensation or the insurance companies out of the administration fee? If it is the claimants, we need to be absolutely clear that when they are awarded £57,000 of compensation, £7,000 of legal fees will have to be deducted from that award.

Lawyers, insurers and the Government are, unsurprisingly, at loggerheads on the fixed fee, presumably because if it is acceptable for this scheme, why could it not be applied to civil claims? Where would it fit into the LASPO review that the Ministry of Justice is expected to complete and report on next year? At the heart of the Bill is supposed to be the fact that the victim is coming into the scheme at last resort. A lot of what is required will have already been done, so lawyers in a civil claim might not be as necessary as they would be in this scheme. Senior Master Whitaker has helped a great deal and the Department is clear that in some circumstances a medical report would be enough. The underlying point, however, is that because of the revised estimates, about which I remain sceptical, there is no room to raise the compensation limit from 75% to 80%—a much fairer level of financial recompense for victims of the disease. In his introduction, the Minister said that 75% is not the important figure and that the 3% levy is. With the greatest respect to the Minister, it is the level of compensation that is important to the victim, not what the level of GWP is to the insurance industry.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentioned that Medway is a hot spot for the disease. There have been 42 deaths in my constituency in the past five years—a greater number even than in her constituency, and about three times the national average. She mentioned the 3% and 75% figures. Is it not the case that the changes to which she referred will affect the sums relating to the 3% cap? If that is so, will it not be open to Ministers to show some compromise or movement in the direction that she is so ably arguing for?

[Tracey Crouch]

My hon. Friend is right that our constituencies are particularly affected and I am delighted to see him in his place to debate this important issue. He makes an important point. The Government have set a cap of 3% and there is no room for manoeuvre unless they are willing to stand up to the insurance industry and say that there is a firm view on both sides of the House that the 75% they have currently negotiated is not good enough. They need to agree on another figure. I believe that 80% would be appropriate as a good compromise between the 90% being called for by the lawyers—they cite the Financial Services Compensation Scheme as a useful comparator—and the 70% the insurers were originally willing to accept. Furthermore, with the previous assumptions under which their lordships debated the Bill, 80% would have been 2.98% GWP over the first four years and 2.42% over 10 years. Now, with the 3% cap, under the new legal costs associated with the scheme, there is no room for manoeuvre. I find that disappointing, unless the Minister is willing to stand up to the insurance industry and discuss this.

[Mr Anderson]

The hon. Lady is making a compelling case. Does she agree that, as the Minister said, the employers were 100% to blame, that the insurance companies have had 100% contributions for many years, that the Government are asking for 100% clawback on DWP benefits and that, sadly, 100% of the victims are dead? Is there not a clear moral case for this House to accept nothing less than 100% compensation for the people who have died?

[Tracey Crouch]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I was persuaded by the 100% argument, but having read the House of Lords debate, I now think that 100% would not be right. There is room for compromise on the percentage and we need to ensure that we put the victim at the heart of the compensation scheme—not the insurers and lawyers who may ultimately benefit from it.

I am also concerned about the lack of clarity on assumptions relating to the age of people diagnosed with mesothelioma. Some think that those accessing the scheme will be younger than the current age group of claimants going through civil schemes, whereas the Department has assumed that there will be an older age group. I tend to believe that, as employers’ liability insurance has been compulsory since 1972, and given this disease’s latency, those unlikely to be able to trace their insurer, making them eligible for this scheme, would surely be older and the younger workers would be fewer. Again, there is room for negotiation with the insurance industry over the compensation levy.

I understand that the industry is worried about a cohort of younger people who might access the scheme because of exposure in schools and other areas with a less obvious asbestos risk. I am afraid that that is bunkum, because not only would schools have some form of liability insurance, but it would be possible to access compensation via civil procedures. For me, the current 25% running cost of the scheme is far too high, and I genuinely think that this is a poor outcome for the sufferer and a good outcome for the industry, which, as the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) said, has behaved poorly over many decades in this area.

[Mike Penning]

I am conscious that during the course of the debate I may be able to alleviate some concerns across the House about how the scheme is proceeding. Earlier in her comments, my hon. Friend asked whether the legal fees would be in addition or inclusive. They are clearly in addition to any payments that the person receives from the scheme.

[Tracey Crouch]

We will have an interesting discussion about that in Committee. The representations I have received are contrary to what the Minister says, suggesting that the fees would still come from the claimant, albeit that the Government will uplift the amount of compensation payable in the first place. A victim might get £57,000, for example, but would then have to pay the £7,000 fee out of it—unless the legal fee comes in lower than that, in which case they get to keep the difference.

[Mike Penning]

Let me clarify once and for all that the legal fee of £7,000 is outside the payment. If people do not spend £7,000, they keep the difference. It is outside, not part of, the compensation.

[Tracey Crouch]

As I say, we will have an interesting debate in Committee. Is the Minister saying that the insurance industry will pick up the legal fee? Where is this magic legal fee coming from? Who is paying for it? If it is not the claimant, it must surely be in the 25% administration costs. Officials have said that it is not within those costs, so we are going to have an interesting debate about where this £7,000 is coming from and, indeed, what it actually equates to.

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

The Bill went through the other place on the basis that the legal fees would be £2,000, yet we are now told that they are £7,000. The Minister needs to respond to my hon. Friend’s earlier point that one could move to an 80% level of compensation and accommodate it if the legal fees were indeed £2,000 within the 80% of gross written premium. One could not do it otherwise. It could not be accommodated if the legal fees were £7,000. There is room for manoeuvre if the assumption on which the other place proceeded—namely that the legal fees would be £2,000—is correct, but the Minister needs to be clear in the concluding speech about where this £7,000 figure has come from.

[Tracey Crouch]

I am grateful for my hon. and learned Friend’s intervention. The irony is that, when the Bill first started in the House of Lords, the figure of £7,000 was debated, but the assumption was subsequently revised down to £2,000 and then back up to £7,000. Under the original £7,000 assumption, however, the DWP calculations were exactly the same as they were when £2,000 was being discussed. Unfortunately, it is completely unclear to anyone who has paid any attention to this Bill precisely who is paying for this, what it includes and how the victim can still be put at the heart of it all.

On one particular point, I pay tribute to the insurance industry. It improved over the years in its financing of research into mesothelioma. This began when I was working at Aviva—I am not talking all the credit for it, but it did—as an attempt to stop the last Government from following the lead of Scotland and legislating too harshly on other asbestos diseases such as pleural plaques. As it happens, I supported the last Government’s resistance to following Scotland and was pleased that the top four insurers contributed to research funding into mesothelioma instead. That said, the funding runs out next year, and there has currently been no voluntary commitment—not just from the top four, but from all EL insurers—to contribute further money into research. I think that is a dreadful shame, which will have a major impact on future treatments to alleviate suffering at a time when we expect meso-diagnosis to spike. I share the views of the British Lung Foundation—supported, I believe, by the Association of British Insurers—about building the continuation of funding directly into the Bill. It is sad that a £4 billion EL industry cannot make a voluntary offering, spread equally across all insurers. If that is so, we parliamentarians now have a statutory opportunity to force them to do so.

[Mr Anderson]

The hon. Lady is generous in giving way. Is she aware that when the pleural plaques legislation went through the other place and the Law Lords decided that it would no longer be compensated, KPMG estimated that the insurance companies had a £1.4 billion windfall, so surely a little bit of that could go into the research that she is talking about?

[Tracey Crouch]

I do, indeed, remember that. I remember having long conversations about pleural plaques with the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn), who has been a long-time campaigner on the issue. As it happens, I disagreed with the idea of compensating pleural plaques. Everybody involved with this Bill well knows that I am passionate about mesothelioma—a disease from which people will die, and quickly—but I have never thought of extending the provisions to other diseases. I supported what the industry did on pleural plaques, but I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Let me quickly turn to the issue of benefit recovery. While I agree that this scheme should follow civil procedures and recover benefits from those who have received payments until their compensation has been paid, I think it incredibly unfair that a claimant who is getting the equivalent of 75% compensation to that from a civil claim must repay 100% of his benefits. To return to the main point of the Bill, the claimant is accessing the scheme because of poor practices by employers and insurers after having been negligently exposed to asbestos. I feel that the victim is the one who will lose out here, so I hope we get an opportunity to look carefully at the recovery issue in Committee.

Finally, let me briefly mention secondary exposure. I understand why diagnosis of mesothelioma caused by secondary exposure from asbestos is excluded from this Bill, but this is an area that I genuinely hope the Department is looking at pursuing. The numbers are small, but I would hazard a pretty good guess that most victims of secondary exposure will be women, who are sufferers of this dreadful cancer purely because they did their wifely duty and washed their husband’s overalls. These women deserve to be compensated, too. They receive payment under the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008, so it is an accepted cause of suffering, but a proper compensation scheme should be considered for the future.

While I worked in the industry, I campaigned hard for better, faster justice for those who would die from mesothelioma. I may have been an irritant in the industry, but I was passionate that, after decades of poor behaviour, something had to change. Improvements were made and I was proud to be a part of those small, but important developments. However, in the middle of a constant stand-off between insurers and lawyers remains a person who will die a most horrible death, and at present this Bill, while welcome in principle, still puts too much in the pockets of other interested parties. I hope that Ministers both in this place and the other place will remain open-minded and listen to the concerns of colleagues on both sides and ultimately be willing to go back to the insurers and lawyers and fight just a little harder for the victims of mesothelioma. To my mind, it is the very least that they deserve.

18:28

[Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)]

Let me first pay tribute to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for the genuine interest and compassion she has shown on this subject for a number of years. I am sure that, at the end of the day, we will get the outcome that we are all looking for.

Last Friday, I sadly attended the funeral of a great and old friend, Terry Smith, a local lad from Hebburn, a town in my constituency. He was a local activist, secretary of the local social club, the Iona club, of which I am a member, too. He was a member of the local church, St Aloysius. He was very active in the Society of St Vincent de Paul, and visited the sick. He was a long-term member of the Labour party, and would go out and distribute leaflets whenever he was needed. I am sure that we all know men of his kind—men who do a lot of work but who are unsung heroes, and who never ask for anything in return. Terry left school and went to work in the shipyards, but after a while he changed his career. He went to college, and then managed to get a job teaching. He taught for 28 years, until he retired.

Two years ago, Terry went to the doctor. After being given a medical, he was told that he had mesothelioma and had three months to live, or, if he had treatment and if he was lucky, he would make it to a year. However, because of his determination, his obvious faith and his medical treatment, he got through two years. It was very sad to be at his funeral last Friday: it was very sad for his friends, and, more important, it was very sad for his family.

Terry has now become part of a statistic. Every week, three people in the north-east die of mesothelioma. What most of those people have in common is that they are working-class, and were employed by a negligent employer who exposed them to the poisons of asbestos.

I welcome the scheme, and I think that the Minister has done a great job, because it has been kicking around in the long grass for long enough. It will impose a levy on the insurance industry, which will compensate victims who cannot trace an employer for whom they may have worked many decades ago and who may have gone bust since then, and cannot trace the employer’s insurance company either. The regional media welcome the scheme because they see it as an end to an injustice that we have witnessed for a long time, and, as I have said, I welcome it because it is an improvement on the status quo. However, the Bill falls far short of what the last Labour Government intended.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I agree with what my hon. Friend has said about the regional media, but did he feel as concerned as I did about a headline in the Sunderland Echo which referred to a £300 million bonanza for asbestos victims? In fact, many of his constituents and mine will not be covered by the Bill, and will be short-changed.

[Mr Hepburn]

I think that many issues of that kind will be exposed as the Bill proceeds through its stages. The media gave the scheme a warm welcome because they did not know the details and the nitty-gritty.

The Bill falls short of what we intended when we issued our consultation document. It falls short in regard to the cut-off time—in its present form, it will deny compensation to thousands of mesothelioma victims and save the insurance companies millions—and it falls short in regard to the payments, which will be 75% of the average payment made following a civil claim. I think that the proportion should be 100%, and that insurance companies should be fined a further 25% for ignoring their responsibilities over the years. The money could then be used to establish some proper research on a cure for mesothelioma.

Why has the Bill been diluted, and why was it kicked into the long grass? Why has this taken so long? The answer is, quite simply, that the insurance companies’ fingerprints are all over the Bill. That shows the unhealthy relationship that the Tory party has with the insurance industry, which has pumped millions into the party’s coffers over the years. It also shows the value that the Government place on working people, especially those in the north-east. I wonder what would have happened if those people had been professionals in the south-east of England. I wonder what would have happened if, for example, judges had all of a sudden developed an occupational cancer as a result of inhaling hairs from their wigs. We know exactly what would have happened. Those would not have been working-class people breathing in asbestos fibres, and the Tories would have looked after their own people.

[Mark Reckless]

I do not make this point from a partisan perspective, but the hon. Gentleman said that the scheme was not as generous as the one that the previous Government had planned. Is there something about the disease, about the insurance industry or about politics in this country that explains why it has taken so long for us to reach this stage?

[Mr Hepburn]

This came about because of the Labour party’s links with the trade unions, which brought the issue to our attention. Labour Members in the last Parliament—many of whom are sitting here now—had a number of meetings with the then Prime Minister and with justice Ministers. The Bill has been a long time coming. It could have been here two years ago, but because the insurance industry was crawling around and because the Government wanted to appease it, it was kicked into the long grass. Eventually, however, the Minister—and all credit to him—took over the brief and, very recently, enabled us to make progress.

[Hywel Williams]

There is a long history of delayed compensation for such diseases. In the early 1960s, a campaign for compensation for slate workers began in Wales. It eventually led to the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, but for 20 years or so, nothing at all happened.

[Mr Hepburn]

Indeed.

Let me end by saying that the Bill can be improved. There is time. However, if it is to be improved, the Government must stand up to the employers who have literally got away with murder, and they must stand up to the insurance companies which have literally robbed dead people of £1 billion. They must stand up for what is right. We are convinced that we are on the right side, and we want to know whether the Government will be on the right side. If they do not get on to the right side, they will be seen for what they are. They will be seen to be on the side of the privileged, the powerful and the wealthy, and, ultimately, to be letting cancer sufferers down.

18:36

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn), who spoke with understandable passion. All of us who know something about industrial life in this country are aware that for too long we were literally in a state of ignorance. I think of industrial deafness, which affected members of my family, and of other respiratory diseases. In particular, I think of mesothelioma, and of the date of knowledge in law, which is deemed to be 1969. It is assumed for the purposes of liability that, until that date, employers, businesses and industries throughout the country—and the people who worked in those businesses, delivering productivity and profit for year after year—were labouring in a state of ignorance. That is a tragedy when we consider the individual stories of the workers and what they went through.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about the date of knowledge, but, as he knows, mesothelioma was originally identified in the Meriwether report of 1931. After the second world war, the Government wrote to the British shipowners’ confederation drawing attention to the dangers of asbestos. For all those years the fact that it is a danger to health was denied, although that was known to be the case.

[Mr Buckland]

I was coming to that point. Although for the purposes of liability knowledge of the dangers is defined as having started in 1969, we know that the debate had been going on for many years before that. It is a tragedy that the decision was not made for a generation. Thousands of workers, many of whom are no longer with us, were working in dangerous conditions.

I represent Swindon, a railway town which had the Great Western Railway at its heart, and had a railway works until 1986, and I have heard stories from many former railway workers who worked in and around asbestos every day of their working lives. Asbestos was being transported along the railway system, but it was also being used to line the boilers and pipes, and to insulate the heat generators which are an integral part of a locomotive. More than that, however, asbestos was being used to line all the carriages built at the Swindon works, and asbestos was used in sprays that were applied to surfaces within and without those carriages. It was very much part of the essence of working life in Swindon. For very many people whom I know exposure to asbestos has been a reality, and that means that many people are still carrying a latent disease—a latent disease that can manifest itself as late as 40 or even 50 years after exposure.

I am going to single out one person, not because he would have regarded himself as an exceptional man, but because he rose to become the mayor of our town and because he died this year from mesothelioma. Rex Barnett worked for British Rail from 1953 to 1961. It was while he was there that he was exposed to asbestos and went on to develop what was for many years a latent disease. He was diagnosed with pleural plaques back in the mid ’90s and then was one of the unfortunate people who went on to develop mesothelioma right at the end of his mayoral year in 2011. Rex battled on. He was an indefatigable character who in his mayoral year raised over £60,000 for local charities, an exceptional feat in itself. He battled on for another two years, but finally, sadly and tragically, succumbed this year. In his memory and the memory of thousands of other people who worked alongside him, this measure is a welcome one.

I pause now for a moment to think about the memorial garden we have in Queen’s park in Swindon to the victims of mesothelioma, which is marked by a very simple memorial, and which gives members of my community an opportunity to contemplate and consider the sacrifice— the unwitting sacrifice—that was made by those who were exposed for all that time to lethal amounts of asbestos.

In my early legal career I was trained in personal injury work, which included industrial compensation, and therefore have some, albeit limited, experience of dealing with claims relating to conditions such as mesothelioma. I think that perhaps we are in danger of oversimplifying the position when talking, perfectly naturally, about the need for a swift resolution to the claims made by victims of this disease and their families. There is a danger that seeking to resolve claims before death could lead to a significant under-settlement of claims, which would deprive dependants of the victims of a substantial proportion of the damages they could recover in a posthumous claim.

I think it is right to talk very briefly in this Second Reading debate about the wider position and principles, while recognising the fact that this Bill will deal with a relatively small cohort of people for whom traceability of employer or insurer has not been possible. The following important point has been raised with me by claimants’ solicitors, some of whom have years of experience in practice in Swindon. The regime that applies to posthumous claims for damages is still dramatically different in England and Wales from that which applies to those made during the lifetime of the claimant. For example, bereavement damages are not payable during the lifetime of claimants, claimants cannot recover for future funeral expenses during their lifetime, and living claimants cannot recover damages for services provided to dependants after death; that is recoverable only as a services dependency under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. It is clear that under that Act income dependency claims will usually be significantly more for dependants than a lost years claim made under common law for a living claimant. It is clear that claims that are brought by widows after death will be about 20%—a fifth—more valuable than equivalent claims made during life. So the dilemma for mesothelioma sufferers going through all the pain and struggle they have to endure is: do they resolve their claims during their lifetime for what will be a lesser sum, or do they die with a claim unresolved?

It is interesting to note that the Scots have legislated to bring the rights of relatives before and after death into some alignment. That is one of way of dealing with this, but there are alternatives that could, and do, deliver a practical solution.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I probably am thick, but will my hon. Friend explain why there is a difference between claiming before death and after death, because I have not quite understood that?

[Mr Buckland]

I am certainly not going to insult my hon. Friend, but what I will say is that payments after death are governed by the 1976 Act and payments before death fall under common law, so different rules and regimes apply. As I have said, in Scotland there has been some move to try to align certain aspects—but not by any means all aspects—of the rights of dependants, relating to mesothelioma in particular.

There are practical alternatives, and in her excellent speech my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) made a point that deserves re-emphasis. The work of the senior master of the Queen’s bench division, Master Whitaker, should be singled out for particular praise because he and his colleagues have developed specialist lists that, in effect, create a fast-track procedure for the efficient resolution of liability issues. The fast-track procedure allows for summary judgment to be passed where sufficient evidence has been demonstrated by claimants about exposure to asbestos in breach of duty and where defendants then have to show cause—reversing the burden, as it were—on evidence why that liability should not be proved. With the resolution of liability, interim payments can be made to claimants and their families to meet the claimants’ needs during life, but that interim payment does not bring resolution or quantum to a close. That can be achieved by a stay of the claim until after death, to allow the full quantum—the final value—of that claim to be properly assessed.

It is important that we make these points because if we are truly to address the needs of victims and their families, we have to understand what they need, rather than just make glib assumptions about brevity and the need to tie things up before the tragic event of the death of a victim.

We know that over the next 30 years mesothelioma will claim about 60,000 lives, and that means about 2,500 people will be dying every year from this aggressive cancer. This particular scheme deals with last-resort claims where there is no other alternative. Already we have seen welcome changes by the Government in the other place, by conceding the 70% levy and raising it to 75%, on figures that at the time in question still represented under 3% of the gross written premium for employer liability insurance. I know that these figures have been updated, but when this Bill reaches Committee more particularity must be given as to the basis for those updated figures, because it is crucial if we are to have a meaningful continuing negotiation with the insurance industry—which I think we should—that we know precisely what we are dealing with.

I know my hon. Friend the Minister cannot commit himself and the Government to particular figures today, but I urge him—and I know he will listen—to keep those figures open and to look to see if we can get a greater proportion, and whether we can achieve 80% as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford suggested. The more we get, the more justice we will deliver for the victims and their families.

[Tracey Crouch]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the insurance industry is unlikely to walk away from this scheme because of a very small uplift to 80%, given that it already has an incredibly bad reputation, thanks to the way it has dealt with mesothelioma victims? The notion that, all of a sudden, the entire scheme is going to fall apart because of a small, continuous uplift to 80%, and that the insurance industry is just going to walk away, is absolute nonsense.

[Mr Buckland]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not believe that the industry, which has rightly been criticised for lack of action and lack of resolution, would dare risk further opprobrium by appearing to be even more unreasonable at the end of what has already been a lengthy—some would say over-prolonged—negotiation process.

My hon. Friend made an interesting point about the industry’s argument regarding the likely age of claimants. Her point has real merit and force, because as she rightly says, given the changes in the law—the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 and the introduction of compulsory employers’ liability some 41 years ago—the issue of traceability of insurers surely belongs to a period before the introduction of such legislation. That must mean that the cohort of claimants who would be eligible under this scheme will be older, rather than younger. I fail to see any clear basis for the assertion that we will be dealing with a younger group of claimants. It is important that we as legislators, both here and in Committee, seek to challenge and probe at every stage glib assertions made on behalf of an industry that, although it is now coming to the table, should have done so some years ago.

I welcome the Bill and all measures that create a degree of justice for those who, as a result of unfortunate accident, are unable to trace employers or insurers. But at the very least, when we make such legislation, it is our duty to ensure that we drive the best possible deal for our constituents and that they get in fullest possible measure the justice they so clearly deserve.

18:52

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), who has once more shown his expert understanding and knowledge of this issue. I also compliment the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who has again shown her utter determination to ensure that the right thing is done for those who have suffered so terribly from mesothelioma and for their families. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn), who has been a redoubtable campaigner on this issue for many years, on all the work he has done.

Every July on action mesothelioma day, in Lincoln square, Manchester, the Greater Manchester Asbestos Victims Support Group, ably co-ordinated for many years by Tony Whitston, brings together Members of Parliament, other community leaders and the families and loved ones of those who have died as a result of mesothelioma. It is a profoundly moving occasion, and I see in the House hon. Friends who have attended this event in previous years. Doves are released into the sky as a symbol of peace and reconciliation for those families who have faced so much difficulty, and the message goes out that there is still a need for justice for those who have suffered so much.

One of the most profoundly moving things is that many of the women there hold up photographs of their husbands and loved ones, who worked hard in heavy industry or as electricians or joiners, and who lost their lives to mesothelioma because an employer—an irresponsible, negligent employer—did not remove the risk, did not alert them to the risk they faced. I think of people such as Mr Fryers, a constituent of mine, whose voice is included in the excellent Asbestos Victims Support Group’s “Forum UK” briefing. He says:

“I never thought I would be exposed to asbestos diseases and suffer mesothelioma. During my apprenticeship from the age of fourteen as these diseases were never talked about you just did the job given to you. No tradesman knew much about asbestos due to the neglect of the employers who exposed them to it.”

At the event in Manchester—I am sure they take place throughout the United Kingdom—we have a particular focus on the 6,000 innocent mesothelioma sufferers who were unable to find a former employer or insurance company before they died: who were unable, in other words, to get any form of redress or compensation for the illness and eventual death they suffered. The Bill enables us to focus on that group and on those who still struggle to find an employer or an insurance company.

I welcome the Bill, which is a huge and important step forward. It will bring a measure of justice to those who have been unable to trace employers or insurance companies. However, my message to the Minister—one that is coming loud and clear from all parts of the House this evening—is that if we are going to enact this Bill, we should do it properly and gain the maximum possible justice for those who have been affected.

Let us remember that the insurance companies start well ahead on this issue. The estimated value of payments that ought to have been made but never were to those who have suffered and died is at least £800 million. We should also add to that the premiums the insurance companies have collected but have never had to pay out on. I encourage them to participate in the development of this scheme; but we should remember that they start ahead, not behind. Throughout the debate on the Bill through its various legislative stages, we should also remember that the voice and experience of those most affected—the loved ones, the families—must be heard. Over many, many years, they have felt ignored and betrayed, and we have to emerge at the end of this process with something that they feel offers them a measure of justice.

I want to make four brief points, the first of which concerns the level of compensation, which everybody has spoken about this evening. Seventy-five per cent. may be better than 70%, but it is not good enough, and we simply have to do better. Here, there are technical arguments, some of which have already been aired, but in this regard I rely for my view on the view of Parliament. That view was clearly demonstrated during the debate on what became the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which brought about changes to the conditional fee agreement. It was very clear in the debates in this House and the other place that to expect mesothelioma claimants to pay more than 25% of their compensation to lawyers was completely unacceptable. That argument was had here and in the Lords, which passed an amendment to prevent the new conditional fee agreements from applying to mesothelioma claims. Members may recall that we entered a period of ping-pong, and eventually there was a compromise and section 48 of the Act was inserted.

The will of Parliament was very clear on those occasions, and my argument is that if it was wrong to expect mesothelioma claimants to pay 25% of their fee to lawyers, why is it fair to expect them to pay 25% of the fee that they should have to the insurance companies? That is the practical effect of having a cap at 75%. My starting point is 100%. Other figures have been mentioned—90%, 80%—but the message to the Minister is that the figure has to be substantially higher than 75%. We do not want political game-playing here; there has to be a sensible, proper, grown-up discussion with the industry, Ministers and Members of this House to make sure that we get the best level of compensation that is available. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford was right to suggest that the level of compensation that is agreed on, whatever it might be, should be the level at which benefits are repaid. It would be grossly unfair to set a compensation level of less than 100% and then to expect claimants to repay 100% of their benefits. That would be quite wrong.

My second point relates to the start date from which people should be paid compensation. I make no criticism of Lord Freud. He made his statement to the House of Lords in July 2012, in the last days before the summer recess. If he had not cared about the issue, he could have left it until October when the House returned, but he wanted to make the statement in July because he does care. The start date should be set further back, however—at least to February 2010—and the reason for that is clear. When the Labour Government published the consultation document, it became clear to the industry that things were going to change and that a compensation scheme funded by the industry would be put in place. From that moment on, the industry has had every opportunity to make the necessary arrangements.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I agree with my right hon. Friend that the date needs to be put back. Does he agree with the point made by the hon. Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) that, because the date of knowledge is 1969 and most of the claimants are likely to be elderly, there is a reasonable case for putting the start date back at least to 1969 because the number of cases involved will be quite small?

[Paul Goggins]

My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable about these issues and he makes an important point. I am saying that the date should be put back to at least February 2010, and there are arguments for going back further. I hope that we will have an opportunity to examine those arguments in Committee.

[Mike Penning]

On the point raised in the intervention by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), the dependants of those who have been affected by this terrible illness will be comp—I nearly used the word “compensated”; we are not supposed to use it. Payments will go to them. It is not the case that no payment will be made just because someone has sadly died. The dependants will get payments as well, and that has to be taken into account. I understand what the hon. Gentleman was saying, but that has to be taken into consideration.

[Paul Goggins]

I am happy to be the conduit for a conversation between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. I hope that we will be able to have a sensible discussion about this in Committee. Whatever the start date is, it should predate July 2012.

My third point relates to section 48 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, to which I referred earlier. Last week, I received a copy of a letter sent by Lord McNally to Lord Alton of Liverpool. One or two other Members who took part in the debates during the passage of the LASPO Act also received a copy. Section 48 prevents sections 44 and 46 from coming into force in relation to mesothelioma claimants. That means that the new conditional fee agreements cannot operate in relation to mesothelioma claims.

Ministers keep making the point that the review that has to be carried out under the LASPO Act has somehow to be dovetailed with the arrangements in this Bill. In the letter, Lord McNally says:

“I can absolutely guarantee that we will work in a synchronised way with the DWP”.

However, there is no relationship between the review set out in the LASPO Act and the provisions of this Bill. As I have made clear, the provisions in the Act cover civil claims and the arrangements for conditional fee agreements. They will ensure that claimants have to pay back 25% of their success fee to the lawyer who represented them. There have been arguments about that, and the Government clearly have their point of view, but Parliament has expressed the view that that provision should not operate in relation to mesothelioma claimants.

The Bill, on the other hand, deals with a fund of last resort for people who cannot find their former employer or insurance company, and who have no one against whom to make a civil claim. The two issues are therefore completely separate, and I ask the Minister please to clarify that when he responds to the debate. If there is to be a decision in relation to section 48 of the Act, let us have that debate and make that decision, but let us not confuse that issue with the provisions of the Bill that we are debating today.

My final point relates to research, which the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford also mentioned. It is shameful that we spend so little on researching the causes and treatment of mesothelioma. It is a disease that will kill 2,400 people this year, and in the region of 60,000 people over the next 30 years, and we should be devoting much more to research. I applaud the initiative that a small number of insurance companies took to set up the research fund that is being managed by the British Lung Foundation. Some good, promising work has been done as a result of that, and Lord Alton and his colleagues in the House of Lords wanted to make that arrangement more sustainable, better funded and more reliable in the long term so that we could get some proper research done and some good outcomes. Indeed, Lord Alton pressed an amendment to that effect, but it was narrowly defeated. However, that does not remove the argument, or the need for Ministers to do much more in regard to the funding of research.

I was struck by Lord Freud’s comment in Committee in the other place, when he was asked about his own efforts to improve investment in research, from the Government and from other sources. He said:

“I have hit a brick wall at every turn” [Official Report, House of Lords, 5 June 2013; Vol. 475, c. GC250]

He is a Minister who was trying to get a better outcome for research but clearly found it difficult. Earl Howe also spoke on Report about how he was trying to improve the research programme, and I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on progress tonight, because the promises were made in July and it is now November. I hope that some progress has been made, but we cannot get away from the fact that the Bill should contain a provision for the long-term funding by the insurance industry of research into the causes and treatment of mesothelioma.

I welcome the Bill, but it could be and must be improved. The families of those who have suffered and died as a result of this dreadful disease must be better compensated, and we need a scheme that is affordable and in which those people can have confidence.

19:07

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins). He has put forward some compelling arguments.

I welcome the Bill. Mesothelioma is a terrible disease, and I have seen at first hand the indignity and pain that it has inflicted on many of my former patients. Perhaps it is because I have been there in the room while they have suffered repeatedly having fluid drained from their lungs that my main complaint about the Bill is that it does not go far enough in its scope. It would be a terrible shame if we were to pass it without taking the opportunity to act on this important area of prevention.

There is no safe lower exposure limit for asbestos, and children are particularly at risk. A child who is exposed to it at the age of five is between two and a half and five times more likely to develop mesothelioma than an adult aged 30. Since 1980, 228 teachers have died in this country as a result of negligent exposure to asbestos. Let us remember that every one of those teachers had 30 children in the classroom with them. Let us also remember that 75% of our schools contain asbestos, and evidence from the Health and Safety Executive shows that about 13,000 out of 23,800 schools were built at the time when asbestos use was at its peak. That asbestos is now crumbling. Every time a drawing pin is stuck into an asbestos board and taken out again, it releases about 6,000 asbestos fibres.

The trouble is that the argument we take in this country that we should literally cover up asbestos is not good enough. The evidence shows that slamming doors and children kicking kick-boards around the classroom edges can increase the level of asbestos fibres in the air by about 6,000 times. We should go far further than we are doing; that is what happened in the United States. In 1980, the US conducted its first major audit of asbestos and introduced stringent regulations in 1986. As a result, the level of mesothelioma in the US has stabilised since 1999; there are now about 14 deaths per million per year, whereas in 2009 in the UK there were 37.8 deaths per million—and unfortunately, that level continues to rise. I know that the Minister has said he expects it to peak in 2015, but we do not yet know what the future impact of asbestos exposure in schools will be.

[Mike Penning]

This is a good opportunity for me to address a slight hiccup. The number of mesothelioma victims will peak in 2014—the claims will peak in 2015.

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank the Minister for clarifying the point. The trouble is that the Bill is about compensating people who have been negligently exposed in the course of their work. What will we be saying to future victims who are negligently exposed in the classroom? They will not have an employer; they are being negligently and knowingly exposed by the state, and it is simply not good enough that we take a view that there is nothing we can do.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that there should be a phased, managed removal of all asbestos from schools, rather than relying on management plans, as prevention is always better than cure?

[Dr Wollaston]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I think we should be starting with the schools with the highest risk. Since the original decisions were made, when air sampling tests for asbestos were technically difficult, could detail only a single pinpoint in time and were immensely expensive, the technology has moved on significantly. I call on the Minister to examine the new technology that is emerging in air sampling for asbestos, which gives real-time data on exposure and could be widely rolled out in schools—prototypes are available. I ask the Minister to review during the passage of the Bill whether we could bring such new technology into the scope of the Bill.

I know that the property data survey was designed to be light touch, but it is extraordinary that not only the most expensive aspect of future building programmes in schools—asbestos removal—but the most dangerous aspect have been completely omitted. At the moment, parents have little knowledge of where their children are at risk. I wrote to all the schools in my constituency to ask about their asbestos policies, and one school replied that it had had an asbestos survey carried out a few years ago and that

“There is very little asbestos in the school, just in a few floor tiles and in the artex”.

I am sorry, but asbestos in the floor tiles and in the artex is exactly the kind of thing I am most concerned about, because it is raining down on children in our classrooms. As I say, technology is now available that allows us to look in real time for any dangers, rather than spot-check after building work. What happens when 30 children charge round over floor tiles containing asbestos? I urge the Minister to take an opportunity during the passage of the Bill to examine that matter. Without acting to protect children from asbestos now, we will not see a long-term falling off in the incidence of mesothelioma and this terrible disease will affect those children in decades to come.

19:14

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who speaks knowledgeably and movingly from her own experience, making some extremely telling points.

I, too, welcome this Bill as a step in the right direction but, as has been said many times, it needs to be strengthened, particularly in respect of the level of compensation. I pay tribute to the work done in the other place on this Bill by Lord Wigley. As I have said, he worked tirelessly for many years to get the Pneumoconiosis etc (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 on to the statute book.

I have a special constituency reason to be interested in the Bill, because I represent a former slate quarrying area that has benefited from the provisions of the 1979 Act; it provided compensation to slate workers whose former employers had gone out of business and could not therefore be sued. My area also, at one time, had a Ferodo/Turner and Newall factory, which used asbestos for many years from the 1960s onwards. Recently, I have heard dreadful tales from former employees of workers in the 1960s having snowball fights with fistfuls of asbestos during tea breaks and at lunch time. I was also told that the factory was a dust trap from one end to the other and that it was rarely cleaned properly. Some hon. Members will know that the factory later morphed into the infamous Friction Dynamics concern, which provoked and then lost the longest-running industrial dispute of recent times. The owners lost and then evaded their responsibilities—it is a lesson to us all—and the wrongly sacked workers still have not received a single penny piece in compensation for wrongful dismissal. Some of those people are also suffering from the effects of asbestos.

The incidence of mesothelioma in my constituency is much lower than elsewhere; Gwynedd is a rural area, and therein lies the clue. Mesothelioma is less prevalent there, but among the particular group of workers I mention it is as prevalent as elsewhere. The effects on the individual are, of course, as bad as anywhere else, whatever the incidence in the general population. We know that it can take many years for symptoms of this awful disease to be manifest, and people in seemingly unconnected industries and occupations can be sufferers. They include a former constituent of mine who had never worked near an asbestos plant but had worked as a boiler maker on submarines, and someone who had many years before been a sub-contractor removing asbestos from redundant buildings before fully realising the danger to which he was exposed.

As we have heard, mesothelioma strikes people in later life and, for me, the case for compensation could not be clearer. Many people may have lost out on compensation because of the delay between 2010 and this scheme being announced in 2012. As I said, however, my main concern, and the main concern that has been conveyed to me, is about the level of compensation. Sufferers face 100% of the effects of this dreadful disease, so how can it be right that they are offered a lesser degree of compensation? In the other place, Lord Wigley tabled an amendment that would have brought the level up to 80%. As other hon. Members have noted, Lord Freud said that it was impossible to get the insurers to agree. I made the point in an earlier intervention that the 1979 Act provides for 100% of the compensation available before the courts, and of course recovery of already paid benefits will be at 100%.

I am glad that progress has been made, but the Bill is narrower in scope than some of us would like. It offers recourse to those suffering from diffuse mesothelioma only—and to eligible dependants—and it is available only to those diagnosed on or after 25 July 2012. The Bill makes provision for a scheme that will make payments to those persons, provided that they have brought no action against an employer or the employer’s liability insurer because they were unable to do so. Surely that date should be at least three years earlier, in line with the three-year limitation period in law.

I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that conditions excluded from the provisions—presumably because of the difficulty in proving causation—have already been included in an administrative scheme that pays compensation to all asbestos victims at Turner and Newall asbestos factories. If that company can do it, why cannot the Government do it?

It seems unfair, cruel and inhuman to impose—as insurance industry insiders have suggested—a lower rate to encourage people to persevere in identifying insurers so that claims will be brought to the scheme only once all other avenues have been exhausted. People will be experiencing the distressing and incapacitating symptoms at a time when they are likely to be seeking compensation and will often not be in any condition to pursue extensive research, not least because of their very short life expectancy. That is the grim reality.

Finally, I echo the points made by other hon. Members in respect of the research that is so desperately needed. As has already been said, the UK has the highest rate of mesothelioma in the world, and the small amount of money invested in research compares very badly with the research into other cancers. New funding for research over the past three years has produced good results. I have read about new researchers and new expertise, but long-term funding must be secured for this important research.

19:21

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

The one constant I find from people who suffer from mesothelioma is that it covers all disciplines. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) is right that the disease is mainly concentrated in the industrial towns and cities, we now see incidents of mesothelioma in other disciplines, such as in teaching.

Before we go into the pros and cons of the Mesothelioma Bill, it might be appropriate to look at the effects of mesothelioma on people. The best description of the disease comes from one of my constituents, who said that it was like having a tree growing inside him. He said the branches spread and eventually choke the sufferer to death. There are people out there who, when they cough, are anxious that they could be suffering from mesothelioma. When that person catches a heavy cold, their families are worried that they have mesothelioma or pleural plaques, which is the start of the disease.

When I worked in the shipyards in Glasgow, we used to make fun of the asbestos workers, or pipe coverers as we called them. They then became known as laggers and were then upgraded to insulating engineers. We used to mock them and make fun of them, not knowing that we were swallowing the same particles of asbestos that covered everyone who worked in that industry. I warmly welcome the work of asbestos support groups, and none more so than Clydeside Action on Asbestos, which does a tremendous job in helping people cope with that difficult disease.

There has been much criticism of the insurance companies during this debate, and I am sure that much of it is right, but perhaps I can take colleagues back to some years ago in Scotland. When a person died in Scotland their claim for asbestosis or mesothelioma died with them. The insurance companies used to invite the sufferer to court, because the thought was that if a person was diagnosed with mesothelioma, they did not have long to live. These people decided to cut to the chase and try to get as much money as they could from the insurance companies before they died, so they went to court to get a judgment.

During the court case, the insurance people had doctors sitting beside them, trying to ascertain how long that person had to live. Then they would find some technical reason to postpone the case, hoping that in the intervening period the person would die and they would not have to pay out. I know that the trade unions came in for a lot of criticism, but the Transport and General Workers Union campaigned hard and successfully to get rid of that heinous legislation. It is important that we understand those events. Even today, producers export asbestos to some of the most vulnerable countries in the world. There is no protection whatever on offer. These people are now being subjected to what we were subjected to some 10, 20 or 30 years ago.

As chair of the all-party group on occupational health and safety, I welcome the Bill. As the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) knows, the process began under the previous Labour Government, with the consultation in February 2010, and I am pleased that the coalition has at least in part kept the sentiment of those original proposals. Sadly, the Bill does not go anywhere near far enough and the Government are well and truly siding with the insurers, who have profited from the collection of premiums over many decades and who will now continue to be subsidised by people suffering from diseases other than mesothelioma.

It would be remiss of us not to recognise the excellent work that was done by Michael Clapham, the former Member for Barnsley West and Penistone, who worked extremely hard not just on mesothelioma cases but on all industrial cases. He fought hard to get the compensation that people deserved. That responsibility has now been taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who is secretary of the all-party group and who does equally important work on these issues.

In our all-party group, we recognised that there was a real need to address the issue of asbestos-related illnesses as a consequence of working in certain environments. For that reason, we set up the asbestos sub-committee. It is devastating that, even though we have known of the dangers of this chemical, workers have continued to be exposed to it and are only now, decades later, discovering the consequences of their employers’ negligence.

Almost every week, there are plumbers, trade workers, electricians and joiners who die from this hidden killer. Their work has been the bedrock of our society. They have built the infrastructure that we rely on, and so it is only right that they are compensated for the sacrifices that they have made.

The hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who is no longer in her place, talked about teachers suffering from mesothelioma. The all-party group produced an excellent booklet, highlighting both the problems and solutions of the disease. She was right that we should deal with the old schools first and then build up the effort to try to get rid of the diseases. We are talking about not just teachers but administrative staff, janitors and even children. I do not want to frighten people, but this is an issue that must be addressed. Unfortunately, the Education Department has chosen to ignore the information that we have provided.

About one in eight sufferers cannot trace their employer or insurer to lodge a complaint. That is completely unjust, and it is luck of the draw whether a person’s records have been lost due to the widespread misplacement of them by the insurance industry. Indeed, in bringing forward the Bill, the Government have acknowledged that. It seems strange that they accept the unfairness, to an extent, but will not allow these people to claim the same amount as those who can trace their employer or insurer. Those people who are suffering from mesothelioma and other industrial diseases through no fault of their own, and who cannot get access to their records, again through no fault of their own, are being penalised by losing 25% of their damages. Not only that, but through this decision, asbestos victims will absorb 25% of the ongoing cost because insurers lost or destroyed their policy records. That is simply not fair: not only is that money necessary to these people, but it is only right that they should receive it.

Obviously, we would welcome higher compensation and would raise it to 90%. That is not the full 100%, but I am convinced that the Government would be more than happy to accept that rise as it is still affordable according to their own figures. It still falls within the 3% levy on gross written premiums, which not only the Government but the industry are happy with. The figure would also work as there is a precedent for it in the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which covers the liabilities of insolvent insurers in circumstances where compulsory insurance is involved. That compensation level is legal, established and much fairer than the one proposed by the Government.

Mesothelioma is a dreadful disease, but it is not the only asbestos-related disease and the Government’s choice to focus only on it is another injustice of the Bill. Lord Freud said in the other place that other asbestos-related diseases need to be considered and I, as well as my colleagues, would like to hear the Minister affirm that comment and explain the steps that will be taken to look into those diseases, too. It is frankly offensive that the Bill has neglected all but one group of people who have been exposed to asbestos. That limitation excludes 50% of asbestos victims and adding them would represent just 20% of the cost. I ask the Government what are those suffering from asbestos-related lung cancer, asbestosis and pleural thickening supposed to do?

The Government say that proving causation is simpler for mesothelioma as asbestos is the only known cause, but I would point the Minister towards a successful precedent: the T&N UK asbestos trust and the payment of claims not just for mesothelioma but for other asbestos diseases.

As the Minister will be aware, Opposition Members feel that the cut-off date for the proposed scheme is another unfairness. The consultation was issued in 2010 and its objective was very clear, as it stated:

“The Employers’ Liability Insurance Bureau…would be a compensation fund of last resort and would ensure that some individuals who are unable to trace…insurance records would receive compensation”.

That is clear to me and I have no doubt that the insurance companies panicked at that point and began to prepare immediately. They spent thousands of pounds on public affairs officials, which might explain why the Government seem to be on the side of the insurance industry in this case, and those officials will be calculating and planning how to react to each and every policy proposal. They will not have missed this and the companies are well and truly ready.

The companies argue that if the legislation was based as far back as 2010, that would amount to

“unlawful interference with insurers’ property rights”,

but they are happy to put their rights ahead of the far more important right to life and loss of property rights of the victims we are speaking about today. Surely the Government cannot accept that; surely even they can see the complete injustice. The date of 25 July 2012 is arbitrary and it would make far more sense to choose February 2010 as a start date for the scheme.

In yet another example of the Government favouring the industry over our constituents, it is becoming clear that the scheme will be administered by the insurance industry in one way or another. We have seen time and again that industry regulation does not work and it is important that an independent body is established to take charge. A scheme administered and run by the industry would have a clear conflict of interest between assessing the eligibility of applicants and keeping the levy on insurers low. How could we be sure that a fair number of applicants was being considered if the industry was in charge? Lord Freud commented that the Government would explore the options for an independent oversight committee and I would be keen to hear the same assurances today.

We are concerned that the scheme awards claimants only 75% of civil compensation rates while clawing back 100% of previously awarded benefits and lump-sum payments. It is unclear why the Government will claw back a greater percentage than is being paid, which will mean that the applicant will receive a net sum that is substantially less than 75% of the net sum he would have received in the courts if the insurer could have been traced. It is somewhat immoral that the state is being given a greater right of financial recovery than the victim and it is grossly unjust that victims are being penalised twice. I hope that the Minister will outline exactly how he will think about changing that.

Finally, let me say a word on research. I do not want to spend too much time on that, as the Bill already needs a lot of work to make it a fair and just solution to a disgraceful situation, but until recently very little was spent on research into mesothelioma in the UK. In the other place, we were promised a joint strategy with the Department of Health on how to encourage proposals for high-quality research into mesothelioma and it is clear that more money should be spent on finding a cure for the disease. I hope that the Government have not forgotten those issues.

As I said earlier, I welcome the Bill. We have worked long and hard to secure it, but it has flaws. I hope that the Government will see that it should be fair and just. Insurance companies can afford the risk, but asbestos victims have already paid with their health. Do not make them pay financially as well.

19:35

[Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Ind)]

Members on both sides of the House have made excellent speeches and I will not repeat their points, except one. The Minister will be used to hearing about the 75% figure and the timings.

A close family member of mine died from mesothelioma a few months ago and I got the chance to reflect on it with him over a period of months while he could still speak. It was my brother, Ray, who talked a lot at the best of times, although people obviously cannot do that towards the end of this disease. During the course of the disease, I would visit him and we would talk through the scheme. He was lucky, as some Scottish workers are, to have worked on the rigs, so his family was relatively well cared for and prepared for the future.

One thing we discussed at the time has not yet been mentioned, and although it might perhaps not have an immediate bearing on the legislation, I think that it should. The folk who are primarily affected are the wives of husbands who worked on shipyards, building sites and so on. They are primarily women who have not paid full pension contributions over their lives, so they have relatively low incomes. Some of those who are householders or house owners—the ones whose husbands might have been unlucky when they were still in their late 50s—will not have paid off their mortgages. If they have relatively modest insurance provision outside that, that will affect them for the rest of their lives, as will their modest pension contributions—if, indeed, they have made any.

Many of those people live in rented or council accommodation and £100,000, which they will not get if their cases are from between 2010 and 2012, would have paid for a wee house, which would have made them substantially better off. These are human beings we are talking about—mainly women, as we know—and that would make a big difference to the rest of their lives. They will be seriously ill affected by the period for which they will not be compensated between February 2010 and July 2012.

A second point occurred to us as we were chatting earlier this year. The Minister alluded to the fact that insurance companies will negotiate and argue—that is a legitimate point, and I guess that is what government is about to a substantial degree—but the idea that insurance companies were unable to plan for this from 2010 is manifestly ridiculous. They must have offset the risk, because it was clear that such a provision was coming.

I wonder whether, if the figure were greater than 75%, the insurance industry might say that it would not be able to absorb the cost and that it would pass it on to consumers and so on. I wonder whether in future the industry might give this scheme as an example of a liability where costs are slightly higher because of that 75% figure. We should not hear that, because the industry says that it will absorb the cost, but it behoves all of us to watch to see whether the industry gives the 75% scheme as an example of something that increases people’s premiums, even slightly, in future.

Another thing that struck me as the disease unfolded was that most people who have mesothelioma are not diagnosed with it at the start, but they pretty much know that they have it, that they have about two years, and that it will be very bad at the end. The hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who is no longer in the Chamber, may be aware of this issue: it occurred to me and my brother that doctors may have known that the scheme would be given a start date at some point in, say, the next six or nine months, and so would slightly delay the final “You’ve got mesothelioma” gig—the black spot. My brother was diagnosed officially in the first week of August, a week after the scheme came into play; I do not wish to invalidate his family’s claim. Most sufferers in the very early stages of mesothelioma who Google their symptoms and think about what job they had know what is going to happen to them about two years in advance. If doctors help in modest ways in that respect, administratively, good on them.

I have two final points. The first is about a moment of black humour. Again, this is on a point that the hon. Member for Totnes talked about. People with public budgets will look at the relatively modest risk, as they see it, of people contracting asbestosis as a result of there being small amounts of asbestos still in buildings. From a budgetary point of view, I understand how it happens that people with modest public budgets that are very squeezed will sometimes allow a very small amount of asbestos that is within the limits to remain in place. In the hospital where my brother was treated—very well, I should say—there was a sign that said “Danger—asbestosis”, and that was where the smokers gathered to have a fag. It made me reflect on the nature of risk; it was a darkly humorous moment.

Several Members have alluded to the fact that the industry may well administer the scheme. I do not have any personal enormous objection to that, but as hon. Members have said, if the industry is to administer the scheme, oversight will be a critical element, certainly from the point of view of public confidence. I am sure that the Government and the industry will pay careful attention to that.

19:42

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce), who spoke movingly about his brother and talked with knowledge about his constituency. I rise to speak about my constituency, too. Like hon. Members on both sides of the House who have spoken, I think that the Bill is welcome but does not go far enough to help victims and their families in my constituency.

Far too many of my constituents are severely affected by asbestos-related disease. Thousands of them have died painful deaths as a result of dangers that they were exposed to at work. Families have seen their loved ones die in agony, often while worrying about the financial impact of their death on those whom they left behind, and without seeing proper justice done, or compensation for their illness. Tragically, we know that more deaths as a result of exposure to asbestos in the workplace will come to Hartlepool.

We in Hartlepool suffer more than our fair share of mesothelioma and asbestos-related deaths because of our industrial legacy. My town was a major centre for heavy manufacturing, which was based around the docks, shipyards and steelworks. Firms such as Richardsons, Westgarth and Co.—Richies—and William Gray and Co. are long gone, but are engrained in the social history of my town, having provided employment for many generations of Hartlepudlians. However, asbestos was regularly used in those environments for lagging and other purposes, and employees were far too often not provided with proper protective clothing or equipment.

According to the Health and Safety Executive, in the last 30 years, the number of deaths per million people arising from mesothelioma in England has risen from 26.6 to 67.1. I am pleased to see many hon. Friends from the north-east here; our region is the worst-affected in the country, reflecting the legacy of our heavy manufacturing industry. In the same 30-year period, the figures for the north-east rose from 56.1 to 105. Hartlepool is the 16th worst-affected constituency in the entire country.

However, those are just statistics; we should think about the families, and the tragedy that we have seen. When I do, it brings to mind one of the most tragic cases that I have heard of in my constituency. A woman who was brought up in a community of laggers lost her father, then her husband, then her son, and finally her own life, to mesothelioma—all because of exposure to asbestos in the workplace as a result of negligent employers. Far too many of my constituents are suffering from this disease, and to make matters even worse, they are not seeing justice done or getting compensation for their suffering.

As I say, the Bill is welcome, but it is far from perfect. Amendments were tabled in the other place, but the Government did not listen to the arguments for them. The Minister in charge of the Bill—the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning)—is on the Treasury Bench; he is a decent, honourable man who cares about working people, so I hope that during the Bill’s passage in the House, he will reconsider many of the amendments that were tabled in the other place. Otherwise, the Bill will not help my constituents. There has been very clear consensus in this debate that we need to make changes to the Bill to ensure that all our constituents are provided with proper compensation.

Clause 2, which sets out the criteria for compensation, is the key part of the Bill. The criteria include the person being first diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma on or after 25 July 2012, and being employed at the time of exposure. Those criteria are not good enough. As hon. Members have said, the arbitrary cut-off date of 25 July 2012 is grossly unfair, and will mean that many of my constituents who should, if there is any sense of decency, be compensated for diseases caught at work will miss out because they were diagnosed before that date. How can that be fair? There is no possible justification or sensible rationale for that. My constituents will be penalised because their symptoms were diagnosed early. How is that fair? At the very least, as hon. Members have said, the Government should make the cut-off date February 2010, which is when the last Government consulted on introducing a scheme. At that point, the intention and direction of travel were clear. People will be let down if the Government continue to have 25 July 2012 as the cut-off date.

[Mr Anderson]

I thank my hon. Friend for making a valuable contribution, as usual. The Minister said in his opening remarks that the people to blame were the employers, 100%. Regardless of when somebody was diagnosed, if they were in employment, surely there is a moral duty on the employer. The employer is to blame; their insurer should carry the cost. The employee should be awarded compensation, regardless of when they were diagnosed.

[Mr Wright]

My hon. Friend makes an important and eloquent point. He has been a passionate champion on this issue for many years, and I pay tribute to him. I will come to the Bill’s impact on the insurance industry in a moment—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Mr Wright]

—but I will first give way to my fellow north-eastern MP.

[Mr Jones]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I have heard the argument about accepting the February 2010 date, but that, too, is an arbitrary date, and that is why I do not agree with it. A more sensible way forward would be to go back to 1969 and the date of knowledge. The Minister says that families will be included in the scheme, and that there will be a huge bow wave of claims; my experience in this area makes me think that there will not be, but at least that would be a more logical way of deciding on the date.

[Mr Wright]

Any cut-off date will be arbitrary. We just want compensation for victims in our constituencies. That issue will have to be explored, and I hope it is explored at length in Committee.

Secondly, I am concerned about the fact that only diffuse mesothelioma is included in the scheme. Workers have contracted a variety of diseases as a result of exposure at work, including pleural plaques and asbestosis. It is not good enough that only one, narrowly defined condition can be included. Again, I hope that the Minister will amend that in Committee.

My third point was touched on by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), and by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). I have great concerns about the fact that clause 2 confines the scheme to those employees who were employed at the time of exposure. In Hartlepool I have had at least two cases—I referred to one earlier—in which the wife of a worker developed pleural plaques, then asbestosis and then mesothelioma as a result of washing her husband’s work clothes, which released the fibres and allowed them to enter her lungs. Those women—there are probably many more—suffered and died as a direct result of asbestos exposure caused by an employer. Surely it is only fair and just that they should be included in the scheme. I hope that the Government will accept that secondary exposure is an important part of what the Bill should provide for.

The third way in which the Bill must be improved relates to the amount of compensation provided. We have heard time and again from hon. Members on both sides of the House that the payments will be only 75% of the value of civil claims. That really is a mean-spirited and petty act from the Government against people facing a terrible, terminal disease. There can be no possible justification for the scheme paying less than 100% compensation. Why should victims in Hartlepool miss out on what could be several thousand pounds in compensation, which could provide a little dignity and comfort in their final days or—let us be frank—provide their families with the money to bury them, just because a deal has been struck with the insurance industry, an industry that might have lost or destroyed the policies for which they took the cash from those employees in the first place? Let us be under no illusions: the insurance industry has got a hell of a good deal out of this Government and out of this Bill.

[Steve Rotheram]

I am president of the Merseyside Asbestos Victims Support Group. I know from the people I have spoken with—I am sure that the same is true in my hon. Friend’s constituency—that most victims want the recognition that someone is being held accountable for their suffering or that of their loved ones. The financial compensation will help them in their last days or alleviate the financial hardship that losing them, perhaps the breadwinner, might bring to their family.

[Mr Wright]

My hon. Friend makes such an important point. My constituents are victims. They have done nothing wrong. They just tried to do a good day’s work for a good day’s pay. They did not want the trauma and tragedy that exposure to asbestos caused. It is the negligent employers who should be held accountable for that negligence.

The insurance industry should have a key role to play but—let us be honest—has been let off. It has negotiated a scheme that excludes approximately half of all asbestos victims, it can ignore liability for all claims prior to 25 July 2012, its costs are reduced because the average compensation agreement will mean that individually negotiated and assessed costs will not have to occur, and the fault is laid at the door not of negligent employers, but of victims.

On top of all that, the insurance industry is planning to reduce average compensation by 25%, compared with civil cases, and the Government are giving insurers £17 million to set up the scheme. Given that employers’ insurance was compulsory from 1972, the insurance industry has already received the premiums from firms and banked the cash for over 40 years. It has had the money, so now it is time for the victims to receive their fair share.

The insurance industry must have seen the Government coming. The Government have been rolled over by the industry. As a result, my constituents will miss out on justice and compensation at precisely the time in their lives when they need it most. For far too long we have let those people down. My constituents have been let down by a failure to act quickly. The Bill is a step forward, but it does not go far enough for victims of this horrific disease in Hartlepool and elsewhere.

19:53

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), who spoke so passionately about the situation in the north-east. Mesothelioma is a tragedy. It is a global tragedy, but in the UK alone it cuts short the lives of some 2,500 people annually. The disease has a devastating impact on all it touches, both the victims and their loved ones. It is a fatal disease, with life expectancy of between nine and 15 months following diagnosis. It is a horrendous disease, described earlier as being like a tree growing inside the sufferer, with branches reaching out. We cannot begin to understand what that must mean for them. The people of the north-east suffer greatly from the disease, as a result of the region’s history of heavy industry, including shipbuilding, coal mining and steel manufacturing.

This horrendous disease, as a number of Members have explained today, is a form of cancer caused by exposure to asbestos. It is a long-tail disease, meaning that people exposed to asbestos decades ago are only now discovering the consequence of their employers’ negligence. One of the huge problems with mesothelioma is the latency period. Someone can work in industry, perhaps for many different employers, and be in contact with asbestos either unknowingly, as was generally the case, or knowingly, as was the case in the tales recited by hon. Members on both sides of the House about young workers throwing snow balls of asbestos. Whether someone was throwing snow balls of asbestos as a young man or woman or whether they were unaware that they were coming into contact with it, the result is the same: mesothelioma 30, 40 or 50 years later.

There are individuals who feel absolutely fine and have worked all their lives—this disease mainly hits hard-working people—but then 30 years later they begin to get that feeling, like a tree growing inside them, and start to wonder where it is coming from and what has caused it. They think about their occupation and what could have created the problem, because many people were in and out of different occupations. When someone realises they have a condition, they don’t think, “This must just be mesothelioma,” but when the doctor explains that they are suffering from that disease, that really is the end of their days.

Mesothelioma is not like many other types of cancer that the NHS has proved tremendously successful in treating. The NHS can identify many different cancers at early stages and survival rates are much higher, but that does not happen with mesothelioma. When the doctor tells someone that they have the disease, they are basically saying in round about terms that their life expectancy has been cut drastically. Several Members mentioned different life expectancy rates, from between nine and 15 months to two years. Let us just say that the maximum is two years, and that is for working hard in industry and being subjected to asbestos unknowingly or knowingly.

The payments scheme will be funded by the industry through a levy on currently active insurers in the UK employers’ liability market. The scheme is intended as a fund of last resort. Claimants who are unable to trace their employer or their employer’s insurer can apply to the fund. Successful applicants will receive 75% of the average compensation. That is important to note, and I will touch on that in a few moments.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend touches on the very important issue of the 75% payment. Does he understand the thinking behind saying that someone is going to receive only 75% of the damages they are entitled to, with a 75% loss of their earnings but 100% being recouped by the Department for Work and Pensions? Where is the equity in that proposal?

[Ian Lavery]

There is no equity; 75% of average compensation is totally unacceptable for the individuals concerned. Huge amounts of finance will be involved, by the way—we are not talking about pennies.

The Labour party has a history of fighting for those with mesothelioma. I could spend all day and night putting on record my thanks to Members of Parliament, members of the public and organisations such as the GMB and Unite unions that have worked tirelessly to get compensation for those with asbestos-related prescribed diseases. The Labour party’s history in this area is fantastic. In February 2010, we launched the original consultation; in 2008, we introduced the mesothelioma payment scheme; and in 1979 we introduced the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, which has been tremendously successful for many people suffering from, in the main, coal dust-related incidents in the north-east and across the coalfields of the UK.

[Steve Rotheram]

My hon. Friend mentions the part that the Labour movement has played, but there is also the part played by the insurance industry, which has abrogated responsibility from day one and kicked back at every single push that the unions and the Labour movement have made. Does he see any parallels between large industries such as the insurance industry and construction industry that have failed to take responsibility for things they have done such as blacklisting and, much worse, possibly killing people through their irresponsible behaviour?

[Ian Lavery]

I have been involved for many years in trying to claim compensation for people in work, whether from insurance companies or employers, and it has always been a difficult challenge because they try to abrogate their responsibility at every opportunity. They try to run away from it and to put as many obstacles in the way of any form of compensation as they possibly can. Unfortunately, that is how they operate.

Thank goodness we have trade unions that stand up for individuals who are hurt and who suffer from prescribed diseases such as mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases, industry-related diseases and injuries at work. Thank goodness that ordinary people have behind them the security of trade unions, which have the finance at least to try to get the compensation that lots of families should have had.

I welcome the scheme as a massive move forward, but I hope that we can come together in Committee and iron out a few major problems. I will mention four items of concern, but that is not to say that there are not others: first, the level of the percentage payment; secondly, the exclusion of other asbestos-related diseases; thirdly, the cut-off date of 25 July 2012; and, lastly, the claw-back of 100% of DWP benefits when the Bill provides for payment at only 75%—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald).

On the level of payment, why should anybody who will have two years to live, max, be happy with 75% of any compensation? These people are dying.

[Mr Anderson]

They are being killed.

[Ian Lavery]

Yes, they are being killed.

Why should 75% be acceptable? Someone has said that 80% would be a better figure; of course it would, but it is absolutely vital to have 100% compensation for somebody who has very little lifetime left. Claimants to the scheme have to meet the same standards of evidence and burden of proof that apply in a court action, but those with a successful civil claim will get paid 100%. Why should there be a difference?

Employers’ liability insurance is one of two compulsory insurances in the UK; the other is motor insurance. Insurers collected premiums in full and invested them for decades. The insurance companies used these finances for generations. They put the money in the bank and paid themselves dividends. People made themselves rich while at the same time stashing away the policies—hiding them, burning them, and getting rid of them. The only people who will suffer as a result are those who are set to die 30 or 40 years later due to the latency period and the activities of the insurance companies, which had the money but decided not to keep it for future generations in case something like this occurred. They paid out nothing on the untraced policies that they lost or destroyed. This could have saved the insurance companies billions of pounds, yet we are debating whether to pay these people and their families three quarters of what they are due.

Somebody said that the Minister is an honourable man who looked after honest, hard-working people, and I really do not doubt that. I appeal to him by saying that we cannot give people three quarters of what they are due and think we are being fair—that does not square the circle.

[Andy McDonald]

I think my hon. Friend shares my puzzlement that we are talking about 75% being awarded to people under this scheme, welcome though it is, because it is better that we compensate people in full. Yet when this Government go to the European Union they go into bat for an 100% uplift in bankers’ bonuses. For goodness’ sake, does that not tell us everything we need to know about the values that are at play?

[Ian Lavery]

I thank my hon. Friend. I will cover that during the next 30 minutes of my speech.

The regulatory impact assessment estimates that approximately 6,000 mesothelioma sufferers lost about £800 million in compensation due to untraced insurance. If we add the cost to victims of other asbestos-related diseases, the deal cooked up between the Government and their friends in the insurance industry represents a saving to insurers of some £1 billion. On average, the 75% figure means that individuals will lose up to £43,000 in each claim and that victims are absorbing 25% of the ongoing costs due to insurers losing or destroying their policy records.

Secondly, there is the exclusion of other diseases. Why is this about mesothelioma only? The employers’ liability insurance for which the employers paid premiums covered them for claims arising from all “bodily injury or disease”, not just asbestos-related disease, and certainly not just mesothelioma. By limiting the scheme to mesothelioma, the Bill excludes 50% of all victims. Those suffering from asbestos-related lung cancer, asbestosis and pleural thickening have been cast aside. Among other industrial prescribed diseases that might be considered—I pick this one out of the air—is baker’s asthma, a disease that is crippling for people who work in the baking industry, whereby they suffer the same conditions although it does not have such drastic problems with regard to latency and shortened life expectancy. There are all sorts of different diseases, including baker’s asthma and other asbestos-related diseases, that should be covered by the Bill. It is a decent Bill, but we do not want a decent Bill: we want a good Bill.

If the Bill included 50% of asbestos victims, that would represent just 20% of the total cost. It is not acceptable that the scheme is limited to just mesothelioma. The Government’s justification for excluding other diseases is to say that proving causation is simpler for mesothelioma, because asbestos is its only known cause. However, there is already a successful precedent, namely the Turner and Newall Asbestos Trust, which administers payments of claims for not just mesothelioma, but other asbestos-related diseases. The Bill should be extended to cover all long-tail latent industrial diseases prescribed under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979.

The third issue is the cut-off date, which has been mentioned by many Members. The cut-off date of 25 July 2012 is unbelievable, especially given that the consultation began in February 2010. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that the cut-off date should be 1969, which was the date of guilty knowledge.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I have checked the date and I think the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) was wrong. I think that the actual date was 1965.

[Ian Lavery]

I wondered why 1969 was mentioned; I think that 1965 would be more appropriate.

The cut-off date will have a huge impact on lots of people. Geoffrey Leonard Bradshaw was from Pegswood in my constituency. He died of mesothelioma aged 66. He did everything necessary to try to find out which employer and insurance companies were to blame. He approached the Association of British Insurers and sent letters to employers. Mr Bradshaw did everything, but sadly he died before the cut-off date with minimal compensation from the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme. The civil-claim value of his case was in excess of £350,000, but he got less than £25,000. The cut-off date is really important and we need to look at it. It is not fair. I think that 1965 is probably the right date.

The fourth issue is the clawback of 100% DWP benefits when the Bill pays out only 75% in compensation. Why claw back a greater percentage than what is being paid? I want someone from the Government Front Bench to explain that. Why should we accept that under the premise of fairness? It is not and cannot be fair. Why should the state have a greater right of financial recovery than the victim? Why should the state get 100% back and the victim only 75%? I would be glad to listen to any explanation and perhaps even accept it if there is a valid argument behind it. To depart from a principle of like-for-like offset is both illogical and grossly unjust.

I want to place on record my thanks to the Mick Knighton Mesothelioma Research Fund, which was set up by the wife of Mick Knighton, who died of mesothelioma at a very young age. It operates from Wallsend in north Tyneside and has raised more than £1 million for mesothelioma research. It does a fantastic job and continues to help everyone who suffers from this horrible, horrendous disease.

Ideally, the Bill will be enacted before the end of the year. It is broadly welcomed, but it needs to be strengthened for the sake of people who have suffered for so long and those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, such as Mr Bradshaw in my constituency and the thousands of hard-working people who, through no fault of their own, contracted this deadly disease. Let us hope that, in the name of fairness, decency and justice, this House can bridge the gaps.

20:15

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

It is not very often that I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), but I want to start by agreeing with the Minister, who was right to say that we should not have had to be here tonight. This issue should have been resolved no later than when the previous Government were in office and probably much earlier than that. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has said, this has been known about since at least 1965. We should have done something about it. Lots of us had meeting after meeting with the previous Prime Minister and others in the previous Government as we tried to find a way forward. I believe that he was genuine in his approach but that he was badly advised by civil servants and special advisers who were frightened that the cost would escalate. As a result, we did not take the action we should have taken.

[Mike Penning]

I did not put the blame on any particular previous Government. I referred to Administrations and I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that.

[Mr Anderson]

I did not say that the Minister said that. The issue should have been resolved, because the facts have not changed between then and now.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck mentioned the Mick Knighton Mesothelioma Research Fund. I have been a patron of that fund for more than a decade. When I was president of Unison I was approached by a former colleague I used to work with in the mines who asked, “Can you help these people out, Dave?”

It is worth listening to the story of Chris Knighton, whose husband was a classic sufferer of mesothelioma. He would think nothing of getting on a pushbike and riding from Newcastle to Berwick and back again on a Sunday morning before going to the club to see his mates, who had just staggered out of bed. They would be standing at the bar, bleary-eyed, asking, “Where have you been, Mick?” He had done a 100 mile bike ride on a Sunday morning.

On one of those Sunday mornings, the lad fell on the floor. The following day he went to see his doctor, who told him he had mesothelioma. “What’s that, doctor?” asked Mick. He told him it was asbestosis of the lungs. “What can you do?” asked Mick. “Nothing,” said the doctor.

Within a matter of months, the lad was dead. His widow set up the research fund with a good friend, Anne Craig, and they pledged to raise £100,000. Two years ago they raised £1 million, and all that money has been put into research into this disease. It is people like them and the men, women, children, daughters, wives and husbands who have suffered that this debate should really be about.

There is a history of people exploiting asbestos throughout the world. I was proud when a member of my trade union went to South Africa and worked alongside Thompsons Solicitors to litigate against companies there. One of the stories they heard in Namibia was that one of the ways in which companies ensured maximum output was by filling big plastic bags with raw asbestos. How did they make sure they were full? They put young Namibian kids in them to tamp down the asbestos as if they were pressing grapes. Those kids were exposed to raw asbestos at the ages of six, seven, eight and nine. Those are the sorts of people behind the desperate negligence under discussion.

Other diseases have been mentioned. When compensation for plural plaques was challenged in the courts in 2007, the case was won and people stopped getting compensation. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), KPMG announced a £1.4 billion windfall on that same day. That is what the insurers got as a result of the Law Lords’ ruling. Members on both sides of the House tried to get our Government to change the law so that those people could get compensation again.

Other parts of this nation have managed to change the law. Earlier, the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) intervened on the Minister in relation to Northern Ireland, and the Scottish Parliament has been able to do it, but we were told that it could not be done in this part of the world. We should have done it.

Equally, people may not have mesothelioma or anything life threatening, but the truth is the same: they were negligently exposed at work to substances that the employer knew would be damaging. Employers have known that since 1892, when asbestos was first recognised as a poisonous substance. As we have heard, they have known since 1965 that it should have been illegal to do so, but they kept on exposing people to the substance for days, weeks, months and years.

We are now told that people can have 75% of their compensation. One thing always sticks in my mind in talking about this. I first had real evidence of mesothelioma when I spoke to a lawyer dealing with it, a guy called Ian McFall, who works in the Thompsons north-east office and is a renowned expert on the issue. He told me that the fibres lie dormant for decades, but all of a sudden they become active, the person suffers horribly and then dies.

I used those words when there was a discussion about this issue some years ago. I was approached via e-mail by a woman who was not one of my constituents, who said that I had really upset her. Her family was sitting there, with their father going through the process, and she had tried to be careful to shield her family from knowing the truth.

I am sorry that I have to repeat those words today, but the people of this country need to understand how serious this disease is. It is to the credit of the Government and others that they have accepted that this is a very special case, because it is a killer. There are no two ways about it: if you get this, you are going to die. That is the main reason why the situation has been challenged to the extent it has over many years.

The insurance companies have put forward the compensation as somehow an act of benevolence: “We are being really nice to you, aren’t we?” No, they are not; they have been caught on the hop and forced into a corner to put right what they should have done. The deal struck between the Government and the insurance companies is just that—a deal. It has not involved the people it should have involved to the extent that they should have been involved, whether they are claimants, their support groups or, crucially, the trade unions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck spoke about the work of the trade unions, but that had an impact not only on trade union members but on every member of the public in this country. Many people are not in trade unions or in unionised workplaces, but they have the same rights to compensation and legal redress as those for whom the trade unions work.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I read Lords Hansard last night. Does my hon. Friend agree that throughout all the negotiations the Government have had on the Bill, those in the driving seat have been the insurance companies? The fact is that we are having to accommodate the situation to suit the insurance companies, rather than the victims.

[Mr Anderson]

That is absolutely right. The Government are saying that they can go only so far, because the companies cannot afford more, but they are forgetting the fact that companies have received millions and millions of pounds, which they could and should have put away since 1965, in the knowledge that this might come along one day. Is not the whole point of insurance that people should save for a rainy day? Well, the umbrellas are up now.

[Andy McDonald]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we are talking about sophisticated people, who have battalions of actuaries to look at the figures, and that they would have taken into consideration the possibility of having the cut-off date as 10 February 2010 rather than later? That would have been in their thinking, so why can they not be encouraged to step up to the mark and live up to their responsibilities?

[Mr Anderson]

Those people must obviously have realised that there was a potential for that. If the consultation had lasted for a short period, it would have been that date, but without a shadow of a doubt, they clearly could have thought that it might be the start date.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham spoke about some of the consultations. I went to some of the meetings, which Ministers opened and then virtually handed them over to members of the insurance companies to run and to answer questions. Civil servants and Ministers were not engaged; it was people from the Association of British Insurers who answered all the questions, and it was clearly in their interests to do what they have now got away with. It is clear that the scheme will not provide full protection or full compensation.

I share the concerns of other hon. Members about the level of payment. For the life of me, whatever the cut-off date, I cannot see why the payment should be anything less than 100%. I made the point earlier that there is 100% liability on the employer and the insurer, while 100% of those with this disease have died. If people go through all the hoops they have to go through, which are the same as those in civil litigation, it is not their fault that insurers, employers or both have disappeared; the fault lies with the industry, which collectively should be putting this right. The insurers have had the premiums and have invested them, so they should pay up.

We are talking about at least 6,000 people who, between them, have lost somewhere in the region of £800 million. Compensation of 75% means that people have to absorb 25% of the ongoing costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck said that that is at least £43,000. To somebody who is probably on the sick, and whose family is probably not working because they are taking care of them, £43,000 is a life-changing sum of money. It might not be very much to insurance companies or to some of those funded by insurance companies, but it is clearly a lot of money for people at a time of grief.

I want to pick up what has been said about the exclusion of other diseases. If people have been criminally exposed to a poisonous substance, those who did that should be brought to book, and the way to do that is to make them pay compensation. I hope that we would support that and that as the Bill goes forward we can make that case more and more strongly.

Again, why is the cut-off date not February 2010, which is when the consultation was announced? The written ministerial statement came out two and a half years after that consultation was announced. That was two and a half years of what—things gathering dust and people having discussions? What were civil servants doing? All of a sudden, there was a statement two and a half years later, followed by a discussion period to bring us to where we are now. That clearly is not fair. The minimum has to be February 2010, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham that if we really are serious, we should go back to 1965. My guess is that we probably will not, but we must address that issue in Committee as a matter of real urgency.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is at least some logic in that? The arbitrary date of 2010 is when the consultation started. The fact is that when that started in 2010, the companies knew about the liability. My hon. Friend has pointed out that they took the premiums and saved money by not paying out.

[Mr Anderson]

Absolutely. The truth is that the companies knew. What was happening was not a secret. It was not the case that all of a sudden the consultation found that mesothelioma was not caused by exposure at work or employers neglecting their duty in not providing proper safety equipment and so putting people at risk. They knew the likely outcome was that there would be implications for the industry. Clearly, they should have said, “Right, we need to start on this at least as a bottom line.”

The insurers have apparently said that they think the legislation will be retrospective and amount to unlawful interference with insurance property rights. What a load of gobbledegook. They mean, “We want to keep more money in our pockets. We want to deny people their rights.” They are denying people, either those seeing out their last few days or their families, the right to have a decent life.

[Mr Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the sums are in stark contrast to some of the eye-watering figures paid out, for example, for the mis-selling of payment protection insurance? These groups of people clearly need the money, and in some cases the victims have suffered a very horrible and painful death.

[Mr Anderson]

There is absolutely no comparison between the two, and seeing what has happened for people abused by being wrongly sold PPI when they did not need it does not make this situation any better. This is about people deliberately being exposed to this substance at work. To reiterate, I see no logic in the state saying, “We want back 100% of DWP benefits.” Reading between the lines, my guess is that there is probably nothing else the state can do, but if so, it has to get its act together and change that part of the Bill.

Some say that we should feel sorry for the insurers and their balance sheets, because if we go beyond the 3% level they will struggle and so put the costs on to people buying insurance today. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham has already mentioned Lloyd’s making £2.77 billion; it clearly is not suffering too much. I would be much happier if the insurers were so strapped for cash that they were not donating huge sums to the Conservative party. Every Wednesday, our Prime Minister comes here, talks to my leader and accuses us of being in the pay of our paymasters, the trade unions. Let us look at the Tory party’s paymasters in the insurance industry.

It might be coincidental that the Tory party is bankrolled massively by the insurance industry, but it might not. Let us look at some of the figures. [Interruption.] If I can find my glasses, I might be able to tell hon. Members—aged 60 today, I’m not doing bad! Sir John Beckwith and the Beckwith family have donated £524,000 to the Conservative party at central and local level; Caledonia Investments and the Cayzer family have donated £275,300; Centrepoint Insurance has donated £10,000; Dickinson insurance brokers has donated £2,000; General Insurance Brokers has donated £5,000; Hampden insurance has donated £16,800; Michael Spencer and IPGL—this is eye-watering—have donated £3, 929,892.52; the Keswick family in Scotland have donated, between them, somewhere in the region of £523,000; Norwich Union has donated £8,500; R L Davison and Co., from Lloyd’s, donated £5,000; and Theodore Agnew, who founded Town and Country Assistance, has donated £134,000.

If someone today, instead of those names, was saying, “Unison, T&G, Amicus, Unite, the GMB”, we would be being told, “You’re being bought off by the trade unions,” but I could never be that callous towards the Minister or his friends. It does make us think though. This deal has been hatched between the Government and the insurance companies. The restrictions in the Bill are illogical. The clawback from the DWP, the start date for claims—they really say, “There’s something going on here.” Is the Conservative party worried about going too far and upsetting the insurance companies? I hope we can flush this out in Committee and say, “Listen, this has to be paid, because it’s a moral duty.”

We are in a cleft stick tonight. I will probably vote yes tonight, but I feel abused. I feel abused on behalf of the people I work with day in, day out and the families who are helping them to get through this thing. I feel as though I am being blackmailed, because if we do not support the Bill tonight, we will be accused of stopping the Bill and not supporting what we all need to do for these people. I support the Bill with huge reluctance, therefore, and hope that when it returns here, it is in much better shape than it is tonight.

20:32

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to this extremely important Bill. I take a strong constituency and personal interest in the subject, having seen people and their families suffer from this terrible disease. Under the previous Government, I sat on the Committee for the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill, part 4 of which set up the mesothelioma payments scheme in 2008.

The Bill is the result of the consultation exercise that Labour set up in February 2010. I share with my hon. Friends the considerable concern that it has taken nearly two and a half years for the Bill to come to fruition, particularly given that the results of the consultation were already on Ministers’ desks when the Government changed. It has taken a considerable time, and there is serious concern about the victims and families who will miss out as a result of the delay.

I want to talk, first, about an area that has not been mentioned particularly today, before adding my voice to some of the strong criticisms from the Opposition. I am concerned about the implications for reputable small businesses that are unable to trace insurance. It is very difficult for a victim trying to suss out exactly who their employer was when they contracted the disease, particularly if they worked for several different employers, and for them then to suss out who the insurer was for that particular employer. Victims are now finding that many of the companies they have worked for have disappeared or re-emerged under different names, and sometimes the only company a claimant can find will be one of a few family firms that have a good reputation in an area and which want to maintain good health and safety standards.

One case in my constituency concerns a highly reputable firm that probably never had any asbestos anywhere near the victim. Nevertheless, it has to prove that and defend itself, because none of the myriad other companies that the poor sufferer of mesothelioma worked for still exist. Even prior to 1969 when the Labour Government made employers’ liability insurance compulsory, we are pretty certain that most companies had such insurance because there was no massive increase in the number of companies taking it out. Nevertheless, records seem difficult to trace. The case goes back a considerable number of years, and finding proof of that insurance is extremely difficult.

The Bill establishes a technical committee, and its remit will be to make decisions on questions that arise

“between a potential insurance claimant and an insurer about whether an employer maintained employers’ liability insurance with the insurer at a particular time.”

A potential insurance claimant is defined in the Bill as a victim, a relative of a victim of mesothelioma who has passed away, or

“an employer alleged…to be liable for damages in respect of the disease or death.”

The technical committee has an extremely important role, and responsible employers are anxious that employers should be represented on it. If a potential insurance claimant can be defined in that way, it seems only fair that the technical committee set up to adjudicate on such matters should include employer representation. Will the Secretary of State or Minister confirm, either today or certainly before the Bill Committee, that employers will be represented on the technical committee?

Briefly, I will also mention the Employers’ Liability Tracing Office, and ask that the Government continue to identify areas for improvement. We know that as a result of the consultation last year, the Government have already announced their intention to require employers’ liability insurers to be members of the ELTO, and it is important that potential claimants can access from the ELTO the information they need as simply as possible. Promises have been made in the other place about improving the money available for research, and taking the issue extremely seriously. I know that a lot of good work has been done, not least by the former hon. Member for Barnsley West and Penistone, Michael Clapham.

Some areas of the Bill are not at the point they should be, including the percentage of payment—a point raised by a number of my hon. Friends. Insurance companies have said that they would consider figures that go up to 3% of gross written premium. Why on earth are the Government settling for 75% of average civil compensation claims when their team has produced figures to indicate that 90% would still mean that insurance companies are looking at a percentage of GWP of something like 2.9%—well within the 3% limit? Indeed, 95% of average civil compensation claims would be only 3.05% of GWP, and 100% would be 3.19%. The Government could clearly afford 90% of average civil compensation claims as a very minimum, rather than a measly 75% that leaves people up to £18,000 worse off than if the average were 90%. There is no excuse for plucking a figure out of the air rather than matching what insurance companies have said they could afford.

On the date from which the scheme should commence, it was clear back in February 2010 that we were looking at an insurance company-funded scheme. In other words, the insurance companies were fully aware of what was being discussed in the consultation. They knew it would be an industry-funded scheme, so there is no excuse for the funding not to start from then, if not considerably earlier, as a number of my hon. Friends have pointed out.

Other diseases related to asbestos—asbestosis, pleural plaques and cancers related to asbestos—account for 50% of cases, but would account for only 20% of the cost. Many sufferers could benefit, but they are not included in the provisions in the Bill. People ask how it is possible to identify those diseases and whether it is possible to trace them back, yet the T&N Asbestos Trust manages to do so and administers claims for other asbestos diseases, as well as mesothelioma.

Many of my hon. Friends noted the disparity between the Department for Work and Pensions’ 100% clawback of benefits and the Bill allowing for a claim of only 75% of the average civil compensation. That is a huge disparity, with the state clawing back unfairly considerably more than a victim can claim in compensation.

I welcome the Bill and want to see it on the statute book as quickly as possible to help the victims and their families, but I have serious reservations. This is a missed opportunity: the Bill could be considerably more generous to claimants and ask a great deal more from insurance companies.

20:41

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Many Members welcome the Bill. I welcome that a move has finally been made on compensation for mesothelioma victims, but I do not welcome the Bill in its present form. Irwin Mitchell, a firm of solicitors in Newcastle that deals with compensation cases, described this as “a second-rate Bill.” I totally agree. A lot has been said tonight on the history of mesothelioma claims. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, was clear that all the major changes on asbestos-related legislation have been made under Labour Administrations.

The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) is not in her place. She spoke well in summing up some of the issues. She admitted that she was a poacher turned gamekeeper, but her points were well made. She talked about serving on the Public Bill Committee—I am not sure whether the Whips will allow her to be a member of the Committee after that speech. She mentioned the figure of 80% and I will come back to that later on in my contribution. I take the view that in negotiations one should never declare one’s final figure at the beginning. If she is aiming for 80%, she should have started negotiating for a much higher figure. The current figure is totally unacceptable. I pay tribute to Lord McKenzie of Luton for his work when he was Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Work and Pensions under the previous Government, and for his work in the other place in trying to amend the Bill.

The tragedy—it is a tragedy—is that asbestos-related deaths have been known for many years, but they have been ignored. It is a cruel and painful death. I saw many cases when I was legal officer for the GMB northern region and no amount of money can compensate for suffering a long lingering death, literally gasping for air at the end, or for the pain that families go through while watching their loved ones die. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) mentioned a number of cases relating to traditional industries in his constituency. One tragic case I had to deal with concerned a 44-year-old lagger—I think the proper title is thermal insulation engineer—who used to lag pipes in the shipbuilding and offshore industries. This chap, who was 43, had a wife and three young children, so it was terrible to be told that he was suffering from mesothelioma. The most tragic aspect of this case was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) —that it was a death sentence. This man had to face the fact that he would not live to see his children grow up or to continue the close relationship he had with his family and extended family within Hartlepool. This man was 43, but I have also dealt with cases of people who were a lot older.

Much reference has been made to the fact that the disease might take 30 or 40 years to develop, but in my experience it is quite arbitrary whether the disease develops following exposure to asbestos. I remember speaking to some old boilermakers—I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough will have done so, too, in his previous life before coming here—who described dealing with asbestos as “lagging it on” and “blowing it on”. They would walk into double bottoms in ships and be surrounded by airborne asbestos, yet some of them have not developed a long-term, asbestos-related condition. I have also seen some very old gentlemen with asbestos still scarring their hands. The arbitrary nature of the disease makes it very difficult to predict who will ultimately develop mesothelioma or other asbestos-related cancers and conditions.

When I was elected in 2001, I shared an office for my first six months with my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) and John MacDougall, the former Member for Glenrothes. Some colleagues may remember John—a larger than life character, a dedicated constituency MP and a former council leader. It was tragic that his career in this House was cut short by mesothelioma in 2008. John’s attitude was very positive. He knew, deep down, that he was dying, but he came back to this Chamber, even after quite aggressive surgery on one of his lungs, and maintained the cheerful and positive manner for which we all knew him. Unfortunately, he did succumb to that disease, showing that it can affect people like him who worked in the shipbuilding industry many years ago.

Much of our attention has quite rightly been focused on heavy industry, but this disease does not just affect people working in heavy industries. There are well-documented cases of people who have had very limited exposure to asbestos in hospitals or other public buildings, yet have gone on to develop mesothelioma. Again, that shows the arbitrary nature of this disease.

Personally, I think there are a lot of scare stories about asbestos. Some of the press could be labelled “asbestos deniers”, but asbestos is a safe product as long as it is not disturbed. As was said earlier, we need to educate people about how to use asbestos and how to react to it. As a minimum, asbestos should be marked on any public building. If it is not disturbed, it is not dangerous, but we must ensure that when it is removed, it is done professionally by people who know what they are doing. That should help to prevent any further damaging exposure, which is important for the future.

As I said earlier, the tragedy of this and other asbestos-related conditions is that the danger has been known for many years. Even the ancient Greeks and Romans worked out that if people worked for a while with asbestos, they developed a disease and died. Moving on to the 1930s, there was the Meriwether report, in which the term mesothelioma was first used. We have thus known from the 1930s that the condition was related to asbestos.

I know that the date of knowledge is 1965 for the purposes of the courts, but earlier cases have been documented. The Government wrote to the Confederation of Shipbuilders after the second world war, congratulating it on the work that it had done during the conflict but warning about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. However, nothing was done to protect people from those dangers. Our failure to take the warning more seriously and react to it at the time is a national scandal, and a dark stain on the nation’s history. As my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) said earlier, if this had been happening in a leafy suburb, Governments would have paid attention to it more quickly, but those affected were mainly poor working-class communities in areas such as the north-east.

I pay tribute to the campaigning work of the asbestos awareness groups, which have been tenacious in ensuring that the issue has remained in the public eye. They should be given credit for the fact that the Bill has at least reached its starting point. I am not afraid to say that I think we should also congratulate the trade unions on the work that they have done for many years in raising awareness. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State accused me of chuntering earlier, but he is chuntering now. That is obviously because the modern Conservative party considers trade unions to be universally bad. However, the test cases and the education about asbestos that followed them would not have been possible without the trade unions who championed those cases, and they ought to be thanked for that.

I also pay tribute to Ian McFall of Thompsons in Newcastle, who was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson). I worked with him closely when I was the GMB’s legal officer, and he was very tenacious in his efforts to ensure that cases were heard and compensation was secured for people. A difficulty that used to confront me every week was caused by the fact that, in the case of many older men, it was not known that they had contracted mesothelioma until they died. It is awful to have to say to a family “There must be an autopsy to establish what this person has died of.” I remember one alarming occasion when someone rang two days before a funeral was due to take place, and Ian and I had to stop the funeral to ensure that there was an autopsy so that the evidence could be used. Ian has great expertise when it comes to compiling the history of where people worked and trying to trace the insurance companies. It is time-consuming, laborious work, but it can be done.

It is important for anyone who has worked with asbestos to make a record of where they worked with it. I pay tribute to those in GMB Northern Region who, along with their solicitors, set up an asbestos register on which people were asked to log that information. They might not have developed the disease yet, but if they developed it later, at least it would be possible to establish where they had worked. It was not uncommon for people to move around different shipyards on both Teesside and Tyneside, and before nationalisation it was sometimes very difficult to establish who their actual employer was. Another industry that proved notoriously difficult in that regard from the late 1980s onwards was the building industry, in which people moved from site to site—usually on a very casual basis—and were exposed to asbestos throughout their working lives. Trying to put together some of those long employment histories was very difficult. That is why I recommend that anyone who has worked with asbestos make sure that loved ones or solicitors know where they worked, because this disease can develop later on and that is vital information in order to be able to trace the employers and the insurers and companies involved.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool raised the issue of the north-east, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery). The north-east has nearly 10% of England’s mesothelioma cases. That will not come as a surprise to anyone who knows anything about asbestos-related diseases, because of the north-east’s heavy engineering, coal mining, shipyards and other industries that dealt with asbestos. Between 1985 and 2005, some 2,387 people in the north-east died of mesothelioma, and that is not counting all the other asbestos-related illnesses people died from. In that period, 192 people died in Durham, 72 of them in my constituency.

I agree that it is very important to talk about the figures, but I have dealt with these individuals and have seen the awful way in which they die and the agony their families go through––and the poverty, because it is the breadwinner who goes from many of these families. I therefore know that we are not talking about people who have access to large amounts of discretionary income or expenditure. They need this compensation. It will not be a luxury for these individuals but something to support their loved ones in future.

The key thing people who are dying from mesothelioma say they want is help so they can leave money and know their families are taken care of. They want to be able to die with the knowledge that their families will be taken care of. That is not always possible. As has been said, thoroughness in these cases is very important. There are certain firms with a specialism in doing asbestos work, but I have come across some atrocious solicitors as well, who have taken on cases but, frankly, should not have been let loose on them at all.

In many cases, these individuals would not have got access to justice through the courts system if it had not been for the trade union movement. That is true not only in terms of their individual cases, but also in taking forward some of the very expensive early test cases that established the case law in this area.

That we have a Bill is welcome, but it is a very disappointing Bill. Much has been said about the insurance companies and, having dealt with them over a number of years, I can tell Members that trying to get money out of them can be very difficult, as sometimes they will try anything in order not to accept a claim, not only in these areas but in other personal injury cases as well.

The insurance companies have done very well out of this Government. They have convinced everybody that there is a claims culture in this country, which there clearly is not if we cut away from the headlines and look at all the actual evidence. They have got assistance through changes in the law that help them rather than the victims in a whole array of personal injury cases, and they are going to get off the hook again under this Bill as it stands, because, basically, what it does is cap their liability.

The estimate is £350 million. That is a large sum of money to individuals, but we also need to consider that the insurance companies have not only not paid out for these cases that they took premiums for over many years, but they have had the premiums and then failed to pay out about £800 million of claims on them. If we add it all up, £350 million is not a great deal of money.

It is also not a great deal of money if we look at the profits the insurance companies have made over the previous few years. Let me mention a few, just to give a flavour. Lloyd’s of London posted pre-tax profits of £1.5 billion between January and June 2012 and its profits for the whole of 2012 were £2.77 billion. Royal Sun Alliance had pre-tax profits of £233 million between January and June 2012. The £350 million being offered here is therefore in stark contrast to the profits that some of these companies are making.

In fact, according to the Bill, these companies will not pay the money themselves anyway, because it will be a levy that they will get from future premiums. In the other place, Lord Freud said:

“The levy will be imposed on active employers’ liability insurers at large, not on the individual insurers who took the premiums and who were on cover in the cases that will come to the scheme.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 May 2013; Vol. 745, c. 691.]

So the insurance companies are not even dipping into their profits for the scheme as it stands. If that is not a good deal for them, I do not know what is. They have been in the driving seat, and the Government’s argument, certainly in the other place, has been that if we do what the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford wants to do—increase the compensation level to 80%—that would somehow be a show-stopping moment.

[Andy McDonald]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the insurers have already had a windfall in the form of cases that have been badly pursued—loss of services and earnings claims that have not been pursued properly—and cases that have never emerged? The insurers have already had a windfall, therefore, several times over.

[Mr Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is true that there has been bad litigation, and certain solicitors have settled for woeful amounts. Also, there are a number of people who had claims but died and never pursued them.

I find it strange that we started with a figure of 70% and ended up at 75%. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford, who was not present when I started speaking, said that she would like to see 80%, but I suggest that she should have started a bit higher and worked down from there. In negotiations, people should never start at the figure they actually want, so perhaps she should have started at 95%. If she is lucky enough to get on the Bill Committee, I suggest that she start at, say, 88% and work downwards to the 80% figure that she wants. There is no rationale for the 75% figure.

The hon. Lady made a very good point about future liability. Since 1972, such insurance has been compulsory, so most future cases will be covered by insurance policies. Potentially, the next biggest area is public buildings and schools, but most such cases will not come under this scheme because it will be possible to prove who the insurer is and who is liable for the risk. It is therefore not clear to me what the 75% figure is based on. The Minister said that he will produce the various figures. It would have been helpful to have had those during the debates in the other place and today, so that we could have examined the basis of the negotiations.

As I said earlier, it seems that the insurance companies have been in the driving seat in these negotiations, which is a very strange way of negotiating on behalf of the victims, which is what I expect the Government to be doing. They will have done the modelling and know exactly the various costs involved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough said, we are not talking about people who do not calculate risk. They calculate risk, and they also calculate the age profiles of the groups that will be affected. I therefore find it odd that we do not have the relevant figures before us today. Again, that should not be the starting point for the insurance companies. The starting point should be to ask what the maximum compensation could be for the victims of this missed justice, and I believe that 100% is the right figure. I know that the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford thinks differently, but if we at least start at 100%, we might end up with a better figure than the one that is on the table.

It was also pointed out that the figure is not simply 75%, but 75% of the average. People should not expect payments that are on a par with those resulting from litigation settlements or other insurance policies. These arrangements will not be like that at all, and many of the people who should rightly get compensation because they have been affected by the disease through no fault of their own are going to be short-changed. Let us remember that the insurance companies took the premiums and benefited from them for many years. There is a debate to be had in Committee on that.

Will the Minister tell us how the negotiations have taken place? If the rules were set by the insurance companies, rather than by the Government setting down the starting point, they will have been poor negotiations because they will have started from the wrong premise. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon wants to question the Government’s motives in this regard, and he has every right to do so, but if we are on the victims’ side, we should be trying to get the maximum compensation for them irrespective of our political party allegiance.

It is also remarkable that the insurance companies seem to have been in the driving seat in setting the date of diagnosis from which the scheme will apply—namely, 25 July 2012. Lord Freud spoke in the other place about how that decision would affect insurance companies. He said that if an earlier date were set, the levy would go up, which would be unaffordable. Like the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford, I would like to see the figures. How did the Government arrive at that position?

It has been pointed out that the insurance companies have known since February 2010 that this change was coming. I doubt that they are so bad that they will not make provision for this in their calculations, but the Government need to explain why that date of July 2012 has been stuck to. Was it at the insistence of the insurance companies? I guess it was, because it will limit their liabilities. Frankly, if I were them, I would be laughing all the way to the bank if I could cut my liabilities in that way.

I accept that, whenever we set an arbitrary date, there will be people who fall either side of the line, but many of those campaigning on behalf of loved ones who died from mesothelioma before that date will not get a penny out of this scheme. What is the logic in what has been decided? People have argued that it would be logical to set a 2010 date because that was when the consultation started and that it would be fair to the insurance companies to give them some warning, but that is complete nonsense. The insurance companies have known about this for years; it has not come as a surprise to them. There would at least be some logic in going back to the date of knowledge of mesothelioma, in regard to the other legal cases, because that argument has been formed in law.

When I suggested this approach earlier, the Minister intervened to say that a huge group would be included, because it would include families. There are two issues involved here. First, a number of people will have died in the intervening period, so we are not going to get any new cases from that—this is about historical cases. I accept that legacy cases could come from families who want to pursue a claim, but there will be very few of those. I have done asbestos work for a number of years and I know the detail of it. In these cases, someone needs detailed knowledge of where individuals worked and were exposed to asbestos. In addition, a lot of these people who died of asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma would have died without even knowing this. I find it difficult to believe that the insurance companies have not done some modelling to know what that figure could be. It would have been good for us today, and when the Bill was introduced, if someone had at least asked how many potential cases could be in that group, but that has not been asked. Again, we have just accepted that this would be onerous for the insurance companies—that may be true, but let us find out what the number is. That debate has not been had. That earlier date would be more defendable than even the 2010 decision, which would be arbitrary in that respect. I am not a lawyer, so I look to the lawyers in the room to answer whether or not people will legally challenge a date, if it is agreed, of 2012 or 2010 on the basis that the date of knowledge goes back to 1965. There is a potential there for more delay.

One thing that the Minister said in opening was that we needed to get on with this, and I do not disagree. However, as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford said, it is important that we get it right because once this deal is signed with the insurance companies, there will be no going back. There will be no trying to open this up later for other cases or trying to change the scheme, because the insurance companies will be wedded to this in terms of what they want.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said, but am I right in saying that as a colleague in the other place laid this down as a regulation rather than a ministerial order, there is more flexibility for Parliament to improve, change or reorder the scheme as it goes forward? We could improve it specifically by laying it down that way.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is being very optimistic. I do not know whether he has ever dealt with insurance companies, but if he thinks they are going to reopen this one, he is being naive, to put it politely. He is a Liberal Democrat, after all, so that is possibly acceptable. The answer to his question is no, he is not; once this has been done, that will be it. That is the important point.

The other issue I wish to discuss is other conditions. Mesothelioma is clearly a death sentence. [Interruption.] Sorry, I am never fair to Liberal Democrats. The hon. Gentleman may be trying to get some sympathy from me on behalf of Liberal Democrats, but he is certainly not going to get any after what they have done in supporting this Government. If he is looking for sympathy for Liberal Democrats, he can forget it.

There are other diseases involved here, and it is very interesting to read what Lord Freud said in the other place. He said:

“The issue of individuals who have developed other asbestos-related diseases through negligence or breach of statutory duty and are unable to bring a civil claim for damages of course needs to be addressed.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 May 2013; Vol. 745, c. 690.]

It would be interesting to know what other compensation schemes or other redress the Government are considering introducing. I would not hold my breath, given the record of other Conservative Governments. They have never done anything. This is the first time they have done something for asbestos victims. We do need to know though, because Lord Freud, who has a strange relationship with the Conservative party, is clearly sympathetic to looking at some of the other debilitating asbestos-related conditions.

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman comments on what the Conservatives have done over many years. Will he, during his speech, explain what the Labour Government did on this issue for the 13 years they were in power?

[Mr Jones]

If there is one thing that annoys me it is people who wander into a debate, having not listened to any of the discussion. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to read out all the legislation, I certainly will, but it has already been done. If he could trouble himself to sit through and listen to the debate, he might find it a good way of understanding what is going on. If he reads Hansard tomorrow, he will see that my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck read out the long list of what the Labour Government have done for asbestos victims in the past. Not one single piece of that legislation was ever done on a Conservative Government’s watch, apart from this one. Please read with interest Hansard tomorrow—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State is chuntering in a jovial sort of way; he is a jovial sort of chap. He has a nervous smile on his face, which is quite excusable as he has a lot to be nervous about.

The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford raised the issue of research. The research into mesothelioma under the previous Government was good but it is time-limited. When we look at the amount of money that has gone into cancer research, it is shocking to realise what a small amount has gone into mesothelioma. That funding has been important for the pioneering research that has been done with the British Lung Foundation. I agree with her that we need to insert some reference to research in the Bill. Without that—I know that she is poacher turned gamekeeper and clearly knows the inside track and how the companies operate—there is no way that the insurance companies will voluntarily give up any money to research unless they have to. I hope that the Bill gets amended in Committee and that the Government support such research, because it has been important in understanding the condition and in looking for possible treatments in the future.

In conclusion—[Interruption.] I can go on if the Minister wishes me to. I am glad that we finally have a Bill before us, but it is not the Bill that mesothelioma victims require. It needs huge change, and I hope that the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford is on the Committee and can argue from the Government Benches, in the articulate way that she did tonight, some of the points to improve the Bill as it goes forward.

21:14

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

It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) no matter how long he speaks for. Anyone who watched “Britain and the Sea” last night—I think it was on BBC1—would have seen a great deal of my constituency, because it was all about shipbuilding on the Clyde. Unfortunately, that is now part of our history because the remaining yards on the Clyde are not in my constituency. Although we are proud of the industry, we have two quite stark reminders of our shipbuilding past that we would rather not have. One is a large derelict piece of land at Queen’s quay, on which I hope we will soon see some houses built. The second is the scourge of asbestos exposure, which leads to, among other things, the horrible cancer that is mesothelioma. As we have heard this evening, people have also been exposed in a number of other industries—among other things, my constituency had an asbestos factory.

Being diagnosed with such a disease is bad enough, but having to fight not only it but for compensation is a double blow. The average life expectancy following diagnosis with mesothelioma is about two years, which people should not have to spend battling to ensure that their family have a little financial security.

I welcome the Bill and want to see it become law as soon as possible, but I also want the House to work together, if possible—it looks like that will be possible—to make it better. The Bill could and should be better.

I want to reinforce a number of points that Members have already covered today. My first concern is the level of compensation. Why should it be set at only 75% of the average paid out? I wanted to ask the Minister that as he was making his opening speech, but he refused to take more interventions—I do not know whether he takes a daily allowance of three—and we did not get an answer to that question. I urge the Government to consider raising the level to at least 90%, although hon. Members have suggested other figures. According to the Government’s own analysis, that would still fall within the 3% levy on premiums that the industry tells us it can afford. The pay-outs would be raised by an additional £18,000, and I hope that proposal is considered seriously in Committee.

Secondly, the cut-off date for those eligible for the scheme has simply been set far too late and does not kick in until a good two years after the consultation was launched. Whether the two-year delay is attributable to the wheels of the civil service turning slowly, or Ministers prevaricating with or placating the insurance industry, that is two years in which people will have been diagnosed who are now excluded from the scheme. There is a seriously twisted irony in the fact that, as I have said, the average life expectancy following diagnosis with mesothelioma is approximately the same length of time—two years.

As other Members have argued, it is entirely justifiable for the kick-in date to be put back to February 2010, when the consultation and the intention to legislate for an industry-funded scheme were first announced. An industry whose business is assessment and the management of risk would have made plans to meet that responsibility from the very first mention of it.

Thirdly, like other hon. Members I am concerned about the exclusion of other asbestos-related diseases from the scheme and see no reason why it is limited to mesothelioma only. Lord Freud said in the other place:

“The issue of individuals who have developed other asbestos-related diseases…and are unable to bring a civil claim for damages of course needs to be addressed.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 May 2013; Vol. 745, c. 690.]

I hope that the Government and the Minister will deal with that issue at some point.

Fourthly, there is the inequitable situation of the compensation that is to be paid out compared with the clawback of previously awarded benefits or lump sum payments. There is no logic whatsoever in awarding claimants only 75% of civil compensation rates while clawing back 100% of previously awarded benefits or lump sum payments, and I hope that that issue will be dealt with in Committee.

Those are the four key points that need to be addressed. Research has been mentioned and I note that in the Lords a commitment was made to a joint strategy with the Department of Health on encouraging proposals for research on mesothelioma. I hope that will be taken forward. I also back the suggestion, made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), that industry should contribute to research.

I pay tribute to Clydebank Asbestos Group in my constituency. The people who run it are volunteers; they are not paid, but—I am not overstating this—they genuinely dedicate their life to helping people who have been affected by asbestos-related diseases, wherever they live. They deal with victims and their families. They campaign, run very informative conferences in my constituency, and offer advice and support that is both professional and personal. They see people at various stages of the disease; some have literally just walked out of the doctor’s surgery, having been diagnosed, and are afraid and confused, and do not know what their diagnosis means. They assist people who are battling for compensation. Everybody who walks through the door of the group’s shop sees a friendly face, and gets a cup of tea, and advice and support that are absolutely second to none.

Some, if not all, of the volunteers have lost friends or loved ones to asbestos-related diseases. I want to share a few words of Joan Baird’s. I know her well; she is one of the group’s stalwarts, and she lost her husband some years ago. If anyone would like to read her story, it is on the group’s website. This is what she said about her husband:

“How do I feel! Cheated, lonely and empty; denied the autumn of my years with my husband. The doctors confirmed that Willie most likely would have lived to a ripe old age had it not been for this devastating disease. Like thousands of others he was killed by corporate murder. UNFORGIVABLE.”

I hope that the Government will consider the improvements to the Bill that Members on both sides of the House have suggested this evening. I also hope that the Minister will enter more fully into the spirit of debate in his closing remarks, given his refusal to take interventions and answer legitimate questions during his opening remarks. He shakes his head, but he did not do justice to this very serious issue.

21:27

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am grateful to have been called to speak so late in this debate. I apologise to both Front Benchers, and to most of the speakers who preceded me, for not having been here throughout the debate. I declare an interest as a former asbestos worker. I suspect that not many former asbestos workers have spoken in the debate. If they have, I suspect that they were from the Labour Benches. No disrespect to Government Members, but hearing from such speakers gives us greater insight into the issue.

I am a former fire brigade worker, and I suspect that I share the same background as the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning)—or is he right hon.?

[Mike Penning]

indicated dissent.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

He has not been promoted yet. When we worked in the fire service, we used asbestos anti-fire equipment; we had asbestos hoods and gloves. We are lucky: having worked for local authority fire brigades, we know our employers, know that they are insured, and can trace them. Should anything happen to us —goodness forbid—our families could track back and seek appropriate compensation for our early demise. Clearly, that is not the situation for thousands of other asbestos workers, especially those who worked in industries and businesses that have gone out of business or become defunct.

On the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) about being able to track people, when I was the senior health and safety official at London fire brigade, I got management to agree that every member of London fire brigade who served before the withdrawal of asbestos equipment would have “asbestos-exposed” on their personal record file, so thousands of firefighters are covered. London fire brigade was great in making sure that that happened.

I share the Labour Front Benchers’ five key concerns about the Bill: that the level of compensation is lower than it should be; that other asbestos-related diseases have been excluded; the decision on the cut-off date; the clawback of benefits; and, most importantly, the level of research into asbestos-related diseases. We have some very strong points to make. It is clear that there is support in the other place, especially from senior Members on the Government Benches. I would be very surprised if Government Front Benchers in this House did not have great sympathy with a number of the points raised by the British Lung Foundation and other charities that provided briefings for today’s debate.

I look forward to the Bill going into Committee and to having discussions with Government Front Benchers. I look forward to them being as accommodating as they can be, because bringing the Bill forward is a great signal of their intention to deal fairly with the victims of asbestosis and those suffering from mesothelioma. I think that the Bill can be improved and hope that the Government see it that way, too.

21:30

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It was a great delight to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) provide that final rousing contribution, because even though he was not here for any of the debate, he managed to catch its whole flavour and repeat everything that has been said. I think that everyone agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) when she congratulated the Government on bringing forward the legislation. We warmly congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), on bringing forward the Bill. In all honesty, we hope that they will help us improve it, because we certainly intend to help them.

I thought that the Minister got off to a slightly bad start by not taking interventions. He ended up intervening on twice as many Members as he took interventions from in his speech. He intends to speak a second time, which is purely in the gift of the House and not just because he says so, but it might have been easier if he had taken more interventions. I sympathise that the first piece of legislation that he has to take through the House in his new role has a name that is quite difficult to pronounce. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) came up with a good suggestion, which was that rather than bothering to say mesothelioma all the time, we should just call it meso.

[Mike Penning]

Is that not a soup?

[Chris Bryant]

I think that is spelt with an “i”, not an “e”.

As many Members have pointed out, cancer of the mesothelium is a particularly cruel disease. First, it affects some of the worst paid in society and some of those who do the hardest physical labour, who are not rewarded particularly well at all. That is why we have heard from so many hon. Members this afternoon about how the parts of the country and the communities most affected are those that have had some of the toughest industries, whether shipbuilding, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) pointed out, or down on the Medway, as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford pointed out, or in Totnes, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston)—she is unable to be here at the moment, for understandable reasons—pointed out. Sometimes a whole family can be affected, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) explained. We heard a particularly sad story from the hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce), who told us about his brother, who recently died as a result of mesothelioma.

Mesothelioma is also cruel because of the long tail, which many Members referred to, which means that it is often almost impossible to track down the details of the company from which a victim might need to claim compensation, because it is such a long time since the asbestos was introduced into the body.

Mesothelioma is also cruel because the insurance industry, as many Members have pointed out, has behaved cruelly through its extreme reluctance to provide compensation. Sometimes it is the negligence of the industry in keeping proper records across the years that has made it all the more difficult for people to get redress. Finally, it is cruel because once a person has contracted the illness, as many Members have explained, the length of time before death is so short. Who in this House would want somebody to have to spend their last dying months trying vigorously to chase down lawyers and insurance companies?

Many issues were raised, but I will cover those that are particularly important and have been mentioned constantly. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford, in an excellent speech that I could not fault—I hope one day to see her on the Labour Benches—made the very valid point that the 75% compensation that is being allowed for by the Government is not borne out by the figures to which the insurance industry has already signed up through its 3% commitment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston said, there is a perfectly good moral case for saying that it should be 100% compensation. We will want to tease out these issues in Committee. I am grateful for the Minister’s comments about being able to provide us with numbers and statistics before we get to the first Committee date, because it feels as though there has been a bit of jiggery-pokery over these numbers in the past few weeks while the Bill was in the other place and since then.

The second key issue is the earlier start date that many of us think would be suitable. That was mentioned by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), who is not in his place. It seems inconceivable that any part of the insurance industry was unaware that there was going to be a scheme of this kind after the Labour Government started the consultation in February 2010, so it is only fair that we should go back to the earlier start date. Several other Members referred to this, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn), who had an interesting idea about how judges would have reacted if there were an illness that affected only judges and whether legislation would have been introduced rather more swiftly.

The third issue, which was raised by several Members, including the hon. Member for Totnes, is about self-employed people and people who manifestly fall outside the scheme as currently organised, including those who might have contracted mesothelioma by virtue of washing their partner’s clothes. We will want to return to those matters in Committee.

Fourthly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East mentioned, there is the 25% that is apparently being allocated to lawyers. When I first arrived in the House, one of the big issues facing mining constituencies such as mine was the miners’ compensation Bill. The biggest row we had was with lawyers who wanted to extract unnecessarily ludicrous fees for work that could already be paid for, and in fact was paid for, by the Government. We will want to shine some light on the precise statistics. If a significant amount of money—say £7,000, a figure that has been stated several times—ends up being taken out of people’s compensation to pay for lawyers, that would not be the justice that people are looking for.

The fifth issue, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), is who runs the scheme and who will sit on the technical committee. She also referred to the very important requirement on us to consider how to ensure that that is not just a stitch-up between Government and the big players in the industry when much smaller players need to be considered as well.

The sixth issue, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire mentioned, is the 100% clawback. It seems intrinsically unfair for the Government to say, “You can only receive 75% of the compensation that you would get if you were going through the civil courts in the normal way, but we will take back 100% of the money that you received in benefits.” There may be arguments to be had about that, but it is something else that we will want to look at in Committee. It was also referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) and for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery).

I hope the Minister will also address the question of the timetable for the Bill. The programme motion allows for the last Committee sitting to take place on 17 December. We have always wanted to help the Government get the Bill through as fast as possible, with the sole caveat that, while it is a good Bill, it could be immensely better. Of course, we want to ensure that there is adequate time not just for consideration in Committee, but for consideration on the Floor of the House on Report and Third Reading. My anxiety is that if the Committee finishes considering the Bill on 17 December, the Bill’s Third Reading will be on 19 December—the day Parliament will rise. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us about that, but I cannot see how else he will be able to get the Bill through before Christmas.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) made an extremely good point, namely that we should stop talking about whether the Bill is generous, generous enough or not generous enough. The most important thing to recognise is that this is not about generosity. It is not some kind of charitable act that we are doing; we are trying to right an injustice. It is a fairly simple point. We believe that it is only really possible to right that injustice if we improve the Bill by ensuring that people get a better deal with regard to the percentage of compensation on offer, as well as by going back to an earlier date and by looking at some of the many other issues that have been raised.

I assure the Minister that we will do everything in our power to help him get the Bill through, but at the moment it has only three stars and by the end we want it to have five. That will require amendments and his co-operation.

21:39

[Mike Penning]

With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate, which I opened earlier today.

May I say from the outset that my intention was for as many Members as possible to be able to take part in this important debate? Seventeen colleagues, including those on the two Front Benches, have taken part. I could have taken a few more interventions, but if I had taken too many the hon. Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) would certainly not have got in. Anyone in the House who knows me will know that that was my intention and that I was not trying to shirk my responsibilities in any way. Perhaps when the hon. Lady has been here a little bit longer, she will know me a bit better.

Interestingly, many Members have said that the Government are in bed with lots of different parties and that perhaps I am anti-trade union. Many Members will know that I am a proud member of the Fire Brigades Union and that I was a member of Unison’s predecessor when I was a lifeguard in Castle Point in Essex after I first left the Army. It is important that we pay tribute to those who have worked so very hard over the years to introduce not just this Bill, but others. I pay tribute to the trade unions for the work they have done over the years and to the victim support groups across the country.

I also want to acknowledge something that my former colleague from the fire service, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, acknowledged in part, namely that, while this disease has massively affected areas of heavy industry—I understand fully what many Members from the north-east have said—it does not cherry-pick. It is possible for someone to glance past an area with asbestos one day, pick up the disease and not know about it for another 40 years. As has been said, many people who are in work do not know that they have been in contact with asbestos. In some cases, their employers might not even know, especially if they run the emergency services.

I am reminded of my former colleagues in Glasgow and the work they did over the weekend. They would not have thought about whether there was asbestos in there; they would have gone straight in, quite rightly, and dealt with it. What their employers have to do—I completely agree that it is much easier for the public sector to do this than the private sector—is address their own responsibilities. I agree with the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that the unions and employees should have a register. Had they had a register, a lot of the issues under discussion would have been addressed a lot earlier.

[Mr Anderson]

I take exception to the Minister’s comments. Why should it be easier for public sector employers to do this than private sector employers? They knew the dangers, they knew the risks and they were insured. Why should the way they manage this be any different?

[Mike Penning]

The hon. Gentleman makes an enormously important point. I can remember being in an asbestos suit not long ago, and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse is a little older than me, and was in the fire service before me. So many lessons can be learned, and they need to be learned, because people have the disease and are suffering.

I think almost 100 different questions—some were very technical and nearly all of them were very important—have been asked during the debate, and it would be impossible for me to answer them all in the time I have been given. I will therefore write to hon. Members who have spoken, and for the benefit of those who have not taken part I will put the answers in the Library of the House so that everyone has an opportunity to read them.

I have listened very carefully to the debate, and I have tried not to be party political or partisan in any way, but nobody watching would think that the previous Administration had been in government for 13 years. The issue has been known about for many years and, as I said in my opening speech, Administrations should have dealt with it.

It is worrying that we have been asked why the Government have taken two years to sort out the problem. The consultation was very wide ranging, and no one would have known from it what the previous Government wanted. I cannot find out exactly what they wanted, because we are not allowed to see their papers. The consultation came out in February 2010, just before the general election, after which we had the purdah period, and then we came into office, and without knowing exactly what was intended, my predecessor and the very dedicated Lord Freud, the Minister in the other House, worked with the Secretary of State to bring forward this Bill.

Nothing is perfect, and I fully understand that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to table amendments in Committee and probably on Report. What is very important, however, is that the Bill is passed and regulations are laid, and that compensation gets out to the victims of this terrible disease and their loved ones. If even some points that have been discussed were put in, the Bill would have to go back to the Lords and that would mean a period of ping-pong. [Interruption.] I said some, not all points.

It is absolutely imperative to get the Bill through, or people who have waited for compensation, in some cases for decades, will not get it. If there is ping-pong on the Bill, we will be into the new year—the Leader of the House is sitting next to me—and although I will be as open minded and pragmatic as I can, the Bill needs to be put on the statute book.

[Mr Hepburn]

What about the 6,000 victims prior to the cut-off date? Why should they be victimised?

[Mike Penning]

I am good friends with the hon. Gentleman, and I know him well. I do not see it that way, as he knows, but I understand why he does. There has to be an arbitrary cut-off date, and the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) said that the date will be arbitrary whatever we do.

We have been in deep negotiations—there is no argument about that; it will all come out—but the insurance companies did not just stroll up to Lord Freud’s office and say, “By the way, can we do a deal?” They were dragged there, otherwise that would have been done under the previous Administration. The Bill is not perfect and it probably can be amended, but it must not be delayed.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I am interested that the Minister says there has to be an arbitrary date. No, there does not; there has to be a date that is justifiable, and the only such date is the 1965 date of knowledge.

[Mike Penning]

That would be an arbitrary date too, because, as the hon. Gentleman said, mesothelioma was known about before 1965. Whatever happens, if we get bogged down in a legal argument, it will delay the Bill, and the compensation that everyone has worked towards for so many years will be massively and dramatically affected.

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry to intervene on the Minister, but he seems to be saying that he will not countenance any amendment to the Bill—despite our having had a debate in which everyone who has spoken has said they want amendments—because such amendments would delay the Bill beyond Christmas. With his timetable, however, I cannot see how he can possibly get it out before Christmas anyway.

[Mike Penning]

That is the second time the hon. Gentleman has talked about my timetable. The Opposition insisted on three days in Committee; we said they could have less.

[Chris Bryant]

indicated dissent.

[Mike Penning]

If the hon. Gentleman talked to his own Whips, he might get some sense. That is exactly what happened.

At the end of the day, however, some parts of the Bill can be amended without it going back to the Lords. Some parts, particularly on the percentage—[Interruption.] It is for regulations. It is not actually part of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Bill, he will understand what is going on. He is trying to score party political points on a really serious issue, and he is wrong. We need to ensure that what can be amended, is amended, but I will not have the Bill, and therefore the compensation, delayed. With that, I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and that the Opposition will vote for it this evening. It is important that we get the Bill through the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 17 December 2013.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.

21:51

Division 147

Ayes: 267

---

Conservative: 229
Liberal Democrat: 37

Noes: 202

---

Labour: 194
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Independent: 1
Scottish National Party: 1
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

MESOTHELIOMA BILL [lords] (money)

Queen’s recommendation signified,

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Mesothelioma Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State.—(Mike Penning.)

Question agreed to.

mesothelioma Bill [lords] (Ways and means)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Mesothelioma Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the imposition of a levy on active insurers to meet the costs of the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme.—(Claire Perry.)

Question agreed to.

deferred divisions

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Sajid Javid relating to Financial Services: Benchmark.—(Claire Perry.)

Business without Debate

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

European Union Document

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

Financial Services: Benchmark

That this House considers that the draft Regulation on indices used as benchmarks in financial instruments and financial contracts (European Union Document No. 13985/13 and Addenda 1 and 2) does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, for the reasons set out in the Annex to Chapter Five of the Twenty-third Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 83-xxi); and, in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol (No. 2) annexed to the EU Treaties on the application of the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Institutions.—(Claire Perry.)

Question agreed to.

Amendment of Standing Orders

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Second Report of the Procedure Committee, Session 2012-13, Review of the Backbench Business Committee, HC 168, and the Government response, Session 2012-13, HC 978.]

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call Mr Charles Walker to move the first motion, I should inform the House that I have selected the amendments in the name of Mr Andrew Lansley and Mr Tom Brake. The motions will be debated together and the questions necessary to dispose of the amendments will be put at the end of the debate. To move the motion, I call the Chairman of the Procedure Committee.

22:06

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That:

(1) Standing Order No. 152J (Backbench Business Committee) be amended in line 23, at the end, to add ‘and to hear representations from Members of the House in public’;

(2) Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business) be amended in line 50, at the end, by adding the words ‘Provided that the figure of thirty-five days shall be increased by one day for each week the House shall sit in a session in excess of a year’;

(3) the following new Standing Order be made:

‘Allocation of time to backbench business

(1) Where proceedings to be taken as backbench business have been determined by the Backbench Business Committee in accordance with paragraph (8) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business), a motion may be made on behalf of that Committee at the commencement of those proceedings by the chair or another member of the committee allocating time to the proceedings; and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

(2) A motion under paragraph (1)–

(a) shall be in the terms of a resolution of the Backbench Business Committee reported to the House in accordance with paragraph (9) of Standing Order No. 152J (Backbench Business Committee);

(b) may not provide for any proceedings to be taken after the expiration of the time for opposed business other than the decisions on any questions necessary to dispose of the backbench business, such questions to include the questions on any amendment selected by the Speaker which may then be moved.

(c) may provide that Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the backbench business.’

(4) Standing Order No. 152J (Backbench Business Committee) be amended in line 42, at the end, by adding the words:

‘(9) The Committee shall report to the House any resolution which it makes about the allocation of time to proceedings to be taken as backbench business on a day allotted under paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business), provided that such a resolution is agreed without a division.’

[Mr Speaker]

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:

That the following new Standing Order be made:

‘Select Committee Statements

(1) (a) On any day allotted for proceedings in the House on backbench business (and not being taken in the form of a half-day), or on any Thursday sitting in Westminster Hall other than one to which sub-paragraph (b) applies, the Backbench Business Committee may determine that a statement will be made on the publication of a select committee report or announcement of an inquiry.

(b) The Liaison Committee may determine that such a statement may be made in Westminster Hall on any day appointed under paragraph (15) of Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings in Westminster Hall).

(2) A statement on the publication of a select committee report or announcement of an inquiry–

(a) shall be made by the chair or another member of the select committee acting on its behalf;

(b) shall take place–

(i) in the House, after questions and any ministerial statements, or

(ii) in Westminster Hall, at the commencement of proceedings.

(3) A statement made under paragraph (1) above may not take place later than 5 sitting days after the day on which the report is published or inquiry announced.

(4) The Member making a statement may answer questions on it asked by Members called by the Chair, but no question shall be taken after the end of any period specified by the Backbench Business Committee or the Liaison Committee in its determination.’.

[Mr Walker]

The first of the Procedure Committee’s recommendations has been accepted by the Government—let us start on a positive note—as it is uncontentious and simply formalises the current practice of the Backbench Business Committee taking representations in public. I think all colleagues will agree that that fantastic occasion on Tuesday is well attended and extremely exciting. It portrays and presents Parliament at its absolute best. I know you share that view, Mr Speaker, if I may be so presumptuous as to involve you in this debate.

Our second suggestion does not meet with quite so much favour from the Government Front-Bench team—nor, I am sad to say, from the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee—but I thought that for the sake of debate I would expand on the Procedure Committee’s view on this matter. I should say at this early stage that I do not want to keep colleagues here until the small hours of the morning, so it is unlikely that I will put this to the vote tonight. Perhaps I have shown my hand too early, but I know colleagues have important things to be getting on with in their offices.

This second suggestion, which is opposed by the Government, is to amend Standing Order No. 40, so that it allows for 35 days of backbench business per Session or, when the Session is longer, a pro rata increase of one day per each additional week. It is possible to imagine a scenario after the general election when the incoming Government—whether it be the current coalition, a Conservative Government or, dare I say it, possibly a Labour Government—might decide that their business agenda is so expansive that it requires two years to put it into place. The Procedure Committee thus thought it would be helpful—nay, necessary—for the number of days given by the Government to be commensurate with the additional number of weeks for which that first Parliament ran.

The Front-Benchers have assured me—these assurances are taken at face value by the Chairman of the Backbench Committee—that I need not worry about these things, and that if there were additional weeks and Parliament lasted for more than the standard 35 weeks in the year, the Government would find it within their favour to provide some additional days.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Do not the facts paint a very different picture? In the first part of this Parliament, when the first Session ran for two years, there were not the requisite number of days for the Backbench Business Committee as there should have been. These assurances, I would suggest, are completely worthless.

[Mr Walker]

In an ideal world, the Standing Order would be amended to ensure—so that there was no wriggle room—that the additional days would be provided, but at this point I do not feel that the House is with me. This is an argument in gestation, and we need to allow it longer in the womb before it bursts forth in its full glory.

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

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case on behalf of our Procedure Committee. Does he agree that if the Government were to accept the motion—and I appreciate that they are reluctant to do so—there would be no reason for the Backbench Business Committee, in its present or a future incarnation, not to refuse to accept the extra day if it were offered, on a case-by-case basis?

[Mr Walker]

The Backbench Business Committee is known for its independence of thought. I rather agree with my hon. Friend, who is a stalwart of the Procedure Committee and one of its leading lights. Once again, he has made an incisive contribution.

Because we do not have all night, I am now going to make a little progress. We also propose a new Standing Order—again, resisted by the Government—allowing the Backbench Business Committee to organise its own time through a motion proposed at the commencement of one of its days of business, regulating the business that follows. Such a change would enable the Committee to make provision for decisions on a series of motions and amendments to those motions to be taken together at the end of a debate, at the normal moment of interruption or before.

I shall canter through the next part of my speech. I shall have to read it, because it is quite complex, and I would not want to make a deliberate or unnecessary mistake. Let me give two examples in which that power might have been useful. In the case of recent debates on the sitting hours of the House, the need to take a complex series of votes before the usual time of interruption required the sacrifice of an hour and a half of debating time. The debate on assisted dying, which was scheduled to last an hour and a half, had to be voluntarily stopped 20 minutes early so that the first amendment could be put and voted on, in order to allow a second vote to be taken before the 7 pm deadline. The power might also provide for a timetable for decisions to be made on a series of separate motions at fixed points, or for a day simply to be divided between two or three debates. That would be entirely convenient to the House because it would make everything reasonably predictable.

In anticipation of resistance from the Government, the Committee has proposed a fairly formidable set of constraints on the use of the power, which I shall set out now. I can see that the House is waiting with bated breath to hear about this series of protections.

First, the decision to use the power must be a unanimous decision by the Committee, made, obviously, at a quorate meeting with due notice given. Secondly, the Committee— unlike the Government—is given no power to stretch a day, except in so far as Divisions might run past the normal moment of interruption. It cannot extend the length of a sitting on Thursday. Thirdly, and most importantly, the House would be free to disagree with any proposal made by the Committee at the start of the day to which it applied. The proposal would be put without debate, but could be divided on and defeated. If the House did not like it, the House could reject it.

So there is no possibility, in a perfect world—the world that I would like to see become a reality, although it is not going to become a reality tonight—of the Backbench Business Committee’s abusing its power to force the House to make unpalatable decisions in an unpalatable way. The whole Committee, and the whole House, must want the business to which this power might be applied to be conducted in a rational and predictable way. It is not applicable to anything other than Back-Bench business: it cannot affect Government business, Opposition business, or private Members’ Bills.

I appreciate that there is resistance to this. There are many here who feel that the Government, motivated by good will, would want to ensure whenever possible that the Backbench Business Committee was able to achieve its objectives, and that there would be helpful Whips supporting them in the process. This is where I diverge slightly from the view of my opposite number, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who chairs the Backbench Business Committee. This is a point of principle and the—slow—direction of travel at the moment is for this House to take back more powers for itself. It was the case about 110 years ago that if the Government of the day wanted to transact their business in this place, they had to come and seek our permission. Over the past 110 years we have given up successive powers through Standing Orders so now we are in the position of begging the Government for time, or relying on the good will of Government to give us that time.

This is what I suggest: I am not going to press the House to a Division tonight, so the amendments put down by the Government will carry the day, but I am convinced that the day is coming—slowly—when this House will have the courage and desire to take back some of its own power and we will have the self-confidence not to rely on the Whips to transact our business for us on those days when it is our business. I accept that there will be Government days for business, and that is fine, but I think that on those days when there is Back-Bench business—those days when it is our business, when this place comes back to us—in a few years’ time we will have the self-confidence and courage to say, “Actually, we can handle our own affairs in a grown-up, mature and successful fashion.”

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Walker]

Before I sit down, I shall give way to the hon. Lady.

[Helen Goodman]

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee for giving way. Surely what we are talking about here is the House growing up and our being treated like grown-ups—being able to vote as well as debate? I therefore wonder why the Chairman of the Procedure Committee—who chairs it absolutely marvellously—is not going to press the House to a Division this evening.

[Mr Walker]

I shall answer the hon. Lady in an honest way: quite frankly, I have been here since 10 o’clock this morning, and I have toured the Tea Rooms and I have toured the Library and all the other places where Members of Parliament work diligently through the day, and I do not feel that I have the support to carry the day, so it is better to live to take the fight to another day than to die on this day. I appreciate that that is a slightly over-dramatic statement of the position, but why not, because it is late and I have had far too much coffee?

I really now think it is time that I sat down and allowed others to participate in this important debate, because we have literally hundreds of colleagues here champing at the bit.

22:17

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

It is, as always, a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), who has made some very arcane points, which were more entertaining than I could ever have imagined them to be. My disagreements with him are about bringing more powers to the House and what we do with those powers, rather than in judging what he has tabled in all good spirit against the Government’s wishes. I thank him and the Procedure Committee, and the previous Chair of the Committee, who undertook the review of the Backbench Business Committee. The Committee had been in existence for only one Session when it was reviewed and was therefore very much in its infancy. The report recognised an important truth about the Committee: it is a Select Committee in name only, and completely different from any other Committee of the House in what it does.

When the Backbench Business Committee was established, it was governed by a very basic set of Standing Orders. They said how many members there should be and the party make-up. They also said how many days Government were to allocate to us, and that we could not table any motions that affected the workings of the Committee, which was perfectly sensible. That was it—the day-to-day working and functioning of the Committee were not mentioned in Standing Orders.

When we started, there was nothing to stop the eight members of the Backbench Business Committee meeting in private session and deciding for ourselves what would be debated by our colleagues on one day every parliamentary week. Therefore, the very first founding principles we established were to ensure that any debate we scheduled came from our colleagues—came from ideas from other Back Benchers—and that we met in public so that everything we decided was open and transparent. These were very important founding principles.

We set some other founding principles, together with our excellent first Clerk, Andrew Kennon, one of which was that the Backbench Business Committee should take as many risks as possible as soon as possible, in order to see what worked and what did not. One of the risks we took, when the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) was a member of the Committee, was a new way of doing pre-recess Adjournment debates. That got mixed reviews and we have chopped and changed that around, but one of the more successful innovations, which is mentioned on the Order Paper, was enabling Select Committee Chairs to launch their reports on the Floor of the House. Interestingly, that did not work in quite the way we wanted it to. They used to have to do it by taking interventions from Members, without being able to stand up like Ministers and take questions from the Floor. We felt that that really required a change to the Standing Orders, and we welcome the motion on the Order Paper today in the name of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who chairs the Liaison Committee.

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

I welcome the hon. Lady’s and the Government’s support for this change. It has involved some discussion and there is an element of compromise about it, but it will be a much better procedure that will enable a Chair to table a report within five days of the Committee issuing it, and to take questions, rather than going through the contrived process of interventions that we have now.

[Natascha Engel]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

We also wanted to keep to the principle of having as few rules as possible governing the Backbench Business Committee, in order to allow Back Benchers themselves to decide what they want to do within their own allocated time. Although we congratulate the hon. Member for Broxbourne on the paragraph in his motion that deals with allowing us to meet in public and to take representations from Members—as he said, it simply formalises current practice—we disagree with the points made in the following paragraphs. The honourable exception to that is the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), who is a member of both the Backbench Business Committee and the Procedure Committee, and supports these changes. We are concerned that these changes impose rigorous rules on us that might have negative consequences. We have enjoyed the freedom resulting from there being no rules governing what we could and could not do.

The first point on which we really disagreed was the allocating of our time pro rata. At the moment, as the hon. Member for Broxbourne said, the Backbench Business Committee is allocated 35 days a Session. As he also pointed out, the first Session stretched to almost two calendar years. We demanded, quite vocally, that the Government extend our allocation of time pro rata, and they did. There was a slight dispute over one or two days that the Government had scheduled before we came into existence, but broadly, the arrangement worked very well.

At the moment, the 35-day allocation is a minimum; the Government are perfectly free to allocate us more than that. My worry is that if pro rata-ing is imposed, there is nothing to say that this allocation will become a fixed amount of time. By the same token, if a Session is shorter than a calendar year, there is nothing to say that the Government could not then pro rata downwards. As the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, I would not want that to happen. Given that the arrangement only happened because of the introduction of fixed-term Parliaments, for which we were compensating, and given that we now have fixed-term Parliaments, it is highly unlikely that this situation will ever arise again. I just do not think it is worth taking the risk of an unforeseen consequence.

[Mr Hollobone]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her speech, which I am listening to closely. Let us say there were a change of Government, and a Labour Government decided to do the same thing and have an initial Session over two calendar years, the then Leader of the House and the then Chief Whip might not be as amenable as the current ones, and if so, without the change to the Standing Order, her words would ring very hollow indeed.

[Natascha Engel]

The hon. Gentleman was present when we produced our first provisional report, and all I would say is that one of our founding principles was that we should consider changing rules as and when we found a problem. There was not a problem in that first Session. However, if there is a problem in the future, I will personally lead the charge to ensure that we change the rules in order to accommodate and rectify it.

[Mr Hollobone]

I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Lady, but there was a problem. She had to get up on her feet every week during questions to the Leader of the House and beg for the Backbench Business Committee to be given time. In the end, that begging worked, but there was a problem and it was only her active intervention that solved it.

[Natascha Engel]

I would say that I was assertively, or even aggressively, demanding rather than begging. The Government eventually realised that they had no option but to pro rata the days, because there would have been uproar if they had not done so.

That brings me to my next point. As has been said, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) mentioned his debate on assisted dying in his submission to the Procedure Committee. A full day of debate was allocated. It was considerably longer than an hour and a half, but it is true that there would have been another 20 minutes of debate and that votes would have taken place at the end of the day. However, that problem was identified only in retrospect, so even if we had had the power to timetable a business motion, it would not have happened on that day.

I am concerned that the proposal could have unintended consequences. One of the things that I have witnessed working really well in Back-Bench debates is that, at the moment, Back Benchers control their own time by having flexibility. We are therefore able to respond to events such as urgent questions, statements and whatever else might happen in the House on the day. Unlike in debates in Government time, it is extraordinary how Back Benchers are aware and respectful of any subsequent debates and of the number of Members who have put their name down to speak. When time limits are imposed, Members take less time in order to allow others into the debate and to shorten the debate in order to allow the following debate enough time to be heard. We all know that, if we started to timetable our debates, that would no longer happen. When debates are timetabled, we fill that time. We go to the limit of the time that is permitted. That would take away something from the Backbench Business Committee that is working extremely well and that makes Back-Bench debates flexible.

The proposals could make the situation worse, which is why I oppose them. At the same time, I welcome the spirit in which the report was written and in which the motions were tabled by the Procedure Committee. I take nothing away from any of that. I ask the hon. Member for Broxbourne to leave the door open so that, if I am wrong and there are problems of this nature in the future, we will be able to return to the Procedure Committee and ask it to table motions for us to help us out. I would appreciate that enormously. I am glad that he has said he will not press these matters to a vote today, because our two Committees work very well together to represent the best interests of the wide variety of Back Benchers in this House. I am therefore grateful that he has taken such a conciliatory attitude this evening.

22:29

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

I am in the unusual position of having divided loyalties, being a member of the Procedure Committee and of the Backbench Business Committee. In this instance, however, I support the Procedure Committee, because I wish to see more power for Parliament and less for the Executive.

I do not think that the question of the number of days per year is a massive issue of principle. If a Parliament were to have a forced caesarean, which none of us would want to see, rather than its normal gestation period, a reduction in the number of days would not be a big issue. It is entirely reasonable to have a system in Standing Orders that means that if Parliament goes on for a longer period, there is no need to come to say, “We need more time” and it is automatically delivered. That is a fair way of working. It is not a big issue of principle.

The second matter involves more of an issue of principle. The point is simple: why do only the Executive have the power to timetable Parliament and Parliament cannot timetable itself? Let us consider the changes that have happened since the Wright report. The first change meant that the Backbench Business Committee was accountable not to Parliament as a whole, but to the political groups—again, that increased the power of the Executive. Our proposal is to give the Backbench Business Committee a power—if it does not work, it does not have to be used—that is currently held only by the Executive. That is an important step forward, and it would give Parliament a power that it currently does not have.

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

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he not struck by the argument put forward by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) a moment ago—if there is a timetable and a time by which the debate must end, that will become not the terminus ad quem, but something towards which we work? We will fill the time up to that point. She made a particularly good point.

[John Hemming]

The hon. Lady made a good point if we exercise the power. The idea is not that every debate should be timetabled; it is that the Committee should have this power. Her argument was that perhaps that power might be needed in the future, but we could give the Committee that power to use if it sees fit. Instead she recommends that the discretion should not be there. In the interests of democracy and of increasing the power of the representatives of the people—Parliament—and reducing the power of the Executive, that power should be given to the Committee and not just limited to the Executive.

[Natascha Engel]

That was not quite what I said. I said that if we were given the power, Members would demand it. I am worried that if we are given the power, that is what Members will constantly want and then the time will become filled to the timetable rather than by what is needed.

[John Hemming]

Members will only want it if they see a need for it. The Committee will have discretion over whether to give that power. As I said, this issue comes down to where someone sees the power resting between the Executive and the legislature. My view is that democracy is important and that we should give power to the legislature.

22:32

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I congratulate the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), on the way in which he opened this debate, and the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), on the way in which she responded.

If any Members present are regretting this debate taking place, they have only themselves to blame, because the House in its order of 26 November said that this motion should be debated for 90 minutes at the close of play today. Members should have objected to that at the time if they disagreed. The Chairman of the Procedure Committee says that he will not press the motion to a vote, so does he intend to withdraw it rather than just concede defeat to the Government amendments?

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend has identified my own weaknesses in matters of procedure. My understanding is that I will allow the Government amendments to go forward unchallenged, because Mr Speaker’s intention was to put the amendments to the House. If I am wrong about that, I apologise, and my hon. Friend has exposed me as a charlatan and a fraud as Chairman of the Procedure Committee.

[Mr Hollobone]

I know for a certain fact that my hon. Friend is not a charlatan and a fraud.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to refer even to himself, who is by virtue an honourable Member, as a charlatan and a fraud?

[Mr Speaker]

It is not disorderly, but it is an example of unwarranted self-flagellation.

[Mr Hollobone]

I know for a certain fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne is not a charlatan and a fraud. I very much hope that he withdraws his motion, because then the Government amendments could not be passed.

[John Hemming]

The hon. Gentleman made the point just before accepting my intervention: if the motion is withdrawn, the Government amendments cannot be passed. However, then we would not have any changes at all. It is a question for the House as to whether the House divides; it is not a question for the Chairman of a particular Committee.

[Mr Hollobone]

I strongly encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne to withdraw his motion at the appropriate point and to come back to this matter on another day.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

As I understand it, Mr Speaker, for a motion to be withdrawn, it requires the consent of the whole House, and one Member opposing it can stop that withdrawal taking place. It is too late for my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, to withdraw his motion.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman’s understanding is correct. The motion is now owned by the House, and withdrawal of it would require the assent of the House. It cannot be summarily withdrawn.

[Mr Hollobone]

In that case, I encourage my hon. Friend to seek the leave of the House to withdraw the motion. I gently say to him and to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire that if ever the Procedure Committee and the Backbench Business Committee come to the Floor of the House divided on an issue, they are effectively allowing the Executive to walk all over both of them, which is a great shame as far as the whole House is concerned.

I disagree with the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire about her worries over the 35 days. I simply do not trust the Executive, whoever they might be, to honour their commitment to give 35 days to the Backbench Business Committee. There might be all sorts of excuses that a re-elected coalition Government, a majority Conservative Government or indeed a Labour Government might give to the House about not sticking to that ruling. In a Session longer than a calendar year, it would be very tempting, especially for an incoming Government, to seek not to give a pro rata adjustment to the Backbench Business Committee’s allocation of time.

We have not spoken very much about the Select Committee statements motion, but I have some concerns about how it has been drafted. It says in paragraph (1)(a) of the proposed Standing Order that

“the Backbench Business Committee may determine that a statement will be made on the publication of a select committee report or announcement of an inquiry.”

It does not make it clear that the Committee would do that only in response to a request from the relevant Select Committee. As I read that proposed Standing Order, the Backbench Business Committee could force a Select Committee to make a statement on the publication of one of its reports. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Backbench Business Committee for all the reasons that the hon. Lady outlined about its not seeking to become more powerful than it should be, but the way that the motion is drafted would give the Backbench Business Committee the power to do that, although I am sure it is not requesting it.

In paragraph (4) of the Select Committee statements motion, it says, in relation to the time given to such a statement, that

“no question”—

on the statement—

“shall be taken after the end of any period specified by the Backbench Business Committee or the Liaison Committee in its determination.”

I do not agree with that, Mr Speaker. When we have statements on the Floor of the House from Ministers, you, through your wisdom, decide how long that statement should run, and you do that by seeing how many Members of the House are standing to ask questions. Sometimes those statement do not include all the Members who want to ask questions; sometimes they run for a very long time indeed. The point is that the allocation of time is not specified beforehand. It is in your wisdom and at your discretion how long a statement should last. If, under the proposed procedure, the Backbench Business Committee allows a statement on a Select Committee publication to take place, either in this Chamber or in Westminster Hall, it should be up to Mr Speaker, the Deputy Speaker or the Chairman in Westminster Hall to decide how long that statement should run depending on the level of interest in it shown by those Members who are standing to ask questions. I am disappointed in the rather sloppy wording of the Select Committee statements motion. The point about how long statements should run has been missed, and I am very worried that if we have an extended Session of Parliament the Government will not necessarily provide the pro rata entitlement to the Backbench Business Committee that this House would like.

22:40

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

I do not intend to go through the motions again, because the House has already heard about them in detail, but I want to place on record that it was not the intention of the Procedure Committee to fall out in any way with the Backbench Business Committee. If the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) does not mind my saying so, we were only trying to be helpful. In many ways, it is a sadness and a disappointment that our attempt to be helpful has resulted in a debate that might appear to an onlooker to be a dispute between the two Committees. That certainly was not the intention of the Procedure Committee and, to be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), I am sure that with his two hats on he would have made it clear if he thought that we were going down the wrong track. These are permissive powers, but I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady's arguments and they have some merit. If at any point in the future the hon. Lady and her Committee feel that the Procedure Committee can be helpful by introducing some changes, I for one would be amenable to suggesting that we gave that request careful consideration.

I have just listened carefully to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and to his concerns about the proposed new Standing Order on Select Committee statements. I am inclined to agree that paragraph (1)(a) suggests that the Backbench Business Committee would have the authority to demand a statement and I wonder whether, even at this late stage, we might receive from the Leader of the House an oral clarification or even a manuscript amendment with which the whole House could agree that would put the words “if requested” after the words “may determine” in line 4. That might deal with that concern.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering raised a concern about paragraph (4), which states:

“The Member making a statement may answer questions on it asked by Members called by the Chair, but no question shall be taken after the end of any period specified by the Backbench Business Committee or the Liaison Committee in its determination.”

When I read that the first time, I wondered whether it meant that there would be no vote on the statement as no question would be put to the House. I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend that hon. Members on both sides of the House would expect that the sensible convention that has grown up under your chairmanship and since I have been a Member of this House, Mr Speaker, that as many Members as possible given the circumstances are allowed to question a Minister—or, in this case, the Chairman of a Select Committee—after a statement has been made should continue if at all possible.

22:40

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, and the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, who have tabled these motions. I thoroughly support the changes to the arrangements for Select Committee statements in this House and in Westminster Hall. They will be much more practical, there will be much more discipline and flexibility and Select Committees will be able to make far more statements about the reports we produce, which can only be good for the profile of Select Committees and for understanding in the House of the work that Select Committees do.

On the other matter before us, it pains me that the most reasonable and sensible proposals that are brought forward—for example, on the House’s ability to manage its time in its own way—are still rejected by the Government. I will be very interested to hear what my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House says about that. When it comes to any proposal that started with the Wright Committee, getting people to accept reform has been like pulling teeth. We have come so far from the days when the House really controlled its own time.

The principle of the Wright Committee was that the Government are entitled to be able to obtain their business. I do not know why the Government have to micro-manage the time of the House to such an extent when there is no threat to their ability to obtain their business. So capable are modern Governments of obtaining their business that the House sits shorter days than at any time since before the first world war. The idea that the House sits for too many hours, or too late into the night, or that debates go on for too long, is an absolute travesty. We now have so many timed and curtailed debates, and so many truncated speeches. [Interruption.] I make no apology for provoking my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House into pointing at the clock, because it is rare for us to debate something that is important to the House, rather than the Government.

The authors of the Government amendments are standing against the tide of history. The British people want the House to have more, not less, power. They want more, not less, accountability. This is a tiny change to enable the House to ensure that things are debated in good time and in good order. I am interested to know the arguments against the proposals, which were unanimously supported by the Procedure Committee. I rather suspect that on both Front Benches, there is something of a reflex action against the Backbench Business Committee obtaining more discretion and influence over the way in which the House is run.

[Mr Gray]

Does my hon. Friend feel that this evening’s activities bode well for the oft-promised introduction of a House business Committee?

[Mr Jenkin]

I suspect that if I moved on to the question of the introduction of a House business Committee, Mr Speaker, you might begin to twitch and suggest that I was straying beyond the remit of the motions before us. I see absolutely no sign that the Government will fulfil their commitment, written into the coalition agreement, that after three years, a House business Committee would be established. Perhaps the Front Benchers could say today when they plan to table motions to do that.

It is worth reminding hon. Members that we in this House have no power to lay a motion before the House to change Standing Orders. We are entirely dependent on the Front Benchers’ beneficence in tabling motions to make such changes. That power was lost much more recently than people imagine; I cannot remember the exact date, but it was long after the beginning of the timetabling of business at the time of the Home Rule debates in the 19th century.

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Indeed, item 21 in today’s Order Paper is a helpful list of adjournment dates for the House going all the way through to the end of 2014, but it is an item about which there is no debate allowed whatever. It has been put on the Order Paper by the Executive, and the House is not even allowed to debate it.

[Mr Jenkin]

I have some sympathy with the idea that we do not debate everything that is on the Order Paper, because there is so much on a modern Order Paper that we would be here 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, if we did. However, it should be for this House to decide what is debated and what is important. It should not be stitched up between the two Front-Bench teams, or laid down by the Government of the day. We respect and fully understand the principle that any Government must be able to obtain their business, but the ability to manipulate the Order Paper in their interests is surely not right for a modern Parliament in a modern democracy in which people expect more accountability and more debate on important matters.

Finally, I counsel my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, in whose name the motion stands, that he would be well within his rights to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. The Backbench Business Committee will continue to sit in public regardless of whether or not a Standing Order requires it to do so. This exercise has therefore become rather otiose, because of the Government’s amendments. If he begs to ask leave to withdraw the motion, I think that he will be making the point that the Government have made this exercise rather pointless.

22:50

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

I rise to support the motion on Select Committee statements and to offer our support to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), in relation to the amendments to the motion that was tabled by the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), which stand in the names of the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House.

I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Broxbourne for opening the debate and explaining his thinking behind the motion. He is a treasured Member of the House and a staunch defender of Back-Bench Members’ rights. He is deeply respected by all Members. On this occasion, however, I am afraid that, despite his erudite explanation of the rationale behind his amendments, we are unable to support them in their entirety, for reasons I will lay before the House shortly.

Before that, I want to acknowledge the Backbench Business Committee, an innovation that arose from the Wright Committee reforms, which has enjoyed a great deal of success since its initiation in 2010. That success has been in no small part due to the tireless work of its Chair and her open-minded approach to the selection of topics to be debated.

Another success of the Wright reforms has been the election of members of Select Committees and their Chairs. There is no doubt that the work of Select Committees has been given more credibility as a consequence of those reforms. How often now do we see the broadcast media giving priority to the coverage of Select Committee hearings? Who can doubt that the Public Accounts Committee, under the steely leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), is now seen as a really effective way of holding public services to account for the resources they spend on our behalf.

The changes to Standing Orders recommended in the motion are the next logical step in the process of improving the workings of the House and raising further the profile of the work of our Select Committees. There is no doubt that the present system of allowing Select Committee Chairs to make a statement to the House is cumbersome and that the proposed change to the Standing Orders will make it easier for Members of the House to draw out areas of interest in a Select Committee report by asking the relevant question, rather than by having to intervene. Interventions are good for the cut and thrust of a full-blooded debate, but in our view they are not the most appropriate mechanism for handling what is in effect a statement to the House by a Select Committee.

The proposed new Standing Order will also give the Backbench Business Committee discretion in allocating a specified period of time for a Select Committee statement. The same discretion will be made available to the Liaison Committee in relation to debates in Westminster Hall.

With regard to the amendments to the motion relating to Back-Bench business, we support the first change proposed by the hon. Member for Broxbourne, which would give the Backbench Business Committee the formal power to hear representations from Members of the House in public. My understanding is that that has become the norm. Indeed, I have been present when Members have made representations. I know, because I have seen it myself, that it really works, in the sense that it reflects entirely the slow but welcome progress to ever-greater transparency in this place. It would therefore be helpful to see that practice written into Standing Orders. However, we join the Chair of the Committee and the Leader of the House in opposing a formal writing into Standing Orders of the principle of extending the number of days made available for Back-Bench business when the parliamentary Session extends beyond the usual year. This did not prove to be an issue in the first Session of this Parliament, which went on for what seemed like an almost interminable two years. We agree that that is unlikely to occur again given the legislation on fixed-term Parliaments that is now on the statute book.

We disagree with the part of the motion that would give the Backbench Business Committee the power to table business motions governing Back-Bench business days. The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee believes that it is important that it should not have the power to table programme motions. Back-Bench business days have always been more flexible and the time has generally been split on the day depending on the number of speakers for debates. This means that Members regulate themselves and almost always have respectful regard for subsequent debates. Her fear, as she clearly articulated, is that if the Committee were to start programming, debates would fill the space they are allocated rather than the space they need.

[Mr Hollobone]

Does the hon. Lady appreciate the dichotomy in her argument in that she is in favour of flexibility with regard to debates on the Floor of the House but not with regard to how long statements should run in Back-Bench time?

[Angela Smith]

The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee pointed out that for the greater part of the time Back-Bench business works on a consensual basis. I think she would want that spirit to be reflected in future arrangements rather than having written into Standing Orders a procedure that is unwieldy and may, in effect, start to distort the nature of the business that takes place on these days, which are typically sitting Thursdays.

We agree with this way of continuing Back-Bench business and encourage Members of the House to support the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee and the amendments. Of course, it is up to right hon. and hon. Members to make up their own minds on these changes, but I hope they can be guided by the Committee on these important matters. I am pleased that the Chair of the Procedure Committee has acquiesced in that view. On that basis, I hope that the House will agree to allow the amendments to stand.

22:57

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

I rise to speak on behalf of the Government in support of the motion relating to Select Committee statements and to speak to the motion on Back-Bench business moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), to which I will wish to move the amendments standing in my name and that of the Leader of the House. I thank him for opening the debate as he did and for clearly setting out the effect of and the thinking behind his motion and for explaining that his moment has not come as the Tea Room was deathly silent in pledging support for it.

I agree with the first paragraph of the motion on providing the Backbench Business Committee with the formal power to hear representations from Members of the House in public. As my hon. Friend explained, this merely brings Standing Orders into line with the Committee’s existing practice. As a regular attender of its public meetings, I can say that they work very well. It is a real advance in this House for Back-Bench Members to be able to bid directly and openly for time to debate subjects of their choosing.

Turning to the rest of the motion, the House will be aware from the Backbench Business Committee’s evidence to the Procedure Committee and the Government’s response to that Committee’s report that we both oppose the proposals for a pro-rata increase in the number of days allocated to the Backbench Business Committee in a parliamentary Session lasting longer than a calendar year and for the Committee to have the power to table business motions. We have tabled amendments to remove these provisions, in support of the Committee’s stated views.

I listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the Chair of the Procedure Committee. While I understand the rationale behind the proposals, I do not believe that either is necessary. The first arose partly as a result of the unusually long first Session of this Parliament. We have now passed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which ties us, other than in exceptional circumstances, to five-year Parliaments with an election in early May. As a result, a spring-to-spring one-year Session should be the norm, and I do not expect a repeat of the two year Session. If there is one—one can never rule it out—or if a Session extends slightly beyond one year, I assure the House that business managers will take account of the interests of the Backbench Business Committee and the House to ensure a balanced spread of business.

In fact, that is what happened during that long first Session. The Government did not seek to stick to the Standing Order requirement of 35 days, but allocated the Backbench Business Committee 58 days, which was—contrary to the point made by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone)—well above what a simple pro rata increase would have delivered. Members may recall that it took several weeks at the start of the Session for the Backbench Business Committee to become established, during which time the Government provided time for debates that would otherwise have come from their allocation. That demonstrates, as the Chair of the Committee has said, that an element of flexibility is helpful to the House in the unlikely event of future long Sessions.

I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne will be able to accept those arguments and the Government amendment. Indeed, he has indicated as much. Should it come to a vote—although I understand that that will not be the case—I hope the House will support our position and that of the Backbench Business Committee and vote in favour of amendment (a), to leave out paragraph (2) of the motion.

On amendment (b) and business motions, I understand the case made by my hon. Friend but, again, the Government do not believe it is necessary to provide the Backbench Business Committee with the power to table business motions governing Back-Bench business days. There is already flexibility for the Committee to indicate on the Order Paper the amount of time it expects each debate to take. In these circumstances, as the Committee Chair has said, Members are generally very good at exercising restraint when necessary and respecting the interests of others wishing to speak in subsequent debates. The occupant of the Speaker’s Chair is also able to encourage Members to lengthen or shorten their speeches or even to impose formal time limits, having regard to the interest shown by Members in contributing to debates. That arrangement has worked very well. It provides maximum discretion for the Backbench Business Committee to organise the business as it sees fit and avoids the rigidity of a business motion.

The House may recall that there have been occasions nearer the start of the Parliament when the Government have provided a business motion at the request of the Procedure Committee and the Backbench Business Committee. It is also true that this Government have never refused a request for a business motion from either Committee. Furthermore, I can assure the House that we will continue to respond positively to similar requests from both Committees in the future.

[Mr Jenkin]

Has not my right hon. Friend defeated his own argument? If that is always going to be the case, why not let the Backbench Business Committee table the motions itself instead of having to ask his permission? Why does the Backbench Business Committee need to ask the Government’s permission for a business motion?

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has heard from the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee why she is not seeking that power. The risk is that if it were available, Members would start to exercise it, which would do away with the flexibility she has said is such an advantage to the Committee.

The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee has already said in evidence to the inquiry that she does not think the power is necessary and she cannot see the problem. I agree with her. Again, I hope that, given my assurances and the views of the Committee Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne will accept the Government’s amendment—for the moment at least—until things move further and more quickly in the direction he seeks.

I will now turn to Select Committee launches and the motion standing in my name and those of the Leader of the House and the Chairs of the Liaison and the Backbench Business Committees. The motion provides for a new Standing Order governing the procedure relating to Select Committee statements. The Procedure Committee, in its second report of Session 2012-13, supported a new Standing Order for that purpose, an idea proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip when he was Leader of the House. I am sure he will be pleased that his good ideas continue to come to fruition.

Before briefly describing the effect of the motion, I would like to add that it has been tabled on the basis of much negotiation and discussion. I am grateful to the Chairs of the Liaison and the Backbench Business Committees for adding their names to the motion, signifying the degree of consensus achieved on it.

The Government agree that the present procedure, under which Members may contribute to the short debate by way of intervention only, is rather cumbersome. The launch of a Select Committee inquiry or report is more akin to a ministerial statement than a debate. It therefore makes sense for Members to be able to ask questions of the Member making the statement, rather than by seeking to intervene during a single speech. That will prove a more natural and convenient way of proceeding.

The proposed new Standing Order gives the Backbench Business Committee full discretion in allocating a specified amount of time to Select Committee statements, which can be set down on any of its allocated days. The Liaison Committee will enjoy a similar discretion in respect of its allocated days in Westminster Hall.

I want to respond to two points made by the hon. Member for Kettering. First, I want to reassure him that paragraph (1)(a) assumes that an application has been made by a Select Committee to the Backbench Business Committee for a statement, so the Backbench Business Committee cannot require one. I hope that he is reassured that the Backbench Business Committee will not force Select Committees to make statements that they do not intend to make.

Secondly, Select Committee launches can last any period determined by the Backbench Business Committee or the Liaison Committee, but they are not obliged to specify a time, and if they do not do so, the launch would be open-ended, and there would not be the constraining mechanism about which the hon. Gentleman expressed concern.

It is important that the House remains able to respond rapidly to new developments so as to be at the centre of political debate. That is why I believe that any Select Committee statements should be made no later than five sitting days after the day on which the report is published or inquiry announced, as provided in the Standing Order. I encourage Select Committees, wherever possible, to continue the current practice of launching reports on the day of publication.

The Select Committee statement provides Select Committees with an excellent opportunity to publicise their work either by launching their inquiries—that practice has found favour in the Scottish Parliament, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House found when he visited—or by explaining the contents of their reports to the House.

So far, 13 Committees have made a total of 14 statements. Committees now have the chance to ensure that their work becomes a staple feature of Back-Bench business, although they will have to compete with many other demands for time. No doubt Committees will wish to review how the new arrangements work in due course.

I hope that the House will find that the new Standing Order provides an improved procedure for this innovation. I welcome the support of the deputy shadow Leader of the House and that of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee on a common position with the Government on these issues this evening. I hope that the House will support that motion when I move it.

[Mr Walker]

This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I have learned a lot of procedure during its course, and it is good to know that, no matter how inexperienced we are, we can always become more experienced by listening to the wisdom of colleagues. If this is possible and acceptable to the House, I would ask to withdraw the motion on Back-Bench business—I understand that that is acceptable to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee—while of course leaving the motion on Select Committee statements alone. I have nothing further to add, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

[Hon. Members]

No.

[Mr Speaker]

Permission has been refused. [Interruption.] One objection alone suffices, although I think I heard more than one. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) has been gesticulating as to the source of the objection, but that is not a matter of order for the Chair. We now come to the amendments to the motion, which remains the property of the House.

Amendments made: (a), leave out paragraph (2).

Amendment (b), leave out paragraphs (3) and (4).—(Tom Brake.)

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That:

(1) Standing Order No. 152J (Backbench Business Committee) be amended in line 23, at the end, to add ‘and to hear representations from Members of the House in public’.

Select committee Statements

Ordered,

That the following new Standing Order be made:

‘Select Committee Statements

(1) (a) On any day allotted for proceedings in the House on backbench business (and not being taken in the form of a half-day), or on any Thursday sitting in Westminster Hall other than one to which sub-paragraph (b) applies, the Backbench Business Committee may determine that a statement will be made on the publication of a select committee report or announcement of an inquiry.

(b) The Liaison Committee may determine that such a statement may be made in Westminster Hall on any day appointed under paragraph (15) of Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings in Westminster Hall).

(2) A statement on the publication of a select committee report or announcement of an inquiry–

(a) shall be made by the chair or another member of the select committee acting on

its behalf;

(b) shall take place–

(i) in the House, after questions and any ministerial statements, or

(ii) in Westminster Hall, at the commencement of proceedings.

(3) A statement made under paragraph (1) above may not take place later than 5 sitting days after the day on which the report is published or inquiry announced.

(4) The Member making a statement may answer questions on it asked by Members called by the Chair, but no question shall be taken after the end of any period specified by the Backbench Business Committee or the Liaison Committee in its determination.’. —(Tom Brake.)

Business without Debate

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

[Mr Speaker]

With the leave of the House, I shall put motions 7 to 18 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.118(6)).

Taxes

That the draft International Tax Enforcement (Marshall Islands) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 16 July, be approved.

Corporation Tax

That the draft Double Taxation Relief (China) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 16 July, be approved.

That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Brunei Darussalam) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 16 July, be approved.

Capital Gains Tax

That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Spain) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 16 July, be approved.

That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (India) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 16 July, be approved.

That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Albania) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 12 September, be approved.

That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Panama) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 12 September, be approved.

That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Norway) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 12 September, be approved.

That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Netherlands) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 12 September, be approved.

Taxes

That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Isle of Man) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 25 October, be approved.

Capital Gains Tax

That the draft International Tax Enforcement (Jersey) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 25 October, be approved

That the draft International Tax Enforcement (Guernsey) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 25 October, be approved.—(Claire Perry.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.118(6)).

Betting, Gaming and Lotteries

That the draft Categories of Gaming Machine (Amendment) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 15 October, be approved. —(Claire Perry.)

The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 4 December (Standing Order No. 41A).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (4 DECEMBER)

Ordered,

That at the sitting on Wednesday 4 December paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to the Motion in the name of Edward Miliband as if the day were an Opposition Day; proceedings on the Motion may continue, though opposed, for three hours and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Mr Lansley.)

ADJOURNMENT (FEBRUARY, EASTER, MAY DAY, WHITSUN, SUMMER, CONFERENCE RECESS, NOVEMBER AND CHRISTMAS)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 25),

That this House—

(1) at its rising on Thursday 13 February 2014, do adjourn until Monday 24 February 2014;

(2) at its rising on Thursday 10 April 2014, do adjourn until Monday 28 April 2014;

(3) at its rising on Thursday 1 May 2014, do adjourn until Tuesday 6 May 2014;

(4) at its rising on Thursday 22 May 2014, do adjourn until Monday 2 June 2014;

(5) at its rising on Tuesday 22 July 2014, do adjourn until Monday 1 September 2014;

(6) at its rising on Thursday 11 September 2014, do adjourn until Monday 13 October 2014;

(7) at its rising on Tuesday 11 November 2014, do adjourn until Monday 17 November 2014; and

(8) at its rising on Thursday 18 December 2014, do adjourn until Monday 5 January 2015.—(Mr Lansley.)

Question agreed to.

Deaths in Custody (Black People)

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Claire Perry.)

23:11

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

On 27 June, I was invited by Matilda MacAttram, of Black Mental Health UK, to attend a conference in Wolverhampton. I did not know what to expect, but this was a woman I liked and trusted immensely, so I travelled up to Wolverhampton for a conference on deaths in custody. It was an extraordinary, moving and profound occasion. The conference comprised men and women, most of whom had lost sons, grandsons and nephews in custody, in either a mental health or a police setting. They bore their grief with great dignity and fortitude, but there was huge upset and anger in the room at how they had been treated by the establishment, by the system. I shall come to that in a moment.

Many relatives of the deceased bore witness to their treatment at the hands of the state and of authorities that we should trust. It was gruelling to hear. I am afraid that much of the commentary focused on the treatment meted out by certain police officers and the Independent Police Complaints Commission. I do not want this to be an attack on the police, so I want to say this now: there were many senior police officers at the conference, and the pain was etched on their faces as they listened to the experiences that families had been put through by some of their colleagues in the police force. It was a terribly moving day, but as I said, there were some very good police officers there. The police must be part of the solution, so we need to take them with us.

African-Caribbeans account for about 3% of the population of this country, but approximately 20% of deaths in custody. This has been a running sore and an open wound for 30 years, and it is incumbent on us, the political class, to address it, because if we do not, whatever side of the House we are on, we have no hope of engaging with this community constructively. They have lost trust in us. When I was preparing for this debate, I talked to several journalists, and one of them said, “But Mr Walker, isn’t it just about racism? Isn’t this an issue of racism?”, and I said, “Well, racism is an ugly, ugly word. It is a word I do not want to ascribe to people I do not know or institutions I am not experienced of.” But let me say this: for the past 30 years, since I became an adult, I have been aware of grieving black families on the steps of courts or inquests flashing across my television screen. I have seen the faces of those families and the young men they are mourning flash across my television screen, and up until this point I have chosen to do nothing. Now I am standing up and trying to do something. I may want to ask others this question, but I have to answer it: why, for 25 or 30 years, did I do nothing? Until I answer that question satisfactorily, I will not cast aspersions on others.

Another person said, “But Charles, you are talking about deaths in custody. You are a white male, why are you talking specifically about black people?” Well, I feel there is something very egregious about the treatment of black people in custody and detained environments. Any death in custody is regrettable, sad and tragic, but I am speaking as a parent because I think about what would happen if it were my son or—hopefully—when I am a grandfather, my grandson. It would be too much to bear.

I have been helped to prepare for tonight by some fabulous people—I have mentioned Matilda MacAttram, and Lord Victor Adebowale has done great work with the police on restraint and how we look after people in a mental health crisis in a detained environment. I also pay tribute to Deborah Coles of Inquest who has been extraordinarily generous in the time she has given me when preparing for this debate. I know that I will not do this subject justice this evening, but at least I can start to do my bit.

We must address the whole system of inquests. In June I met families in Wolverhampton who had waited six, seven or eight years for an inquest into the death of their child, their brother. That is wholly unacceptable. I know the Government are committed to holding inquests in good time, but many families are still waiting for two or three years. We must ensure that inquests happen in good time, but an inquest is only as good as the information presented to it, so we must ensure that inquests deal with good information.

We must address the fact that police officers are not required to answer questions put to them by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. That is simply ridiculous; I am aware that many senior police officers in the Association of Chief Police Officers believe it is a nonsense and needs to be addressed. We must also have equality of arms. When there is a death in detention, the various parties of the state have legal representation—the mental health trust, the police, the chief constable may have legal representation, all funded by the taxpayer. The family of the deceased, however, will too often have their finances gone through with a fine toothcomb—not just the parents, but grandparents, aunts, uncles and extended family—to see whether they should pay for some or all of their legal costs. That is a disgraceful way to treat a mourning family, and if we do nothing else, it is incumbent on this House to end that inequality in arms.

When someone dies in a mental health setting, as opposed to a police custody environment, we must ensure an independent investigation that carries the confidence of the family of the deceased and the wider community. Let us be in no doubt about the sense of anger and frustration at the current state of play. I do not know how we do this in law, but we must also end the culture of briefings. When someone dies in custody, the organisation that had responsibility for that individual’s care and safety can go into a sort of institutional meltdown and lockdown. It goes into a default position of getting its side of the story across, and the names and reputations of good young men are trashed in such a way that that becomes the accepted narrative—“Because the inquest is so far away, if we go on and paint a wholly false picture of this young man, that will become the accepted story.”

Can one imagine how it affects a grieving family—the weaker party in all this— to see the reputation of their son, grandson or nephew destroyed, and they have no right of reply? I do not know how we do that in law, but off-the-record, unofficial briefings should be regarded as acts of gross misconduct, and those that participate in and promote them should lose their jobs.

An issue of great importance to Black Mental Health UK is the use of face-down restraint, which is a very aggressive way of controlling someone who is distressed. Too often it can cause severe physical damage and can kill. We in this House should be in no doubt about the importance of this issue to those in the African-Caribbean community. They feel that it is used disproportionately on their young men, and we need to address that concern in a serious way.

I want to go back to the need for inquests. I am dealing with one family whose son called the police—there was a domestic dispute and he felt that he and his child were being threatened—and ended up being arrested. He was taken to a detained mental health environment. His sister came to see him. He said, “Please get me out of here. If you don’t, they will kill me.” He was dead the next day. It took the family a year and a half to recover the body of their son and brother. When they did recover his body, it was beaten, bruised and covered in Taser marks. That is a tragedy. I can understand why that upsets people so much. It upsets me today and I know that it upsets my colleagues who are here for the debate.

I do not pretend to understand the African-Caribbean community, but from the people who came to see me there is a total loss of trust in the establishment. There is a feeling that for the past 30 years we have allowed the causes of these deaths to go unaddressed. Somehow, we have turned away. The establishment has turned its back; it has chosen to walk on the other side of the road. If we are to bring the community closer to us we need to understand the sense of hurt we in this place, and the institutions of the state, have caused. The healing process needs to start at the very top. We need the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and say, “I want to hear your stories. I want to listen. I am so sorry that we allowed this to happen for so long. Please tell us your experiences and let us work together to ensure that we do not allow these injustices to continue.”

When I left the conference in Wolverhampton on 27 June I had one overriding emotion as I sat on the train: I felt ashamed that the country I love so much, and which has given me so much, could let a group of good people down so badly. It is quite something to have that emotion at the age of 45. I always knew that we do not live in a perfect place, but I always thought that it was a good place and that, if challenged, this country did the right thing. We have not done the right thing by the African-Caribbean community. All is not lost: we have the opportunity to do the right thing. I know I have not done this subject justice, but I hope that the Government hear the growing number of voices from all communities and lead the nation to a better place.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the way in which he has made his remarks on this very important issue. Does he agree that one of the great sores in this debate is not just that no police officers have been prosecuted for the many deaths—hundreds—that have taken place in the past 20 years or so, but that the police continue effectively to investigate themselves because so many IPCC staff are police officers? That issue continues to be raised consistently in relation to deaths in police custody.

[Mr Walker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am aware that since 1991, although there have been nine verdicts of unlawful death passed down by inquest courts, there has not been a single successful prosecution. When I was at the conference at Wolverhampton and heard Dame Anne Owers of the Independent Police Complaints Commission present, I felt that perhaps the organisation was not fit for purpose. I had this terrible vision that this was the Care Quality Commission in front of me—we know that it is trying to address the failings of the past—but I felt that the IPCC was not in a good place. Now it is under new leadership, but I fear that it has so much ground to make up that it will never recover the credibility required to make it the force it should be.

With that, I shall conclude. I know that the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) is going to say a few words.

23:25

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) has hit on one very important issue—the pain that this matter causes among communities. Deaths in custody have been an issue in the east end of London for the 25-plus years I have been a Member of Parliament. A number of names come to mind—Trevor Monerville and Shiji Lapite, for example. A number of aspects of the issue of deaths in custody cause pain in communities, one of which is the disproportionate number of such deaths in the black and the Irish communities. Another is the briefing that has always gone on in the wake of a death in custody—that the dead person had drugs in their system, for example. Then, months later, the facts emerge and we find that the briefing was completely misleading.

There is no sadder thing—I have had to do it more times than I care to remember—than sitting with a woman who said goodbye to her son in the morning and later that night had a call from the police to say that he had died in their care. The hon. Member for Broxbourne is quite right that this is not an issue for any one community; it is an issue for the political class as a whole, which has not been prepared to listen to communities and families that remain in great pain—very often for years after these deaths happen.

23:26

[The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Damian Green)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and, indeed, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for their powerful speeches and remarks. They are powerful because every death in police custody—irrespective of race, ethnicity or nationality—is a tragedy that this Government take very seriously. Every effort should be made by the police to ensure that those they come into contact with are treated proportionately, humanely and lawfully, and that their personal well-being is of paramount importance when they are detained against their will in whatever custody setting.

This debate has focused particularly on the treatment of black people in police custody, and I would like to go through a number of important points that my hon. Friend made, starting with his remark that the number of black people of Afro-Caribbean origin dying in police custody is disproportionately high, when the overall population is taken into account. In that regard, we need to step back. Looking at custody populations as a whole, we see that there is an over-representation of black people. The reasons for this are complex and at this stage we do not fully understood them. Indeed, there appears to be an over-representation of black people across the whole of the criminal justice system. The Ministry of Justice is conducting work to look more closely at the reasons for this, identifying where there is real disproportionality in the system and seeking to develop an appropriate response to it. That is where the disproportionality lies; it is not necessarily, as in the most tragic cases, only the deaths of black people in police custody that are relevant.

There is no statistically significant difference among those who die in custody based on membership of any particular racial or ethnic group. The IPCC statistics for 2012-13 show that there were 15 deaths in or following police custody, of which 14 were white and one was mixed race. Looking further back at the 2011-12 period, there were also 15 deaths, of which one was a black person and one of mixed race. The 2011 IPCC report on long-term deaths in police custody concluded that the ethnic breakdown of deaths in custody appeared to be broadly in line with the make-up of detainees more generally. I entirely accept that there is disproportionality in the criminal justice system, but it does not occur only in the context of deaths in custody.

My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne rightly raised the issue of mental health and policing. I am aware that black people are one and a half times more likely to be detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983. In response to the fact that such a high proportion of people with mental health problems—and of all or any racial origins—are being dealt with by the police, we have introduced a series of measures to improve the way in which they are handled.

People with mental health problems deserve care, support and treatment, particularly if they have not committed a criminal act. They have a right to expect to be treated by the health service rather than finding themselves in the hands of the police, who will always go to help in an emergency, but who are clearly not trained as mental health professionals. The Home Office has been conferring closely with the Department of Health, and we will shortly publish a concordat agreed by nearly 30 national organisations, agencies and Departments. It will provide national leadership by setting out the standard of response that people suffering mental health crises and requiring urgent care should expect, and key principles on the basis of which local health and criminal justice partners should be organised. It will leave not just the health service but the criminal justice agencies in no doubt about what is expected of them. It is precisely because a disproportionate number of black people are finding themselves sectioned under mental health legislation that the coming improvements in mental health provision will have a particular impact on those people.

One of the standard—and perfectly correct—complaints is that too often the police are relied on to transport people who would be better transported by ambulance. The Association of Ambulance Chief Executives is drawing up a national protocol on the transport of people suffering mental health crises—section 136 detainees —which I hope and expect will act as a catalyst for wider change and improvements.

The underlying point made by my hon. Friend was that any death in custody is one too many. Of course there needs to be continuous scrutiny, and work of that nature is now overseen by the Ministerial Council on Deaths in Custody. The council was established in 2009, and was initially intended to exist for three years. However, we have demonstrated our commitment to this essential work by agreeing to fund it for a further three years.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and from the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) about a long-term trend. He talks of changes happening, but, given that the trend has been continuing for a long time, can he give us an assurance that change will indeed come? Change is often promised, but it rarely comes into effect. I think that tonight’s debate is about change actually occurring, rather than being promised.

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I hope to explain to him in a moment about the changes that are happening and those that have already happened, but let me first say a little more about the Ministerial Council on Deaths in Custody, because it is an extremely important institution. As well as a practitioner and stakeholder group, it has an independent advisory panel on deaths in custody. The panel has just created a two-year research project for the University of Greenwich, which will deal systematically with a number of the current problems. The university will conduct a review of the role of mental illness and deaths in all state custody, and an evaluation of the efficacy of information sharing between youth offending teams and the secure estate in relation to the assessment and management of the risk of self-harm and suicide among children and young people. Tonight’s debate, and other conversations in which I have taken part, suggest to me that I should consider whether the ethnicity of individuals who lose their lives in custody should also be included in that research project.

Let me move on to the changes and the specifics. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne had some harsh words to say about the IPCC, which must be notified of any death that occurs in police custody. Following the investigation into the death of Sean Rigg and the findings of the Home Affairs Committee inquiry into the IPCC, it is carrying out a review into how deaths in, or following, police custody are investigated. A progress report was published in September, and the final report is due to be published next year.

Changes are happening. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill includes new powers for the IPCC, which it has requested to strengthen its remit and functions. I agree with my hon. Friend that it has not been a perfect institution in the past. It has had failings, so we have strengthened its functions and we have increased its funding. The functions include powers to enable the IPCC to recommend and direct that a police force instigates unsatisfactory performance procedures in cases that involve death or serious injury. It will have extra resources from the police, too.

My hon. Friend mentioned the time it has taken for the deceased to be returned to their families as a result of inquests. Under the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013, which came into force in July as part of a package of reforms, coroners must release the body of the deceased for burial or cremation as soon as possible. If the coroner cannot release the body within 28 days, he or she must notify the known next of kin or personal representative of the reasons for the delay. When there is a criminal investigation into the death, there may be more than one post-mortem examination, but the coroner will make every effort for the body to be released at the earliest opportunity.

I should also draw the House’s attention to the recent appointment of His Honour Judge Peter Thornton QC as the first chief coroner of England and Wales, who is playing a key part in setting new national standards in the coroner system. I hope that will have a direct effect on the important questions we are debating tonight.

My hon. Friend talked about the requirement for police officers to answer questions posed to them by the IPCC. In December last year the Government brought forward emergency legislation to ensure police officers were required to attend interviews when requested by the IPCC. If we went further, as my hon. Friend suggested, and compelled police officers to answer questions in criminal investigations, that would put them in a worse position than members of the public, who have to attend but are not required to answer questions. It would seem perverse to have fewer rights for police officers than for other members of the public.

My hon. Friend also talked about the end of face-down restraint. In health settings, this is obviously a matter for the Department of Health. I understand it plans to end its use in health settings, which I am sure will be extremely welcome to my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington talked about the practice of off-the-record briefings, which can often stain the reputation of someone in a way that persists even when it is unjustified. The Leveson inquiry reset and clarified the boundaries of the relationship between the police and the media and covered recommendations relating precisely to off-the-record briefings. The Government have accepted all the recommendations relating to the police and, together with partners, are continuing to implement them.

My hon. Friend also talked about equality of representation. I would simply say that inquests are not trials. Unlike other proceedings for which legal aid might be available, there are no parties in inquests, only interested persons, and witnesses are not expected to present legal arguments. Legal advice and assistance before the inquest hearing via the legal help scheme is available to interested persons. Legal help can be used, for example, to assist in the preparation of a list of written questions that they wish the coroner to explore with other witnesses.

My hon. Friend also talked about the independent investigation of deaths in NHS mental health settings, as opposed to police settings. NHS England is working to make the investigation of deaths in hospital settings more independent. The work will conclude shortly, and guidance to NHS commissioners will be published early in the new year. I hope that he can therefore see that, across the board in this sensitive and vital area, there is a significant amount of change.

I want to conclude by reassuring the House that the Government are working to ensure that people are treated proportionately and humanely when in police custody. The number of people losing their lives in police custody has fallen. In 1998-99, there were 49 deaths; last year there were 15, and there were the same number this year. However, there is still a lot of work to be done. I can absolutely assure the House that, through the Ministerial Council on Deaths in Custody, and through working with other Government Departments, campaign groups and, indeed, the families of the deceased, I will make sure that this issue remains high on the Government’s list of priorities.

Question put and agreed to.

23:40

House adjourned.

Ministerial Correction

Monday 2nd December 2013 Ministerial Corrections

Monday 2 December 2013

Mortgages: Government Assistance

Monday 2nd December 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Steve McCabe]

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what proportion of Help to Buy applicants to date were aged 39 and over;

(2) how many people have had their application for a Help to Buy mortgage accepted in principle in (a) Birmingham, (b) Birmingham, Selly Oak constituency and (c) the West Midlands;

(3) what proportion of applicants to the Help to Buy scheme to date have not been first-time buyers.

[Official Report, 26 November 2013, Vol. 571, c. 258-59W.]

Letter of correction from Sajid Javid:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on 26 November 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Sajid Javid]

The Government is committed to making the aspiration of home ownership a reality for as many households as possible. The Government wants current and future generations to experience the benefits of owning their own home, in the same way their parents were able to. Since the financial crisis, larger deposit requirements and falling equity values mean many credit-worthy households cannot get a mortgage, or are trapped in their existing homes unable to take the next steps.

In the one month since the publication of the scheme rules on 8 October, more than 2,000 people have put in applications to lenders under the Help to Buy: mortgage guarantee scheme totalling £365 million of new mortgage lending. Lenders will submit details of their loans to the scheme when it opens in January.

More than three quarters of the applicants are first time buyers and many in their early thirties, demonstrating that the Help to Buy: mortgage guarantee scheme is helping hardworking people realise their home-owning aspirations.

Once the Help to Buy: mortgage guarantee scheme opens in January, the Government will collect data on mortgages covered by the guarantee, and will report in due course.

The correct answer should have been:

[Sajid Javid]

The Government is committed to making the aspiration of home ownership a reality for as many households as possible. The Government wants current and future generations to experience the benefits of owning their own home, in the same way their parents were able to. Since the financial crisis, larger deposit requirements and falling equity values mean many credit-worthy households cannot get a mortgage, or are trapped in their existing homes unable to take the next steps.

In the one month since the publication of the scheme rules on 8 October, more than 2,000 people had put in applications to lenders under the Help to Buy: mortgage guarantee scheme totalling £365 million of new mortgage lending. The Royal Bank of Scotland received 81 of these applications from the west midlands.

More than three quarters of the applicants are first time buyers and many in their early thirties, demonstrating that the Help to Buy: mortgage guarantee scheme is helping hardworking people realise their home-owning aspirations.

Once the Help to Buy: mortgage guarantee scheme opens in January, the Government will collect data on mortgages covered by the guarantee, and will report in due course.

Written Statements

Monday 2nd December 2013 Written Statements

Monday 2 December 2013

Education Reform: National Curriculum

Monday 2nd December 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

On 11 September 2013, I published the new national curriculum for all subjects except for English, mathematics and science at key stage 4.

Today, I am publishing for consultation the programmes of study for English and mathematics at key stage 4. The consultation will run until 3 February 2014. On 1 November we published the new GCSE subject content for English language, English literature and mathematics. It is important to consider these programmes of study alongside the GCSE subject content to ensure that the curriculum and qualifications are fully coherent.

The programme of study in mathematics at key stage 4 is more challenging. It has been drafted by experts to ensure that it sets expectations that match those in the highest performing jurisdictions. There is broader and deeper mathematical content with a focus on application of mathematical knowledge and skills to solve problems. The content is closely aligned to GCSE content. More challenging content specifically for higher achieving students is explicitly identified. There is a focus on consolidation and building on key stage 3, emphasising that mathematics is an interconnected subject. The proposals will provide better preparation for post-16 mathematics by providing foundations for advanced topics like calculus.

In English, the programme of study has been strengthened to ensure all pupils read a wide range of high-quality, challenging and classic English literature. There is a renewed focus on the reading of whole texts which should include at least one play by Shakespeare, works from the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries and poetry since 1789, including romantic poetry. The language requirement is also more demanding and pupils will be expected to speak fluently and use linguistic and literary terminology effectively and confidently in their written and spoken English.

The programmes of study for English and mathematics will be introduced from September 2015, alongside first teaching of the new qualifications. We will be consulting on science at key stage 4 in the spring of 2014 in line with the timetable for the development of the new science qualifications.

Copies of the consultation on programmes of study for key stage 4 English and mathematics will be placed in Libraries of both Houses.

Bovine TB

Monday 2nd December 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

A key element in the comprehensive strategy this Government are finalising to eradicate bovine TB (bTB) in England within 25 years is successfully tackling the disease reservoir in the badger population.

Culling is only one part of our approach to tackle the spread of TB. We are using every tool available including tougher movement controls for cattle (the latest of which I announced to the House on 28 November, 2013, Official Report, column 23WS), better biosecurity on farms and working to develop effective and usable cattle and badger vaccines. We continue to make good progress on all aspects of our draft strategy to eradicate the disease in England within 25 years.

The two badger control pilots, in Somerset and Gloucestershire, were designed to test the assumption that controlled shooting is a safe, humane and effective means of reducing badger numbers.

Natural England granted an eight-week extension in Gloucestershire on 23 October, in line with the chief veterinary officer’s (CVO’s) advice.

Today I am announcing to the House that the extension period in Gloucestershire concluded on Saturday 30 November at the behest of the cull company and the National Farmers Union (NFU), with the agreement of Natural England to coincide with the end of the open season for cage trapping.

The aim of the extension was to achieve the earliest and greatest possible impact on bTB in the area, in line with the CVO’s advice that a further significant reduction of the badger population in the first year would increase the likelihood of disease benefits in cattle over the full four years of the cull.

The decision to extend has been shown to be the right one, with significant numbers of badgers removed at the point that the extension was ended. In the additional five weeks and three days of culling, 213 badgers have been removed, giving an overall total of 921. This represents a reduction of just under 40% in the estimated badger population before culling began.

The extension in Gloucestershire has therefore been successful in meeting its aim in preparing the ground for a fully effective four year cull. In the randomised badger culling trial there was a range of culling effectiveness across the 10 areas in the first year of the culls, but the trial still showed overall benefits at the end of sustained culling and these benefits have been maintained for at least a further seven years. The two pilots in Gloucestershire and Somerset have similarly shown a range of culling effectiveness and at the end of four years of sustained culling long-term overall benefits can be expected to be delivered.

The independent panel of experts will now consider the information collected during the pilots on the safety, effectiveness and humaneness of controlled shooting. This will inform my decision on the wider roll-out of badger control in those parts of England most severely affected by this disease. The independent panel of experts report will be made available to Parliament and the general public at that time.

While there are important lessons to learn, completing two pilots this year has been a significant achievement and is another major step towards halting the spread of bTB.

I would like to pay tribute to the local farmers and landowners who have undertaken the pilots in both areas, often in difficult terrain and weather, and often in the face of intimidation by a small minority who resorted to widespread criminality in their determination to stop this disease control policy.

It is unacceptable that in the ten years to 31 December 2012, more than 305,000 cattle were compulsorily slaughtered as reactors or direct contacts in Great Britain. Moreover, since 1 January to August, a further 22,512 otherwise healthy cattle have been slaughtered solely because of bovine TB.

Controlling the disease in wildlife is and will remain a key part of our TB strategy—no country has successfully dealt with TB without tackling the disease in both wildlife and cattle. This Government are resolved to do this.

Achieving this aim will require long-term solutions and considerable national resolve. This Government are committed to tackling the disease in all reservoirs and by all available means.

Eastern Partnership Summit

Monday 2nd December 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister attended the third Eastern Partnership summit on 28 and 29 November 2013 in Vilnius, Lithuania. My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Warsi accompanied him. The summit was attended by Heads of State and Government or representatives of the European Union member states and Eastern Partnership member countries. President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso; President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy; President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz; the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland; Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy, Stefan Füle; and the Commissioner for Trade, Karel De Gucht were also in attendance for parts.

28 November 2013

The President of the Republic of Lithuania, Dalia Grybauskaite, chaired a working dinner for the Heads of State and Government, which the Prime Minister attended. The High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, also chaired a working dinner for Ministers of Foreign Affairs. My right hon. Friend, Baroness Warsi attended. Both dinners focused on the future of the Eastern Partnership. The Prime Minister welcomed the signing and initialling of the agreements (listed below) due to take place on the 29 November; they mark a significant step forward in the EU’s relationship with the region. He expressed disappointment with Ukraine’s decision to put on hold the preparations for signature of its association agreement the EU, but made it clear that the door is still open in the future.

29 November 2013

In the presence of the Heads of State and Government, the agreement between the EU and the Republic of Azerbaijan on facilitating visas (relevant for Schengen member countries only); the agreement between the EU and Georgia establishing a framework for the participation of Georgia in EU crisis management operations; the agreements between the EU and the European atomic energy community and their member states and Georgia and the Republic of Moldova were signed. The association agreements, incorporating deep and comprehensive free trade areas, between the EU and Georgia and the Republic of Moldova were also initialled.

Heads of delegation then convened at the plenary Session where the UK was represented by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and subsequently by my right hon. Friend Baroness Warsi. The discussion focused on welcoming the progress made by Georgia and Moldova and looking to the future of the Eastern Partnership. The majority of EU member states also expressed disappointment that Ukraine was not signing its association agreement with the EU. All delegations agreed that the Eastern Partnership offers opportunities for increased prosperity and support for reform in eastern partner countries, which should enhance their wider relationships in the region.

In discussion with other Heads of State and Government, the Prime Minister made the case for the need to reform welfare rules and return the concept of free movement of people within the EU to a more sensible basis, as an essential step to regain the trust of people in member states in future enlargement of the EU.

National Fraud Authority

Monday 2nd December 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

As part of the Government’s reforms to policing and the fight against serious and organised crime, I have decided to close the National Fraud Authority and realign its responsibilities to reflect the creation of the National Crime Agency.

The National Crime Agency, with its economic crime command, will bring a single national focus to cutting economic crime and will lead and co-ordinate the national fight against fraud, working with law enforcement agencies, regulators, Government and the public, private and voluntary sectors. While the National Fraud Authority has been successful in raising awareness of fraud and improving co-ordination, the focus should now be on cutting economic crime. The National Fraud Authority will close by 31 March 2014 and its functions will be transferred as follows:

Strategic development and threat analysis will be led by the National Crime Agency;

Action Fraud, the national fraud and financially-motivated internet crime reporting centre, will become the responsibility of the City of London police, to create a stronger end-to-end fraud reporting and analysis system;

Work to raise awareness of fraud, including delivery of the national e-confidence campaign, will transfer to the Home Office; and

Development of the counter fraud checking service will be led by the Cabinet Office.

The closure of the National Fraud Authority will strengthen the Government’s fight against economic crime by concentrating effort into law enforcement bodies and improving the fraud reporting and analysis service. The changes will further support the National Crime Agency’s role in leading the fight against serious and organised crime.

Eurojust

Monday 2nd December 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

The Government have decided not to opt in to the European Commission’s proposal for a regulation on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Co-operation (Eurojust) at this time. The Government will, however, conduct a thorough review of the final agreed text to inform active consideration of opting into the Eurojust regulation post adoption.

The Government value UK membership of Eurojust as currently established where Eurojust’s role is about providing support and co-ordination to investigations and prosecutions in cases of cross-border crime. That is why the Government are seeking to rejoin those arrangements as part of the 2014 opt out decision. However, the Commission’s new proposal creates substantial concerns; most notably by extending the mandatory powers of Eurojust national members and through the proposed interaction between Eurojust and the parallel proposal for the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO).

As confirmed in the coalition agreement, the Government will not participate in the establishment of any EPPO.

We will remain a full and active participant in both the Eurojust and EPPO negotiations to defend our national interests.

Child Support Regulations

Monday 2nd December 2013 Written Statements

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

On 5 November 2013, the Government published their response to the consultation “Supporting separated families; securing children’s futures” (Cm 8742). This response outlines important changes that we have made to our proposed strategy for closing existing Child Support Agency cases and introducing fees for the new 2012 child maintenance scheme.

Today we intend to lay the draft Child Support Fees Regulations 2014 and the draft Child Support (Ending Liability in Existing Cases and Transition to New Calculation Rules) Regulations 2014, the primary effects of which will be to introduce application, collection and enforcement fees for the 2012 child maintenance scheme and to begin the process of ending liability on all 1993 and 2003 scheme Child Support Agency cases.

These draft regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure and I look forward to discussing them with colleagues in the new year.

Grand Committee

Monday 2nd December 2013 Grand Committee

Monday, 2 December 2013.

Arrangement of Business

Monday 2nd December 2013 Grand Committee

Announcement

15:30

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

Good afternoon, my Lords. May I issue the usual reminder to the Committee that, in the event of a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes from the sound of the Division Bell?

European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Colombia and Peru Trade Agreement) Order 2013

Monday 2nd December 2013 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

15:30

Moved by

[Lord Popat]

That the Grand Committee do consider the European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Colombia and Peru Trade Agreement) Order 2013.

Relevant document: 13th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[Lord Popat (Con)]

My Lords, the EU-Andean free trade agreement covers the trade and investment relationship between EU member states and Colombia and Peru. Although this deep and comprehensive agreement constitutes a small part of the EU’s ambitious programme of bilateral trade and investment negotiations, it is an important and valuable step in improving our trade relations with Latin America. Together with our important trade negotiations with such countries as the US, Japan and Korea, it demonstrates that the EU is looking to advance its trade with countries large and small, developed and emerging. Taken together, all the EU trade negotiations stand to boost the EU’s GDP by over 2% and bring over 2 million jobs to the EU. The Government are proud to be a major voice in support of the EU’s overall trade agenda.

Not only will this trade agreement bring significant benefits to the Andean economies of Peru and Colombia, but it sends an important message of the benefits of open markets and the importance of resisting protectionism to the rest of Latin America. The free trade agreement will aid UK firms in getting a foothold in those two emerging markets, which have enjoyed strong growth figures in recent years. The agreement will also help UK companies already trading in this part of the world. Analysis shows that the deal could benefit our economy by up to approximately £400 million a year over the long term.

In line with other recently concluded trade agreements, the deal is ambitious and comprehensive. It stands to substantially improve the market access for UK exporters to the Andean region through the elimination of tariffs and technical and procedural barriers to trade, improve market access in procurement and service markets, and enforce common standards and rules that will level the playing field. It will also bring stability in areas including the protection of intellectual property. Furthermore, the deal stands to bring in greater transparency on subsidies and implement processes to settle disputes.

Not only have the economies of Peru and Colombia enjoyed strong recent growth, but they provide a combined market of almost 80 million people, and are increasingly becoming important commercial partners for UK firms looking to trade in Latin America. Between 2007 and 2012, overall UK exports to the combination of Colombia and Peru almost doubled. With this FTA in place, providing British firms with improved access to these rapidly growing markets, UK export levels should grow even further. We have already seen a variety of UK firms set up businesses in these countries, from fragrance house CPL Aromas, to retail firms such as Mothercare, Accessorize and Hackett. Those last three firms have all now opened shops in Bogotá, the second largest city for retail in Latin America. It is my hope that further UK firms will follow and take advantage of the new opportunities brought by this agreement.

Since the trade agreement entered into provisional force earlier this year, the UK Government have worked closely with UK firms and the respective Governments of Colombia and Peru to maximise opportunities presented by the deal. In particular, UKTI officials have identified significant opportunities for UK firms in infrastructure markets, financial services and energy. This FTA provides opportunities not only for larger companies but for SMEs. It also provides further opportunities for companies already established in these respective markets, those which are looking to establish themselves in these markets or those which are yet to consider trading with these two countries. A number of ministerial colleagues have also visited Colombia this year. The noble Lord, Lord Green, David Willetts, and the lord mayor of London visited Peru and Colombia this summer. I look forward to more official visits which will build on this momentum.

To assist SMEs looking to trade with Colombia, the Government launched a new business-to-business organisation called UK Colombia Trade, which hosted an event at the UK ambassador’s residence in Bogotá in November to showcase the varied commercial opportunities that arise from this trade agreement. I look forward to hearing about future such events as firms take advantage of the important opportunities that the deal provides.

I am a firm believer in free trade, and trade agreements bring competition in the marketplace. Ultimately, it is the consumers who stand to benefit from increased choice and companies from sourcing inputs and components from abroad. By improving our trade relations with new countries we are improving markets around the globe and not merely with our traditional commercial partners. Increasing trade and investment is at the heart of generating balanced, long lasting and strong economic growth. The United Kingdom continues to be the most influential voice in ensuring that trade liberalisation is at the heart of the EU’s growth strategy. Rapidly ratifying this FTA in the UK will strengthen our relations with these two important Latin American countries, bring major benefits to UK firms and underline the UK’s position at the heart of global trade liberalisation. I commend the order to the Committee.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome this trade agreement. I will mostly confine my remarks to Colombia, which I was lucky enough to visit last year as part of an IPU delegation. First, I shall make a couple of slightly regretful general remarks. Originally, this free trade agreement was to be for the whole Andean region of Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia. For reasons which I imagine partly are what the Minister was alluding to when he said that this would send a strong message, Bolivia and Ecuador are not included in this agreement. There are two obvious difficulties with that. One difficulty is that, for those of us who believe that open markets and free trade bring prosperity, it will make an even more two-tier Andean region. We have seen some of the effects of Colombia’s successful push against illegal coca growing, which has been pushed towards Bolivia and Peru. I am nervous that we should do anything further to divide the region when I am sure it would benefit from a more cohesive approach.

That said, I shall concentrate the rest of my remarks on Colombia. Obviously, Colombia has particular issues because it is coming out of decades of conflict and is just entering into, it seems, a successful peace negotiation. That puts a particular onus on those of us who are entering into a free trade agreement to put human rights issues right at the heart of our considerations, partly because human rights are self-evidently incredibly important but partly because the speed of development is going to have a tremendous impact on Colombia, with all the interest in it and indeed with the Colombian Government’s own efforts to develop its infrastructure and to raise the people of its regions out of poverty, especially as a lot of the development will be concentrated on the extractive industries and agriculture.

I get the extremely good briefings from our embassy in Colombia, which highlighted in its September briefing that some of the conflicts have resulted in the deaths of protesters: four protesters were killed in one conflict and one in another, and indeed one policeman has been killed, so it is a matter of life and death.

I underline my praise for the British embassy’s work there. We met His Excellency John Dew, who has since handed over to a new ambassador. The embassy’s work in highlighting the importance of human rights in welcoming in various groups, whether from the peace communities, which are small agricultural farmers, or the trade unions, has been very important. I am sure that its efforts will not lessen with this trade agreement going through.

If the first issue is human rights, the second is biodiversity. The country is one of the most biodiverse in the world. I know that the Colombian Government are well aware of the treasures that they have, but again the extractive industries tend to need infrastructure and are often looking at extracting minerals from some of the most sensitive areas of the country. All this poses a challenge for any companies going in, and I hope that all British companies involved will be very mindful of these issues.

My question to the Minister is: how will we monitor the human rights issues and what is happening with them? Clearly our own embassy is doing that but the trade committee in Europe that is concerning itself with the free trade agreement does not really have a human rights remit at all. That is the question that I would like the Minister to answer.

[Lord Avebury (LD)]

My Lords, I share my noble friend’s regret that Ecuador and Bolivia are not included in this treaty. I am hopeful that the Minister may be able to say something in his concluding remarks about the prospects for them joining at some later date. Of course, everyone welcomes free trade between the EU and third countries as a means of enhancing economic prosperity on both sides and, although it is not a stated object of the treaty, potentially reducing the disparities of wealth and income that are an endemic feature of third-world societies.

I am going to speak exclusively about Peru, having been president of the Peru Support Group for 11 years until I was succeeded a year ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and I declare an interest accordingly. I am indebted to the support group for advice on the effects of the treaty, on which I am going to base my own remarks.

Women and indigenous people have not benefited proportionately up till now from Peru’s impressive rates of growth. There are also huge disparities between the regions. There is no reason to assume that the benefits of this treaty will be applied so as to reduce these inequalities, but if they were so applied then it would be advantageous not only for the poor but for Peruvians at all levels of the economy, and hence for British investors and traders.

The Minister said that the treaty would benefit the UK economy to the tune of £400 million. Has a similar calculation been made, I wonder, on behalf of Peru? Has my noble friend anything to say about the potential benefits for the worst-off in Peruvian society? Similarly, there is no link between the rising national prosperity that will result from the treaty and the improvement in human rights that rests on the flimsy foundation of a single article, as my noble friend has pointed out, providing that respect for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rule of law constitute an essential element of the agreement. The Minister in another place also referred to Article 8, which deals with the fulfilment of obligations under the treaty generally but is clearly intended to deal primarily with trade matters that are the overwhelmingly predominant purpose of this massive document.

15:45

One apparent advance for Peru’s severely marginalised indigenous people, 78% of whose children are malnourished, was the 2011 consultation law, designed to implement ILO Convention No. 169 on indigenous peoples’ right to prior consultation on government decisions affecting them. That was 17 years after Peru ratified the convention in 1994, but the law is now being watered down by eligibility requirements beyond those permitted under the convention. The Peruvian Government propose that people would have to speak an indigenous language and to practise communal land ownership to be entitled to the right of prior consultation, but these practices may not have survived the disruptive and discriminatory influence of colonialism and subsequent Administrations. In any case, decisions on which communities are to benefit from ILO 169 are not to be made for at least five years, until information from the 2017 census has been analysed. There are concerns about the lack of transparency and participation in that exercise, to say nothing of the lengthy timeframe. What rights are there to consultation in the intervening five years?

I hope that my noble friend will agree that mechanisms for democratic dialogue such as prior consultation are absolutely essential as a means of reducing Peru’s high incidence of social conflict, which has claimed at least 27 lives under the Humala Administration and is contrary to the interests of British companies in Peru.

As an example of what can happen, the British-registered company, Glencore Xstrata, is in trouble with local leaders and civil society organisations after its workers, assisted by dozens of riot police, evicted the Taco Quehue family from their smallholding and beat them up on 5 November. They were in the way of the company’s Las Bambas pipeline. The human rights NGO Derechos Humanos sin Fronteras documented injuries to 10 family members, including four children aged under six. The family’s “offence” was to object to a change in the route of a highway linked to the pipeline, affecting their farmland and water supply, about which there had been no consultation.

In another case, nine people were detained on 11 November following a protest, which lawyers say was peaceful, against the Peruvian-owned Condestable mine in the Lima region. The protesters, two of whom were pregnant, were charged with kidnapping and extortion, which carry sentences of up to eight years’ imprisonment. One of the pregnant detainees, Jane Cristina Rodriguez, miscarried on the day on which she was arrested. A coalition of national indigenous organisations is demanding the immediate release of the detainees, who say that the mine operators are failing properly to contain waste, undermining their farming through excessive water use and failing to make annual payments of $18,000 to the community that were agreed in 2005.

In July, a government impact study on planned expansion of the controversial Camisea gas field, warning of the risk that the Nanti, Kirineri and Nahua peoples living in a reserve affected by the proposal risked extinction, was withdrawn hours after publication, apparently under pressure from pro-investment interests.

Due to the perceived readiness of the authorities to accede to the demands of foreign investors without listening to the views of local people, inevitably there is widespread social protest against extractive industry in particular, and this leads to the criminalisation of protestors and the use of disproportionate, sometimes lethal, force against them by the police.

During Peru’s universal periodic review, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination expressed concern at the limited enjoyment of economic social and cultural rights by indigenous peoples and Afro-Peruvian communities, particularly regarding housing, education, health and employment. It recommended adopting a framework law on indigenous peoples, covering all communities. A number of states called for compliance with international norms on the use of lethal force by security forces and the need for timely investigation of any violence. Poland, for instance, stressed the need to refrain from applying unnecessary police force during public demonstrations. Yet despite reliable reports of the killing of demonstrators, no police officers have been investigated for these offences and no protesters have been compensated for injuries caused by police gunfire.

In the debate on this instrument in another place last week, the Minister, Michael Fallon, said that private companies were no longer allowed to hire Peruvian police for their own security purposes, a practice which had been made illegal almost a year ago. However, according to Peruvian human rights organisations which have been in touch with the Peru Support Group since then, it is still going on. In the case of the Xstrata mine in Espinar there was a police station on the company’s property where protesters were detained and ill treated in the summer of 2012 and, according to Congresswoman Verónika Mendoza, the local representative, lawyers were initially denied access to the detainees because they were on private property. Would my noble friend ask our embassy to clarify these matters with local NGOs and members of Congress?

The problem with the scanty reference to human rights in this treaty is that it has no links to any of the other human rights obligations to which Peru has acceded. If another party considers that Peru has failed to fulfil its obligations in accordance with Article 8(2), that party cannot cite evidence from the universal periodic review or reports from the UN special procedures on breaches of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This no doubt explains why the human rights articles in all these EU trade agreements are dead letters and are never invoked.

The Minister in another place says that if there are human rights abuses serious enough to trigger the relevant clause of the agreement, it is for EU mechanisms to collect that information and refer it to the appropriate domestic and international human rights bodies. Can my noble friend cite any instance throughout the history of these trade agreements where such a process has been invoked? Does he consider that automatic inclusion of a pro forma article on human rights in this treaty adds any value to the work that is already being done by Peruvian NGOs, trade unions and members of Congress, together with their international allies and the UN mechanisms, to bring the observance of human rights, and particularly racial equality, in Peru up to the highest international standards?

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Popat, for his explanation of this instrument. I also listened with great interest to the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I will make a couple of general points before coming on to the particulars of this agreement.

First, it is a good thing that the British Parliament has this opportunity to ratify this agreement. It is often said about the European Union that things are imposed upon us against our will. This is a case where we, as Parliament, have to ratify this agreement. That is a good thing. Our Ministers agreed to the opening of negotiations, originally under the Labour Government in 2007, for what was then hoped to be the Andean pact. Ministers have all along supported the Trade Commissioner of the European Commission in pursuing this agreement. Parliament is involved and the Government are involved. This is not imposed by Brussels.

Secondly, I think that there is a general view on all sides of the House and across the United Kingdom that free trade is a good thing and brings benefits all round. The noble Lord, Lord Popat, outlined what those economic benefits are; modest perhaps, but worth while from a European point of view, in the case of these agreements. Free trade has been part of the British progressive tradition ever since the repeal of the Corn Laws in the middle of the 19th century. Business has not always been a strong defender of free trade, though. Joseph Chamberlain wanted the imperial preference as a result of pressure from West Midlands manufacturers who wanted protection. Similarly, in the 1930s there was a lot of protectionist pressure. Generally speaking, however, business has supported free trade, as have the trade unions, on the principle that it brings economic benefits all round. But while free trade brings clear income gains to all the countries that participate in free trade agreements, such an agreement does not in itself ensure that the income gains are fairly distributed within those countries or that the wider questions of democracy and human rights are guaranteed. That is where the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is 100% right.

My third general observation is that being members of the EU and negotiating these agreements through the European Union gives us enormous potential clout. You have only to look at what happened just this weekend. The Government in Ukraine are tottering because of a free trade agreement that the European Union had signed with Ukraine, but which the Government have decided not to implement. That is an example of how free trade agreements can be a force for democracy and political change. But we have a responsibility as members of the EU and thus part of what is the most powerful trade bloc in the world to use our economic power as much as we can to promote democracy and human rights.

I am not familiar with the situation in Peru in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is, but certainly Colombia has had an appalling human rights record. According to one UN source, there have been some 4,716 complaints about extrajudicial killings by the Colombian army. It is country where the rule of law falls well short of European standards and one where trade unionists have been subject to systematic violence and murder. The record in Colombia shows an appalling number of motorbike assassinations of community and trade union activists. Given that, what should we do? If we wash our hands of any kind of economic relationship with countries like Colombia and Peru, we are not advancing the interests of their people. We can pass resolutions of protest at congresses and in committees, and we can try to make such countries international pariahs, although I think if we tried that we would find that there are an awful lot of international pariahs in this world in the form of countries that do not reach the standards we set for ourselves. Indeed, the Prime Minister is presently in a country with, let us say, a poor record of respect for the rights of trade union organisation, free collective bargaining and individual liberty. We cannot go around the world treating countries as pariahs for these reasons. The question is how we use our engagement to try to make things better.

16:00

The European Union was right to open the negotiations for the Andean pact—I think I ought to declare an interest, because I was closely associated with the Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson when this decision was taken—and right to see what commitments could be obtained. The question is whether, as a result of these agreements, we have made progress on human rights and trade union rights.

Our socialist colleagues in the European Parliament did not think enough progress had been made. That was after a visit by the current President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, to Colombia. Last December, the Socialist Group, in the main, including the British Labour MEPs, voted against the ratification of these deals in the European Parliament. However, a majority of the European Parliament approved the deal, and member states approved it too and are set on this agreement’s ratification. What should we do now? Some Labour colleagues in the other place take the view that we should make a gesture of protest against this agreement. My view, and I think that of the Official Opposition, is that we must do our best to ensure that the protections and safeguards in the agreement are used to the maximum extent. One of the innovations in the agreement was, as I understand it, provision for the European Parliament to be involved in the monitoring of human rights in these countries.

I end with a number of serious questions. If the Minister cannot answer them now, I would be grateful for written replies about how the Government propose to ensure that this agreement is implemented and that the safeguards in it are used to the full.

In the other place, my shadow Business Secretary colleague, Ian Murray, called for a human rights report to be produced before the Commons vote on the approval of this order on Wednesday. Can the Minister tell us what is likely to be in this report, and assess the latest human rights situation? There has been news of further killings of community and trade union activists in the last month, and this is causing a lot of concern, because we had hoped that the situation was improving; it may not be.

Secondly, what steps will the British Government be taking to ensure that the monitoring provisions in these agreements—the role of the European Parliament and all of that—are taken seriously, and that there is proper reporting on the human rights situation in these countries? Thirdly, will the Government initiate, possibly at European Union level, a review of the relationship between trade policy and the promotion of ILO 4 standards and human rights monitoring and enforcement? We need to think about what the relationship should be between trade policy and these questions and about what part questions of human rights, trade union rights and social rights should play in the enthusiasm—which we on this side of the Committee certainly share—for more free trade agreements to be concluded by the EU, as a key dimension of our economic reform agenda for Europe.

What are the Government’s objectives here? How do they see the trade-offs and what alliances are they going to build? It may be difficult for the Minister to answer these questions today but I hope that they will be given proper consideration. I do not think we can close our eyes to the human rights issues that occur daily in these countries. We have to be in a position where we can use what leverage we have to improve the situation—a leverage which at least has some significance because of our membership of the European Union. I would be grateful for replies.

[Lord Popat]

I thank Members of the Committee for their contributions this afternoon in what has been a very interesting debate. The major issue that has been raised is that of human rights, although others have been too. First, I will address the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, of the two countries that have opted out for the time being.

Ecuador suspended its participation in the negotiations in July 2009, predominantly for internal political reasons. However, in May 2013, it formally expressed interest in resuming negotiations. The Commission has confirmed that the country has now offered the necessary clarification on the previous stumbling blocks that remain outstanding. Bolivia withdrew from the negotiations in September 2008, predominantly due to its rejection of certain elements of the deal including those on intellectual property and state purchases. Nevertheless, it remains open for Bolivia to accede to the agreement, should negotiations reopen. Contact between Bolivian and EU officials continues.

The Committee’s major concern was human rights and what provisions we have made in this agreement to address those. The European Union is very strong on human rights and we take a strong view too. The UK pushed hard for a legally binding human rights clause in the text of the agreement, which is consistent with our policy to have frank dialogue with Colombia and Peru on human rights. The clause is backed up by international law, and Clause 8 of the agreement allows any party to take appropriate measures against any other party which violates essential elements. Various monitoring mechanisms, which the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, mentioned, are in place to make sure that human rights abuses are well monitored.

The agreement does not have the monitoring of human rights abuses as one of its primary functions. The primary function of the agreement is to support trade between the EU and Peru and Colombia respectively, and therefore to support economic growth. However, increased prosperity should support increased respect for human rights. The role of monitoring human rights rests with domestic and international bodies including the United Nations. We regard trade agreements as important for economic growth and prosperity in developed and developing countries. This FTA supports that growth and prosperity. The promotion of the UK’s prosperity and the promotion and protection of human rights are mutually supportive priorities that are at the heart of the UK’s foreign policy.

It is right that the UK engages with Colombia commercially, as we would do with any emerging power. If we did not, I bet our competitors would do it anyway. Therefore, it is important to this Government that British businesses respect human rights in the places where they do business. The Government part-funded a major event in Cartagena in May on implementing the UN guiding principles on business and human rights.

I will also cover an issue that was touched upon, the role of our embassy in Bogotá. The embassy supported a UN-led research initiative to help improve the protection of trade unionist human rights and the development of positive labour relations, an area cited by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. Our embassy is very active on human rights issues, including employment legislation. It regularly raises individual human rights cases with the Colombian Government, including those of indigenous communities that are at particular risk, and meets with individual human rights defendants. Staff from the embassy have attended the trials of certain academics and trade unionists. I am pleased to say that our embassy at Bogotá is quite active in this area.

There are a large number of areas which I have not covered in this short debate. I promise to write to noble Lords. I share some of the other concerns which have been raised by noble Lords, but we firmly believe that we should not let these stand in the way of a progressive trade agreement and fostering a context of prosperity in which human rights will improve. Liberalising trade brings prosperity and prosperity, in turn, helps to bring political stability. I strongly commend the free trade agreement to all Members of the Committee. It delivers not only for businesses, but for jobs and for consumers in the UK as well as in Colombia and Peru. Colombia and Peru are fast growing economies where there is and will continue to be growing demand for UK goods and services. As I said earlier, if we fail to grasp this important and valuable opportunity our international competitors surely will. I commend the order to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) Regulations 2013

Monday 2nd December 2013 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:12

Moved by

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) Regulations 2013.

Relevant documents: 13th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the many Members of your Lordships’ House who have taken a close interest in the Government’s proposal to extend the infrastructure planning regime to business and commercial development as an opt-in for developers. This change was debated thoroughly in your Lordships’ House during the passage of the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013. During the evidence sessions held at the start of the Act’s passage, both the CBI and the British Chamber of Commerce expressed support for the Government’s proposal. The CBI said that companies which are R&D intensive could see scope to use the infrastructure planning regime and,

“that those kinds of developments are very much in Britain’s interest not only from a local point of view in creating local jobs, but in terms of driving growth and developing Britain’s industrial strengths”.

In addition, the British Chamber of Commerce said that it supported the change that would make it possible for a large industrial development that is nationally significant and with export potential to benefit from a faster planning regime.

The Growth and Infrastructure Act provided a new provision enabling business and commercial projects to make use of the nationally significant infrastructure planning regime, and enabled regulations to be made setting out the particular types of projects that could benefit from this option. The Government carried out a consultation last winter to inform detailed design of these regulations. We received over 100 responses, which have allowed us to refine our approach to ensure that it will benefit a wide range of businesses. These regulations therefore prescribe the types of business and commercial projects that will be able to use the infrastructure planning regime. The regulations do not place any additional burdens on business but open up the streamlined infrastructure planning regime as an option for the most significant business and commercial schemes.

Increasing the speed and certainty of the planning regime is vital to our economic growth and has been a top priority for the Government. The Government have made significant strides in simplifying and speeding up the planning system, with the new National Planning Policy Framework published in 2011, streamlined and web-based planning guidance and important legislative changes through the Localism Act 2011 and Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013. However, over the past few years there has been a decline in the speed with which local planning authorities determine large-scale major commercial and industrial applications. This is despite a reduction in the number of cases that authorities have to process. Over the five years since 2008-09, the proportion of large-scale major applications that were determined within 13 weeks fell from 68% to 53%. Delay results in additional costs and uncertainty to developers, delaying much needed new investment and jobs. Large-scale major business and commercial schemes can be complex and controversial locally and may require a number of different consents, not just planning permission.

In response to these concerns, the Government announced their intention to extend the nationally significant infrastructure planning to business and commercial projects, as an option for developers. The infrastructure planning regime—which is focused on nationally significant projects relating to energy, transport, water, waste and waste water—allows for a single consent regime which is useful where multiple consents are required and a streamlined process for considering applications. The infrastructure planning regime offers a number of potential benefits to developers, including statutory timetabling of a maximum of one year from the start of the examination to decision and removing the potential for call-in or appeal. These features could provide important benefits to developers of the most significant business and commercial projects. Increased certainty could also enable developers of the most significant business and commercial projects to secure the necessary finance faster to commence their projects once a decision has been made. By offering a new, streamlined option for the determination of these business and commercial projects, we are providing a way for these important projects to be built more quickly and provide a crucial boost to the economy.

These regulations therefore enable business and commercial development—including offices, research and development, industrial processes, storage or distribution, conferences, exhibitions, sport, leisure and tourism—to benefit from the option of using the infrastructure planning regime. It might assist noble Lords if I briefly explained how the regulations will work in practice. If a developer wants their business or commercial project dealt with though the infrastructure planning regime, they will need first to make a written request to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to use the regime. The Secretary of State will make a direction for the application or proposed application to be determined through the infrastructure planning regime, if he is satisfied that the project both falls within one of the prescribed types of project and is nationally significant.

To assist developers, the Government have published the factors that the Secretary of State will take into account in considering whether a project is nationally significant or not. These are set out in a policy statement published alongside the draft regulations, which is available in your Lordships’ Library and the Printed Paper Office. The Secretary of State will consider carefully all relevant matters concerning national significance, including whether the project is likely to have a significant economic impact over a period of time. Job creation and new investment into the economy would be taken into account. Consideration will be given to whether the impact of the project is wider than a single local authority area; major business or commercial schemes can generate, for example, economic benefits across more than one local planning authority area. The Secretary of State will also take into account the physical size of the project and its importance to the delivery of a nationally significant infrastructure project or other significant development. This could potentially benefit a complex mixed-use business development.

Once the direction is given, the project will need to comply with the requirements of the nationally significant infrastructure planning regime. These requirements include comprehensive pre-application consultation with the local community, local authorities and statutory consultees. The local authority plays a vital role in the infrastructure planning regime, preparing a local impact report and representing the views of the community during the pre-application and examination stages. This enables developers to recognise and understand the issues for local communities and allows them to refine their proposals accordingly.

We all agree on the need to support new investment and jobs. That is why we have acted to extend the benefits of the infrastructure planning regime to business and commercial development, helping to bring forward appropriate development and reduce delays that cause uncertainty for local communities and businesses looking to create jobs. These regulations provide an optional route for the developers of potentially nationally significant business and commercial projects and we believe that they should be approved as part of our wider plans for driving economic growth. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very full introduction of these regulations. She also thanked the many Members of the House who took an interest in the Growth and Infrastructure Bill—clearly a waning interest given the lack of presence in the Committee today. However, we all agree on the importance of generating new investment and jobs for our economy. I think it is fair to say that these regulations carry no surprises in so far as they are entirely consistent with the June 2013 response to the November 2012 consultation. They are part of a range of measures which have as their root the assumption that it is the planning system which is holding back growth and that opening up pathways for developers to circumvent local planning authorities should be facilitated. We could spend a long time debating this—the purpose of planning, the engagement of local communities, the balanced judgments that good planning should entail and much else—but clearly we have before us an SI that emanates from primary legislation which we must accept as a fait accompli.

In the same area, I take this opportunity briefly to ask about the designation of local planning authorities which are deemed not be dealing expeditiously or in a quality way under what was Clause 1 of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill. How many of those local authorities, which is an adjunct to this, have currently been designated? I have a few more questions for the Minister. We support the exclusion of the construction of dwellings from the scope of these regulations, but we would like some clarification. The SI covers developments that wholly or mainly comprise the activities set down, but it must not include the construction of one or more dwellings. Can it be confirmed that any minor part of a development, such as a residential floor atop of an office development, would preclude this procedure being adopted? That would seem to be what runs from a strict reading of the regulations.

The secondary legislation committee commented on the consultation process and made reference to the fact that the consultation ran for six weeks over Christmas, which it suggested was at odds with good practice. It went on to point out that it took the department five months to publish its response. Perhaps we might hear from the Minister why that was so. There was also some suggestion of disparity between the conclusions drawn by the Government and the level of responses received under the consultation.

Given the architecture of the position we are dealing with, we support the exclusion of new coal development and oil and gas, as well as the exclusion of retail and generally the exclusion of development of homes, but we are disappointed that there is no commitment on the production of national policy statements. Those criteria could have applications to developments which might have a regional or even sub-regional basis. As the Minister outlined, the criteria adopted are: whether a project is likely to have a significant economic impact or is important for driving growth in the economy, and I would be interested to understand how significant economic impacts are determined for this purpose; whether a project has an impact across an area wider than a single local authority area, which could occur in many developments and hardly be indicative of something of national significance; and whether a project is of a substantial physical size, which, similarly, may be indicative of some regional project rather than something which is of national significance. There is also reference to the creation of sports stadia and it is suggested that where seating capacity is less than 40,000 seats that should not be seen as being of national significance. A 40,000-seater stadium is not that unusual across the country. We in Luton aspire to maybe 25,000—we could do with 5,000 as it stands—but 40,000 does not seem to me indicative of something which is inevitably of national significance.

I have a few more questions. Will the Secretary of State be required to publish the reasons for his decision to assume authority to decide any particular application? In the absence of a relevant national policy statement, what will be the role of the local plan in guiding decision-making? What if anything will be required of local planning authorities in relation to this process? In particular, can the Minister remind us of what is entailed in consultation under this planning route? It appears that a new consent service unit has been established whose task is to improve co-ordination and communication between the Planning Inspectorate, applicants and consenting bodies. Can the Minister give us a clue as to how large that service unit is and how many individuals are involved in it? Can she also say how many applications are currently proceeding on non-business and commercial projects through the national infrastructure process and what the performance levels are? In particular, I am driving at whether the Minister is confident of the capacity for it to do more and to take on projects that might run from this SI.

There was debate, particularly in the other place, when the Bill was under consideration about whether quarrying or surface mineral extraction such as open-cast mining would be included. It is clear that we have excluded new coal, oil and gas, but I am not sure whether that potentially leaves anything under that description. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us on this.

Clearly, we will not oppose the regulations, but they give rise to some quite serious questions as to the level of discretion which is left to the Secretary of State on what are fairly broad criteria. It would therefore be helpful to have as much detail on the record today as possible.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for making it clear that the Opposition will not oppose the regulations. I note what he said about the absence of many of those noble Lords who had contributed during the passage of the Bill not being here for the regulations today. I take that as a good sign and am grateful for the support that I have received.

As the noble Lord will know, it was my noble friend Lady Hanham and not me who took the Bill through your Lordships’ House, so it is something with which I am becoming familiar in some detail at this stage. I will try to respond to the numerous points raised. A good place to start is to remind the Committee that we expect that in most cases the local authority will be able to provide a swift decision on business and commercial developments, and that that will remain the route for the vast majority of applications. We are providing an alternative route and, in doing so, some certainty for developers, because of the statutory timetabling of the infrastructure planning regime.

The noble Lord raised a point about the length of the consultation, and about why we only consulted for six weeks. It is worth reminding noble Lords that, in accordance with revised Cabinet Office guidelines, we now take shorter periods for consultation where we believe that the issue is one specific to, or of primary concern to, professional or trade areas, or, in this case, local authority bodies. Therefore, six weeks was considered to be adequate for people to respond, and the fact that we received over 100 responses suggests that people felt they had adequate time.

The noble Lord asked why there was no national policy statement. We do not think the case for one here is strong, mainly because this is a new option for developers; it is not mandatory and the Secretary of State retains some discretion in deciding whether or not an application should follow this route. In this context, therefore, we do not think a national policy statement is needed. He asked about housing, and whether the criteria exclude any residential element. That is absolutely right: we are firm and clear that responsibility for housing should remain with local authorities, so if one of these plans included housing that would render it unsuitable for this type of application. However, I remind noble Lords that most big projects would want to use the existing routes—this is an option, not the way they have to go.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

The Minister has been clear. However, if there was a very significant official or commercial development, and it happened to have a few penthouse suites at the top, are we saying that that would completely preclude such a development from availing itself of these provisions, whereas without the suites it would have been eligible?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The advice I have been given is very clear that any kind of housing would not be permissible, if this was the route chosen by the developer. The regulations are quite clear on that, so I can be clearer than I am normally able to be in these circumstances.

The noble Lord referred back to a debate during the passage of the Bill and asked how many local planning authorities are designated as poorly performing. One local authority has been so designated. He asked about the consent service unit, the team responsible for this new process. It is a small unit of three people, with secondees from Natural England and the Environment Agency providing ongoing support to a number of major projects.

The noble Lord also asked why we have not explained how we will decide whether a project is likely to have a significant economic impact. I can best answer that by repeating a point I made in response to another question; namely, that the Secretary of State will need to consider these applications on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, it is not possible for me to be explicit in the way in which he would like me to be. To illustrate my point, perhaps I may use the example of whether a sports stadium is nationally significant or not, or whether cross-local authority issues may mean that it is nationally significant; in many cases it will not be. The point trying to be made by this is that, of itself, one element of a big plan might not warrant it being designated as nationally significant but, when combined with something else, a 40,000-seater stadium, for example, might qualify it as being nationally significant.

The noble Lord also asked about a policy framework for the business and commercial category, such as a national policy statement. I think that I have already answered that point. He also asked about the importance of local plans and how they fitted into the new regime. The local plan is likely to be an important and relevant factor to be taken into account. It is part of the type of things to be considered as and when an application is made.

The noble Lord asked about the number of cases going through the major infrastructure regime more generally. As he said, what was underpinning that question was whether we had capacity for more. Some 14 decisions have been taken under the infrastructure planning regime and another 20 are being considered either at the Planning Inspectorate or by Ministers. A further approximately 60 are at the pre-application stage. The regime is seen as working well and is widely supported by developers.

I think that I have covered all the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. On that basis, I just will restate how grateful I am to him for supporting these regulations. They will provide developers of potentially nationally significant business and commercial schemes with the choice of using the infrastructure planning regime and benefiting from its statutory timetable and certainty. These benefits are important in enabling developers to plan ahead and to secure the necessary finances in a timely manner to take forward their projects with confidence and, we believe, provide an important boost to growth.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Perhaps the Minister would drop me a line on what, if anything, is left around quarrying and surface mineral extraction. She made reference to one authority which has been designated. Is she in a position to let us know which authority that is?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

On the latter question, at the moment the answer is no but, if I can, I will write to the noble Lord. As to quarrying, he is right that I did not address that point. Regulations include winning or working of minerals but exclude winning or working of peat, coal, oil or gas. I hope that that answers the noble Lord’s question. If he requires further information, I will write.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am sure that it does and I will read Hansard tomorrow.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I commend the regulations to the House.

Motion agreed.

Providers of Social Work Services (England) Regulations 2013

Monday 2nd December 2013 Grand Committee

Motion to Take Note

16:40

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Providers of Social Work Services (England) Regulations 2013.

Relevant document: 16th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, Part 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 enables local authorities to delegate specified relevant care functions to a provider of social work services. Part 1 has, to date, been brought into force only for piloting purposes but the Government brought it fully into force on 13 November, before sunset provisions would otherwise take effect.

The background to this is that in May this year the Department for Education laid a draft legislative reform order as an affirmative instrument under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. This draft LRO proposed removing the requirement for direct registration and inspection by Ofsted of social work services providers in England in parallel with Part 1 of the 2008 Act being brought fully into force. The department’s intention, as I understand it, was that if the LRO had been approved, inspection of arrangements involving such providers would have become part of the local authority inspection by Ofsted.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee first considered the draft LRO in June. In its third report of the current Session, it recommended that the LRO should be subject to the super-affirmative procedure, because it considered that the noble Lord’s department had not adequately demonstrated that the LRO would not remove any necessary protection. The committee considered the draft LRO for a second time in July, taking account of a letter received from DfE Ministers responding to the points raised in its third report. However, the letter was not persuasive and the committee remained of the view that the department had not justified its statement that the LRO would not remove any necessary protection. Therefore, in its seventh report, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that the LRO should not proceed.

The department has now withdrawn the draft LRO and, consequently, my understanding is that this instrument is needed to set out registration and fitness requirements for persons who wish to contract with local authorities as providers of social work services. This instrument has been drawn to the special attention of the House by the Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House, which is why I am moving this Motion this afternoon.

First, with the withdrawal of the LRO, can the Minister confirm that the matter is now settled for the foreseeable future and that independent providers of social work services will continue to be inspected directly rather than as an adjunct to a local authority’s inspection?

I would also like to ask the Minister about the wider implications of the policy to outsource social work services. Are the Government determined to press ahead with plans to outsource the placements of children in care to the private sector, despite opposition from children’s charities? Can he confirm that Serco and Virgin are among the firms that might take over those services? The Minister should consider very carefully before pressing ahead with plans to allow private companies to take decisions about some of the most vulnerable children, when the pilot projects showed no clear benefit for children. I know that the noble Lord’s department is rather light on evidence to justify the policies that it takes on, but will he acknowledge that an evaluation of the pilots by academics from King’s College London, the University of Central Lancashire and the Institute of Education found that there was limited evidence in favour of relocating public services for children in out-of-home care to the private sector?

The study, published last year by the Children and Youth Services Review, concluded that:

“While the independent sector is often the setting for innovation, the public sector continues to function as a repository for a wide range of expertise and resources. It is also more likely to offer continuity of knowledge, skills and care and, in this respect, it may be better placed to respond to the uncertainty that characterizes the needs of children in out-of-home care”.

What is the Government’s response to the evaluation of those pilots?

What will happen when children’s interests and the ambition of companies to make profits conflict? Most worryingly, the regulations seem to allow for a clear conflict of interest to arise. My reading is that the same private company will be allowed to place a child into care under contract from the local authority and then actually to run that placement. The parallel with clinical commissioning groups in the health service—CCGs, which are essentially member organisations run by GPs, are actually allowed to place more money into GP primary care-led services—is uncanny, and is clearly against the public interest.

Will the decision to contract with private providers be entirely a matter for individual local authorities, or is the Minister’s department intending to put pressure on local authorities? His department does not seem to have a very positive view of local authorities, and I would be very interested in his response on that matter.

I would like to ask the Minister about the consultation. The Explanatory Memorandum that accompanies the order states that there was near-universal support for the principle of these regulations. It goes on to list the broad support and the percentage of respondents agreeing with the proposals. However, the memorandum says that amendments have been made to the regulations concerning premises, and those covering the registration process, to reflect consultation responses. I would be grateful if the Minister could give details of the changes made as a result of the consultation.

My principal reason for raising this order today is to find out from the Minister exactly what government policy is, to look for reassurance that the Government will not attempt to reintroduce an LRO in the near future in order to reduce the amount of regulation on providers of services that are contracted with the local authority, and to seek some reassurance about the potential conflict of interest with regard to a private provider in contract with a local authority then placing a person who needs care into the institution or service that that private provider also runs. I beg to move.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for proposing and speaking to this Motion. Noble Lords will be painfully aware of the tragic cases recently in the news, so I do not think I need to name them. The noble Lord said that we do not have a very positive view of local authorities; in fact we have a completely open-minded view of them, but the facts are that there are currently 26 local authorities in government intervention following recent Ofsted inspections and, of the 50 local authorities inspected since June 2012, 17 were found to be inadequate, only four were found to be good, none was found to be outstanding and the remaining 29 were judged adequate, which will become “requires improvement” under the new Ofsted framework. That is an extremely disappointing and depressing picture and it shows that the status quo is just not good enough.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education recently made an important speech on how to improve support for children in need, and many have noted how keen he is to encourage local authorities to improve and spread best practice. An important part of this is to allow innovation. We are committed to giving local authorities the tools they need to make their own decisions on how best to deliver services. We wish to give them every freedom to delegate social care services if they so choose.

The first step towards this was the commencement of Part 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2008, which was enacted by the previous Government. From 12 November, all local authorities have been free, if they wish to do so, to delegate children in care and care leaver services—only those services—to third parties. This follows the social work practice pilots which were put in place under the previous Government. Commencing the Act has enabled the pilots which are still in operation to continue if they wish to do so and given freedoms to other local authorities to delegate. It is a purely permissive provision. No local authorities will be forced to delegate functions under the CYPA, although we will not hesitate to intervene more directly where councils are failing vulnerable children, as in Doncaster. It is an important first step towards our aim of expanding this permissive approach to delegation.

The noble Lord is quite right that the Government’s original intention was not to make these regulations. He points out, as noted in the 16th report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, that we sought to make a legislative reform order, which would have removed the Ofsted registration requirement. However, whether or not these providers are registered has no bearing on inspection, and the way Ofsted will inspect, which is essentially following the child, is not affected by whether or not they are functions performed by the local authority or functions subcontracted by the local authority.

We are determined to give local authorities the opportunity to contract out to a range of providers. He mentioned some specific private providers—that would be possible. Providers could also include charities such as Barnado’s or NSPCC, or social work practices which have been spun out from the council, such as in Staffordshire or Bristol. As the noble Lord may know, we are great fans of the mutuals approach, which seems to be having a great effect.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive response. I come back to the point he raised. My understanding is that these regulations are needed as a consequence of the fact that the draft LRO will not proceed. That is, in a sense, why I ask the question. Under the original proposals, the provider who receives a contract from the local authority would not have been inspected as an individual body but as part of the local authority inspection. Can the Minister say whether we can expect another LRO to be brought forward in the next year or two, or whether it is now settled policy that the provider, when it comes to inspections, will be inspected as a separate entity rather as an adjunct of the local authority? I am trying to elicit what future policy is likely to be—I think that I have grasped what current policy is as a result of this order and the fact that the LRO was not introduced. It is a question of whether this is a settled policy or whether the Government will come back in the next few months with further proposals.

[Lord Nash]

I can confirm that the Government have no plans to change the inspection arrangement, which would be through the local authority.

The noble Lord also raised the very important point of conflict. Before expanding on any of those paths, we would look at that very carefully. We feel that some valuable lessons were learnt from the pilots. The advantage of a pilot is that one learns and expands on good practice. Evidence was found of positive change for children, parents, carers and the workforce, including increased opportunities for direct work with children and young people. There are examples of very good quality support for carers and of small integrated teams working well to offer a personalised service, as well as a number of other examples. We feel that we should take this opportunity. We may continue to expand but we would consult on that. It is only fair that these children and young people have the opportunity of the whole range of experts who may be available to them, rather than just those who happen to be working for a particular local authority. I hope that the answers that I have given the noble Lord will reassure him that we have no plans, in a rush, to make any more dramatic changes in the short term.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Perhaps he would care to write to me about the changes that were made as a result of the consultation; I would be happy for him to write to me on that basis.

I am glad to have reassurance that the Government are not going to reopen the question of short-circuiting the regulatory function with regard to private providers. I am also glad that the Minister has agreed to look at conflict of interest. He said that there are valuable lessons to be learnt from the pilots, and I agree. The most valuable lesson to learn is that there is a great risk of breaking up public sector provision. As the pilot evaluation showed, there is a repository of knowledge and a wide range of expertise and resources.

I take the point that there is an issue of innovation—of course there is. That is why the previous Government took through the 2008 Act. However, innovation cannot be introduced at the expense of the solid foundation that is required from a wide range of public services, and I hope that the Minister will be prepared to consider that. That said, although this short debate has not been well attended, none the less it has been useful.

Motion agreed.

Afghanistan: Women’s Rights

Monday 2nd December 2013 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

16:58

Asked by

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that improvements in the rights of women in Afghanistan will endure after British troops withdraw in 2014.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by declaring my interests. I am chair of the Advisory Board of GAPS, which runs the No Women No Peace campaign focusing on Afghanistan. I am a founder member of the Afghan Women’s Support Forum and a patron of Afghan Connection. “A woman’s place is in the house or the grave” was a mantra of the brutal Taliban years. Girls were unable to go to school or to work and, as one woman told me, “When the Taliban was here, I did not have a right to go out and speak to other people. I had to wear a burka and look down”.

When the West invaded in 2001, Laura Bush declared:

“The fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women”.

Now, 12 years on, even though Afghanistan remains the most difficult country in the world to be a woman, there have been significant improvements. About 2.7 million women in Afghanistan are employed; 27% of MPs are women; and women hold one-quarter of government jobs. About 3 million girls are in school. There is strong evidence of a rising age for first marriages and of improved access to healthcare, while 30% of teachers are women. There are women lawyers, diplomats, pilots and soldiers, and 128 women judges. Women now have equal rights to men under the Afghan constitution. Afghanistan has signed up to CEDAW and UN Resolution 1325, and an EVAW law was brought in by presidential decree.

As Justine Greening has said:

“There has been a huge improvement”—

but—

“it was from such a low base that even now … there is a hugely long way to go”.

Progress is fragile and change in Afghanistan has been slow. Many girls drop out of education, prevented by their families from going to secondary school. Many women in rural areas still do not have maternity care due to lack of money and distance from health facilities, and many suffer from untreated depression. Maternal mortality remains high, with one in every 50 women dying of pregnancy-related causes, and only 20% of women have access to modern contraception. It is estimated that there are 2.5 million widows, mostly young and illiterate, in a country where a woman depends on her husband. Politically, not all the women MPs support women’s rights. The underfunded Ministry of Women’s Affairs is ineffectual and the nine women on the 70-member High Peace Council are mostly ignored.

There have been many reports of women in the police being assaulted by their male commanders. The handful of women’s refuges were denounced as brothels and there was push-back on the EVAW law when it was taken to Parliament this summer. As Heather Barr of Human Rights Watch said:

“It is time for donors to wake up and realise that if there is not constant pressure on the Afghan Government to respect women’s rights, there will be no women’s rights”.

The Afghan women I have met are enormously courageous. However, there is fear about what will happen after the troops leave—fear that their rights may be traded for peace with the Taliban or that they will simply be forgotten; fear about the Taliban returning; and fear of the Northern Alliance warlords and local militias, including the police. All those women human rights defenders who have raised their heads above the social parapet are at particular risk.

Nearly 40 years of war in Afghanistan have developed a culture hostile to women in public and where violence is endemic. Women on the streets are sworn at. As Horia Mosadiq of Amnesty says:

“Besides the Taliban, women suffer abuse at the hands of their own husbands, fathers, brothers and cousins—simply because the men know they can get away with it”.

An Oxfam report states:

“Official figures are distorted by underreporting but in reality as many as 87 per cent of Afghan women suffer … violence”.

Social norms prevent most women from approaching male police officers, and only a few of the police are female. Thus has been built a culture of impunity, with very few cases making it to the formal justice system and most being decided by jirgas and shuras, dominated by strongmen, while women are still prosecuted for the “crime” of running away from an abusive family.

The violence is getting worse. The 2013 UNAMA report found a 20% increase in the number of Afghan women or girls killed or injured, a trend echoed by the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and the International Crisis Group. In the home, tensions have increased as girls who have learnt their rights start to push against Afghan societal norms such as forced marriage.

In the past year there has been a spate of attacks on high-profile women, including two parliamentarians. Two senior policewomen in Helmand were murdered, and a well known female author who had written about the Taliban years was dragged out of her home and shot 15 times. There are many attacks on less high-profile women too—for example, Parween, a head teacher from Laghman province, was targeted for running a girls’ school, with her son abducted and killed. I heard anecdotally that police often do not even bother logging women’s deaths. Girls going to school have been attacked with acid and school drinking water has been poisoned. The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission has found that many honour killings and sexual assaults against women have been committed by the police themselves. Just last week, there were rumours that the amended penal code might include stoning to death of adulterers.

Hillary Clinton recently said:

“This is a serious turning point for all the people of Afghanistan, but in particular for the hard-fought gains women and girls have been able to enjoy”.

The UK Government have already committed to making violence against women and girls a priority in DfID’s Afghan operational plan. Justine Greening announced further funds last week to boost women’s voice in politics and to tackle violence through grassroots projects, and other funds are already in place to support female voter registration. I am sure that the Minister will tell us about these.

Even after the combat troops have left, the UK will have influence as a donor country, so what more can be done? We need to keep the achievements and move forward. We must ensure that women’s rights are not traded away and that female human rights defenders are given some kind of protection in line with the UN General Assembly resolution passed last week. Good quality education for girls must be assured. We must ensure a fair presidential election with women freely voting; include women in any peace negotiations and NATO talks in line with UN Resolution 1325, as their voices need to be heard; implement laws dealing with equality; build up a capacity of women in the security sector, making sure that they are supported and protected; help more women to access formal justice; with half the population under 15, educate boys that abusing women is wrong; ring fence aid money to grassroots projects that protect and help women, including women’s refuges; and ensure easy access for smaller organisations that cannot deal with complicated proposals. In the longer term, it is by working slowly and sensitively at grassroots level that culture change will occur, and to make that happen we need to work with men too.

I conclude with the words of our Foreign Secretary:

“No lasting peace can be achieved after conflict unless the needs of women are met—not only justice for the victims of crimes of war, but their active involvement in creating a society in which their rights are respected and their voices are heard”.

17:05

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, for bringing this matter to our attention. Our involvement in Afghanistan over the past number of years gives this country an especial responsibility. It is often not difficult to convince people that when things are bad they should engage. However, we must always be extremely careful that when we disengage we do not leave a situation which rebounds into something which is worse than before we got involved. One of the first principles one teaches young doctors is: first, do no harm. One of the great dangers is that we have raised the expectations of democrats in general and women in particular in Afghanistan. There is a real danger of a reaction against that, and those who followed our lead and took our encouragement being the ones who will suffer most.

One of the great anxieties for many people is that, despite the change in political institutions, the resilience of an old culture is so strong that it may overwhelm all the achievements that there have been. As the noble Baroness has pointed out, there are some things which have improved significantly: political engagement by women, even at a relatively senior level, albeit in smaller numbers than one would like to see; political involvement through elections; and, of course, education, which the noble Baroness also mentioned. Recently, when the UN Women deputy executive director for policy and programme, John Hendra, visited one of the governorships, the governor there pointed out that 12 years ago there were two girls in school in the 12 schools in his governorship, and now there were 10,000; and in the country as a whole, that number approaches 3 million, as the noble Baroness has said.

These are positive things. In fact, they are essential if there is going to be further development. At the same time, however, we are very much aware of the high level of violence; not just the almost traditional, tragically cultural, violence that there has been, but very specifically targeted killings of, for example, senior female journalists and government officials. That makes it quite clear that any woman who speaks out or stands up is regarded as a target for those who want to turn things back and attack the position of women. This is a serious problem and the question for us must be what we can do.

The noble Baroness has pointed out that, as a donor Government we have some, albeit perhaps modest, leverage. That is one of the reasons I was rather disappointed in reading the last monthly monitoring report to which I had access, that of October 2013. Although there is mention of political and educational issues, both very positive, there is very little else about what DfID and our other government departments are doing in support of organisations which are protecting the rights of women.

Almost more troubling to me was the account of the trilateral meeting in Downing Street on 29 October, where the Prime Minister met President Karzai of Afghanistan and Prime Minister Sharif of Pakistan. Pakistan is not a country that has particularly distinguished itself as a protector of women—absolutely the contrary in recent times. So I ask myself why we are not engaging more with India. There have been difficulties and some horrific incidents in India recently, but the people, the politicians and the Government of India regard those as dreadful aberrations that must be stopped, which is a very different thing from those countries that regard them as culturally congruent.

This neglect of India as a key partner is something that goes right back to the beginning of the engagement. I remember talking to both senior American security officials and senior Indian army officials about whether we had consulted India in any way before the invasion of Afghanistan. The answer was that we never even thought about it. Here is our ally, with 1 million men under arms, just across from Afghanistan, which could make a real difference and have real leverage; but we do not seem to be engaging with it. When we leave, we may have some little leverage and involvement, but India will be there. Can the Minister say what we are doing to engage not just with Pakistan—which is perfectly reasonable and appropriate—but with India to ensure that, in the region, there is leverage there to ensure some maintenance of the possibilities for democracy in general and the position of women in particular? India, as a country, at least recognises the importance of this matter even if it does not always have a perfect record—no country does, I suppose—in dealing with these kinds of questions.

I have a real fear that that any improvements we achieve in Afghanistan and some of the other places where we have intervened may be short lived. It is not just that we might return to the status quo ante but that there might even be a reaction against them. Along with the noble Baroness, I seek reassurance from the Minister about our involvement with those who are likely to have positions of responsibility—not just those who are currently in government but those in the Taliban. Those of us who were advising engagement with the latter some years ago were told it was a nonsense, but of course in the end it was an inevitability, not a nonsense. We should try to find some way of ensuring that they understand that, if their country is to benefit as part of the community of nations, it must measure up to some of these important requirements that the community of nations now rightly recognises, in particular on the position of women.

17:12

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for raising this important issue. There are few in Parliament who know more about the subject, and we welcome her and her considerable expertise to the House. I also take this opportunity to salute the Foreign Secretary, the International Development Secretary and my noble friend Lady Warsi for the time, effort and focus they have all put into this very challenging problem. With the imminent departure of United States and UK combat troops from Afghanistan, and the election of a new president and provincial councils scheduled for next year, we are all too well aware that the country stands at a crossroads.

Many women’s rights around the world are still far away from where they should be in the 21st century: 70% of people living in poverty are women and a third of all women in the world experience some form of violence. However, it is Afghanistan which, despite many efforts by many people in recent years, remains the most dangerous place in the world for a woman to live.

One Afghan woman e-mailed me to say how grateful Afghans are that we, as a country, have been generous to them over the last 12 years, providing assistance in many ways, reaching out to women and promoting their cause. As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, we have to do all we can to ensure that this support is not wasted. I hope that this debate will be reported in Afghanistan and that women there will know that we are on their side, and that we support and are concerned for the women there who fear for the fragile rights that they have gained.

As my noble friend pointed out in her powerful and well argued speech, there are a number of signs of appeasement of Taliban and other conservative forces by the Afghan Government. Last year President Karzai supported a new code of conduct, issued by a group of prominent clerics, which permitted the beating of wives by husbands and the segregation of men and women in offices and schools. As both my noble friends have said, there has been progress and this should be celebrated. However, this progress is at risk. As human and women’s rights activist Wazhma Frogh comments:

“After 12 years of struggle and sacrifice we are handing over the fate of Afghan women into the hands of … guys who are ready to take away every right from women”.

One new NGO, the focus of which has been on assisting women in Afghanistan to make a contribution, is Future Brilliance, of which I am proud to be a trustee. Its vision is to create stability in fragile states by offering world-class training that contributes to the nation’s prosperity through the skills, ambition, professional knowledge and participation of its people. One person whom the charity has helped is Khala Zada. It took her two months to persuade her sons to let her come to Jaipur to be trained. A 50 year-old illiterate widow from rural Afghanistan, Zada runs a small business making jewellery by hand. The six-month course would teach her about design, techniques and sales but, as a woman coming from a country of gender inequality, she was not allowed to make the decision herself. She had to get permission from the men in her life—her adult sons. Finally, in January this year, she left her home accompanied by one of her sons and his wife to enrol alongside 35 other Afghan men and women—the ratio was two men to one woman—at the Indian Institute of Gems and Jewellery in Sitapura, Jaipur’s new jewellery quarter. The institute had hoped for more women than men, but it proved difficult for the women to get permission to travel for the training.

Zada is a pioneer in this new scheme to create a network of skilled Afghan artisans who will set up businesses and spread their knowledge. The advantage is that women jewellery-makers will be able to work from home—a key benefit should the Taliban return to power once UN peacekeeping forces pull out. She will be able to expand her business and employ more women so, in terms of maximum return on capital employed, taking just this one woman and investing in her personally is potentially huge for the economy of her local village.

Future Brilliance has recently forged an agreement with Afghanistan’s Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs to distribute 7,000 tablets to young entrepreneurs and students at training and vocational colleges throughout Afghanistan by 2014, customised for use in Dari and Pashto and loaded with education, social media, and m-commerce applications—there is lots of very exciting potential in that.

As my noble friend has said, education is the silver bullet. Education for all children, but especially for girls, is the key to continued progress. In 2001 there were fewer than a million students in school, and practically none of them were girls. Today, if you were in Kabul, you would happily see girls travelling to school in their black uniforms and white headscarves. There are now more than 8 million children attending 4,000 schools across Afghanistan and nearly 40% of these are girls. This is a fantastic improvement. As Anthony Lake, executive director of UNICEF, has said:

“These girls who are in school today are the future of Afghanistan”.

When influenced early enough, boys and girls can grow up to be accepting of one another and to resist regressive tendencies. By educating boys and girls together in an equal environment, ensuring that they have access to the same knowledge and opportunities, the first step is taken to eliminating entrenched sexism.

I am proud that the UK has committed to supporting girls’ education in Afghanistan by giving £47 million to the DfID Girls Education Challenge fund to help 250,000 girls to access quality schooling. We have a responsibility to help these girls to reach their full potential. We also have a responsibility to ensure that boys fully comprehend the value of women and understand that appreciating and valuing women does not distract from, or in any way decrease the value of, men.

Many women in Afghanistan today are putting their lives and those of their families at risk by fighting for the rights of women. Shaima Alkozai secretly taught girls in her home during the fear and repression of Taliban rule. Her students would pretend that they were going to a friend’s house and hide their books in flour containers. Today she is the deputy principal of Zarghona Girls High School in Kabul, responsible for the education of more than 8,000 girls. As she says:

“An uneducated person is blind. They don’t know how to live their life. It’s especially important for women, because they are responsible for their life and the lives of their children and family. The life of the nation is in the woman’s hands”.

She also voices her concerns about the future of Afghanistan under the Taliban:

“What will be the future for women? Will their situation improve or become worse? It doesn’t matter to us if we have to wear a burka or not. But we want to continue with education”.

Ease of movement for women is a key problem that also needs tackling. In public transport, women have to wait until the men get into the vehicles, there are hardly any public bathrooms for women and it is not safe for them to walk around and be out after the sunset. There are many obstacles in their way, physically and psychologically—unimaginable for any of us in this Room today.

Last week I e-mailed a contact in Kabul to ask what changes she thought would best enable progress on women’s rights in Afghanistan. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, she came back with a rather extensive list. Beyond education, which was at the top of her list, she would like to see a distinct subject of human rights included in the school curriculum and taught in all schools, mandated by the Afghan Ministry of Education. She wants the Government to require all employers to display posters on rights and respect for women. She says that the Afghan public should be exposed to effective and brief TV and radio skits and slogans demonstrating why it is important to honour women as equals. The media in Afghanistan should be used extensively to reinforce the vital role that women play in society.

Historically, women are the first to suffer in a fragile state. Without proper planning, traditionalists will gradually erode the progress that has been made at the expense of so many lives. If we are to continue to make changes or even just preserve the status quo, women’s rights must be at the centre of negotiations with the Taliban. It is only by fully integrating women into the Government’s agenda that we can protect their fragile gains. As Kofi Annan said:

“There cannot be true peace and recovery in Afghanistan without a restoration of the rights of women”.

There must be increased access to justice, including reparations, and access to comprehensive services for all women to ensure that they are enabled to fully participate in the democratic process. As with all long-lasting and sustainable change, this cannot be imposed by the West. It must come from the Afghan people. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

17:22

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for initiating this debate. As we have heard, over the past decade significant steps have been made to advance women’s rights in Afghanistan, such as the provision of gender equality in the new constitution and the establishment of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. Although the Afghan Government’s quashing last week of the proposal to reintroduce stoning for the offence of adultery was good news, its emergence in the first place, as we have heard in the debate, was a sign of how fragile gains in human rights over the past decade have been, particularly for women. As foreign troops head home before a 2014 deadline for the end of combat action in Afghanistan, and political attention fades with it, many fear that years of slow progress are at risk of being swept away.

This debate is a timely wake-up call for all donors to realise that if there is not constant pressure on the Afghan Government to respect women’s rights, there will be no women’s rights. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, many women have severely limited physical freedom and no political voice, and violence against women and girls is an everyday occurrence. Some 60% to 80% of all marriages are forced marriages; 57% of girls are married before the age of 16; 98% of women have no formal papers, citizenship or identity; 25% of women are in employment compared to 88% of men; and women’s life expectancy is 44.8 years. Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, stated on her visit to Kabul in 2013 that violence against women was “endemic” in Afghanistan and urged the authorities to speed up the implementation of the Elimination of Violence against Women law. I am aware that the FCO has funded a study into barriers to the implementation of the law and funded legal education in Helmand to raise awareness of women’s rights. What is the UK doing to support effective implementation of the law?

DfID is very active in funding programmes in Afghanistan. In March 2013, the Secretary of State, Justine Greening, announced that tackling violence against women and girls in Afghanistan was a strategic priority. Can the Minister give more details on how DfID will implement this strategic priority? What is it doing to achieve social norm changes towards women and prevent violence against women and girls? As we have heard in the debate, the position of Afghan women in society will remain a key challenge as the international mission draws down. Obama and Karzai’s strategic agreement stipulates that the,

“necessary outcomes of any peace and reconciliation process”,

follow the,

“Afghan Constitution, including its protections for all Afghan women and men”.

However, as we have heard, even if Kabul were to draw anti-government forces into formal negotiations, it remains highly doubtful that the Taliban leadership would ever work in accordance with the Afghan constitution's protection of,

“equal rights and duties before the law”.

The deteriorating security situation since 2007 has left the population, especially women, without access to basic services. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, said, gender gaps in Afghanistan are widespread in health, education, economic opportunities, power and political voice. A combination of traditional customs and rigid interpretation of Sharia law places serious restrictions on women’s rights. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, I welcome the Government’s confirmation that the UK will continue supporting girls’ education in Afghanistan until at least 2017. The £47 million committed to the DfID Girls’ Education Challenge fund between 2013 and 2016 has helped and will help a quarter of a million girls to access quality schooling in Afghanistan.

The FCO is jointly responsible, along with DfID and the MoD, for implementating UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, and jointly responsible for delivering the UK’s national action plan on the resolution, in which Afghanistan is a priority county. Much of the detail of Her Majesty’s Government’s support in Afghanistan is reported in the third annual review of the UK national action plan. The UK is providing funding for capacity building in the presidential and provincial council elections in 2014, including £12 million to a programme which supports female voter registration.

DfID has also given £4.5 million to the Asia Foundation parliamentary assistance programme on women’s participation in the 2014 elections and funding to increase female employment in the civil service. Through Tawanmandi, a pooled fund to which DfID has pledged £19.9 million over five years and whose purpose is to strengthen Afghan civil society, 15 of the 34 grants have gone to women-focused projects. What is the UK doing to provide long-term support to women’s rights organisations? How much of overall DfID spending in Afghanistan goes to women’s rights? The MoD is providing support and training for the Afghan National Army Officer Academy which, from 2014, will train 150 female students. What more will the UK do to ensure the participation of women in the Afghan police and army and that such participation is meaningful? What strategies will be in place to prevent sexual violence? Is there regular monitoring of women’s recruitment into the Afghan police and army?

The UK has contributed £1.4 million to the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and is funding the EU policy mission to Afghanistan. Strengthening gender and human rights is one of the six strategic EU policy mission objectives and, as part of that programme, UK police officer trainers delivered the first ever training course exclusively for Afghan female police officers. DfID has contributed to an umbrella programme that supports women in developing business skills and creating an accessible market.

The EU’s human rights strategy on Afghanistan contains commitments on human rights defenders, as we have heard. The implementation of the Elimination of Violence against Women law and women’s participation were identified as key commitments in the Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework. The report states that the UK will chair the ministerial review of the TMAF in 2014. Will the review take place in London? How will the UK ensure that Afghan women’s rights organisations are properly consulted ahead of it? As a co-chair, how will Her Majesty’s Government ensure that Afghan women involved in the review will be protected? What is the UK doing to protect women human rights defenders and women in public life in Afghanistan?

As we have heard, and as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, our focus should be on leaving Afghanistan stable and secure. There is an urgent need to work with Afghanistan’s neighbours, as he quite rightly said, to play a more active role as NATO forces in Afghanistan withdraw. My view is that Pakistan is crucial both to the success of the mission in Afghanistan and in the wider struggle to combat terrorism. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us more information on the FCO’s efforts in that regard.

17:32

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hodgson for highlighting this important issue. This is a timely debate. Along with her, I had the privilege this morning of addressing the Afghan Deputy Minister for Women’s Affairs, Fawzia Habibi, and her fellow parliamentarians Shukria Barakzai, Dr Nilofar Ibrahimi and Raihana Azad at the Chatham House event on the status of Afghan women post-2014.

I share my noble friend’s deep concern—echoed, I know, by everyone who has spoken in this debate today—that the considerable progress that women have made over the past decade in Afghanistan may be eroded and some gains may be lost. The protection and promotion of women’s rights in Afghanistan is a central pillar of our activities in Afghanistan and a cause to which I am personally committed; indeed, my maiden speech many years ago was on the issue of Afghan women’s rights.

Despite having been a cynic when we first intervened in Afghanistan, I have seen the progress and the transformation that have taken place and the contribution that women are making at all levels of Afghan society. I have had the privilege to meet some of the truly inspirational women who are risking their lives and leading the way on this issue. It is a central issue against which we will be judged when we consider the sacrifices that have been made in Afghanistan and whether they were worth the state in which we leave it.

I had hoped that more Members of your Lordships’ House would take part in what I think is an incredibly important debate. All noble Lords said that the gains made must not be lost, a message that we continuously reiterate to the Afghan Government. Last week my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development highlighted the importance of this with President Karzai during her visit to Afghanistan. My noble friend Lady Jenkin referred to the gains on education, employment and political participation. I co-chaired the joint commission on the enduring strategic dialogue between the UK and Afghanistan, and I stressed those gains when we had that meeting a few weeks ago in Afghanistan, which I co-chaired with the Afghan Deputy Foreign Minister, Mr Ershad Ahmadi. There is one female vice-presidential candidate in the forthcoming presidential elections, Habiba Sohrabi, who is an ex-governor of Bamyan province. When I spoke with presidential candidates, I said that it is not just about having front-facing candidates but whether you have women in all aspects of your decision-making, in terms of your policy, the inner circle and the campaigning theme which is going to take these elections forward. I think I gave them some food for thought, given that at least two of the candidates could not mention a single lady.

Challenges, therefore, remain in many parts of the country, but Afghan women are starting to take control of their lives. They rightly want a voice in deciding Afghanistan’s future. Next year’s elections are a real opportunity for women to play an even greater role in shaping their society. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned, through the Asia Foundation DfID will provide up to £4.5 million to strengthen women’s political participation as candidates and leaders and in other ways.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, and my noble friend Lady Jenkin raised the issue of girls’ education. We welcome DfID’s commitment to provide education for 250,000 of the poorest girls in Afghanistan, and this complements the UK’s existing funding for education there. As my noble friend Lady Jenkin notes, virtually no women were in education in Afghanistan in 2001, and to date over 2 million girls have been educated, largely thanks to funding by international donors including DfID.

My noble friend Lady Hodgson, followed by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about the new DfID programme announced by my right honourable friend Justine Greening. DfID will provide a further £8 million to the UNDP’s Elect II programme, bringing DfID’s total support to £20 million, and this will support the three key Afghan election institutions, including the independent election commission’s gender unit. The UK will also provide £7.5 million to strengthen political governance in two main ways: first by capacity building for parliament, and secondly by developing skills for women provincial councillors.

I was pleased that the Afghan Government reaffirmed their commitment to implement the measures included in the human rights reform agreed under the Tokyo mutual accountability framework, the TMAF. At the Afghan Government’s request, the UK will co-chair the first ministerial review of progress against the TMAF in 2014. The final timings and venue of that have not yet been fixed, but as soon as I have more information I will update the House.

Achieving lasting peace and stability in Afghanistan must be our primary aim, but we will continue to make clear that any political settlement involving the Taliban must preserve the progress made to date and respect Afghanistan’s constitutional framework, including the protections it provides for women and minorities. Reconciling the Taliban must never be at the expense of gains made in women’s rights.

It is for the Afghan Government to ensure that women’s rights are protected. We welcome their intention to publish a national action plan for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, and the fact that UN Women and other partners, including civil society, are being consulted in its formulation. The British Government will continue to provide assistance where appropriate. It is important that the Afghan Government ensure that a strong political will is galvanised behind implementing it fully.

With regard to women’s rights generally, I think I said this morning that we must keep them on the agenda. It will be so easy, when we have withdrawn our combat troops at the end of 2014, for this to start slipping. One way to do that is through the Afghanistan universal periodic review at the Human Rights Council in Geneva. The review will take place in early 2014, and that will provide an opportunity for us and the rest of the international community to raise our concerns, and for the Government of Afghanistan to show the strength of their commitment to safeguard women’s rights.

Afghan civil society also plays a vital role, and our support for it will have to endure. The British Government recognise their contribution through the DfID-funded Tawanmandi programme, which has been referred to in today’s debate. This includes a specific focus on women’s rights. To date, for example, 66% of grants awarded either focus specifically on gender issues, or have a strong gender component. Funding for this is going to continue until at least 2016.

We must also acknowledge that Afghanistan, as many have said, is a deeply conservative country. Substantial improvement to the situation of Afghan women is likely to take place over the long term, and progress is likely to come in short steps. Against this backdrop we should recognise the courageous efforts of all those across Afghanistan who are working to defend the rights and fundamental freedoms of others. In particular I applaud female human rights defenders, who face enhanced risks from conservative elements of their society. The Government will continue to support and defend these brave individuals who, by seeking to protect the rights of others, are challenging historic and very conservative social norms.

We continue to contribute to the work of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. We will continue to work closely with all our international partners to improve our understanding of the risks faced by human rights defenders so that they can be mitigated. Every time I visit Afghanistan—I think that I have visited four times in the past 12 months—I make a point of meeting the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and Sima Samar, an incredibly inspirational individual at its head. We will continue to raise our concerns and, where appropriate, to issue public statements condemning violence. These days, with the progress in terms of social media and being Twitter-linked to many female Afghan parliamentarians, it only takes a direct message for us to become aware almost instantaneously when things are starting to go wrong in Afghanistan.

My noble friend Lady Hodgson also raised the issue of stoning for adultery and the penal code, which of course has been in the media. The Secretary of State for International Development raised concerns about these reports in her meeting with President Karzai last week. I think that we saw some rowing-back from what was then described as a consultation. However, even a consultation is dangerous territory for the Afghan Government to be starting to venture into. The UK opposes abhorrent practices such as stoning, which are a disturbing reminder of the type of justice carried out under the Taliban. That has no place in modern Afghanistan.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about recruitment of Afghan women to the police. The UK agrees that the recruitment of women in the police has not been a high enough priority. The Afghan Ministry of Interior has set up a working group. The EU police commission to Afghanistan is seconding in some expertise to come up with a comprehensive approach to the role of females in the police. Its aim is to increase the number of police women by adjusting selection procedures, improving working conditions and providing better training. However, the risks are incredibly high for these individuals. I saw a tragic case. One female officer whom I had met on a recent visit to Helmand was attacked and killed by the Taliban purely for being a member of the local police.

My noble friend Lord Alderdice raised India, which, of course, is an important regional power and an important country in terms of the future of Afghanistan. It is actively involved in Afghanistan, including among other things through the development work that it does there. The Pakistan-UK-Afghanistan trilateral procedure is one of a number of forums created to try to create a better process between countries in the region in order to progress on issues such as women’s rights. Other processes are, for example, the Heart of Asia and, of course, bilateral relationships. It is not an either/or situation between Pakistan and India in terms of Afghanistan. We regularly keep the Indians updated on the trilateral process. Indeed, the Prime Minister did so on his recent visit to India when he spoke with Manmohan Singh. At the last trilateral meeting, both Afghanistan and Pakistan indicated that they would like us to continue with this and to try, effectively, to act as an annoying friend to allow the two to develop their bilateral relationship further.

My noble friend Lady Hodgson spoke about the Elimination of Violence Against Women law being a key deliverable in the TMAF. Our £7.1 million of assistance to the Ministry of Interior includes a strong focus on developing Afghan policy and promoting human rights in the security sector and protecting women from violence. The UK also supports the Afghan national police response unit, which investigates domestic violence and provides support to female victims of crime. DfID has made tackling violence against women and girls a strategic priority for its work in Afghanistan. It will make announcements in the near future on what more it can do to address this issue. As my noble friend is aware, this issue is incredibly close to the Foreign Secretary’s heart in terms of preventing sexual violence in conflict.

In conclusion, the Government have made long-term commitments to Afghanistan’s future through financial aid and political support. In return, we expect to see clear progress from the Afghan Government on a range of issues, including on human rights. UK support to the women of Afghanistan will remain long after our combat forces withdraw. Afghanistan has come a long way since 2001 but we are not going to be complacent. We know that it still has a long way to go.

I can assure this House that the British Government will continue to support Afghanistan as it continues on this journey. On a very personal basis, it was part of my maiden speech and I am sure that it will be part of many more speeches and debates in this House. We owe it to the women of Afghanistan to keep this matter on the agenda by ensuring that this House continues to discuss these issues.

Committee adjourned at 5.45 pm.

House of Lords

Monday 2nd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Monday, 2 December 2013.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

Disabled People: Mobility Benefits

Monday 2nd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

14:36

Asked by

[Lord Wigley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of disabled people who have had access to adapted cars removed as a result of changes to their entitlement to mobility benefits.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

My Lords, no such assessment has been made. The controlled approach to the reassessment of recipients of disability living allowance began only on 28 October 2013. There is not enough information yet to assess the effect this phase will have on Motability customer numbers, including those with adapted cars. In addition, the vast majority of reassessments will not start until October 2015.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, does the Minister recall that exactly 12 months ago his department estimated that by 2018 there would be 428,000 fewer enhanced mobility claimants aged 16 to 64 on the new PIP system, compared with the old system? Does he appreciate the anxiety this has caused to those dependent on these payments to finance their Motability vehicles? Will he update the House on the latest position, and do everything in his power to lift the threat felt by those people whose degree of disability almost certainly will mean that they should not lose their Motability entitlement but who, until they know, will inevitably fear the worst?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I emphasise that we are looking to create a thorough assessment under PIP that is balanced and also looks after some of the gaps in DLA, particularly concerning people with mental health problems, who have not done as well under DLA as they should do under PIP. With regard to the concerns about the transition, we are working with Motability to put together a package of £2,000 per person for those who move off the enhanced DLA but not into PIP so that they can purchase a second-hand car at the appropriate time.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)]

Will my noble friend tell me why his department took no notice of the responses to the 11th-hour consultation on the key moving-about descriptor in the PIP assessment? This descriptor enables a claimant to have enough points for the enhanced rate of mobility, which opens the door to the Motability car. Responses to the consultation were overwhelmingly against what the Government have proposed. I wonder why they bothered to have the consultation if they are not going to take any notice of it.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I emphasise that a lot of attention was paid to that consultation, as to all consultations. The issue that the department had to deal with was whether there was a better suggestion for drawing a line and, in practice, we could not find one within the consultation responses. I remind noble Lords that, as a result of activity in this Chamber, we toughened up the definition with,

“reliably, safely, repeatedly and in a timely manner”,

locked into how it operates.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, nearly 30% of those who get enhanced mobility payments turn them into a Motability car, so approximately 100,000 to 120,000 people stand to lose their car. We know that when they go to appeal, 60% win their appeal but in the process, given the time it takes, they will have lost their car before having the additional expense of starting all over again. Will the Minister therefore ensure that anyone going to appeal does not lose their car until the appeal has been heard?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, that is not the process which we are going through. It is difficult to draw a line between people with enhanced mobility and those on Motability. That is one of the things that we will be looking at as we do this review, which will report towards the end of next year—before large volumes of people are due to go in, so we will be able to look at this closely.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, can my noble friend indicate whether he is satisfied that every penny that is available to Motability goes to those in greatest need? Can he tell the House what the salary is of the highest paid director?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, Motability puts out a report and accounts. I was looking through the latest the other day, which was from 2012, and its highest paid director was paid something more than £800,000.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am in receipt of DLA but not of a Motability car. Regardless of whether the Government know the figures of who will be affected, this will affect a significant number of people. I travelled on a train this morning from Darlington to London. There were two spaces for wheelchairs and no accessible toilet on board. Can the Minister explain what consultation there has been with other government departments to ensure that when this huge number of people is affected, the public transport system will be able to cope?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we have had a very thorough consultation on this. I cannot bring to mind right now the exact level of consultation with the transport department. I will need to write to the noble Baroness with that information.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister realises just how worried disabled people are. The whole transition to PIP has been in chaos. The Atos work capability assessment is a disaster, the bedroom tax is hitting them, disabled kids have had their benefits cut, and 100,000 people have signed a petition demanding a cumulative impact assessment of the Government’s changes. Is the Minister proud of the Government’s record?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we are handling an extraordinarily difficult economic and financial position. As noble Lords are of course aware, we have had a decline in GDP of 7.2% from its peak in 2008-09. That is more or less the same level as what happened in the 1930s. Handling that decline has been enormously difficult and one of the most interesting things about the way we have handled it generally is that, unlike every other developed country, we have spread the inevitable difficulties across the whole economy, rather than, as elsewhere, the poor being hit far worse than the rich. That has not happened in the adjustment that we have made in this country.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, pursuing the point made by the noble Baroness about the role of Atos Healthcare, in confirming the amounts of money that are involved in this process, will the Minister confirm to the House that in the past 12 months alone, £114 million has been paid to Atos Healthcare; that, over the distance, more than £700 million has been paid to it; and that he has had to call in PricewaterhouseCoopers in order to assess its role? Will he tell us what that has cost and when the National Audit Office will now report on the tendering arrangements involving Atos Healthcare that it has decided to investigate?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, that is a series of very specific questions, some of the answers to which are not yet in the public arena. I will have a look at which of those I can answer appropriately in that context.

Defence: Type 26 Global Combat Ship

Monday 2nd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

14:45

Asked by

[Lord West of Spithead]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the expected build rate and planned life for the T26 global combat ship.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con)]

My Lords, the Type 26 global combat ship programme is currently in its assessment phase. As is standard practice with equipment projects, the final design, equipment fit and build programme will not be set until the main investment decision has been taken, when the design is more mature. This decision is expected towards the end of 2014. Our current planning assumption is for the construction of 13 Type 26s with a planned service life of around 25 years.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the reply, and for letting me have sight of it before today. He will be aware of the force-level formula which relates build rates to the planned life of a warship. Although this Answer undoubtedly raises a whole raft of questions, not least those relating to manpower and shipbuilding, I want to focus on just one. Have we really decided that this great maritime nation of ours needs only 13 frigates? Only four years ago, 18 was considered too risky; at the time of the Falklands, we had 40. Has there been a realistic, in-depth study of the requirement for the number of frigates—I am talking about frigates, not destroyers or other things—or is the number 13 based purely on an arbitrary cost figure? In the final analysis, defence of the nation is the top priority for any Government of whatever hue, and I believe that we are standing into danger.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that defence of the nation is absolutely the top priority of the Government. That is why we are undertaking the Type 26 global combat ship programme. The Type 26 will become the backbone of the Royal Navy from around 2020, and the programme will help sustain surface warship capability in the United Kingdom after the construction of the carriers. This multibillion-pound investment will secure thousands of skilled shipbuilding jobs across the UK for decades to come.

[Lord Geddes (Con)]

Could my noble friend advise what assessment the Ministry of Defence has made of the export potential for these vessels?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the Type 26 is a credible export design and there are likely to be three export variants—general purpose, anti-submarine warfare, and air defence—all sharing a common acoustically quiet hull to realise economies of scale. It is not expected that the UK will build export variants, but international interest in the design is unprecedented. It should be stressed, however, that the Type 26 is neither dependent upon nor funding the export campaign.

[Lord Ribeiro (Con)]

My Lords, having recently been on a Type 45 destroyer and been briefed on its capability, which is enormous, may I ask what the Type 26 will do which the Type 45 will not be able to deliver, mindful of the fact that one is a destroyer and one is a frigate?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, although sharing a common acoustically quiet hull, the Type 26 will be delivered in two variants: a force anti-submarine warfare variant and a general purpose variant. All will employ a tailored-mission approach to operations, allowing equipment and crew to be reconfigured to meet changing operational requirements and the future demands of the maritime and joint environment.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, is it the intention that the Type 26, as well as being used on naval combat operations, should also be capable of being used on humanitarian missions? If so, what kind of such missions?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, it is absolutely intended that that is one of the roles that the Type 26s will be used on. We are building a complement of Type 26s that, from the initial ship right through to the end of the class life, will provide us with the flexibility to respond to a wide range of tasks.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I know that the Government hope that Scotland will remain part of the United Kingdom, but if the Scots do vote for separation, where would the Type 26 frigates be built?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the build location will be confirmed after the main investment decision point. The UK Government are not planning for independence. Should Scotland decide to separate from the UK, it would no longer be eligible to bid for those contracts that are subject to exemptions from EU procurement rules to protect essential national security interests and are therefore placed or competed for within the UK. All the UK’s new complex warships are being built in UK shipyards, and we remain committed to using UK industry in this area.

[Lord Soley (Lab)]

The Minister has just described the Type 26 as the backbone of the Royal Navy. The problem is that there are only 13 of them, and there does not seem to be any planning beyond that. I think that most of us are concerned about the long-term view of the Royal Navy for us as a maritime power, as was indicated in the first Question. Thirteen is not the backbone of a major maritime power.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord. The First Sea Lord has some very exciting plans for the future of the Royal Navy. The Type 26s we are planning, the three OPVs and, of course, the Type 45s which my noble friend mentioned, are all part of those exciting plans.

[Lord Elton (Con)]

My Lords, what are the criteria by which the Government decide which countries are suitable as export purchasers and which are not?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, in the context of Scotland, the UK has a number of commercial yards involved in building military warships which have been involved in the building of the carriers. It is recognised that these yards would need additional investment to enable them to participate in the building of the Type 26.

Syria: Humanitarian Aid

Monday 2nd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

14:52

Asked by

[Lord Wright of Richmond]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to re-establish direct contact with the Government of Syria in order to facilitate secure access to the humanitarian agencies throughout Syria.

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)]

My Lords, the UK is working with our international partners, including in the UN Security Council, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the Friends of Syria core group, to ensure full implementation of the UN Security Council presidential statement of 2 October to allow free and unfettered access for the delivery of aid to all Syrians. As stated by the UN, the primary onus is on the Syrian regime to comply with these measures, and we are actively engaging with Russia to reinforce this message to the regime.

[Lord Wright of Richmond (CB)]

My Lords, I hope that the Minister accepts that my call on the Government to resume contact with the Government in Damascus in no way means that I condone the appalling things that have happened in Syria on all sides—any more than I condone the many other breaches of human rights named by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, during his astonishing debate on 21 November. Does the Minister accept that nearly all the Governments named by the noble Lord enjoy diplomatic contact with Her Majesty’s Government, and that with one of them, Iran, we have recently resumed diplomatic relations? Given that the Syrian Government appear to have restored their authority over most parts of Syria in recent weeks, is it not time to resume our diplomatic presence in Damascus, both for the reasons mentioned in my Question, and to perform the necessary consular functions to protect the remaining British community?

[Baroness Warsi]

I of course hear the point that the noble Lord makes. There has been some limited contact in relation to consular matters. We have not formally broken all diplomatic ties with the Syrian regime. It has withdrawn its people from the embassy here, and we have done the same in relation to our people in Syria. We have maintained some contact via other embassies that still have personnel within Syria. We have felt that, in terms of progress on humanitarian work and in relation to the chemical weapons work that is going on, the UN is the right body through which to engage. That is the process that we have been adopting.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that 500,000 children have not been vaccinated against polio over the past two years because of the conflict and the lack of humanitarian access? What is the UK doing to secure guarantees of respect for what Save the Children calls a “vaccination ceasefire” that which will allow unconditional, safe access by humanitarian workers, before this highly infectious and crippling disease becomes an epidemic across the whole of the Middle East?

[Baroness Warsi]

The issue of providing access specifically to vaccinate children was raised at the high-level meeting chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, on 26 November. So far, about 10 cases of polio have been confirmed and 12 more potential cases have been identified, but it is thought that hundreds of children are carrying polio in a country where it had been completely eliminated. This is one of a number of humanitarian issues that we are hoping will be dealt with in the run-up to the Geneva 2 meeting in January.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, just a few minutes ago I spoke to the staff of Médecins Sans Frontières, who emphasised that it is essential to establish many more humanitarian corridors, especially in the disputed areas, to allow the entry of essential antibiotics and anaesthetic agents. Will the Government continue and, indeed, redouble their efforts to establish these corridors?

[Baroness Warsi]

My noble friend makes an important point. This is one of the ideas that have been put forward. However the noble Lord will be aware that humanitarian corridors are not defined in international law and, although there have been some successes in the past, such corridors require all parties to agree to their establishment. In the absence of such agreement, establishing these zones usually requires foreign military intervention, which is not on the table at the moment. The noble Lord will also be aware that humanitarian corridors and safe areas have not always worked in the past. A case that comes immediately to mind is the Srebrenica genocide, which occurred in a safe area.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)]

Does my noble friend agree that the most enduring solution to the humanitarian crisis in Syria is a successful conclusion of the Geneva 2 talks and the implementation of the Geneva communiqué’s plan for a transitional Government? In the light of that, have the Government moved on their position on the attendance of Iran at the Geneva 2 talks and on the continuation of President Assad in any form of transitional Government?

[Baroness Warsi]

We have very clear priorities in Syria. The first is to ensure that we alleviate humanitarian suffering. The second is to prevent Assad from using chemical weapons on his own people again. However, this is against a backdrop of finding a political solution that brings the conflict to an end. It is good that the date of 22 January 2014 has now been set for Geneva 2. In relation to Iran, parties to Geneva 2 are those that have formally endorsed the Geneva communiqué. Iran has not yet done so publicly. There is a sense that Iran is not playing a positive or helpful role in the current crisis.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, have the Government yet formed a view as to what part the Assad regime should play at Geneva 2? If they have formed a view, are they yet in a position to be able to inform the House?

[Baroness Warsi]

We expect the regime to play a part in Geneva 2, which is all about coming forward with a proposal to establish a transitional governing body. This has to be done with mutual consent, so the regime must play its role. However, it seems incredibly unrealistic to expect real progress in Syria if Assad has any role in a body that has full executive powers and, therefore, control over the military, security and intelligence apparatus. Large parts of Syria do not accept him or expect him to play such a role.

[Baroness Boothroyd (CB)]

My Lords, to what extent do the Government actively support the efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, head of the United Nations office for humanitarian assistance, to set up a humanitarian corridor in Syria? What, if any, are the objections expressed by any member of the UN Security Council to the establishment of such a project?

[Baroness Warsi]

Of course, we fully support the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, who is another great example of a Member of this House playing an incredibly important role on the international stage. We pushed and worked with the noble Baroness on the UN Security Council presidential statement during the UN General Assembly meeting in October this year. That asked specifically for humanitarian agencies to have immediate, unfettered access to all parts of Syria. Therefore, the establishment of a humanitarian corridor is part of a process; it is one of a number of options that could bring that about. However, first and foremost it is about having unfettered access. We have access to all 14 governorate regions of Syria, but unfortunately not to all the populations within those regions. Tragically, millions of people still have not had any humanitarian support for nearly 12 months.

Planning: New Garden Cities

Monday 2nd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

15:00

Asked by

[Lord Adonis]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will publish a policy paper on new garden cities, as set out in the Prime Minister’s speech at the Institute of Civil Engineers on 19 March 2012.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government already support local communities that seek to provide significant numbers of new homes in new and expanding towns. Between 2013 and 2015 the Government are investing £474 million to support large-scale housing and commercial development in places such as Wokingham in Berkshire and Cranbrook in Devon. An additional £102 million of investment is available for 2015-16. We will publish a prospectus inviting bids for this funding in the spring.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, with great respect to the noble Baroness, is she aware that she has not answered my Question? It is nearly two years since the Prime Minister said that there would be a policy paper on garden cities, which still has not appeared. Does she not agree that in the face of the housing supply crisis this inaction is deplorable? Is she aware that it took the Attlee Government precisely one year to enact legislation for new towns and to designate Stevenage as the first one, and that within five years, 10 new towns had been started? Does she not agree that we need a bit more Attlee and a bit less apathy from the Government?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I like to think that I am an action kind of girl. I am very happy to inform the noble Lord and this House that this Government are doing exactly that. I am intrigued by the noble Lord’s frustration, which is a little misdirected. I seem to recall that his Government promised five and then 10 eco-towns, and I am not aware that any of them got off the ground. In contrast, we are working with local councils that have locally led proposals—we are working with them now—and because of our support a large number of these larger sites have been unblocked and are ready to start.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Did my noble friend notice that the Answer she gave was not to the Question that the noble Lord asked? He did not ask about new towns but about garden cities. Will she therefore be very careful about the Ebenezer Howard history? His garden cities were built because our towns were unpleasant and were not good places in which to live—but now they are. Will she make sure that the new houses are built in our old towns, which will regenerate them, and not built on open countryside, where we need the land to grow food?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The most important thing the Government are doing when they consider proposals is to ensure that those proposals are locally led and have local support. Without that, no plan will get off the ground.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the Member of Parliament for 15 years for Stevenage—the first post-war new town— and as the former Member of Parliament for one of the first garden cities, namely, Letchworth. In that context, given that the housing need is estimated as 1.5 million new houses, will the Government—and the noble Baroness, as an action Minister—carefully consider the possibility of announcing a new list of new towns? That will certainly protect the countryside, the existing cities and, above all, will prevent the ribbon development that would destroy both.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My noble friend is certainly right that we need more new homes, and increase of supply is essential. We think it is really important to be in a position where those plans are brought to fruition. Rather than imposing new towns on any area, we are encouraging towns to come forward with their plans. I have been able to demonstrate today that the Government are supporting those which come forward, and the support that we are giving is making these plans become a reality.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I still do not think we have had an Answer to my noble friend’s Question. Are the Government going to publish a paper or not? It is as simple as that—yes or no?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

As I have already said, we will be publishing a prospectus early in the new year for the next tranche of money. We have published a prospectus for the first tranche. What is most important is that action is taken, and that is under way.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I, too, am a former Member for one of the third and fourth generation new towns, Northampton, which I represented for 23 and a half years? Is she aware that there were two reasons for the secret of those new towns, the latter ones? First, they were built adjacent to an existing town that had all the facilities in culture and sport that normal families want. Secondly —initially this seemed to be more controversial—part of their success was that they were run by development corporations which had to consult in depth and work with the local authorities. That decision had to be taken to be successful.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

We are ensuring that there is collaboration. We have been supporting those groups which have come forward with plans but need some issues resolving around infrastructure.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Monday 2nd December 2013 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:07

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Redress Schemes for Lettings Agency Work and Property Management Work (Approval and Designation of Schemes) (England) Order 2013

Monday 2nd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:07

Moved by

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That the draft order laid before the House on 25 October be approved.

Relevant document: 12th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 26 November.

Motion agreed.

Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2013

Monday 2nd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:07

Moved by

[Baroness Verma]

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28 October be approved.

Relevant document: 12th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 26 November.

Motion agreed.

Health and Social Care (Amendment) (Food Standards) Bill [HL]

Monday 2nd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

15:08

Bill passed and sent to Commons.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Monday 2nd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Committee (5th Day)

15:08

Relevant documents: 12th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee, 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Clause 69: Power to issue closure notices

Amendment 56ZF

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

56ZF: Clause 69, page 41, line 31, leave out “habitually”

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I shall speak also to Amendments 56ZG, 56ZH, 56ZJ, 56ZK, 56ZL, 56ZQ, 56ZR and 56ZS.

This group of amendments takes us to Clause 69, Chapter 3, on the “Closure of premises associated with nuisance or disorder”. The heading ends with “etc”. We have talked quite a lot about the “etc” in this Bill. I am concerned in these amendments with who may be affected by a closure order. For instance, Clause 69(1) provides that there may be a closure notice if,

“the use of particular premises has resulted, or … is likely … to result, in nuisance to members of the public, or … that there has been, or … is likely soon to be, disorder … associated with the … premises”.

The closure notice will prohibit access by everyone, essentially, subject to some particularities. It occurred to me that premises that may well be affected are pubs, which very often have staff living in them. There are particular rights for people who habitually live on the premises, but “habitually” is quite a high test. The provision that I have just mentioned is about access to the premises. I read that as allowing the people listed to continue to occupy the premises, but I may be wrong in that. The guidance that the Government have issued in draft suggests that it means access in order to collect belongings. Will the Minister confirm, or otherwise, that the closure notice could mean that people will be turned out of where they live? The amendment removes the word “habitually” and Amendment 56ZK is consequential.

Amendment 56ZG would add a right of access not just for the owner but also for an operator. I am again thinking about pubs and other leisure or business places. The owner is not necessarily the person who operates the business on the premises. In a later clause, there are provisions for rights of appeal. Again, I seek to add an operator in there, because I am not clear whether an operator would have an interest in the premises for the purposes of these provisions. Interest in land has a narrower meaning than I read it here. I also suggest that there should be access by anyone designated and agreed by the police who is required to ensure the safety and security of the premises. It would be unreasonable to refuse access if looking after the safety and security of the premises is required, as I assume that it would be.

Amendment ZJ is what my noble friend Lord Greaves would call, “One of those legal things”. As the Minister said, he is occupied “Pendling” today, rather than being in your Lordships’ Chamber. Clause 69(4) states:

“A closure notice may not prohibit access by”,

certain people,

“and accordingly they must be specified”.

I suggest that they should be deemed to be specified. If they must be specified, what happens if the specification fails to include them? That would be grounds for a challenge over a relatively small issue. I am trying to be more helpful there than perhaps I am in the other amendments.

Amendment 56ZL is about the service of notices. The guidance to which I referred states that it is a local matter as to who is designated by the local authority to serve the notice. I agree with that, so I think that we should say so and not just say any employee of the local authority.

Amendment 56ZR inserts a new subsection on the display of information. There is a defence of a reasonable excuse. I am not sure whether a lack of knowledge, which this amendment would cure, is a sufficient excuse when we are talking about a criminal offence.

Finally, Amendment 56ZS concerns compensation. In Clause 83(5), it seems that the court needs to be satisfied as to all four matters set out. However, that cannot be right, because the first two are mutually exclusive. This is therefore a drafting amendment, but not a drafting amendment for the sake of it. I am suggesting that the court needs to be satisfied as to the matters in paragraphs (a) or (b) and paragraphs (c) and (d). I beg to move.

15:15

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments address aspects of the new closure power. As noble Lords will recall, the power has two key parts: the closure notice and the closure order. Where informal measures have failed, or are inappropriate, the closure notice allows the police or the local authority to close quickly those premises for up to 48 hours out of court. In some cases this will be sufficient to resolve the problem, but in others a longer-term closure order might be required. Following the closure notice, the police force or the local authority that issued it can apply to the court for a closure order to close premises for up to three months, although this can subsequently be extended by the court to a maximum of six months. This allows the local authority or the police to find a solution to the problem while protecting victims and communities.

Amendments 56ZG and 56ZH seek to exempt the operator of the premises and anyone else designated to secure the premises from the effect of a closure notice. The purpose of the closure powers is to restrict the number of people who are able to access premises, and therefore to reduce the nuisance or annoyance associated with it. The clause allows the owner as of right to access the premises so that they may secure and maintain it and obtain any items or information they may need. As my noble friend has explained, there may be cases where a person other than the owner is in control of the premises. Alternatively, the owner may not be able to attend and secure the premises. The closure powers cover a wide range of premises and therefore a wide range of situations. To include the term “operator” may make the definition too wide, enabling a large number of people to claim that they cannot be prohibited from accessing the premises by the closure order. This could have the effect of undermining the closure notice itself.

However, Clause 69 already contains provisions to allow the closure notice to be tailored to the appropriate circumstances, which was a concern my noble friend raised. Subsection (3) allows for the police or for the local authority to define who is prohibited, at what times and in what circumstances. The police or the local authority will therefore consider what the appropriate arrangement is on a case-by-case basis. It is in their interests to have the premises properly and safely secured, as this will help ensure adherence to the closure notice. They will be able to make arrangements to ensure that the appropriate people can access the premises, whether this be the operator or someone designated by the owner.

The list of those whom a closure notice cannot prohibit relates to those who should not be prohibited by an out-of-court notice in any circumstances. It is our view that this should remain as those who habitually live there or who own the premises. The clause adequately caters for my noble friend’s point as regards the operator of the premises.

Amendment 56ZJ seeks to amend Clause 69(4). Subsection (4) states that the closure notice cannot prohibit access to those who,

“habitually live on the premises, or … the owner”.

This means that those people can continue to access and, indeed, occupy the premises. However, a closure order can prohibit those who live in the premises and the owner. A closure order can be made only by the court. That is an important distinction between the two measures. It is for the court to decide who should be prohibited. The breach of closure notice is also a criminal offence, whether or not it is specified. It is important to be clear who can enter premises subject to a closure notice. It also needs to be clear to those who may seek to enter premises as well as those enforcing the closure notice. Whether this is specified or not does not change the fact that the closure notice cannot prohibit those who habitually live on, or own, the premises, as I have already said. Therefore, even where an oversight occurs, it will not result in an individual having breached a closure notice as the notice cannot prohibit access. As I say, a closure order can be made only by the court.

Amendment 56ZQ seeks to allow the owner, occupier or operator of the premises to appeal a closure order. I am pleased to reassure my noble friend that the Bill already allows for this. Clause 77 sets out two categories of people who can appeal a closure order. These are, first, a person on whom the notice was served and, secondly, a person who has an interest in the premises but on whom the closure notice was not served. Clause 72(2) covers the serving of a notice. It lists a number of ways the police or local authority can serve the notice and requires that they do all of these, if possible. Therefore, in the majority of cases, the owner, operator and occupier will be served the notice and therefore can appeal under Clause 77(1)(a). If, for some reason, it was not possible to serve the notice on the owner, operator or occupier, they would be able to appeal under Clause 77(1)(b), which provides that anyone,

“who has an interest in the premises but on whom the closure notice was not served”,

can appeal the closure order. In this clause, “interest” covers those with a financial or legal interest in the premises. Given those reasons, I hope that my noble friend will not move the amendments I have covered.

Amendment 56ZL would allow a local authority to appoint a business partner to serve a closure notice, as my noble friend explained. I acknowledge from my own experience that this can be helpful. Local authorities considered different ways of delivering these services and concluded that the decision to serve a notice should remain with the local authority. I would like to take the amendment away and come back to it on Report.

Amendment 56ZR seeks to ensure that those who may need to know about a closure notice or order are properly informed of its provisions to ensure that it is not breached inadvertently. The Bill requires that the police or local authority,

“must if possible … fix a copy of the notice to at least one prominent place on the premises … each normal means of access … any outbuildings that appear … to be used with or as part of the premises”.

They must also, if possible,

“give a copy of the notice to at least one person who appears … to have control of or responsibility for the premises, and … to the people who live on the premises and to any person who does not live there but was informed (under section 69(6)) that the notice was going to be issued”.

This ensures that, where it is possible to do so, the notice will be clearly displayed and given to the key individuals who may be seeking to access the premises. If, for whatever reason, the notice could not be served and displayed in the way I have indicated, resulting in an individual accidentally entering premises in contravention of a closure order or notice, it could be considered that in the circumstances the individual had a reasonable excuse. They would not then be in breach of the notice or order and would not have committed an offence.

Amendment 56ZS would allow those seeking compensation to have to satisfy only two of the conditions set out in the Bill rather than all four. I listened very carefully to what my noble friend said about the drafting elements, and I am sure that officials have noted that as well. However, the amendment would mean that the court would have to be satisfied only that one of the conditions set out in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of Clause 83(5) had been met alongside the condition in paragraph (d). However, I take on board the helpful comment made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee about the drafting. We will reflect on that in advance of Report.

We have deliberately framed these provisions around the four conditions that have to be met. We often decry the growth of compensation culture and we do not want to add to it here. Of course, where the owner or occupier of the premises subject to a closure notice or order has suffered financial loss, was not in any way associated with the anti-social behaviour on the premises and took reasonable steps to prevent such behaviour, that person should be entitled to claim compensation. However, we do not believe that the ability to seek compensation should extend more widely than this. To do so would open up the police and local authorities to numerous claims, and would make it more difficult for applicants to know whether their claim was likely to be successful. Importantly, this amendment might also deter police and local authorities from exercising their closure powers in appropriate cases, thereby exposing victims to continued distress.

Having said that, I note that my noble friend’s intent in tabling this amendment came from a drafting perspective. However, based on the assurances that I have given, I hope that she will withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, of course I shall do so but, on that last point, when I looked again at my amendment in preparation for today’s debate, I thought that this would be something that would be completely bemusing to anyone who did not have the Bill in front of them. I apologise for that. It should be paragraph (a) or (b) and (c) and (d). It also seems that the applicant having incurred financial loss, as set out in paragraph (c), was a given—one has to incur loss to have a claim for damages. So it may or may not need to be said.

I am grateful to my noble friend for the other points that he has covered. On whether or not one refers to the operator—I am thinking about businesses—we are back to guidance. My noble friend talked about discretion on a case-by-case basis. He is aware that I would prefer to rely on guidance as little as possible.

I remain concerned about the term “habitually resident”. There is a danger of people who live in the premises being adversely affected when they should not be caught up in this. Where will they go?

I note that the Minister talked about “interest”, where it is used in the context of a financial and legal interest, as being something between interest in property and the normal, general meaning of the term. I will think about that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 56ZF withdrawn.

Amendments 56ZG to 56ZK not moved.

Clause 69 agreed.

Clauses 70 and 71 agreed.

Clause 72: Service of notices

Amendment 56ZL not moved.

Clause 72 agreed.

Clause 73: Power of court to make closure orders

Amendment 56ZM not moved.

Clause 73 agreed.

Clause 74: Temporary orders

Amendment 56ZN not moved.

Clause 74 agreed.

Clause 75: Extension of closure orders

Amendment 56ZP not moved.

Clause 75 agreed.

Clause 76 agreed.

Clause 77: Appeals

Amendment 56ZQ not moved.

Clause 77 agreed.

Clause 78 agreed.

Clause 79: Offences

Amendment 56ZR not moved.

Clause 79 agreed.

Clauses 80 to 82 agreed.

Clause 83: Compensation

Amendment 56ZS not moved.

Clause 83 agreed.

Clauses 84 and 85 agreed.

15:30

Amendment 56A

Moved by

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

56A: After Clause 85, insert the following new Clause—
“Crime and disorder reduction: development control
(1) The Secretary of State shall designate a body representative of chief officers of police for the purposes of this section.
(2) A body designated under this section shall publish guidelines that specify for a particular type of development the measures that should be included in that development to promote—
(a) crime and disorder reduction, and(b) the prevention of anti-social behaviour.(3) Guidelines under this section shall only be produced following consultation with organisations that represent—
(a) local authorities, and(b) persons engaged in the design and construction of developments requiring planning permission.(4) A planning authority may, in respect of any application that it receives for planning permission, specify as a condition for the approval of that planning permission that the development concerned must follow guidelines published under this section.
(5) A planning authority may only specify a condition under subsection (4) if it is satisfied that to do so would promote—
(a) crime and disorder reduction, or(b) the prevention of anti-social behaviour.”

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, the problem with this Bill and the discussions that we have had in Committee is that, throughout, it has not always been clear who wants the changes that are proposed in it. Most of the proposals made by the Government are not evidence-based and many of them are ill thought through. Furthermore, there is a serious danger that the Bill will be irrelevant. Overall, levels of crime have declined over the past 15 or so years, and the trend in burglary is particularly marked. However, there is no cause for complacency there. A report on the front page of today’s Times talks about a, “Sudden surge in property crime”. Therefore, the stability with which we have seen crime figures move downwards is not something that we can take for granted.

However, unmentioned in the Bill is the fact that the Government are seeking to do something that would have the effect of undermining all their objectives in this legislation. Indeed, they are seeking to undermine the progress that has been made over the past 20 or so years in reducing crime levels. Certainly, over the past 20 years those building new developments—new-build homes, refurbished homes and so on, schools, play areas, hospitals and many others—have increasingly been informed by or have adopted the principles of Secured by Design.

What was achieved over that 20-year period under this initiative carried out under the auspices of the Association of Chief Police Officers and adopted by many local authorities? First, Secured by Design developments—those using the approved products and materials—are now half as likely to be burgled, and show a reduction of 25% in criminal damage. That is evidence that these measures make a difference. Secondly, the additional cost of using Secured by Design standards in the average home is modest, estimated at only around £170 per property, yet, as I have already indicated, these are changes that make a real difference to the risk of burglary and criminal damage.

Thirdly, it is estimated that in one year alone, some 700,000 burglaries have the potential to be thwarted if appropriate security devices are installed—representing an annual saving of more than £1.97 billion. Fourthly, the Association of British Insurers has estimated that the introduction of Secured by Design standards across the UK would bring more than £3.2 billion-worth of savings to the economy over 20 years. Finally, householders who are not offered security recommendations after a burglary are 69% more likely to suffer a repeat incident than those who are offered advice. Therefore, the lesson is that the Secured by Design initiative has made a real difference. This is a success story that is widely copied and cited internationally, and it is the subject of many academic studies testifying to its efficacy.

What is the Government’s approach to something that clearly makes a difference and clearly works? It is the old, traditional approach of, “If it ain’t broke, take it to pieces anyway”. I appreciate that the Minister is not responsible for the activities of the Department for Communities and Local Government, but we are always assured that government is a seamless whole, working together in the interests of the people of this country.

The Department for Communities and Local Government issued a consultation document seeking views on its recent review of building regulations and housing standards. The proposals put forward by the department suggested a two-tiered standard of security: a basic minimum level that would be generally required and a so-called “enhanced” standard. The basic standard is demonstrably inadequate and has been shown to have little security benefit. Yes, that basic standard might specify stronger locks; but if it does not say anything about the flimsiness of the doors, you may have a nice, firm lock, but the door will burst open with one firm kick while the lock remains in place. That does not do much for security, though it may please the lock-makers.

Even the so-called “enhanced” standard would be lower than the existing Secured by Design standards. It is most significant that that could be required by local authorities only where what is described as a “compelling” case exists for the higher standard to be the norm. In legal terms, “compelling” is a strong test to meet. To make a compelling case, a local authority would have to demonstrate that the development would be subject to an elevated rate of burglary—you will be expected to be able to demonstrate that before the building is even built. Moreover, you will have to determine that there will be a higher than normal impact of burglary on tenants even before a property is let.

That is nonsense. It goes without saying that this test will be almost impossible to pass in respect of a new development. As the test has to be applied site by site, it is not even clear that it will simplify matters for developers; it is likely to produce confusion and added uncertainties for them, because when they submit a proposal they will not know whether the authority will attempt to apply the enhanced standard.

As I said, the enhanced standard will not be as beneficial as the proven Secured by Design guidelines. It will not be open to a local authority to require the proven Secured by Design guidelines, even if it wishes to do so; and to apply even the so-called “enhanced” standards, it will have to go through a complicated process to demonstrate the compelling case required by the Department for Communities and Local Government, with all the implicit threats of legal action that that entails.

This is the antithesis of localism. In my naivety, I assumed that the Department for Communities and Local Government was supposed to promote localism. If this is promoting localism, it is a very strange way of doing it, because it removes from local authorities the power to set what they regard as the most appropriate standards in their area. In practice, it is a centrally driven dumbing down of standards: the Department for Communities and Local Government is dumbing down the standards of security that must be met by new developments. That is putting communities and householders at greater risk; it is putting at risk progress in reducing crime, especially burglary.

When the Minister responds, will he tell me where the demand is for this dumbing down? Who is it—apart from the burgling fraternity, obviously—saying, “We want lesser security”? I am not aware of this great demand. What representations were received by the Department for Communities and Local Government before it made these proposals? Did it consult the Home Office? If it did, what did the Home Office say? Did it say, “Yes, please, Department for Communities and Local Government; undermine all the work we have been doing to reduce crime for the past 20 years by removing these requirements for better security in the home”? Did it listen to local authorities? Did it listen to the communities affected and those who would have to live in ill-secured properties?

This has all been put forward as a simplification of the planning process. It has been suggested that, somehow, Secured by Design standards have been the cause of stalled developments. Could we be given an example of a development that has stalled because of the requirement to have Secured by Design standards? I rather suspect that no such development exists.

If there has been any communication centrally to say that these standards ought to be lessened or lifted, it has probably been produced by some intern working for one of the groups of housebuilders, who has drawn up a list of all the regulatory requirements that they are subject to and said, “We don’t like them”. Where is the evidence that there is a real problem? What world do the officials and Ministers who support this measure live in? Have any of them had to live in an area blighted by excessive crime that is facilitated by poor design and inadequate security standards? These things make a real difference to people’s lives. They are the sort of thing that the rest of the Bill is about.

If we believe in localism, local authorities should be able to choose the level of security standards that they consider appropriate for the communities that they represent. That is the whole principle. Local residents elect their local councillors to protect their local interests and to make local determinations of policy. So what is the problem that Ministers think that they will solve by preventing that local, democratic discretion? What this risks is that progress made over the past two decades in designing out crime, reducing burglary and making anti-social behaviour harder will be put into reverse. This is, in short, an act of vandalism—anti-social behaviour of the worst sort.

The measure also risks adding to the costs of the criminal justice system. Indeed, if we throw away the advantage that designing out crime has given us, how will our communities cope in the future, with a diminished police force and neighbourhood policing no more than a distant memory, while the threat of crime, as the Times reports today, rises again? Who benefits from this short-sighted policy? Obviously burglars do, and maybe developers who will see a modest increase in their profits. But yet again we seem to have a Government who neglect the many in favour of a privileged few—in this case, burglars.

That is why I tabled this amendment. It requires the Home Secretary to ask the Association of Chief Police Officers or a successor body to draw up Secured by Design guidelines. It requires that those guidelines are produced following consultation with local authorities, builders and developers, and it gives local planning authorities the option of making the following of these guidelines a condition of any planning permission that they make. It is a localist and permissive power.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is—thankfully—not in his place today. He put forward an amendment that I assume will not be moved, which is a wrecking amendment. It would render the guidelines voluntary for the developers. I am not sure what purpose he had, although no doubt he would have explained it to us at some length had he been given the opportunity. But my amendment gives the Government the opportunity to think again. It allows them to put prevention first. Surely protecting people against crime is an investment—better than facing the spiralling costs of enforcement while waiting for the unproven measures envisaged in the Bill. It allows the Government to put localism first. If local elected councillors choose to prioritise Secured by Design, they will be able to with the amendment. If they choose not to, that, too, is their prerogative. If local people want higher security standards, they will elect local councillors accordingly. My amendment is all about localism, crime prevention and better security for communities. I beg to move.

Amendment 56AZA (to Amendment 56A) not moved.

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I need to declare a new interest to the House that has happened in the past year. I am one of the patrons of Neighbourhood Watch and Home Watch. At an awards ceremony for that organisation, I spoke on the same platform as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. I will make a simple point. As a chief police officer, I lost count of the numbers of Secretaries of State and Police Ministers I stood next to on platforms who supported Secured by Design. Therefore, it seems rather odd that a Government have come forward to remove something that has clearly appeared successful to politicians of all parties.

Secondly—I will keep this brief—as I understand it, the assessment of whether an enhanced standard is needed will be based on crime maps—that wonderful invention that both parties have claimed over the years. If this is a development on a brown site, there will not be any crime. Therefore, the brown site will be built with the lowest possible standard. This does not seem very sensible. I urge the Government to look again at supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, which puts back that which does not need to be lost.

15:45

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for missing the first moment or two of debate on this amendment. As one of the Ministers who went round the countryside talking about the importance of Secured by Design, I merely say quietly to the Minister that there is a great deal to be said for any actions which mean that you get started right. So much of what we do is retro-fit. It is being faced with a difficult situation and saying: “What the blazes do we do; how do we actually sort this out?”.

The point about this concept is that you start off right, and say from the very beginning: “Would we not do better if we organised things so that it was more difficult for people to find themselves in a vulnerable position, and more difficult for those who wish to be criminals actually to be criminals?”. My reason for speaking is this: I look round the House and it is probably true that there is a high proportion of us who were lucky enough to have been brought up in circumstances where our environments encouraged us to behave properly. That may not be true of everybody, but of an awful lot of us. The older I get, the clearer I become that the environmental effects upon children and young people are really important.

This is just one aspect of it—a tiny, but very important one. I hope that the Government will think carefully about this. I will not indulge in the discussion about interns writing lists of things, but it is not true that this is a burden. It is what any sensible developer ought to do without any question. It is the natural way of developing today. I say that and declare an interest because I advise a number of developers, trying to make them do these things in any case, so I know perfectly well that this is what they would normally do. I hope that the Government will think very hard before this is removed from what ought to be the natural way of things.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I feel slightly like the meat in the middle of a robust sandwich, because I am afraid that I shall voice a slightly different view. In addition to my declared interests in connection with the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils, I am also a chartered surveyor in private practice. To some extent I become involved with issues of design, and although I am not any sort of specialist security consultant, security becomes a necessary part of that.

I re-read with some interest what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said on Second Reading. I hope that I listened with sufficient care to what he has just said, but while not actually disagreeing with any of the ingredients that he set out, I would voice a word of caution about his conclusions. First, it must be said that this is about a commercial initiative of the Association of Chief Police Officers, or rather a subsidiary company of ACPO. It is an accreditation-based approach in which, as I understand it, Secured by Design would become the accreditation body and would set the standards. As I see it, this amendment paves the way to giving this statutory backing. The question is: do the Committee think that that is appropriate or that it is proof against later mission creep?

Secondly, I asked a building control officer of my acquaintance, quite a senior man who goes around lecturing on these matters, what he thought about Secured by Design as a necessary ingredient in building control and planning matters. He did not think that security should be singled out as a category for statutory treatment, or that the regulatory burdens should in some way be increased thereby. That said, I feel sure that, where it is necessary and desirable to do so, developers and others will be pleased to adopt Secured by Design standards on a voluntary basis and as a marketing tool. That is entirely fair.

Residents also need in the context of their built environment, whether it is Secured by Design or not, themselves to be vigilant and to take reasonable steps to ensure that the opportunities for criminal activity against their homes and belongings in a residential setting are minimised. That is inevitably a movable feast. There might be a perverse incentive here. If people feel that Secured by Design somehow gives a warranty or guarantee or underpins a relatively crime-free environment, they may tend to forget those things. I think that getting people better in tune with the real risks, bearing in mind that this is a movable feast and that criminal activity is always changing and evolving, might be a better incentive. I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who first raised this issue at Second Reading. It can sometimes be difficult across government to see how the actions of one department impact on another. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that the reason that the amendment is before us today is that Secured by Design is in great danger of being totally undermined by the action of the Department for Communities and Local Government. There seems to be a holy grail of deregulation, to see what we can pull out of regulation, without making a proper assessment of where regulation is good or bad, of what is its impact.

Secured by Design is there to protect people in their homes. One of the non-violent crimes that causes the most distress to anybody is the intrusion into and burglary of one's home. It is not necessarily about theft of items, although they may be things of great personal, sentimental or monetary value; it is the intrusion into one’s home, the place where we expect to be the most safe, but where we suddenly feel the least safe and the most insecure. That is what Secured by Design sought to address.

I have to say: it works. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, mentioned his experience of it. I was looking at some of the case studies of what was done and how much difference it made. Secured by Design case studies are interesting because they show the situation before and after. Prior to the work being undertaken in Nottingham City Council area, a particular estate, Bells Lane and Broxtowe, suffered 227 burglaries. Following the work undertaken by Secured by Design, there was a 42% reduction in the number of burglaries, yet in the city as a whole there was a reduction of just 21%, so it was inevitable that Secured by Design had an impact there.

The Secured by Design estates in West Yorkshire outperformed the region as a whole on burglary of dwellings offences. Between August 2007 and 2008, there were 19,701 burglaries, but only two of those were in Secured by Design properties. Similar research in Glasgow demonstrated that total housebreaking crime fell by 26%, while attempted housebreaking decreased by 59% at properties with new Secured by Design doors and windows. So there is clearly a case that that is extremely effective.

That is what surprised me about the consultation by the Department for Communities and Local Government, which was introduced under housing standards, building regulations, and so on.

The noble Lord is chuntering away to me, but I cannot hear a word he is saying, so he should know that I cannot respond.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I would say it is a consultation.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

It is a consultation but it was in August, and I recall that when we discussed it at Second Reading the Minister seemed to be unaware of the consultation and could not tell us then if the Home Office had responded to the DCLG. It would be helpful if he could say what response the DCLG has had now from the Home Office. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is overstating the issue when he says that the proposals being consulted on—some of us are a bit more sceptical about government consultations perhaps than others these days—undermine the standards currently being met by Secured by Design properties.

It was interesting to see the response from neighbourhood watch, in which the noble Lord, Lord Blair, said he was involved. Since neighbourhood watch arrived 30 years ago, the number of domestic burglaries has fallen sharply, due in no small part to the development of high security standards for locks, doors and windows and the design of open spaces. These kinds of issues have really made a difference.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked who asked for these changes. The noble Lord even mentioned developers. My experience of dealing with developers when I was building regulations Minister was that many of them wanted to see the higher standards. Good developers feel that they will be undercut by bad developers if they want to meet the high standards, whether in security, building regs, the kind of materials they use or environmental works in the home. They find it very difficult to compete with what they would call the cowboys, who do not meet the same high standards. I would find it difficult if developers were asking for this change. I do not think there is a national union of housebreakers in existence yet, so I doubt if it was that. It would be great if the Minister was able to say to us again, “This has been taken off the table. We wish to continue with Secured by Design. We have spoken to the DCLG. It understands our concerns and the necessity for this”. Will he answer the questions raised at Second Reading and today about why this was ever considered, because it is clearly such a ridiculous move?

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, perhaps I could seek some clarification from the noble Baroness. As I understood it, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, moved this amendment in the context of new-build—that was certainly the sense I got. A number of the examples that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has outlined appear to relate to the retrofit of existing buildings. The two are not the same. We have 23 million to 24 million houses in the country, of which new-build is a tiny proportion at any given moment. If we are talking about the application of Secured by Design to existing buildings—in other words, retrofit—how is that going to be affected by this amendment?

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

Perhaps for the convenience of the Committee, I could respond very quickly. My amendment is couched in respect of planning permissions. If it is simply an alteration to an existing building that does not have a planning impact, obviously it does not apply. The purpose of this amendment—if I get really irritated by the Minister of course I will put it to a vote—is to try to get clarity as to why the Government are making this change and why they are doing something that is so potentially retrograde.

The point that the noble Earl has just made highlights why this is so dangerous. Most of the changes have happened in new buildings or major refurbishments. It is a slow burn. It has taken 20 years for the impact of these changes to be seen and felt. If you stop the higher standards, it will take another five, 10, 15 or 20 years before we see the consequences and the sorts of problems that used to exist in many estates and developments 20 or 30 years ago, which I am sure many of your Lordships will remember. That is why it is so important. Making the change now will not have an immediate effect in three months’, six months’ or 12 months’ time but it will have an effect over the next five, 10 or 20 years. That is why this change is so short-sighted.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, to answer the point that the noble Earl made, I gave examples of both retrofit and new-build because it is only through retrofit that we can look at the before and after figures.

16:00

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, whom I do not want to annoy because we have a lot to do today, has brought back something that he raised at Second Reading. If I was unable to respond to him then, I think he will understand that there are no proposals in the Bill about any changes to planning procedures. He is seeking to introduce a new measure which, I hope to demonstrate, rather presumes the consultation.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, should know, that consultation finished on 31 October and the Government are considering their response to it. I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is rather jumping the gun in seeking to impose on the Bill a particular predetermination of that consultation in advance of the Government coming back on it. However, we can all agree on the important role that design and security measures can play in helping to prevent crime—I agree with my noble friend Lord Deben on that—and I am grateful for the opportunity that this debate gives me to explain how the Government are going about it.

In England, the police have for many years successfully worked to prevent crime and anti-social behaviour through their close engagement with developers and builders, and local planning authorities. Working alongside them from the very earliest stages of the design process, they offer specialist advice on the measures which can prevent crime and anti-social behaviour. The guidance on which they base their advice is shaped by the central police crime prevention management service—the Association of Chief Police Officers’ Crime Prevention Initiatives Ltd—and promoted under the corporate title Secured by Design. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, says, Secured by Design is a well respected brand that, among other things, provides guidance on the layout and design of developments, and on security standards. I agree with him that involving the police in shaping places and setting standards for secure buildings has been worthwhile and has undoubtedly served to prevent many crimes.

However, I disagree with his call to legislate to designate a body of police leaders and then to charge it with publishing guidelines about the measures to be included in each type of development. On a practical level, the police are already doing this and will continue to do so. It is right that they are reviewing the standards for building security. Over the years these have grown considerably in number, making a review sensible, but the police do not need a statutory duty to do this. In addition, Crime Prevention Initiatives Ltd, through Secured by Design, already works closely with standards test houses, manufacturers and, increasingly, with building developers. I am not persuaded that we should seek to prescribe its working model in legislation, as subsection (3) of the proposed new clause seeks to do.

Subsection (4) of the proposed new clause seeks to define the way in which the police guidance is used by local planning authorities. The reforms we in Parliament have made to the planning system continue to place safety and crime prevention as a key part of sustainable development. The National Planning Policy Framework—your Lordships have been in this Chamber when listening to discussions on that document—promotes the design of places that are safe and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion, so I am at one with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, on this issue.

The recently published draft planning practice guidance, which supports national planning policy, covers safety, crime, anti-social behaviour and counterterrorism. It continues to highlight the importance of engagement with crime prevention design advisers and counterterrorism security advisers at local level.

Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked what discussions there have been between DCLG and the Home Office. The noble Lord will be fully aware—that is why I am confident about replying on behalf of the Government even though my department is the Home Office and not DCLG—of the principle of collective responsibility. While DCLG takes the lead in consulting on changes to planning guidelines, these are government proposals and of course the Home Office has had discussions with DCLG on this and other issues. Councils will continue to be able to consider the locations and layouts of sites and proposals when drawing up local plans and deciding on individual applications. They do not need a further statutory duty to do this.

Turning to perhaps the most complex area—the review of housing standards, to which the noble Lord referred at Second Reading and again today—the review process is holistic, taking into account all standards applying to housing. The review is intended to make it simpler for local authorities to apply the right standards. Security is seen as one of those core standards; we want it to be an integral part of development at the right level where local authorities believe that this is necessary. That is the way we have consulted on proposals for national standards and we continue to work with ACPO—and Secured by Design, for that matter—to evaluate the best way forward.

The Government are currently working through the recent housing standards review to simplify the way in which technical standards such as those in Section 2 of the Secured by Design standards are used in new housing developments. Proposals on the recent consultation—about which I recently made a mistake: I said 31 October but it was actually 27 October and I apologise to the Committee for that error—explored how a national security standard could be introduced for the first time. The proposed standard includes two possible levels of specification, with the higher level intended to mirror the current standards in Section 2 of Secured by Design. The intention is not to weaken these standards but to ensure that households adopting the higher specification will benefit from the same level of protection as they do now.

A range of options for implementation have been proposed, including possible integration of these standards into the building regulations or allowing local authorities to retain discretion in requiring higher standards of security—as they do now—providing that there is suitable evidence of need, and that the viability of development is not unduly affected by such a requirement. These are matters on which the consultation sought views and which we are now analysing.

The fact that security is one of only four areas in which the Government are considering national standards amply demonstrates the importance of this issue, and underlines our continuing commitment to ensure that new homes are built from the outset with measures in place that we know will significantly reduce households’ vulnerability to burglary in particular.

However, moving from the current position to one where national standards are adopted brings with it some complexity. By necessity, this includes reassessing the way in which compliance can be most effectively delivered. The Government will be looking at responses to the consultation over coming weeks in deciding how to proceed; officials remain in regular dialogue with those supporting the national policing lead for crime prevention and representatives of Secured by Design. However, it would be wrong for me to pre-empt the outcome of the review at this time. I believe it would be wrong for this Committee to seek to pre-empt the outcome of that review at this time. For the reasons that I have outlined, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Blair of Boughton and Lord Deben, and my noble friend Lady Smith for their support for the intention of this amendment. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, made—that this is what sensible developers ought to do—is absolutely right. The problem is whether in circumstances where there is pressure on costs all developers will be so sensible.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, raised the legal status of ACPO, which I know is a matter of concern in a number of quarters, including the Home Office. This amendment does not specifically refer to Secured by Design or to the Association of Chief Police Officers. I did as shorthand, but I am aware that there are a lot of discussions going on at the moment about the future of ACPO and, going forward, whether any agglomeration of chief police officers should be in the form of a limited company will have to be revisited. The fact that it is a commercial initiative, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, rather disparagingly called it, does not alter the principle. The principle is that there needs to be a system of best practice that is duly recognised and takes note of the policing experience in reducing crime in a particular area.

This amendment does not refer just to housing. It also refers to developments such as schools, play areas and so on. It is about building security in at the earliest stage. I remember the very early involvement of the police in the discussions that took place about the building of Wembley Stadium and security in terms not only of counterterrorism but of the safety and everything else of the people using it.

I am grateful to the Minister for responding at length. He pointed out that this is still at consultation stage. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I am not entirely uncynical about many consultations. Many government consultations now have the tone of, “We have decided what we are going to do. We will now allow a minimum period for you to comment on it, and then we will go ahead with it anyway”. However, let me be positive and assume that this is a genuine consultation—a genuine invitation with an open mind, which I think is the phraseology used in legal cases about consultation—to seek advice.

The advice that I am giving and that many others have given is that these proposals do not work. The Minister said that this is a new clause and is not in the Bill. That is exactly my problem with the Bill. It talks about anti-social behaviour and reducing crime. Here is something that is potentially going to make crime worse, and it is not in the Bill. That is why I have tried to introduce it into the Bill. The timing is extremely beneficial in that, assuming that the Government genuinely have an open mind on these matters, they have the opportunity of reading what is said in Committee today and considering further. I hope that the Minister will take it across to his counterparts in the Department for Communities and Local Government who might not otherwise be studying the Hansard of this debate quite so avidly.

The Minister said that he agrees about the importance of involving the police at an earlier stage. My understanding of the DCLG document—which is albeit just out for consultation at the moment, although the Government have had more than four weeks to consider the results of that consultation—is that the effect of the Government’s proposals is that it would not be open to a local authority to specify standards that go beyond the minimum or enhanced standards specified. You can have a local authority, locally elected, that says, “We would really like to go along with the Secured by Design standards, but we are not allowed to because we have to go along with either the basic level or the enhanced level”. The enhanced level is not the equivalent of the Secured by Design standard; it is a lower standard in practice.

Will the Minister tell us whether or not we will know the outcome of the Government’s consideration on this point before we come back to the Bill on Report? If this is not going to be possible, will we know the outcome of the consultation before Third Reading? If the Government go ahead with these changes, will Parliament have any right to intervene before they are made?

16:15

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The timing of the legislative programme is not in my hands, so I cannot give the noble Lord a clear response on that. Parliament seems to have a way of raising these issues, even if the Bill does not include a proposal from the Government in this context. Noble Lords are quite capable of raising issues at any point and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, gives a perfect example of how Parliament can be used.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I am grateful to the Minister for addressing the question, but I am not sure that he answered the question, which was whether we would know the outcome of the consultation by the time the Bill reaches Report and Third Reading. If he is saying that the usual channels may decide either to accelerate the Bill—they have done very well so far—or that it is going off into the distant future, then that is a different matter. If he were to give an indication of the date when the consultation will be responded to by Government and government policy becomes clear, that would help us understand whether or not we will be able to return to it in the course of the Bill.

I suspect the Minister’s silence suggests that he does not have the information to hand. Perhaps he could write to me so that I am aware of the timetable for this. If security is a core standard, why will local authorities not be able to go to the higher standard? It would be helpful if the Minister could give us an assurance that they will be able to choose their standard and are not obliged to follow either the basic or so-called enhanced rate. In the hope that the Minister will enlighten us on some of these points between now and Report, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 56A withdrawn.

Clause 86: New ground for serious offences or breach of requirements etc

Amendment 56AA

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

56AA: Clause 86, page 52, line 37, after “met” insert “and that such an order is proportionate”

[Baroness Hamwee]

Part 5 of the Bill is about recovery of possession of dwelling-houses on grounds of anti-social behaviour. This amendment—and others in this group in my name—proposes that the court’s response should be proportionate and that this should be written into the legislation. I very much support the thrust of the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Loan and Lady Young, which are more oppositionist than mine.

The draft guidance on the purpose of the new absolute—I emphasise that word—ground for possession says that it is,

“intended for the most serious cases of anti-social behaviour and landlords should ensure that the ground is used selectively.”

So it is an absolute ground but is to be used selectively. I am very uncomfortable with that. If it is to be used selectively, the legislation should make it clear that the absolute ground is not an absolute ground to be applied in every instance. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, which made this point in relation to exclusion from dwelling houses under other clauses, takes the view that reliance on the Human Rights Act, which the Government have prayed in aid, is not satisfactory when Parliament has the opportunity, as we do here, to define the test in the legislation.

Another group of amendments seeks to leave out the term “visiting” so that possession could not be sought on the basis of behaviour by someone who is visiting premises. Can the Minister be specific as to what may or may not be proportionate to fulfil the conditions in the grounds for possession of properties under various tenures—that is, possession of somebody else’s home—when the visitor may not even be a regular and frequent visitor but an occasional one? I would not be persuaded that the fact that someone was a regular and frequent visitor and behaved badly should be grounds for possession.

Amendment 56AE is a small amendment on the regulations about reviewing the requirements. Sometimes whether something “may” or “shall” be provided seems to be a matter of how you feel on the day and how the wind is blowing. I have always had a problem with understanding the term “may in particular” if it means that you must do something. Frankly, some of the Bill is hard enough without it being elliptical.

My noble friend Lord Greaves has tabled a number of amendments to these provisions, to which I will speak briefly. He seeks to change the term “locality” to “vicinity” and asks whether the term “locality” means the same as where it is used elsewhere in the legislation—for instance, with public spaces protection orders—and whether it is wider or narrower than “neighbourhood”. Of course, in any event, how appropriate is it here? His Amendments 56ACA and 56ABA on Clause 86 deal with conditions surrounding a breach of an IPNA which is not in the dwelling house or its locality, but which is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a resident or occupant of housing in the locality or to the landlord or manager. Therefore, as my noble friend says, something that could annoy outside the locality would fulfil the condition and allow possession to be obtained, and a person on his own with nobody else in sight might fulfil the words in the Bill. There would be considerable evidential problems if the person was on his own and nobody else could see it, but in terms of the strict wording he may be right.

Finally—as far as I am concerned—Amendment 56ADD would leave out Clause 87(8), which directs the tenant who needs help or advice about possession notice to,

“take it immediately to a Citizens’ Advice Bureau, a housing aid centre, a law centre or a solicitor”.

My noble friend queries whether it is appropriate to include a reference to the citizens advice bureaux in legislation. Of course, the very obvious questions here are about willing the ends by suggesting that a tenant should go there to seek help, but not willing the means to do so. I beg to move.

[Baroness Young of Hornsey (CB)]

My Lords, Amendments 56ADC and 56AL are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Loan. As something urgent has come up, I am afraid that my noble friend cannot be here today. Essentially, I tabled these amendments in order to find out a bit more about what the Government see as the implications of Clauses 86 and 89. My understanding of the Government’s case is that they want to speed up the process of evictions from social housing in order to,

“better protect victims in the most serious cases of anti-social behaviour and criminality”.

I am sure that we would all support that.

The DCLG consultation described the proposed new measure on possession as limited to cases of proven,

“serious housing-related anti-social behaviour”,

which suggests that there would be limited application of these clauses rather than using them as a way of increasing the number of evictions. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify this point because only one of the triggers for mandatory possession in this section relates to a conviction for seriously violent crime. The other triggers relate to breaches of injunctions or criminal behaviour orders.

Given the high rate of breaching of ASBOs over the years of approaching 58%—of that figure, another 43% of all ASBOs issued have been breached more than once—there does not seem to be proportionality in these sanctions. Where is the discretion to allow for different circumstances and for the fact that approximately seven in 10 children breach their ASBO, often due to lack of support or organisation rather than calculated non-compliance? It seems that this proposed new power must inevitably lead to a rise in evictions. If this is not the Government’s intention, will the Minister tell the Committee how the Government will prevent such a rise? These clauses could have very severe implications for under-18s. It will affect children who have done nothing wrong but who have had the bad luck to share a dwelling with somebody who has. The clauses could also be deemed detrimental to the children and young people who do breach or offend.

I am concerned in particular that children will suffer. There do not appear to be many, or any, safeguards. Therefore children will suffer due to the impact of, potentially, one person’s behaviour, especially as a family evicted on these grounds may be deemed to have made themselves intentionally homeless—that is, of course, what the amendment seeks to address—and are thus unlikely to be rehoused in comparable accommodation in their neighbourhood. How does this sanction address the underlying causes of anti-social behaviour? Surely making a whole family homeless due to the behaviour of one family member, or indeed a visitor, is both a both a double punishment and counterproductive. My understanding is that even if mandatory eviction would not amount to a breach of the human rights convention, it is still a public policy proposal that doubly punishes the most vulnerable families in our society. A mandatory requirement for the judge to order possession removes all but the bare minimum of judicial discretion in deciding whether or not an individual or a family is to be evicted.

Can the Minister explain how it is desirable that by the simple act of having a visitor in a dwelling place, a family might be made homeless? How is someone supposed to know that a visitor has breached an ASBO? How will these clauses be policed and monitored? I am particularly concerned that care leavers, who may be helped through the allocation of a local authority flat when they leave care, often find it difficult to prevent local drug dealers or other undesirable elements subject to ASBOs entering their property and sometimes settling in for a long stay. What would the consequences be for a young person in this position who felt bullied into providing accommodation for someone in breach of an ASBO?

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will be very careful about not accepting the amendment for a very important reason. The noble Baroness talked about the most vulnerable people in society. From my experience as a Member of Parliament, the most vulnerable people I ever came across were decent families whose whole lives had been made totally unacceptable by their neighbours. I am afraid it is one of the facts of life that up till now no measures have been introduced that have dealt with this issue. Unless these measures are very serious, these people will go on suffering, not just for a year or two but very often for whole lifetime. The situation is remarkably regular; it is not one of those things that happens occasionally. Indeed, I fear that it has become more likely today than it was when I first started being a Member of Parliament 40 years ago.

16:30

This particular part of the Bill will be received with considerable support by those most concerned about the most vulnerable—people who cannot defend themselves and are subject to years of abuse by neighbours who seem unable to take account of all the legislation that we have had. ASBOs and the like, as the noble Baroness said, are very often ignored, and we have no other way in which to deal with this. So I hope that we recognise that we have to be tougher than we would normally like to be. I say that as someone who does not have a reputation in this House for being overly tough. If you have not seen the state to which some people’s lives are driven by these sorts of neighbours, you really do not understand why this measure is so terribly important.

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

I endorse what my noble friend said about the need to protect those who are the victims of anti-social behaviour. Very often they are just the sort of people who are held up as being vulnerable to the effects of the provisions in the Bill. From my experience of a barrister practising for public authorities, I add the observation that it has become quite a regular feature of litigation that public authorities are sued for failing to take sufficient steps to protect those who are the victims of anti-social behaviour. The Bill will at least provide some form of additional power to give an answer to those sorts of claims.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments with which we are associated relate to Clauses 86 and 89 and whether they should remain in the Bill in their present form. We also wait with considerable interest to hear the Government’s response to the different points that have already been made in the debate on this group of amendments.

As the government documentation on the Bill indicates, the existing grounds for possession for anti-social behaviour are discretionary and require the county court, on application from the landlord for possession on an anti-social behaviour ground, to decide that the ground is made out and that it is reasonable to grant possession. The Government say that it takes on average seven months to get an outcome from the courts in anti-social behaviour possession cases, and that the existing discretionary grounds apply only to anti-social behaviour and criminality in, or in the locality of, the property. Indeed, in the light of the riots two and a half years ago, the Government are also proposing later in the Bill to extend the scope of the discretionary ground so that landlords can seek to evict a tenant who adversely affects the lives of those in neighbouring communities through rioting and looting, or who attacks or threatens landlords’ staff away from their homes.

The purpose of the new absolute ground for possession, say the Government, is to speed up the possession process in cases where anti-social behaviour or criminality has already been proven by another court. The Government’s draft guidance states that the court must grant possession subject to any available human rights defence, provided that set procedures have been followed. In addition, the court’s discretion to suspend possession will be limited to no later than 14 days, or six weeks in exceptional circumstances.

It is worth reflecting on the conditions that have to be met for a grant of possession; at least one of them has to be met. The first is that a tenant, a member of the tenant’s household or a person visiting the property, has been convicted of a serious offence. The second is that the tenant, a member of the tenant’s household or a person visiting the property has been found by a court to have breached an injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance—in other words, an IPNA. The third is that the tenant, a member of the tenant’s household or a person visiting the property has been convicted of breaching a criminal behaviour order. The fourth is that a tenant’s property has been closed for more than 48 hours under a closure order for anti-social behaviour. The last is that a tenant, a member of the tenant’s household or a person visiting the property has been convicted of breaching a noise abatement notice order.

These powers have potentially significant effects. Will the Minister say—this question has already been asked—whether the number of evictions is expected to increase as a result of these provisions, particularly in the light of the Government’s implied comments about the deterrent effect of the current length of eviction proceedings on landlords taking action? These would seem to imply that an increase in evictions is likely if the length of time to complete court proceedings is reduced.

Will the Minister confirm what will happen to those families who are evicted, including any children or elderly or disabled people? Who, or which body if any, will have responsibility for finding accommodation for such families who become homeless as a result? Alternatively, will such families simply be left to their own devices, even if that means being on the streets, on the basis that they will be deemed to have made themselves—including any women, children, elderly or disabled people—intentionally homeless?

As I understand it, the power to evict under Part 5 relates to those in social housing and to those in assured tenancies in the private sector. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case? The power to evict does not appear to apply to owner occupiers, including those living in a mortgaged house who might well have secured their mortgage under a state-backed scheme that is ultimately supported by all taxpayers, including by those in rented accommodation. To that extent, it does not appear that there is equality of treatment for victims irrespective of tenure. It would appear that under the Government’s Bill, which is intended to put victims first, a victim who lives in social housing and has had their life made a misery by a person or persons in a nearby owner-occupied property does not have eviction available as a possible solution—unlike a victim who lives in their own home and has had their life made a misery by a person or persons living in social housing or an assured tenancy.

If the Government’s intention is to put the victim first, why are there apparently two classes of victim, one for whom eviction of the perpetrator and their family is a possible solution, and another for whom it is not a possible solution and for whom there is no alternative additional sanction available? Will the Minister address this point? If I am right, will he confirm that the Government nevertheless regard this as totally fair and just, when there do appear to be two classes of victim?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

My Lords, Clauses 86 to 88 introduce a new absolute ground for possession for anti-social behaviour for secure tenancies generally—local authority tenants and some tenants of other social landlords in secure tenancies. Clause 89 makes equivalent provision for assured tenancies, which applies to housing association tenants or tenants in the private rented sector. This is about possessions of tenanted property. It is not designed to address owner occupiers, because they are not tenants. They are under a different form of possession.

[Lord Rosser]

Does the Minister not accept that that in itself means that there are two classes of victim? If you are a victim in an owner-occupied property, having your life made a misery by somebody in a rented property, eviction is a possible solution. However if you are living in a rented property, whether under a social or an assured tenancy, having your life made a misery by someone in an owner-occupied property, eviction is not a possible solution. Does that not mean that under the Bill there are two classes of victim?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

No, under the Bill there are two categories of housing occupation. It is perfectly possible for someone living next door to an owner occupier who is being anti-social to use any of the other measures in this Bill. Eviction is not one that is currently open to the courts, but there are plenty of other measures. That is one of the reasons why we have discussed things such as the community trigger, about which the noble Lord asked me a lot of questions on the previous occasion the Committee met. Existing grounds for possession—

[Lord Rosser]

I do not want to put words in the Minister’s mouth, but I think he is agreeing with me that there are two different classes of victim. There is different treatment. If you are a victim living in an owner-occupied property having your life made a misery by somebody in rented accommodation, eviction is a possible solution. However, if it is the other way round and you are a victim living in rented property, whether social housing or an assured tenancy, and your life is being made a misery by somebody in an owner-occupied property, eviction is not a solution. I am asking the Minister not to tell me what is in the Bill but simply to agree that it creates two different classes of victim.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think the noble Lord is being disingenuous on this point. There has never been a power of possession applied to owner occupiers in such cases as there is no landlord-owned property to possess; it is the property of the person living in the house. We have already debated the mechanisms whereby that sort of anti-social behaviour is dealt with both by individuals who might consider themselves victims and by authorities whose job it is to enforce those mechanisms. I do not accept the premise behind the noble Lord’s question.

Existing grounds for possession for anti-social behaviour under the Housing Act 1985 are discretionary. This means that the court may grant possession only if the ground is made out and it considers it reasonable to do so. In practice, this means that a significant amount of time is required for the court to consider the matter, leading to extensive delays. This prolongs the suffering of the victims who have to continue living next door to the perpetrators. Indeed, the evidence we have suggests that it can take an average of some seven months from application to the grant of a possession order, as the noble Lord said. The provisions in these clauses seek to short-circuit that process by removing the requirement on the landlords to prove to the court that it is reasonable to grant a possession order where criminal or anti-social behaviour has already been proven in another court.

Under the new absolute ground, the court will be required to grant possession, subject to any human rights defence, if any one of five conditions is met. These all relate to anti-social or criminal behaviour. The offence or anti-social conduct must have been committed in the tenant’s property or in the locality of the property, affected a person with a right to live in the locality, or affected the landlord or a person employed in connection with the landlord’s housing management functions. I would like to emphasise that it is not our intention or belief that the new absolute ground will increase the number of evictions for anti-social behaviour. The available evidence shows that eviction for anti-social behaviour is an exceptional course of action. There are, on average, some 2,000 each year in the context of 4 million social homes in England. Overwhelmingly, landlords look to alternative remedies and tools to address the anti-social behaviour and its causes before resorting to possession proceedings. However, where landlords do seek eviction, it will avoid duplication and delay in the process.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, was concerned that these new arrangements might lead to an increased number of evictions. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked about that. I wish to cite a few examples from evidence that was given to the House of Commons. Angela Mawdsley, Anti-Social Behaviour Manager at Leeds City Council, said:

“It takes a significant period of time to get possession orders through the court. For a lot of these crimes or offences, we would be looking to take possession action anyway, so I do not think it will increase the amount of possession action that we take. I agree with my colleague that it is about the amount of time it is taking to get through the court, and it is very difficult to keep witnesses on board while a court case goes on for more than 12 months”.—[Official Report, Commons, Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill Committee, 18/6/13; col. 32.]

Chris Grose, anti-social behaviour adviser and senior consultant at the Chartered Institute of Housing, said that,

“although we see the proposed absolute ground for possession, we do not necessarily see that there will be a lot more evictions. As I said before, we are really good at nipping things in the bud and getting in there early with early intervention work”—[Official Report, Commons, Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill Committee, 18/6/13; col. 31.]

People want to sustain their property. These are just the points that have been made by my noble friend Lord Deben.

16:45

I will address the specific amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. Amendment 56AA and Amendment 56AG seek to amend the provisions of Clause 86(1) and Clause 89(1) to make explicit that, when the court is considering whether or not to grant possession under the absolute ground, it may do so only where it considers this to be proportionate. We have been here before in Part 1 and Part 4 of this Bill. I do not think these amendments are necessary. The Bill already provides that the granting of a possession order by the court under the new absolute ground is subject,

“to any available defence, based on the tenant’s Convention rights, within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998”.

It is clear, therefore, that the tenants of public authorities will be able to raise proportionality under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention. It means that public authority landlords will need to consider carefully which cases to bring under the absolute ground. As we have made clear in the draft guidance, we expect it to be used selectively for serious anti-social behaviour only.

My noble friend went on to speak to Amendments 56AB, AC, AD, AH, AJ and AK—the first ones relating to secure tenants and the others to assured tenants. These seek to amend three of the conditions that must be met for a court to grant possession under the absolute ground so that the anti-social behaviour of a visitor to a property could not be considered. These amendments would mean that the absolute ground could be used only when the anti-social or criminal behaviour was done by the tenant or by a member of the household. The provisions for the absolute ground are in line with existing grounds for possession. They make clear that tenants are responsible for the anti-social behaviour of visitors to their property as well as that of members of the household. This is a well established principle, based on the fact that, in practice, there is sometimes very little that differentiates a regular visitor to a property from a resident. Landlords have indicated that excluding the anti-social behaviour of visitors from the absolute ground is unhelpful when they are seeking to take action against persistent, serious anti-social behaviour by those who spend much of their time at the property, but where it is not clear whether or not they are strictly members of the household. We would not expect a landlord to seek possession as the result of the behaviour of an occasional visitor. It is important to remember that public authorities will need to ensure that any decisions they make to bring possession proceedings under the absolute ground are proportionate.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee spoke to a number of amendments which were tabled by my noble friend Lord Greaves—Amendments 56ABA, 56ABB, 56ACA, 56ADZA, 56AH, 56AHA, 56AHB, 56AJA, 56AJB, 56AKA and 56AKB. The amendments seek to amend the first, second and third conditions so that the anti-social behaviour must have taken place in the vicinity of the property instead of the locality. I do not think that these amendments will improve the Bill. “Locality” is a well established term in local housing law. Existing provisions for possession under anti-social behaviour require the anti-social behaviour to have taken place in the locality of the property. Landlords and the courts are therefore familiar with this term and its meaning in housing actions. The amendments would simply reinvent the wheel and create new confusion over what area is covered by the term “vicinity”. In addition, they would create inconsistency with existing possession provisions, which are based on the offence being committed in the “locality” of the property.

The term “locality” in this context dates back to the Housing Act 1996. Parliament preferred it then as suggesting a wider geographical area than “vicinity”, while still maintaining the link between the tenant’s behaviour and the area in which they live. Vicinity might, for example, capture just close neighbours, while locality could capture the impact of a tenant’s behaviour on an estate more widely. I think that that argument still holds good today.

My noble friend also spoke to Amendments 56ACB and 56ACC. These amendments seek to amend Clause 86 by redefining the second condition for the absolute ground; namely, that an injunction to prevent nuisance or annoyance has been breached. The amendments would mean that this would relate to conduct,

“intended or likely to cause”,

nuisance or annoyance instead of “capable of causing” as currently drafted. Given that this provision relates to the injunction under Part 1, it is essential that the definition here mirrors the test for the issuing of the injunction. We have already debated in detail the test for the injunction and it will be no surprise that I believe that the language of the IPNA test should be retained here.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee spoke to amendments which would mean that tenants evicted under the new absolute ground would not be considered to have made themselves intentionally homeless. I am afraid that I believe these amendments are misconceived. They imply that tenants evicted for anti-social behaviour are the innocent victims of circumstances when quite the reverse is the case. The type of tenant that we would expect to be evicted under this new ground would be someone who, as described by my noble friend Lord Deben, had been given many chances to change their behaviour, on the understanding that failing to do so could result in their being evicted, but had repeatedly refused to do so, choosing instead to keep making their neighbours’ lives a misery.

Quite properly, the decision on whether someone is intentionally homeless rests with the local authority. I see no good reason for creating special rules in relation to the absolute ground which do not apply in relation to the existing discretionary grounds for possession.

I assure my noble friend that, in making decisions about whether an applicant for homeless assistance is intentionally homeless, local authorities must be satisfied that the act or omission that led to homelessness was deliberate. Applicants must always be given the opportunity to explain such behaviour. Therefore, they will look not simply at the fact of the eviction alone but at what led to this action and take that into account.

In addition, where tenants have been evicted for anti-social behaviour and have been found to be intentionally homeless but are in priority need—for example, because they have children—the local authority has a duty to provide temporary accommodation for such time as to allow them a reasonable opportunity to find their own alternative accommodation. This is typically for 28 days but it could be longer depending on the circumstances.

I now turn to Clause 87, which ensures that tenants are given adequate notice of the landlord’s intention to take action to seek possession, are told the reasons why possession is being sought and are informed of how they can access advice. It relates to tenants with secure tenancies. Clause 89 introduces corresponding notice requirements for possession of assured tenancies under the new absolute ground. Amendment 56ADD, in the name of my noble friend Lord Greaves, seeks to remove the requirement that the tenant receives information about where advice can be sought. I believe that this is an important safeguard to ensure that the tenant is given every opportunity to get necessary help and advice about the landlord’s action.

My noble friend also spoke to Amendment 56AE, which relates to Clause 88. This clause provides tenants of local authorities with a right to seek a review of any decision by the landlord to seek possession on the new ground. That is a sensible safeguard for the tenant, which will not introduce undue delay because of the timescales specified. The amendment would require that the matters my noble friend sets out are included in regulations made in respect of such reviews. I assure my noble friend that that is unnecessary. We have already published draft regulations, which cover both her points about who should carry out the review and the arrangements for an oral hearing.

Amendment 56AF seeks to prescribe that the regulations should make provision for the landlord to grant the tenancy of the property to another individual. That is entirely unnecessary. Social landlords already can decide to whom they grant new tenancies on properties that become vacant as a result of the previous tenant being evicted, in line with allocation policies locally.

There is no absolute right to social housing or to accommodation in the private sector. Tenants have responsibilities that are enshrined in the terms of the tenancy. They are duty bound to comply with the terms of such agreements and that includes not engaging in crime or anti-social behaviour, particularly where that makes the lives of their neighbours a misery. Where they do engage in such behaviour they have to expect there to be consequences, including, potentially, having their home repossessed. Where a court has already passed judgment—for example, finding a tenant guilty of breach of a criminal behaviour order—the landlord should be able to take swift action to seek repossession. These clauses provide for just that and I commend them to the Committee.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I do not want to go through every amendment again. On the question of the term “locality”, the Minister has explained that there will be confusion if the term used in housing law is not used here and I understand that. My noble friend’s point was that, while that may be the case, there will be confusion if the term is used in the Bill in different places meaning different things, but I will leave that to him to pursue after today.

I was intrigued by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, about local authorities being sued for failing to take steps that were open to them. I wonder whether providing an absolute ground, which the guidance says is to be used selectively, might not cause more difficulties as regards what is open to neighbours to claim. I understand entirely the point about the impact on neighbours—although perhaps I do not understand it entirely, because I am lucky enough not to have suffered from such a degree of unneighbourly activity. Having been a councillor, however, one cannot be unaware of what goes on.

I would be repeating what I said before if I were to comment on the term “proportionate” and the use of discretion, so I will simply beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 56AA withdrawn.

Amendments 56AB to 56ADZA not moved.

Amendments 56ADA and 56ADB

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

56ADA: Clause 86, page 55, line 10, leave out from “instrument” to end of line 16

56ADB: Clause 86, page 55, line 19, at end insert—
“(13) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (10) or (11) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of—
(a) each House of Parliament (in the case of an order of the Secretary of State), or(b) the National Assembly for Wales (in the case of an order of the Welsh Ministers).”

Amendments 56ADA and 56ADB agreed.

Amendment 56ADC not moved.

Clause 86, as amended, agreed.

Schedule 3 agreed.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 5.50 pm.

Energy: Action on Bills

Monday 2nd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Statement

17:00

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.

“With your permission Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the action the Government are taking to reduce the impact of government policies on energy bills.

Even though British households pay some of the lowest prices for gas and electricity in Europe, this is no comfort to those who have seen energy bills rise considerably over the past 10 years. The latest round of price rises announced by the energy companies has been particularly unwelcome coming ahead of what is likely to be a cold winter, and in such circumstances it is right that people ask whether these rises are justified and what the Government are doing to keep energy bills affordable now and in the long term.

The main driver of these energy price rises has been rising wholesale energy costs, and the need to upgrade energy infrastructure to ensure security of supply in the long term. Wholesale and network costs make up more than two-thirds of bills. Supplier costs and profits make up around a fifth. So the energy companies need to be more open about these costs, so that consumers can judge which suppliers are acting responsibly and keeping their costs down.

Working with Ofgem, the Government are making this possible by forcing the energy companies to open up their books and justify price rises to their customers. We are increasing competition in the market to bear down on prices and provide people with a proper choice of supplier and, as I announced in the annual energy statement, Ofgem, working with the competition authorities, will report annually on the state of competition in the market, looking in depth and across the energy sector at profits and prices, barriers to entry and consumer engagement.

Ofgem’s reforms for competition in the retail market are already making it easier for people to understand their bills, work out where they can get the best deal and switch providers easily. But it is also right that the Government are open about our social and environmental policies, which make up just under a tenth of the average bill.

Our polices provide for immediate help for the most vulnerable with direct cuts to bills as well as long-term savings on bills through energy-efficiency programmes and support for low-carbon energy, which boosts energy security and tackles climate change. For example, the warm homes discount cuts the bills of 2 million vulnerable households by £135. The energy companies obligation—the ECO—provides permanent long-term savings on bills, including for the most vulnerable, by helping people upgrade their homes and making them easier and cheaper to keep warm.

Support for cleaner energy increases our energy security and boosts investment in our thriving renewable energy sector, with tens of thousands of green jobs being created. But unlike the winter fuel payment, which provides around 12.5 million pensioners with help with their bills, and cold weather payments, which last year provided more than £146 million to cut bills for the most vulnerable, policies such as the renewables obligation, ECO and the warm homes discount are paid for directly by consumers through their bills, rather than through general taxation. So it is right that the Government keep these social and environmental obligations paid for by energy bill payers under continuous review. Where we can act to reduce their impact on bills while maintaining the integrity of our policy, we will, but as we do this, we must act responsibly. We must ensure that the changes we make maintain the support provided to the most vulnerable, maintain the investment in clean energy and do not have a negative impact on our carbon reduction ambitions.

In this spirit, the Government have reviewed the cost profile of social and environmental policies and I can today announce proposals that would reduce the average household bill next year by £50 on average. First, the Government will provide £300 million in both 2014 and 2015—£600 million in all—for a new rebate to all domestic electricity customers worth £12. Secondly, we propose to consult on remodelling the energy companies obligation so that it is easier and cheaper to deliver. The changes to the ECO would result in £30 to £35 off average bills next year, although the precise reduction in individual household bills will depend on the energy supplier.

The existing dedicated support in ECO for low-income and vulnerable households—affordable warmth and the carbon saving communities obligation—will be maintained at current levels and extended from March 2015 until March 2017. The other element of ECO—the carbon emissions reduction obligation—will also be extended by two years, but reduced by 33%. These changes are subject to consultation, which will be carried out in the new year. In addition to government action, the electricity distribution network operators are willing to take voluntary action to reduce network costs in 2014-15, which would enable suppliers to pass on an average one-off £5 reduction on domestic electricity bills.

I have been clear from the start that support for low-carbon energy should not change, and it will not. The Government recognise that green energy investment incentives, such as the renewables obligation, contracts for difference and feed-in tariffs, are essential for investment in future home-grown clean energy generation. Without this low-carbon investment, energy security would be jeopardised as Britain would become ever more dependent on imported oil and gas, and energy bills in the future would be increasingly subject to high and volatile fossil fuel prices.

The Government will also ensure that their overall approach will cut just as much carbon as planned. New measures, worth more than £540 million over three years, will boost energy efficiency even further by introducing new schemes for home owners, landlords and public sector buildings. In future, when people buy a new home they could get up to £1,000 from the Government to spend on important energy-saving measures—equivalent to half the stamp duty on the average house—or up to £4,000 for particularly expensive measures.

The scheme will be available to all people moving house, including those who do not pay stamp duty, helping around 60,000 homes a year over three years. The Government will also introduce a scheme to support private landlords in improving the energy efficiency of their properties, which will improve around 15,000 of the least energy-efficient rental properties each year for three years. Together, the home owners’ and private rental schemes will be worth £450 million over three years. In addition, £90 million over three years will be spent improving the energy efficiency of schools, hospitals and other public sector buildings.

The Government will deliver a significant boost to the Green Deal, increasing the funds available to local authorities this year through the Green Deal communities fund from £20 million to £80 million, to help to support ‘street-by-street’ programmes for hard-to-treat homes in a cost-effective way. We will keep the Green Deal cashback scheme open, which will protect jobs in the energy efficiency industry, before the new measures take effect.

All the major energy suppliers have confirmed that they will pass the benefits of this package on to their customers. The reduction in individual household bills will depend on the energy supplier. Some companies have not yet announced price rises for 2014, or have limited their rise until the Government’s review of green levies concluded. Others have announced price rises and indicated that they will reduce their customers’ bills as a result of these changes.

Energy companies will now make final detailed decisions about how to apply these measures, but these cost reductions will ensure that average energy bills are lower in 2014 than they otherwise would have been—on average, by £50 per household.

As the major energy companies have now confirmed, there will be no need for price rises in 2014, unless of course there is a major change in wholesale or network costs. Some have gone further, with commitments to hold prices down for longer.

Today’s announcement of cuts to energy bills is just part of the concerted action the Government are taking to help hard-working families, including through income tax cuts, the council tax freeze and the fuel duty freeze. This help for people with their energy bills is being achieved while we maintain and extend support for the fuel-poor, while we continue to back green energy and boosting energy efficiency”.

My Lords, I commend the Statement.

17:10

[Baroness Worthington (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement.

I will start by commenting on why we have the Statement, which has all the hallmarks of being rather rushed. Only a month ago, we were debating the Annual Energy Statement. That was intended to be the document in which the Government set out their near-term priorities on energy policy—but here we are, less than a month later, considering a whole raft of new announcements. It is a bit odd, and the timing seems to be related more to trying to air difficult discussions ahead of the Autumn Statement than to anything else.

The rushing of this has serious implications. As noble Lords will be aware, the Statement does not have an impact assessment attached to it. It is subject to consultation—although you would not believe that given what we have read in the newspapers—which will not begin until January. We are in danger of having energy policy being made up on the hoof. The serious implications are that that will destabilise people’s confidence in our market. If we had an impact assessment, we could see what the full implications of this raft of policies would be. That would help us understand the impact on jobs in the insulation sector and the implications for households, including fuel-poor households. How many of them will now miss out on ECO measures as a result of the announcement today? I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could give me an estimate of how many households will now not receive much-needed help to insulate their homes as a result of the carbon-saving proportion of the ECO being cut by one-third.

The other curious aspect of this package is that we are now being told that the Government have managed to get a voluntary commitment to reduce network charges. Why is that voluntary? Do we not have a regulator that is meant to be putting the consumer first and assessing whether distributed network charges are appropriate? It is highly irregular for a department to be ringing round asking for voluntary cuts to a charge that is subject to price regulation. Clearly, our price regulator is not up to the task.

That raises another question about whether any of this will actually be delivered. Is it true that Ofgem has powers that it can use to ensure that the savings that the Government are making for the energy companies will be passed on to the consumer? Given that it seems incapable of regulating the distributed network operators, why should we believe that it will do any differently with this package of measures?

I am grateful that the noble Baroness repeated the acknowledgement that fuel poverty is still a priority. At the moment, the fuel poverty targets have been abolished and we are expecting to see new targets for what the Government propose to do on that policy. When we will see targets being re-established to deal with fuel poverty—not to “address” it but to tackle it and reduce the number of people who fall into that category?

The package also contains a number of measures to try to boost uptake of the Green Deal. I think that that is being wrapped up as an additional boost, but actually it is clear that the Green Deal is failing so abjectly that the Government have been forced to rethink and introduce the very incentives that were suggested and should have been included right from the start, including stamp duty rebates.

There is now a vague commitment that landlords will somehow be able to help people take up energy efficiency measures. Reading the detail, it seems that 15,000 households are expected to be supported by this landlord intervention. Can the Minister tell me what percentage that represents of households in the rented accommodation sector? It does not seem a huge number. Also, what proportion of least-efficient households is that likely to address?

On the issue of landlords and the energy efficiency of their properties, it has come to my attention that the Government were recently forced to pay £6 million of taxpayers’ money to the administrating body that looks after the energy performance certificate policy for rented accommodation because the number of people who have actually complied with the law in providing energy performance certificates is vastly under what was expected. Why is this? Why do we have a situation where landlords are not complying and not providing the energy performance certificates they are mandated to provide for their tenants?

The other question about the 15,000 households is: how will the Government ensure that the target is actually met? Their progress on the Green Deal is, as we know, lamentable. Fewer than 1,000 households have taken it up, against an overall target of 100,000. If the policy is to succeed, how on earth are we going to ensure that it is auditable, measurable and will actually be delivered?

I will make a couple of comments on the carbon implications of this package. The Government have been relatively clear that this will see a 3 million tonne increase in carbon emissions and have sought to introduce policies to mitigate that, one of which is a totally non-specified policy in the transport sector. Can the Minister give us any more information on what that policy is likely to be? The transport sector is not renowned for cheap or affordable carbon saving, so I would be interested to see what the impact assessment will say on the cost of that transport policy compared to the cost of cutting carbon through energy efficiency. We all know that energy efficiency is one of the best ways to reduce carbon. It is one of the most cost-efficient ways forward. Yet here we are, reducing that very policy.

When it comes to value-for-money policies on carbon cutting, will the noble Baroness also comment on the fact that, as we saw in our debate on the Energy Bill, the most cost-effective way of reducing carbon is to switch from coal to gas. In this House we passed an amendment designed to encourage that and to make sure that we do not have coal burning continuing at very high levels on into the next decade. Yet it seems that on Wednesday it seems that the Government will be whipping against it. Will the noble Baroness also comment on that?

In closing, I have a horrible suspicion that the organisation that will be celebrating the most out of this will be EDF Energy, which seems almost word-for-word to dictate government energy policy. I notice from its press release that it is now gunning for the home-display elements of the smart metering rollout. I wonder how long it will be before they are cut. It is also interested in reducing network charging. The thing I find most regrettable in all this is that the Secretary of State in the other place stated that he was standing up to the big six. I am afraid nothing could be further from the truth. This is policy as dictated by the big six. A Labour Government would stand up to the big six, split up the companies so that they are ring-fenced from generation and supply, and introduce far greater competition into the energy market. That is the way to get prices down. Much greater competition in every element of the energy supply chain is the only way that we can get out of the bind we are in at the moment. It is regrettable that the Government do not seem able to do that.

17:19

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness welcomes the Statement or not. The Government have gone a long way to try to address genuine concerns from consumers. I have constantly raised the point from this Dispatch Box that we need to ensure that we put consumers first. The Government have looked, listened, heard and responded to try to ensure that what we propose is, first, doable and is not just jingoistic language that says, “Let’s price-freeze now and pay later”. If we go by what the noble Baroness’s party is suggesting, we will have price hikes before and after a freeze, which does not resolve anything. What we are trying to do is put through some measures that will respond to a very serious issue.

The noble Baroness said that this was rushed. No, it was not. We have been discussing this and, like any responsible Government, we have been reviewing. We need to ensure that we not only respond to the concerns of the consumer but do not destabilise investment in this country, because this country sorely needs the scale of investment that this Government have been pushing for since we came into government in 2010. She also asked how many households will miss out because of the extension. The extension actually means that more households will be able to gain from energy-efficiency measures, because it will go from 2015 to 2017. I do not know why the noble Baroness thinks that we are not going to have more households, because we are giving opportunities for more households to receive energy-efficiency measures.

The noble Baroness is right that the distribution networks are regulated. They are regulated by Ofgem. However, they have taken a decision voluntarily—we have not asked them to do so—to put forward this proposal for 2015, which reduces bills. That is a very good thing and we should welcome it.

The noble Baroness said repeatedly that the Green Deal has failed but it is a long-term programme over 20 years. We have already addressed the measures in 230,000 households under ECO and we have had 100,000 assessments done. Some of those assessments will be done through the Green Deal finance; others will be done through other measures. This is an opportunity for people to be in charge of how they might reduce their own energy costs. I remind the noble Baroness that, under her party’s Administration, between 2004 and 2009 average bills went up from £522 to £1,153. We should remind her that this is a discussion of a concern that we should all be trying to address. While I agree that a lot more needs to be done, what is really good is that consumer groups have welcomed what we are doing.

17:22

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I welcome the Statement that has been read, and particularly the fact that the Government have taken on board two recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change, of which I am chairman: first, in the use of more loft insulation and cavity wall insulation, which, against our recommendation, were previously excluded; secondly, in the fact that we were proposing a reduction in stamp duty to help people to go in for energy efficiency. I also welcome the fact that the Government have repeated their commitment to the reduction of our emissions, in line with the statutory requirements and the very tough policies necessary to achieve those. The Committee on Climate Change will look at the 33% reduction to see whether it will in fact be as the Government suggest; that is its duty and will be part of its job in the coming year.

The important thing is that, as far as we can tell at this moment, what is proposed today means that we will still be able to meet our carbon budgets as required—the first, second, third and fourth of those—and that there will still be more stringent matters to be taken on later. Above all, after all the discussion that the Government might perhaps remove themselves from their commitments, it is quite clear that this is not part of it. However, we recognise that next year the Government will have to face up to the most stringent investigation as to how far the actualities meet the promises.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Deben for his endorsement of the Statement. Like him, I am very concerned that we meet all our commitments, particularly on carbon emissions, which are not just important for us but a global problem that we all need to work on. I remind the House that, since we came into government, we have seen a reduction in carbon emissions, perhaps not of the scale and size that we would like, but it is going in the right direction: 4% is still better than the rising emissions that we were seeing.

[Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan (Lab)]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness gets carried away with the reduction in carbon emissions, it would not be unreasonable to remind her that we have had one of the worst economic slumps since the 1930s. The level of industrial activity made a bigger contribution to that than any policy of the Government—although one might say that their economic incompetence has had a role to play.

As someone who is a member of a couple of the fuel poverty charities—I have an interest declared on this—I would say that at best those charities would give a guarded welcome to this. Perhaps the Minister could tell us when she anticipates an impact assessment being published on these measures. If we are going to have a serious debate on this in the weeks and months ahead, we have to have some kind of independent assessment of what is taking place.

It is also fair to say that at best this is a reduction in price increase; it is nothing much more than that. At worst, it still means that far too many households are now going to have to wait longer for any improvement in their insulation. As the Minister has said, the fact that there is a cut of some 30% means that the money will be spread thinly over a longer period.

The Minister said that the failure of the Green Deal can be excused by the fact that it is a 20-year project; it is only a 20-year project for people who have to pay it back. The idea is that people will come into the scheme and will have up to 20 years to pay. I cannot imagine that Governments will still be flogging this dead horse 20 years from now. People who are living in cold, hard-to-heat houses want treatment this year, not in 2033.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, when the noble Lord speaks about economic downturns, I have to remind him that it was his Government who were in charge of that. It was his Government who oversaw the worst economic problems that this country has ever faced in peacetime, so let me just put that on record. Since 2010, we have had to make some really difficult decisions, and those decisions have had, in part, to be taken because of the incompetence of the party opposite for 13 years when it was in charge.

On the impact assessment, I told the House that we will see something early next year. I really regret that the noble Lord keeps putting down the Green Deal, given that it gives so many jobs to small suppliers. I say to the noble Lord that we need to encourage the growth of the Green Deal, because it supports small and medium-sized enterprises across our great country.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I was quite pessimistic when the negotiations started between the Treasury and the DECC on this matter but I congratulate the Minister on the outcome. It has not moved us backwards; it has actually moved the energy efficiency and carbon agenda forward. I very much like the fact that, for new home buyers or people moving, there will be that discount or a contribution towards energy efficiency. Certainly, there needs to be a deal for landlords; that is also good. The other thing that has not been mentioned so far is that we have had a reaction from distribution network operators, who seem to have been left out of this somehow and have some responsibility themselves. Perhaps from that small move on taxation, we will have a more progressive regime. On the existing regime, we have affordable warmth, the carbon-saving community obligation still in place and the low-carbon regime that comes out of the Energy Bill, which we hope will pass unchanged. Those are all items of good news.

Will the Minister tell us when the scheme to do with people moving houses and the landlord scheme are likely to come in? Many people will welcome those schemes very strongly. Will the new focus on distribution network operators continue and what will her department be doing in that area? We seem to be held captive by the mantra that energy prices relate entirely to wholesale gas prices. We have seen cheap coal becoming an increasingly important part of the energy mix. Where have the profits that the energy generating companies have made through that cheaper fuel gone? They certainly have not come through to consumer bills. Will my noble friend pursue that investigation?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his endorsement of the Statement and the work behind the scenes to ensure that we have not lost all the important elements and measures that will reduce carbon, provide energy efficiency and help the most vulnerable households that we need to make sure we are helping.

My noble friend asked when the new schemes will come in. They will come in around mid-2014. They have to follow the proper processes and consultations. Ofgem regulates the distribution network operators. It is for Ofgem to ensure that the costs the networks are proposing are viable. We must accept the package in the round. A lot of things need to be done. This Government are taking that on board.

My noble friend asked about competition and coal. We are taking both extremely seriously, and I hope to come back with a little more detail about how we propose to see Ofgem strengthen what it is doing to ensure that there is greater transparency on how energy companies use their profits.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that in many rural areas people are dependent on off-grid supplies for their energy. In what way and by what mechanism will those people in rural areas be helped by this package?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I fear I shall not be able to answer the noble Lord straightaway. If he will allow me, I shall write to him. I suspect that this will not have a direct impact, but I shall clarify that rather than a make a statement that fails.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, there is much in the Statement that I welcome, particularly a point that has not been commented on directly. The move in support for the social aspects of the programme from energy bills to general taxation will have some impact on the poorest and on fuel poverty and is entirely to be welcomed. The renewables obligation payments are still going to be collected through energy bills. When will the expected increases in those precepts on bills eat up the £50 which has been announced today?

[Baroness Verma]

The right reverend Prelate asks a really important question. The point is that whatever measures we are taking, they have to be taken in the round with other measures that we are also taking. It is not just the £50 that will, on average, come off a bill. It will be all the other measures that work alongside this. While the right reverend Prelate is right to ask the question, he needs to accept that there are several measures in place that will address a number of outstanding issues, such as making sure that the most vulnerable pensioners get the help they need during the coldest periods of the year. Let us look at the picture in the round rather than identify one measure.

[Baroness Rawlings (Con)]

My Lords, I applaud and welcome the help the Minister has announced today to assist heating in homes. Have the Government considered, as a simple, practical measure, encouraging people to use electric blankets? They are the answer to many of the Government’s aims. They are very green as they use little electricity and they reduce the need for so much heating in the home. They also make the home very energy efficient—that is, they cost less—which is what the Government seem to have as an aim.

[Baroness Verma]

I thank my noble friend for her endorsement of the Statement. As with all measures, we need to be able to ensure that people are kept warm and safe and that they are not paying over the odds for energy. There are measures in the Statement and measures that we are already undertaking that will help energy efficiency and help consumers to reduce their bills.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the Statement. In doing so, I repeat the question I asked her last week about the Government’s attitude to markets and, in particular, failing markets. Less than two months ago, we were told by no less a personage than the Prime Minister, and by almost everyone else who has been briefing on his behalf, that any intervention in the energy markets was at best a return to the 1970s and at worst Marxism—presumably a return to the 1870s. Today, in her introductory remarks—I think I am quoting her correctly—the Minister talked about “forcing transparency on the market” and later referred to “bearing down on prices”. Will she clarify for us whether the Government now accept that it is not only proper and reasonable to intervene in a failing market but it is the duty of government so to do in order to protect people from a faulty market?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I shall respond to the noble Lord as I probably responded to him last time. We need to ensure that there is greater competition. I hate to go back to my earlier point, but under the previous Administration, the number of energy companies reduced from 14 or 15 to six. The big six is a Labour creation. If we have less competition, it is because that competition was taken out by the previous Government. We have now seen seven new entrants in our energy mix. We will see a greater number of entrants coming forward because we have created confidence for smaller providers to come into the marketplace. We do not need intervention as the noble Lord expects. We need to ensure greater competition.

[Lord Wrigglesworth (LD)]

Does my noble friend agree that there is a vital need at the moment to encourage investment in the energy supply industry and in the electricity supply industry in particular? I welcome her Statement, but will she explain to the House how this is going to encourage more investment in the energy supply industry and how the pledge of the party opposite to freeze prices is going to bring about long-term investment in the electricity supply industry, which is so important if we are not going to have the lights going out?

[Baroness Verma]

My noble friend is right. We need investment. Since 2010, we have seen more than £35 billion of investment in the energy sector in this country. My noble friend will have to get the answer on the Opposition’s pledge from them. It seems that they are empty words that have no substance.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps the Minister can clarify the arithmetic, particularly in relation to the eco. Past DECC figures suggested that the eco costs consumers about £47 a year. This Statement claims that we will save £30 to £35 of that cost, yet 60% of the eco relates to affordable warmth and other fuel poverty measures, and they are going to be maintained according to this Statement, so the full cost must fall on the other 40%. By my calculations, that works out at roughly £7, not £30 to £35. The only way to square those figures is by extending the period by another two years, which means halving the annual expenditure on the fuel poverty programme. Even then, the arithmetic does not work out. If that is indeed the case, and the insulation industry seems to be taking that to be the case, does it not justify the stance that we on this side of the House took that the Government’s commitment to the fuel poverty strategy is only to address it rather than to reduce the numbers in fuel poverty? The only measure that we have yet seen is an attempt by the Government to refine fuel poverty downwards, as the Select Committee in the other place pointed out. Will the Minister explain those figures and perhaps justify the position?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I have tried to follow the noble Lord very carefully. I will write to the noble Lord if I get it wrong, but I understand that the average saving of around £50 relates to what energy companies themselves have pledged to pass on. I will have to go back, read Hansard and revisit what the noble Lord has said.

[Lord Tugendhat (Con)]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that we not only need competition between companies, as she has said, but between different sorts of fuel and sources of supply? We have seen in the United States the very beneficial impact of fracking in diversifying both sources of supply and sorts of fuel. We have great reserves in this country. There are, of course, difficulties about extraction and differences between this country and the United States, but we have riches under our own earth. Does the noble Baroness agree that, in the longer term, the best thing we can do is exploit them?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, my noble friend is right that we need a broad energy mix and shale gas will be part of that once we have ensured that it is safe and environmentally safe to extract. That we recognise the need for a wider energy mix is shown in the establishment of the Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil.

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I return to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Reid. Would it not be better if the Minister just accepted that this whole unhappy saga has demonstrated that there are vast areas of policy which cannot simply be left to market forces because there are too many social issues involved? Intelligent government is, therefore, about getting the right mix between the roles of competition, leadership and constructive intervention by the state on behalf of society.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I return to the response I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Reid. We need greater competition to ensure that consumers get the best price available. We cannot market-manage a sector when the noble Lord’s party reduced 14 or 15 suppliers to six. We need to widen the pool of suppliers so that consumers have a greater choice, are able to switch more easily and can be sure that energy efficiency measures will help them to reduce their bills.

Glasgow Helicopter Crash

Monday 2nd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Statement

17:43

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)]

My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will repeat a Statement made by the Secretary of State for Scotland in the other place on the helicopter crash that happened in Glasgow on the evening of Friday 29 November. Before repeating my right honourable friend’s Statement, I am sure I speak for all parts of your Lordships’ House in expressing our deepest condolences to the family and friends of those who lost their lives in this terrible tragedy, as well as expressing our own thoughts for those injured and our thankful appreciation of those who have given such valiant service in the rescue operation. The Statement is as follows.

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement to update the House on the crash of the helicopter that happened in Glasgow on the evening of Friday 29 November.

As the House will be aware, at approximately 10.25 pm on Friday evening, a helicopter, operated on behalf of Police Scotland, crashed into the roof of the Clutha Bar in Stockwell Street, Glasgow. It was reported that there were around 120 people in the bar at the time of the accident. Police Scotland has overnight confirmed nine fatalities. This includes the pilot of the helicopter and the two police officers on board. A further 32 people were injured in the crash and 12 remain in hospital. Three of these casualties are being treated in intensive care, where their condition is described as serious but stable. The search of the building continues and it remains possible that more casualties could be found.

I am sure that the House will also wish to recognise the outstanding work of the emergency services, for the speed, professionalism and courage of their response on Friday night and into the early hours of Saturday morning. Police, fire and ambulance services all responded magnificently, working in difficult and dangerous circumstances. In particular, we should recognise that police officers had to respond in circumstances where they were dealing, not just with the death of members of the public, but also with two of their own colleagues, PC Kirsty Nelis and PC Tony Collins.

Some of the most remarkable stories of courage and selflessness from Friday night and Saturday morning have come from staff and customers of the Clutha Bar and passers-by who came to their assistance in the immediate aftermath of the accident. They responded with no thought for their own personal safety. Members will know that among them was the right honourable Member for East Renfrewshire who happened to be one of the first to arrive on the scene. The right honourable gentleman is not in the House today, as he is in the Philippines, in the course of his duties as Shadow Secretary of State for International Development. He is characteristically understated in describing his role, but I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say that his response—which was instinctive—did him credit.

I had a meeting with members of all three emergency services in the command centre and I also met with Councillor Gordon Matheson, at the City Chambers where I signed the book of condolence. Glasgow City Council will now take up much of the burden of caring for and comforting those affected by this incident. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has also been in regular contact and his department, through the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, now has a duty to investigate and report on the causes of the accident. Investigations of this sort are inevitably complex and can be lengthy. I know that all those affected will be looking for answers but the gathering of evidence, especially at this early stage, will be vital to the investigation. I hope that the police, and other investigatory agencies, will be given the time and space to do their job.

The House will also wish to know that there has been close contact between Her Majesty’s Government and the Scottish Government since the incident. The Prime Minister spoke to the First Minister on Saturday and offered any assistance from the emergency services or other agencies south of the border, should that be required.

I wear today a badge given to me this morning by Councillor Gordon Matheson. It reads, quite simply, “People Make Glasgow”. The response of the people who make Glasgow has demonstrated all the courage and character that has made the city famous throughout the world. We in this House, and the people we represent in communities throughout the United Kingdom, stand in solidarity today with the people of Glasgow as they mourn their loss and start to come to terms with their grief. People make Glasgow: today I wear that badge with pride.”

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

17:47

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement from the other place. I associate Her Majesty’s Opposition with the expressions of condolence to all those bereaved and sympathy to the injured, and to the great city of Glasgow for the disaster that struck the Clutha Bar overnight at the weekend.

The response of the city of Glasgow, and its people, has won admiration throughout the United Kingdom. The Minister mentioned the emergency services and the hospitals, which have coped with the injured and the deceased. It has been a great response to such a disaster. I come from the town of Rutherglen, a near neighbour of Glasgow, but had the honour to represent the Toryglen part of the city and have always admired the resilience of Glasgow people and their positive response in adversity. I particularly thank the Government for the spirit of consensus and co-operation shown in their actions and behaviour throughout. This has been first class and is much appreciated.

I will ask the two questions put by Margaret Curran in the other House, so that they can be placed on record. We fully understand the pressures of time when it comes to compiling reports, but can the Minister give any indication of when even an interim report might be ready? We fully understand the nature of that question. Secondly, what support can the UK Government offer to Glasgow and the families of the crash victims? Glasgow City Council has to be commended for its reaction to the disaster. Councillor Gordon Matheson, leader of Glasgow City Council, said,

“Those who are already suffering physically and emotionally need time to recover and to grieve. Money will be very far from their thoughts, but Glasgow will not allow their suffering to be compounded by financial plight in their hour of need. There will be people who are unable to work, or who face a lengthy road to recovery. Families face uncertain times ahead without loved ones. We can and will help them in the days, weeks and months ahead—and we know many of our fellow Glaswegians will also want to lend their support”.

Glasgow taxi drivers, the taxi association and travel companies are already offering support. The council is promising charitable funds, and the fact that various businesses are coming forward indicates the spirit of Glasgow.

A remark made by Margaret Curran sums up, for me, the nature of Glaswegians. She said,

“it is the spirit of people who did not turn and run from the Clutha Vaults pub but who ran towards the danger and worked arm in arm to lift men and women to safety”.

Both the Government and Opposition, and all parties in both Houses of Parliament are united in their support of the people of Glasgow. That support for such a resilient group of people will be much appreciated.

17:51

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments and for what he has said about the resilience and the spirit of the people of Glasgow. He said that that has been admired throughout the United Kingdom, but it is fair to say that it has been admired beyond the shores of the United Kingdom. As he pointed out, people ran to help in those circumstances rather than running away from danger. The comments from Councillor Matheson that he quoted represent the real spirit of Glasgow.

The noble Lord asked me about when a report might be expected, although he accepted that it is very early days yet. The Air Accidents Investigation Branch deployed a team of 12 people to Glasgow on Saturday morning, which has been assisting the emergency services with the removal of bodies from the helicopter wreckage and in the immediate vicinity. The helicopter has now been lifted from the roof of the bar. I know that the Air Accidents Investigation Branch will want to give an interim report, but it is too early to predict when that will happen.

The noble Lord also asked about assistance to the authorities in Scotland. As I indicated, offers of assistance have been made to Police Scotland. The Government have made such offers to both the Scottish Government and to Glasgow council. As the Statement said, Glasgow council will now bear much of the burden of what happens from here on. We continue to be ready to provide support, if required, in the best spirit of the co-operation at all levels and by all people that has marked the response to this event.

17:52

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his Statement and for the tribute which he rightly paid to the emergency services. Without in any way anticipating the results of the inquiry, it seems that rather a lot of helicopters fall out of the sky these days. We have seen it in the North Sea and not a stone’s throw from here. Would this not be a good time perhaps to review the maintenance regime that applies to helicopters and the rules that surround it? I appreciate that this was a police helicopter and that we do not know the circumstances. However, should we not look at some kind of review of the safety and maintenance standards that are required of helicopters that fly over heavily populated urban areas?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his question. He highlights the fact that there have been some helicopter crashes and fatalities in recent times. Over a long period of time the safety record has generally been good. However, I am sure the whole House will agree that any accident must be thoroughly investigated if lessons can be learnt. It is also important to remind ourselves that helicopters fly many different types of operations and that a helicopter taking large numbers of passengers out to installations in the North Sea is somewhat different from the operation that was undertaken by police and other emergency helicopters in this situation. I am not sure that a generic inquiry would necessarily be the best way forward. However, it is important that there is a thorough investigation of the various accidents that have happened. I am in no doubt that the Air Accidents Investigation Branch and other relevant authorities will try to ensure that that thorough investigation takes place so that we can learn any lessons that are appropriate.

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not a Glaswegian. However, all Scotland grieves with Glasgow after this terrible tragedy and is proud of how the people of Glasgow have responded. As parliamentarians, we have in the past few years seen the worst of us. On Friday night, with Jim Murphy, we saw the best of us. We recognise that when a young man puts himself in harm’s way he will live with the memory of that night for the rest of his life.

I will ask the Minister a question, which he may not be able to answer. As we know, these helicopters are used a lot by police and emergency services the length and breadth of Britain and beyond. Given that there is no indication as to what caused this accident and there is no black box recorder, are there any plans to ground these helicopters? If that is the case, what back-up would be available to emergency services throughout the country?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, first, I endorse and echo what the noble Baroness said about Jim Murphy. Those of us who saw that interview realised the spirit of someone whom many of us know. It was all too typical of Jim to do something like that. On the particular helicopter—the EC135—as I said, it is obvious that at this stage of the investigation the cause of the crash is unknown. That type of helicopter has been operated successfully, both in the United Kingdom and internationally, and has a good safety record. At this time we are not aware of any information that would lead us to consider this type as unsafe, but if at any time the European Aviation Safety Agency, which has the approval process, is concerned that the aircraft type is unsafe, it can ground all operations. However, that decision has not been taken.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, as the son of a long-standing emergency worker, I, too, associate myself with the warm tribute that the Minister, and in another place the Secretary of State, gave to emergency workers across Scotland. Those professionals take extraordinary risks to make sure that we continue to be safe and well. I associate myself and the Liberal Democrat Benches with those remarks. Will the Minister commit the United Kingdom Government to ensuring that whatever review is carried out as a result of those investigations into helicopter flights over cities and rural areas, recommendations are acted upon, because of the necessity of rotary-wing emergency aircraft for Scotland? Will the Minister make sure that those in the Clutha Bar who have been affected by this tragedy are aware that in perhaps their time of greatest need their fellow Glaswegians, their countrymen and women and those across all of these islands stand with them? Will he ensure that the support that is necessary is provided to those who are affected, not only at the moment but for the weeks and months to come, and that Her Majesty’s Government provide support to Glasgow City Council—to endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy—and to the Scottish Government?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, on that final point, it is obvious that it has been a pretty traumatic experience for those who were involved. I hope that over the days, weeks and months ahead, they will find strength and comfort from the strong support for them in the community. I repeat that it has been made clear to Glasgow City Council that we stand ready to give such help as may be appropriate. I echo the tribute he paid to emergency workers.

I have heard it said by some who have been there that because of the particular site of the tragedy, the investigation has been one of the most complex they have ever worked on. Those who undertook much of the rescue and recovery work were doing so in dangerous circumstances. That simply underlines the debt that we owe them. Obviously it is premature to speculate on what kind of recommendations would be made. However, I am sure that the recommendations, be they addressed to government or other bodies, are ones that will require to be properly and fully responded to.

[Lord Condon (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the caring and compassionate tone set by Sir Stephen House, the chief constable of Police Scotland, and Rose Fitzpatrick, the deputy chief constable, in all of their public pronouncements has helped with the healing process as the brave people of Glasgow as a whole respond to this very challenging and difficult situation?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Certainly, any public statements I have seen on television by both the chief constable and the deputy chief constable have been exactly that. As I said in the Statement, it is worth reminding ourselves that they themselves suffered the loss of colleagues in this tragedy. Notwithstanding that, they have acted with exemplary professionalism.

[Lord Maxton (Lab)]

My Lords, as an ex-Member of Parliament for one of the Glasgow seats, I take this opportunity to say both that I mourn for the people of Glasgow today and that I am proud of them for the way in which they have reacted to this tragedy. First, it is a compliment in these modern times that there is no photograph of the tragedy because everybody went to help rather than taking out their iPhones and taking photographs. I have a serious question, because it is a very serious moment. The latest reports say that there was no mayday signal from the helicopter before it crashed. Is this correct? Does it not say something about what happened to that helicopter if there was no mayday signal?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am not aware of that. It is not a report that I have seen or been made aware of, and therefore it would be wrong for me to speculate. Obviously, matters such as that will be examined, and I have no doubt that information will come out in the days and weeks ahead. However, it would be wrong for me to speculate on what I have not heard.

[Lord Glenarthur (Con)]

My Lords, while entirely joining myself with my noble and learned friend’s remarks about all those who have been affected by this horrible accident, I declare an interest as president of the British Helicopter Association, which is the trade body that looks after operators of all sorts of helicopters, including police helicopters. It is, as my noble and learned friend said, far too early to even begin to speculate on the cause of this accident. It will take some time to establish what it is. It appears to be incredibly unusual, certainly in my experience, for an incident of this sort to arise without any warning whatever apparently—although we do not know if there was a mayday call or not.

Does my noble friend agree that it is perhaps not strictly comparable to some of the incidents that we have seen on the North Sea, which often have occurred for other reasons? Perhaps he would also endorse that the safety regime through the regulators, both the European Aviation Safety Agency and indeed our own Civil Aviation Authority, is of the very highest standard. Certainly in my experience all those concerned with this, including all those who live in populated areas where police helicopters have to operate, must be reassured that these aircraft and their crews operate to the very highest standards, and that no stone will be left unturned in trying to establish the cause of this accident.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I acknowledge the experience of my noble friend and share his view that it is important. I believe it is the case that the Air Accident Investigation Branch conducts these inquiries and investigations thoroughly and to the highest standards. Once the AAIB has the details on the cause of this tragic accident, it will be a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority to consider what action may be necessary, and to ensure that these matters are proceeded with, regarding the overwhelming requirement for safety in these operations.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his Statement, and particularly for his generous tribute to our parliamentary colleague, Jim Murphy. Although he is a self-effacing character, in a sense I think he recognised that what he did was pretty ordinary for Glasgow where, perhaps because of the industrial culture and legacy, there is a tendency to run towards the danger when others are in danger. In any case, however it may surprise others, it remains inspiring. I obviously associate myself with the condolences for those who have lost loved ones or family, and those who are injured. I will ask the Minister one question. I understand he said that the search continues inside the Clutha Bar for others who may be there. Does he have any information as to whether there are known and identified persons, without any names, who are still unaccounted for—or is it simply a matter of searching the bar itself?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I note again the point made by the noble Lord with regard to Jim Murphy. I rather suspect that the self-effacing way in which Jim handled the interviews was because he recognised that he was not alone among those who responded to that situation. I cannot, because I do not have the information, go beyond what I said—and what the Secretary of State said when he stood up and made his Statement in the other place—which is that the search of the building continues. I am not aware of the position regarding people who may have been missing and identified. I know some concerns have been expressed by victims, and some frustration. That is totally understandable in the circumstances. Equally, Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick, who has already been referred to, said:

“The uncertainty for the families of those who have died is at the front of our minds … It remains our absolute priority to give clarity to those affected as soon as we are able”.

[Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)]

Does the Minister accept that we all wish to be associated with his messages of condolence to the bereaved, and also to those who have been severely injured or injured at all? Can the Minister tell us whether helicopters of this nature possess black boxes, and whether that will be one of the issues to be looked at in the inquiry?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, it is the case that this helicopter was not fitted with any cockpit voice recorder, flight data recorder or usage monitoring system. It is important to say that it was not a requirement. Again, it would be wrong for me to speculate on whether that is something that the AAIB will wish to look at in terms of any possible recommendation. I will just make the point at the moment that it was not a requirement for this particular type of helicopter.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Monday 2nd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Committee (5th Day) (Continued)

18:08

Clause 87: Notice requirements for new ground

Amendment 56ADD not moved.

Clause 87 agreed.

Clause 88: Review requirements for new ground

Amendments 56AE and 56AF not moved.

Clause 88 agreed.

Clause 89: Corresponding new ground and notice requirements for assured tenancies

Amendments 56AG to 56AL not moved.

Clause 89 agreed.

Clause 90 agreed.

Clause 91: Offences connected with riot

Amendment 56AM

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

56AM: Clause 91, page 61, line 39, leave out “or a person”

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

This group of amendments takes us to Clause 91, which provides for possession in the event of riot-related offences. The first amendment in the group is Amendment 56AM, tabled by my noble friend Lord Greaves, who also tabled Amendment 56ACC. He proposes to leave out the words “a person” from the new grounds so that the ground for possession would be limited to an offence by the tenant residing in the dwelling house, not the tenant or another person. My noble friend, who cannot be here today, asks whether—as he and I read the legislation—this could include, for instance, a lodger or someone who has been taken in by the tenant on the advice of the Government to avoid the spare bedroom tax.

My Amendment 56AB would restrict the ground for possession to the commission of a serious offence, using the definition in new Section 84A in Clause 86 for convenience. I understand and appreciate that granting possession will be a discretionary matter, but the court must take account of some circumstances being such as to justify the exercise. I was concerned, as I have been on similar points, by the Government’s response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which said that it was not persuaded by the Government’s justification for this ground for possession. The Government say that this is likely to happen only very exceptionally. The ground is discretionary, which means that the court will not be able to make a possession order unless it considers it reasonable to do so. The court may be less likely to conclude that it was reasonable to evict when the crime was not committed in the locality of the property. As it is a riot-related offence, it may have been committed some way away and have nothing to do with the property. We are talking here about offences which, in all likelihood, are unrelated to the other occupants of the property. The JCHR commented that this response would disproportionately affect women and children.

This Bill is, rightly, victim focused, but I am concerned that this punishment would create new victims—other occupants of the property. If an offender who is about to set out to take part in a riot and to loot is not deterred by the thought that he might be convicted of a criminal offence and be imprisoned, and the effect of that on his family, would he even think about the tenancy? I find it hard to put myself in the mind of such a person, but I doubt it.

My amendments would restrict the offence in question to a serious offence and try to meet the Government part way on this. I have other amendments that would allow the court to transfer the tenancy to the spouse of an offender who herself or himself is not an offender. I am not happy with the clause, but I have cut out the first bit and gone straight to seeking a compromise with the Government. I beg to move.

18:15

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to address the House on this clause. As the Minister will be aware, I am very much in favour of the architecture of this Bill and very sympathetic to its aims. However, as in life, not everything is perfect, and I fear that I cannot give my endorsement to this clause, which gives the court additional powers to order possession in relation to secure and assured tenancies in the event that the,

“tenant or a person residing in the dwelling-house has been convicted of an offence which took place during, and at the scene of, a riot in the United Kingdom”.

That distinguishes it from other parts of Part 5, which are concerned with matters that take place in the locality—or the vicinity, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would have it.

I understand that the additional ground for possession has been included in the Bill to reflect the seriousness with which the Government view participation in riots, particularly those on a scale seen in this country during the summer before last. Those who committed offences during the riot on that occasion were dealt with speedily and firmly. Sentences of imprisonment were the norm, and some were lengthy. To some extent, one could say that they were deprived of the right to remain in a dwelling house by that very process. The courts have sufficient powers to deal firmly with offenders caught up in a riot and appeals against sentences were, for the most part, unsuccessful. The criminal justice system—some would say “for once”—in general responded very well to what occurred.

I am concerned that this measure is a step too far. While a court would still have to be satisfied that it was reasonable to grant possession, the fact that the relevant offence can be committed not only by the tenant but by someone residing in the dwelling house means that a tenant wholly innocent of involvement in a riot could potentially lose their home. I do not think that this is a necessary or appropriate provision, given all the other powers that exist elsewhere in the Bill. I am also concerned that what is essentially a procedure by way of civil remedy should carry with it a criminal offence of this sort connected with the civil recovery of possession. Although I share the Government’s concern that those involved with riots should be dealt with in a way that sends out a message to any potential rioters, I take the view, as did the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, that this clause is a step too far.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and wish to speak to Clause 91. I sympathise with the Government’s reasoning and motivation for this additional ground for possession being included in the Bill and appreciate the strong signals that are needed for people involved in rioting. I was in London in the summer of 2011 so I can directly share the concern of the Government and the general public about the serious nature of the offences of those who participate in riots, especially on that scale. However, as my noble friend Lord Faulks outlined, the criminal courts have sufficient powers to deal with those matters. If I recall correctly, some courts even sat through the night, and many offenders were clearly extremely shocked to be sentenced to a period of imprisonment. The criminal courts were not found wanting and sentences reflected the gravity with which the judiciary viewed this behaviour.

It is important to note the distinctive nature of the power in Clause 91. Unlike the powers in Clauses 86 to 90, this power is exercised in relation to behaviour that is not necessarily either of any impact on the landlord or in relation to the premises themselves or connected to the dwelling house. I also share the concern of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. When speaking of the old ASBO regime, he stated that we are,

“using the civil law to do the work of the criminal law”.—[Official Report, 18/11/13; col. 750.]

Repossessing premises is a civil law matter, but this provision is akin to bringing criminal penalties for riot into our civil courts. As my noble friend Lord Faulks has outlined, the courts have to be satisfied that it is reasonable to grant possession. However, the fact that the offence can be committed not only by the tenant but by someone residing in the dwelling house means that a tenant wholly innocent of involvement in rioting could lose their home. That is unjust.

Such a tenant could argue that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects their right to a family life and home. However, such arguments can often be lengthy and expensive. Many of these arguments will end up being funded by the taxpayer. Although I share the Government’s concern that rioting should have potentially serious consequences, I am left wondering why if rioting is a ground for repossessing premises, other serious offences, such as paedophilia, are not. I maintain the view recorded in the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. This clause will be an unhelpful precedent.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, a few weeks ago I was quite taken aback when I received from a Conservative Peer a message of glowing tribute for the two speeches I had made in the Chamber that day. Since I had not been anywhere near the Chamber that day I was somewhat mystified, and that is why I want to make it clear that the speech before last was not made by me, but by someone with a similar name. The noble Baroness currently in the chair and I also have the same sort of problem from time to time, except that there is one big difference between her and me which is fairly obvious. I do not mean politics, I mean gender. So I want to make it clear that the speech before last was made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks: F-A-U-L-K-S. I say that because if I just pronounced it, Hansard would not know what on earth to do.

I have a further point. Had I been making these points in another place with the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, in the chair, she would have ruled me out of order long before now, but that does not happen here. My point is that that the numbering and lettering of these amendments is even more confusing than the confusion between our three names. I hope the clerks will look at some more logical way of numbering and lettering amendments. After all, 56 is not the only number that you can use for an amendment. There is 57 for example, and so on. These As, Bs, Cs, Ds and so on are most confusing. However, I am going on too long, taking up time now when I am looking forward to speaking in order, substantially and importantly, on attacks on shopkeepers and public service workers later in the Bill.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friends Lord Faulks and Lady Berridge, although I am not on the Joint Committee on Human Rights. At the time of the riots in London and across the country a couple of years ago, I supported severe punishment by the courts of otherwise minor relatively offences, because those offences took place during a riot. I do not support lenient treatment of minor offences committed during a riot. However, as my noble friends have indicated, the provision to order possession of a property when the offence has absolutely nothing to do with protecting neighbours, for example, from anti-social behaviour, is a step too far. It is politically motivated and is not driven by the needs of justice. Therefore, it should be no part of this Bill.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, Clause 91 is headed “Offences connected with riot” and presumably the intention is again to put victims first. In that case, I come back to an earlier point: why are there two classes of victim of riotous behaviour? Riotous activity by a tenant of social housing or an assured tenancy can lead to eviction, but riotous activity by an owner-occupier cannot, and there is no redress of comparable severity that would apply to an owner-occupier but not to someone in rented accommodation. Will the Minister address this point? In a Bill intended to put the victim first, what is the thinking behind the Government’s apparent decision that there should be two classes of victim when it comes to action that can be taken against those who cause misery through the activity defined in Clause 91?

Under Clause 91, tenants, including the individual convicted of riotous activity, who have caused no nuisance, annoyance or harassment, alarm and distress to anyone living in their own locality could be evicted. Children could be evicted. This clause appears to have more to do with punishment over and above that handed down by the court for riotous activity. This additional punishment is not evenly applied, since it can affect only those in social housing and assured tenancies and not owner-occupiers. Is that fair and just?

Finally, Clause 91 refers to,

“an offence which took place during, and at the scene of, a riot in the United Kingdom”.

Could this include an offence unrelated to the riot, but at the scene of the riot, such as careless or dangerous driving, or a minor assault? If so, could a family in rented accommodation face eviction for such an offence as a result?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

With regard to the question that the noble Lord asked me before our tea break, I have nothing further to add. The two classes of tenure are different. Therefore, the possession of property which is owned by someone and the possession of a property which is tenanted by someone are not comparable. The noble Lord is seeking to introduce a red herring. It adds nothing to whether anti-social behaviour should be grounds for possession.

[Lord Rosser]

I understand what the Minister is saying, but he seems reluctant to admit that under this Bill someone in rented accommodation can be treated much more severely than an owner-occupier. He seems unwilling to face up to there being, for the same offence, unequal treatment and indeed considerably more drastic treatment for those in rented accommodation, who can lose their homes while owner-occupiers cannot. There is no penalty of equal severity for an owner-occupier that does not apply to someone in rented accommodation.

18:30

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

An owner-occupier with a mortgage might well find his home taken from him as a result of a term of imprisonment. I say to the noble Lord that trying to compare bottles with cans is not a particularly helpful thing to do. Either he is in favour of retribution—

[Lord Faulks]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has been asked this question a number of times. Of course, there are differences. One significant difference, of which he will no doubt be aware, is that if you are a tenant of a public authority, you have additional protection by virtue of the Human Rights Act, whereas those who are not protected by a public authority—private tenants—do not have any such protection.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his intervention, which points to a difference. There is a difference in the treatment; there is not a difference in the way in which the victims are dealt with.

[Lord Rosser]

I am always interested to listen to a lawyer explaining the law. However, that point does not answer the point that I have made: for the same offence there is a much more drastic penalty for somebody in rented accommodation than for an owner-occupier—namely, loss of their dwelling.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Lord has made that point several times. It is up to other noble Lords to judge whether it correctly identifies anti-social behaviour, which is what the Bill seeks to address.

I would like to talk about the subject of this debate—that is, the specific proposals in Clause 91. As the law stands, thuggish behaviour against neighbours or in the locality of a tenant’s home may be a basis for eviction. However, looting, or other riot-related criminal activity, by tenants further away from their homes would not usually be taken into account. I do not think that is right, although the noble Lord may think that it is. People who wreck other people’s communities through riot-related offences should face the same consequences that they would if they carried out such behaviour in their own neighbourhoods. Clause 91 enables that to happen. It also sends out a strong and important message for the future that if you get involved in a riot, whether that is near your home or not, there may be consequences for your tenancy.

However, I emphasise that we would expect landlords to seek to evict under this new ground for possession only exceptionally. With regard to the concern raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights—that the ground amounts to a punishment and may disproportionately affect women and children—it is important to note that safeguards will be in place. The new ground is discretionary, and so, just as is the case for the existing discretionary grounds for possession for anti-social behaviour, the court would have to consider whether it was reasonable to grant a possession order in the light of the facts of the case. The impact on the whole household and any young children is likely to be a relevant factor in this.

Amendments 56AM and 56CC to this clause would mean that possession action under the provisions of Clause 91 could be triggered only where the tenant, and not a member of their household, had been convicted of an offence. Amendments 56B, 56C, 56D and 56E would mean that only convictions for “serious offences”, as defined for the purposes of the new absolute ground for possession, could trigger possession action under the provisions of Clause 91.

As I have said before, it is an established principle of tenancy law that a tenant is held responsible for the behaviour of members of their household. There is also an issue of wider parental responsibility here. In practice, though, the landlord would need to prove that it was reasonable to grant possession, and we consider it unlikely that the court would find this to be the case where a child of a tenant has, as a one-off, got caught up in, and committed, an offence during a riot. Clearly, a tenant, or any other parent, should be held more responsible if their teenage child makes their neighbours’ lives a misery over a period of years than if they just let them out of their sight for a few hours. Similarly, in practice we would not expect this new ground for possession to be used where the conviction was for a minor offence. We would expect these provisions to be used only exceptionally and in relation only to serious riot-related offences. Therefore, a landlord might, for example, consider possession action where one of their tenants had been convicted of a serious assault on a police officer, but not where they had stolen a pair of trainers from a shop. Again, even if a landlord were to apply for possession on the basis of a minor offence committed at the scene of a riot, we would not expect the court to consider it reasonable to grant possession. Therefore, we would, in practice, expect the impact of Amendments 56AM, 56CC, 56B, 56C, 56D and 56E to be limited.

I recognise, however, that, through these amendments, my noble friends—I was also grateful for the speeches made by my noble friends Lady Berridge and Lord Faulks—are seeking to ensure that we establish in law that only serious offences committed at the scene of a riot by a tenant could provide a trigger for possession under the new ground. I am, therefore, ready to consider these amendments further, without commitment, in advance of Report.

Amendments 56CA and 56CB would enable the court, when granting possession against a tenant, to order that the tenancy be transferred to another individual. There may be occasions, for example where relationships break down, where it is appropriate for a court to determine to whom within a household a new tenancy should be granted. In general, however, decisions about who should be allocated available social housing locally should rest with the landlord or, where nominations agreements are in place, with the local authority. They, not the courts, understand who is most in need of social housing locally, and are best placed to make decisions in the light of that knowledge.

In short, I believe that these provisions make entirely appropriate changes to the discretionary grounds for possession available to landlords. It will still be for the landlord and the courts to decide whether possession is reasonable in all the circumstances. That said, in relation to the riot-related provision, I will, as I have indicated, take away Amendments 56AM, 56CC, 56B, 56C, 56D and 56E and consider them further. With that assurance, I commend Clauses 90, 91 and 92 to the Committee.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I confess that I am a little confused by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. As I understand it, he supports the concept but takes issue with differentiation between tenures. However, in supporting the concept and saying that different tenures should be dealt with in a similar way, I assume that he is talking about confiscation of a property. However, we do not have to go there as that is not what is provided by the Bill. Obviously, I am very grateful to my noble friend—

[Lord Rosser]

I said that no redress of comparable severity would apply to an owner-occupier as opposed to somebody in rented accommodation.

[Baroness Hamwee]

As I said, the noble Lord is concerned about differentiation. That is where my logic—perhaps not his—takes me. I am grateful to the Minister. My amendments on the transfer of a tenancy sought to ameliorate the situation, although I recognise landlords’ concern. As regards what is reasonable for a court or a landlord to do, I am not sure whether the reasonableness concerns the seriousness of the offence or the nature of the household—for instance, whether there is a child in the household. I have a bit of a difficulty there. Having said that, my noble friend made my argument extremely well. I am very glad that this matter will be considered further and will not take up any more of the Committee’s time on it tonight. I look forward to coming back to it on Report, whenever that is. It is probably quite soon. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 56AM.

Amendment 56AM withdrawn.

Amendments 56B to 56E not moved.

Clause 91 agreed.

Clause 92 agreed.

Clause 93: The community remedy document

Amendment 56F

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

56F: Clause 93, page 64, line 14, leave out “one” and insert “two”

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 56F, I will speak also to Amendments 56G and 56H, as well as Amendments 56GA, 56GB, 56HA and 56HB in the name of my noble friend Lord Greaves.

With Clause 93 we reach Part 6 of the Bill—Local Involvement and Accountability—which starts with community remedies. The first of my amendments is to Clause 93(3), which provides that an action which might be included in the community remedy document is appropriate if it has one of three objects: assisting rehabilitation, ensuring reparation, and punishment.

A community remedy should have an objective of more than punishment. The Offender Rehabilitation Bill, which has been through this House and is now in the Commons, makes a very welcome switch in direction in penal policy by the way in which it looks at rehabilitation. There is a change in general thinking along these lines as well. My amendment would require two of those three actions—not punishment alone, but either reparation or rehabilitation as well; and it might just be rehabilitation and reparation.

Amendment 56G is on a completely different point: consultation on the community remedy document. It would require the police and crime commissioner, or MOPAC in London—I do regret the loss of the acronym MOPC—to consult with local authorities. I cannot believe that I have omitted to mention the London boroughs, but I am sure that the Minister will tell me that, for this purpose, they are unitary. Amendments 56GA and 56GB from my noble friend Lord Greaves are much better, but they do the same thing.

Amendments 56HA and 56HB are my noble friend’s amendments to Clause 94. They ask about the relationship between the requirements that the community remedy document places on someone, whether by agreement or conviction, and the requirements under IPNAs and CBOs. Are they the same? Are the requirements in Clause 93 the way in which IPNAs and CBOs will also operate, or are community remedies alternative and additional? Why are they all needed?

My noble friend’s amendments also probe the concept of the community remedy as an alternative to a fixed penalty notice or a caution when an offence has taken place. He is concerned that the whole area of penalties versus cautions might become even more muddled. I share this concern. I think I saw a government statement recently announcing changes in the use of unconditional cautions; I might be wrong, but this is not central to the amendments. Apart from, perhaps, my first amendment on consultation, these are probing amendments as to the provisions in this part of the Bill. I beg to move.

18:45

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I shall be brief. I shall certainly be interested to hear the Minister’s response to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Subject to hearing from the Minister, it is difficult to see what the problem would be with inserting “two” rather than “one” in Clause 93(3). As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has also pointed out, when it comes to Clause 93(5), although there is consultation, it does not seem as if local authorities are going to get much of a look-in. If the Minister was going to move to two rather than one of the objects having to be carried out, it would be even more important to consult with local authorities.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, perhaps I may deal with that point. It is clear that local authorities are likely to be engaged in the compilation of suitable elements for community remedies but we do not see the necessity of putting it in the Bill.

I thank my noble friend Lady Hamwee for raising these issues about this important part of the Bill. Dealing with low-level crime, out of court where appropriate, means that victims get justice quickly. My noble friend is absolutely right: there is a review going on at the moment of informal cautions and the consequences of out-of-court settlements. Damian Green announced this in a Written Ministerial Statement on 19 November. These remedies strengthen the armoury. They mean that the offender has to face immediate consequences for his or her actions which can make her or him less likely to offend in the future. The community remedy will give victims of low-level crime and anti-social behaviour a say in the punishment of offenders out of court. It will also ensure that victims and the public agree that the punishments used are meaningful, rather than a token slap on the wrist.

The Bill provides that the actions on the community remedy menu must have the objective either of assisting in the offender’s rehabilitation, ensuring that they make reparation or providing a punishment. Some actions will have more than one of these elements; for example, cleaning up graffiti is a reparative action but it also has an element of punishment. In other cases, appropriate actions may have only one of the elements required. One of the actions we have suggested in the draft guidance is that the offender could be asked to sign an acceptable behaviour contract, whereby they agree not to behave anti-socially in future. This assists the rehabilitation of the offender but it need not have a reparative or punitive element.

I know that my noble friend is keen to avoid actions that are purely punitive in nature. However, I see no reason why this should not sometimes be appropriate. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 already provides that a conditional caution may impose a financial penalty on the offender. On its own, this would be a punitive punishment and may, in some cases, be entirely appropriate. So we should not rule out that option.

Amendments 56G and 56H would make the community remedy document subject to consultation and agreement with the local authority as well as with the police. The PCC has a duty to consult the chief constable and to agree the community remedy menu with him or her. This is appropriate, since police officers will be using the community remedy document and will take ultimate responsibility for the sanction offered to the offender.

However, I believe that the role of the local authority is a little different. The PCC should consult with community representatives and the public. We would expect this to include local councils, as they are likely to contribute a number of actions to the menu. Professionals such as youth offending teams will know what actions are appropriate and what resources are available locally to deliver the more formal sanctions.

My noble friend has tabled a number of amendments—alongside those in the name of my noble friend Lord Greaves, who is not in his place today—which seek to enhance the role of local authorities in the Bill. In this instance, I believe that it makes a good deal of sense to formalise the relationship between the PCC, the police and local authorities in establishing the community remedy document. There is much to be gained from this relationship and, since the community remedy document will be established in advance—one might say in slow time—there is nothing to lose by making the responsibility to consult a statutory one. However, I believe that the responsibility to agree the actions to be included on the community remedy document should rest with the PCC and the chief constable. PCCs are democratically accountable to the public, and the responsibility of ensuring that the community remedy meets the needs of local people properly rests with the PCC.

For many of the same reasons, I do not believe that the decision about whom it is appropriate to consult in preparing the document should be a joint responsibility of the local authority and the PCC, which is what Amendments 56GA and 56GB, tabled by my noble friend Lord Greaves and spoken to by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, seek to do. Responsibility for preparing the community remedy document properly rests with the PCC, and so, by and large, should the decision on consultation.

Amendments 56HA and 56HB, also tabled by my noble friend Lord Greaves, would mean that the community remedy would be used for anti-social behaviour only and not for low-level criminal offences. The Bill places a duty on the police officer to make reasonable efforts to obtain the views of the victim on whether the offender should undertake any of the actions in the community remedy document.

As currently drafted, that duty applies when someone has admitted to anti-social behaviour or a low-level criminal offence which the officer has decided will be dealt with using a conditional caution. The community remedy provides a means to engage the victim in considering what the community resolution should be or in considering appropriate conditions to attach to the caution. The police officer will take ultimate responsibility for the sanction offered to the offender and must ensure that it is proportionate to the offence committed.

I am firmly convinced that this victim-focused approach should apply equally where it is considered appropriate to deal with a low-level criminal offence with an out-of-court disposal. In particular, where the offending is low-level or it is someone’s first offence, undertaking an action from the community remedy menu, such as apologising to the victim or repairing the damage caused, may have a more positive and longer lasting impact on the offender than a formal court sanction.

As I have indicated, I will give sympathetic consideration to Amendment 56G in advance of Report. As for the other amendments, I hope that, having aired these important issues, my noble friend will be content to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Newlove (Con)]

My Lords, how will the remedies be evaluated? I am inclined to think that the community remedy is not “one size fits all”. I know that it rests with the PCCs but I have said previously that I am concerned about how the remedies will be reviewed across the country. Can the Minister give me any idea of how that is going to happen?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Each PCC has to consult within his area on what is considered to be an appropriate menu—if one might call it that—of suitable community remedies. I have little doubt that members of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners will discuss this matter in some detail among themselves and that there will be considerable input. However, essentially it will be about local decisions made to address local problems and finding local solutions for local anti-social behaviour and for dealing with low-level crime at a local level and in a formal way.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I suspect that the debate about the role of the local authority and the relationships between the local authority and local policing bodies is destined to go on and on. However, wherever the word “community” is seen, I move almost seamlessly to local authorities. Police and crime commissioners are indeed democratically accountable but so are local authorities. Local authorities are going to be more local than most of the police and crime commissioners, whose areas of responsibility are very wide, and of course they cannot impose a penalty themselves. Anti-social behaviour is very much a local authority concern. I am not seeking to downplay the role or status of police and crime commissioners—I would expect both to contribute. However, I thank the Minister for his response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 56F withdrawn.

Amendments 56G to 56H not moved.

Clause 93 agreed.

Clause 94: Anti-social behaviour etc: out-of-court disposals

Amendments 56HA and 56HB not moved.

Amendment 56J

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

56J: Clause 94, page 66, line 10, at end insert—
“( ) Provisions should be put in place under a designated senior police officer to ensure scrutiny of decision making through a local scrutiny panel.
( ) The strategy and usage of cautions and out of court disposals should be reviewed by a local scrutiny panel on a regular basis.
( ) The use of cautions and out of court disposals for serious cases and repeat offenders should be particularly scrutinised.”

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a probing amendment, which seeks to put in place a scrutiny element in decision-making through a local scrutiny panel. I have taken the wording of the amendment from the recently published government document, Review of Simple Cautions, which was written by the College of Policing and the Government and was published in November this year.

Scrutiny is a method by which out-of-court disposals can be reviewed by magistrates, district judges, PCCs, the police, the probation service and YOTs. In London, I understand that MOPAC, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, would take the lead.

I understand that the necessary legislation is in place for scrutiny panels to be established and that a number of PCCs have already introduced some form of scrutiny panel. The prime purpose of these panels is of course to help the public maintain confidence in out-of-court disposals. I am moving this probing amendment because I believe that the rollout of scrutiny panels has been very patchy across the country. As far as I know, no scrutiny panels have been established in London, and I believe that that is a cause for concern.

It is worth reviewing the figures relating to the massive change in recorded crime that we have seen in recent years. In 2008, there was a maximum of 360,000 cautions. Currently, the number of cautions issued by the police is about 200,000, which represents a huge reduction. In London, in our youth courts over the past three years we have seen a halving of the number of cases brought to court. There are any number of explanations for this huge reduction in recorded crime, and I shall not go through all the possible ones. However, I will list some of them because I know that they have been widely debated in the press and elsewhere.

The first is that there is indeed a genuine reduction in the level of crime, which of course is to be welcomed. A second explanation that is commonly advanced is the cuts to the police service. A further explanation is the massaging of reported crime figures, as was alleged in the Public Administration Select Committee on 19 November. A further explanation is the removal of police targets for offences brought to justice. Another is that the police are concentrating resources on gang-related offences rather than specific drug-related ones: namely, possession with intent to supply. That explanation is specific to the London area.

19:00

There are other, more improbable, explanations: I will list just a couple. The first, which I heard from a police officer, is that the riots of 2011 led to a reduction in the current levels of crime because the offenders were locked up for such lengthy periods that they failed to instruct a younger generation in crime. The second is that the banning of lead in petrol in 1998 led to this reduction in crime.

As I say, there is any number of reasons for this. However, the Government will be well aware that there is widespread scepticism about the reliability of the figures used. The method put in place by the Government to try to address that scepticism is the scrutiny panel. I am moving these amendments—which are probing; I understand that the legislation is in place—to try to get the Government to roll out the scrutiny process more thoroughly. My experience is that in London it is just not happening. It is a very important part of the process for the public to maintain confidence in our out-of-court disposals. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, one of the issues that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede raised is the apparent extent to which Clause 94 could be used to keep cases that would justify court proceedings under the terms of the Bill out of the courts, where an individual has admitted to engaging in anti-social behaviour or committing an offence to a constable, investigating officer or a person authorised to issue additional cautions. Even where such a person thinks that the evidence is enough to seek an injunction under Section 1 or to take other court proceedings, they can still make a decision not to seek an injunction, not to take court proceedings, not to give a caution and not to give a fixed penalty notice. Instead, they can tell the offender to carry out any action listed in the community remedy document, including making a payment to the victim.

Since the Secretary of State is to issue guidance to local policing bodies on how they should discharge their functions in preparing or revising the community remedy document, can the Minister say what will be the maximum penalties that can be provided for in that document, including the maximum payment that can be ordered to be made to the victim? If an offence has been admitted, can the offender insist on being taken to court or receiving a caution or fixed penalty, rather than carrying out an action listed in the community remedy document?

Will a constable or investigating officer be able to act under Clause 94(3) if the offender has previously committed offences, or will it be only if the offender is not previously known? Will a record be kept and, if so, by whom, of any actions under Clause 94(3) that an individual who has committed anti-social behaviour or an offence has been told to take? Since the community remedy document is to apply not only to anti-social behaviour but to an individual who has committed an offence, what kind of offences will be deemed suitable to be dealt with under Clause 94?

My noble friend Lord Ponsonby spoke about the issue of scrutiny and the apparent inadequacy of the scrutiny that is likely to take place. Certainly, there do not seem to be watertight provisions in the Bill to ensure that such scrutiny takes place of the use of the powers under Clause 94.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for tabling his amendment. As he explained, it is probing in nature and seeks to establish a local panel to scrutinise the strategy and use of cautions and out of court disposals in particular. I listened carefully to the reasoning given for the reduction in crime; there were some interesting comments.

I draw your Lordships’ attention to the out of court disposals review that is currently taking place, in partnership between the Ministry of Justice and the police, and in conjunction with the Home Office, the Attorney General’s Office and the Crown Prosecution Service. The review will look at all out of court disposals currently used against adults and consider how they might be reformed. The aim is to ensure that out of court disposals are as effective, simple and transparent as possible. The review includes conditional cautions and community resolutions, both of which will be subject to the community remedy. This public consultation was launched on 14 November to seek the views and experiences of professionals, victims’ organisations and the public. The consultation will conclude on 9 January and the review as a whole will conclude later in the spring.

Two key themes of the review—picking up on a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby—are transparency and accountability. The consultation asks the public to consider whether they think there is more information about out of court disposals that should be shared; whether they are able to hold the police to account for the way that out of court disposals are used; and how they think that the Government can make the out of court disposal system more accountable.

In particular, the consultation asks for views on what sort of offences out of court disposals are appropriate for. I agree that the use of cautions for serious offences and repeat offenders requires careful consideration in each specific case. The Review of Simple Cautions, to which the noble Lord referred, has already been completed. The review made it clear that cautions should no longer be used for indictable only offences, and certain serious either-way offences, unless there are exceptional circumstances, and that those who persist in criminal activity should no longer expect to receive a caution. Those changes have been made to the guidance on simple cautions.

The out of court disposals review is also looking at this issue. Currently, the guidance for all out of court disposals indicates that they are available for all offenders, but are primarily intended to address first-time offending. The latest data, for 2012-13, show that 60% of those getting a caution—that is, either a simple or a conditional caution—have not received a previous caution.

On the issue of senior officer oversight, the simple cautions review recommended that there should be greater local accountability and scrutiny of decision-making. The review further recommended that each force should have a senior officer identified as responsible who would provide local leadership and accountability and who would make use of local scrutiny panels. We are considering that recommendation carefully as part of the wider out of court disposals review. There are clearly links between the matters considered in the simple cautions review and the out of court disposals review, and we will consider these alongside each other. Further, I assure the noble Lord that the issues he and others raised in this debate will be fed into the out of court disposals review.

The draft guidance on the community remedy signposts existing CPS guidance on the use of conditional cautions. The community remedy will work with any changes to conditional cautions or community resolutions that take place as a result of the review, but we need to be careful not to impose anything in the Bill or the guidance that will contradict or restrict any changes to those systems.

I will pick up a few points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. He asked about the crimes for which the remedy might be used. They are low-level criminal damage, low-value theft, minor assault without injury and anti-social behaviour, and are currently set out on page 15 of the draft guidance. In addition, the noble Lord asked whether the offender could insist on prosecution. The answer is no. He asked whether the community remedy only applied to first-time offenders; I have already covered that particular issue. I was asked what records are kept. The police will keep records in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 and will retain them if there is a specific police purpose. As I said, a much more detailed review will end in January of next year.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, indicated that this was a probing amendment. I hope by what I have said that that I have conveyed that there are broader issues to consider as well. We will undoubtedly return to this issue once the current review results are out. In the interim, I hope that the noble Lord is reassured both by my explanations and my commitment that the content of this debate will be included in that review, and that he will be minded to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for that response to my amendment. I am pleased that there will be a further review of out of court proposals. Perhaps there should be a review of the scrutiny panels themselves? The purpose of my amendment is not to address a lack of legislation. The legislation has been in place for years: it is just that it has not been implemented.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

On that point, as I said in my response, one thing that the wider review is doing is talking directly to local players on the ground, including local police, to feed back on the effect. The noble Lord is quite right that legislation is available. What we need to see is practical implementation. We hope that the more detailed review will address those issues.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

Once again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for that explanation. I will make one last point. In London, where 25% of all crime in England and Wales takes place, as far as I am aware no scrutiny panels are in operation. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 56J withdrawn.

Clause 94 agreed.

Clause 95 agreed.

Clause 96: Review of response to complaints

Amendment 56K

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

56K: Clause 96, page 67, line 30, at end insert—
“( ) The relevant bodies must decide under subsection (1)(b) that the threshold for a review is met where the person making the complaint has notified any of the relevant bodies that he or she has been a victim of anti-social behaviour or is vulnerable due to ill health, mental capacity, race, sexuality or religion.”

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

This amendment is regarding the threshold for review for the community trigger. We are concerned that the community trigger will not be effective unless it takes into account the vulnerability of the victim. We all accept that vulnerability is important and how somebody responds to anti-social behaviour has a huge effect on the impact it has on them and on the community. Our worry is that the proposed trigger is too weak and will therefore be ineffective.

We put in some freedom of information requests about the number of times the triggers had been successfully activated in the pilot areas. The figure was just 13 times out of a reported 44,011 incidents of anti-social behaviour. The worry is that somebody who is vulnerable is not treated any differently to someone who is perhaps more robust and able to deal with the problem.

I feel so strongly about this because I am reminded of one of the first cases I dealt with when I was a reasonably young county councillor in the early 1990s. A lady who came to see me and with whom I was in regular contact for some time was vulnerable. She was easily bullied. Most of us would have thought that the behaviour of some kids in her street was insignificant—eggs thrown at her windows, for example. It was annoying and irritating, and it went on for some time, but her reaction made her more vulnerable. Trying to get the authorities to act in the days before we had anti-social behaviour orders was extremely difficult. It went on for some considerable time.

That situation has not stopped. The Minister will be aware of recent cases and the case of Fiona Pilkington and 18 year-old Francecca Hardwick which goes back to 2009. They complained 33 times about harassment and anti-social behaviour. In the end, Miss Pilkington set fire to their car and they were both killed. Anti-social behaviour can have some tragic and harmful consequences, particularly where the victims are vulnerable. The amendment would ensure that the community trigger takes into account that vulnerability and the need for a 24-hour response if someone says that they are vulnerable. That should be enough to speed up the process. We do not want to see other incidents with such a tragic consequence.

19:15

My colleagues in the other place raised this in Committee. The Minister, Jeremy Browne, said then that the Bill already provides a framework for taking account of particular vulnerabilities and individual needs. I cannot find that in the Bill or in that amendment. Both the issue of vulnerability and the reporting process need to be explicit and clear in legislation or guidance—I would prefer in legislation. One thing that struck me about the Fiona Pilkington case was the comment that systems were in place for officers to have linked the catalogue of incidents, but they were not well utilised. It is a case of being very specific and clear about what the expectations are. I am concerned that Jeremy Browne was talking about hate crimes. Perhaps the Minister can give me some guidance on this. Hate crime does take vulnerability into account, but anti-social behaviour and hate crimes are not the same thing.

The chief executive of Victim Support also said that she supported the community trigger in principle,

“but we think it could go further than that, to make the most important thing in measuring the test the impact on the victim … We think that should very much be the focus of the test: the vulnerability of the victims”.

There is real concern that vulnerable victims will definitely feel that their complaints have not been adequately dealt with if they have to make a minimum of three complaints. Under the heading “Review of response to complaints”, Clause 96(4) states:

“In a situation where … at least three (or, if a different number is specified in the review procedures, at least that number of) qualifying complaints have been made”.

For someone who is feeling vulnerable, being bullied and suffering from anti-social behaviour, three complaints can be two complaints too many before we see tragic consequences. Those three complaints do not guarantee a response: they merely trigger a review from the police or council.

I understand what the Minister is seeking here, but it would be helpful if he could look at this in a little more detail. We looked at how this was approached in the Manchester City Council case study and we were quite impressed with the way these issues were looked at. There were four trigger questions to ascertain the vulnerability of the victim. Something like that could be looked at to take into account those vulnerable victims who feel the consequences and suffer the impact far more than others. They could then be dealt with as a matter of greater urgency, rather than having to make three complaints first. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has made some interesting and important points and I agree that the impact on the victim is what we should be looking at. But I am concerned about the wording. This may be a start, but it is not the complete solution. Notification is not the same as an assessment and certainly not the same as any evidence that there has actually been previous anti-social behaviour and claiming that there has—one can see how mischief could be made of that. What is vulnerability? These things cover a wide spectrum. I take the point about starting from how the victim feels and whether feeling that makes that person a victim whereas another person might not feel victimised by the same behaviour, but it is a complicated area.

My amendment 56L would provide a trigger in the case of more than one complaint if it is made by somebody living at a different address. What I am getting at is that this needs to be about more than just a tiff between two neighbours and not something that is very short term.

Amendments 56LA to 56LE in the name of my noble friend Lord Greaves are, he says, part of his attempt to get uniform and accurate descriptions of councils in different parts of the Bill. The Minister will recognise this. The only thing that I would disagree with him on is the phrase “part of his attempt”—I think one could call it a campaign.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

I come to this area of problems between neighbours or people in residential environments through my work as a chartered surveyor. I see it in terms of being brought into situations where these problems have turned into some sort of property dispute. I have enormous sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, set out, and with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said. The difficulty is that when people have annoyed each other there are various phases to this annoyance.

The first stage is to say: “Oh, well. They have done something they should not have done”. The second stage is: “If they do that again, I shall take action”. The third stage is when absolutely anything, however minor, triggers the most violent reaction. People who have got themselves in a sensitised situation cannot get out of that psychological bind. That is one of the most difficult and intractable things that one has to deal with. This may result in the police being called out on multiple occasions or the local authority being endlessly rung. That is the reality.

Yes, people will claim that they are vulnerable, although in a sense that is a self-assessment of whether they are actually vulnerable or it is some self-created vulnerability. What I do know is that on both sides of the argument, the perpetrator and the victim are likely to think that the other is completely nuts, irrational and unreasonable in their attitude. I do not know how this Bill or this amendment resolve that issue. There is a case for taking some of these things out of what one might call a heavyweight approach to dealing with the problem.

Whether one fires off in the direction of some other community means of trying to unpick things—getting people to realise that their neighbours’ children are not ogres and the children’s parents to recognise that the affected person is also not an ogre—is a really difficult issue. I am not sure that we have the solution here. However, I shall certainly give the matter some careful thought between now and the next stage, because there is something in terms of social cohesion and peaceable existence for people in residential environments that needs to be addressed much more deeply.

[Baroness Newlove (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 56K. For far too long we have allowed concerns about the rights of perpetrators to inhibit communities from addressing this important issue at the expense of the majority of law-abiding citizens, who are simply trying to get on with life, raise a family, work and study. What has to happen before we actually face that what is termed anti-social behaviour is so wide that we cannot sit in the ivory tower of Parliament and honestly tie it down for today and tomorrow? We need to allow flexibility for these powers to be meaningful.

I must congratulate and thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for proposing one of very few amendments that think of the victims. I have seen so many provisions and amendments about protecting the perpetrators’ ethical and religious beliefs and considering their disabilities, but for me, this is the first about the victim. I cannot tell your Lordships’ about the number of times that I have been contacted by victims who are ill, elderly, suffer disabilities—or all three. They have to deal with anti-social behaviour and are scared to leave their home. These people need immediate action and cannot wait for the numerical thresholds to be met. So I, for one, fully support this amendment.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, this has been a good debate and we have addressed the whole relevance of the community trigger and how it might operate in practice. We have had the four trials—the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, referred to the one in Manchester and the report that we have had on it. We can all agree that persistent anti-social behaviour causes significant harm to victims. That has been made quite clear by everybody who has spoken—my noble friend Lady Newlove, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee. However, people can sometimes find themselves being passed from the police to the council, to the landlord and back again, or reporting the same problem over and over again.

The community trigger will give victims and communities the right to demand that agencies that have ignored repeated complaints take action. It is an important safety net and is at the heart of our reforms to put the victim at the centre of the response to anti-social behaviour. I hope that no authority in every instance to has to wait to be reminded three times of anti-social behaviour. Some anti-social behaviour will need immediate response, but the community trigger will give victims the right to a review of the authority’s response when three notifications have been made.

Amendment 56K, from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, relates to the threshold for using the community trigger. The Bill provides that the threshold will include the number of complaints that a victim has made in a certain timeframe; for example, three complaints in six months. However, it will also include an assessment of the victim’s vulnerability, because we know that it is often the most vulnerable in our society who are at greatest risk. Many agencies complete a risk assessment when a case is reported, and will revisit the assessment periodically, because vulnerability and resilience to vulnerability change over time in certain cases, though not in all.

The Home Office summary report on the community trigger trials, which was published in May, contains an example risk assessment matrix. This was the one used by the Richmond Housing Partnership. The matrix asks for details of the behaviour, such as how frequent it is, whether it is getting worse, the vulnerability of the victim—including whether they are being deliberately targeted and how much it has affected them—and the support available to the victim, such as whether they live alone or have a close network of friends and family, and whether their health is affected. The answers are scored and the result provides an indication of the potential harm—I use that phrase definitively, because it appears in the Bill—that may be caused to the victim. It is not a definitive assessment, but it assists the professional in assessing the needs of the victim.

We have added a second limb in response to a recommendation from the Home Affairs Select Committee. It ensures that the potential for harm will be a consideration when setting a trigger threshold, not just the number and frequency of incidents. Amendment 56K seeks to determine that the community trigger threshold will be met if the victim is judged to be vulnerable due to ill health, mental capacity, race, sexuality or religion. I have every sympathy with the intention of this amendment.

I understand that anti-social behaviour can often be motivated by these factors, and that vulnerable people need our protection. However, the broader approach to considering potential harm that I have just described captures these as well as other vulnerabilities. Rather than trying to put victims into categories, we require agencies to consider their individual needs.

I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that focus on vulnerability is already provided for in the Bill. I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to page 58 and Clause 96(5)(b), which refers to,

“the harm caused, or the potential for harm to be caused, by that behaviour”.

So that is in the Bill.

19:30

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

The noble Lord said page 58; did he mean page 68?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I apologise if I misdirected the Committee. There is direct reference to the subjective nature of anti-social behaviour. That was on the recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee. It also appears in the guidance, under the heading “Putting victims first”, which states on page 10:

“The Community Trigger can be used by any person and agencies should consider how to make it as accessible as possible to young people, those who are vulnerable, have learning difficulties or do not speak English”.

On the following page, under “Responding to the victim”, it repeats that the potential harm to a particular victim is one of the key matters that has to be taken into account. We have already built in the very issues that the noble Baroness has said she would like in the Bill.

I turn to Amendment 56L, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. It probes the finer detail of how the community trigger threshold will work in practice. My noble friend seeks reassurance that, for instance, three members of a household cannot report the same problem and have that count as three separate incidents for the purpose of meeting the threshold. This would of course mean that they would essentially jump the queue to get their problem dealt with as a community trigger. The Bill already accounts for this, and I will happily explain how.

Clause 96(11) defines a “qualifying complaint” for the purpose of the community trigger. The complaint needs to be made within one month of the incident occurring, or a different period if specified within the review procedures. This is to prevent someone making complaints about historical incidents in order to use the community trigger. Subsection (12) allows the local agencies to set out what will be considered a “qualifying complaint” where someone makes two or more complaints about the same behaviour or incident, in particular when separate complaints relate to different aspects of one incident. That achieves the safeguard that Amendment 56L is designed to achieve.

We want to ensure that the legislation is robust enough that only genuine requests to use the community trigger meet the threshold, while allowing the procedures to be flexible enough to ensure that the trigger can help those victims who need it most. I hope that I have reassured my noble friend that the procedures are set out in a way that will ensure they will not be manipulated in the manner that she fears.

As I said, we have trialled the community trigger in four parts of the country since June 2012, and the majority of requests to use the trigger were genuine. We have tested the legislation through trials and I am content that we have achieved a good balance between addressing the needs of the most vulnerable victims, which my noble friend Lady Newlove emphasised, and allowing agencies the flexibility to operate the community trigger to suit local circumstances.

Some amendments have been tabled by my noble friend Lord Greaves, to which my noble friend Lady Hamwee referred. I know that my noble friend is anxious to ensure that we standardise the definition of a local authority in the Bill. In this case, however, the wording used in Clause 97 and Schedule 4 is technically correct. His amendment 56LD inadvertently omits line 19 on page 69, which is still required. Given that our provisions are technically correct, I am not persuaded that there are sufficient grounds to make the amendments.

I hope that, having listened to what I have said, the noble Baroness is content to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am grateful to the Minister; I think he has heard what I said. I should like to read the details of what he said in Hansard with reference to the guidelines and the Bill, because I am not 100% sure that the points he makes fully address the issues that I brought forward today. First, he said that there is a right to demand that the authorities take action. My understanding is that it is not a right to take action, it is a right to have a review of the case. He is right to say that, sometimes, cases of anti-social behaviour are motivated by someone’s vulnerability, but sometimes it is the vulnerability of the individual that makes the anti-social behaviour more severe, because they are less able to cope with the pressures they face.

I am very grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner. She fully understands the point I am trying to make about how people react to anti-social behaviour. For the trigger to be used 13 times in more than 14,000 incidents gives me cause for concern. If I can go back to read what the Minister said and read the guidance, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 56K withdrawn.

Amendment 56L not moved.

Clause 96 agreed.

Schedule 4: ASB case reviews: supplementary provision

Amendment 56LA not moved.

Schedule 4 agreed.

Clause 97: ASB case reviews: interpretation

Amendments 56LB to 56LE not moved.

Clause 97 agreed.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.37 pm.

Wales: Cost of Living

Monday 2nd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

19:37

Asked by

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the current cost of living and changes to the welfare system on the people and economy of Wales.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, when the banking crisis hit in 2008, we knew that someone, somewhere would pay a price, but even the most callous cynic would never have predicted that the people to be hardest hit would be the poorest people in Wales, while the richest people in Britain would be given a tax break and the bankers—the people who caused the crisis—would be receiving massive bonuses.

The cuts to the support mechanisms for the most vulnerable in our society and a compounding of the problem through the increases in the cost of living mean that there are, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, almost 700,000 people living in poverty in Wales today. Let us just imagine what that looks like. Picture the Millennium Stadium full. Now picture it again and again and again. The number of people living in poverty in Wales today would be enough to fill the Millennium Stadium 10 times over. These are people living on a hand-to-mouth existence and in perpetual fear of how they will make the money last until the end of the week.

Research by Sheffield Hallam University found that Wales will lose more than £1 billion a year when all the benefit cuts are taken into account. That represents an average cut of £550 per year to every working age adult. That is 20% higher than the estimated average loss for Great Britain. Under benefit cuts, Wales is the hardest hit.

Of course, the point is that those cuts will not be equally distributed; they will be focused on those least able to cope with them. Merthyr Tydfil will be one of the areas hardest hit in the whole of Britain, where adults will lose an average of £722 per year. The biggest single loss of income will be felt by around 350,000 working-age benefit claimants and 330,000 families in receipt of tax credits as a result of increasing benefits in line with inflation by the consumer prices index rather than the retail prices index in future. This matters because the CPI inflation rate does not take into account rises in mortgages, rents and council tax. Guess what? These are going up, fairly significantly.

Just when you think it cannot get any worse you hear that the Government plan to reduce the income of 42,000 disabled people in Wales by removing their disability living allowance, costing them around £55 to £83 a week. This also means that their carers lose carer’s allowance. This will not mean that they cut down on little luxuries. There was never a latte in the local coffee shop for these people. They will have to decide between putting the heating on and feeding their children. Approximately 600,000 children live in Wales and of these around 200,000 are living in poverty—one in three of the total—according to a new report from Save the Children. Wales has the highest rate of child poverty of any nation in the UK. What does this mean in reality? It means that parents are skipping meals and are dreading Christmas as they know they cannot give the little treats that most of us can take for granted. Wales is hardest hit by child poverty.

Of course, times are tough and the deficit needs to be reduced but it is galling to hear these statistics while those who caused the crisis are earning more than ever. The European Banking Authority last week claimed that the total number of UK bankers earning more than £800,000 last year increased by 11% to more than 2,700 and their average pay rose by 43% to £1.67 million. The freezing of child benefit for three years will affect 370,000 families in Wales, each losing an average of £2.50 a week, with a total loss to Wales of £47 million in 2014. The cost of food, school buses and school uniforms has gone up, not down. Of course, we expect a Cabinet full of millionaires whose children attend private schools to be out of touch, but do they need to inflict further pain on those least able to bear it?

I want to touch briefly on the bedroom tax. This policy is ripping people away from their communities or forcing them into the hands of loan sharks. Again, Wales is hardest hit, with 46% of housing benefit recipients who live in social housing affected—40,000 households. Let me give a picture of what this policy means for Emma. Emma is 57 and lives alone in a three-bedroomed social housing property. She took tenancy of the property with her husband, who died two years ago. She has lived in the property for 25 years and brought her children up there. She looks after her grandchildren and is in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance of £71 a week. Once she has paid the bedroom tax of £18.50 a week, TV licence at £2.75, travel at £5, electricity at £10, telephone at £5, water at £8.50 and gas at £10 she is left with £11.25 a week for everything else. Emma is still making a valuable contribution to society but can anyone pay for all their food, clothes and other basic requirements for a civilised life from £11.25 a week? Wales is hardest hit by the bedroom tax.

Will the Minister give an assurance that if there are no smaller houses for people to move into in their area they will not be forced to pay the pernicious spare bedroom tax? Thank goodness that the Welsh Government are sensitive to the pressures of costs today. The cut in council tax benefit that the UK coalition has imposed—a new poll tax no less—has led the Welsh Government to put protection measures in place worth £22 million. It means that a quarter of a million poor families in Wales will at least not be hit by this coalition cut.

The people receiving welfare support want to work and do not recognise the miracle uplift in the economy that is supposedly occurring. Most couples with children are now required to work at least 24 hours a week, up from 16 hours, to qualify for working tax credits. These people have demonstrated that they are able and willing to work but they will lose up to £3,800 a year if they are unable to find additional hours. Wales has seen the largest increase in the UK of people who want to work more hours but cannot find them due to the coalition’s failed economic policies. Some 65,000 people in Wales are under-employed. Wales is hardest hit by under-employment.

The Pope was right and I am not a Catholic so I do not have to believe that he is always right. He claims that the trickle-down economic theory does not work. It does not work from the richest to the poorest and it does not work from the centre, London, to the periphery, Wales. However, it is not just the people living on welfare who are suffering. Wales has the highest proportion of workers of anywhere in the UK, around 300,000 people—the same as the population of Cardiff—earning less than the living wage. Minimum wage jobs account for close to 7% of jobs in Wales compared with the average of 5% across the UK. Labour local authorities are leading the way in paying all workers a living wage, with Cardiff one of the first to sign up. Wales is hardest hit by low pay.

Women are suffering disproportionately from the cuts and are more likely to be on low pay than men, with 28% on less than the living wage compared with 16% of men. What is being done to make sure that than women’s voices are heard? It is not just the poor who are suffering; the middle classes are as well. Real wages have fallen in 41 out of 42 weeks and Welsh workers are now £1,600 worse off, with an 8% fall in annual pay since the coalition came to power. Energy bills in Wales have risen by almost £300 since 2010. South Wales has the highest combined gas and electricity bills in Britain and north Wales the third highest. Wales is the hardest hit by energy bills.

Where are the answers from the Government? The coalition boasts of more than £2 billion of new infrastructure that will benefit Wales. However, virtually none of this will be evident in this Parliament. Electrification of the Great Western main line to Swansea will not start until 2015. The north Wales prison will not be completed until 2017 and major onsite work at Wylfa Newydd will not start until 2018. The poor of Wales need answers now, not in 2015. Can the Minister give some examples of what is being put in place now by the UK Government to give some kind of hope that jobs will be available for those desperate to come off welfare support?

19:47

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, on securing this debate. It is good to see the spotlight on Wales. The noble Baroness and I go back quite a way. I anticipated that there would be some valid points and some party political ones and there were some of both although they did not often coincide, sadly. I thought, first, I would look at some of the points on welfare, secondly, look at the cost of living issues and then, thirdly, try to put it in the context of Wales in general, particularly looking at some of the devolved elements that apply.

The welfare changes have to be seen against the background of the deficit. The noble Baroness did allude to that. The deficit did not suddenly happen. A gaping deficit confronted the country in 2010 as Gordon Brown left office and the coalition Government under David Cameron took over. I think it was common ground among the parties that this deficit needed to be dealt with. Against that background, it was anticipated, and indeed acknowledged, that welfare reform was a key part of that. There have often been warm words from the Official Opposition about the need to tackle welfare reform, but nothing specific, and when any particular reform is put forward they always shoot it down. We need more than warm words. We need some concrete evidence of what they would do.

In the reform process the most vulnerable need protection. We have sought to do that with pensioners. For example, pensioners are now getting a protected pension with a rise in line with the consumer prices index, or average earnings, of 2.5%. That did not happen under the previous Government and there was, on one occasion at least, a derisory increase which was howled down even by people on the Labour side. We need to recognise that pensioners are being protected, as they are on the spare room subsidy. The noble Baroness referred to that welfare reform.

On some of the cost of living issues, first, what has happened on energy bills did not suddenly happen. The noble Baroness is well aware of that, having worked as a director for an energy company for much of the period in which these increases were happening. I am sure that her abilities and talents were being used to try to keep those increases down. But this is not something that suddenly happened and we are seeking to address that, too.

One thing that the noble Baroness did not refer to was the fact that employment has remained strong. Indeed, it has gone up at a time when it was anticipated, certainly by the right honourable Leader of the Opposition, that unemployment would go up. That has not happened. It has gone down in Wales in the past year by 22,000. Some policies have been pursued effectively in Wales by the Welsh Government; for example, on enterprise zones, a policy of the coalition Government, but with a Welsh spin. I declare an interest as a chair of the Haven Waterway enterprise zone in Pembrokeshire. We have seen local unemployment fall in Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire over the past several months, which is all to the good. Again, there is agreement among the parties, and this is certainly the case in Wales, that there had to be a move from public sector growth to private sector growth. That has long been anticipated.

Perhaps I may say something in a wider context about the devolved settlement after 14 and a half years of devolution. I strongly support devolution, of course, but that does not mean that I support all the policies that have been pursued in Wales. We have seen Welsh GDP fall back not just against English GDP, although that has been the case over the past 14 years, but as against many parts of eastern Europe. We are now behind them, too. Sadly, that is something to be placed at the foot of the devolved Government. The noble Baroness also referred to increases in council tax, but one reason for those is that the freeze which has happened in England has not happened in Wales. That is because the Welsh Government choose not to use the Barnett money to reduce council tax in Wales. That is their privilege but it has been the main reason that council tax has gone up by so much in Wales. That needs to be recognised.

Lastly, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness to use her undoubted talents to persuade the Labour Party to embrace the Silk commission on Part 1. Again, I declare an interest as a commissioner on the Silk commission. The power of taxation and the power to borrow money, which largely do not exist in Wales at the moment, would be all to the good. Such powers would strengthen Wales’s hand and the Welsh economy. I hope that we can develop consensus among the four parties so that we are able to bring such powers forward and enhance Wales’s position in terms of economic performance.

19:53

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Baroness, Lady Morgan, on obtaining this debate. I cannot congratulate her on her speech, however, which rather overstates the case. One would have thought, listening to it, that history began in 2010—the year when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury left a note saying that there was no money left. The noble Baroness took some populist swipes and pressed the right buttons about bankers and about a Cabinet full of millionaires who had had private education. I did not know that she was personally opposed to private education. She also talked about the poll tax—she was really going back in history there—being the equivalent of the bedroom tax. That is not, I suggest, the right way to approach the very serious problems that the people of Wales are facing.

A more objective view can be found in the Chief Medical Officer of Wales’s report for 2012-13. It said that there were three major economic issues facing Wales. First, there was long-term structural poverty and deprivation—not structural poverty and deprivation starting in 2010, I point out. Secondly, there was the economic downturn, which happened in 2008, I think, long before the coalition Government came into power. Thirdly, there was the impact of benefit reform, to which I shall refer in a moment.

On escaping poverty and deprivation, we have all been doing that in Wales for centuries. Most of us have benefited from the very good state education that we had in Wales. It is sad to see the state of education today in the hands of the Labour Government in Cardiff. Tomorrow, we will hear from the Programme for International Student Assessment, or PISA, whose report in 2009 about Welsh education was a disaster. It will probably be worse tomorrow and I would like to have had this debate tomorrow evening, when we have heard what it has to say. I have to declare an interest. I have 10 grandchildren who are either going through or about to go through the Welsh system and I have a great deal of interest in the way in which Welsh education performs. It is failed by the current Welsh Labour Government in Cardiff.

On health, equally, the Welsh Labour Government have failed in comparison with what is happening elsewhere in the United Kingdom. According to the Chief Medical Officer, £386 million per year is spent by NHS Wales on smoking. What are the Government in Cardiff doing about that? There is obesity and excessive alcohol, with £140 million going on that and £600 million on physical inactivity. These are problems that have been in the hands of the Welsh Labour Government—occasionally with other partners, I concede, but mainly in their hands—for a period of time and are costing a great deal of money.

As for the impact of benefit reforms, it is true that welfare benefits, according to the Chief Medical Officer, will be cut by 4.1% as opposed to 3.8% across the rest of the United Kingdom. However, she said it was possible that the welfare policies that have been adopted,

“might have positive impacts on health if they lead to more people moving into work”.

She also said:

“Negative impacts on health might … be offset … by the positive effects on health associated with employment”.

The purpose of that legislation—one of the drivers of welfare reform—is to make it profitable for people to go into work and escape welfare dependency, as much in Wales as anywhere else.

What I am concerned about in Cardiff at the moment is that we have given the Government the power to legislate and now they are producing framework Bills, such as a Social Services (Wales) Bill and an Education (Wales) Bill, with the policies not being spelt out. The policy is to come in regulations, which will be subject to a negative vote at a later date. That is not the way to go about legislation. Those policies should be fully discussed and open to amendment in Cardiff itself. I could go on at length. However, when it comes to accountability, how is it that the First Minister of Wales puts off a referendum for introducing tax powers which would make that Government accountable to the people of Wales, who in my view are being seriously let down?

00:00

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend for securing this debate, and for the way in which she introduced it. All noble Lords in the Chamber would surely agree that this is not a situation where we need to indulge in party politics. The situation in Wales is extremely serious.

I must declare my interest. I am a consultant to the Welsh Government in developing a cultural heritage strategy for Wales which will, I hope, address the problems of poverty and disadvantage to greater effect in Wales. My greater interest is that I grew up in Wales at a time when it was celebrated as being among the most successful and spirited communities in the country. The same places are now notorious for levels of disadvantage. The toxic concentration of long-term unemployment, underemployment, low skills, low wages, chronic sickness and low educational achievement has not only reduced living standards but reflects living standards in Wales. The Government of Wales are absolutely right to say that poverty in Wales is everybody’s business, which is why every government department in Wales has to make a contribution—and that includes culture.

There is no question that the structural problems of Wales started with the deficit. My noble friend made no allusion to that at all. The structural problems of Wales, not least, were grossly intensified by Thatcherism, which created a long shadow across Wales to this day. Now we have a third generation who do not know what it means to go to work; we have an entrenched low-skills and low-pay culture and there is no room at all, anywhere, for complacency in Wales. These people have to contend with recession and welfare changes, which, as my noble friend said, are hitting Wales harder than many other parts of the country.

We are told that the recession is over. I was in Tredegar a month ago; I was in Townhill in Swansea some weeks ago; I was in Anglesey recently and I have been in Rhyl. The recession is not over in Wales and there is no sign of an end to it. Indeed, Wales has become a social laboratory, rather as London was at the end of the 19th century, where surveys and investigators come to look at the impact of poverty. The figures are horribly familiar: 26.5% are economically inactive, higher than the rest of Britain by 3.5 percentage points. Disability rights, as my noble friend has said, have hit disabled people in Wales hardest of all. With the transition from IB to ESA, the loss by 2014-15 will be £165 per year per working family. The impact on children has been very well described; it is inevitable and it is increasing. Only parts of London are worse.

For those in work, the figure that astounds me is not so much that 23% of employees are earning less than a living wage, but that only 3% are earning more than a living wage. We have already discussed how Wales, with the highest energy bills, has seen the sharpest increase in the number of people falling behind with their energy bills: 85,000 households. Then there is the bedroom tax. I cannot be the only person in your Lordships’ House for whom there is an echo of the means tests of the 1930s, when the inspectors looked at the quality of furniture in people’s homes to assess when they were actually eligible for unemployment benefit. That was when the piano went out, for example.

Community Housing Cymru has said that 78 per cent of its members have seen an increase in rent arrears. It expects bedroom tax arrears to double to more than £2 million by April next year. That is enough to service £40 million worth of debt, which could be used to deliver 400 new affordable homes. Does the Minister agree with me that that money could be much better spent?

There are certainly many brilliant housing associations in Wales, including RCT homes, which I visited last week. They are not only providing affordable housing: they are training adults and young people in very difficult circumstances to acquire very basic skills, because about 40% of adults living in Community First areas, for example, are without basic skills. Their record of getting people into work is three times the predicted employment outcome. Will the Minister promise to visit RCT homes and see how money is being well spent on those sorts of challenging situations? Community First is obviously part of the most challenging problem we have in Wales in terms of the areas it covers.

Part of the task is to enable young people and adults to acquire confidence and skills. Digital exclusion means not just not finding jobs; it means not being able to access legitimate benefits. Libraries are being reinvented across Wales as places where people acquire these basic skills alongside, sometimes, basic services. Will the Minister tell the House how many libraries in Wales are threatened with closure because local authority budgets are reduced? Will she say what she thinks the Government should do about this?

Above all, Wales urgently needs an economic policy that lifts living standards by anticipating the future. It needs ambitious leadership; a new approach to use public sector procurement for creative social enterprises; a national investment strategy to identify the creative industries of the future and the skills they need; a community regeneration strategy; and a national strategy for voluntary skills development and apprenticeships. These are the strategies than can lift Wales out of poverty for the next generation.

20:04

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, on securing this important debate. It is great to have a spotlight on Wales. I know that time is very short so I will confine my remarks to the findings of an extremely revealing snapshot report published by Shelter Cymru in November this year. It looked at “the bedroom tax”—I do not want to cause offence to the Minister by not referring to it as “the spare room subsidy”—and, based on Shelter’s direct experience, working with people in housing need in Wales, it reported a real increase in the number of people threatened with homelessness as a result of the spare room subsidy, or bedroom tax. It said that landlords were pursuing possession proceedings, sometimes when the bedroom tax was the sole source of arrears, and that some vulnerable people, very worryingly, were facing real injustices because of the failure of their local authorities to provide the level of service suitable to their needs.

All this paints a worrying picture but I ask the Minister to respond to two specific important points. First, what can the UK Government do, in partnership with the Welsh Assembly Government, to encourage social services to work together with housing agencies to ensure that vulnerable people are not unfairly subject to possession proceedings? Shelter Cymru has seen a number of cases where the bedroom tax has caused serious difficulties for people who should have been protected due to their vulnerability. In one case, a woman in a three-bedroom house was facing possession action for rent arrears but was unable to move. She was in the process of having her two children returned to her from care. If she downsized, she would not have been able to have her children back. However, because the children were not resident, her discretionary housing payment application was turned down. Only after Shelter Cymru’s intervention did social services agree to clear the arrears and consider paying the shortfall until the children could be returned to their mother. What does the Minister feel that she can do to help bring those agencies together in the interests of vulnerable people?

Secondly, I ask the Minister for her response to the handling of the discretionary housing payments, specifically for disabled tenants. We all know that this was a key measure in the Government’s approach to the introduction of the spare room subsidy—or bedroom tax. The provision of funding for discretionary housing payments was, as I understand it, intended to soften the impact, albeit in the short term. However, while discretionary housing payments have indeed offered a temporary lifeline for some households in Wales, some landlords are not routinely letting tenants know about DHPs and there is great concern about the future increase in homelessness that this will lead to down the track when people’s awards run out.

In particular, there is serious concern that many housing benefit departments are counting disability-related benefits as income for the purposes of DHP, making it considerably less likely that disabled people can successfully apply. We know that it is within local authorities’ discretion to disregard income from disability-related benefits when making their assessments for DHP, since these benefits are intended to be used for the extra costs of disability. Surely it must be good practice for these disability-related benefits to be completely disregarded in calculating eligibility for these important transitional payments. If not, it means that disabled people need to work extra hard to justify their case in applying for DHP. As we know, there is nothing in the letter of the law to prevent local authorities from doing this, but I would argue that this really is extremely poor practice. It means that while disabled tenants are more likely to be affected by the bedroom tax, they are less likely to be able to access this assistance. They have fewer options to self-mitigate the impact of these reforms as they will often have to wait longer in order to achieve a downsize option.

Shelter Cymru and a coalition of disability charities in Wales are compiling a detailed report on this matter. Is the Minister prepared to meet them to look at what can be done to mitigate such a difficult situation for disabled people in Wales?

20:10

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, I ask the Minister: what responsibility do the Government consider they have to assist the industrial areas of Wales? Wales is experiencing economic change on an unprecedented scale and at an unprecedented pace. Digital technology, globalisation and the rise of new industrial economies have unleashed tsunamis of disruption on the regions that pioneered the first Industrial Revolution, notably south and south-east Wales. The mature industries of Wales are being battered by competition from businesses in newly industrialised economies that enjoy state-of-the-art technology, which Welsh industries certainly ought also to have, and pay very low wages, which could not and should not be paid in Wales.

Where manufacturing continues and prospers—and there are still magnificent manufacturing businesses in Wales, and we are very proud of them—the workforce is being hollowed out by automation and off-shoring. That hollowing out is occurring among the white collar workforce as well as the blue collar workforce. We are seeing the development of the gap between the 1% and the 99%, with fabulous increases in wealth and income for a tiny minority at the top and really significant real-terms falls in income for a great many people lower down the scale. Therefore, the challenge for the Government is to develop policies to overcome the traumatic distributive consequences of contemporary economic growth.

The Government have a duty to help businesses and individuals cope with this whirlwind of economic change, but the coalition’s response to that challenge is to do the very opposite. Instead of an industrial strategy redeploying some of the wealth arising from property values, financial services and exportable services, the Chancellor has engineered an asset bubble, which he calls a recovery. The Governor of the Bank of England clearly has doubts about the validity of this recovery but, from the Chancellor’s point of view, these are policies not in the interests of Wales but to help his party get through the election.

The ethic of the Government is: “To them that have, more shall be given”. Instead of an intelligent welfare state that stays alongside people who are the casualties of economic change, helping them to reconstruct their lives, the Chancellor abuses them as shirkers and people who cannot be bothered to open the curtains in the morning. He cuts their benefits and at the same time he cuts the taxes of the 1%. Instead of a strategy to raise our educational levels and skills to those of our competitors, the Government wage an ideological war against local educational authorities and raise fees for university education to insupportable levels.

For Wales, devolution is a device to absolve the Government of responsibility. They tauntingly propose to people in Wales, whose incomes are on average significantly lower than the incomes of people in England, that they should vote in a referendum so that the Government of Wales should have income tax-raising powers; thus they would be able to borrow to pay for infrastructure and all will be well. Ministers must know that that strategy is disingenuous. The sums cannot possibly add up. Devolution should not be a device to get the Government off the hook. These infrastructure developments would benefit the whole of the United Kingdom and the cost ought to be borne fairly across the United Kingdom.

The cost of living crisis is a crisis of structural change, of growth that benefits only the rich, top managers and shareholders. The creative destruction of capitalism is not going to lead to a free market nirvana in the regions that experience very much more destruction than creation. What responsibility does the Minister consider the coalition has to support people in the crisis of industrial Wales?

20:14

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate, and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for providing it.

We have heard many statistics, and I shall not add to them, only to say that of the four countries of the UK, Wales is the poorest. We have 73% of the average wage of the rest of the United Kingdom; for instance, when the average income in London was £27,000, in Wales it was £17,000. This has been the case over the centuries; it is not something new. I particularly enjoyed the book written by the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, Something Must Be Done, about the valleys of south Wales during the depression before the Second World War. We were struggling in poverty in those terrible years. It is a historical insight into the poverty of south Wales that goes on from generation to generation.

There has been a chance to turn this round. We have objective 1 funding for the valleys and west Wales, which brought some hope. I am not sure it was always spent in the best way, but at least it was some European income for Wales. Anybody who says that we should withdraw from Europe and that Wales would be better off is doing Wales a tremendous disservice. We have heard before that the money we pay into Europe could be directed to the poorest. It did not happen in the past and it would not happen now. I am sure the noble Baroness will agree that the link with Europe is absolutely essential.

Not only do we need to keep the link with Europe, we need to keep the link with our partners across the border in England. Wales has 166 miles of border with England; Scotland has 96. Our border is a very busy one, and the links between north Wales and Merseyside prove that. There was a time when Lerpwl—Liverpool—was regarded as the capital of north Wales. There were so many Welsh people in Liverpool that the streets were named after them. The biggest chapels with the largest congregations were not those in Wales but the ones in Liverpool. You go to Liverpool and what are the names of the stores? TJ Hughes, Owen Owen and Lewis’s were founded by Welsh families. That link has been there for many, many years.

In Wales, we depend on hospitals such as Broadgreen, the David Lewis Northern Hospital, the Royal Liverpool University Hospital and Clatterbridge. When there was talk of removing the link between Wales and the Walton Neurological Centre, there was an outcry in north Wales because that is where we were, over the years, sending patients in need of that sort of treatment.

We have depended on Liverpool and the north-west, but so have they depended on us. Where would the workforce of the Wirral be without Airbus, which is over the border in Wales? There would be 7,000 jobs lost there if we decided to dig Offa’s Dyke again. Where would my town of Llandudno be without the hundreds of thousands of visitors who pour in from the rest of the UK? We need one another; it is a mirage to say that we do not. My noble friend Lady Humphreys was a teacher in Liverpool, as were many thousands of other Welsh women and men. We sent our teachers there; we belong to one another.

Not only must we keep links with Europe and with our friends across the border but we must take care of our communities, which are now deprived of essential facilities. Try to find a post office in some of our villages: you cannot buy a postage stamp there, or a loaf. The school has closed; the teacher lives miles away; the ministers and doctors are no longer in our villages. Try getting petrol between Betws-y-Coed and Tremadoc. Unless you have to go through Penrhyndeudraeth you are lost. We have got to keep these communities alive because the 73% of people on low incomes have to spend such a large proportion of their income or pension going to places that are now farther away. The links, and the need to keep our communities, are essential.

20:20

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I commend the initiative of my noble friend, in part because she focuses on the issues of real concern to the people of Wales and not to the elites. I cannot plausibly claim that there was some recent golden age in which we were close to the top of the UK premier division of prosperity and jobs. However, I do claim that our position is poor and deteriorating relatively as a result of government policies. We no longer have the high-wage jobs we had in the past. We now seem increasingly to specialise in low-wage, tedious jobs in areas such as call centres. Jobs in the high-paying financial sector elude us. Regional job creation and decentralisation of government entities, such as the Royal Mint and the DVLA in Morriston, seem to have stalled.

The Silk report has some alarming statistics on earnings differentials. Of the 1.4 million taxpayers in Wales, only 4,000 paid tax at the additional rate of 50p. Our economic and social profile shows a great dependence on the public sector—thus Wales is hit hard by the squeeze on public sector jobs. There is greater poverty, greater dependence on welfare and, therefore, more vulnerability to the Government’s welfare changes. The Rowntree Foundation report, published in September, concluded that 26.5% of the working-age population of Wales was economically inactive in 2012. This was higher than in Scotland or any English region.

I recently spoke to a young graduate with a good honours degree and a master’s degree. The only job he could find had no prospects and a wage of £12,000 a year. I invite the Minister to look in the windows where jobs are advertised and see the type of jobs on offer. I wonder how that young man reacted if he heard Boris Johnson exulting in greed and inequality, or if he saw last Friday’s Evening Standard headline: “London has 2,700 bankers earning more than £1 million”. This compares with 212 in Germany, 117 in France and 109 in Italy. I wholly agree with my noble friend that it is hard for a Cabinet with so many millionaires to understand the plight of the poor in Wales. Our Government are just out of touch.

The bedroom tax has already been touched on, so I will not mention it, save to say that the prospect of downsizing to single-bedroom houses is just not available for the great majority of people who are now on housing benefit.

South Wales is the region in Britain with the highest combined gas and electricity bills, while north Wales has the third-highest. The number of energy accounts where the customer has fallen into arrears has increased more in Wales than elsewhere in Britain. In 2012, Wales had the highest proportion of workers who earned less than the living wage than elsewhere in Britain. Clearly, government action—or rather inaction—affects us the most. I could continue with these depressing statistics, so one is inclined to consider some dramatic moves, such as, for example, the abolition of the Severn Bridge tolls, which work as a heavy tax on the Principality.

In conclusion, I recall a classic cartoon that showed people standing on the steps of a ladder that descends into water. One person stands on the lowest rung, with the water up to their neck. Let us call him or her “Wales”. Someone then arrives and boldly proclaims, “I feel your pain; we are all in this together”, and orders everyone, save those on the top rungs, to take one step down in the interests of austerity. Let us call that person “the Government”.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, would like to speak in this debate. However, that ability is contingent on time available. If he speaks past 8.25 pm he will eat into the Minister’s time, but perhaps he will be very quick.

20:25

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I am very grateful. I will take one minute flat and truncate my comments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for facilitating this debate.

I will make three points. First, earlier, we heard about the Government’s plans to cut energy bills. However, it appears that they will do little to help off-grid consumers, of whom there are many in rural Wales. My party, Plaid Cymru, wants to see the establishment of a not-for-distributable-profits company, Energy Wales, which could buy gas and electricity on the wholesale market, pass on savings to consumers and invest in services. Dwr Cymru provides a viable model for that.

Secondly, I draw attention to the 51% increase in excess winter deaths in Wales compared with the UK-wide figure of 29%. Last year’s figures showed Wales increasing from 1,260 to 1,900. Hardship can lead not only to misery but to death. People in rural communities in particular are suffering. That is why I want to see winter fuel payments made earlier in the year to off-grid pensioners so that they can buy gas at a lower price.

Thirdly, I will not trespass into Barnett, but I will point out that if the total public spending per capita in Wales was at the same level as that of Scotland in 2012-13, Wales would have received a staggering additional £1.6 billion—more than £500 per person. I hope that Labour will commit, during the 2015 election campaign, to putting that right.

20:26

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Wales Office (Baroness Randerson) (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, for securing today’s debate on what I believe noble Lords all agree are important issues in Wales. I have listened carefully to noble Lords this evening and I recognise their concerns. As a Government, we understand that it is and remains a difficult time for low earners in particular, and for those on benefits.

The UK economy is recovering from the most damaging economic and financial crisis in generations. The Government appreciate that times are tough for families, so we have continued to take action to help with living standards. Last year, real household disposable income grew by 1.4%, which is the fastest growth for three years.

One of the key actions that we have taken to help hard-working people is to reduce the income tax burden by raising the threshold to £10,000. Many noble Lords have referred to low pay. This Government’s policies will take the 130,000 lowest-paid workers in Wales out of income tax altogether and will benefit 1.1 million taxpayers in Wales. That will make a real difference to low-income households. That increase in the personal allowance will be worth £705 per year for the typical taxpayer.

Noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, have referred to energy prices and highlighted the importance of energy costs. We are in the process of restoring the neglected infrastructure that the coalition Government inherited from their Labour predecessor. Between 1997 and 2010, the average domestic gas bill doubled and the price of liquid fuels, on which many rural households in Wales rely, increased by more than 300%.

I must remind noble Lords that in 2000, there were 14 major energy suppliers. By 2010 there were just six. That took the bottom out of the market in terms of competition and its impact. However, we are reforming the energy market and encouraging investment in our energy infrastructure, which will help to stabilise consumer prices and reduce our exposure to fossil fuel price hikes in the longer term. We are committed to ensuring that all customers are on the lowest available tariff and we are making it easier to switch suppliers.

Many noble Lords referred to welfare reform. The picture of poverty that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, painted is one that has existed for far too long and has got steadily worse since the turn of the century. The picture of child poverty is one that is only too familiar to me. The situation has got steadily worse. The picture on GVA, which several noble Lords referred to, is also one where Wales, versus the rest of the UK, has steadily declined since the turn of the century. These are not issues that started with the coalition Government. I am grateful to those noble Lords who pointed out that the history of poverty in Wales did not start in May 2010.

I have also listened to concerns from noble Lords about government policy to reform the dependency on welfare in the UK. I must say I am greatly concerned that there are, for example, 200,000 people in Wales who could work but who have never worked. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for pointing out that this is a third-generation problem in Wales, not something that started recently. Worklessness is a persistent problem in Wales and successive Governments have failed to reform the system. However, this Government are working tirelessly to improve the incentive to work, as work remains the best route out of poverty.

Already we are seeing people moving into work in order to accommodate the changes to their benefits. This is a positive step for Wales, its communities and the individuals who were previously locked into the benefit system. There is no fairness in retaining a welfare system that traps people in a life on benefits; it is not good for them, or their families, and it is certainly not good for Wales.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, referred to the Shelter report. I point out that it is the responsibility of local authorities to ensure that all those people who are eligible, get discretionary housing payments. It is important that local authorities in Wales are pursuing that in the way that they should. I was concerned, however, to hear the noble Baroness say that social landlords—discretionary housing payments relate to social landlords—are not letting tenants know about discretionary housing payments in some cases. I will take that issue up with the Minister in the Welsh Government to ensure that that is undertaken. I will also write to the relevant body, Community Housing Cymru, about the issue.

In relation to comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, I am very happy to visit RCT Homes. The noble Baroness also asked me about libraries and local government. Those are entirely a devolved issue. Those issues are entirely the result of decisions by the Welsh Government, and it would be improper of me to make detailed comments on their policy and their decision.

I turn now to the spare room subsidy. We accept that some people will need extra help and the Government are continuing to support local authorities in Wales, in particular with the housing benefit reforms via discretionary housing payments. In Wales we have trebled the funding available and are now providing more than £7 million, with extra money for some rural communities. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, made reference to council tax increases. Once again, those are, as he pointed out, the decision of the Labour Government in Wales. As a responsible Government, the coalition Government feel that we must be serious about welfare reform. We inherited a welfare system built to deal with a 1940s society and no longer able to deliver the support that people need in a modern, flexible labour market.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, made the point that Wales has been hit hard by welfare reform. Of course it has; it is one of the areas of Britain most heavily dependent on welfare. I point out to the noble Baroness that two-thirds of the additional jobs created in the past year in Wales have been full-time, and that 80% of those working part-time have said that they do not want a full-time job.

The noble Baroness asked me to make a comment about women. There are 20,000 more women in work now in Wales than there were in May 2010.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to the Chief Medical Officer’s report and to the importance of good public services, and our dependence on them. That is something that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation highlighted as one of the main actions to alleviate poverty in Wales. It said that there was a dependence on, and a need for, good public services. Too often, unfortunately, in Wales, those services lag behind the rest of the UK. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation also pointed out the importance of job creation. I am proud to say that that is what the coalition Government are doing in Wales, more than ever before. Overall, 71,000 more people are in employment in Wales since May 2010, economic inactivity has fallen by 49,000, and the number of unemployed people has fallen by 15,000.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, pointed out how few people in Wales pay the higher rate of income tax. That is a problem, and it is one that we can overcome only by a very determined effort, with the formation of new businesses. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, asked what we were doing in a time of rapid change to accommodate that change. Our response, as a Government, is a massive investment in infrastructure. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, that it is a great pity that the previous Labour Government did not undertake that investment in infrastructure in the 13 years for which they were in power, because it takes a very long time to build infrastructure. Therefore, it is very difficult for us to make up for that lost time.

I do not share the politics of envy that was expressed here on one or two occasions. Wales must aspire to have wealthier people and successful businesses. I am proud of Wales and I want to talk Wales up. I am sad that over so many generations Wales has suffered from poverty and has gradually fallen back in respect of the rest of the UK. I am confident that Wales can deliver, that Wales can prosper and that Wales will continue to cultivate an economy that sustains good jobs, develops infrastructure and improves standards of living for everyone.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Monday 2nd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Committee (5th Day) (Continued)

20:39

Amendment 56LF

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

56LF: Before Clause 98, insert the following new Clause—
“Risk assessment of seized dogs
(1) The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 5 (seizure, entry of premises and evidence) after subsection (3) there is inserted—
“(3A) Following seizure of a dog for an offence under section 1, 2 or 3 of this Act, within 48 hours of seizure the animal must be assessed to determine whether—
(a) it is a prohibited type of dog, and/or(b) behaviourally risk assessed by a suitably qualified behaviourist to determine whether it can be released with or without conditions placed on its management by its owner or keeper, such conditions can include but are not limited to—(i) keeping the dog on a lead when in public;(ii) keeping the dog muzzled when in public.(3B) Reasons must be given for a decision not to release the dog.””

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we have grouped these amendments together for ease of debate. I thought that it would be helpful to have one debate rather than several on a similar issue. So I am speaking to the amendments in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lady Gale. My noble friend’s amendment on dog control notices also has our full support. In moving my amendment, I will speak also to Amendments 56MA to 56MC.

The first step is to acknowledge the seriousness of the problem. Since 2009, nine children and seven adults have died as a result of attacks by dogs. In the three years to February 2013, 18,000 people were admitted to hospitals in England and Wales after dog attacks, and 23,000 postal workers have been attacked by dogs in the past six years. As Christmas approaches and we post our letters, we ought to think of the poor postal deliverers. Since April 2011, there have been 6,000 dog attacks on those who deliver our post. So it is a serious problem and horrendous for those who have been involved, have been attacked or have witnessed attacks.

I appreciate that the Government are bringing legislation forward but I really think that there is a missed opportunity here. I referred to this last week when we discussed community protection orders. I am worried about the Government’s one-size-fits-all approach. Dog control notices were introduced to deal with a specific problem. I am not saying they are perfect. They needed updating and amending, but to replace gating orders, dog control orders and other forms of order with one community protection order does not give us confidence that the issue of dangerous dogs will be properly and effectively tackled.

Community protection notices are a reactive measure to deal with dog attacks. They can be slow to serve and they can be challenged in the courts, causing further delay. I support and welcome the Government’s proposals for increasing penalties, but prevention is better than penalty, and that is why our proposals include the dog control notice.

I read carefully what Ministers said in the other place. They seem wedded to their measures and confident that they will deal with the problem. I do not share that confidence. That brings me to Amendment 56MB, which requires the Secretary of State to review the,

“use of community protection notices in addressing dangerous dogs”.

The amendment specifies a review of the effectiveness of Government’s measures three years after they come into force and every three years after that. If the Government are confident that they will be successful—and I am sorry that I do not share the noble Lord’s confidence, although I wish I did—that review will be a way to assess their effectiveness or otherwise, whether action taken is adequate and whether further measures are needed.

This is a missed opportunity. As a first option, we support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Gale introducing dog control notices. A dog control notice is specific to the problem. It is proportionate and targeted. It seeks to prevent attacks by dogs. “Prevent” is the key word. The dog control notice is a preventive measure to stop tragedies occurring, while the community protection notice reacts to a situation that has already occurred.

The measure enjoys widespread support. My noble friend Lady Gale will say more about this. In the Commons it received support from a number of government Back-Benchers, as well as a range of individuals and organisations, including those that deal with the welfare of dogs and those whose members are at risk from attack, as well as those that deal with the aftermath of attacks or try to prevent attacks. They include: the RSPCA; the Association of Chief Police Officers; the British Veterinary Association; Battersea Dogs & Cats Home; CWU, the postal workers’ union; Unison; the Kennel Club; the Police Federation; the National Dog Warden Association; and even the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the other place. They all state that legislation should cover dog control notices, which would give power to the police and local councils to ensure that owners are responsible and do what can be done to stop dogs attacking people and other animals.

20:45

It seems to me—perhaps the Minister will enlighten me—that the only people who do not support dog control measures are the Government. The amendment has widespread support from all those who are most affected by, and concerned about, this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, would have made my next point if he were able to be present. The dog control notice amendment that we have tabled refers specifically to attacks on other dogs and animals. I am sure the Minister recognises that that is also an important issue which is not specifically addressed by the Government’s proposals.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, made a very powerful speech at Second Reading. No one could fail to be moved by the plight of those who have been subjected to dog attacks and have been badly injured, maimed, suffered life-changing injuries or even died. I strongly believe that the Government should heed the wisdom of the many people who are in favour of this amendment and not stick to the somewhat tired, hackneyed argument that fewer orders mean less bureaucracy. There is real fear that, in setting their face against the overwhelming support for dog control notices, getting rid of dog control orders and moving towards what I think was described earlier as a holy grail of deregulation, they are weakening public protection, which is the key point here.

I turn to our other amendments in this group. One concerns a risk assessment of seized dogs. Obviously, we appreciate and understand that some dogs have to be seized for public safety, and sometimes for the dog’s own protection if there is immediate concern about its potential to attack a member of the public or another dog. In those cases, clearly the dog has to be seized, and local authorities and the police can seize dogs that they deem to be dangerous. However, concerns have been raised with us by organisations, including the RSPCA, that on occasion dogs are returned to their owners, or released from kennels, in not exactly tip-top condition; indeed, they are in a poorer condition than when they went in. Not only is that bad for the dog; it is extremely bad for the public purse if dogs are kept in kennels for longer than is necessary. Therefore, we suggest that within 48 hours of a dog being seized its behaviour should be properly assessed by suitably qualified people to determine whether it needs to remain in kennels and whether it is a prohibited breed of dog. This simple amendment seeks to improve the case management of seized dogs, thereby improving their condition and easing the burden on the public purse.

Our amendment 56MC proposes that joint guidance should be issued by Defra and the Home Office as this issue concerns both departments. That guidance would advise local authorities on how to use existing legislation to deal with dangerous dogs. I do not know whether the Minister has had the opportunity to review the guidance but it is pretty weighty. Not only is there the guidance itself, but annexes as well. Animal welfare organisations have repeatedly asked the Government to reduce the length of the guidance. They have advised me that they do not consider it fit for purpose given that those involved in dog welfare cannot cope with it. We need to have concise, accurate guidance that organisations which need to access it can follow and implement easily.

In conclusion, the increase in dog-related deaths in recent years is extremely sad and worrying. These amendments seek to include effective, clear measures in legislation to deal specifically with the problems caused by dangerous dogs, as opposed to hoping that they can be mopped up in an order, the terms of which could be rather vague in their application to dangerous dogs. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on these amendments and consider, first, the issue of dog control notices. However, if there is no possibility of movement on that, the issue of review is extremely important. I beg to move.

[Lord Redesdale (LD)]

My Lords, the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, were music to my ears because I have introduced two Private Members’ Bills about dog control notices—one under the Government of the party opposite and one under the coalition. Funnily enough, I got a completely different response from the party opposite on both occasions.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am sorry, I was not here then.

[Lord Redesdale]

Of course. It is interesting how things develop. That is probably the purpose of this House. Private Member’s Bills do get the ball rolling. When I started on my first Bill, it was written with all the dog organisations and the RSPCA. It had a great deal of support, but not from the Government. The second time I raised it, after all the publicity, a great deal more work had been undertaken by Defra, and I think that has led to the present situation.

I would have liked a separate piece of legislation which would have been clear and concise. I understand the Minister’s position—that this has gone through the Home Office. The problem is that most Governments would have taken the route that has been followed, because we are dealing with 11 pieces of legislation that would have to be amended. For ease of access, it would have been extremely useful if there had been one dog control notice, but those of us who have been fighting this fight for some years now realised that that probably was not going to be the case.

I support the background to these amendments. However, there are a couple of issues that I wish to raise. I do not believe that these amendments are going to be carried but they show some of the fundamental problems that we are facing. One of the major problems is the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. That was a knee-jerk reaction which led to types of dogs being named. Amendment 56LF talks about trying to work out what prohibited dogs are; for instance, a pit bull is actually a mongrel, so is very difficult to define as a particular type of dog. Breeders of pit bulls call them long-legged Staffies; they attempt to get round it that way. An expert trying to look at this has had difficulty, and it has cost the Metropolitan Police and the police in Liverpool and in other places millions of pounds kennelling those animals. I know that this is a specific point but there are cost implications of trying to work out within 48 hours whether the dog is a prohibited animal. Behavioural assessment will also cause difficulties because a lot of this work will fall to the dog charities. At the moment they are facing a massive problem with bull breeds being abandoned.

The issue of protected animals is raised in these amendments and we might well come back to it in further pieces of legislation. It is a particularly difficult issue to deal with. I have a rather useless and cowardly dog, but next door’s cat is particularly on his wish list. I do everything I can to try to stop him chasing this cat, but if a cat were seen as a protected animal—which it is not at the moment, though I know some people are calling for it—that would be a problem we would have to look at.

I understand the tenor of these amendments, and that this is an issue that we may return to further down the line if the Bill does not achieve its objectives. The Government deserve commendation for the attitude taken by the Minister and by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, who met and worked closely with us. That the guidance runs to more than 100 pages is a problem, because who is going to read it? If people do not read and understand the guidance and realise where it fits with other pieces of legislation, there is going to be a problem of enforcement. I have to admit that I found it difficult just reading the Bill and cross-referencing it. I hope that the Minister will consider attaching a very short précis to the start of the guidance to make the issue simpler.

[Baroness Gale (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 56MA, which has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lady Smith and I hope to elaborate on what she had to say.

The Minister will be aware that many organisations and individuals have campaigned for dog control notices, including the RSPCA, the Communication Workers Union, and individuals such as Dilwar Ali, whose six year-old son was badly injured when a dog attacked him in his garden, and the parents of Jade Lomas-Anderson, who was killed in an attack by dogs earlier this year. I had the privilege of meeting them recently when they gave Peers a briefing on why they feel so strongly about the necessity for dog control notices. I am sure that the Peers who were present will agree that the meeting with Jade’s parents was an emotional one. They are determined campaigners and they certainly convinced me that dog control notices should be implemented rather than community protection notices, which I know are the Government’s preference. Dilwar Ali is an equally passionate campaigner for dog control notices following the horrific attack on his six year-old son. The Minister will be aware that the Communication Workers Union has campaigned for dog control notices in order to have some level of protection for postmen and postwomen, thousands of whom are attacked by dogs as they deliver the mail.

The Government believe that community protection notices will be a sufficient measure when it comes to addressing a range of anti-social behaviour problems, including attacks by dangerous dogs, and promoting responsible dog ownership. The use of a CPN in conjunction with an acceptable behaviour contract is meant to have a similar impact to issuing a dog control notice. However, it is clear that community protection notices are inadequate. Their shortcoming lies in their broad application. The Commons EFRA Select Committee concluded in February 2013 that many charities and organisations, including the RSPCA, the Kennel Club, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Dogs Trust and the Communication Workers Union, have consistently argued that CPNs are too little too late and that they are not specific enough.

The Bill states that CPNs will address issues of a “persistent or continuing nature”. In practice, they will be issued only after an attack has taken place. Therefore, for a CPN to be issued, an existing complaint needs to have been made about a detrimental impact on the quality of life of the community, and it may mean a costly, painful and bureaucratic investigation and prosecution process for victims as much as for local councils.

A dog control notice would target irresponsible ownership directly and would be pre-emptive. That is vital when it comes to tackling dog-related incidents. Preventive measures address much earlier both repeat offenders and one-off attacks affecting individuals. We believe that the measures set out in our amendment are far superior to CPNs, as they are specifically aimed at dogs. The RSPCA’s statistics fully support this conclusion. In England and Wales in 2012 it issued 12,658 informal advice notices, which, in practice, are similar to DCNs. The compliance rate was 93%. That is a very high percentage and shows that these notices can work.

The Minister and noble Lords will be aware that in Northern Ireland the use of dog control orders in conjunction with dog licensing has been very successful. The presence of dog wardens employed full time by local authorities has also been very effective. Therefore, Northern Ireland has dog control orders, and Scotland has implemented them. The Welsh Government would have implemented them. However, the Minister will be aware that the Welsh Government withdrew their Bill in favour of the Wales and England legislation that we have before us today, although they do not believe that the Bill covers everything that their Bill would have done. I believe that they will have the right to come back to the Minister and that they are probably in discussion with him. Cardiff county councillors recently briefed me on the consultation which, because they are concerned about it, they have carried out regarding dangerous dogs in Cardiff.

21:00

Since 2005, 13 children and seven adults have been killed by dogs, the latest only last month, when four year-old Lexi Hudson was killed by a dog. Although the introduction of longer maximum sentences and the extension of existing laws to private property are welcome, this amendment will go a step further. Dog control cannot be dealt with under this catch-all, umbrella—or, as some people have called it, the Christmas tree—policy. We believe that our amendment, which calls for dog control notices, is a much better way to deal with dangerous dogs. What the Government are proposing does not go far enough.

I ask the Minister to listen carefully to the argument put forward by the campaigning organisations, those who have suffered the loss of a loved one and those who have seen at first hand the effects of dogs attacking family members, causing very serious injuries. All of them want dog control notices. The British Veterinary Association wants them and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, who has great experience in this field, spoke in favour of them at Second Reading. Northern Ireland and Scotland have them and Wales wants them. There is so much evidence and support for dog control notices that the Minister must be aware of it.

I know that the Minister is a listening Minister; and the coalition Government have been known to change their minds, as recent events have shown. We would certainly welcome a change of mind on this matter, as we believe that it is the right thing to do.

[Lord Lyell (Con)]

My Lords, I see my noble friend Lady Hamwee is rising; she probably has much more expertise than I do. I would not want to spend more than about 22 seconds on this particular subject this evening.

I declare an interest straight off, in that under my roof there are not one, not two, but three rottweilers that live quite well. I have taken lessons from that immortal movie, “Crocodile Dundee”, in which he calmed the rottweilers. I am used to having dogs. Living in the wilds of Angus in Scotland, one goes out sporting with dogs; one has labradors and spaniels. I have also become acquainted with dogs in the course of my political duties. During 1974, I went off into Forfar. In the spare spaces there on the council estates were packs of large dogs. I was told, “For goodness’ sake, take care: you may get bitten”. I armed myself; in one pocket of my coat I had Smarties and small beans. In the other pocket I had Rolos and a large Mars bar. It may be incorrect—I will wait to hear from my noble friend and the experts—but I found that those forbidden, or not, substances were a particular help. On the second or third night that I was carrying out what I call political duties, I found that there were old friends who recognised that this was the man with the Rolos or the large Mars bar. As far as I was concerned, that kept dogs under control.

I do not know whether rottweilers are a particular prohibited type of dog; I do not think they are. I have read about the specialist activities carried out by my noble friend Lord Redesdale, and perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, on particular types of dogs. I am sorry; I have gone over my permitted time. I am very curious; perhaps the Minister, or somebody else, can advise me about,

“behaviourally risk assessed by a suitably qualified behaviourist”.

I am delighted that the noble Baroness has found, at least, a point of interest in somebody suitably qualified in canine behaviour, and perhaps even human behaviour. Could my noble friend write to me about that? As I say, I am grateful to your Lordships, because I declare an interest. I have all my fingers and toes after four years of three rottweilers.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, I knowledge the progress made in extending the law regarding private property and dangerous dogs. In supporting the amendments, I do not wish to undermine the Government's proposed action but rather to strengthen it. I recognise that the noble Lords, Lord Henley, Lord De Mauley and now Lord Taylor of Holbeach, are fully in sympathy with the plight of the 23,000 postal workers who have been attacked and injured both physically and mentally by dogs in the past five years. They have been on the rounds, as it were, and witnessed what the CWU members are up against. Again, I fully acknowledge the involvement of Ministers.

I also appreciate that the Government wish to simplify and rationalise the law around anti-social behaviour. But in attempting this, I do not believe that they recognise the specialist requirements for dealing with dangerous dogs and their owners. There is insufficient focus on this in the proposed legislation. I will come on to the impact assessments in due course.

As my noble friend Lady Gale said, having met some of the parents of children killed and maimed by dogs, it is clear that the human cost is devastating. However, the economic cost is also worrying, with the loss of approximately 4,500 working days due to injuries sustained by postal workers. Campaigners feel strongly that the introduction of dog control notices would provide an effective preventive measure for alerting the authorities to the potential for dogs that could act dangerously in the future. In nearly every case, attacks have been the culmination of incidents that, if put together and acted upon, could have prevented that accident. The Government have argued that the new “flexible tools package” of orders will be as effective as the dog control notices introduced in Scotland and Northern Ireland, if not more so. However, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, as my noble friend Lady Smith has already pointed out, does not agree with that argument.

Specific dog control notices would be a message for the dog owner to take action before an attack and would raise the profile and awareness among dog owners. Many of them exercise their dogs in public parks. They get to know each other and also know the good dog owners and the not so good ones. It would encourage a communal network. Issuing dog control notices should be a simple procedure. They could be issued by those trained to recognise examples of poor control. Action should be taken on the first occasion that a dog attacks anyone. It is the first time in studying for this debate that I have heard of this “one bite” rule or “one free bite” rule, which is appalling and trivialises the seriousness of the issue.

The PDSA has estimated that more than 1 million dogs display aggressive behaviour towards people and pets on a weekly basis. Its research shows that an overwhelming 87% of people believe that pet owners should face tough penalties if their dog attacks another person or animal. For the Government to introduce penalties for attacks on private property is commendable, but they are after the event, after the injury and after the death. Specific dog control notices would establish a framework to encourage better behaviour, preventing serious incidents and would establish a record of behaviour patterns.

The overall impact assessment concentrates entirely on the issue of making it a criminal offence to allow a dog to be dangerously out of control on private property belonging to the owner of the dog. That is hardly surprising, but it is concentrating on legal sanctions after an attack. As I have already said, many attacks are the culmination of behaviour that is well known in the community. The overall impact assessment then refers us to the specific impact assessment on these measures published at the same time as the Bill. That took a bit of finding. It dates back to 9 May 2013. I assume that it has not been updated. Looking at the specific impact assessment, the concentration is on replacing dog control orders with public spaces protection orders, with community protection notices replacing litter clearing notices and defacement removal notices. There is no mention of dangerous dogs, although I understand that it is supposed to be an overall umbrella notice which covers everything.

I realise that the subject of dog control notices has been debated in the other House, and despite all the major stakeholders supporting this and the proposals for compulsory microchipping, the Government have set their face against it. Obviously, local government is in a difficult position, as it is strapped for cash and cutting back on areas such as dog wardens. Therefore it is not surprising that it has shown no enthusiasm for dog control notices. However, the concern is that community protection notices would be a blunt and unwieldy measure. The danger is that they would be slow to serve and open to challenge in the courts.

The Minister of State, Norman Baker, indicated that,

“muzzling, neutering, microchipping, keeping a dog on a lead … can be required under a community protection notice”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/10/13; col. 682.]

If that is the case, why are the two impact assessments completely silent on this? Looking through the draft guidance for front-line professionals on the reform of anti-social behaviour powers, the section on community protection notices makes no reference to dogs. It does say that before anyone is issued with a community protection notice, the accused should be given a written warning—presumably posted through the letterbox by a postal worker. We have to get to page 48 of the 64-page draft guidance before the actual word “dog” is used, and that is only in relation to public spaces protection orders—the old dog control orders—so we are back to square one.

Thousands of postal workers have been injured, children have been killed and maimed, just over eight guide dogs are attacked and killed per month on average, yet the draft guidance to professionals waits for 48 pages to mention the word “dog”. There is a danger that what the Government regard as streamlining by introducing community protection notices is actually a lack of focus on this important issue. If there is no focus now, what hope will there be when its implementation depends entirely on local discretion and funding?

What further guidance will the Minister give on issues such as the definition of “out of control” and “dangerously out of control”? What guidance will there be when aggressive dogs are allowed to roam freely on the landings of communal flats, terrifying the neighbours? What steps will be taken if an owner in receipt of one of these new community protection notices simply swaps the dog for another? Will compulsory microchipping accompany a community protection notice? Nothing in the draft professional guidance gives us a clue. This is an area crying out for more effective steps to identify and deal with bad owners and poor dog control before someone is maimed and injured. I fully support the amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I shall make one point in the context of this Bill, which follows a comment by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy. Much of this Bill is about anti-social behaviour where someone is “likely to” do something, “threatens to” do something, or something is “capable of” causing harm and various sorts of problems. This is all about people. The dog provisions which we are being asked to consider in these amendments are preventive, not reactive. I would like to see much more of a similar attitude to “likely” behaviour or “possible” behaviour of dogs in the preventive way that we are applying to people in a large part of this Bill.

21:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate, particularly for me. When I became a Minister in Defra, a little over two years ago, one of my first priorities was to consider the whole business of dogs. I was motivated by exactly the same sentiments as most noble Lords have been: that attacks on communications workers, children and adults by dogs are unacceptable. They are a cause of great distress, and I wanted to do something about it.

Roughly two years ago—in December, at any rate—we had the first round table of all the dog charities and various interested parties, including Mr Joyce of the Communication Workers Union. We found that we had an awful lot of common ground. I think that underlying this debate is an awful lot of common ground. I am pleased that noble Lords have welcomed the fact that the Government are dealing with this issue. My noble friend Lord De Mauley, now in Defra, is seeing through a number of things, including the issue of microchipping of dogs. Defra has produced its own manual on dogs. The anti-social behaviour guidance for professionals is one document, but another slightly more substantial document is available to deal with dogs. I took note of the reference of the noble Baroness—or was it my noble friend Lord Redesdale?—to its size and the fact that some simplification of it might be due.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken: the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, who originally laid amendments on this issue at the beginning of the Bill’s proceedings; the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, to whom I will refer when I come to one or two issues; and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I also thank my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Redesdale—he has long campaigned on this issue—and my noble friend Lord Lyell, who survived living with three rottweilers, something which I would not personally want to try to achieve.

I shall deal with the specific items to which noble Lords have spoken. First, because it is the most significant and I think everyone has mentioned it, Amendment 56MA provides for dog control notices. I put it on record that I fully understand the intention behind the amendment. The Government agree that there is a genuine need for an additional tool to address poor dog ownership and enable early action to prevent dog bites and attacks. We should not have the one-bite law; we should be able to anticipate the bite before it happens. I accept that.

However, I hope that I can go some way to showing that the provision is not necessary and that everything the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, wants from such a notice is already available to enforcement authorities in the provisions in Parts 1 to 4, as noble Lords have said. The very same new clause was debated and rejected on Report in the Commons. The measures in Parts 1 to 4 can address all types of irresponsible behaviour with a dog, regardless of its specific manifestation. For example, a community protection notice can be served in cases where there are too many dogs in one home, where an owner does not have proper control of his dog, where a dog strays and in many other scenarios too.

I reassure the Committee that all the requirements suggested under the new clause such as muzzling, neutering, microchipping, keeping a dog on a lead, attending training classes can all be required under a community protection notice. The new clause is simply unnecessary. The powers are already there in the Bill. I take some comfort from the fact that Amendments 56MB and 56MC go some way towards acknowledging that.

Moreover, the measures in this Bill go further and are far more flexible. They allow officers to make any reasonable requirements based on the specifics of the case with which they are dealing. For example, the CPN might require signage to be put up to warn visitors to a property of the presence of a dog, to fix a post-box guard or to mend fencing to prevent a dog escaping.

It is important to understand the grounds under which the proposed dog control notices can be issued. In the new clause, the authorised officer has to have,

“cause to believe that a dog is not under sufficient control and requires greater control in any place”.

That suggests the dog is “out of control” already and the notice does not appear therefore to be preventive. The test for the CPN is much more useful and applicable. The behaviour of the dog owner or the person in charge of the dog simply needs to have a detrimental effect of a persistent or continuing nature on the quality of life of those in the locality. It can address issues concerning the owner as well as the dog and sometimes the two things go hand-in-hand. This could involve all manner of possibilities including allowing a dog to be out of control. It could include scenarios where the dog or dogs are not out of control but, for example, where there are too many dogs on a property, an owner persistently allows their dog to foul in a public space, or even where a dog is threatening a legitimate visitor to a property, such as a postal worker.

I note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about the requirement in the CPN for a written warning. I assure her that that is not a problem. It will not delay a notice being issued. In fact, it is a helpful addition to the measures. The provision for a written warning is in place for a number of reasons. It ensures that suitable evidence can be provided to meet the threshold test of persistent or continuing behaviour, which is one of the elements of a CPN. In terms of use, a written warning could be a simple tear-off form. Alternatively, a written warning could be included in any correspondence with the individual of an acceptable behaviour contract which makes it clear that any breach will result in the issuing of a CPN. There need not be much of a delay between the written warning and the issuing of the CPN itself. It is a very flexible measure that can be used to address owner, premises and dog.

For example, let us say that a dog is running out of control in a park and perhaps is frightening children. The officer sees this happening and requests the owner to bring their dog under control and put it on a lead. The owner fails to do this so the officer issues a written warning that they will issue a CPN unless the person complies. In many cases that will be sufficient for the person to take the necessary action but, should they refuse for whatever reason, the officer could wait for a short time—perhaps five minutes—before issuing the CPN. There has not been an unacceptable delay and the CPN should secure the necessary behaviour change. In many cases, a CPN will not be needed because the written or even verbal warning will have done the trick.

I hope the Committee will agree that it is better for a dog owner to address the problem themselves rather than to be compelled to do so under the terms of a notice. In our earlier debates many noble Lords pointed to the virtues of early, non-statutory interventions before the powers in the Bill are exercised. I note too that the noble Baroness had a concern that dog issues may be lost in the breadth of ASB measures and be downgraded by local authorities. I do not accept that concern. Local authority dog wardens have dogs as their priority. They, other local authority officers and the police will be able to use these powers in relation to dogs. I believe they will greatly enhance what they can do for dogs. We have been careful to explain in the draft practitioners’ manual how they can be applied to dogs, which I will cover later on. I will just say at this stage that the manual includes some excellent examples of how local authorities have been able to co-ordinate initiatives to tackle problems with dogs. These new powers will go a long way to helping those initiatives.

I recognise that some animal welfare organisations continue to support and argue for the introduction of specific dog control notices. However, the practitioners—the people who will be actually using these measures—are supportive of the measures in the Bill. The Bill will simplify the number of powers and make them more flexible. There will be simplification, but also flexibility. Crucially, it will allow them to do more with less. The Local Government Association is on record as supporting the new ASB measures for what they can do in relation to dogs. In its written evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the Commons, it said:

“We are aware that there is continued pressure for specific dog control notices to be included in the Bill. The LGA remains to be convinced that separate tools are necessary as no details have been provided of the specific gaps in the provisions for the injunctions, community protection notices or public space protection orders that a dog control notice is needed to fill”.

The noble Baroness has stated that ACPO supports DCNs. The national policing lead for dangerous dogs has supported the development of these flexible ASB powers and has acknowledged that the manual which has been produced explains clearly and helpfully how to deal with them.

Amendment 56MB would require the Secretary of State to review the operation of the notices and ASB measures in relation to dogs every three years. I understand the sentiments behind the amendment and can see that people will want to be certain, as the Government will want to be certain, that the measures that we are implementing are working. As I have already said, I welcome the implicit recognition that CPNs are the way forward but I do not believe that a statutory duty to undertake a review is necessary as this Government continue to apply the practice, introduced by the previous Administration, of conducting post-legislative reviews three to five years after Royal Assent. We will undertake a review of this Bill, as with others. I agree that the effectiveness of the powers in the Bill to deal with dog-related issues should be one focus of the review. We will ensure that this is the case.

The issue of guidance is the subject of Amendment 56MC. We published in October the draft practitioners’ manual on tackling irresponsible dog ownership. As a reflection of the importance we attach to dog control and welfare, it is the only piece of issue-specific guidance in relation to the anti-social behaviour provisions in the Bill. All others are covered by the general practitioners’ guidance, to which the noble Baroness referred, but this specific Defra-produced guide is a manual for dealing with dogs. I note that a number of noble Lords said that it is fairly bulky. Well, it is. It has two basic elements: the legal guidance and a specific guide to particular issues. However, I am told by dog charities that they are considering producing a handy guide for those of their staff who deal with these dogs as an everyday matter. I am interested in that and we are very interested in hearing what people have to say. This debate is helpful on that.

Noble Lords will see that the manual demonstrates how the new power, in combination with informal mechanisms such as acceptable behaviour contracts and warning letters, can provide the means for improving and increasing responsible dog ownership. The manual signposts when officers should seek advice and who can provide that advice. It has been drafted in co-operation with local authorities, the police and the Welsh Government and I thank them for their support. We are looking for comments so that we may ensure that we are equipping officers with what they need. The existence of the draft manual shows that we aim to produce such guidance as envisaged by Amendment 56MC. That said, as I indicated in response to similar amendments, we are ready to consider whether provisions for statutory guidance in relation to the powers in Parts 1 to 4 should appear in the Bill. That relates to earlier discussions we have had on the Bill.

Perhaps I may turn to the last of these amendments. Amendment 56LF seeks to provide for the regulated and early release of seized dogs under Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act. We can all agree on the importance of animal welfare, but in cases where there has been a suspected offence, we must balance the need to provide for the welfare of the animal with the need to protect the public. By imposing a time limit on assessments of such dogs, not only do we increase resource pressures on respective police forces—many of which have only one or two trained dog legislation officers—but we compromise public safety if officers are under pressure to carry out rapid assessments. I am confident that all assessments are completed as soon as is practically possible, with enough time provided for the required thoroughness.

21:30

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced in February 2013 that his department intended to bring forward secondary legislation that would permit the release of seized suspected Section 1 dogs where they have been assessed not to pose a risk to public safety. The releasing police force would be able to impose conditions on the owner, including muzzling and keeping it on a lead in public, as suggested by the amendment. The amendment would then be an unnecessary duplication. It would not be right to include such a change in primary legislation where the Government have the vires to make changes through secondary legislation.

In conclusion, I hope I have been able to persuade the Committee that specific dog control notices are already effectively provided for in the Bill. In fact, I would suggest that we have gone further and are providing a more flexible range of powers. I hope, too, that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is satisfied that the point she has raised in relation to Amendment 56LF can be dealt with through secondary legislation.

I have a note here that I will read for the sake of clarity on the “one free bite rule”. I would like to reassure the Committee that there is no such rule. Where a dog is dangerously out of control—where someone is injured or there is a reasonable apprehension of injury—there may be an offence under Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. The police and the local authority may investigate and, along with the Crown Prosecution Service, will decide whether to take forward the prosecution. That is under existing powers. It is entirely possible, and, indeed, not uncommon, that a destruction order would be made after an incident. I mention that because I may have misled the noble Baroness. I know of an incident where a dog was allowed one bite—it did not bite again—but it was greatly to the relief of the owner that that particular situation occurred.

I hope I have persuaded the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. It has been an interesting debate, for which I am grateful to noble Lords.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, the Minister is absolutely right: it has been an interesting debate. I have learnt things I could never have imagined, such as where the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, keeps his Rolos. On a serious note, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken for their contributions and their support for dog control notices. I think the Minister understands why this has been brought forward. I wish I could share his confidence. I will read his comments again and look at some of the points he made in more detail. He has not addressed the point of dog attacks on dogs or other pets. I am disappointed not to have his support for the 48 hours review. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that the assessment could be started within 48 hours. The reason to do that was to reduce costs and bureaucracy and for the welfare of the dogs. I am most surprised not to have the Minister’s support for a review. Given that he is so wedded to the provisions in this Bill and not notices, I thought he would have welcomed a review. I think that we are headed in the same direction and I wish that I had his confidence about the measures in the Bill. I will look carefully at what he had to say and look at the issues again. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 56LF withdrawn.

Clause 98: Keeping dogs under proper control

Amendment 56LG

Moved by

[Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes]

56LG: Clause 98, page 70, line 46, at end insert—
“( ) after subsection (2) there is inserted—“(2A) The owner of a dog commits an offence if they, or the person for the time being in charge of the dog, are not able to control the dog in a public place whether or not it is muzzled or kept on a lead.””

[Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes (Con)]

My Lords, I listened with great interest to the previous debates and would once again like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for everything that he has done in this matter. I only wish his measure was on the statute book. We would, perhaps, not be having these debates.

I was also interested in Amendment 56MA, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, which has already been debated, because what I am attempting to do in my amendment is very simple. Perhaps at Third Reading, it could be tabled with part of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale. I have already spoken to the Public Bill Office, and that would be a possibility because my amendment does not deal with penalties.

I want to define very simply what a responsible person is. The owner of the dog, which will be in a public place, should know the degree to which somebody they are asking to be in charge of the dog or dogs meets the requirements in my amendment. They should be capable of being responsible and in charge of the dog, whether it is on a lead or not. Many people can very satisfactorily control dogs that are not on leads. Likewise, with regard to muzzling, I want defined once and for all whose liability it is, what the requirements are and, above all, who an appropriate person might be. This is only a first step in a still-unfolding problem. I wish it was not. People have seen dogs—their own or other people’s—practically shredded in public places and parks. Very often, those in charge of them are attacked at the same time. It happens too often, but perhaps not sufficiently often for it to be an even bigger public issue than it is now. The potential is always great.

At the time it happens you need the reinforcements immediately. I live in a very well known park in London where there are big notices saying “no cyclists” and, in that particular area, “no dogs”, because children play on the grass in the summer. I have yet to see a single cyclist or dog owner being stopped. That is one small area, and I have not seen any very bad incidents. I have certainly encountered them with my own dogs and with other members of my family. In each case, the outcome has been ghastly and has lived with us and the remaining dogs for the rest of our lives.

I had the interesting experience of my daughter’s dog being seriously attacked in America. The other dog’s owner had no control of it and did not even attempt to control it. They rescued their dog and went straight to the police. The police came immediately and made an order on the spot for that owner never to have that dog not on a lead or not under complete control. I was very impressed with the speed with which that action was taken. My daughter never wanted to walk anywhere near that house again. I hope my noble friend Lord Lyell will forgive me for being jolly pleased that I am not his neighbour.

[Lord Lyell]

I reassure my noble friend that these dogs are wonderful so long as you take firm action. If she wishes to visit me, I assure her that she will escape totally unharmed and much loved.

[Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes]

My noble friend knows how highly I regard him, but I really do not think I shall accept his invitation, which was made so gallantly.

I hope that my noble friend the Minister will have realised that this problem has continued to grow and grow since the 1991 Act, the passage of which I vaguely remember taking part in. The great problem with that Act was the naming of certain types of dog. It was also mentioned, at Second Reading, that there are now dog psychiatrists and that naughty dogs can sometimes have their whole behaviour changed. I have known only one of those and I will, wisely, not give the Committee his name. He was brought in because my two were little puppies and we had to find out who the strong one was. The strong one took one look at him, did not fancy him very much and turned away, taking no notice. The little flibbertigibbet did all these little clever things in front of him and he said, “Ooh, that is the main dog. That dog is certainly going to be the leader of the pack”. He subsequently wrote a chapter in his book in which he named my two “the terrible twins”. He based this on an incident when I was walking around with them on the lead at the local dog show. They had seen a Weimaraner that had attacked them in the past and they must have been very nervous. Everybody was laughing and when I looked around it was because one was on top of the other. That is why he called them the “terrible Oppenheim twins”. If you ever pick that book up, please put it down again and do not buy it.

This is a serious debate, on a serious matter, on which there is enormously strong feeling about things that can never be put right afterwards. I implore my noble friend to take note of what has been said and to try to meet, before Third Reading, the more modest proposals debated this evening.

[Lord Redesdale]

My Lords, I support and thank my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, who has been a stalwart in the campaign on this over many years. There are problems with the amendment but it raises an important issue that we will come back to. After many years of discussion, the issue remains that some people use dogs as a way of intimidating others. This can take place even if the dog is on the lead and in a muzzle, because the person is using the dog for effect, so the muzzle is not a barrier to intimidation. I understand that this is a very difficult area to legislate in, but I hope the Minister will take into account that intimidation can be caused even if the dog is on a lead and muzzled.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I agree that the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, is making a serious point about how the victim, or potential victim, feels when an owner is not in control of a dog. I am grateful for her comments and although she said something about the wording here, I was grateful for her support for dog control notices. None of us guarantees that we have absolutely the right wording. We may be able to have discussions, outside the Chamber, on wording that is accurate and would suit the Government well. The noble Lord does not want to see dog control notices but we may be able to make some improvements by discussing the matter further. I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s comments and support.

21:45

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes for moving this amendment and other noble Lords for their contributions.

The purpose of the amendment is to extend the definition of “dangerously out of control”, found in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and used to determine whether an offence has been committed under Section 3 of that Act. It would read so that the owner or person in charge of the dog would be liable for prosecution where the dog was not under their control.

Let me be explicit. Where a dog has been dangerously out of control, regardless of whether injury has been inflicted, the owner or person in charge may be liable under Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. “Dangerously out of control” is defined in Section 10 of that Act and is taken to mean,

“any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person, whether or not it actually does so”.

That would cover some of the incidents to which this amendment would apply.

Furthermore, the Government agree that there should be proactive intervention before a dog becomes dangerously out of control. Where an individual does not have the dog sufficiently under their control, action should be taken to avoid escalation to those more serious incidents. The new anti-social behaviour measures will allow for such action by using the community protection notice and, in some cases, the injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance. Those early intervention measures can make requirements of the owner to ensure that the dog is brought under control, its welfare improved and public safety protected; we have discussed the impact of such measures on conventional anti-social behaviour, and just now in the case of dogs. Requirements might include attending training or behaviour classes, for example.

Should the out-of-control behaviour be of sufficient concern, it will also be possible to make a complaint to the magistrate’s court under Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871. Based on the evidence before it and using the civil burden of the balance of probabilities, the court can impose an order that requires the dog to be muzzled, on a lead or, in the most serious cases, destroyed.

Authorities may use the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 where a dog is dangerously out of control, and it is right that we maintain that threshold for this criminal offence. In other cases, where a dog is more generally out of control, authorities may require the owner to be subject to the new measures, such as the CPN introduced in the Bill, or may use the Dogs Act 1871. Given that there are a number of ways to address an incident such as the one described by my noble friend, and in the spirit of the Bill of reducing duplicate legislation, I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment. I agree that it may well be useful if I talk to my noble friend Lord De Mauley, who is not able to be here this evening, about the possibility of meeting to discuss these dog measures some time before the next stage. However, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes]

I am very grateful to my noble friend for his extremely helpful remarks, particularly in relation to what is already in the 1991 Act, which might be one of the easiest ways to address this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 56LG withdrawn.

Amendment 56M

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

56M: Clause 98, page 71, line 5, at end insert—
“(iii) in paragraph (b), for “two years” there is substituted “the relevant maximum specified in subsection (4A)”;(e) after subsection (4) there is inserted—“(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4)(b), the relevant maximum is—
(a) 14 years if a person dies as a result of being injured;(b) 5 years in any other case where a person is injured;(c) 3 years in any case where an assistance dog is injured (whether or not it dies).””

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, government Amendment 56M relates to the maximum penalty for dog attacks. Following an amendment tabled in Committee in the House of Commons by Richard Fuller, Defra consulted over the summer on possible increases to the maximum sentences for offences under Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 of allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control—the very measure that we have been discussing in the previous amendment. Specifically, that is the aggravated offence where an out-of-control dog kills or injures a person or an assistance dog.

Some 3,180 people and organisations completed the online survey and a number of organisations sent written representations. In summary, some 91% of respondents considered that the maximum penalty should be increased. We have taken into account the results from the survey, the written representations and the need for the maximum penalty to be proportionate to the offence.

The amendment provides for an increase in the maximum penalty for an aggravated offence under Section 3 of the 1991 Act, to apply in England and Wales, as follows: 14 years’ imprisonment if a person dies as a result of a dog attack, five years’ imprisonment if a person is injured by a dog attack, and three years’ imprisonment for an attack on an assistance dog that results in injury or death of the dog.

These changes reflect the high public concern that two years is an insufficient penalty for these offences, and the fact that seven adults and 10 children have died in dog attacks since 2005, and some 10 assistance dogs are attacked by other dogs every month. As now, each of these offences could also be punishable by an unlimited fine instead of, or in addition to, imprisonment; and, of course, the courts have the option of passing a community sentence.

I should make it clear that these revised sentences will apply only to the aggravated form of the offence in Section 3 of the 1991 Act; that is, the offence where a person or an assistance dog is actually killed or injured in a dog attack. Where someone actually sets their dog on to a person, the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is likely to come into play. As noble Lords will be aware, the Act comes with its own sentencing regime. Were someone to be killed by a dog set upon them, if this is found to be an act of murder or manslaughter, the maximum sentence that would apply is life imprisonment. As now, it will be for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether there is both sufficient evidence to charge a person with the Section 3 offence and whether it is in the public interest to mount a prosecution. Once a case comes to court and a person is found guilty, it will be for the judge to take into account any mitigating or aggravating factors when passing sentence. We can, and should, leave it to prosecutors and the courts to make decisions in light of the facts of each individual case.

Of course, increasing the maximum penalty for dog attacks is only one aspect of trying to target irresponsible dog ownership and to encourage more responsible approaches. The Government consulted on a range of measures to encourage responsible dog ownership in 2012, and published a summary of results and the way forward in February this year, including bringing forward the other measures in the Bill relating to dogs and the compulsory microchipping of dogs by 2016. However, I hope noble Lords will agree that increasing the maximum penalty in the way that I have described is an important additional step. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this forward and for his explanation. I know he said at Second Reading that he would bring forward the amendment and he has been kind enough to write to noble Lords about it. I think this came from amendments proposed in the other place, where Richard Fuller raised the point and the Government agreed to do a consultation on it over the summer. Therefore, we are supportive and want to see better sentencing guidelines around dangerous dogs. The culpability of those responsible and the actions taken against them are central to the measures the Government have taken. It also comes back to the point I made to the noble Lord earlier. I do not want to hark on about dog control offences too much but it is about prevention. Tougher sentences help with preventing such attacks taking place, and encourage more responsible dog ownership. That certainly is a positive.

I would like to ask the noble Lord a few questions about this. I am slightly puzzled about the reasons—if he could help me on this—that the amendment says:

“14 years if a person dies as a result of being injured”.

That will be the maximum penalty and we all recognise that in most cases the maximum penalty would not be the penalty given. Is 14 years comparable with other legislation? Are there other kinds? Where has this come from? I am sure it is not something the Minister has just dreamt up. I assume that there is other legislation that is seen as similar or relevant, which the period of 14 years would have been taken from.

I think there was some discussion in the Commons. This measure is for when a person dies as a result of being injured, but what if a dog is used as a weapon? We know that there are cases when somebody is injured because a dog is deliberately set on a person. What if they die? Is that the same penalty? What if somebody deliberately sets a dog on another animal, or a pet? With the penalty for when somebody dies as a result of being injured—in the case of an assistance dog, whether or not it dies, the penalty is three years—is there any distinction between an attack occurring when the owner has tried not to have their dog attack an individual and an attack occurring when the owner sets the dog on an individual? I do not think that it would be covered by dog fighting laws if a human were attacked. If the Minister has any information on that, it would be helpful.

Furthermore, is the five years’ imprisonment for a person being injured something that is found in other legislation? I am speaking slowly, because I think that inspiration is about to arrive for the Minister on this issue. Where do the 14 years, five years and three years come from? Is there comparable legislation? The crucial point is whether the attack is deliberate, and whether a dog is forced to attack another dog or person. Many years ago, I helped to home a dog that had been the victim of quite serious attacks by other dogs. This poor dog was quite an aggressive creature with other dogs, but it had had half of its jaw bitten off and was in a terrible state. So I have seen at first hand and cared for dogs that have been very seriously attacked by other dogs. I am trying to get to the base of whether this is about something that happened, which should have been prevented, or something that is deliberate. It would be very helpful if the noble Lord could answer these questions.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The most important thing is to recognise that the prosecution of these cases is in the hands of the prosecuting authorities and adjudication of sentences is in the hands of the court. But there are particular aspects to the legislation. The noble Baroness asked me whether there was something comparable: 14 years’ imprisonment is the same penalty as for causing death by dangerous driving, so there is a parallel with that.

The noble Baroness made a further point. I thought that I referred to it—and, certainly, I half thought that I mentioned it in my previous contribution. It is getting late and my memory may not be right, but I certainly have it here in my notes and may have said it in my speech. When a person deliberately sets a dog to injure someone, using a dog as a weapon, other offences would apply, such as murder or manslaughter, which as the noble Baroness knows carry a maximum of a life sentence, if that is shown to be the case. I am sure that I alluded to that in my previous remarks.

Why did we decide to increase the maximum penalty for injury to a person to five years? The majority of people wanted to see 10 years, but we wanted to be proportionate and felt that this was about the right tariff for injury to a person. But I think that the noble Baroness welcomes the amendments, and I am grateful for her support.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

The noble Lord is right: I am welcoming the amendments and am grateful to him for his explanation, which is extremely helpful. I had not realised that a dog could be used as a tool currently in a murder or manslaughter charge; that information is news to me. So I am grateful to him for explaining that more fully. He is right—we do support these amendments.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

What has been helpful about these debates on the dog legislation is that they have reinforced the fact that this is an area in which the legislative framework has been imperfect. I hope that I have convinced noble Lords on the flexibility of the anti-social behaviour measures when applied to dog ownership. There is specific draft guidance being given to professionals. I shall make sure that all noble Lords who have spoken in this part of our discussions this evening, including those who might have done, such as the noble Lords, Lord Trees and Lord Greaves, get a copy of that guidance, because it will help future discussions. I hope it will persuade noble Lords that, given the acknowledged difficulty of legislating in this area, what the Government are seeking to do is sympathetic to the sentiments of the Committee.

Amendment 56M agreed.

Clause 98, as amended, agreed.

Clause 99 agreed.

Amendments 56MA to 56MC not moved.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 10 pm.