House of Commons
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
1. What assessment she has made of the effect of police reductions on Northumbria police.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The independent inspectorate of constabulary has found that, like other forces, Northumbria police are rising to the challenge of making savings while maintaining and improving service to the public. The Northumbria police and crime commissioner has recently restated her and the chief constable’s shared commitment to maintaining the number of police officers and staff working in their neighbourhoods. She is clear that her force needs to do things differently, use technology more effectively and work from different buildings that are cheaper to run.
Chi Onwurah
This morning, Northumbria police arrested eight people as part of Operation Sanctuary, an investigation into horrific allegations of sexual abuse of looked-after young girls and other vulnerable victims in the west end of Newcastle. Police have assured me that they are working with safeguarding agencies and local communities to protect the victims and pursue the perpetrators, but that very police station in the west end of Newcastle is to close as part of the £67 million cuts and we have seen a 7% rise in total crime in the region over the past 12 months. Will the Home Secretary give me a commitment that Northumbria will have the resources it needs to pursue this critical investigation?
Mrs May
I recognise the sort of case that the hon. Lady raises. Sadly, we are seeing too many such cases, particularly involving the horrific abuse of young girls. There have been a number of cases and I was with Thames Valley police a matter of weeks ago to talk to them about Operation Bullfinch and the lessons they had learned from that for the future investigation of such cases and how victims are treated. There has been a lot to learn. I do not think that the physical presence of a police station is what makes the difference to how such a case is treated and I am sure that the chief constable of Northumbria will ensure that there are the resources properly to investigate and to bring to justice those who are guilty of such crimes.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
2. What her policy is on the payment of fees for a fast-track border control service at airports.
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)
Border Force is committed to improving the experience of all passengers at our ports in support of the Government’s long-term economic plan, including the delivery of value-added services such as fast-track queuing. When such a service is delivered, it is appropriate that, at the very least, the costs of such a service are met by the passengers or airlines that receive the benefit.
Mr Sheerman
What seems to be emerging from this Government policy is a class system for going through airports. My ordinary constituents have to wait in long queues, and sometimes very long queues, whereas people who are wealthy—bankers, Mr Abramovich and people like that—have a special relationship that means that they do not go through security and are fast-tracked. I know that that is going on and it is a class system for who comes in and out of this country. What is the Minister going to do to reassure my constituents that that is not happening?
Mr Harper
It is difficult to know where to start; there were so many inaccuracies in that question. First, in the case of 99.6% of passengers, we meet our queuing requirements and we have now largely fixed the problems we inherited with Border Force and queuing. Secondly, everyone who comes through our airports has their details checked and it is clear in the operating mandate that 100% should be checked. We have fast-track approaches where people pay fees that provide extra resources so that we can deliver that service without damaging the service received by everybody else.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
London Gatwick airport in my constituency introduced automatic e-gates for departures for all passengers some time ago. May I seek assurances from my hon. Friend that Gatwick will be included in future fast-track border entry, which will be great for local business and great for that important gateway into the UK?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. He will be aware that I recently had the opportunity to open the e-gates at the south terminal at Gatwick that mean that British citizens and European economic area passengers can get access to the United Kingdom more quickly with their chipped passports. We are looking into developing a range of services so that those who bring value, business, growth and jobs to the country can get here more efficiently. That is something that all Members should welcome.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
For many years, the Home Office, and before that, the UK Border Agency, have offered people premium or priority immigration services, with set timelines, but they have not always managed to meet those timelines. What progress is the Minister making on being able to deliver all immigration services within the time promised?
Mr Harper
As a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, my hon. Friend will know that the latest data, provided to that Committee, show that we have made considerable progress in reducing the backlog of applications. He will also know that we have published our new service standard—I will write to Members shortly, setting that out—which gives customers much clearer, more transparent expectations about how long they should wait for their immigration applications to be dealt with. That will be a considerable improvement in customer service standards.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
3. What recent representations she has received on the effect of the cost of a certificate in knowledge of policing on the recruitment to the police of black and minority ethnic groups and disadvantaged groups; and if she will publish the equalities impact assessment of that policy.
The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Damian Green)
Other than from the hon. Lady, no representations have been received on this matter. To improve recruitment standards, we have given forces a range of entry routes that they should use to recruit a work force who reflect the communities that they serve. A copy of the equality impact assessment produced by the College of Policing is available on its website.
Siobhain McDonagh
When the Home Secretary opened her College of Policing last year, she said:
“Policing needs to be able to attract the brightest and best—regardless of their background. It should not place artificial barriers in their way”.
In the past week, I have received numerous complaints about the college’s £1,000 bobby tax on police recruits. As the bobby tax has to be paid up front, and there is no guarantee of an interview or a job at the end of the course, or even of passing the course, it is clearly an unacceptable barrier to young people from disadvantaged backgrounds joining the police. Why will the Minister not instruct police forces to scrap this insidious tax on our police and young people?
Damian Green
The certificate of knowledge in policing is designed precisely to improve the standards of those entering the police force, to make them even more professional. From this year, the Metropolitan police will offer financial support to help with the costs of the CKP, in the form of an interest-free loan, which will be available on the basis of London residency and means-tested household income, so that will specifically be available to the hon. Lady’s constituents.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Following on from that question, on the policing of ethnic minorities, the Minister will know that I am greatly concerned about the welfare of African-Caribbean people held in detention environments, and of those with mental health issues. Is there anything that the Minister can say today to reassure me that Front Benchers are aware of this concern, and are doing something about it?
Damian Green
I am indeed aware of my hon. Friend’s concern, not least because I have debated the matter with him in this House. I am able to reassure him further: my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has written to Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary on the subject, because we take it extremely seriously.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Can the Minister say what the recruitment of black and ethnic minorities is like in the west midlands? Can he give us the figures?
Damian Green
I do not have the west midlands figures immediately to hand, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman about that. If he is asking whether the police should do more to recruit ethnic minority recruits, yes, they should. That is why the College of Policing is devoting much of its early energies to this matter. Everyone throughout the police service, and certainly in government, believes that the police should reflect the communities that they serve, and that more needs to be done, both in how the police act on the streets and how they seek new recruits, to make sure that the police are more reflective of the whole community that they serve.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
My right hon. Friend and, I think, the whole House will agree that police forces need to reflect the ethnic diversity of the communities that they serve. Does he agree that one way to do that is possibly by recruiting more special constables from those communities, so that forces can use their language and other skills? I have a significant community of Kashmiri origin in my constituency, and I would like the opportunity for a number of them to become special constables. They would bring to the role a lot of knowledge and other skills that are much needed in policing.
Damian Green
I agree very much with my right hon. Friend. The specials do a great job anyway, and their recruitment is particularly important, both as a way of increasing the diversity of forces, and as an entry route to full-time paid policing. Specials bring a degree of expertise from outside the traditional policing route, but many find it such a satisfactory career that they wish to pursue it full time.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Do the words “disadvantaged groups” in the question suggest that white working-class people should also gain from any measures?
Damian Green
It is not for me to anticipate what the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) was thinking when she tabled the question, but I have made the point that the Metropolitan police is offering interest-free loans; as I say, they will be made on the basis of residency in London—because the commissioner of the Met is keen that policing in London be done increasingly by people who live in the Metropolitan police area—and on the basis of means-testing. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) can be reassured on that point.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
4. What recent estimate she has made of the net cost to the police of processing firearms applications.
The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)
The most recent assessment of the net cost to police of processing firearms applications was undertaken by the Association of Chief Police Officers in 2009-10. Its report estimated that the gross cost was £23.6 million; the income received was £6.4 million; therefore the net cost to the police was approximately £17.2 million.
The cost and system of licensing firearms must be proportionate and fair. Work is continuing across government to ensure that that happens.
Steve McCabe
If the cost of processing the licence and making sure that weapons are stored safely and securely is £17.2 million in excess of what the Government have raised, given the answer to Question 2, should not those who benefit pay? Why do the public have to subsidise the shooters in this case?
Norman Baker
I have some sympathy for the point made by the hon. Gentleman, but I must point out that we went from 2001 to 2010 under the previous Government without any increase in firearms fees at all. He will understand that these matters have to be agreed across government, and other Departments have perspectives that have to be taken into account, but I am determined to make progress on this matter.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
May I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I am the chairman of the all-party group on shooting and conservation, which has been studying the matter in considerable detail. Is not the important the fact that there should be uniform treatment across all 42 constabularies and that the police should adopt best practice to drive down costs so that each applicant, wherever they come from, can be sure that they are getting the very best value for money?
Norman Baker
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the police should adopt best practice, and they are developing an e-commerce system, as he knows, which will reduce the average costs from £196 to £169, but it will still leave a significant shortfall.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
5. What steps she is taking to prevent harassment through the sending of unsolicited sexual images via the internet and telephone.
The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)
The coalition Government takes all forms of harassment, whether online or offline, very seriously. We have robust legislation in place to deal with cyber-stalking and harassment, and perpetrators of grossly offensive, obscene or menacing behaviour face stiff punishment. We will continue to work collaboratively with industry, charities and parenting groups to develop tools and information for users aimed at keeping society safe online.
Dr Wollaston
I welcome the measures that the Government have taken to prevent sexual violence against women and girls. The Minister will be aware that many young people have been pressured into sending intimate photographs of themselves only to find that those images are sometimes posted, distributed or shared without their consent, which is an important form of bullying and harassment. What measures have been taken, and does the Minister support measures to prevent smart phone use by those who are not mature enough to understand that it can result in an important form of bullying?
Norman Baker
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an important point. We have given teachers stronger powers to tackle cyber-bullying by searching for and, if necessary, deleting inappropriate images or files on electronic devices, including mobile phones. It is critical to educate young people about the risks of sending intimate photographs. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre has developed a specific educational resource to tackle sexting that is designed for use by teachers. There are numerous laws in place that can be used to deal with those who behave in this appalling manner.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Would not updated compulsory sex and relationships education help to tackle this problem? Is the Minister confident that the police know how to deal with issues such as revenge pornography, to which one of my constituents was subjected, and which she did not get very much help from the police in trying to tackle?
Norman Baker
I am sorry to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s constituent and her experience. The Government has made it clear that online crime is as serious as offline crime—there is no difference there—and we expect the police to conduct rigorous inquiries into online offences or potential offences. There are numerous pieces of legislation that they can use including, for example, the Malicious Communications Act 1988, under which it is an offence to send communications or other articles with intent to cause distress or anxiety.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
But online or offline, the Minister knows that the best way of tackling abuse and violence against women is to have compulsory sex and relationship education in schools, which teaches our children about healthy and respectful relationships. Now that this is supported by the vast majority of parents and teachers, the NSPCC, mumsnet, the girl guides—all those who work in the sector dealing with violence against women—will the Government abandon their attempts to stop it and support the amendment in the Lords that would introduce this in our schools?
Norman Baker
Of course, that is predominantly a matter for the Department of Education than for the Home Office. I have discussed the matter with my colleagues in the DFE, but it is worth pointing out that 96% of primary schools and 73% of secondary schools teach e-safety, either as separate lessons or embedded in others.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
6. What assessment she has made of the potential effect of reductions in local authority funding on police forces.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Funding for local authorities is a matter for the Communities Secretary. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 puts in place two related, reciprocal duties for police and crime commissioners to co-operate with partners. These duties ensure that local leaders work together to achieve the most effective outcomes for their areas. PCCs are already working with local partners to ensure that they provide the services the public needs, and we encourage them to continue do so.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Secretary of State for her response, but the fact remains that people across Northumbria are being unfairly hit with savage reductions in local authority budgets and a loss of nearly 400 front- line police officers, which has resulted in an increase in violent crime. With this toxic combination stretching the fabric of partnership working and community policing to breaking point, what steps is the right hon. Lady taking to stem the rise in violent crime and reassure our communities and my constituents across Northumbria?
Mrs May
I am pleased to say that crime survey figures show overall across the country that violent crime is down by some 13%, but I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I gave earlier to her hon. Friend the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) about Northumbria. The PCC and the chief constable in Northumbria are looking to use technology to work more effectively and looking at ensuring that they collaborate with local partners so that they continue to provide the effective police service that her constituents and the PCC’s constituents want in Northumbria.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I note that police funding in Northumbria is slightly higher than in my county of Leicestershire per head of population. I also note that according to the latest recorded crime figures, crime fell by 19% in Northumbria and 24% in Leicestershire. Does not that show that the issue is not about absolute budgets but how that budget is allocated?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and he echoes a comment made by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, which shows that it is not the number of police officers that is relevant but how they are deployed. So it is about how the resources are used. As I have said, in Northumbria, the PCC and the chief constable are looking to ensure that they use their resources as effectively as possible, particularly through the introduction of new technology.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
The Home Secretary must be aware of the disproportionate anomalous effect of the cuts overall— by local and central Government—in the west midlands. We await her review of what happened to Coventry because of the damping review, where we received £44 million less than her own formula should have awarded, and the top-slicing that she announced in January means a cut against what we should have received of a further £3.9 million. Of course, the City of London and Surrey are doing much better. What has she got against the west midlands?
Mrs May
I am pleased to see that the crime figures show that crime continues to fall in the west midlands, and that the West Midlands police have been able to put in a bid to the new innovation fund, which the Government have introduced, and they were successful in that bid, so they will be able to put in place the creation, I understand, of a new intelligence hub, which will greatly enhance their ability to deal with crime in the west midlands.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
During the past two years, the budget for policing in the west midlands has been reduced by 13%, and during the same period crime has fallen by 18%. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that this more-for-less outcome is in the interests of law-abiding taxpayers as well as the police?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is interesting that the Opposition always refuse to accept that good policing is about how the police are deployed, rather than overall numbers. We understand that, and so do chief constables, which is why, I am pleased to say, we are seeing the effectiveness of police constables and the work their officers are doing up and down the country in reducing crime.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
To be a victim of violent crime is traumatic. To see one’s assailant not brought to book adds insult to injury. With 7,000 fewer crimes of violence against the person solved under this Government, does the Home Secretary accept that this is the inevitable consequence of the combination of the biggest cuts in local government history and the cutting of 10,000 police officers from the front line: more violent criminals getting off scot-free?
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating North Yorkshire police on further reducing crime by 5%? Does she also agree that local authorities have a useful role to play in reading the films from CCTV cameras and that that should continue on an ongoing basis?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for her comment about the necessity of working with local authorities, which I think is absolutely imperative. The work that local authorities do in looking at images from CCTV cameras and working with the police on that is an important part of the picture of partnership working to reduce crime in the local area.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
7. What recent assessment her Department has made of the availability of over-the-counter acidic substances and the use of such substances in violent crime.
The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)
Acid attacks are an extreme form of violence that the coalition Government is committed to tackling and preventing. The Home Office recently consulted on proposals to improve control of explosive precursors and harmful poisons and chemicals, including some highly corrosive acids, as part of the UK’s Contest strategy. We will ensure that proportionate measures are put in place to prevent the misuse of the most dangerous substances.
Jim McGovern
I thank the Minister for that response and the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), for his written reply to me on the matter. Mr Hugh Reilly, a plumber in my constituency, has told me that he has to use a substance that is over 90% sulphuric acid to unblock drains. He has told me that unfortunately it is increasingly being used for attacks, particularly on women. In a tragic accident, an innocent householder put the substance down his drain. It burnt through the pipes overnight, went through the floor and burned the face of a five-year-old boy sleeping in the apartment below. Surely we need some system of registration and regulation so that only authorised and qualified people can purchase those substances.
Norman Baker
I am sorry to hear about the horrific incident to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We saw a report of another such attack on the front page of The Sun this morning, although fortunately someone was found guilty in that case. An EU regulation is being brought forward on the marketing and use of explosive precursors, and it separates chemicals into those that have a history of effective misuse across Europe and those that are less harmful. The great problem, as he recognises, is that many of those chemicals have legitimate uses in household activities, such as clearing drains and cleaning jewellery, so regulating them for legitimate use would be quite difficult, but we are determined to do what we can to identify the problems.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
8. How many terrorism prevention and investigation measures orders will expire during January 2014.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
As of 30 November, eight TPIM notices were in force. The previous Government did not provide a running commentary on control orders, and for sound operational reasons we will not comment on individual TPIM cases. The next quarterly statistics are due to be published in March.
James Brokenshire
It is worth highlighting for the House that TPIMs provide some of the most stringent restrictions in any democratic country. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson, described them as a “harsh” measure. I highlight that the two-year limit for TPIMs is supported by David Anderson and his predecessor in that role, Lord Carlile, who was appointed by the previous Labour Government. There are measures in place to manage TPIM suspects when they come off their orders, and we have confidence in the ability of the police and the Security Service to manage risk, which they do every day.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend accept that this matter is a very strong reason for looking at the radical measures hinted at by our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in relation to the European convention on human rights? Until 10 years ago, all Governments of all complexions accepted that some foreign suspects were too dangerous to be allowed to roam about.
James Brokenshire
As my hon. Friend will know, the Government have pursued deportation with assurances in seeking to deport individuals from this country who would do us harm—we did so successfully in removing Abu Qatada from this country—but there will always be a cadre of individuals whom we cannot deport. We maintain TPIMs to be able to guard against risks from those individuals, and that is why we consider that TPIMs continue to be effective.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Does the Minister share my concern about the number of British citizens who are travelling to and from Syria to participate in extremist activity? The International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation estimates that 366 British citizens have made the trip to Syria and back again, and some may well have reached the criteria that make a TPIM order appropriate. Now that the orders are expiring, is he satisfied that there are practical measures to monitor individuals of this kind?
James Brokenshire
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the risk from Syria—that individuals may travel out there and then come back and pose a risk to us in this country. That is why the Government have taken a number of steps. For example, the Home Secretary has highlighted the change and strengthening of approach in relation to the royal prerogative. We will not hesitate to take measures to disrupt travel and to prosecute those involved in terrorism whether here or in other countries, such as Syria.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
Will the Minister assure me that he will not follow the example of Labour Front Benchers who, in a debate last week, trampled on centuries of long-established principles of justice purely to look tough on this issue? Instead, will he continue to balance the principles of British justice with the rights of suspects?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the whole issue of the challenges that can be made in the courts. As control orders were being steadily eroded, we reviewed them very carefully as part of the counter-terrorism review at the start of this Parliament. The courts have upheld every TPIM notice that they have reviewed, and TPIMs have been endorsed by the courts, counter-terrorism reviewers, the police and the Security Service.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Last year, after Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed absconded from his TPIM, the Home Secretary told this House that he no longer posed a threat to the UK.
Turning to AM, another terrorist subject, Lord Justice Mitting concluded that AM was involved in
“a viable plot to commit mass murder by bringing down transatlantic passenger airlines by suicide bombings, which was disrupted by the arrest and prosecution of a number of individuals in the United Kingdom”,
and that
“there is every reason to believe that AM would have killed himself and a large number of other people”.
With AM’s TPIM order arbitrarily ending this month, will the Minister now confirm to the House that AM no longer presents a threat to the United Kingdom?
James Brokenshire
It would be wrong to comment on the detailed operational issues surrounding TPIM subjects, as that could undermine the very work of the police and security services. The police and security services have been clear that TPIMs have been effective in reducing the risk from such individuals, and they have tailored plans in place to manage them. If any individual engages in any further terrorist-related activity after the expiry of their TPIM, the police will not hesitate to prosecute.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Does this matter not underline the problems caused by European human rights and make stronger the case for human rights modernisation and reform to ensure that the UK Supreme Court has the final say?
James Brokenshire
As my hon. Friend will know, we are actively considering how to strike the right balance on human rights. The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims and the Secretary of State for Justice are looking at that issue closely to ensure that the rights and freedoms of individuals are upheld properly in this country.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
9. What the cost has been of providing surveillance for suspects subject to terrorism prevention and investigation measures to date.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
Additional funding of tens of millions of pounds has been made available to the police and the Security Service each year for surveillance, technical capabilities and other measures to mitigate the overall risk as part of the TPIMs package.
Julie Elliott
What can the Minister say to reassure my constituents in Sunderland about the increased risk that they are at after the release in the past week of six very dangerous people on TPIMs, bearing it in mind that two people have previously disappeared without trace?
James Brokenshire
It is worth highlighting that under the previous Government’s control order regime, seven individuals disappeared in six years. We have increased spending on the security and intelligence agencies and protected counter-terrorism policing budgets in the 2015-16 spending round to ensure that the capabilities are maintained. That includes resources for surveillance and the management of TPIMs subjects. Upholding national security remains the priority of this Government.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
10. What steps she is taking to reduce violent crime.
The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)
The coalition Government is taking decisive action to reduce violence, including sexual violence against women, children and vulnerable people, and gang and youth violence. That includes preventing violence from happening in the first place, providing effective support to victims, and ensuring that perpetrators are arrested, charged and successfully prosecuted.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the Minister for that answer. Alcohol-fuelled crime, which is often violent, costs £11 billion per year. Newcastle city council has introduced a late-night levy to bring in revenue to deal with some of those issues. However, that does not address the wider issue or the problem of people pre-loading on alcohol from supermarkets. The Government’s alcohol policy is clearly in tatters. Why did the Home Office suppress a report on minimum prices ahead of the Government’s U-turn on that issue?
Norman Baker
I am not aware of any report that has been suppressed. If the hon. Lady wants to write to me with the details, I will look into it. I assure her that the Government is taking a firm line with the alcohol industry. It has a responsibility to society for its products and for their misuse. The cost to the taxpayer is £21 billion a year, which is shared between the costs of antisocial behaviour and the costs to the NHS. We have a strategy and we expect the industry to co-operate. We do not rule out taking further action if it does not co-operate.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
In strongly welcoming the fall in violent crime, may I ask the Minister what can be done, over and above what is being done, about the particularly difficult and pernicious problem of knife crime?
Norman Baker
I am happy to say that there has been a reduction in knife crime under this Government. That is shown not only by the crime figures, but by the NHS data, which show that about 14% fewer people were admitted to hospital due to assault with a sharp object, including knives, in the year to March 2013. Police recorded crime also showed that knife crime was down by 10%. We created a new offence in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 for those who carry a knife in a public place or a school and go on to threaten and cause an immediate risk of serious physical harm to another person.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
12. What steps she is taking to restrict the supply of new psychoactive substances.
The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)
The coalition Government has banned hundreds of new psychoactive substances. We work closely with law enforcement partners to tackle this reckless trade. Concerted action, which started in November, has resulted in 44 arrests and seizures of new psychoactive substances, including 9 kg seized by Kent police. I am leading a review to look at how the UK’s response to such new drugs can be further strengthened.
Andrew Griffiths
I thank the Minister for his response and for the action that has been taken so far. However, may I draw his attention to the report, “No Quick Fix”, that was compiled by the Centre for Social Justice? It shows that although there are 234 controlled drugs, 251 uncontrolled drugs are available as we speak and the figure is increasing by one a week. What will he do to close down the supply chain, particularly through head shops on the high street and through the internet?
Norman Baker
I am happy to say that we have already banned more than 250 new substances. We will continue to introduce bans and to use temporary control orders. I have asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to review the generic definitions that are used to ban families of drugs to get even speedier action.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s review of legal highs, but is it not three years too late? In that time, the Government have not introduced a single measure to tackle the myth that just because those drugs are legal, they are safe.
Norman Baker
It is not true that we have not introduced measures. I have just referred to the fact that 250 substances have been banned. We continue to take strong action, including police action, to deal with those who are breaking the law. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, that a clear message should go out that just because something is deemed legal, it should not be assumed that it is safe. That is a central part of the Government’s message.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
I congratulate the Government on the tough measures that they have taken on so-called legal highs and psychoactive substances. Apparently, some come in packages with cartoon-style images that are attractive to younger people. Will the Minister consider what can be done to restrict the packaging as well as the substances themselves?
Norman Baker
I will happily look into that, and I share my hon. Friend’s view that that is entirely inappropriate marketing.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
When does the Minister expect the review to be concluded, and will he consider giving police officers and trading standards officers more powers so that they can put an immediate stop on a new substance and put the onus on nefarious traders to prove that it is a hair product, plant food or whatever nonsense they call it?
Norman Baker
We have a quick response already—faster than nearly every other country in the European Union—but I agree that we need to look further at that. The review is under way, as I mentioned, and will be concluded in the summer, coterminously with the international comparator study that my predecessor started, so we will also be able to examine how other countries are dealing with the challenge of new psychoactive substances.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
13. What recent steps she has taken to improve the visa and immigration system.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Government are working to build an immigration system that works in the national interest. We are reforming immigration routes, tackling abuse and improving customer services. We have abolished the UK Border Agency and created three distinct commands focusing on border control, visas and immigration, and immigration enforcement. Those are the right changes, but it will take substantial work and a number of years to fix the broken system that we inherited.
John Howell
Does the Home Secretary agree that recent visa figures showing a 7% rise in the number of applications to study in Britain show that we continue to attract the brightest and best students from around the globe?
Mrs May
That is absolutely right. One of the key changes that we made to the immigration system was to introduce a greater degree of differentiation so that we encourage the brightest and the best. The figures that my hon. Friend quoted show that we are bringing the brightest and the best into our universities, and long may that continue. At the same time, we have rooted out abuse and continue to work to do so, particularly in the student visa system.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
This morning on the “Today” programme, the Prime Minister said that the Government were simply introducing NHS charges for
“people who have no right to be here”.
Will the Home Secretary therefore table amendments to the Immigration Bill to exempt students and others who do have the right to be here and are making a major contribution to the UK economy, or has the Prime Minister got it wrong?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the changes that we are bringing forward in the Immigration Bill, which will do a number of things. They will indeed make it harder for people to be here in the United Kingdom when they have no right to be here. They will also make it easier for us to deal with people who are here illegally who I am sure everybody in the House wants to see removed from this country.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
On Thursday, the Immigration Bill will come back to the House on Report. The Home Secretary will be delighted that there are 30 pages of new clauses and amendments. There are 50 Government amendments, and it appears that we cannot possibly have enough time in the four hours on Thursday to debate or even read those 30 pages. Will she now tell the House that we will have an extra day for Report?
Mrs May
The Leader of the House has announced the business and the time available for the Immigration Bill on Thursday. I recognise that there are a significant number of Government amendments. They are mainly small and technical but, like my hon. Friend, I would prefer that we did not have to bring so many technical amendments to the House at this stage.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Today, on behalf of the official Opposition, I have signed new clauses 7 to 10 to the Immigration Bill, tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) and several other Conservative Back Benchers, which would strengthen future European Union accession arrangements. Given that new cross-party consensus, will the Home Secretary join us in supporting those new clauses on Thursday?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman must wait and see what happens on Thursday, but I have looked with interest at the amendments tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips). I am pleased there is agreement across the House that we must take action in future on accession countries, and the number of people who may be coming to the UK from those countries.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
15. What steps she is taking to ensure all directly employed and contract staff who work in her Department are paid the living wage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
Directly employed Home Office staff are already paid above the living wage, and we are working with our suppliers to ensure that agency workers are paid in line with Home Office pay levels. Contract staff working in the Home Office are paid above the minimum wage, but decisions on pay rates are for their employers.
Kate Green
The Home Office lags behind some other Departments, including the Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions and No. 10, which are already living wage Departments. Does the Minister agree that Whitehall should lead from the front in tackling low pay and in-work poverty, and will he agree to meet representatives of the Living Wage Foundation to discuss how the Home Office can be accredited as a living wage employer?
James Brokenshire
We do encourage the living wage, as the hon. Lady will know from the statements she refers to. I am pleased to say that the Home Office pay settlement for the past year focused on enhancing the pay of its lowest-paid staff who, as a result, received significant increases—19.6% above the living wage in central London, and 6.6% higher outside London. I will reflect carefully on what she said and consider the appropriateness of such a meeting, given the issues at stake.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to achieve the living wage is by cutting tax for low earners, as the Government have already done? Will he lobby the Treasury to cut tax for low earners still further by raising the threshold at which low earners pay national insurance?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend has made his own representation through the point he has raised, but I absolutely support his recognition of the work the Government have done for those on low pay, and in taking people out of the tax system altogether.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
17. What recent assessment she has made of the level of crime on public transport in London.
The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Damian Green)
The latest figures show that the risk of becoming a victim of crime while travelling on Transport for London’s transport system is now at its lowest level since recording began in 2004.
Heidi Alexander
The Minister will know that the Mayor of London has announced the wholesale closure of ticket offices across London. Does he accept that slashing staff levels will leave many commuters more fearful of crime and that it calls into question the ability of busy stations to respond to emergencies?
Damian Green
I do not accept that because those staff will be redeployed to work outside the ticket offices—not behind barriers but actually among passengers. Like me, I am sure the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that not only has crime fallen by 5.5% on the underground, but that bus-related crime has fallen by 3.2%. In Lewisham, bus-related crime fell by almost 14% compared with 2011-12, which I am sure she and her constituents will welcome.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Home Office’s legislative programme for the year ahead builds on the successes of our work since the last election. Net migration is down by nearly a third since its peak in 2010, with net migration from outside the EU now at its lowest level since 1998. The Immigration Bill will reform the removals and appeals system, end the abuse of article 8, and prevent illegal immigrants from accessing and abusing our public services or the labour market. Police reforms are working: crime continues to fall and stands at its lowest level since the independent crime survey began in 1981. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill will, among other things, introduce simpler, more effective powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, which will provide better protection for victims and communities. The Joint Committee scrutinising the draft modern slavery Bill began its work last week. Tackling individuals and organised crime groups who subject victims to horrendous abuse will result in more arrests, more prosecutions and—most importantly—more victims being released from slavery and more prevented from entering it in the first place.
Andrew Miller
What plans does the Secretary of State have for next month’s illegal wildlife trade conference? Will she publish her action plan for that conference, and set out her plan for Britain to continue to play an important role in this area, on which there is cross-party agreement?
Mrs May
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As he will be aware, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is the lead Department on that conference, but the Home Office is heavily involved. We are working with DEFRA and are committed to continuing funding of the wildlife crime unit.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
T2. The Normington report found that the Police Federation harasses those with dissenting views, lacks financial transparency and is a weak voice for officers. The report made 36 specific recommendations. Does the Home Secretary agree that the current chairman presiding over that systemic failure cannot be the right person to reform it?
Mrs May
I have to say to my hon. Friend that the current chairman of the Police Federation initiated the review. He wanted properly to review the federation’s role and whether it represents officers properly. Obviously, a number of key recommendations have come forward. It is important that the federation has had the review. If any changes require Home Office input, we stand ready to work with the federation on them.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Last week, the Home Secretary refused to come to the House to answer a question on vulnerable Syrian refugees, and sent the Immigration Minister to convey to the House her decision that Britain would not provide sanctuary to any of the vulnerable refugees, torture victims, abandoned children and others whom the Opposition and hon. Members on both sides of the House have urged her to help. He told us that to do so was simply a “token”. Twenty-one MPs asked the Home Office to change its position and sign up to the UN programme, and each time the Minister said no. As a result of the pressure that the Home Secretary has been put under, and in advance of the vote on Wednesday, has she listened, and is the answer now yes?
Mrs May
First, the United Kingdom has a fine record in terms of the amount of money we are providing in humanitarian aid—it is the largest sum of money of any of the European Union countries. We have also accepted in the past three years several thousand asylum seekers from Syria. That is another way in which we are appropriately offering support. Through the mandate programme, we have the ability to take refugees who have family connections here and whose families are willing to support them. However, I am working with the Foreign Secretary to look at what further support can be provided by the Government. Further announcements on that will be made in due course.
Yvette Cooper
I thank the Home Secretary for her answer. As she will know, hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that aid to the region is vital. The majority of people will be helped through that, but the UN and others have made it clear that a minority of refugees are too vulnerable to cope or even to survive in the camps. That is why it is so important to provide extra help. This is not an either/or.
Let me press the Home Secretary specifically on the UN programme. She will know that there is huge flexibility within the programme on the numbers of people whom Britain can offer to help, on Britain’s ability to do security checks on those coming forward, and on Britain’s ability to specify who and what kinds of refugees it can support. Will she therefore tell the House now whether she will agree in principle to sign up to the UN programme—yes or no?
Mrs May
This issue is of concern for hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Government are looking at the most appropriate way for us to provide support and enhance the support we are already giving. As I said in answer to the right hon. Lady’s first question, I am working with the Foreign Secretary, and announcements will be made in due course. She wants an answer from me today, but I can assure her that she will have a response from the Government in advance of the House considering the Opposition motion on Wednesday.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
T4. My constituent, Rebecca Holmes, was murdered by an abusive ex-partner while under the protection of the police. We have waited two years for an Independent Police Complaints Commission report in order to learn the lessons. Can the Minister do anything to hurry such reports along, or at any rate to monitor how slowly they go?
The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Damian Green)
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have given the IPCC extra resources and extra powers so it can carry out its work more efficiently. It is independent, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment on individual cases, but if he would like to send me more details, I will happily take up the general point with the IPCC.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
T3. I welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to next month’s conference on illegal wildlife trade and her continuing commitment to fund the wildlife crime unit. Will she now consider making wildlife crime a notifiable and recordable offence?
The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)
I am glad the hon. Gentleman recognises that the Government is fully committed to tackling wildlife crime in all its manifestations. We are certainly happy to look at any suggestion on how we can enhance our efforts further.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Proposed changes to dangerous dogs legislation contained in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill could mean that police officers, vets or officers from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who deal with or remove a dangerous dog that bites somebody, will be charged with a criminal offence, attracting up to five years in prison or 14 years if anyone dies as a result. Will the Home Secretary look at such unintended consequences before we implement further knee-jerk legislation, compounding an area of law that is already a dog’s breakfast?
Norman Baker
I do not recognise my hon. Friend’s description, nor would I describe the legislation he refers to as “knee-jerk”. It has been subject to proper consultation and due consideration by this House in Committee and elsewhere. It is important that we deal with dangerous dogs. It is also important to ensure that dog owners behave responsibly towards those who may be affected adversely by their activities.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
T5. The police and crime commissioner for north Wales is a member of one of the coalition Government parties, but that did not stop him last week expressing great concern at the scale of central grants from the Home Office for policing. He was especially concerned about the rising cost of fuel and petrol. Will the Home Secretary tell the House what discussions she has had with police and crime commissioners who represent rural areas on this important matter?
Damian Green
I assure the hon. Lady that both I and the Home Secretary have many meetings with police and crime commissioners, both from urban and rural areas; indeed, I met all the Welsh PCCs in one group in recent months. If the hon. Lady and her police and crime commissioner are worried about fuel duties, I remind her that it is this Government who have frozen fuel duties and ended the fuel duty escalator that the Government she supported kept throughout their time in office.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating Northamptonshire police, the police and crime commissioner, Adam Simmonds, and Chief Constable Adrian Lee on overseeing a 23% cut in violent crime—over halfway to their target of a 40% cut by 2016— that makes it the second most improving force in the country in this area of crime?
Mrs May
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the work done by individual officers, the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner in Northamptonshire. Their work is having a real impact on crime levels in the area, and that is of real benefit to those who live there. The Northamptonshire PCC has been at the forefront of looking at innovative ways for the police to work more effectively—for example, by bringing the blue light services together—and we support him in that.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
T6. Given the responsibility of police and crime commissioners for setting force budgets, how many have been consulted on, and voiced their approval of, capping the police precept?
Damian Green
It is a matter for the commissioners themselves to decide whether to put up their precept, within the limits prescribed. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that this morning the Hertfordshire PCC announced that he was freezing the precept in his area. That seems to be a sensible thing for a Conservative PCC to do.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
Does my right hon. Friend understand that many of us believe that, in the matter of Syrian refugees, the United Kingdom, as a permanent member of the Security Council, has a particular obligation? How can it be that we are not able to accept some of the children who have suffered so grievously—traumatised, orphaned and, in some cases, disabled—as a result of the unrest in Syria? Surely this is a matter for humanity on the part of the Government, or are we to allow our moral compass to be set by Mr Nigel Farage?
Mrs May
As I said in answer to the shadow Home Secretary, the UK has a good record in supporting hundreds of thousands of refugees in the region. I have heard the concern expressed on several occasions in this place by Members on both sides of the House on the specific issue of vulnerable refugees, and as I said in response to the shadow Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and I are considering what further the UK might do.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
T7. Earlier, the policing Minister said he wanted police forces to do more to increase the recruitment of black and minority ethnic officers—I think he said the College of Policing should show some “early energies”. Why does he not go a step further and introduce a legal requirement for every force to increase the number of black and minority ethnic officers serving our communities?
Damian Green
In no area of the public sector do we introduce quotas of the type the hon. Gentleman suggests—he will recognise as well as anyone that they could cause at least as many problems as they solve—but I agree that we need to do more, which is precisely why the College of Policing is taking practical steps to look at the best way we can achieve this.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
May I press the Home Secretary on her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) about the Police Federation? On the one hand, Normington made proposals that required legislation, but on the other hand, there are examples of the federation promoting injustice that Normington gave no answer to. Is there not a clear requirement for the Government to act on this matter?
Mrs May
As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), the Police Federation is considering its response to the Normington review, and I look forward to seeing what it proposes to bring forward as a result of its consideration. The Home Office stands ready to make the necessary changes to enable the federation to put in place the right structure to ensure that it is truly representative of police officers.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
T8. The Independent Police Complaints Commission cannot suspend officers, it cannot compel them to give interviews, it cannot prosecute them and its budget is smaller than that of the Met’s complaints department. Given what the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions, is it not time to reform this organisation so that we have a proper, independent, efficient investigatory body looking at the minority of police officers who offend?
Damian Green
It is absolutely time to reform and improve the IPCC, which is precisely why the Government have given it not just a bigger budget, but more powers, under legislation currently passing through Parliament, so that we can achieve reforms that make it efficient and large enough to do the very important job we ask it to do.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Each year, more than 1 million women suffer from domestic abuse, more than 300,000 are sexually assaulted and 60,000 are raped. These are shocking numbers. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to tackle violence against women?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should all remain concerned about the fact that violence, particularly domestic violence, against women has continued at levels unchanged for some time now. The Government have ring-fenced funding—for example, to support the specialist local domestic and sexual violence advisers and advocates—and made changes to the law, for example introducing domestic violence protection orders to ensure that the victim can stay in their home and that it is the perpetrator who has to leave it when action is taken. So support is being given in a number of areas.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Since the Home Secretary has accepted that there is much understandable concern across the House about the Syrian situation, would it not be far better for the House to reach a unanimous agreement on Wednesday, instead of dividing, given that we all basically want the same outcome, which is to assist as far as possible victims of violence and terror in Syria?
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The Government have taken significant steps to combat online child abuse, working with the police, technology companies and independent charities and experts, but an intensified risk is now posed by the hidden internet software Tor. What action can the Government take?
Damian Green
My hon. Friend has identified an important problem, that of Tor—The Onion Router—which is a secret part of the web. I hope that he will be reassured to learn that one of the specific tasks given to the industry by the UK-US joint taskforce, which I chair along with the assistant Attorney-General of the United States, is that of finding a way to root out criminality from secret parts of the web which are accessible to the terrible criminals who seek to exploit children online.
Points of Order
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
George Galloway (Bradford West) (Respect)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. While infatuated with the king’s horses and men in the first world war, the Education Secretary is less keen to talk, at least in detail, about the Kings Science Academy. On 6 January, here in the House, in answer to oral questions, in successive sentences, the Secretary of State—inadvertently, no doubt—misled the House in two important respects. First, he claimed that the police action now being taken at the academy was “a direct result” of his Department’s actions. That is the opposite of the truth. A brave whistleblower caused the police action, and if it had been left to the Secretary of State’s Department, there would have been no police action at all.
Secondly, and most important, the Secretary of State claimed on 6 January that Mr Alan Lewis—a vice-chairman of the Conservative party, no less—was generously taking a reduction in the income of £6 million that the academy was paying him for rent on the site, which he owns. That too is untrue. At the very least, neither Mr Lewis not the Education Secretary will provide a scintilla of evidence in this regard.
The Secretary of State is refusing to answer me, Mr Speaker. I do not think that he will refuse to answer you. Will you bring him here to withdraw those misleading statements?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Before I respond to it substantively, I should say that I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced parliamentarian, took steps to notify the Secretary of State for Education of his intention to raise it this afternoon.
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. As for the substance of his point of order, I simply say to him that every Member of the House is responsible for the accuracy of his or her statements to it. In the event that any error has been made, it is incumbent on the person who makes the error to correct the record. I am not aware of any intention to correct it, but the hon. Gentleman’s point of order has been heard, it is on the record, and I think that, at this stage, the proper thing for me to say is that I wait to see what, if any, response to it there is. We will leave it there for today.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Thursday, the shadow Business Secretary spoke of his concern about the mis-selling of personal accident insurance, and particularly named a company in my constituency, Gee 7 Group, which, he stated,
“specialises in putting together these dubious arrangements for agencies.”—[Official Report, 23 January 2014; Vol. 574, c. 434.]
My constituent Mr Jon Pardoe, from the company, has strenuously denied the allegations, in writing and on the telephone, and believes that they have harmed his business and credibility. I very much hope, for the sake of my constituent, that the record can be set straight.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. There was nothing in it on which the Chair can rule, but I see that the shadow Business Secretary is present, and he did indicate to me a desire to respond to it. He now has the opportunity to do so.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to respond to this point of order. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for notifying me in advance that he wished to raise this matter. As the Secretary of State said, he believed that the broader issues I raised in relation to employment agencies were legitimate; he had also been notified of them. In regard to the company in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, I am happy to concede, with hindsight, that it was not fair of me to raise its part in this matter without giving it the opportunity to reply. I regret that, and I apologise to the company for doing it. I am also happy to acknowledge—it is only fair to do so—that it has denied this. I am also pleased that Mr Pardoe has said that, in principle, he disagrees with such arrangements. Beyond that, it would not be proper for me to say anything further, given that the Secretary of State is looking into the broader issue of employment agencies.
Mr Speaker
I do not think there is anything further to say. In fact, to judge by the nodding of heads that is taking place, I think there is a prospect of a refreshing outbreak of amity.
Mr Speaker
The afternoon would not be complete without a point of order from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who I am sure is determined not to disappoint us in that regard.
Mr Sheerman
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance? Over many years, it has been established that Her Majesty’s chief inspector of schools reports to this House, rather than to a Minister. Over the weekend, the chief inspector has spoken of “spitting blood” with rage over suggestions from two think-tanks that Ofsted should be reformed and that he was not doing his job sufficiently well. Given that situation, and the fact that the chief inspector reports to the House, what can we do to protect him and his reputation if the Department for Education is treating him in the way that he seems to be suggesting?
Mr Speaker
The fact that that story has moved on significantly over recent days seems self-evidently to make it unnecessary for me to comment on the matter at this stage. We will leave it there.
European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
17:03 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 37 / Noes: 243 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:16 - divided: - Ayes: 36 / Noes: 240 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:50 - The House divided: - Ayes: 246 / Noes: 28 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 4, in page 1, line 4, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
‘(2) The draft decision of the Council of the European Union under Article 352 of TFEU to adopt the Council Regulation on the deposit of the historical archives of the institutions at the European University Institute in Florence (document number 6867/ 13) is approved.
(2A) The draft decision of the Council of the European Union under Article 352 of TFEU to adopt the Council Regulation establishing for the period 2014-2020 the programme “Europe for Citizens” (document number 12557/13) shall be approved once—
(a) the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament stating that—
(i) expenditure under the programme may be used only to fund education about and reflection on the Holocaust, armed conflicts and totalitarian regimes in Europe’s history; and
(ii) no expenditure under the programme may be used to fund the promotion of European Union citizenship, integration or institutions; and
(b) following the laying of this report, both Houses of Parliament have passed a resolution that the draft decision shall be approved.’.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 1, line 16, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
‘(2) Except as provided for under subsection (2A), the provisions of this Act come into force on the day on which it is passed.
(2A) Section 1 comes into force in relation to the draft decision to adopt the Council Regulation establishing for the period 2014-2020 the programme ‘Europe for Citizens’ (document number 12557/13) on whatever day the Secretary of State appoints by order made by statutory instrument.
(2B) The Secretary of State may only make an order under subsection (2A) if—
(a) he has laid a statement before both Houses of Parliament stating that no expenditure can take place under ‘Europe for Citizens’ that could influence any European Parliamentary election or referendum in the year prior to such an election or referendum, and
(b) a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.’.
Clause stand part.
Chris Heaton-Harris
Today is Holocaust memorial day, and several hon. Members are wearing pins to signify this important date. Through the Holocaust Educational Trust, I have met a number of holocaust survivors. It has been a privilege to meet them; it has also been troubling, in a way. It is important that we should celebrate the work that the trust does to remind us of the terrible things that happened on our continent, not that long ago. Through other initiatives, I have met survivors of the Rwandan genocide. Again, that was amazingly troubling. They, too, were amazing people. Those events, and those that might be going on in Syria as we speak, remind us all of the need to remember and to learn from the horrible things that have happened.
That is the thrust of my amendment. It attempts to get the Government to go back to the negotiating table in Brussels, not to veto this proposal for the Europe for Citizens budget line, but to ensure that
“expenditure under the programme may be used only to fund education about and reflection on the Holocaust, armed conflicts and totalitarian regimes in Europe’s history; and…no expenditure under the programme may be used to fund the promotion of European Union citizenship, integration or institutions”.
I would have thought that that was a pretty uncontroversial thing to ask for.
Let me refresh the memory of the Committee and explain how we have got to where we are. Article 352 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union gives the EU a wide-ranging power to legislate to achieve an objective set out in the EU treaties, if those treaties have not otherwise given the European Union the power to pass such legislation. The UK Government wield a veto over laws proposed on the basis of article 352.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
My hon. Friend refers to a budget line. Will he confirm, as he is greatly experienced in such matters, that in fact the programme that we are discussing this afternoon is but a very small part of the total amount that the European Union spends on communication and general propaganda?
Chris Heaton-Harris
Absolutely. It is a mere fraction. We are talking about it today only because of article 352, which I have already mentioned.
I feel strongly concerned about this Europe for Citizens line because it has certain requirements that need to be fulfilled before money can be obtained. It wants to build a strong feeling among citizens about belonging to the Union, and it wants to build ever-closer union. Article 3(1) of the draft regulation said that all activities of the Europe for Citizens programme would involve “fostering European citizenship”. Those are all things that go directly against the ethos that the Prime Minister built into his speech at Bloomberg about a year ago.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
As it is the clearly expressed wish of this House that we should have a lower EU budget, would it not be strange for the Government not to want to veto something when they can actually stop some spending?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I understand my right hon. Friend’s point, but even if we vetoed the measure completely, the money would remain within the budget we have agreed. A veto will not stop money being spent at EU level, but would signify the intent of the British Government that money should no longer be spent on EU propaganda budget lines and that when we get the opportunity to cull them, we will.
The draft regulation provides a reference amount for the total budget of the programme over the multi-annual financial framework term of about £154.6 million. That is a reasonable sum of money—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
Over seven years.
Chris Heaton-Harris
Over seven years, as my hon. Friend the Minister will continue to remind us. It is very small beer when it comes to European budgets or even the UK budget, but it is quite a large amount of money in general terms. The UK Government will contribute between £1.5 million and £2.5 million.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that whether it is a big or small part of the European budget is immaterial? If money is being wasted or spent in an inappropriate manner, that should be stopped.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I agree. I estimate that the UK would contribute £17.8 million, so in times when we are a bit stretched for cash I think we should at least ask for better value for that money from the European Union.
Mr Redwood
It is a very large sum of money. As it takes more than 100 taxpayers to contribute £1 million in tax, on average, we are talking about thousands of taxpayers who will have to contribute to make up this sum. If we blocked the measure, although the money could theoretically be spent on something else, it would be made more difficult and would send a clear message that we do not want this spending.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I concur with my right hon. Friend. When I was a Member of the European Parliament, I used to table amendments to try to cull such budget lines. There was a Europe for Citizen’s programme between 2007 and 2013, which was the previous multi-annual financial framework period. It had a slightly bigger budget and, essentially, public funding was granted to various organisations promoting European integration and a federal European state. I think that most people in this House would struggle not only with funding pro-European propaganda but with using taxpayers’ money to fund politics in general.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
If the money was not spent on citizenship, would we get more money to commemorate the holocaust and—of particular interest to me—what happened in the Balkans when I was there?
Chris Heaton-Harris
That is the purpose behind my amendment. I understand that only once, or possibly twice, has an agreement in general been struck at the Council that something will go through before someone has reopened the debate about how the money should be spent, and the purpose of my amendment is to do that again. We could just veto the money and kill the programme directly, but part of the programme is truly valuable. That is what the European Commission does in many of its budget strands: it connects a small amount for something good and valuable to a big amount for something that is a waste of money that we would not necessarily stand for.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that as there is no such thing as a European citizen but only members of individual EU member states, to have any fund that supports the concept of EU citizenry is absolute nonsense?
Chris Heaton-Harris
It would be a bit of a surprise if I did not agree with my hon. Friend, whose constituency is next door to mine.
I believe that one could honestly make the argument that the programme has failed unbelievably badly. Over the past seven years, a group of organisations has received money from it. The European Movement, which states that its objective is to
“contribute to the establishment of a united, federal Europe”,
was awarded the best part of £1.5 million.
The French think-tank, Notre Europe, the Jacques Delors Institute—I will not go into as much detail on this as I did on Second Reading, as my hon. Friend the Minister is now completely up to speed with how moneys from this budget line are spent—was set up by the former European Commission President and champions his vision of a European Union that is a federation of nation states. Over the last multi-annual financial framework period, it was awarded the best part of £1.87 million from the Europe for Citizens programme. The Brussels-based Union of European Federalists got the best part of £500,000. There are also other organisations that I did not mention last time. There is a wonderful—I say that in a sarcastic tone—French organisation called Confrontations Europe. Its website says:
“On April 2012, Confrontations Europe celebrated its 20 years of existence and dedication to the European ideal…Confrontations Europe has become an important network of citizens and European players, a think tank renowned in Paris and Brussels and an active civil lobby of European general interest to the institutions”—
that is, the European institutions. Everyone here will be pleased to know that the body’s founding chairman, Philippe Herzog, a French former academic and politician, was a member of the French Communist party from 1965 to 1996.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend said that everyone here would approve of that; has he noticed that, as far as I can see, only two Opposition Back Benchers have bothered to come to the debate on this important subject?
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Yes, but it is the quality that counts.
Chris Heaton-Harris
As the hon. Gentleman says, we have the cream of the Opposition here. The Opposition’s economic policy would be much more interesting if the hon. Members for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), and for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), were on the Front Bench, not the Back Benches.
You will be pleased to know, Mr Gray, that Confrontations Europe has a youth initiative called YES-EU!—Young Europeans Supporting EU!—and is engaging in a campaign aimed at the upcoming European parliamentary elections. We are talking about a budget line that pays for people to try to influence, with their pro-EU stance, the parties standing in those elections.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend remind us whether it would be possible for anybody who promoted the individual nation states to get money from that pot?
Chris Heaton-Harris
Unfortunately, regulations prohibit those perhaps Eurosceptic organisations that are pro-nation state from bidding for money; they would be ruled out of order.
Under the last multi-annual financial framework, Confrontations Europe got about £1 million from the Europe for Citizens programme, just to support its running costs—not to carry out any programmes, for which it also bids for money.
Why is this important? I have helpful analysis in a letter that the Minister submitted to the European Scrutiny Committee back on 24 April 2012; I know that he remembers every single word of it. On the structure of the Europe for Citizens programme, he says:
“some 60% of the funds would be allocated to democratic engagement in the European institutions”—
that is, to European federalist propaganda lines. Some 20% would be
“for remembrance activities (mostly concerning the victims of World War II); 10% for the analysis, dissemination, and evaluation of results; and the remaining 10% for programme management.”
My amendment would therefore be quite a big ask at European Council level; it would take the 60% that goes to organisations that I am not particularly keen on—I am sure that many in this House are not, either—and put it towards future remembrance activities.
I have a question for the Minister, because the next paragraph of his letter troubles me slightly:
“We would seek to maintain the prioritisation of civic participation over remembrance”.
I wonder whether that is really what we are meant to do, at this time, in our negotiations at Council level. If we were not even trying to change the budget line at the time when it was being discussed, I would have concerns, especially considering the importance of this year and what we are remembering. Perhaps it is a civil servant thing.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I concur with the Minister—it is very good progress—but I would like to see it at 80% to 100%, hence my amendment.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
It is not good progress at all—it is miserable progress, as we have a veto, so we can say, “No, no, no.”
Chris Heaton-Harris
I had a horrible vision for a second of my hon. Friend in drag, dressed as a former Prime Minister saying exactly those words. However, we can do exactly that and, realistically, I believe that we should do so.
Chris Heaton-Harris
That is a fair point, and I am asking for more, more, more for commemoration. Indeed, the House has the power to send the Minister back, back, back to the negotiating table to deliver that.
The Minister will know that bids for the money have been requested by the European Commission. On its website it asks for
“Organisations focusing on the common values of the EU: raising citizens’ awareness of the importance of maintaining and promoting democratic values in the EU”—
blah, blah, blah—
“who have made a significant contribution to later stages of European construction.”
The Commission gives money, which I do not think that it should under the financial regulation of the budget, to organisations just to run themselves so that they can bid for more money from EU projects. Because bids are open, even though the second line of the Commission document says that that has to go through the national Parliaments processes, it feels like business as usual—as if this is a done deal and there is nothing to be concerned about.
That leads to my final point, which is a general concern about what is going on when it comes to education, youth culture and sports councils. The council of 16 December 2013 adopted conclusions on the contribution of sport to the European Union economy, in particular addressing youth unemployment and social inclusion. The conclusions present sport as a tool to address the social challenges facing young people across Europe. The Netherlands informed the council that it considered that there were insufficient cross-border aspects to justify action at EU level, but said that it would not block anything because, essentially, all the other countries, including the UK, were content with the conclusions.
It is that constant drip, drip—the taking away of power; the general drift—that is the problem. In this case, we have a veto and we can do something that is a bit stronger, and I think that the people of our country would expect us to do that.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend saying that Ministers are not stopping civil servants driving that programme on?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I would not like to say that, because I am completely convinced that the Minister is 100% engaged with this regulation, and fully aware of past issues. However, I have been in meetings in which Members of the European Parliament—as I was then—sit down with staff of the European Commission and, indeed, member state civil servants to negotiate a trialogue that sets out—[Interruption.] No, it does not do that. It sets out to negotiate a deal at different stages, and one wonders what the political engagement with those civil servants might be, because when the deal is done it is done in that room at that very time.
However, that is by the bye. I have concerns about the Europe for Citizens line, and I hope that I have outlined them to the House. I certainly intend to press my amendment, and I very much welcome support for it.
John Cryer
I was not going to speak, but I thought I might as well have a go since I am here. I feel inspired by the words of the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) who moved amendment 4, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. The key paragraph is that
“expenditure under the programme may be used only to fund education about and reflection on the Holocaust, armed conflicts and totalitarian regimes in Europe’s history”.
Amendment 3 in the name of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is also perfectly reasonable. However, particularly at this time of year with Holocaust memorial day when the work of organisations such as the Holocaust Educational Trust is in full flow, it is worth remembering that there are now fewer and fewer holocaust survivors. A number who survived the death camps came to east London, where my constituency is, and that generation is now disappearing. There are ever fewer of them going into schools, as they do in my constituency, and as they do in many schools in many constituencies represented in this House, to talk about what happened to them and their families.
The amendment seems perfectly reasonable, although I would prefer it if decisions on where those resources were spent were made by national Governments, not by the European Union, since we were all involved in that conflict and in liberating the camps in 1945.
Bob Stewart
In this 100th anniversary of the first world war, would it not be entirely appropriate for Europe to commemorate collectively the disaster that happened between 1914 and 1918, and some of the money from this budget line could be used for that?
John Cryer
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and according to the amendment, it could be so used. If the amendment were agreed and put into operation, I do not think there would be anything to stop these resources being used to remember what happened 100 years ago and in the following four years.
On the one hand we have a proposal that says the resources should be used only for commemorating armed conflict and, specifically, the holocaust, and on the other hand the proposal from the European Union is that we have a broad-brush approach and use them for promoting European citizenship. As the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) said, European citizenship does not exist. European citizens do not exist. There are citizens of individual countries, but not citizens of the European Union. Basically, the original draft means that we could be allowing resources to be given to some swivel-eyed Euro-fanatic in an office in Brussels or Strasbourg, who will then spend the money on whatever pet project happens to walk along at the time.
John Cryer
I will give way in a moment.
A few years ago when I was the Member of Parliament for Hornchurch, I wrote to the London office of the European Union, asking specific questions about where resources were going on different education and propaganda campaigns. I never had a response, despite the fact that I sent a follow-up a few months later. It never answered a single question in the letter.
Sir Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
By an Act of Parliament, we are European citizens. It was passed in this House by a Conservative Government, and when asked whether the Queen was a citizen, the then Home Secretary said, “I see no reason why not.” We are European citizens by the will of this Parliament, and that is what many of us here want to defeat: this very concept of being cluttered along into something we never wanted to be part of.
John Cryer
I wish I had not stood up now. I feel really depressed. I wish I had just stayed in my office and stuck to working. Perhaps the Minister might like to comment on that.
Mr Vaizey
I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman feels depressed. It may be the tone of voice used by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd). He does not usually sound as down as that.
The hon. Gentleman has come to the debate somewhat late, but he referred to swivel-eyed Euro-fanatics. I can assure him that organisations such as the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, the Community Service Volunteers and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations—all British-based charities—have benefited from this programme.
John Cryer
Many other organisations have benefited from the programme, some of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Daventry. Taxpayers’ money is being given to people such as Jacques Delors, who has a very narrow interpretation of what the European Union should be. The phrase “Euro-federalism” is widely used, but I think that it is a misnomer. People such as Delors want the European Union to move not towards a federal structure, but towards a highly centralised structure. That has been the whole direction of travel of the campaigns led by Delors and many other founders of the European Union, or the Common Market as it then was. They want us to move not towards a federation, but towards a highly centralised and quite autocratic structure.
I want to make one thing clear. I think that the debate on the European Union—we have seen elements of this today—is fairly irrational. If someone stands up on a public platform or in this House and praises the European Union, they are told that they are betraying our sovereignty and 1,000 years of history. If they criticise the European Union, however, they are condemned as a nationalist, a xenophobe and a little Englander. The reality is that my objections to the European Union are based on internationalism and the value of democracy, because the European Union has a marked tendency to be anti-democratic. I see that in what we are discussing today. That is why I think that the two amendments are perfectly reasonable and why I will be supporting them.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
I, too, have tabled an amendment—amendment 3 —which is very straightforward. Some 60% of the money that will be available in this pot will be used for the promotion of the federalist agenda. Those of us who listened to the Minister’s recent intervention should have been deeply concerned that otherwise politically independent charities are in receipt of money from that budget, because in order to receive it they have to agree to support the integration of Europe.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has mentioned twinning, because it is dealt with under the democratic engagement and civic participation strand of the programme. The Commission’s work programme states in relation to that:
“By mobilizing citizens at local and EU levels to debate on concrete issues on the European political agenda, this measure will seek to promote civic participation in the Union policy making process and develop opportunities for societal engagement and volunteering at Union level.”
What the Minister has failed to understand is that they use something that is said to be innocuous, such as twinning, and dish out a little money so that people can go to other countries within the European Union and meet other people, but they have to be doing so in advancement of the European ideal as laid down by Brussels. If they want to have twinning to set forth Eurosceptic ideas, they will not get any money. It is set out in the documentation itself, which the Minister ought to be aware of, that twinning is not an apolitical activity under this programme; it is using taxpayers’ money to further a political scheme.
With regard to amendment 3, I think that it is important that no money should be used in an election period to advantage one party against another. In the United Kingdom that will be particularly sensitive if we have a referendum on our membership of the European Union. If we do that, one side—the side that wishes to get out—will have to raise its own money from the private sector. It will not get any Government or European grants. It will be dependent on the good will and generosity of individuals and corporations across the United Kingdom. However, the other side might get shed loads of money shovelled to it by the European Union.
The Minister, when he answers, might question whether that is a reality and whether I am raising straw men to knock down with what I have to say, but I have looked into the matter and examined, for example, the funding that goes to the European Movement. The European Movement has received about £1.5 million from that programme. It is very committed to the European ideal. It promotes it and argues for it, but it also uses its money in an election period to promote voting against a particular party. The European Movement website includes an undated paper, briefing paper 11, about the rotten planks of the UK Independence party platform. I did a bit of Sherlock Holmes work to try to date briefing paper 11. As you might expect, Mr Gray, being an expert mathematician, it helpfully comes between briefing paper 10 and briefing paper 12. Briefing paper 10, of December 2008, was entitled “How Britain can join the euro”—a very prescient, helpful, wise paper by the European Movement—and briefing paper 12 was an analysis of the election results in 2009. Between those, a paper was issued on the rotten planks of UKIP.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Since the hon. Gentleman seems so concerned about big money in politics, why is he supporting the Government on the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I almost always end up on the same side as the hon. Lady. She makes the point that I was just moving on to, so I am deeply grateful to her. It seems to me eccentric of Her Majesty’s Government to go to so much trouble to pass the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, which I support thoroughly, to control the spending of third parties in our elections, when—suddenly, lo and behold—the European Union, whose law is superior to British law, can come along with a whole pile of money for groups outside the control of the British Parliament or the British people and can unlevel, unbalance and skew the playing field in favour of one side, particularly in a referendum vote. Indeed, that has already happened.
We know that 60% of the programme goes to the advancement of the European ideal, but that ideal is perverted to include even the most modest things, such as twinning. For a charity to be able to spend any of that money, it has to sign up to the political objective, so however harmless it is in any other respect—however modest its aims, and however apolitical it is—it has, in one respect, to be a pro-European charity to apply for the money. The programme goes a stage further, however, in that it hands out money directly to participants in a political process, and that undermines what we as democrats are trying to do in this House.
I tabled amendment 3 to try to prevent that from happening, if it is really the Government’s wish to push ahead with the programme. If the Government have any sense, they would abandon the whole scheme. They should remember that they have a veto, and they should try to find some backbone.
Mr Redwood
I rise to support my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). It is right that the Government should go back and exercise their veto. I will briefly make the case for the use of that veto. We urge the Government to do so on this issue not only because of the merits of the case—they have been well explained by my two hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer)-—but because we in this House and outside it are deeply frustrated by the fact that the European Union’s powers, which are already too large, are increasing day by day through court judgments, directives and regulations, with nothing being done to contain them.
The Labour party gave away 168 vetoes on crucial policies, so there are now huge areas on which we cannot respond to our constituents’ wishes to change or improve things, because we are under the control of European law. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) laughs, but she has no idea of the damage that the Labour party has done and of the pent-up frustrations in the country. We cannot have our own policies on energy, borders or criminal justice because powers have been given away.
Today, we are considering a small area on which we still have a veto. Unless the European Union’s policy is perfect, surely the Government must use that veto. We must either use it or lose it. We need to show that wherever we have a veto, we have a voice and an independent view.
John Cryer
What the right hon. Gentleman says about the veto is true, but will he admit that the veto was originally surrendered in principle by Mrs Thatcher in the Single European Act of 1986? That is what broke the principle.
Mr Redwood
Yes, some vetoes were surrendered in the Single European Act. I advised against that at the time and, for once, my advice was not accepted.
Mr Redwood
I did not vote for it because I was not a Member of the House when the legislation was passed—I am not that old. I was against giving up the veto then, but the former Prime Minister accepted it because it was in very limited areas. It has subsequently expanded into a huge number of far more important areas, which has led to the passions and frustrations that we hear about every day from our constituents in e-mails and letters and in conversations on the doorstep.
There is an added reason why the veto should be used with respect to this proposal, as has been explained eloquently by the three Members who have made speeches already. The European Union is presuming to intervene in formerly democratic politics in our countries and to build on the technical definition of “citizen” that has been embedded in recent treaties with the idea that people’s primary loyalty should be to the European Union and not to their member state. With these programmes, it is seeking to disrupt loyalty, accountability and sovereignty in its member states still further. This is propaganda on the taxes and expenditure that we do not need at a time of austerity. It is unforgivable that money is being raised from our hard-working constituents and passed to the European Union for propaganda.
I urge the Committee to reject the Minister’s proposal. I urge the Committee to stand up for the British people and for the proper use of taxpayers’ money. I urge the Committee to oppose propaganda on the taxes. I urge the Committee to say to the Government, “When you have a veto, for goodness’ sake use it, because we do not have enough vetoes left.”
Mr Nuttall
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Gray.
I will not repeat the admirable and persuasive arguments that my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) made in promoting their amendments, but I do support those amendments. I add my agreement to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). I also support what was said from the Opposition Benches by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer).
My opposition to the Europe for Citizens proposal and my support for amendments 4 and 3 are founded on the cost and the underlying principle. When budgets in the UK are being reduced, it is entirely wrong for us to be contributing funds to this European programme. If we were to ask our constituents, I am pretty sure that no constituency in the country would support the idea of UK taxpayers’ money going towards the promotion of EU citizenship. We have all, whether we like it or not—I certainly do not like it—been citizens of the European Union since 1993, following the passage into law of the Maastricht treaty.
The EU spends billions of euros to promote itself and justify its own existence. As I made clear in my first intervention this afternoon, the proposal that we are discussing is a very small part of the total amount that is spent by the EU to justify its existence. It funds publications, films, think-tanks and lobby groups, but only if they support the idea of further European Union integration.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a strong and compelling case. Does he agree that it is rather insidious that one of the requirements inserted into the pension arrangements of former EU politicians and bureaucrats is actively to promote the EU and European citizenship? They have to do that to receive their pension.
Mr Nuttall
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I entirely agree that it is insidious. Indeed, we have seen in the other place in recent days that a lot of their lordships who receive pensions from the EU are voting to prevent the people of my constituency and my hon. Friend’s from having their say on whether they want us to remain a member of the EU.
I now want to turn, Mr Gray—sorry, Mr Robertson; you have changed in the twinkling of an eye—to article 5 of the proposal that we are being asked to approve. The money in question will be available not just to member states but to acceding countries, candidate countries and potential countries. Not only existing member states but all the others that the EU would like to draw into the net will be able to put their hands into the pot. The money will be used to persuade them and their citizens of the benefits of the EU.
To back up what was said earlier about access to the programme, article 6 provides that it shall be open to those wanting to promote
“European citizenship and integration, in particular local and regional authorities and organisations, twinning committees, European public policy research organisations (think-tanks), civil society organisations…and cultural, youth, educational and research organisations.”
Money could be taken from the fund only by those who want to promote EU unity and the EU ideal. Someone who, like me, believes that the citizens of Europe would be better off if we had a Europe of independent nation states working together where it was necessary to do so, and trading with each other as neighbours, would get nothing from the fund. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset said, it is likely that they would find themselves up against a political candidate who was funded by the EU and supported, perhaps indirectly, to put forward the case for EU citizenship.
I support the amendments entirely and urge the House to vote for them.
Sir Richard Shepherd
First, I wish to express my appreciation to my hon. Friends who have tabled these useful amendments.
I have great difficulty with the Government’s position. They tell us that they are in a process of evaluating the EU’s competences, functions and so on. I guess the process is rather bogged down in the sands at the moment, but no doubt it can be lubricated with yet more money. To many people in this country, the EU has become just a money trap that has built itself on transfer payments made to other nations. It is as simple as that. Those who queue up for that money have expectations of yet more money, acting as the glue that binds together this quasi-state.
I have lived through all the statements from hon. Friends on the Front Benches. “No essential loss of sovereignty” was one of the great clarion calls of an earlier phase of this debate, but this measure is now being brought forward as a little squeak, without any opposition from those on the Government Front Bench. It is extraordinary; here we are going through a European monetary crisis, solvency questions and all the rest, but it is so automatically the case that the British Government will go in and support almost every initiative focused on or brought forward from the European Union. The country cries out, “Why? Why are we transferring money when we need money? Why are we supporting these endeavours?”
Mr Redwood
Does my hon. Friend agree that the European Union is not so much a quasi-state as a virtually emerged state? It now has a Parliament, a Court, a currency, a Government and citizenry. It presumes to be a state.
Sir Richard Shepherd
It pretends to be a state. It has all the trappings that we fund it to have to be that absurd construction—and it is an absurd construction if we believe in democracy. There is no relationship between that construction and democracy.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it seems strange that although those on the Government Front Bench have said they want to bring back powers from Europe and will have a referendum—something we all want; well, I certainly do—and although we have here an opportunity to say no to something that the British people overwhelmingly want to say no to, we get excuses and all sorts of things to put the measure through? [Interruption.]
Sir Richard Shepherd
I hear some squawking on the Opposition Benches, but I think what the hon. Lady says is true for most British people. How does one reconcile the collapse of the Department of entertainments into acquiescence? That is the worry.
Sir Richard Shepherd
I will give way, of course, to my right hon. Friend the Minister.
Mr Vaizey
I am grateful not only to be promoted to the Privy Council but for the opportunity to respond to my hon. Friend. Given his concern over wasting money, will he acknowledge that the Government succeeded in getting the first ever reduction in the budget of the European Union?
Sir Richard Shepherd
Of course I acknowledge that. It is what I expect a British Government to do. That the Minister holds that out as if it is some sort of triumph is amazing.
Sir Richard Shepherd
No. We have a long way to go, as the Minister well knows. [Interruption.] I do not want to have a chit-chat with him outside the rules of the Committee. I am trying to give the Ministry backbone.
I cannot see how the measure is compatible with what the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) has said. We are in the beginnings of a negotiation. The Foreign Office is supposedly trawling to find the balance of competences and whether it is right. By and large, surprisingly—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) has made a study—it has found that it is about right so far. That is all tosh, and hon. Members know it.
We are playing out a shadow boxing match over what are said to be small sums of money. Governments get very grand. No sum of money is small to those who do not have it, but to Governments, no sum of money is too large to tax people. I am not making a case for not doing good things; I am making a case that was made formidably by the hon. Members who have tabled amendments, which the Committee should support.
Hon. Members are here to represent the British people. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall and I have pointed out, the House agreed that we were to be citizens of the EU, with all the assurances of no essential loss of sovereignty. “Citizens of the EU” is a hollow expression, because the relationship comes from who we are, what we feel and the context in which we grow up.
Bob Stewart
When I was a new MP, I seem to remember coming to the Dispatch Box and swearing loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen. We are citizens of this country first—[Interruption.] Forgive me. We may be subjects of Her Majesty the Queen, but we are equally citizens of Europe. I know which one takes priority.
Sir Richard Shepherd
I am with my hon. Friend on these matters.
The dissolution in the sense of ourselves in the past 30 years that I have been in Parliament is not entirely down to me. The disillusionment is partly down to the grinding of the EU; its false prospectuses; its lies, lies and lies; and its belief in the objective of creating the dream of a Monsieur Delors or a group of European politicians of the earlier part of the second half of the last century. It is not my dream. It was undoubtedly the dream of a part-generation of British politicians. It has been so encompassing and encased in bonds of steel and iron that Ministers and shadow Ministers sit on the Front Benches not even thinking it necessary to say, on a small matter such as the Bill, “Why? Stop it. No. Don’t go on.”
I urge hon. Members not to pay the Danegeld or to support that message. They should reject it. They should let the Government know that the purpose of Parliament is to ensure a proper negotiation on competences and what we are about. Do not give money to the Danes because they will only come back for more.
Helen Goodman
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I should declare an interest: I am half Danish—my mother is Danish and my father is English.
The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), who has moved amendment 4, was right to remind the Committee that today is Holocaust memorial day. As well as remembering those horrific episodes, it is extremely important that people learn from them. In my constituency, I have found that holocaust education has been particularly useful in the learning of young people who might be tempted to get involved with racist organisations. They have learnt that what begins as a small piece of prejudice can grow into something very dangerous indeed.
Her Majesty’s Opposition will not support the hon. Member for Daventry in the Lobby this afternoon. He is of course right that archiving is important and uncontroversial, and that remembrance is extremely important, but it is not adequate to say that we do not want to educate our citizens on the institutions of Europe when they have a role in taking part in elections to the European Parliament. They need to understand what powers it has and does not have, so that they are able to make intelligent decisions. I am sorry, but I am not convinced, as I said on Second Reading, that knowing more will mean that people will be uncritical. I think that if they know more they will perhaps understand the case for some of the reforms.
I wish to remind Government Members that in this country we have a serious problem with the low participation of young people in democratic processes. In the previous general election, only 44%—fewer than half—of 18 to 24-year-olds voted, while 76% of those over the age of 65 voted. I would have thought that it is common sense that people need to understand the institutions they vote on and the influence they can have by doing so. Government Members have as keen an interest as anybody in educating people, particularly young people, so that they participate and take these matters seriously.
Mr Stewart Jackson
Not for the first time, the hon. Lady puts her finger on the nub of this debate. She is supporting exactly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd). There is a direct causal link between the reduction in election turnout and the transfer of sovereignty from our UK Parliament to the supranational body and the growth in power of the pseudo-nation of the European Union. That is why so many people, including young people, are bitterly cynical about the power they have with which to influence politics. Decisions that affect their lives every day are taken by that supranational body and not by our sovereign national Parliament.
Helen Goodman
I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s view. However, there are some organisations and institutions in the modern world that have an interest in undermining democracy. There are large global corporations that do not wish to be accountable to any legal framework, whether European or domestic. It is vital that we build a sense of responsibility and citizenship among our citizens, particularly our young people.
Mr Redwood
If the hon. Lady is such an advocate of democratic engagement on Europe, why will her party not give the British people a vote on whether they want to stay in it?
Helen Goodman
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is a completely different issue and is not what we are discussing today. In fact, I am not even sure whether dilating on the matter would be in order, and I do not wish to cut across the Chair.
It is sensible for there to be education on the EU institutions, particularly for young people. The themes of the projects listed in the introduction to the unnumbered regulation are not as hon. Members have described. They are:
“education, vocational training and youth, sport, culture and the audiovisual sector, fundamental rights and freedoms, social inclusion, gender equality, combating discrimination, research and innovation, information society, enlargement and the external action of the Union.”
Mr Andrew Turner
Is the hon. Lady saying that European law permits anyone, on either side of the Europe debate, to get money from Europe, or is it limited to people who are in favour of Europe?
Helen Goodman
If the hon. Gentleman will allow, I will come on to that point and ask the Minister some questions about the process and scope for amending the regulation.
Hon. Members should find article 2 of the regulation encouraging. Its aim is to
“encourage democratic and civic participation of citizens at Union level, by developing citizens’ understanding of the Union policy making-process and promoting opportunities for societal”
and intercultural
“engagement and volunteering at Union level.”
That is not the vision some Government Members are presenting.
I turn now to amendment 3, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). I think he did some philosophy at university. He is trying to prove a negative here. There is no way the Government can say whether a piece of expenditure would influence elections to the European Parliament. It is logically impossible to do what he asks. It is important to remember that the money is not for political parties.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Will the hon. Lady therefore explain the European Movement putting out a leaflet specifically attacking UKIP in an election period? That is party political funding from the EU.
Helen Goodman
With the information available to him, the hon. Gentleman cannot show that money from the European Parliament funded that leaflet. As he knows, the European Movement has a whole array of sources of funding.
Chris Heaton-Harris
Let us try something else. I have here a list of organisations that received money in 2007 for the purposes of fostering European citizenship. How about the European Liberal Forum, which received €107,000 that year? Was that political?
Helen Goodman
The hon. Gentleman’s point is not pertinent to the discussion, because the question is this: how will money be spent in the future? The Minister should tell us what measures he will take to prevent it from going to such political organisations. On Second Reading, I asked him many questions that I hope he will answer this afternoon. What will the application process be? Who will get the money? How can we spread it across the whole country, not just organisations that have been habitual beneficiaries, so as to spread an understanding of Europe? Government Members display such understanding in great measure, but they are much better informed about the mechanisms of the EU than most people in this country, and I do not understand why they want to keep this knowledge to themselves. It is profoundly undemocratic.
I agreed, however, with the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) when he raised the issue of money going to non-EU member states under the theme of enlargement and work. It seems to me that whereas we have settled European policies on, for example, education and culture, enlargement is much more contentious.
That brings me to my next point. I am not going to ask the Minister what the process would be if he wanted to veto the regulation, because it is patently absurd to say that because we have a veto, we should use it. There are other matters relating to Europe that I think it would be far more important to veto than this. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are tempting me down a path down which I think it would be wrong for me to go. What I want to ask the Minister is this: what would be the process for amending the regulation, rather than rejecting it in its entirety? We need to get on with some of this work, and we do not want too much delay.
Helen Goodman
I am grateful to the Minister for that information.
There are weaknesses in the regulation, such as the one identified by the hon. Member for Bury North, but I think it entirely reasonable for us to have a process allowing voluntary organisations to bid for funds so that people can learn about the European Union. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has provided extremely positive feedback on the grants. It refers to
“Support for participation and democratic engagement. People’s wellbeing…employment, social cohesion and sustainable development. Impact of EU policies in societies”.
What could be more neutral than that? The NCVO also refers to
“Exchange of expertise…Building capacity of voluntary and community organisations.”
Conservative Members claim to support the big society, but now they seem to want to vote down money that would promote it. Finally, the NCVO refers to
“Establishing links between local authorities and community organisations in different countries”.
Although there are weaknesses in the regulation, I think that the positives outweigh the problems raised by Conservative Members.
I should like the Minister to answer these questions. What will the application system be? How will he ensure that the money goes to groups throughout the country, and is not concentrated on small and highly politicised groups? I should also like to know whether he has discovered the answer to the question I asked him earlier about the archiving: why are we locking up the European documents for 30 years—which is what we do with documents in London—and who will have access to them in the meantime?
Mr Vaizey
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.
We had a lively Second Reading debate on the Bill last week, and I commented at the time that the Chamber was full of the House’s most prominent European experts. I think it slightly unfortunate—although I do not blame anyone in particular—that today’s debate falls at the same time as the annual parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe. Members will be aware that the Council of Europe advertises itself as an organisation consisting of 47 countries and 820 million citizens. I gather than some of our leading experts on Europe are in Athens, debating matters of European import. It is interesting that their expertise is being put to good use.
Mr Redwood
Is the Minister a little disappointed that despite the absence of some of our experts, there are still plenty here to tease him?
Mr Vaizey
I merely note that the experts who were present for the Second Reading debate are experts on so many European matters that they are spread thinly, but able to participate in important European debates wherever they may take place in Europe. There arises from that an important point, which was made by the hon. Member for Hornchurch. [Hon. Members: “Leyton and Wanstead.”] I mean the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer).
Debates such as this are sometimes painted in black and white. It is suggested that if one opposes an initiative from the European Union, one is anti-European, and if one supports it, one is fanatically pro-European, but things are actually much more subtle than that. I think we are all pro-Europeans in this House. It is just that some of us are more critical than others of the European Union and its regulations and assemblies.
We are debating two important amendments tabled by two of our foremost European experts. For clarity, I should say that we are debating only the Europe for Citizens programme. The archive measure appears to be relatively uncontroversial—I say that advisedly—and therefore able to be passed without much comment. The amendments seek to do two things. Amendment 4 seeks simply to limit what the money from the programme can be spent on, so that it could be spent only on events commemorating the holocaust and other events in Europe, particularly those relating to the impact of totalitarian regimes, dictatorships and autocracies on their citizens. Amendment 3 seeks to ensure that any money given out by the programme would not interfere with a European election or any subsequent referendum. I hope that, once the Opposition stop playing their silly games, we will have the referendum that this country deserves. I know that many Labour Members desire that referendum and will do all they can to persuade the leadership of their party to hold one.
On amendment 4, I understand the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) to make his point as forcefully as possible, but I repeat what I said on Second Reading, which was that it will always be possible to find organisations with which one disagrees receiving money from a grant-giving programme. My hon. Friend has made it clear that there are certain organisations with which he disagrees, along with others with which he agrees. He was humble enough not to propose a Heaton-Harris Europe for Citizens fund, however. He simply told us about the organisations with which he disagreed.
The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead talked about grants for swivel-eyed Eurocrats. I challenge him to tell us whether he puts the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, Community Service Volunteers or the National Council for Voluntary Organisations into that category. The ACEVO has stated:
“The Europe for Citizens Programme allows British civil society organisations…to build capacity for the sector in the UK”
and
“provides opportunities to promote the agenda for social enterprise and social investment”
which this Government have pioneered. It also points out that the UK is now seen as a leader around the world in that regard.
Community Service Volunteers talks about securing funding in partnership with other organisations across Europe, including its Danish partner, FIC, and Croatian organisations. It is applying for a grant to commence on 1 April. The NCVO says that the Europe for Citizens programme exists to support citizens and community organisations in learning from each other across Europe and enables UK organisations to benefit from the best expertise across Europe and to develop their own links to work across borders.
Mr Bone
If the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) is not approved today, will the public not think that Members have voted, on Holocaust memorial day, against providing extra money for the remembrance of the holocaust? Would that not be shocking?
Mr Vaizey
I would not use the word “shocking” to describe an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry. I shall be visiting his constituency next Monday, and I look forward to supporting his important work at the Royal and Derngate theatre. What would be disappointing, however, is that the amendment would effectively vote down the regulation. We cannot amend the regulation, so if we cannot agree to it, it would be voted down and we would have to renegotiate it.
I do not want to make points about the holocaust that might be seen as party political. Nor do I seek to undermine my hon. Friend’s amendment, because he has tabled it in good faith. He has pointed out, however, that today is Holocaust memorial day, and he will be aware that the Europe for Citizens programme has funded our national Holocaust Centre and museum. They have written to us to say that the funding enabled them to develop the History Speaks programme, which has provided the world’s first online resource for young people centred on the testimony of holocaust survivors. I have made the point that we negotiated an increase in this budget for holocaust commemorations and commemorations of the impact of totalitarian regimes. I also made the point on Second Reading that we have reduced the overall budget for the programme. We reduced by 7% not only the whole European budget, but the budget for this programme. More money will be spent on commemorations of the holocaust and other such events within a reduced budget. It amounts to about £1 million to £1.5 million from this Government.
John Cryer
On a point of information, I am the Member for Leyton and Wanstead. I used to be the Member for Hornchurch until I was ejected by an ungrateful electorate—I do not really mean that. However, the point I want to make is that a number of organisations that get money from this programme are specifically integrationist organisations that want to see a closer and more centralised European Union. Presumably, if this scheme were to be even-handed, as the chairman of Labour for a Referendum, I could apply for a grant for that organisation.
Mr Vaizey
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. As I understand it, article 6, which covers access to the programme, says:
“The programme shall be open to all stakeholders promoting European citizenship and integration, in particular local and regional authorities and organisations, twinning committees, European public policy research organisations (think-tanks), civil society organisations (including survivors' associations), and cultural, youth, educational and research organisations.”
It does not exclude the organisation mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. He could argue that he was promoting European citizenship and integration by promoting the reform of the European Union. The article does not talk about signing up to the European Union.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) asked me to monitor the programmes and the grants that are made. Those grants are made by different organisations; all are free to apply. There is no ban on people applying to this fund. They can apply to the European Commission. I will not hold their hand. The fund is there. She can advertise it. I can advertise it on my website. Parliament and the Commission can advertise it. North Tyneside council applied and got money for the Friendship games in 2012. Thetford Twinning Association applied and got funding for Governance in the 21st Century: Sharing International Perspectives. The London borough of Enfield applied and got funding for the European twin town senior citizen network, which was led by Enfield’s over-50 forum. It brought together older people from Enfield, Courbevoie, Halandri in Greece and Gladbeck in Germany. Wigan council got funding for 2020 Together.
I have made it absolutely clear that the amendments would end up defeating the regulation. They would delay funding for important commemoration projects and projects that commemorate the horrific impact of totalitarian regimes in Europe. My hon. Friends may think that there are some individual organisations that should not receive funding, but there are many other organisations, particularly twinning organisations, that have received funding and that we should support. The Government secured a significant reduction in the budget for this programme, as we did with the overall budget. The amount is about £1 million to £1.5 million a year. We should support the measure, and we certainly should not veto it.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I wish to press my amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Vaizey
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have had a lively debate, both on Second Reading and in Committee. Interestingly, the other place, which often lauds itself as the scrutinising and revising Chamber, spent a grand total of 37 minutes on the Bill, whereas we in this House have now debated it for more than four hours, which goes to show that there is life in this place yet.
As I pointed out on Second Reading, the reason we are able to debate the Bill is the far-sighted reform introduced by the coalition Government in the European Union Act 2011, which ensures that this House has a vote on any treaty passed by the European Union and any measure passed by the European Commission that is not part of an existing treaty. That is because Government Members believe in scrutinising European legislation, in giving elected representatives of the United Kingdom Parliament a say and, through that process and direct democracy, in giving the people of Britain a say in the future shape of Europe.
I afraid that this debate takes place in the shadow of the Opposition’s shameful behaviour in blocking in the other place an important measure to bring in a referendum on our membership of the European Union. I hope that all Opposition Members will take this opportunity on Third Reading to disavow that.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The Minister makes a very weak point. Why do the Government not arrange, even with Lib Dem opposition, to give the House a vote, in Government time, on whether there should be a referendum so that the matter can be resolved once and for all and their lordships would not be allowed to veto it?
Mr Vaizey
The hon. Gentleman calls my point weak but then asks me to arrange a vote that this House has already had. The House voted for that Bill, and passed it almost unanimously. If he wants to trade insults about weak points, I think that he should look to his own first.
On the Europe for Citizens programme, which has been the cause of most concern to my hon. Friends, I reiterate the points that I have made again and again. I recognise that I will not necessarily convert those who are implacably opposed to the programme full stop, but I ask them to note that we have succeeded in reducing its size by about 7%, that our contribution is one among 27 others over a period of seven years and that this particular part of it amounts to between £1 million to £1.5 million a year. I also ask them to note that we have increased the proportion of funding for commemorating the holocaust and the impact of totalitarian regimes from 4% to 20%, and that in relation to the 60% of the money about which they are concerned, because it appears in some instances to have gone to organisations that they do not support, the vast majority of it goes to organisations that are perfectly innocuous and simply seek to extend the hand of European friendship across borders on our continent.
Mr Redwood
As the Minister wants the European Union to have extra powers and money in this area, against the advice of some Government Members, on which areas does he want it to spend less and to give back powers?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We have to watch that we do not go beyond the scope of the Bill, and I think that the Minister is being tempted down a track that he does not want to go down on Third Reading.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I do not want you to hear what I say, but to accept what I say. There is a difference.
Mr Vaizey
When I say that I hear what you say, Mr Deputy Speaker, I mean that I accept what you say. That is my interpretation: if we hear Mr Deputy Speaker speak on a subject, we accept it without question. For the avoidance of doubt, if we encounter each other and I say that I hear what you say, I accept what you say.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I do not think that we need to progress this: we understand each other. You want to get on with the Third Reading, and I want to hear you. Come on, Minister Vaizey.
Mr Vaizey
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) reminds me of another point, which is that even if the House voted down the regulation —which seems unlikely, given the results of the Divisions—the money would not come back to the UK, but would simply be spent by the European Commission in another way, because it is part of the overall budget.
On my personal preference about what Europe should spend less on, first, Mr Deputy Speaker has made it clear that I should not respond and, secondly, even if I were tempted to do so, I would have to defer to the Prime Minister, who is in the course of evaluating our negotiating position to reduce some of the European Union’s competences. However, as a matter of principle, this Government seek to reduce interference by the European Union.
Another important point is that one should be careful about where one deploys one’s opportunities to veto or block European Union legislation. Many countries across the European Union, particularly in eastern Europe, support the programme because, as new EU members who were freed from the Soviet yoke well within living memory, they see a virtue in educating their populations about the fact that they are citizens of a free and democratic Europe, as well as of their own country.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Will the Minister explain what gain Her Majesty’s Government have received from giving in to this?
Mr Vaizey
It is important to work with one’s colleagues in the European Union. In the months and years to come, we will ask a great deal of them—we will put forward forceful arguments about how Europe must change—and, at the negotiating tables in Brussels, I do not want to come across colleagues from other countries who say, “Why should we listen to you, because you simply say no to everything in Europe? Anything that comes across your desk is wrong. You do not believe in the European Union, so why should we listen to you about reform?” We want the chance to have a serious debate about reforming the European Union.
Mr Vaizey
I do not know what my hon. Friend’s definition of unhelpful is. I am sure that voting for an amendment that the Government oppose is not unhelpful. I am simply saying that this is a very small programme that costs us between £1 million and £1.5 million a year, and that the vast majority of the programme supports things that we actively should support, such as commemoration of the holocaust, or other areas that, if one were to be pejorative, might be described as innocuous, such as twinning celebrations.
The serious point is that many eastern European member states will use the programme to support their campaign to remain free and democratic nations as part of a free and democratic Europe. Given that the measure has been supported by all the other member states, I think that we in this House should support it and send those eastern European states a signal that we support the journey that they have taken towards freedom and democracy.
Helen Goodman
I do not share the Minister’s Panglossian view that our debates today and a fortnight ago have provided effective scrutiny. As he pointed out, it is impossible to change the regulation. When this House deals with other legislation, we can amend it. It would be better if we strengthened the scrutiny of proposals that come from Europe when they can still be changed and when there can still be negotiation. As I am sure the Minister knows, the European Scrutiny Committee has produced a report with a number of suggestions, some quite sensible and some not so sensible, on how we could improve our scrutiny processes. It would be far better if we scrutinised European legislation at a much earlier stage than has been the case today and two weeks ago.
We have reached a consensus about the importance of archiving European documents and putting aside resources to remember the holocaust and other serious human rights abuses that have occurred in Europe, particularly in the past century. Her Majesty’s Opposition believe that it is vital to address the apathy and loss of interest in political processes, particularly among young people. We belong to the European Union, even though many Conservative Members wish that we did not. As long as we belong to it, it is important that people use their rights. This is an opportunity to allow people, especially young people, to learn more about the European Union, which might allow them to exercise their rights.
Graham Stringer
My hon. Friend puts her finger on an important point in talking about many young people’s disillusionment with and alienation from the political process. Would it not be more important to engage young people if they could vote for the people who make their laws in the European Commission and throw the rascals out? At the moment, those people are appointed in a very undemocratic way.
Helen Goodman
My hon. Friend tempts me to discuss reform of the European institutions. There is a case for reforming them. Perhaps if more young people had a better understanding of how they work, more of them would take the view that he set out. However, we are in the European Union and we have European elections coming up. It is important that people understand the significance of those elections.
I thought that it was a little churlish of the Minister not to describe the application process more clearly, not just for my benefit, but for the benefit of those who are watching the debate. None the less, that is a small point and I shall not divide the House on Third Reading.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
This is a dreadful Bill of which Her Majesty’s Government should be deeply ashamed. They should hang their head in shame at having done it. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, or the Department of entertainments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd) called it, has agreed to something that directly contradicts what the Prime Minister said a year ago. We have a Prime Minister, a leader of Her Majesty’s Government, who says one thing and a Department for Culture, Media and Sport that brings forward a Bill to do exactly the reverse. The Prime Minister said he was against ever- closer union; the money that we are discussing will be spent on promoting ever-closer union.
The Commons, in its wisdom, is to contradict the Prime Minister. Does that show the proper control that the Government should have of their legislative programme, if Bills are introduced that make the Prime Minister’s words look like wormwood? Is that how the Government wish to treat the British people? Can we have trust in our politicians in this nation if the Prime Minister says one thing and his Ministers bring forth Bills saying another? Are we to feel that there is any movement in the Government’s policy towards reducing ever closer union when their Bills say the reverse and when the words, which are cheap, say one thing but the Acts of Parliament say another—and say that which the British people are opposed to? We have a review of competences to see whether there is the right balance, yet we increase the competences without having any review at all.
We have, by unanimity, agreed to spend money on promoting the ideal of the European Union, and we have had no apology for it and no defence of it other than the Minister saying that he does not much like it but he does not think it is a grand scheme and it might cheer up his mates in eastern Europe.
Mr Vaizey
I am not sure that my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) represented my views entirely as I would have them represented. After all, I read out quotations supporting the programme from four British organisations that have as much right as anyone else to say that they represent the views of the British people, including the national Holocaust Centre.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
They are four British institutions that have had to take the European shilling and sign up to promoting closer European integration to get access to money—institutions that are meant to be under British charity law and politically independent, except when it comes to Europe, when they get handouts to be biased in what they say.
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the Minister is right that the sums are modest and the grants may well go to organisations of merit that the UK would fund anyway without the need to be given our own money back, the programme will undermine us powerfully as we go to our constituencies to try to persuade our electorate that we are sincere about getting powers back to Britain and putting them to the public in a referendum?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Bill is cretaceous—
Sir Peter Bottomley
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that we occasionally allow words from other languages in the Chamber, but I am not sure whether that one should be allowed.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I must admit, I did not catch the word that was said, so we will proceed.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) will find the word in the “Oxford English Dictionary” if he has a chance to look at it later.
The point is that the programme will absolutely destroy trust and we know that trust in politics is at a low. A recent survey showed that trust in the EU was at an all-time low since the survey was started in 2001. If politicians go around legislating in direct contradiction of what they have said, the British public will take them for untrustworthy.
Graham Stringer
The hon. Gentleman is almost invariably precise on this subject, and I usually agree with him, but he said that the money would be used to promote the ideal of the European Union. In fact, it will be used to promote myths about it, one of which is that the EU, not NATO, has delivered peace in Europe over the past 60 or 70 years.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I apologise for understating my opposition to this Bill. That is not an error I shall repeat.
The Bill is a desperate disappointment. When I was first elected, I was told by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that Governments would promise things. They would give guarantees, undertakings and reassurances about how Eurosceptic they were, and I, as a young and naive new Member, would believe them and put trust in the leadership of the party to speak as it did, just as my hon. Friend found when he first came here. He said that as time went by I would find that those promises turned out to be as ashes and dust, and that although the Government were willing to say, to play, and to sing the Eurosceptic tune, they would actually be dancing the pro-European dance. In this Bill, that dance has been taken to a further degree. It would win “Strictly Come Dancing” for its skill in dancing to the pro-European tune. It is a great betrayal of trust.
This is not about the amount of money involved, which is small; it is the principle of proposing and advancing the citizenship of Europe—a citizenship that is odious to most subjects of Her Majesty. It is something we never asked for, never wanted, and that most of us would reject, and we object to our taxes being taken to pay for it.
“Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”
We know Her Majesty’s Government’s true pro-European colours from this particular fruit.
Chris Heaton-Harris
Yes, I suppose I should agree in general principle with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). This has been a legitimate exercise in parliamentary scrutiny of the spending, but I am disappointed with how we got to this point. I have been surprised by some of the points raised in the debate. On Second Reading, when the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) got the number of countries in the European Union badly wrong, she drew a few concerns that perhaps she did not know what she was talking about. Fortunately for us, she proved that exactly today in her speech, so that is all good.
The Minister said that we had a number of experts in Athens; I think the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee is there today. From my list of 1,000 organisations that received money from this budget in 2007, he will doubtless be visiting the Masters and Mates Union of Greek Merchant Marine organisation, which managed to receive €47,316. The problem is not necessarily with the organisations that bid for money, and what the Minister did not say when he responded to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland is that things do not have to be written in the regulations for each budget line. Pages 1, 2 and 3 of the European Union’s budget each year state at the front what is expected of organisations that receive money from the European Union. It will not surprise the Minister to know that those organisations are required to promote ever-closer Union, fly things such as the European flag, and there are other requirements. It is disappointing that so many organisations feel they have to bid for European money with so many strings attached.
In a way, this is a bit like the debate on tax credits that we entered when we took office in 2010. So many people had tax credits—someone with up to about £60,000 of household earnings could claim them. However, when we gradually took something away from people because we could not afford it, people were cross because the Government had spread their largesse around. That is what the European Union is doing. It is throwing its largesse around; it is throwing around our cash with its name all over it, and we had an opportunity to change that.
I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset says about the Bill painting a picture. We have heard two great speeches—one from the Prime Minister last February, and one from the Chancellor only a couple of weeks ago—about what a new UK relationship with Europe should be, but the vote points us in completely the opposite direction and leaves me wondering whether we really mean what we say. I would like to think we do, but—heaven forbid—the politics behind today’s decision defeat me.
I am disappointed. We are paying for propaganda and politics, which we just do not do in this country. It is great shame that we have missed this opportunity to straighten those things out.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Third time.
Business without Debate
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Backbench Business
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Dangerous Driving
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the law on dangerous driving.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allotting the time for this debate. Members in all parts of the House feel strongly on this issue and I recognise that I am not the only Member to have raised concerns regarding the law on dangerous driving. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) launched a “Stop Dangerous Drivers” campaign and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) gathered a significant petition relating to a case in his constituency. Many other Members are on the record as being committed to changing the law on dangerous driving. The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) recently introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, supported by 12 Members from all political parties, calling for the Government to consider the sentencing guidelines as they relate to penalties for dangerous driving offences that lead to death or serious injury.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I applaud my hon. Friend for his work on this matter. He talks about sentencing for dangerous driving. Does he agree that we also need to consider offences linked to dangerous driving? For example, the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is 14 years, but for causing death while disqualified it is two years. Does he agree that the latter sentence should be 14 years, in line with that for dangerous driving?
Chris Skidmore
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I will address that issue later in my speech. I wanted to ensure that we had a general debate on the law on dangerous driving so that Members of all political parties could have their say on individual cases in their constituencies, giving them an opportunity to raise matters important to them and to the House.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Will he find time in his opening remarks to talk not just about sentencing, but about when the Crown Prosecution Service chooses to prosecute? In my constituency, there was a case where somebody was convicted of another offence and the police decided not to pursue a conviction for dangerous driving because they were already in prison.
Chris Skidmore
I thank my hon. Friend for that remark. I will focus on the law on death by dangerous driving, but other Members have raised the issue of whether the Crown Prosecution Service’s definition of careless driving should be classified as dangerous driving. I understand from alarming statistics that too many drivers have been prosecuted for careless driving when dangerous driving was at play. As a result, their sentences were far more lenient than they would have been if they had been prosecuted for dangerous driving.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. In my time as an MP, one of the most difficult things I have had to do is to meet the parents of young people killed by dangerous driving with regard to the sentences that have been handed down. There was a case in my constituency, three years ago to the day, where two young girls were killed. The driver who caused the accident received a sentence of 36 weeks, despite the fact that he ran away from the scene of the crime and left the young ladies to die. My constituents cannot understand how such sentences can be considered proportionate, when they suffer a lifetime of regret and misery.
Chris Skidmore
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case from his constituency. I entirely agree that it is shocking and inconceivable that we have so many cases in many constituencies where the penalty does not reflect the severity of the incident—violent death as a result of dangerous driving.
I will not take any more interventions at the moment. I want to carry on with my speech and raise a case in my constituency. Today is the first anniversary of that case.
The Government are committed to reviewing the law surrounding offences of dangerous driving, and I hope the debate is able to influence their position in the next few months. Already, as part of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving has been established, with a penalty of five years. It came into force on 3 December 2012 and received cross-party support. I hope that the tone of this debate reflects the cross-party support for reviewing and changing the law on dangerous driving.
The debate is topical not just because there are so many Members who want to raise individual constituency cases, but because of the current situation. On 28 August 2013, the Government announced that the Sentencing Council would review sentencing guidelines for the recently introduced offences of causing death by careless driving; causing serious injury by dangerous driving; and causing death by dangerous driving. It was with that review in mind that I wanted to hold the debate, so that the will of the House, and the views of Members from all parts of the House, could be heard and made known to the Sentencing Council. I hope that the Minister will take note of the various issues raised, and that they will inform the Government’s own decisions, once the Sentencing Council has conducted its review, so that they are aware of the strength of feeling about the fact that the laws on dangerous driving need to be changed.
I know that many Members are committed to campaigning for a change in the law as a result of tragic constituency cases of deaths caused by dangerous driving, and they will have met families of victims of dangerous drivers who have had their loved ones cruelly torn from them, often at a young age, only to find that the law is not on their side. The pain and suffering of losing a family member to such a violent death at the irresponsible hands of a dangerous driver are unthinkable, but for the perpetrator of so great a crime then to be given a custodial sentence of a few months or years, or even just a fine and a suspended sentence, is an injustice that few could agree is acceptable. It is in their memory that we hold this debate.
Today is the first anniversary of one of the most tragic cases of death by dangerous driving—a case that made national headlines and led to a campaign involving thousands of people in the Bristol region demanding that the law on dangerous driving be changed. On the afternoon of Sunday 27 January 2013, Ross and Clare Simons were riding their recently purchased tandem bike along Lower Hanham road in my constituency. The couple, 34 and 30, were in the prime of their lives and had been married just 18 months. Only the previous day, they had celebrated the news that they were about to begin IVF treatment to start a family. With everything to live for, they had their entire future together to look forward to.
Elsewhere in Hanham, Nicholas Lovell, 38, was driving his partner’s Citroen Picasso at speed when he was spotted by police, whose sirens quickly indicated to him to pull over. It was not the first time Lovell had been confronted by the law. Having amassed 69 previous convictions, he was well versed at showing blatant disregard for the rules of the road. Taking part in road races throughout his youth and 20s, he had been in and out of the revolving doors of the courts. Repeatedly, he had shown no interest in either his own safety or anyone else’s. In December 1998, high on drugs, he drove at 70 mph on the wrong side of the road as he fled police in Bradley Stoke, speeding all the way to Downend, before crashing head on into another car. During the ensuing court case, he predicted:
“If I don’t deal with this problem now, I am either going to kill myself or kill someone else.”
It was perhaps the only real truth he had ever uttered. Fourteen years later, on the afternoon of 27 January 2013, he did not know that his chilling prophecy was about to become a reality.
What Lovell did know, speeding in his partner’s Citroen Picasso through Hanham, the police now on his tail, sirens blazing, was that he should never have been in that car in the first place—he was serving a driving ban, having been disqualified from driving. It was not ignorance of the law that had driven him to take the wheel of a car that afternoon; he had simply chosen to ignore it. Neither was it the first time he had been banned from driving. He had committed 11 offences of driving while disqualified and been convicted for dangerous driving four times. Not that he seemed to care: two weeks earlier, he had met an acquaintance, John Fleming—nicknamed “Johnny Fireball”—outside the Jolly Sailor pub on Hanham high street, where he challenged him to a race. “He said, ‘Come on, Johnny Fireball. Let’s have a race. I’ve got a fast car put down’”, Fleming later recalled, adding that Lovell also told him, “I don’t care if I do 90 mph and hit someone.”
At 3.50 pm exactly a year ago today, as Lovell sped into Lower Hanham road, with the police in pursuit, he was driving too fast to control his car. Clipping a parked car, his vehicle launched itself across the other side of the road. Call it what you like—the wrong place, the wrong time, that split second moment that can make the difference between life and death—the uninsured car hit a newly purchased tandem bike being ridden by Ross and Clare Simons. They did not stand a chance, and their deaths were almost immediate. Lovell, on the other hand, was still very much alive—alive enough to run away on foot from the scene of the accident, leaving his partner to claim that she had been driving the car at the time, giving the police a false name.
The deaths of Ross and Clare Simons quickly made the national headlines, and their loss shook the entire local community I represent. I never met them, but no one had a bad word to say about this couple, who lived their short lives to the full, touching so many people along the way. A week later, I attended the vigil at the site of their deaths on Lower Hanham road, where easily over 500 people stood silent as we marked the minute when they had been struck. I made a pledge then to Ross’s father, Edwin, that I would do everything in my power, as the local MP, to help them and to ensure that they achieved justice for their tragic loss.
Only when Lovell was finally tracked down and charged did the enormity of his crime become known. As I have already stated, he had 69 previous convictions, including for four offences of dangerous driving, for which he was disqualified from driving completely back in 1999, only to be given a further 11 convictions for driving while disqualified.
Rehman Chishti
My hon. Friend paints a shocking picture of a horrific offence by an individual who had 11 convictions for driving while disqualified. The maximum sentence for that is six months, whether it is someone’s first, 15th or 11th offence. Do we not need to ensure a stiffer sentence for repeat offenders, as I proposed in a private Member’s Bill?
Chris Skidmore
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Indeed, it is the basis of my speech, and I will talk later about what needs to happen to toughen up the law and make driving while disqualified at least an aggravating factor, if not something more, in cases of death by dangerous driving. In Canada, for instance, while causing death by dangerous driving can incur a penalty of 10 years, causing death by dangerous driving while disqualified can incur a life sentence. We should be going down that route of much tougher penalties for these people, who should not be let out of jail in the first place so as to be able to commit these crimes.
Back in 1999, Lovell was banned from driving essentially for life. The horror of previous crimes included fleeing from the police in 1998 after being spotted at the wheel of a stolen car and, as I have said, driving at speeds of 70mph. In August 2000, he again fled from the police and drove on a public footpath and subway before crashing into a tree, and eight years later, he was spotted by police who wanted to question him about two robberies, but reversed at speed into their vehicle, causing damage, before mounting a pavement to undertake vehicles waiting at traffic lights, forcing two pedestrians to jump out of the way in order to avoid being hit. He was a ticking time bomb. Given the number of his offences, it was inevitable, as he prophesised himself, that he would one day cause death by dangerous driving.
At first, when these details were revealed in court, it seemed inconceivable that someone with so many convictions and disqualifications could have been allowed to kill in this way. How had he managed to flout the law so many times? How had the justice system, for more than a decade and a half, allowed this man persistently to slip through the net and to treat the police, the courts and the laws of this land with contempt? Perhaps there will never be an answer, but that we have even to ask these questions highlights the need for the law to be changed.
Lovell pleaded guilty at the trial, and received the maximum possible sentence for causing death by dangerous driving of 14 years—in fact, he was the first person to be given this sentence since its introduction in 2004—but as a result of his guilty plea, it was reduced by a third to 10 years and six months. Both sentences were then ordered by the judge to run concurrently. The result is that, pending good behaviour, Lovell could be out of prison after six years. Ross’s father, Edwin, summed up the mood at the end of the trial, when he said:
“he’s going to serve three years for each of our children’s lives.”
Andrew Bridgen
Does my hon. Friend agree that a motor vehicle in the wrong hands is a lethal weapon and that the sentencing powers for dangerous driving should reflect that?
Chris Skidmore
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It seems bizarre. In 2004, the previous Government legislated, absolutely correctly, to increase the penalty for dangerous driving. A car is a lethal weapon, but the consequences, if someone causes death while driving, are not on a level playing field with deaths caused in other circumstances, and that is what we are fighting for in this debate.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the poignant, powerful speech that he is making. Does he agree that the charging guidelines may need to be reconsidered? I do not understand why, in many cases, the charge is not one of manslaughter rather than causing death by dangerous driving, given that the imposition of a life sentence is an option for any court that convicts an offender of manslaughter.
Chris Skidmore
I am extremely glad that my hon. Friend has placed that on the record. A manslaughter charge could and should be considered as a way of toughening the law on dangerous driving and increasing sentences. I intend to look into the issue of disqualification. I am not a lawyer, but I think that when judges or barristers have to decide whether intent or lack of intent can be proved, manslaughter or murder should be considered. When it comes to cases in which there was a lack of intent but it is known that someone was driving dangerously in the first place, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) made an excellent point. The advantage of a manslaughter charge is that it is not necessary to prove a specific intent; what happened may have been the result of a reckless act. As my hon. Friend rightly said, sentencing powers are at large. Is not the issue the way in which we charge offenders? Are we not in danger of limiting the options of the courts by opting for charges such as causing death, which, although convenient and appropriate, may not fully reflect the gravity of the acts committed?
Chris Skidmore
I defer to my hon. Friend’s knowledge, given that he is a lawyer who, I am sure, has encountered plenty of cases of dangerous driving, and death by dangerous driving, in his time. All I know is that we and the Sentencing Council need to give the courts more tools to deal with these cases. The judge who presided over Lovell’s trial said that he wished that he could have imposed a tougher sentence. As it was, he could impose a sentence of no more than 10 years and six months, but if the necessary power had been vested in him by Parliament, he would have imposed that tougher sentence. It is our responsibility as legislators to make our voice heard to the Minister and the Sentencing Council in order to bring about a change in the law.
I am sure that, if we put ourselves in the shoes of the families involved, each one of us would be not only heartbroken by the loss of a relative, but aggrieved by the nature of the sentences handed down by the courts. The fact that the judge in the Lovell case wanted to impose a heavier sentence but was unable to do so simply rubs salt in the wounds.
A full year has passed since the deaths of Ross and Clare Simons, but the devastation remains. As Kelly Woodruff, Ross’s sister, explained:
“What the perpetrators don’t realise is the devastation they cause—people’s lives, like ours, are scarred forever. We will never live the way we should be living, all because of that man, my future has been stolen.”
During this period of unspeakable grief, however, Kelly has also commented:
“Over this year we’ve realised we are not alone. So many people have contacted us who have gone through the same thing all over the country.
The sentences some people have received for dangerous driving are awful—12 months for killing someone.”
Indeed, recent figures relating to convictions for death by dangerous driving offences speak for themselves. In 2011, 153 of the 408 people convicted of causing death or bodily harm while driving dangerously, or under the influence of drink or drugs, avoided jail altogether. Five were given fines, and 63 were given suspended prison sentences.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Ross and Clare Simons and sending condolences to their family. It appears that the perpetrator of that offence did not care at all that he was causing a risk to others through his actions. If we are to deter such people in future, should it not be possible to impose longer custodial sentences before people reach the point of killing someone? That would be the real deterrent, given that simply caring about other people does not cross their radar.
Chris Skidmore
My hon. Friend is right. Lovell showed no remorse at his trial, just as he had showed no remorse following the offences that had led to his previous 69 convictions and his being banned for life from driving.
A deterrent is a limited option. It may be unlikely that people who think in that way will ever be deterred from getting into a car, driving at speed, and then killing someone. What we need is the opportunity to give the police and the courts the power to ensure that such people are off the road in the first place, and cannot commit crimes. The tragedy for Ross and Clare Simons was that Nicholas Lovell should never have been in that car to start with. He was not allowed to be in a car, but that did not prevent him from getting into one. Rather than being on the road, he should have been in jail serving time for the previous crimes that he had committed so relentlessly. We need to deal with that problem if we are to prevent further tragedies.
Of the 255 people who went to prison in 2011, 21 were given less than six months in jail, 104 were jailed for under two years, and just 37—one in seven of all those who were convicted of death by dangerous driving—were given prison sentences of more than five years. It is clear that the severity of the sentencing for those who cause death by dangerous driving is a national issue that needs to be addressed.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
It is not just a question of sentencing; there is also the issue of what happens when someone who has caused serious injury, or death, to another person, continues to drive until his case is heard. If a car is indeed a lethal weapon, as others have suggested, why do courts not exercise their discretion to set bail conditions that make it impossible for people to drive when a test has established that their blood contained alcohol or drugs? That issue has been raised by other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), who, like me, has a constituency interest. Jamie Still, the 16-year-old son of one of my constituents, was tragically killed on new year’s eve. The perpetrator drove for months until, finally, there was a conviction. Is that not wrong as well?
Chris Skidmore
I cannot imagine how distressing it must be for the families of those who have been killed by dangerous drivers to know—while awaiting what is bound to be a highly stressful and emotional trial—that someone who, although he has not yet been convicted, has committed a crime which—and the consequences of which—has been clearly witnessed, is behind a wheel yet again. Those families must be distraught. I urge the Minister and the Government to consider the point raised by my right hon. Friend, which may, indeed, be within the remit of the Sentencing Council.
The tragedy of Ross and Clare Simons has been repeated across the country. Sentences are being handed down that do not fit the crime. I believe that the sentencing guidelines for dangerous driving, and, indeed, the law, need to be changed to reflect the added culpability of a driver who has already been disqualified and should never have been in a car in the first place, and who then causes death by dangerous driving. As I said earlier, in Canada the penalty for causing death by dangerous driving is a prison sentence of 10 years, and someone who was already disqualified from driving at the time is given a life sentence. At the very least, the fact of killing someone while driving dangerously and while disqualified should constitute an additional aggravating factor, and should result in a longer sentence.
Over the past year, the families of Ross and Clare Simons have been determined to call for exactly that. Their campaign, Justice 4 Ross and Clare, has issued a petition calling on the Government
“to review and change sentencing guidelines for dangerous driving so that drivers who have previous convictions for dangerous driving, including driving under the influence of drink and drugs, or have been disqualified from driving, and continue to commit dangerous driving offences, causing death or injury as a result, be given far longer and tougher sentences than currently exist.”
The petition has attracted more than 13,000 signatures so far, and is still going strong.
On 9 October 2013, I raised the campaign, and the need to strengthen the law applying to offences of death by dangerous driving, with the Prime Minister in the House. The Prime Minister replied:
“This is the most appalling crime: someone with 10 previous convictions, as my hon. Friend says, and who was disqualified at the time driving dangerously and killing two people, snuffing out their lives. The sentence was 10 years. As I understand it, the maximum sentence available for a crime like this is 14 years. The Government have introduced a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, so we are looking at this whole area. I can also tell him that the Justice Secretary has asked the Sentencing Council to review the sentencing guidelines for serious driving offences, and we should look at this specific case in the light of that.”—[Official Report, 9 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 156.]
In the light of the Prime Minister’s comments, I want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister to ensure that the Sentencing Council is made fully aware of the specifics of the case that I have raised, with a view to considering increasing the sentences for persistent offenders who cause death or injury by dangerous driving. Will the Minister also update the House on when the review will finally produce its report?
Will the Minister also look closely at introducing a change in the law to create a new offence of death or injury being caused by dangerous disqualified drivers, with a far tougher penalty than those that are currently imposed under the dangerous driving laws? Such a change would, I hope, act as a deterrent, even though deterrents are not always enough. I hope that it would also ensure that the likes of Nicholas Lovell could be kept behind bars for as long as possible. I know it is the hope of the family of Ross and Clare that, if anything is to come out of their tragic deaths, it should be a positive step that will ensure that we avoid similar tragedies in the future.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) on securing this important debate. I want to use this opportunity to ask the Minister to look into what many people feel are the derisory sentences received by those who kill or injure cyclists. I have raised examples of such cases with Ministers before, and we will have to continue to do so until the police investigate them properly and the Crown Prosecution Service prosecutes them properly.
For example, British Cycling employee Rob Jefferies was killed when hit from behind on an open, straight road in daylight by someone who had already been caught speeding. Unbelievably, the driver got just an 18-month ban. He had to resit his driving test, do 200 hours’ community service and pay a small fine. That was in line with the guidelines, so there was no hope of an appeal. Rob’s brother, Will Jefferies, said that
“the present state of the law meant that Rob’s killer could never receive a sentence proportionate to the crime.”
The lorry driver who killed another cyclist, Eilidh Jake Cairns, admitted in court that his eyesight was not good enough for him to have been driving, but he was fined just £200. He was free to drive again immediately, and 18 months later knocked down and killed Nora Guttmann, an elderly pensioner. His eyesight was still poor and he was not wearing his prescribed glasses. Surely that is dangerous driving.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I am spurred to intervene on the hon. Gentleman because one of the things that upsets me about these sentences is that when those people have served their time, they presumably consider themselves to have been released from their responsibility for having taken a life. The law should reflect the fact that taking a life is a heinous crime, and it should carry a heavier sentence.
Ian Austin
The hon. Gentleman is completely right, and I am sure that that sentiment will be echoed by many Members on both sides of the House tonight.
If the driver who killed Eilidh had been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving, he would have been issued a driving ban and would not have been on the road and able to kill Nora Guttmann just a few months later. In that case, the justice system failed both those women. When police officer Cath Ward was knocked off her bike and killed, the driver was convicted of careless driving and received a short driving ban. Cath’s friend Ruth Eyles wrote to me to say:
“What shocks me is that the driver who killed Rob Jefferies will be able to drive again in 18 months. If that young man had had a legal firearm and had accidentally shot and killed someone through carelessness, would he be given a new licence 18 months later?”
Mr Spencer
Many people who are convicted of a driving offence and sent to prison often receive a driving ban that runs concurrently with their prison sentence. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the ban should not begin until they are released, rather than taking effect when they are in prison and cannot drive anyway?
Ian Austin
I completely agree; those arrangements are nonsense because those people are unable to drive while they are in prison. The ban should obviously start only when the prison sentence has been served.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
In some cases, there must surely be a good argument for never allowing the person to drive again. Firearms have been mentioned; if someone misused a firearm resulting in death or injury, the chances of their getting a licence to use one again would be nil. Why is that not the case in relation to driving?
Ian Austin
There is no doubt that some people drive in an extremely reckless and dangerous way, without any regard for other road users, and of course they should never be allowed behind the wheel of a car again. Cars are dangerous things, and people must be incredibly careful to obey the law when they are behind the wheel.
I was on the scene of—and the closest witness to—an incident in which a dangerous driver, overtaking when it was not safe to do so, swung aggressively into the path of two cyclists, putting both of them in hospital. He also failed to stop. That driver was simply sent on a course. The police completely failed to investigate the incident properly, and the CPS completely failed to take it seriously. I have known that same police force to investigate other cases in a very poor way. I was careful, when putting together my statement, to demonstrate clearly that that man’s driving met the criteria for a charge of dangerous driving, but no prosecution was brought. The guy was simply sent on a course. In fact, I believe that it was an anger management course, so it was clearly accepted that he had been driving dangerously because he was angry. He was not prosecuted, however. That was absolutely unbelievable.
All too often, incidents in which people are seriously injured are downgraded from dangerous driving to careless driving because that makes it easier to secure a conviction. However, a conviction for careless driving usually results in the driver just having to attend a course. We need a comprehensive review of how the police investigate such incidents and of how the justice system operates when people are hurt or killed on the roads. Enforcement of traffic laws should be reviewed to improve road safety. That would benefit all road users, but particularly cyclists and pedestrians. Road traffic police numbers have decreased dramatically over the past 10 years, and we should look at reversing that trend to improve enforcement and investigation. Prosecution guidance needs updating to ensure that bad driving that causes obviously foreseeable danger should be classed as a dangerous driving offence. Long driving bans should be more widely used to penalise drivers who have caused serious danger, but not recklessly or intentionally. Where drivers have caused serious danger recklessly or intentionally, or have a history of breaching bans, long prison sentences are more appropriate.
Underpinning all that, there needs to be better information on how the criminal justice system deals with collisions. Currently, the complete lack of information makes it difficult to prevent future accidents from happening. Ministers should look at linking the information taken by the police at the scene of a collision with the information from the criminal justice system. That would make it easier to analyse the response of the justice system to road collisions. It would also help to identify areas that need improvement.
British Cycling, of which I am a member, has been doing extensive work on this issue, and I would urge the Minister and his colleagues in the Home Office to look at its recommendations when they are published on Monday 10 February. I would like to invite the Minister to attend the event, here in the House, at which those recommendations will be launched. I will write to him with the details. Will he also agree to convene a meeting between himself, British Cycling and Ministers from the Home Office and the Department for Transport, to discuss British Cycling’s proposals in detail?
Charles Hendry (Wealden) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you have given me permission to refer to your own tragic loss last October when your own mother-in-law was killed in a car crash in Aberdeenshire. All of us who know you understand the sense of grief that you experienced at the loss of Margaret. It is hard to come to terms with the fact that such a gentle elderly lady, who had given her life to caring for people, could be killed in such a brutal and savage way. It must be painful and poignant for you to be in charge of our discussions this afternoon.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) for securing this debate and for the way in which he introduced it. All of us speaking in the House today will have particular constituency cases that have caused profound pain. As Members of Parliament, and not as members of the families involved, we have felt a great sense of anger and distress at the way in which things have sometimes been handled.
On the afternoon of 30 November 2011, William Avery-Wright, a 13-year-old schoolboy at Worth Abbey school in Sussex, but who lived at Crowborough in my constituency, was killed when he was crossing the road between the school and its rugby pitches. William was recognised by all as a gifted and promising student. He was a talented young golfer, ranked fourth in the Sussex junior league, with the whole of his life ahead of him. The road was not in a dangerous condition; the driver was driving relatively fast but well within the 60 mph speed limit. That limit has since been reduced to 40 mph, which demonstrates the fact that this stretch of road was recognised to be dangerous.
My comments relate less to the law on drivers with regard to dangerous driving than to the law on others, such as schools, and their responsibility to keep children safe on dangerous roads. In this case, there were failings by the Health and Safety Executive, the Crown Prosecution Service and the school itself, which should have been prosecuted. The way in which the school handled the incident was horrific and compounded the parents’ distress.
At 5pm, as Mr Avery-Wright was on his way to East Surrey hospital, where William had been taken, the headmaster of Worth Abbey, Mr Gino Carminati, sent an e-mail to the parents of all school pupils, with the specific exception of Mr and Mrs Avery-Wright, to say that William had been killed. As a consequence, Mr Avery-Wright was receiving messages of condolence on his mobile, before he had even reached the hospital to identify his son. Although the school has offered its sympathies and condolences on a number of occasions it has never issued Mr and Mrs Avery-Wright with an apology, in writing or in person, for William’s death or for its failings. However, the parents did receive an apology letter from the headmaster for his conduct after William’s death.
The school wanted to act as if the accident had not happened. At times, it seemed more concerned about its own reputation than the loss and grief of William’s parents. Mr and Mrs Avery-Wright understandably wanted to leave flowers at the place of the accident, and the guidance from West Sussex county council is absolutely clear that temporary floral tributes can remain in place for 12 weeks after an accident. On 5 January 2012, just over a month after the accident, the headmaster asked for the flowers to be moved, as he did not want them there at the start of the new school term.
Above all, it is clear that the school breached its own health and safety policy. The coroners’ inquest, which took place on 8 and 9 July 2013, said:
“A School Rule that pupils in his year group [year 8] should not cross the road without adult supervision was not enforced or adhered to.”
The school had long known about the risks. The school bursar, Father Aidan Murray, and the headmaster, Mr Carminati, co-authored a letter to West Sussex county council in December 2007—four years before the accident —acknowledging the inherent risks to school pupils crossing the Paddockhurst road. In the letter, they said:
“The speed and volume of traffic on this section of the road is of great concern to myself and to the Headmaster, who has responsibility for the safety of the 430 pupils of Worth School.”
They talked about the measures outside Ardingly college. They said:
“We feel that similar speed restrictions or a traffic calming scheme on the Paddockhurst Road outside the School and Abbey are needed before a fatality occurs.”
The school was sufficiently concerned about the prospect of injury or death to pupils crossing Paddockhurst road that it was recorded in their risk register ranked as “high”. As a result, the school committed to take action to mitigate the risk, by escorting years 7 and 8 pupils across the road. However, as Mr Avery-Wright says in one of his letters:
“The written evidence from pupils interviewed by the police confirms that this ‘Action’ was not enforced or adhered to prior to William’s death.”
Clearly, a bridge across the road, such as the one that has now been constructed, would have been the best solution, but we know from the inquest that, in spite of these long-standing concerns, Worth school made no planning application for a bridge to be constructed in any of the 12 years preceding William’s death.
Furthermore, the school's risk assessment identifies the hazard as “A2”, which means that urgent, early attention is required to remove risk—not just to mitigate it. We need to understand what A2 means. “A” is the level of severity. It means a risk of death, major injury, damage or loss of property or equipment, and “2” refers to the likelihood of incidents occurring. The “2” means frequent or often likely to occur.
In January 2013, the police submitted their findings to the Crown Prosecution Service for consideration. Subsequently the police were informed by the CPS that
“there are insufficient grounds to proceed with a gross negligence manslaughter prosecution against any individual at the school.”
Mr Avery-Wright received a document from West Sussex police, which attempts to answer a number of questions raised by him and his wife. He said that the CPS guidance to the police was
“that these failures do not constitute a breach of Health and Safety, for a gross negligence charge of Corporate Manslaughter to proceed.”
In April 2013, Nick May, detective superintendent at the Surrey and Sussex major crime team confirmed to the parents that the Health and Safety Executive would not be taking any action in respect of William’s death. For further inquiries Mr May advised Mr Avery-Wright to contact the Health and Safety Executive director, David Rothery. Mr Rothery, responded in December 2013, repeating that the HSE could not take this matter further and quoted the relevant legislation, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, to support his statement. He said:
“Summarising the factors involved in the evidential test [no prosecution can go ahead unless the prosecutor finds there is sufficient evidence to provide realistic prospect of conviction] the fact that the school recognised the risk and tried to take action by contacting outside authorities, by setting up a system and letting staff and pupils, irrespective of whether that system could indeed be observed in every situation, makes it unlikely that the evidential test would be passed.”
It seems that a school can highlight a serious risk in its risk register, propose actions to mitigate those risks, but then not implement them, and when that results in the death of a child, as far as the HSE is concerned, that does not warrant prosecution.
Mr Avery-Wright replied to Mr Rothery’s letter and raised the following questions. He said:
“How can the Risk Assessment be argued as being impractical, and that the school had done all that was reasonably practicable, the legal requirement, by alerting staff, pupils and other authorities?”
He said that the school risk assessment is unambiguous in what supervision the school will provide for the road crossing. It does not use words such as “we will endeavour to” or “in so far as reasonably practical”' to lessen its impact.
Furthermore, Mr Avery-Wright has provided the HSE with photographs taken in October 2013, demonstrating the quality of adult supervision provided on behalf of pupils using the school crossing today. That raises the question: if structured adult supervision for the road crossing of this quality could be provided after William’s death, why could it not have been delivered before his death in compliance with the school’s own risk assessment for the road crossing? Mr and Mrs Avery-Wright maintain that the school was in breach of its statutory duty of care to William, and I agree with that. The lawyers representing the public liability insurer, the RSA, have conceded legal liability for his death, but the school has still not apologised for its negligence.
Mr and Mrs Avery-Wright have been let down by the Health and Safety Executive and the CPS, which decided not to prosecute the school for the catastrophic breach of its own health and safety rules, even though it had already identified the risk and the potential for fatalities. The coroner could not have been more clear about those failings, but the HSE decided that that was not sufficient. I disagree with its findings. They were let down by West Sussex county council, which received letters saying that the road was dangerous. However, it was only after William’s death that the speed limit was reduced from 60 to 40.
Most of all, Mr and Mrs Avery-Wright have been let down in the most shocking and appalling way by the school following the loss of their only child. The headmaster who presided over a failure to enforce the school’s health and safety rules that resulted in the death of a promising student remains in post two years later. Throughout, he has been supported by the chair of governors, Mrs Alda Andreotti. A school has a duty of care to its students. In this case, Worth Abbey has failed in that duty in the most devastating and tragic way.
It is more than 20 years since I was first elected this House, and I do not think that I have ever called publicly for anyone’s resignation. I do not understand, however, how two human beings, the head teacher and the chair of governors, whose primary duty should be the well-being of the children in their care, could possibly countenance staying in post when they have failed so evidently and dismally in their responsibilities with such tragic consequences. If they had any decency, they would both have resigned as a matter of principle, and it is still not too late for them to take that action to show their genuine contrition to William’s parents.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
It is a great privilege to take part in this important debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) for the thoughtful, comprehensive and moving way in which he opened the debate, which was a great credit to him and to the whole House.
On 8 January, I stood in this Chamber to present a ten-minute rule Bill on driving penalties, with all-party support. I presented that Bill on behalf of the community of Overton and the family of Robert James Gaunt, who was tragically killed in the village in October 2009. Robert Gaunt was a nine-year-old boy who was mowed down by a driver while crossing the road. The driver who hit Robert was unlicensed, uninsured and horribly irresponsible. Young Robert was killed. I want to highlight the case again because it shows clearly how the laws on driving offences are not in proportion to the crime. The driver hit Robert, killed him and drove away. He did not stop, he did not report the incident. Indeed, he returned home and re-sprayed his car. He took a life, he ran away and he tried to hide the evidence. In this case, the driver incurred a pitiful sentence of 22 months, with a four-year driving ban. He served only 10 months in jail.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) said, there are clear discrepancies with what would have happened had the car been a firearm. If the case had involved a gun, a knife or a baseball bat and a life was taken, it is highly likely that the sentence would have been vastly longer. In cases when death is caused by a weapon rather than a vehicle, sentences are much longer even when the act is not premeditated.
I recognise that a car is not a gun or a knife and I am not trying to claim that driving a car and carrying a firearm are the same thing. All I am saying is that although the use of a car is a necessity in our modern lives, especially in rural areas, that makes it all the more important that we review the situation. A car in the hands of someone irresponsible or dangerous can cause the same devastation as a firearm. A driver behind the wheel who is dangerous can cause as much damage as a pedestrian with a baseball bat, if not more. Ten months in jail for ending the life of a young boy is not right. It is not right when the deliberately dangerous actions of an individual are not treated seriously enough by the justice system.
My ten-minute rule Bill called on the Government to consider the maximum penalties for driving offences that lead to death or serious injury. Those who cause death by driving currently face a number of charges and a large range of sentences from mere months to 14 years. No driver has been given a 14-year term since Parliament first lengthened the maximum penalty from 10 years in 2004, and the law is clearly letting families down.
Such tragic cases have taken place all over the country. They do not stop at borders and they are not a rural, suburban or urban problem. This is a truly national problem with tragic consequences in all places. For instance, let us consider a similar incident suffered in the constituency that neighbours mine, Wrexham. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) has kindly allowed me to bring it to the attention of the House on his behalf and I know that he is working diligently for the family.
A young woman lost her life after a driver decided to overtake another car at the end of a 70 mph dual carriageway. The driver in question braked hard when the road suddenly became a single carriageway, lost control of his vehicle and crashed head-on into a Ford that was being responsibly driven at 40 mph, considering the wet conditions that day. The driver of the Ford, Ms Christina Barchetti, suffered terrible injuries as her car was pushed through a wall into woodland. Ms Barchetti lost her life at the local hospital following the incident. She also lost the life of the unborn child that she was carrying at the time.
Such tragic cases happen around the country and I pay tribute to the campaigning organisation Brake, which has done so much to bring the issue to the attention of parliamentarians and Government. These cases speak for themselves, showing the devastation experienced by families when the rules of our roads are not taken seriously enough.
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
I support the hon. Lady’s speech, which strikes a chord with me. I have a constituent who lost her niece because someone who was medically unfit to drive, and knew that they were, continued to do so. I am concerned that there are occasions when people who do not consider themselves criminal or dangerous drivers, who have a previously good record and who have been warned that they are unfit continue to drive because they feel all right and cause death and serious injury. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to review the sentences for those individuals, too, so the message is sent to them that it is a serious matter if one drives after being told that one is unfit to do so?
Susan Elan Jones
That is absolutely right. One purpose of today's debate is to ensure that any review of the guidelines is comprehensive and I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point.
Today, we are talking about the devastating results when drivers are dangerous, negligent or careless. When I presented my ten-minute rule Bill on the laws on driving, I was fully aware that no justice or consolation can be given to those families who have lost a loved one. The heartbreak experienced at the loss of a loved one cannot be cured by any debate in this House, but we can ensure that the laws in such cases reflect the crimes that we talk about.
Rehman Chishti
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the work that she has done on this matter. As regards ensuring that the sentence is commensurate to the injury caused, does she support what I have proposed in my private Member’s Bill on driving while disqualified? At the moment, causing death by driving while disqualified has a two-year maximum sentence, whereas causing death by dangerous driving has a 14-year maximum sentence. Does she agree that the sentence for causing death by driving while disqualified should increase significantly to reflect that for causing death by dangerous driving?
Susan Elan Jones
I certainly do, and I hope that the Sentencing Council is listening to the debate.
I urged the Government to review the sentencing guidelines for maximum penalties for driving offences that lead to death or serious injury. Today, Members are urging the Government to consider the laws on dangerous driving. It is clear that the law is not doing what it should be doing as regards driving offences. The rules and guidelines set out by the law mean that drivers who end the lives of innocent people on our roads sometimes have their sentences reduced to mere months.
The guidelines are terribly subjective and open to interpretation, and they hold back judges from making the decisions that, in all justice, need to be made. The average sentence served by drivers who kill or seriously injure another human being—a mother, father or child—while driving is 11 months. For the family of Robert Gaunt in Overton, of Christina Barchetti in Wrexham, or of any of the other people mentioned today, that is clearly not justice.
If we change the law and the sentencing guidelines are reformed properly, my hope is that it will not only bring some comfort to those who have lost treasured family members, but cause people who are uninsured, unlicensed or just frankly irresponsible to pause before they get behind a wheel.
Bob Stewart
I am really concerned about people being killed by dangerous driving. I very much support the idea that whatever the custodial sentence handed down to those drivers, if they have robbed someone of their life, through dangerous driving or stupidity, they should never in their life be given a driving licence.
Susan Elan Jones
I think the hon. Gentleman speaks for many who believe that there should be a thorough review in this area. When the Minister sums up, I would like clarity on the nature of any review that the Government will undertake. I would also like to know about the timing, because that is important. If there is a need for legislation, I hope that the Government will bring it forward, because, to put it as politely as I can, we do not have the fullest of legislative timetables, and I am sure that there would be co-operation.
Bearing in mind what the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) said, we have to be careful not to limit the powers of the courts, and careful to look at maximum penalties, including, as the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) said, bail conditions. It is striking that in the Chamber today, there are Members who would probably agree on very little else, politically. Outside the Chamber, too, cross-party, we know that something has to be done on this issue. There is a tremendous amount of evidence on that. The law is not doing enough to hold accountable those who take lives in this way, or to find justice for those let down by the system.
On behalf of families such as the Gaunts and the Barchettis, and countless others across the country, it is vital that we urge the Government to make this logical development to our system, and to consider what sentence is given for what crime. I know that none of this will bring back anybody whose life has been tragically lost in this way, but it is vital that we in Parliament, and the Government, do something to ensure that some measure of justice is done.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
In this Chamber, we often say that it is a pleasure to take part in a debate, but it gives me no pleasure to have to recount the awful experiences of my constituents, just as other hon. and right hon. Members have had to recount the awful experiences of theirs.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), whose work has been a comfort, not only to me in my desire for change but, more importantly, to the families whom I have done my best to represent, as their MP, just as he has done his best to represent the family of Ross and Clare Simons. I met Ross and Clare’s family members when they visited Parliament, and as the hon. Gentleman knows, I have also had Jamie Still’s family come to visit Parliament and No. 10. I have also had to deal with the family of David and Dorothy Metcalf. Going through what we have to go through—listening, experiencing, and sitting through the awful accounts of what the victims and their families have been through—is hard enough; imagining what the families have gone through is just about impossible.
Already in this debate—more right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak, and I am pleased that they are here to do so—we have heard of too many incidents of the kind of criminal driving that destroys lives. There is simply a lack of adequate justice for victims and their families. I am pleased to have spoken to the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) on the issue. I am aware that a number of hon. and right hon. Members are very much involved on this issue. They include my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who has a very recent case in her constituency, and the hon. Members for Gloucester (Richard Graham), for Dudley North (Ian Austin), for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), and for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney); there are also others whose cases I am not aware of. We must all get together and ensure change, because when we do get together, I am sure that we will get change.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
My constituent, whose son was killed in a driving incident nearly a year ago, contacted me very early on with her concerns about lenient sentences. Today, the driver of the car was given a 12-month sentence. I have yet to learn all the details, but on the mother’s behalf, I would like to join my hon. Friend and others here in asking the Minister to look really carefully at sentences for driving offences.
Greg Mulholland
I thank my hon. Friend. That is another example of a sentence, given only today, that surely cannot reflect the reality of killing someone through criminal driving. I use the phrase “criminal driving” very deliberately. This debate is entitled “Dangerous Driving”, but we are all aware that what we are actually talking about are various forms of criminal driving—any form of it that has resulted in someone losing their life. One of the weaknesses in the system is the confusion in both the sentencing framework and the sentencing guidelines as to whether particular forms of criminal driving should be regarded as particularly serious. I will come back to that important point.
I wish to relay to the House briefly the awful case of Jamie Still, who was just 16 years old, with everything to live for. He was a schoolboy in Otley, a market town in my constituency. He was out with friends on new year’s eve in 2010. At around 9 o’clock, when crossing a road in the middle of town, he was hit by a car that was travelling at 50 mph in a 30-mph shopping zone. He was flung through the air. He died later, as a result of the injuries that he sustained, in his mother’s arms; his mother managed to get to see him, but his sister did not. As people were celebrating new year’s eve and seeing in the new year, that family lost a beloved son and brother, and the community lost a young man with an awful lot to give.
Part of the awful injustice is that despite the seriousness of the crime—a crime is clearly what it is—the perpetrator was allowed to continue driving, right up to when he was sentenced. He lived only a few miles away, and was seen driving in Otley—the very place where he ended this young man’s life. It is hard to imagine the distress that that must have caused Jamie’s mother, Karen, and his sister, Rebecca. The man responsible was found to have been twice over the drink-drive limit. Eight months later, he was sentenced to four years, but the sentence was reduced to 12 months after he wrote to the judge—not the family—to say how sorry he was. That followed a two-year reduction in his possible sentence after he pleaded guilty, even though, at previous court hearings, he had not done so.
Rehman Chishti
The hon. Gentleman said that the offender was twice over the limit when the incident occurred. Does he agree that the laws on drink-driving and sentencing are completely inadequate? For example, the maximum first sentence for drink-driving is six months. Whether it is someone’s second, third, fourth, eighth, 10th or 15th offence, the maximum they can get is six months. That is completely unacceptable. I introduced a Bill in the House saying that repeat offenders should get stiffer sentences. Does he agree that that deserves serious consideration?
Greg Mulholland
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. He is quite right. He has exposed to the House yet another area where the law simply does not make sense—it is not common sense.
I have also had to deal with the awful deaths of David and Dorothy Metcalf, who were killed a year after Jamie Still, on new year’s day 2012, on the Stanningley bypass in Leeds. They were an honest, hard-working couple, who had just begun to enjoy retirement. They were hit by a driver—rear-ended—who was speeding at 100 mph. The impact of the crash caused the Metcalfs’ car to be thrown 10 feet in the air before it flipped over. Mr Metcalf died instantly, and Mrs Metcalf some time later in hospital. The driver, Mr Eduard Mereohra, was a Moldovan national in the UK illegally. He had been drinking all night at a party, and even the next morning he had twice the permitted level of alcohol in his system. He had previously been deported for entering the UK illegally, but somehow he had entered the country illegally for a second time. He fled the scene, only to be caught by a heroic bystander, guided by another heroic individual who told the police where the man was fleeing, having witnessed the incident from their house.
When he was caught, Mr Mereohra first tried to deny being the driver. Later he tried to blame David Metcalf for the accident. As if that was not bad enough, to make it even more galling, he had been caught speeding a few weeks beforehand, yet nothing had been flagged up to say that he was here illegally. There was no evidence at all to suggest that he had a valid driving licence, and it could not even be established that he had a national insurance number. I still have not received an answer to that question.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The whole House will be shocked by the two cases that the hon. Gentleman has brought to our attention. In respect of the second case concerning a foreign national who has committed a crime in our country, were his convictions in Moldova, or wherever he resided, brought to the attention of the court before his sentence, or was there a problem obtaining that information?
Greg Mulholland
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Select Committee on Home Affairs, for that intervention. The speeding offence occurred in the UK. Clearly there was a catalogue of failures, which warranted a full investigation, which I asked for and got somewhere with. The most galling thing is that, because Eduard Mereohra is a foreign national in the UK illegally, he is likely to serve only half of his nine-year sentence—frankly, his offence should automatically have triggered a 14-year sentence, given the catalogue of offences—before, quite rightly, he is deported. The trouble is that we can impose no parole conditions on him in a foreign country, so it is likely that he will serve considerably less time than if he were a UK national. That is another blow for the family.
Those are two cases with which I have dealt, both of which shattered the new year for two families in my constituency. We need change because of their experience and the experiences described by right hon. and hon. Members. The first thing that needs to change is at the core of the Jamie Still campaign, which was set up by Rebecca Still, the amazing sister of Jamie Still. As part of her grieving for her big brother, she decided to launch a petition—without even speaking to her mother. I was delighted to take that petition, along with the family, to Downing street last year. At that stage, it had amassed 13,000 signatures.
The first aim of the Jamie Still campaign is to impose—and this is supported by the excellent charity, Brake—a bail condition in cases in which someone is charged with death by dangerous or careless driving that automatically suspends their driving licence. That is important. Brake says:
“Brake believes drivers who kill and maim should be taken off the road once they are charged, as a condition of bail. Prosecutions often take many months to come to court, and in many cases the driver charged with causing the crash is able to continue driving, potentially putting other innocent road users in danger, and often in the same community where they caused carnage. This can be incredibly offensive and upsetting to bereaved families and people injured by the driver, but it also means that other people are being put at risk.
If you are a teacher being investigated for misconduct, you are immediately suspended from teaching in school to protect pupils. If you are a doctor suspected of malpractice, you are immediately suspended from practising medicine to ensure no patients are harmed. Yet if you are charged with killing someone because of your bad driving, you are allowed to keep driving until you are sentenced in court”.
Bob Stewart
I made that point earlier. Not only do I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman that someone should be suspended immediately, but I feel strongly that someone who has killed someone else, whether wilfully or perhaps as a result of drink-driving, should have the stigma of not being allowed to drive legally in our country ever again in their lifetime, as they have taken another life. I think that that is fair.
Greg Mulholland
I thank my hon. Friend, who has raised something, certainly in serious cases, that should be part of the review, to give the sense that those people can never get behind the wheel of a car, which they have turned into a lethal weapon.
The second thing that needs to change—it has already been covered, and I want to add my support—is the failure of sentencing to give real justice to the families. Let me make it clear that this is not an instance of politicians saying, “We want longer sentences per se.” We have a confused and, in some ways, conflicted system for sentencing people. We have too many different offences and a wholly inconsistent approach when it comes to the interpretation of guidelines, and there are weaknesses in those guidelines. After four years and 20 weeks of his sentence, the driver who killed Jamie Still was allowed to move to an open prison, and could drive—potentially in the area where he had committed that crime.
That brings me to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) that it is absurd for driving bans to run concurrently with prison sentences. It is such an obvious, simple and common-sense thing for driving bans to begin on the day on which people can drive again, whether on weekend day release or whether they are out. Certainly, as soon as they have an opportunity to get into a car, those terms must be considered. Far too few people have received the maximum sentence available, even where it is warranted, as in some of the cases that we have mentioned.
Another problem concerns plea bargaining and the fact that far too often the charge for dangerous driving is careless driving. I have great sympathy with Brake’s view that the solution is to get rid of the offence of causing death by careless driving and to have only the offence of dangerous driving. The judge can then sentence on the basis of appropriate guidelines, with a maximum sentence for the worst offences to lower ones for lesser offences.
We have heard of cases today from up and down the country of terrifying, wilful, aggressive, reckless criminal driving being deemed not dangerous, but careless. That is simply dishonest, untrue and wrong. That fails people such as the family of Jamie Still. Due to plea bargaining and due to the CPS deciding that it is easier to obtain a prosecution for death by careless driving, people who are clearly guilty of dangerous driving are allowed to opt for a lower sentence. That is why we need the offence of dangerous driving with adequate sentencing guidelines for all who have driven dangerously, as all the people mentioned clearly have done.
It seems to be police practice, at least in some areas, that someone who has failed a breath test, and is therefore deemed to have broken the law, is not automatically drug tested. There are instances where it is strongly believed, or even known, that someone has taken drugs as well as being over the drink-drive limit, but that is not tested for, because a prosecution will be guaranteed anyway. That is another factor that should be taken into consideration when assessing the severity of the offence, its recklessness, and therefore the sentence.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood said, it is utter nonsense that the maximum sentence for causing death by driving illegally while uninsured or disqualified is two years. That is absurd. In the case of David and Dorothy Metcalf, the driver was in this country illegally and therefore was not allowed to drive here, yet that could not be treated with the severity that it should have been. The fact that someone should not be behind the wheel of a car should be treated as a serious factor in increasing the sentence, as it is in other countries.
At the moment, the families of victims of dangerous, careless driving, who are suffering the most unimaginable loss, are not eligible for compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme, even though they have lost their loved one as a result of criminal activity. Why should the families of the victims of murder or manslaughter be compensated through this important scheme, while the families of those who have died as a result of a car being driven in a dangerous and reckless way as a weapon are not? That is another example in this litany of cases of how, despite improvements, our system still does not adequately give justice to the families who have lost their loved ones.
The lives of two families in my constituency have been devastated by the appalling criminal, reckless driving of others. In neither case did the perpetrators of those crimes receive the punishment that they deserved, and therefore the families did not receive justice. I am delighted that the review has happened, but the message from the House today is simple. We have a year of this Parliament to try to change the law. We all speak on behalf of our constituents, and I hope that our voices will be heard loud and clear and that we get not just a review but the kind of common-sense change that we are talking about today. We need justice for all the families who have been referred to today. We need justice for the Simons family, the Still family and the Metcalf family. The amazing campaigning efforts of Karen Strong, Jamie’s sister, Rebecca and Peter, Jamie’s grandfather, show that these people want change to stop such things happening to other families. We cannot prevent people from getting behind the wheel of a car and behaving in a reckless and criminal fashion, but we can, as a civilised country, sentence them appropriately. All hon. Members from both sides of the House who have had these experiences must get together. I look again to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and ask that we please have some simple, common-sense change, so that in future people will at least know that they will get real justice if they are in the awful situation of losing a loved one to such appalling, reckless, criminal behaviour.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
I too congratulate the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) on securing this important debate. I want to approach the matter in a slightly different way and to talk a little more about what precedes a death caused by dangerous driving. I want to talk about how we do not take driving laws seriously in this country. We still believe that driving is a right and that, often, laws are there to be broken. Consider the attitude of many hon. Members to speed cameras. People talk about them being cash cows, not recognising them as devices to get us to obey the law or that they are often in place because of long campaigns by local residents about the dangers associated with a particular piece of road. We know that excessive speed is a contributory factor to the vast majority of serious accidents.
I want to talk specifically about the number of people legally driving on our roads at this moment in time with more than 12 points on their licence. A person in Liverpool is driving with 47 points on their licence, a woman in Bolton with 27 points on her licence, and 8,000 other people with more than 12 points. What does that say about the seriousness with which we treat driving laws? The law says that people should be banned when they have 12 points, unless they would face exceptional hardship. Exceptional hardship is not about losing one’s job, but it could be about losing one’s home or other people losing their job.
I wonder why the Squeeze singer, Chris Difford, escaped a driving ban after pleading that it would cause exceptional hardship as he would no longer be able to travel the country playing gigs. The 57-year-old, who earns up to £100,000 a year performing around the country, was caught doing 88 mph on a 70 mph road. The son of Tony Christie, famous for his song “Amarillo”, claimed exceptional hardship because he would not be able to drive his dad to gigs after he had totted up 25 points. The jockey Kieren Fallon escaped a driving ban after he claimed that it would cause exceptional hardship because the state of the racing industry was such that he could not afford a full-time driver. Premiership footballer Zak Whitbread who admitted speeding at 97 mph with 17 points escaped a ban after saying that he would not be able to find another football job if he could not drive. There are many other cases of people who have escaped bans. Not all those 8,000 people are famous, but often they are rich enough to pay a good barrister to get them off.
Drivers cannot use the same exceptional hardship plea each time they are taken to court, but there is no central record of which plea has been used. There is also no record of whether drivers are involved in later accidents. If a driver can clock up 47 points, 27 points, or even just 15 points, it seems to me that they have a disregard for the law and therefore pose a risk to other road users.
We need to tackle not only the sentencing of people convicted of causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving, but the whole issue of driving offences and our attitude to the way cars can be used as weapons. We need drivers to realise at every level of offence that bad behaviour will be punished in order to make our roads safer. Some 83% of the people who took The Bolton News survey believe that 12 points should mean that people are banned. We know that young people aged between 15 and 24 are more likely to die in road traffic accidents than as a result of any other single cause.
We also need to do a great deal more to educate people about the consequences of driving badly. I was visited in my surgery on Friday by the brother of a man who was involved in a road traffic accident 30 years ago. A 14-year-old girl was killed in the accident and the man’s brother—I will call him Peter—suffered devastating injuries. He is now unable to walk properly and cannot go out without assistance. More crucially, he has an acquired brain injury that leaves him dependent on care 24 hours a day. Yes, he got compensation to help pay for the carers, but the money is now running out. His life has been ruined by the accident, and the lives of his parents and siblings have been drastically affected. Of course, a young life was also lost in the accident. What makes it worse is the fact that he was partly to blame, because he was speeding—a Jack the lad who thought that he was invincible. Still, a life was ruined and a life was lost.
For me, this is not just about increasing penalties but about enforcing the law and educating young people about the consequences of road accidents. We need to look at graduated licences for young people. We need to ensure that action is taken rapidly on dangerous roads. I have one such road in my constituency where there have been a number of fatalities, but we have been very slow to alter the road to make it safer.
Of course we need justice for those who have lost loved ones. Yes, we need deterrents, but we know that the number of deaths is sadly increasing. We have to take road safety and driving behaviour seriously and do everything in our power across the whole spectrum, from the point at which people start offending behaviour in a car to the final catastrophic effects of a terrible accident. I urge the Minister to do everything possible to see how we could strengthen legislation to try to stop these terrible accidents happening in our communities.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
I am delighted to take part in the debate, principally because I have been asked to by a constituent, Mrs Jacqui Watson, who had the terrible plight of seeing her husband, Andrew Watson, killed when his motorbike collided with a tractor that was being driven by a 16-year-old boy. I find it incredible that such huge vehicles can be driven on our roads by 16-year-olds.
It was a fine, sunny evening when Andrew, who was 50 years old and had 34 years of motorcycling experience, was driving along the A515 in Newborough, near Burton, along with his son Thomas, who is 21, and their friend Jason Hudson. They were all experienced motorcyclists. They came over the brow of the hill and collided with a tractor being driven by the 16-year-old boy, who had his 17-year-old girlfriend in the cab.
The police later found that the tractor was wider than the legal limit for a vehicle driven under a category F licence by a 16-year-old, but the Crown Prosecution Service, in its wisdom, decided that because it was only marginally bigger, because the other tractor that the boy usually drove had broken down, and because he was apparently of good character, it was unable to prosecute him for any offence.
I find it incredible that in this country we do not trust 16-year-olds to drive anything larger than a 50 cc motorbike. We do not trust them to drive a Ford Fiesta or a Mini, yet we allow them, under category F licences, to drive vehicles that can be 2.4 metres wide; to put that into context, a Ford Fiesta is less than 2 metres wide. Those tractors are huge vehicles that can go at well over 50 mph, yet we are putting them in the hands of 16-year-olds. That cannot make sense.
We heard earlier about how a vehicle can be a weapon in the wrong hands. If that is true, how can we allow 16-year-olds to drive such large vehicles? The law allows them not only to drive such a tractor, but to tow a trailer behind it, so long as it is no wider than 2.45 metres. In the wrong hands, they are death traps on the roads, yet the law allows them to be driven in that way. Of course, much of our licensing in the UK is determined by EU directives that dictate that we must have a common approach across the whole European Union in relation to licensing, but category F is specifically a national competence. It is specifically something that the UK Government can take action on.
It will not surprise the Minister to learn that the lives of Jacqui and her son Thomas were devastated by the loss of a beloved husband and father. The accident was of such severity that two air ambulances were needed at the scene, along with two traditional ambulances. No family should have to go through the plight and turmoil of being told that they have lost a husband or a father as a result of a road traffic accident. Accidents will always happen, and vehicles will always fall into the wrong hands, but it is up to the Government and to us as parliamentarians to do all we can to mitigate that and ensure that drivers on our roads are proportionately trained, that they are driving within parameters that we have agreed and that they are as safe as possible.
I do not believe that it can be argued that it is safe to allow a 16-year-old to drive a tractor that is 2.4 metres wide and can travel at 50 or 60 mph on our roads. I urge the Minister to look at those laws, ensure that he is satisfied that they are safe and help ensure that no more families have to go through what the Watsons have gone through.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) has made some moving points. I recall being 16 and offering to help with the harvest. I was not used to the hard work and ripped my hands to shreds within a few hours. I was completely useless at baling hay and so was given the job of driving the tractor. I had no training, as I had not even started learning to drive a car. I think that 16-year-olds, like me at the time, need that greater degree of protection.
I also remember in 2004 offering to buy someone who was campaigning for me a beer. He expressed surprise, because I had absolutely no idea that he was 16. I bought him a diet Coke and said, “Not only can I not buy you a beer, but you cannot even drive.” He replied, “No, but I can fly.” He had a private licence and flew out of Southend airport. My point is that there should perhaps be a review of consistency and risk, as well as about what should be done.
This has been a great debate. It has not been difficult for you to keep order, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it has been difficult in other ways. I know that I shy away from some debates in the House of Commons that I would find too emotional. It is very brave of you to be here today, so thank you for that.
The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) mentioned that this has been a very unpartisan debate. The very moving comments made about Burton or Bolton might have been made about anywhere by Members on both sides of the House.
I was particularly perturbed by the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), who talked not about individual but corporate actions in relation to the responsibility of schools. That made me reflect on schools in Rochford and Southend East. State schools in Southend have very good protections for passengers from errant vehicles, but that cannot be said about private schools. We should perhaps look not only at private schools, to make sure that they are treated in a similar way to public ones, but at nurseries. As the boundary between the definitions of public and private schools merges in the form of free schools, such protections may become even more important.
I want to speak in today’s debate because of a tragic incident that happened in 2009 at 9.45 at night only a few hundred yards away from where I live. With my young children, it had been a particularly difficult day and—unimaginably, once I had found out what had happened so close to my house—I slept through the entire incident, and was unable to provide any support at the time. Subsequently, I hope that I have been able to do a few things.
The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) struggled to find the right words about this being a “good” debate, but we should not shy away from using such a word. Clearly, we all have horrific examples to bring to the House, but perhaps some good can come from those examples. That is why I am speaking about what happened at 9.45 pm on Friday 6 March 2009.
A 17-year-old pupil from Southend grammar school was driving a Citroen C1. That evening, there had been a birthday in the area. He had only recently passed his driving test, and he was showing off. He was attempting a handbrake turn to impress a group of about 14 of his friends. The police now estimate that he was travelling at about 47 mph in a residential road. He simply did not have the skills to control the vehicle, and he hit all the teenagers. Teenagers who gather and go from place to place for a birthday celebration tend to chat; getting from A to B is as much a part of the birthday celebrations as the actual outing to a location. Some of the individuals were knocked through a garden fence, and others were thrown as high as 15 feet into the air. The noise was evidently enormous, despite its not rousing me from my sleep.
Thankfully, the accident happened opposite a doctors’ surgery, and several of the doctors lived in the surrounding area. The fact that they were able to get to the scene within minutes lessened the final impact on those people. Fortuitously, some of the students or individuals who could get up off the ground and help had recently been through first aid training. Again, that may very well have saved a few people.
Ten youngsters were defined by the hospital as seriously injured, of whom eight had head injuries and broken limbs, and two had significant physical injuries. Eleanor McGrath, who was 14—she is the individual to whom I particularly wish to draw attention—was fatally injured and, sadly, her life support machine was switched off after the accident. Another individual, a young man of 16, has been profoundly physically and mentally impacted. A whole generation of people from Southend have been affected.
Although no one would wish such an event on anyone, the accident has had a profound and positive impact on a generation of people in Southend. Trying to find some rhyme or reason behind the event, Eleanor’s friends decided that they wanted to do something. They launched an awareness campaign called Driving with Grace—Eleanor’s middle name was Grace—and they sent a DVD to all schools in the United Kingdom. The campaign received support from our local Essex police and the Safer Roads Foundation. Indeed, many secondary schools still use the DVD now, and Eleanor’s friends received an award for their work from the police in 2010. Road crashes are the most common form of death and serious injury for young people. The Driving with Grace campaign seeks to highlight the importance, for someone driving, of thinking about what they are doing before they act.
Under-25s make up only a tenth of the population, but a quarter of the number of drivers killed on the roads, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, so they are clearly a massive danger. Far too many people, when they pop out to drive, do not feel that they are in a powerful weapon that they risk killing with: they have no idea of such possibilities. As young men, they feel invincible. I think that I can say that; I am sure young women also feel invincible behind the wheel. In my experience of observing drivers in my part of the country, Southend, I am certainly aware that there is a particular problem with young drivers.
Eleanor’s parents have engaged in extensive research over several years. They did not leap to react immediately, but have thought deliberatively about what needs to be done and have tried to be as constructive as possible. When people suffer such tragedies, they sometimes react by expecting absolutely everything to be done, including by encroaching on people’s liberties and incurring costs, but Eleanor’s parents have been very responsible. Specifically, they believe in the graduated driving licence, which was mentioned earlier—that a compulsory P plate should be displayed for three years after someone passes their test, signalling a probation period for new drivers.
People who have just passed their driving test can feel on top of the world—invincible—and it is a little less macho to have a big “P” on the back of their 1-litre banger or on a new car. I hope that that might change attitudes. I am sure that when hon. Members see a learner, they give them a little extra space. If they cut us up by accident, stall or are a little over-cautious, we think, “Well, I was there once.” The moment people pass their driving test and the L plate is removed, however, we expect them to be equally competent as a driver who has perhaps driven for 20, 30 or 40 years and passed an advanced driving test. The probationary plates not only allow other people to exercise a little more care around such drivers, but demonstrate to their peer group that they are still young adults and are still learning.
Graduated driving licence systems are in place in several states in the US, and in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, Finland, France and Northern Ireland. We do not need to make up a new system to find a proven one that works. I call on the Government to introduce, initially, a simple three-year system, but there are several other options. In different areas, features of systems include compulsory logging of the initial 120 hours of driving experience, a minimum period of driving on certain types of roads or a two-stage probationary period, which in some places is recognised by the use of P1 and P2 plates. In some places, there are peer passenger restrictions, so that only a certain number of people of a certain age are allowed in the car after dark or late at night. I urge caution in considering that option, because it would have other implications such as young people being left on the streets. There are certainly many options for the Government to consider if they do not want a simple three-year probationary period.
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), has been very good on this issue. I visited him with Eleanor’s parents at the beginning of the month and left him with a probationary plate to put on his desk as a reminder of Eleanor and of what I expect of him, which is to bring forward a solution. I am reassured to see the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), who is a very able Minister, on the Front Bench. I know that he will take these matters just as seriously. I ask him to speak to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, to ensure that these issues are joined up.
Being a wise Minister, I am sure that my hon. Friend will not have a knee-jerk reaction, leap to the Dispatch Box and announce 10 of the excellent ideas that we have heard today as Government policy, however tempting that may be. All too often with this type of debate, changes drip out subsequently. I ask him not to write to Members who have contributed to the debate straight afterwards, but to write to us six months to the day and say, “After calm reflection, this is what has happened over the past six months as a result of the debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) and the contributions that were made by Members across the House.” That would be a worthwhile initiative and I hope that the Minister will consider taking part in it.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak at the end of this debate on the law on dangerous driving. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) on securing the debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting such a good example of a non-party political debate on an issue that, literally in this case, affects life and death.
The debate began with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood telling us the desperately sad story of Ross and Clare Simons, which he pieced together with the precision of the professional historian that he is. He rightly left it to us to imagine, all too vividly, the emotions involved for the family and friends.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) described the death of the mother-in-law of the Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair before you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as that of William Avery-Wright. We have also heard from the hon. Members for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), for Dudley North (Ian Austin) and for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths). Lastly, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) told us the ghastly story of Eleanor. All those contributions will have moved everybody in the House. We must not forget all the other Members who are not here, but who have similar horror stories to tell from their constituencies.
In 2012, 377 motorists were found guilty of an offence that resulted in a fatality and 116 were found guilty of causing death through dangerous driving. That is almost 500 unnecessary deaths a year or almost three every two days. One of those deaths, which occurred almost exactly two years ago in March 2012, was that of my constituent, Paul Stock, who was affectionately known as Gloucester’s best welder. He was killed while crossing a road in Tredworth with his wife, Mandy, by a man called Graham Godwin. Mr Godwin was riding the scooter that caused the death while disqualified, uninsured and speeding, and there was a female riding pillion on the one-seat scooter. He had multiple previous driving convictions and said in court that the law did not apply to him. The judge described him as
“an absolute menace on the road”
and gave him what he explained was the maximum possible sentence—just two years in prison.
Paul’s widow, Mandy, later wrote to me saying that the law needed to be changed to reflect the devastating consequences of such a crime, whether it causes death or serious injury, when the sentences for careless or dangerous driving can be up to 14 years, as other Members have mentioned. By extraordinary coincidence, I had the opportunity to raise the matter at Prime Minister’s questions almost immediately afterwards. In responding to my question, the Prime Minister said:
“It is important that we give our courts a sense that when there are appalling, extraordinary crimes, they can take exemplary action. That is important in a justice system.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 904.]
I was fortunate that Mandy’s sister, Sue, was a constituent of the Prime Minister. They were therefore both able to meet him at one of his surgeries not long after that. I was also grateful that the Secretary of State for Justice allowed Mandy, Sue and me to see him shortly afterwards.
There is no doubt that everyone in the House agrees that the current sentencing guidelines are inadequate. The question is what should be done and when. Although one or two Members, notably the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), have made some interesting points about wider issues relating to driving offences, I want to focus on the sentencing guidelines for cases in which people die as a direct result of behaviour that comes under the general heading of dangerous driving. In particular, I want to speak about situations in which drivers have caused death while uninsured and disqualified. I believe that we should let judges decide what sentence is merited when Mr Godwin lifts two fingers not just to Paul’s widow, Mandy, but to our whole system of justice by saying that the law of the land does not apply to him. I believe that we need consistency in seeing that justice is done and that maximum flexibility should be left to the judge to interpret how severe the sentence should be for individuals who have caused death.
I am in no doubt that all Members agree on that simple proposition. I am in no doubt that the Minister and the Secretary of State for Justice agree. I am in little doubt that they intend to bring legislation forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East suggested that Ministers should mull this matter over for the next six months. I do not believe that further consideration is needed. Ministers are well aware of the issue and of what needs to be done. Therefore, I urge them not to linger. I know that the Secretary of State had hoped to bring new legislation before Parliament this spring. I hope that the Minister will confirm today that that is what they intend to do. The time has come for all those who have been mentioned in this debate and all the constituents of Members who are not here to feel that the law is on their side and that judges will be able, where appropriate, to sentence people much more severely than they can at present.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a privilege to respond for the Opposition to this debate on a serious and tragic subject. Dangerous driving is a difficult issue that the law has wrestled with for a long time. It has legal, practical and, above all, human consequences, and it is about certain people’s relationship with the motor car, which we do not seem to be able to get right even after more than a century.
Today’s debate has illustrated that Members of all parties can rise to the occasion and meet the challenge. The issue brings together our role as lawmakers, our duty to our constituents and our ability to campaign for change. The nine speeches that we have heard have shown exactly how Members can bring those elements together. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) for securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee for permitting it. He began with the case of Ross and Clare Simons, which set the tone for the debate about how horrific the consequences of deaths and serious injuries caused by dangerous driving can be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) spoke about individual cases in his constituency, as all Members did, but he also mentioned cycling, to which I will return in a moment. I know that he has championed in the House not just cycling but the issue of the particular risks faced by cyclists.
The hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) spoke bravely about his 13-year-old constituent William Avery-Wright, and without fear or favour spoke about what he described as the negligence and poor treatment that that young man and his family had received. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) talked about her constituent Robert Gaunt. Only about two weeks ago, she tabled a private Member’s Bill that would deal with many of the issues that we have discussed today.
We heard a detailed speech by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). He was particularly moving when he talked about the case of Jamie Still and others that, with his usual assiduousness, he has made himself the champion of. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) talked about people who have been driving when they should have been disqualified, and who should never have been behind the wheel in the first place. She also talked about how we can deal with driving standards, which I shall come to in a moment, and particularly about the graduated driving licence.
The hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) surprised some of us with his description of the tragic death of Andrew Watson at the hands of a 16-year-old driver who was driving a vehicle that he was clearly unable to cope with, whether or not he should have been permitted to have it. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) described a particularly tragic case, which showed how a single incidence of dangerous driving can traumatise not just a family or an individual but an entire community. Finally, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) described his constituent’s tragic case and then brought us back to the issue of sentencing policy, to which I will now turn.
Each case is unique and creates a lasting wound for the friends, family and community of the victim, but this is not a new issue. We have been dealing with it for decades. The North report, 25 years ago, was a full, clear and serious report that pointed out that the courts were not dealing with serious driving cases with the appropriate severity, particularly when there were aggravating factors such as the driver being under the influence of drink or drugs. In criminal practice at that time—I think the Minister is old enough to remember this, and I certainly am—the issue of consequence was often discussed. The culpability of the driver was not properly balanced with the consequences. We have moved on substantially from that. For example, we now have the offences of dangerous driving, with a maximum two-year sentence, causing serious injury by dangerous driving, with a maximum five-year sentence, and causing death by dangerous driving, with a maximum 14-year sentence. Parliament has given the courts the ability to deal appropriately with the degree of consequence as well as the degree of culpability. Both are relevant factors, but we have moved away from the era in which the primary consideration was simply the quality of the driving.
Greg Mulholland
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for his helpful comments. On that point, may I bring to his and the House’s attention the problem of the difference between the charges of causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving? The latter is when the driving fell below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver, and the former is when it fell far below that standard. As we have heard today, there are some cases—I believe that there are many, and I have asked the Minister for a review—in which the driving has clearly fallen below that standard, yet people are charged with causing death by careless driving, not by dangerous driving.
Mr Slaughter
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The definitions of careless and dangerous driving are relatively new, having been introduced to try to correct defects in the reckless driving law. I will say a bit more about maximum sentences and sentencing policy, but I was coming first to the point that he has just made.
Many problems arise not necessarily from sentencing policy from Crown Prosecution Service guidelines and charging policy. CPS guidelines have moved on again, because as with every type of case, the CPS has to consider the realistic prospect of conviction as well as the public interest. In the past, it perhaps did not examine driving cases with the same assiduousness as other criminal cases. I believe that that has begun to change. The consequence was that charges were either not brought at all or brought at a lower level, because the CPS did not believe that there was a realistic prospect of success. In part, that may have been due to the influence of public opinion about standards and quality of driving, which has changed a great deal over the years, as it has in relation to driving under the influence.
Richard Graham
Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the general public’s reaction, which he has described, may have been exacerbated by the fact that in 2011, the latest year for which we have complete data, of the 20 cases of those found guilty of causing death while uninsured or disqualified, the average custodial sentence actually served was only 8.4 months?
Mr Slaughter
I will come back to the issue of sentencing—the offence that the hon. Gentleman mentions carries a much lower maximum sentence than the ones that I have mentioned—but first I wish to explain my point about charging policy, which still leaves something to be desired. It is not a straightforward matter. First, there is the question of the degree to which the driving has fallen below the standard of competent driving, as the hon. Member for Leeds North West mentioned. That judgment needs to be made by the CPS.
In addition, having decided what level of offence to charge, there is the issue of seriousness regarding the quality of driving, and that of aggravating or mitigating factors, particularly if they pertain to the individual accused. Such matters are not straightforward, and again, on occasion, prosecutors err on the side of caution when deciding what to charge and what are their prospects of success. In the most serious driving cases it is open to the CPS to charge someone with manslaughter, but that happens very rarely.
Hon. Members from across the House have reviewed the nature of offences—again, in response to pressure from parliamentarians and the general public over time—and a number of changes were made by the previous Labour Government. In particular, under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving was increased from 10 to 14 years, as it was for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs. The Road Safety Act 2006 introduced new offences of causing death by careless driving or by driving illegally. Those offences attract lower sentences—five years, I think, in the first case, and two years in the second—but they are new offences that came into effect in 2008.
Although it concerns a more recent offence, perhaps for completeness I should mention the offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, which again attracts a maximum five-year sentence. That was introduced through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, and both the Minister and I had the pleasure of serving on the Bill Committee. That offence was contained in one of the few clauses of the Bill that attracted unanimous support in Committee, and it arose out of a private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). That is significant not because he is also a doughty campaigner on these issues, but because many individual advancements in legislation have come about through private Member’s Bills or the actions of individual Members on behalf of their constituents, and indeed through debates such as this.
There have been substantial changes and increases in maximum sentences. That allows for new sentencing guidelines, and for longer—and indeed more careful—sentences to be given, since all the factors I have described must be taken into account by the sentencer. New offences were created where lacunae in the law were identified, which is right. The changes in law under the previous Labour Government led to the substantial revision of sentencing guidelines in 2008. I will not go through those in detail, but they substantially increased some of the guideline sentences and gave clear instructions to the courts about how aggravating or mitigating factors should be dealt with.
Although the sentence of just a few years for taking a life will always seem inadequate to the family of the victim, I suspect that what often causes most concern to families are the sentences handed out for some of the “lesser” offences such as causing death by careless driving or while driving illegally. Those sentences can be measured in months, or perhaps just one or two years, and that will never seem an adequate punishment for the taking of a life.
As I have said, steps were taken a decade ago, and more recently, and the ball is now firmly in the court of this Government. Sentencing guidelines are being looked at again, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. I know that—as always—he will give a careful and thoughtful response about when and where he believes the sentencing guidelines are going, and say what is in the Government’s mind regarding improvements in the law.
Before I conclude, I wish to pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East. Although we have focused narrowly—quite properly, as this is the subject of the debate—on the issue of dangerous driving and on lenient sentencing in particular, one cannot look at death on the road in isolation because it must be considered in the round. One must also look at prevention.
Safety on the UK’s roads has improved immeasurably over the past 40 years, and we have gone from having almost 8,000 deaths a year in the 1970s to around 1,700 a year—a phenomenal improvement. That is against a background around the world of 1.3 million deaths due to road traffic accidents—I saw those statistics today in The Economist—the vast majority in developing countries. There are now more deaths from road traffic accidents around the world than from tuberculosis or malaria. While we can congratulate ourselves a little on the improvements in this country, there is still more to do.
Numbers of driving offences and the use of the motor car as a weapon of destruction are increasing elsewhere, and there are particular problems in this country that we have not fully addressed. One is the issue of young drivers, who account for only 5%—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Is the hon. Gentleman coming towards the end of his remarks, because he has been speaking for quite a long time? Normally there are 10 minutes, maximum 15, for the shadow Minister in a Backbench Business Committee debate, but he has gone over that. Perhaps he will conclude briefly.
Mr Slaughter
I was given 15 minutes, I think, by the Backbench Business Committee, but having taken 18, another minute is the most I will stretch to.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman should not chance his luck. He is over his time and we need to hear the Minister as well. I would be grateful if he could conclude his remarks.
Mr Slaughter
I am most grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Yes, we have a better record and a long way to go, particularly on young drivers—I mentioned the graduated driving licence. We could do a lot more on road safety, particularly for cyclists. The Minister will have seen the horrific figure of six cyclist deaths on the roads in London in a two-week period just before Christmas.
I hope that, in responding, the Minister addresses the matter in the round—clearly, he will deal with it primarily from a Ministry of Justice perspective. I hope that he can give us some comfort on the central point that all hon. Members have raised: how can we deter and punish those who take lives on our roads, and how can we in some way mitigate the consequences for the sad and tragic victims and their families about whom we have heard in the debate?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) on securing the debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to discuss this matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) has said, it is hard to take pleasure in such a debate, but it is right that we take pride in it. It has been an excellent debate. All hon. Members who have spoken have approached the matter in exactly the right spirit—they have spoken with both passion and a great deal of justified emotion.
As hon. Members have made clear, road traffic offences often have extraordinarily serious consequences—poor driving behaviour can result in injuries and fatalities. In these cases, the effect is felt not simply by the individual, but by their families. We have heard a great number of examples. We have heard about Ross and Clare Simons, Rob Jeffries, William Avery-Wright, Robert Gaunt, Jamie Still, David and Dorothy Metcalf, Andrew Watson, Eleanor McGrath and Paul Stock. Many others have been mentioned, but many have not. Some were old, some were young, and they were from up and down the country. It is important that we recognise that their sacrifices need to be discussed in the context of the criminal justice system and the system beyond it.
Hon. Members will understand that I cannot comment on the specific details of any sentencing case, because specific sentences are decided independently of the Government by the courts. In deciding what sentence to impose, the courts must take account of all the details of the offence and the offender, including both aggravating and mitigating factors, and give consideration to the culpability of the offender and the harm caused. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) has made clear, the cases are difficult, and it is not easy to draw rules and regulations from individual examples. He is right. The courts have recourse to sentencing guidelines, which have been mentioned a number of times in the debate. I will come back to them in a moment.
Road traffic offences are particularly difficult because the harm caused often outweighs the offender’s culpability. However, the law seeks to punish those who cause death or injury on our roads proportionately to the blameworthiness of the driver. A variety of different agencies and organisations must play their part in such cases. We expect them to do so properly and with sensitivity. Those agencies are both within and without the criminal justice system, including, of course, schools, in some cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) spoke movingly of deaths occurring on or near school premises. Knowing him as I do, I know that he will almost certainly have raised those matters with colleagues at the Department for Education, but just in case, I will ensure that those colleagues are fully aware of the points he has made.
Similarly, there are matters of licensing to consider. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), is in the Chamber. I know he will take close account of what has been said on a variety of licensing issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) made serious points on the vehicles that people of different ages are permitted to drive, which I know will be considered further. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) made points on the need for a compulsory probationary period for drivers, which will be considered very carefully.
The Crown Prosecution Service and its involvement in bringing the right charges were mentioned. The charges considered by courts are dependent on the charges that the CPS chooses to bring. That will be based on its assessment of the quality of a defendant’s driving both preceding and at the time of impact. The CPS must give careful consideration when making charging decisions in cases involving driving that has led to a death. In deciding whether to charge death by dangerous driving or death by careless driving, it is the standard of driving to which prosecutors must have careful regard. As other hon. Members have explained, to amount to dangerous driving, the driving in question must be deemed to be far below what would have been obvious to a competent and careful driver. For careless driving, the driving needs to have fallen below the standards of a competent and prudent driver. Of course, each case should be looked at individually and decided on its own facts. Many things will play a part in those considerations.
The hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) mentioned cycling. He was right to do so; cyclists are particularly vulnerable. I will look carefully, as he urges me to do, at British Cycling’s recommendations on the matter, as will colleagues in the Department for Transport.
It is right that we consider what happens after a charge has been brought but before a case comes to trial. A number of right hon. and hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), made points on the need for interim driving bans between conviction and sentence, and for bail conditions to be considered. Hon. Members will know that the courts have those options. I would hope that they are carefully considered in all appropriate cases.
A great deal of debate was concentrated on sentencing. Successive Parliaments—indeed, successive Governments, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith said—have worked to ensure that we have a substantial framework of driving offences and penalties on the statute book. This Government, too, are committed to ensuring that the framework continues to provide the courts with the range of offences and penalties that they need to deal with the whole range of unacceptable driving behaviour on our roads.
At the most serious end of the framework, fatalities hold a special place in criminal law, as they should, and robust penalties are available where a death is caused by bad driving. The most culpable offenders—those who have caused death by dangerous driving, or by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs—face penalties of up to 14 years in prison. They are also disqualified from driving for a minimum of two years—often for much longer—and have to sit an extended retest before regaining a licence.
A number of hon. Members—my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), the hon. Member for Dudley North and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West—made points relating to the length of driving bans, and in particular what happens when a defendant serves a custodial sentence. It is the case that the courts should consider and take into account the length of any custodial sentence when fixing the appropriate length of driving ban. That is for precisely the reason mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West and others: it clearly would not be right, in appropriate cases, for all of the ban to be served in custody.
Where death is caused and there is sufficient evidence of gross negligence, drivers can be charged with the offence of manslaughter, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Following the 2005 review of road traffic offences, two new offences, to which the hon. Member for Hammersmith rightly referred, were created. Since 2008, they have been available to prosecutors to deal with drivers who cause death by careless driving, or who cause death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured. The maximum penalties for these offences are, respectively, five years’ and two years’ imprisonment, and they have a minimum disqualification period of a year. Again, the court has the discretion to order a retest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West urges us to abolish the offence of causing death by careless driving. I understand his argument, but he will appreciate that there are, of course, risks. The offence was created because in many cases the choices available to a prosecutor were either to bring a charge of causing death by dangerous driving, or a simple charge of careless driving where a death had resulted. If prosecutors felt unable to prove dangerous driving under the definitions we have discussed, they were left with what many would consider the inadequate remedy of a simple charge of careless driving. That was the reason why the offence was brought in, and we have to think through very carefully the consequences of removing it from the statute book.
Greg Mulholland
I thank the Minister for giving way and for his useful round-up of the debate. Does he not accept that the greater ease of getting a potential conviction for death by careless driving is being misused, because there are cases—I would like to discuss some with him—where people’s driving clearly fell far below the standard and was clearly wilful and grossly dangerous? I believe it is being misused. That is why Brake believes it would be more sensible to categorise them all as dangerous driving, and then have appropriate guidelines and appropriate sentencing from less to maximum.
Jeremy Wright
As I said at the outset, it is difficult for me to comment on particular cases, and it is for Crown prosecutors to decide what the appropriate charge should be. We would all expect, however, that where they feel they are able to prove that driving fell far below the required standard, dangerous driving would be the appropriate charge; or, indeed, as others have said, in cases of gross negligence manslaughter would be the appropriate charge. The difficulty is that where prosecutors believe that in their judgment it is not possible to prove that driving fell far below the required standard, were we to remove this offence from the statute book they would simply be left with the charge of careless driving, which, of course, has considerably lower penalties.
Mr Buckland
I wonder whether my hon. Friend could widen the issue. Prior to the change in the law in 1991, the old offence of reckless driving used to apply—the subjective test. There were a lot of problems with that test, which is why we went to an objective test, but does he think that there is any merit in looking again, 20 years on, at whether there are some merits in either what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West says, or looking again at a subjective test?
Jeremy Wright
There is merit in listening carefully to all that has been said in this excellent and thoughtful debate, and it is right that I consider many of the ideas and thoughts expressed in it, so I hear exactly what my hon. Friend says.
On ensuring that the law is effective, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith said, we have introduced a variety of new offences over the years to fill perceived gaps. We have created a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, ensuring that dangerous drivers are punished appropriately when their actions have serious consequences short of death. The new offence fills the previous gap by specifically targeting cases in which dangerous driving results in serious injury. In addition, the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which received Royal Assent on 25 April, introduced the new offence of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of certain controlled drugs in excess of set limits. The new drug-driving offence will improve the law available for tackling the problem of drug-driving, which presents a significant road safety risk. That resulted from the campaigning of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) and the death of one of his constituents. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith said, many of these changes come from such sources.
The Sentencing Council, which has been mentioned several times, has developed guidelines for the courts when dealing with these offences. It is important to recognise the distinction between the Sentencing Council’s guidelines and maximum sentences, the latter being for the Government and Parliament to set. The Sentencing Council sets guidelines for how courts ought to approach sentencing within those maximums, and has developed guidelines for the courts when dealing with this type of offence. Summary offences, including dangerous driving and careless driving, are dealt with within the magistrates courts sentencing guidelines—most recently updated in 2012—and the sentencing guidelines on causing death by driving were published by the then Sentencing Guidelines Council in 2008. The latter covers the offences of causing death by dangerous or careless driving as well as causing death by dangerous driving while under the influence of drink or drugs and causing death by driving unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured.
Several Members have referred to those sentencing guidelines, so it might be worth my drawing their attention to one or two specifics within them. First, on the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West, it is an additional aggravating factor—in fact, the first in the list—if a person has previous convictions for motoring offences, particularly offences that involve bad driving or the excessive consumption of alcohol or drugs before driving. Causing death by dangerous driving while disqualified, which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood mentioned, is also on the list. On that list are offences committed at the same time such as driving other than in accordance with the terms of a valid licence, driving while disqualified, driving without insurance, taking a vehicle without consent and driving a stolen vehicle. These matters are in the existing guidelines.
Greg Mulholland
I am grateful to the Minister for his thoroughness and his generosity in giving way, but he has slightly missed my point, which was not about previous convictions, but cases where someone is breathalysed, given a blood test and shown to be over the drink-driving limit and therefore to have broken that law. In such cases, people are not always also drug-tested, even if drugs are suspected, and that is quite wrong. If someone is over the limit and also under the influence of drugs, those two things make the act more reckless and more criminal, and they should have a higher sentence.
Jeremy Wright
Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, who will recognise that the addition in the statute book of the drug-driving offence makes it more likely that that will be considered. My point about the guidelines is that consideration is also given to other offences committed at the same time as the offence of causing death by dangerous driving.
Richard Graham
The Minister is correct about the provisions, but if someone has caused death by driving when uninsured, disqualified and under the influence of alcohol, the maximum is still two years.
Jeremy Wright
Yes, indeed, but that of course is a separate point. As I hope I indicated, I have listened carefully to what has been said, specifically about sentencing for the offence of causing death while disqualified from driving. We will take away everything that has been said, but I have paid particular attention to his point. The Justice Secretary wrote to the Sentencing Council—as it now is—asking it to review the death by driving guideline, and it has agreed to include that in its programme of work.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I apologise for not being present earlier. Is there a reciprocal agreement between this country and the Northern Ireland Assembly that if someone is disqualified from driving in Northern Ireland, that disqualification will apply in England, and vice versa?
Jeremy Wright
We have striven to ensure that disqualifications, wherever they take place, are reflected in the knowledge of the courts here. I am sure that I will be able to give the hon. Gentleman more specific reassurance in writing, but I am confident that what he says is correct. I am sure that those of us on this side of the water would want to know about disqualifications on the other side.
Susan Elan Jones
When does the Minister expect the review to be completed? Given what he said earlier, may I ask whether there would be room in the legislative timetable if we needed to reconsider the maximum penalties?
Jeremy Wright
As I said earlier, the review of sentencing guidelines that the Sentencing Council has been asked to conduct is not a review of maximum penalties, which it would be for the Government to consider. The Government will certainly consider all that has been said today, including what has been said by Members on both sides of the House about maximum penalties. We would need to ensure that any work done by the Sentencing Council was co-ordinated with what the Government were doing.
We will, of course, make every effort to make legislative time available for measures that we believe are urgent. Having emerged blinking into the daylight from the usual channels into my current job, I know better than to commit parliamentary time for any purpose, but I will make every effort to ensure that when we believe that there is a good case for change, space will be found.
Even in the context of this very worthwhile debate, we should take account of figures released by the Department for Transport. According to those figures, between 2011 and 2012 the number of people killed in road accidents reported to the police fell by 7.7%, to 1,754. That is the lowest figure on record. The number of casualties fell by 4%, and there was also a fall in the number of people who were seriously injured. That does not, of course, mean that there is any room for complacency. Every death and every serious injury is a tragedy, and it remains vital for us to reduce the number of people who are killed and seriously injured on our roads. I agree with the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) that we must think about education as well as enforcement. There is a great deal more to be said about that, but it will not fit neatly within the confines of this debate.
As I have said, we are continuing to look closely at the legislative framework relating to serious driving offences, and we are considering whether the current maximum penalties reflect the seriousness of offending behaviour. I have listened carefully to what has been said this evening, and I will consider it all further. I entirely understand the calls for urgency that we heard from, for example, my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and for Leeds North West, but I am also conscious of what I consider to be the wise advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East. It is important for us to consider these matters in the round, and to do so in a way that does not create discrepancies in the sentencing system. We must ensure that we understand fully how we can adapt our sentencing practice to deal with cases such as the many terrible ones that have been raised this evening, and to deal fairly and sensibly with driving offences such as those that we have discussed.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, and even more grateful for the excellent way in which Members have approached the subject. I will consider carefully what they have said.
Chris Skidmore
I would like to sum up this Back-Bench debate by first thanking the Minister and the shadow Minister for their positive, constructive comments. I particularly want to thank the Minister for agreeing to look closely at what has been said today. Eight hon. Members have spoken, and a further eight have made positive interventions, and I hope that the transcript of the debate will be sent to the Sentencing Council.
We have heard some horrendous stories of lives, often young ones, being tragically cut short, often by cowards driving dangerously under the influence of drugs or drink. Some of those drivers were already disqualified, some were speeding, some fled the scene of the accident. We have also heard about the paltry sentences that are handed down to those cowards. I was shocked to discover from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) that a sentence of only 12 months had been handed down in her constituency only today. If only one question emerges from today’s debate, it is this: why should we as parliamentarians tolerate such short sentences for such devastating crimes?
At the same time, however, we have all seen the glimmer of human spirit that has shone through in the form of the bravery of those families who, though they are living with unspeakable pain and tragedy, are determined to campaign for justice for their loved ones. I mentioned that today was the first anniversary of the deaths of Ross and Clare Simons. Their families are at this moment watching our debate on a wide-screen television in the Cherry Tree pub in Oldland Common. They are determined to ensure that they get justice for Ross and Clare. Indeed, that is the title of their campaign. They know that nothing will bring Ross and Clare back, just as nothing will bring back Jamie, William, Eleanor, Paul, Robert, Andrew, Rob, David and Dorothy, all of whom have been mentioned in the debate today. So what will justice involve? What are the families of Ross and Clare, and of all the others who have been killed in tragic incidents, fighting for? Justice must mean that we, at the highest level in the House, must ensure that those people did not die in vain.
This debate has helped to give those families a voice here in Parliament, but justice is not merely about words. I have heard extremely wise, intelligent arguments and policies being put forward today, and the Government have kindly agreed to consider them, but justice is not only words; justice is action, and action is change. We need to change the law to ensure that we have tougher penalties for those who drive dangerously, for those who kill and maim and, above all, for those who will not take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. We as Members of Parliament must take responsibility for ensuring that those consequences are fully addressed.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the law on dangerous driving.
Business without Debate
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
human rights (Joint committee)
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Procedure
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Work and pensions
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Nottingham to Lincoln Railway Line
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Ind)
May I thank your office, Madam Deputy Speaker, for making it possible for me to have this debate today? I should also like to thank the right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have supported the project. I will certainly allow them time to speak later, if they so wish. I thank East Midlands Trains for being helpful and supportive. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), who has already given a lot of his valuable time to listening to what I and others have said about this matter. Most notably, I have received support from the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney), who came with me to see the Minister. I also thank the Minister for being present tonight, when I am sure he has other things that he would like to be doing—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
Dinner in 10 minutes, please.
Patrick Mercer
As the Minister said, his dinner is in 10 minutes, so I will be as brief as possible.
Newark has many, many assets, probably the best of which, as has been known since at least Roman times, is the ability to communicate quickly and effectively, particularly north to south, and south to north. During my time as a Member of Parliament, one of the things that I have noticed is that it is easy for me to get to London and back, but extraordinarily difficult to get to Nottingham in the west, and less difficult to get to Lincoln in the east. My rail communications inside the area are very good in one direction, but poor in the other.
It is interesting to note that on this 100th anniversary of the start of the first world war, I notice that soldiers from my old regiment, the Sherwood Foresters, were able to move by train more quickly in 1914, from Nottingham to Lincoln, than they are today. That cannot make sense. I would love to see the Minister in Newark; I do not know whether he is familiar with the area. I would like him to see the huge potential in the region, which was recognised by the decision to dual the A46 from Newark to Lincoln. However, we continue to be let down by rail services going from east to west and from west to east.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and on the campaign to improve links between Nottingham, Newark and Lincoln. Does he recognise that throughout Nottinghamshire rail links are not particularly good, and that villages such as Edwinstowe and Ollerton could benefit a great deal should rail links be introduced?
Patrick Mercer
I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend has stood firmly by me throughout this campaign and indeed with Newark business club, which I really should have mentioned earlier on. I am grateful to him for his support. I hope that I have made it clear that I am not just talking about Newark constituents. My hon. Friend mentioned Ollerton and Edwinstowe, and they are crucial. They are inside his patch, but I completely recognise the point that he makes. The key outcome that we are seeking from this debate is a commitment to funding the enhanced train service, which we call stage 1 of the development of the Nottingham to Newark and the Lincoln railway. I would be awfully grateful if we could make some headway on that with the Minister tonight.
The services between Lincoln and Newark to Nottingham are far from the normal standard of service. Given that we are talking about an area of considerable economic development, it is interesting that the frequency of the trains has reduced since 2000, despite the fact that we have relentlessly growing passenger numbers and that the population of the area is due to increase considerably, not least with the Newark growth point bid, which is coming through in the next couple of years.
I have already mentioned the economic importance of the area. That has been recognised by the east midlands councils, the Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire local enterprise partnership and the all-party parliamentary group. They have all identified the need for the railway line to be upgraded. As the Minister knows, a strategy has been developed between stakeholders and East Midlands Trains progressively to upgrade the line at a modest cost. A train service has been identified that gives increased frequency and faster journey times by extending the hourly Matlock to Nottingham trains to Newark Castle, with the hourly Leicester to Lincoln trains running non-stop between Nottingham and Newark. I will return to that point in a moment.
The first stage of the upgrade, which I have discussed extensively with the hon. Members for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), would produce immediate benefits right across the line. For instance, for Lincoln, there would be a reduction in journey times. For Hykeham and Newark, there would be a doubling in frequency and a reduction in journey times. For Carlton, Burton Joyce and Fiskerton, there would be a doubling of frequency, and for Bleasby, Thurgarton and Rolleston an increase in frequency. I have no doubt that the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) will also be reflected in that.
Subsequent stages would see additional significant benefits—notably, an express service from Lincoln and Newark every hour throughout the day; a doubling of frequency for Lincoln with a train every half hour, as is standard elsewhere; a direct service from both Lincoln and Newark to Birmingham; improved frequency of connections from Lincoln to London via Newark North Gate; and a reduced journey time from Lincoln to London. That would all strengthen the business case for a direct Lincoln to London service.
The cost of stage 1 is extremely modest, at £700,000 per annum for an initial three years.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling case for this important project to which I hope the Minister is listening. He has come to the important point, which is that we are talking about an extremely small amount of money that would benefit enormously economic growth in places such as North Hykeham in my constituency. Given that fact, it would be a false economy, as I am sure he would agree, for the project not to go ahead.
Patrick Mercer
I am grateful to the gallant, hon. and learned Member, who makes an extremely good point. I hope that he appreciates that I am trying to address the area—that is, not just Newark but the financial penumbra thrown by the railways throughout the area, regardless of party political divide. We all want the scheme to succeed outside our constituencies and into the area as far west as Nottingham and as far east as Lincoln.
We think that the initial three years, which would eventually cost £2.1 million in total, could easily be paid for through the franchise extension and/or the forthcoming round of local sustainable transport funding. The cost is just half the cost of a brand-new service to Westbury, for instance, which is far smaller than Lincoln and for which the Department for Transport is paying £4.2 million from the local sustainable transport fund. Using DFT standard assessment rules, the business case for the stage 1 improvements is strong, with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 2.16. Planned development of housing and employment strengthens the argument for the need for improvement and the business case.
The benefits of stage 1, and the extra passengers and revenue it would generate, would greatly strengthen the case for funding the subsequent three stages from moneys that have already been made available to Network Rail. During a visit to Derby, a city that many of us hold dear to our hearts, on 2 November 2012, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated:
“I am really willing to work with the East Midlands to improve the quality of bids, make sure that they get the money and funding that they deserve”.
This scheme provides the perfect opportunity to do just that, at, I underline for the Minister, a terribly modest cost.
In addition, the statement by the Transport Secretary on 26 March last year made it clear that the Department for Transport
“will look to negotiate further passenger benefits”
during discussions to extend the East Midlands Trains franchise to April 2017. Funding the extra trains on the Lincoln line would deliver real benefits for passengers at a reasonable cost to taxpayers, especially if combined with a successful local sustainable transport fund contribution.
The earliest that the improved service can be introduced is May 2015. That would, happily, coincide with the opening of both the civil war museum in Newark and the exhibition at Lincoln castle to celebrate the 800th anniversary of the signing of Magna Carta, which is terribly important and on which the hon. Member for Lincoln might want me to give way. He does not, but I know that he feels strongly about these points.
The last date that East Midlands Trains can apply for the required train paths is 8 August 2014. However, before then the company needs to reach agreement with other operators over the additional access rights it needs and to hold public consultation on the service changes. Realistically, that process must start by 30 April.
I promised the Minister I would be brief and I am extremely grateful to those who have supported me.
Mr Spencer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; he is being generous with his time. He makes a strong economic case, but does he also recognise the social and well-being benefits that extra travel and ability to travel will bring to many constituencies and constituents?
Patrick Mercer
My hon. Friend recognises a fact that I was about to point out. Of course we are talking money, and unfortunately, matters of government almost always revert to money, but there are real social benefits. I know, for instance, that the hon. Member for Nottingham South, who is present, uses the train extensively to travel between my constituency, where she is happy enough to live, and hers. The social benefits of being able to move more easily from west to east, and from east to west, across our various patches, are desperately important.
The key outcome that we seek from the Minister is a commitment to funding the enhanced train service that we identify as stage 1 of the upgrade of the Nottingham to Newark and the Lincoln railway. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am most grateful to you and the House for indulging me.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
I thank my colleague, the hon. and gallant Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), for letting me speak in this debate. I will not take up too much time, because I am conscious that we would like to hear from the Minister and give him as much time to reply as possible.
I want to add a few details from a Lincoln perspective, as we are discussing the Lincoln-Nottingham corridor. The economic importance of that corridor was recognised when, pre-1997, under a Conservative Government, a dual carriageway was built between Newark and Lincoln, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That has been extended all the way to Nottingham in more recent years. It is of crucial economic importance. We have road transport infrastructure but we would like the rail infrastructure, all the way from Nottingham to Lincoln, to match it.
When I was lucky enough to have the honour and privilege of being elected Member of Parliament for Lincoln, I inherited the only city in the country that was unfortunate enough not to have a quick, fast, direct route to London. That has been improved, but we have only one service to London a day, and none at weekends. Unfortunately, we also had one of the least frequent and slowest cross-country services, and that is what we are tonight seeking to ensure that the Department for Transport addresses.
The Lincoln-Newark-Nottingham service is well below the normal standard of all comparable routes in all key respects—frequency, speed, capacity and onward connections. Lincoln has only one train per hour to its core city, Nottingham, whereas most similar places have two, three or even four to theirs; I cite core cities such as Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds as examples. Moreover, the Lincoln-Nottingham service ran every half-hour until 2002, when half the trains were withdrawn because of operational difficulties elsewhere on the rail network, following the Hatfield crash. Those difficulties have long since been overcome, but Lincoln-Nottingham is the only service reduced in 2002 not to have been restored to former standards.
The trains that were withdrawn ran every hour directly between Lincoln and Birmingham. When they were withdrawn in 2002, Lincoln and Newark not only suffered a reduction in frequency, but lost their direct service to Derby and Birmingham—a double whammy. The line is characterised by out-of-date service levels on Sundays, when there are no services from Nottingham to Lincoln before 4.30 pm, despite the significant increase in leisure and commercial activity on Sundays in recent years—a point alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer). That highlights just how far services on the line have fallen below people’s expectations today.
In 1912, fast Lincoln-Nottingham trains took 45 minutes; now they take around 50 minutes because of speed limits, and many trains take more than an hour because of extra stops. For the avoidance of any doubt, it should be noted that the things that make the service substandard are not the responsibility or fault of East Midlands Trains. The service frequency is specified by the Department for Transport, as is the stopping pattern that results in so few non-stop trains. The speed limits are imposed by Network Rail because of the characteristics of the infrastructure, and East Midlands Trains is obliged to obey those speed limits. In fact, it is consistently one of the most punctual train operators in England, with around 94% of trains complying with required standards, but even an excellent operator such as EMT cannot run a fast service on a line with very low speed limits, especially if it is instructed by DFT that most trains must stop at stations every few miles.
There are issues such as the at-grade crossing at Newark between the east coast line and the cross-country line, and railway electrification, which Lincoln, Newark and Nottingham would benefit from, if that was forthcoming in future years. Lincoln and Nottingham are designated housing growth points––an additional 60,000 houses are planned over the next 20 years, 18,800 of them in Lincoln. Lincoln university is one of the UK’s fastest-growing universities, with a 40% increase in students planned for the next 10 years. A science park of around 1 million square feet is being developed for spin-off and related industries. Those are all reasons why we would like an increased, better train service from Lincoln, Newark and Nottingham.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) on securing this debate, which provides a further chance for him and other hon. Members to put the case on their constituents’ behalf, as they did in a long meeting with me last week.
The issues that my hon. Friend raised have to be seen in the context of the wider challenges for British railways and the way in which the Government are tackling them. It is undoubtedly true that we face the challenges of success. To support a growing economy and more jobs, we need to meet increasing demand. Since privatisation, passenger numbers have doubled and freight traffic has risen by 60%. In the next five years alone, we expect a further 14% rise in passenger numbers and at least 4%, possibly more, in freight. There is understandable frustration among rail travellers, and we need to tackle the issues of congestion and crowding.
At the same time, we need to tackle the wider challenge of deficit reduction, and the rail industry, along with everyone else, has to play its part. We need to deliver better value for money for the taxpayer and the fare payer, and underlying costs must fall across the industry. To address these and other challenges we are seeing the most significant rail modernisation package for generations. Between 2014 and 2019, Network Rail will invest over £16 billion in improving our railways, having spent over £8 billion in the previous control period.
That includes a number of projects that will directly benefit Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire. The £150 million Nottingham hub resignalling and station redevelopment programme, which is nearing completion, will improve reliability, reduce delays and create the capacity to cope with increasing numbers of passengers. Electrification of the midland main line, only guaranteed and delivered by this Government, is currently limited to the route between London St Pancras and Bedford, through to Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield, but it will transform the rail route between London, the east midlands and Yorkshire, offering reduced journey times, improved reliability and new trains.
The region will also benefit from the new “electric spine”—a high-capacity electric rail freight route connecting the east midlands with Southampton, making it much more attractive for firms to locate in the east midlands and getting more freight off the road. There have been renewals on the Doncaster-Lincoln-Peterborough line to improve safety, capacity, journey times and performance, and there is a £240 million fund for increases in capacity on the east coast main line, which will bring benefits. That is all before the introduction of new intercity express programme trains on that line, which will transform the journey experience. In addition, from 2018, completion of the Thameslink and Crossrail projects will significantly improve connections from this region to Heathrow. The Government’s rail investment strategy from 2014 to 2019 rightly focuses on strategic priorities for the network, but it will benefit the east midlands as well.
Mr Spencer
The Minister is making a powerful case for the amount of money that the Government are spending in the east midlands, but I hope he accepts that most of the projects that he mentioned are on north-south routes—it is on east-west routes that we face the challenge.
Stephen Hammond
East-west is often a challenge across the country, and I am about to address that point.
I said that the Government’s rail investment strategy rightly focuses on the strategic priorities for the network but, in line with our localism agenda, it is right that local and sub-regional bodies, which are best placed to prioritise and fund investment for the needs of their areas and to support local economies, should come forward with their priorities. The rail industry did not identify the Lincoln-Nottingham route as one on which investment is a strategic priority for 2014 to 2019, so it was not included as requiring enhancements in the strategy. The strategy does however include funding for line speed improvements across the network and for improvements to level crossings. There is £300 million for journey time and performance improvements and £65 million to reduce the risk of accidents at level crossings. Network Rail will spend that in locations where best value for money can be attained. Decisions on the allocation of those funds could be influenced by a local capital contribution and a local assessment of need, which is usually headed up by local authorities and local enterprise partnerships. That is my point: localism and local authorities being able to influence and enhance the value of Network Rail’s investment programme.
Therefore, it is for Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire county councils and the LEPs—D2N2 and Greater Lincolnshire—to determine whether investment and enhancement to services on this route to improve connectivity and support local economies is a priority for their strategic economic plans and should be included in a bid for funding to the local growth fund. The Government have committed to putting £2 billion per annum into the local growth fund from 2015-16 to 2020. Moreover, any subsidy requirement for the proposed additional service on the line would also need to be funded by the promoter, usually the local authorities, which would have to be in place for three years, after which the Department would consider taking on funding responsibility.
As I said last week in the meeting with my hon. Friends the Members for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) and for Newark, the Government have set out this position very clearly, both to campaigners and to the local authorities concerned on a number of occasions. I reiterate, as I did to both of them last week, that so far the Department has received no comment from either Nottinghamshire county council or Lincolnshire county council. We have not seen a business case for the proposed investments and improvements. However, we have made it clear to both Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire and the LEPs that we are willing to provide guidance and strategic advice. Neither of the two strategic enterprise partnerships has indicated that the scheme is a priority, and without support from those bodies, I regret to say that it is unlikely that much progress can be made in achieving the objective of improved services that Members have talked about this evening.
Stephen Phillips
It seems to follow from that that if this is merely an oversight on the part of the two county councils and the relevant LEPs and that is rectified, this is a project that the DFT will treat as a priority and that this funding will be forthcoming. Is that right?
Stephen Hammond
My hon. and learned Friend, in true legal style, poses an argument that has a number of assumptions within it that we might unpick. He will obviously want to go to the very first part, which is that he has heard me say several times in my remarks that we have encouraged the county councils, the LEPs and the strategic economic partnerships on a number of occasions to make the case. The Department has offered advice and guidance on how they might formulate that case, but it has not been forthcoming. Therefore, to say that this is an oversight might be quite a big presumption. However, were it to be an oversight, or even at this late stage, if those authorities chose to decide that this is now a strategic priority for them—my hon. Friend the Member for Newark nods; I made exactly this point to him last week—even at this late stage, the Department will consider their applications.
Patrick Mercer
I thank the Minister and I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) for his intervention. This is clear and proper guidance. This is exactly the point of this style of debate. Not only was his meeting very helpful, but now it is on the record and all our constituents will be hearing exactly what we the elected Members have to do to try to force this through and to get a fair hearing. I am grateful.
Stephen Hammond
My hon. Friend knows that it would have been easy for me to say some soft words. What I am saying now is probably not terribly good news for him. But he and all the elected Members here have often made the case, and I urge them all again to go to their local bodies, as I have previously tried to indicate. It is incredibly important that the county councils and the economic bodies in the region declare this a strategic priority. That will underline the importance of reconsidering whether the improvements to the line are a high priority for those bodies and, therefore, for the allocation of local funding, which is available. That could then be reflected in the local growth fund.
I say to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) that there is still a chance for that to happen, because the bids for the local growth fund are due by 31 March this year. It is still perfectly possible for local bodies to engage with Network Rail and its partners in developing a business case for the proposed enhancements and to put it forward for the local growth fund. Equally, it is still possible for those local bodies to develop a business case and put it forward as a priority for investment for the 2019 to 2024 control period. I recognise my hon. Friend’s ambition to have it earlier, but none the less that would still be possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln reviewed his hopes, and I suspect those of Lincoln, for an increased through service between London and Lincoln. I certainly recognise the appetite for more frequent direct services between that city and London. I welcome the work on a business case undertaken by Lincolnshire county council in 2012. As he will know, I cannot commit at this stage to any additional services, mainly because the Department is currently evaluating the business case and the network impacts of running services to the locations not currently served by the east coast main line. However, I can confirm that a number of regions—Yorkshire, the north-east, the midlands and the east of England, including Lincolnshire—are in that evaluation and assessment process. Depending on the outcome of the work, the invitation to tender for the east coast main line franchise might include a requirement or an option for bidders to run services to a specific number of locations.
Karl MᶜCartney
It is obviously of the utmost importance that any invitation to tender includes a specification for the eventual winner of the franchise, which is what we in Lincoln want to see. On that point, with regard to cross-country services, might not a franchise extension that brings an improvement that we are seeking between the line from Lincoln and Newark to Nottingham see an improvement in the specification of services?
Stephen Hammond
I hear what my hon. Friend says about specification. The Department is keen to give options to bidders for initiative and innovation in the franchise. He may wish to pursue that, because he might find that it is the way to secure what he desires, rather than the Department directly specifying things.
The train service requirement will be set out in the invitation to tender, which will be published by the end of February, so it would be imprudent of me to comment on that any further. However, as I have said to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark and other hon. Members, I will be happy to brief any hon. Members on the proposals for the ITT at that stage.
I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on how enhancements to that line could still be progressed, even at this late stage, were the local authorities to get themselves in line. I welcome the opportunity to see that the line could build on the massive programme of investment that we are already seeing across the rail network. The Government remain committed to working with local authorities and local enterprise partnerships to see improvements to the line and others, should that be a priority for them. But I say to hon. Members again—I know that they will have heard me say this—that the ball is in the court for them to hit heavily at their local authorities. I hope that the local authorities will then decide to demonstrate that commitment to the investment that they are asking me to provide this evening.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Community Energy Strategy
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
The Government are today publishing the Community Energy Strategy and I will be depositing copies of it in the Libraries of both Houses.
This is the first ever Community Energy Strategy published by a UK Government. It sets out the role that communities can play in helping to meet the UK’s energy and climate change challenges, including supporting a sustainable and secure energy system; reducing UK greenhouse gas emissions; and lowering consumer bills. Publication of the strategy will meet a commitment in the programme for government to
“encourage community-owned renewable energy schemes where local people benefit from the power produced”.
Community energy covers many different types of community getting involved in different ways to help meet the UK’s energy challenges. The Community Energy Strategy sets out how communities are already coming together to generate electricity and heat, reduce energy use, save money on the energy they buy, and balance supply and demand.
The document brings together existing policies and initiatives with new actions to provide a coherent package of support across the spectrum of community energy.
Supporting communities to access finance
Access to finance can be a serious issue for community energy projects, and the strategy announces a new urban community energy fund, a non-rural counterpart to the existing rural community energy fund administered by the waste and resources action programme (WRAP). This new fund will provide communities in England with access to “at risk” finance for the early stages of projects, enabling community electricity and heat projects to progress to the point at which they can attract further investment and derive an income through the existing feed-in tariff (FIT) and renewable heat incentive (RHI) schemes.
The Government have already announced an increase in the threshold for FITs from 5MW to 10MW for community projects, and I will shortly be consulting on the details of implementation. Additionally, the strategy announces that the UK has recently opened discussions with the European Commission about the possibility of including small-scale onshore wind and small-scale hydro-energy sectors within the approved scope of operation of the green investment bank.
Helping community energy scale-up through strong partnerships
The strategy recognises the enabling role that partners such as commercial developers and local authorities can play, and seeks to encourage partnerships to increase the reach and scale of community energy. It announces our expectation that by 2015 it should be the norm for interested communities to be offered some level of ownership of new, commercially-developed onshore renewables projects.
Better information and advice on community energy
Currently capability and capacity barriers can hold back community energy. Therefore, we will be commissioning a new information resource for community energy in England. This will be developed with community energy groups using a business model that enables it to become self-sustaining. This follows the £500,000 community energy peer mentoring fund launched by the Cabinet Office in November last year.
Community action on energy saving and advice
The Government have already announced an expansion of the green deal communities scheme to £80 million. In addition, the strategy announces a competition to incentivise community groups to develop new approaches to saving energy and money and a package of community energy advice pilots to provide new support for community energy saving schemes.
Help to navigate regulatory barriers
The Community Energy Strategy lays the foundations for future work by my Department to support this sector. We have established several working groups to explore how to reduce unnecessary barriers to communities in navigating regulation related to community energy. I will also be establishing a dedicated Community Energy Unit within DECC to lead on this policy area.
Alongside the Community Energy Strategy, I am publishing a research report outlining the scale and geographical distribution of community energy in the UK.
Community energy has real potential to help keep energy costs down for consumers and tackle the rising cost of living. The package of support announced in this strategy will help realise this potential: supporting communities to take control of the energy they use, get a better deal on the energy they buy and cut bills by generating their own renewable energy.
Foreign Affairs Council
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 20 January in Brussels. The Foreign Affairs Council was chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland.
Commissioners Füle (Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy), Georgieva (Humanitarian Aid), and Piebalgs (Development) were in attendance for some of the discussions at the FAC.
Foreign Affairs Council
A provisional report of the meeting and conclusions adopted can be found at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/140673.pdf.
Southern Neighbourhood
On Syria, Ministers agreed conclusions which supported the Geneva II process and the national coalition’s decision to participate, condemned the regime for bearing the overwhelming responsibility for recent atrocities and blocking humanitarian access, and emphasised the importance of the participation of women in the Geneva II process. The Foreign Secretary said that the national coalition’s participation in Geneva II was indispensible for a transition to a democratic and pluralist Syria. He repeated his concern about the deepening humanitarian crisis, acknowledged the substantial humanitarian aid pledges made by the EU and its member states but stressed that more was needed.
Ministers also expressed concern about the destabilising effect of the Syria conflict on the region, in particular in Lebanon and Iraq.
Ministers took stock of the situation in Egypt, following the constitutional referendum of 14 and 15 January. Baroness Ashton issued a statement raising concerns over restricted political space, while welcoming progress on the road map, which can be found at: http://eeas. europa.eu/statements/docs/2014/140119_02_en.pdf.
The Foreign Secretary set out how decisions in the run-up to the referendum were not conducive to long-term political stability, and set out the importance of the EU continuing to raise concerns with the interim Government. He also urged the European External Action Service (EEAS) to send a full Electoral Observation Mission for the presidential and parliamentary elections.
Middle East Peace Process
Ministers discussed latest developments in the middle east peace process. The EU fully supports the ongoing efforts of the parties and of the US towards a just and lasting settlement for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Baroness Ashton is in regular contact with the key parties. The EU has said that it is ready to contribute substantially to post-conflict arrangements for ensuring the sustainability of a peace agreement.
The Foreign Secretary praised US Secretary of State John Kerry’s tremendous energy and commitment, and stated that following on from the December FAC conclusions the EU should focus on developing a truly unprecedented offer of incentives, and accompany this with significant public diplomacy efforts.
Afghanistan
On Afghanistan, Ministers agreed conclusions that set out the priorities for the EU’s engagement strategy to 2016: promoting economic development, supporting democracy and human rights, strengthening the rule of law and fostering regional co-operation.
The Foreign Secretary expressed condolences for the deaths in Kabul over the weekend, including two British nationals. He said it was important for the EU to have a clear and realistic strategy for Afghanistan, and welcomed the priorities set out in the conclusions, particularly the emphasis on the rights of women and girls. The Foreign Secretary supported an electoral observation mission and suggested that there were grounds for relative optimism in terms of the technical preparations under way: the electoral roll was being increased and a third of recent registrations were by women.
Iran
Ministers agreed the revised Council decision and regulation which bring into force the six months suspension of relevant EU sanctions, as agreed in the E3+3/Iran agreement in Geneva on 24 November. This followed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmation that Iran had taken the steps they had committed to under the agreement. The US also brought into force limited sanctions relief on 20 January. However, the bulk of sanctions, including core oil and financial sanctions, remain in place. Baroness Ashton looked forward to negotiations on the comprehensive agreement which she expects to begin in February. The Foreign Secretary made a statement following the FAC welcoming the deal and reiterating that sanctions relief was limited. Pressure on Iran needed to be maintained in order to reach a comprehensive settlement.
Russia
Ministers discussed relations with Russia over lunch, in view of the EU/Russia summit on 28 January. The EEAS highlighted that the upcoming summit would not be treated as “business as usual”. The Foreign Secretary recommended the EU take a clear, confident and united approach to the EU/Russia relationship.
Ukraine
In the light of continuing anti-Government protests and recent violence, Ministers agreed conclusions on Ukraine which called on all actors to exercise restraint, on the authorities to protect the rights of protesters to freedom of assembly and speech, and for investigations into all acts of violence. The conclusions also expressed concern about the recent adoption of legislation restricting fundamental freedoms, and called on all parties to seek, through inclusive dialogue, a democratic solution to the current political crisis that would meet the aspirations of the Ukrainian people.
Central African Republic
Ministers agreed conclusions setting out the EU’s continuing concern over the situation in the Central African Republic (CAR) and its readiness to support efforts focused on restoring peace and stability, including through Commission funding streams. They also approved the crisis management concept for an EU military operation, agreeing that accelerated planning should continue, subject to a Council decision and a United Nations Security Council resolution. The Foreign Secretary commended action taken by France and the African Union to date and highlighted the UK’s contributions, both to the French Operation Sangaris, and the £15 million of bilateral humanitarian aid provided to CAR.
In parallel, a high-level meeting in Brussels on humanitarian action in CAR, co-chaired by Baroness Amos, Head of the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and Commissioner Georgieva, raised $496 million. Of this, $200 million would be dedicated to humanitarian and relief efforts with the rest funding longer-term development programmes. Commissioner Georgieva said that political support and a continued physical presence in the country were vital.
South Sudan
Ministers discussed the continued need to focus on the deteriorating situation in South Sudan and to lend full support to regional efforts to mediate a solution, including a readiness to consider targeted measures against individuals who sought to frustrate the political process. The situation of 4.5 million people in need of humanitarian assistance and nearly half a million internally displaced people living in dire conditions was outlined. The security situation was making it increasingly difficult to deliver assistance. Ministers welcomed the vital role played by the UN in co-ordinating the humanitarian response and agreed to continue pressing all parties to allow safe and unhindered humanitarian access. Conclusions were adopted underlining the need for continued EU engagement and support for regional efforts aimed at securing peace and stability in South Sudan, and readiness to support such efforts.
AOB
Under AOB, Baroness Ashton noted that the Polish paper on Eastern Partnership financing that had been circulated, and said that this would be discussed at the February FAC.
In addition, Italy raised the case of its marines that had been under house arrest in India for more than two years without formal charges being brought, following an incident in which two Indian sailors had died.
Other business
Ministers agreed without discussion a number of other measures:
The Council approved a regulation concerning certain procedures for applying the EU/Serbia stabilisation and association agreement and the EU/Serbia interim agreement.
The Council adopted the provisional agenda for the first meeting of the EU/Iraq Co-operation Council, to take place on 20 January 2014.
The Council amended the regulation concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya. The no claims and the non-liability clauses were changed to bring them into line with the guidelines on the implementation and evaluation of EU restrictive measures.
The Council allocated €1.04 million to cover the expenditure of the EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus and the crisis in Georgia, Mr Philippe Lefort, for the period from 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2014.
The Council repealed the mandate of the EU Special Representative for the middle east peace process, Mr Andreas Reinicke.
The Council authorised the opening of negotiations with Georgia as well as with Albania for agreements between the European Union and each country respectively on the security of classified information.
The Council approved technical amendments to the EU restrictive measures against Belarus.
Legal Services (Red Tape Challenge)
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
The Ministry of Justice wishes to implement its policies in the most effective way, ensuring that the rules that oversee the justice system are proportionate and effective. However, it is always important that we balance this aim and ensure we do not place unnecessary burdens on business or hamper economic growth.
In May 2012, the Ministry of Justice launched the legal services theme of the red tape challenge to help us examine where we could improve regulation. We sought views from a broad range of stakeholders and the public on the governance of legal services and the regulation that underpins our system of justice. We asked whether these regulations were still necessary or whether they could be improved so that the overall system is easier to understand and navigate.
I would like to inform the House that the Government are today announcing the outcome of the legal services red tape challenge. Of the 189 substantive instruments considered, we propose to scrap or improve 69 statutory instruments: a significant number of these changes will create real benefits for business, the public or the taxpayer.
Through these planned and ongoing reforms we will simplify the legislation around bailiffs, setting out clearly what bailiffs can do under what circumstances, and the fees that they can charge, giving both business and the public clearer guidance on how bailiffs can behave. The rules that regulate claims management companies have been improved by introducing a ban on paying or receiving referral fees in personal injury cases and offering cash incentives or similar benefits to consumers to make claims. We have also introduced mandatory requirements for written and signed contracts with clients before any fees can be taken by those companies. These changes will help strengthen existing action to drive out poor practices, better protect consumers and go some way to addressing the compensation culture.
We will work with the Land Registry to simplify the process of searching for local land charges by making the legislative changes necessary to allow the Land Registry to have sole responsibility for maintaining a local land charges register, and for supplying local search results. This should make searching simpler as there will be one register of local land charges, rather than separate registers with different local authorities as at present. It will also enable the Land Registry to standardise the price of searches, turnaround times and the format of searches and will mark a significant step towards making the Land Registry a “one-stop shop” for property searches by April 2015. The Land Registry will continue to make the necessary changes to move towards “digital by default”, including enabling all applications to update/change the Land Register to be made electronically, should people wish to do so, by March 2014.[Official Report, 24 March 2014, Vol. 578, c. 2 MC.]
Addressing the concerns raised through the red tape challenge and the legal services review, the Justice Secretary will take forward further steps on legal services regulation in the coming months.
Many of these measures are already being taken forward and some have been implemented already. We hope to make the remaining changes by the end of this Parliament.
Holocaust Commission
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
On the occasion of Holocaust memorial day I would like to inform the House of further details of the Holocaust Commission that I announced in September 2013.
I have established the Commission to investigate whether further measures should be taken to ensure Britain has a permanent and fitting memorial to the holocaust and meaningful educational resources for future generations.
Survivors have played a vital role in keeping the memory of the holocaust alive, but we will not always have these remarkable individuals with us. We face a real danger that, as the events of the holocaust become ever more distant, they feel increasingly remote to current and future generations.
The Commission will be led by Mick Davis, chair of the Jewish Leadership Council. Its work will be supported by two expert groups to examine issues around education and commemoration. The groups will be chaired by Commissioners Dame Helen Hyde and Sir Peter Bazalgette respectively. Dame Helen Hyde is headmistress of Watford grammar school and dedicates her time to educating people about the holocaust. Sir Peter Bazalgette brings a wealth of experience from his role as chair of the Arts Council England.
I am pleased that the Commission is cross-party with representation from the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) and the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes).
A public call for evidence begins today and will run until the end of May this year, with people across the country invited to submit their views. A number of regional evidence sessions will also be held to gather oral evidence. A young person under the age of 21 will be selected from responses to the call for evidence to join the commission as a youth representative.
I urge all members of the House to respond to this call for evidence and encourage young people and interested parties in their constituencies to also share their views.
I have asked the Commission to report its findings to me by the end of the year.
I am placing the terms of reference, full membership of the Holocaust Commission and expert groups, and the call for evidence in the Libraries of both Houses.
Social Security Benefits Uprating ( Correction to WMS)
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
I wish to inform the House that an error has been identified in the wording of the written ministerial statement tabled on Monday 9 December 2013, Official Report, column 4WS, on the subject of social security benefits uprating. The error was in the description used in the section of the table of rates for the benefit cap in universal credit (monthly). I wish to apologise to the House for this inadvertent error. The rest of the information contained in the written ministerial statement remains correct.
The extract below shows the relevant text that is incorrect.
Benefit Cap | ||
|---|---|---|
In Housing Benefit (weekly rate) | ||
Couples and lone parents | 500.00 | 500.00 |
Single persons without children | 350.00 | 350.00 |
In Universal Credit (monthly rate) | ||
Joint claimants and single claimants with children | 2167.00 | 2167.00 |
Joint claimants and single claimants without children | 1517.00 | 1517.00 |
The correct wording should have been:
Benefit Cap | ||
|---|---|---|
In Housing Benefit (weekly rate) | ||
Couples and lone parents | 500.00 | 500.00 |
Single persons without children | 350.00 | 350.00 |
In Universal Credit (monthly rate) | ||
Joint claimants and single claimants with children | 2167.00 | 2167.00 |
Single claimants without children | 1517.00 | 1517.00 |
House of Lords
Mental Health: Spending
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they have discontinued the annual survey of mental health spending.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and refer noble Lords to my entry in the register of interests.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
We stopped commissioning the national surveys of investment in mental health services in 2012 to reduce bureaucracy in NHS organisations and local authorities. NHS England will publish data on mental health spending in 2012-13 this year. We are currently working with NHS England, NHS stakeholders and partner organisations to review how mental health data are collected and presented to make them more useful and meaningful for commissioners, including in how to identify priority areas such as IAPT and dementia specifically.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, first, I welcome the noble Baroness to her first Oral Question on health. Is it not a fact, however, that the annual survey showed that, far from parity of esteem, the proportion of money going to mental health services has reduced in the past two financial years? Is that not why the survey has been discontinued? Will she give orders to NHS England to start producing the survey again to ensure that there is, in fact, parity of esteem for mental health services?
Baroness Jolly
The noble Lord is absolutely right: parity of esteem is critical. The Government are very intent on holding NHS England completely to account on parity, which is woven into the NHS outcomes framework and the mandate. As I said in my Answer, the Department of Health is working very carefully and closely with NHS England to determine what the most appropriate data are to ensure that patient care is maximised.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, I, too, welcome my noble friend to her first Question Time. I welcome what she says about the department working with NHS England in order to have the most useful way of bringing figures together. It is not a question of having figures for the sake of them. Can I seek her reassurance that those discussions will include finding a way not just of measuring psychological treatments against other treatments in mental health, but of ensuring that the range of psychological therapies is measured and available, so that we can indeed see whether there is an improvement in the situation?
Baroness Jolly
My noble friend has much experience and expertise in this matter. He will know that NICE has recommended in its guidelines a whole range of psychological therapeutic interventions. Available therapies include interpersonal therapy, brief dynamic interpersonal therapy, couple therapy for depression, counselling for depression and behavioural family therapy, as well as cognitive behavioural family interventions. These therapies are all delivered by IAPT services and are included in IAPT training. Since 2010, more than 1,000 therapists have been trained or are currently in training. With regard to new therapies, I assure my noble friend that the IAPT programme will consider evidence-based therapies recommended by NICE for anxiety and depression as they arise.
Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the first step in developing and delivering effective mental healthcare services is the collection, analysis and dissemination of high-quality data that managers, practitioners and service users can understand, and that, without these, service development will be severely hampered? A case in point is the Count Me In census, which for five years collected high-quality, focused and detailed information on services for minority ethnic mental health patients. The Government did what they are doing again now—that is, incorporating that data collection system into a wider system. An invaluable tool has effectively been lost and that has severely hampered service development in this area. Can the Minister assure me that this data collection system will be brought back into this area of work?
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, is another expert in this field. It is important to keep information about types of mental health conditions and about the ages involved. Currently, data on age are not collected; there is only information on what category people fall into. There is some merit in looking at ethnic background. I have no briefing on that but it may be sensible if I talk to my honourable friend Norman Lamb and ask whether he can have a conversation with the noble Lord about that.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I also welcome the noble Baroness to the Front Bench for Questions. Can she confirm that the data collected will cover child and adolescent mental health services and the outcomes from the different interventions in that age group? Those in that group are particularly vulnerable and there are many influences on them, from both education and their social background.
Baroness Jolly
Child and adolescent services are certainly critical. The Government have put £54 million into child and adolescent IAPT services, and IAPT waiting times are being looked at slightly differently. Those services will be provided in two stages. The first stage will involve not just the first appointment but an agreed programme of care. The second stage is that a second appointment has to be in the book within 28 days of the first appointment. We have looked at trying to make the waiting times slightly more rigid and non-virtual. I emphasise the Government’s concern about child and adolescent services.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, between 2011 and 2012 home support services saw a decrease of some 5.5% in expenditure. Can the noble Baroness tell us what impact this is likely to have on the mental well-being of people living with dementia and their carers? How can this impact be monitored if detailed spending figures are not yet available?
Baroness Jolly
Dementia services are delivered jointly with social care. The Government will be working with NHS England through clinical commissioning groups to make sure that the joint strategic needs assessments that are set out in local plans include provision for people living with dementia. My honourable friend in the other place has set up pioneering groups that are looking at integration of services. All that is very high on the agenda.
Lord Mawhinney (Con)
My Lords, I return to the original Question, asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. Is my noble friend telling your Lordships’ House that the figures for the past two years do not exist in the keeping of any health organisation? Or is she telling us that they do exist but the Government will not instruct that organisation to publish them?
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, the last figures kept by the Government were the Department of Health ones for 2011-12. The figures for 2012-13 and 2013-14 are being kept by NHS England.
Georgia
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the current situation in Georgia.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we are encouraged by continuing progress in Georgia in building democracy and embedding reform, including the well conducted presidential election that took place on 27 October 2013 and the initialling of Georgia’s association agreement with the EU at the Vilnius summit.
Following a period of cohabitation, Georgia now has a new President and Prime Minister, both from the same political coalition. The current political situation is calm but it will be important that parties work across the political divide in 2014 to ensure stability and that the rule of law is upheld.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister. As he knows well, under the previous President, President Saakashvili, Georgia was a strongly pro-Europe country with a flourishing economy. The present Government seem a great enigma. Can the Minister enlighten the House with more detail about their political and economic policies? In particular, can he say something about their treatment of associates of the previous Government?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the new Government are becoming a little less of an enigma as we get to know them better. There have been a number of exchanges. Their new Interior Minister was in London last week and a number of British Ministers have visited Tbilisi, including myself last year. We are coming to terms with the new Government, which sustain the European and Atlantic orientation of their predecessors. There are a number of worries about the treatment of former Ministers and officials of the previous Government. We are actively concerned with these and make representations to the new Government about them.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, there are still issues of division and conflict inside Georgia, as there are in Moldova and the Caucasus nearby. These have never been resolved and remain, in many ways, frozen. Do the Government believe that there is any benefit in the UK’s example of peaceful devolution being used to help move along some of the issues that have frozen these conflicts for so long?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, if it were possible to move towards peaceful devolution with Abkhazia and South Ossetia we would be very happy. The problem is that it is very difficult to get a dialogue going at all, although talks continue now between a new government representative in Georgia and the Russians. As he will know, the approach of the Sochi Olympics and the problems of the north Caucasus also affect Russian policy towards the south Caucasus.
Lord Soley (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister tell us a little more about the relationship between Georgia and Russia and between us in the European Union and Russia? Russia has a crucial role to play but we hardly ever mention it. It is very hard to work out what Russian policy is in some of these areas.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, some years ago I said to one of my friends in Moscow that the Russian attitude to the Georgians reminds me very strongly of the English attitude to the Irish in about 1850. There is a certain refusal to accept that Georgia is an independent country, capable of governing itself. The new Government have tried to open a dialogue with the Russians. So far, the Kremlin has not been very open to responding to that dialogue.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield
My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as the Church of England’s lead bishop on Georgian affairs. Last year, I had the good fortune to meet the outgoing President Saakashvili and, independently, some of his associates. I then met a number of members of the present Government. The antagonism could be felt in both directions and was seriously affecting stability and development. The previous Government had done some good work on corruption, tax collection and so on. If the economy is to prosper, the next thing that needs to happen is a building up of the infrastructure. Can Her Majesty’s Government assure noble Lords that the new Government will do that?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, on my last visit to Tbilisi I had lunch with MPs from both the governing party and the opposition party. That would not have been possible in Armenia or Azerbaijan. One has to put these things in perspective. Yes, of course we are assisting with developing the infrastructure in Georgia. The European neighbourhood partnership is putting a lot of money into Georgia and, of course, BP and other foreign investors are also assisting with the development of the country.
Employment: New Jobs
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Courtown
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many new jobs have been created in the private sector for each job lost in the public sector since 2010.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, figures released last week show that since 2010 the number of people in work has increased by 1.3 million, bringing total employment to a new record high of 30.15 million. The latest private and public sector employment figures, which were released last month, show that since 2010 the rise in private sector employment is more than three times the fall in public sector employment: the number of public sector jobs has fallen by 451,000, while nearly 1.7 million jobs were created in the private sector.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that good news. Is he aware how noble Lords on all sides of the House consider the importance of youth unemployment? Will my noble friend explain to the House what further actions Her Majesty’s Government are taking to reduce those figures further?
Lord Freud
Youth unemployment is clearly a critical part of our strategy. I am pleased to be able to say that the number of youth claimants for JSA went down this year—by 105,000—to 315,000, which is an enormous percentage change but it has been going down now for 19 consecutive months. Long-term youth unemployment has also been going down at a very sharp rate, and the number of young NEETs is the lowest for a decade. We have been pumping up the number of apprenticeships, with 1.5 million places created; work experience is vital—there are 113,000 places. The sector-based work academies are all pushing youngsters into the employment market. As noble Lords know, the key measure I always use is that we manage to make a turnaround in the number of youngsters out of work and out of education, which rose through the boom years of the previous Government. We have now turned that round.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
Will the Minister repeat the figures he gave in terms of full-time equivalents?
Lord Freud
The figures I have are the actual figures: the number of youth claimants is down, by 105,000 in the year, to 315,000.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the figures on unemployment, especially what the Minister has said about young people, are very good. Will my noble friend comment on the regional spread of the new jobs and on which industries and sectors are benefiting from this good news?
Lord Freud
I am pleased to say that the regional position is pretty balanced. During this quarter, employment rose in virtually every UK region, with one exception. The north of England and the Midlands are doing particularly well. If one looks at the balance between the north and the south, since the election there have been 360,000 extra private sector jobs in the north—to take those four regions together—and 420,000 in London and the south-east.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
If that information is right, can the Minister explain the report from the Centre for Cities, which shows that four out of five private sector jobs are now created in London? For example, private sector employment grew by 2.8% in London year on year, but it fell in Sunderland and in Bradford it fell by more than 5%. Do the Government have a strategy for jobs north of, say, Witney?
Lord Freud
I hope that I made it very clear to noble Lords that this is a very widely spread recovery, that the north is doing very well and that the noble Baroness is misrepresenting the actual figures.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, with regard to some of the information that has already been cited, is it not exciting news that the Edinburgh economy is doing particularly well and employment levels in Scotland are also successful? Would my noble friend agree that this shows that, for Scotland, Liberal Democrat economic policies, of course made in partnership with friends on the Conservative Benches, are successful and are making a positive impact on the lives of people who are now in jobs?
Lord Freud
My Lords, we have a widely spread recovery, which is touching all the regions, as I said. To pick up a point that I may not have dealt with adequately, these are full-time jobs. More full-time jobs have been created over the past year than total jobs; in other words, we are reducing very slightly the number of part-time jobs, if that is the full-time equivalent. This is a widely spread recovery of jobs—long-term jobs, female jobs, regional jobs, young jobs. This is good news.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister care to comment on the report in today’s press that British apprenticeships are being advertised in Romania?
Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)
While it is understandable that the Minister takes great pleasure from the increase in private sector employment, does he not accept that there is something Orwellian about his response—namely, private sector jobs good, public sector jobs bad? Has he no conception of the damage done to people’s lives by the vast decrease in public sector work?
Lord Freud
My Lords, the point that I have been making is that those jobs lost in the public sector have been more than replaced—by a factor of three—in the private sector right the way round the country. That includes the regions as much as the south. Let me make a point about efficiency in the public service. The size of the workforce has decreased by 15% since 2010, so the Civil Service is now the smallest since the Second World War, but output has not decreased. Productivity in DWP, for example, has been steadily improving, and improved by 12% in 2011-12.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
The Minister has referred continuously to “good news”. He has just referred to issues of efficiency in the public sector. Will he refer to the collapse in productivity in the private sector, which is the counterpart of the high level of employment, as also good news?
Lord Freud
Well, my Lords, I have very good news for the noble Lord. We are currently restructuring the benefits system to help with that productivity issue. One of the things that universal credit does is to make sure that we have as flexible a labour force as possible. That is something that employers around the country welcome.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
As we welcome those throughout the European Community who come to work in the hospitality industries—I come from a seaside resort—what is the Minister doing to encourage UK youngsters to take up jobs in the hospitality industry?
Lord Freud
My Lords, one of the most enthusiastic sectors to adopt the sector-based work academies was the hospitality industry. The industry has a programme to make sure that people have training, work experience and then a chance of a job, and that has been going very well in that particular sector.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister reconsider his views about all of the regions? I come from the north-east and I go back to the north-east every week. I have invited him to the north-east to see what is actually happening. The north-east has lost a significant number of public sector jobs. Yes, it has seen the creation of part-time and full-time private sector jobs, but it still has double-figure unemployment rates.
Lord Freud
Clearly, my Lords, there has been the most enormous recession, and that was built under the previous Government. To remind noble Lords, the latest ONS figures for the 2008 recession show that GDP fell from top to bottom by 7.2%. That compares with the 1930s, for which the NIESR show a fall of only 6.9%—it was worse than the 1930s, a terrible smash. We are pulling it back and the figures in the north and round the rest of the country are showing an improvement. In all of those regions the private sector improvement well outweighs the necessary reduction in public sector jobs.
Gaza
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assistance they have given to the people of Gaza over the last three months.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, the humanitarian situation in Gaza is precarious. There is a significant danger that food, water and fuel will run out later this year. The UK is a leading provider of humanitarian support, which includes supporting the UN Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, to provide basic services, providing food vouchers to vulnerable households, supporting the International Committee of the Red Cross to provide humanitarian assistance and supporting the UN Access Coordination Unit to assist the passage of personnel and humanitarian aid.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that response. The humanitarian aid is terribly important, particularly when the 1.7 million people in Gaza are now living life at breaking point, with 11,000 people displaced by last month’s floods. Fuel shortages are such that donkey carts have replaced cars as a means of transport, the streets are overflowing with raw sewage and, with nearly 50% unemployment, the situation is like a tinderbox. The United Nations has said that Gaza will be unliveable by 2020, so what are Her Majesty’s Government doing to facilitate Hamas and Fatah talks, and more importantly talks between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, so that a final settlement can be reached for people to live in civilised form next door to each other?
Baroness Northover
My noble friend is right. The UN has described Gaza as being currently in a state of de-development. It does indeed predict that by 2020 the place may be unliveable. The recent blockades and closures of the tunnels have seen the further loss of 20,000 jobs in a dire situation. We strongly support the peace process. Meanwhile we are of course asking Israel to ease the blockade immediately, but in supporting the peace process we hope to see a two-state solution. The aim is to achieve a secure Israel alongside a sovereign and viable Palestinian state, with all issues—borders, Jerusalem, refugees, all of them—addressed.
Lord Warner (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that the situation in Gaza has not become intolerable just in the last year or so? It has been intolerable ever since Operation Cast Lead. In the past six months, how many meetings have this Government had with the Israeli Government about lifting this blockade, which is a cause of great humanitarian suffering to the Gaza population, 50% of whom are children?
Baroness Northover
I shall write to the noble Lord with the number, but I know from all the Written Answers that I sign off the pressure that we have been seeking to put on the Israeli Government to lift this blockade, recognising that an improved economy in Gaza is essential for the people of Gaza, but also for the security of Israel.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that today is Holocaust Memorial Day, and the Prime Minister has just announced the setting up of a Holocaust commission, but under Hamas in Gaza, teaching about the Holocaust is a crime and its official policy is to deny the Holocaust. What steps would the Minister advise in the interests of bringing peace, to ensure rationality and peace education for the children of Gaza, alongside accountability for funds, which is another matter?
Baroness Northover
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for the work she has done on ensuring that the Holocaust is never forgotten. I was pleased that my daughter asked me this year to take her to Auschwitz, which I did. I mark Holocaust Memorial Day—it must never be forgotten. The UK Government keep a very close watching brief over what is taught in schools both in Israel and the Occupied Territories to see what is put into textbooks. There have been improvements there, and in lessons, but there is still a long way to go. The noble Baroness is clearly right that trying to ensure that children in all communities respect each other and other communities is vital.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield
My Lords, following Egypt’s closure of the tunnels, which has already been referred to, will the Minister give an assurance that the Department for International Development will adjust its aid package accordingly, to try to address some of the terrible suffering to which we have already heard reference?
Baroness Northover
The United Kingdom and the EU are putting in a massive amount of assistance, which is much needed in Gaza for the reasons the right reverend Prelate has given. Gaza has suffered a lot from the closure of the tunnels. However, the tunnels themselves help to fund Hamas and this is an opportunity to encourage Israel to open the borders there and to support the moderate elements in Gaza. Certainly, at the moment, the international organisations are saying that the underlying causes of the problems need to be addressed. The immediate shortages are being dealt with adequately.
Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as president of Medical Aid for Palestinians and the trade envoy to the Palestinian territories. On a more practical note, some industrial fuel went into Gaza between 14 and 20 January. However, it is not enough and much below consumption levels. Hospitals have regular power cuts and some families have only 12 hours of power a day. The most vulnerable families are suffering terrible burns from using inadequate heating and cooking utensils. What are we doing to ensure that more fuel is going in now? It will take a long time to solve the peace process but we can do something to alleviate the hardship now.
Baroness Northover
As I mentioned, those shortages are being addressed. Qatar and Turkey recently brought fuel into Gaza. However, the most important issue here is to address the underlying root causes of these problems.
Defence Reform Bill
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Astor of Hever
That the instruction of 21 January be revoked and that it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Defence Reform Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1, Clauses 5 to 7, Schedule 2, Clauses 8 to 10, Schedule 3, Clauses 11 and 12, Clauses 44 and 45, Schedule 6, Clause 46, Schedule 7, Clause 47, Clause 13, Schedule 4, Clauses 14 to 38, Schedule 5, Clauses 39 to 43, Clauses 48 to 50.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, the House will recall that, on the first day of Report, your Lordships agreed, by some margin, an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, which modified the test for the grant of an injunction under Part 1. That amendment, and the outcome of the debate, reflected an anxiety that the test provided for in the Bill on its introduction into your Lordships’ House was too vague and too broad and may, as a result, have led to inappropriate use by the police, local authorities and others.
I made it clear in that debate that the Government believed that such fears were unfounded. As I indicated, it was never the intention of the Government to introduce a power that would curtail freedom of expression or normal, everyday activities of the law-abiding majority. I do not believe that front-line professionals would have used the power in this way or that any court would have entertained an application for an injunction in those circumstances.
However, I am a pragmatic man. I fully recognise the strength of feeling in your Lordships’ House on the issue. Having reflected on the debate on Report, the Government are content to retain the two-tiered approach provided for in the amendment agreed by the House at that stage. In particular, in the case of anti-social conduct committed away from a residential setting, we are content that the test for the grant of an injunction should be based on conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, “harassment, alarm or distress”.
Since Report, I have been able to discuss with the noble Lord, Lord Dear, whom I am delighted to see in his place today, our concerns that under his amendment the “nuisance or annoyance” test would apply to conduct only in a social housing context. Throughout the debates on the anti-social behaviour provisions in this Bill, the Opposition Front Bench have chided us on the grounds that certain provisions were not tenure-neutral. I think that that charge was at times a little unfair, but it had some validity and I do not want this Bill to return to the House of Commons with a provision, in its very first clause, which applies a different test to the victims of anti-social behaviour who live in social housing from that applied to the victims of such behaviour who own their own home or live in private rented accommodation.
The noble Lord, Lord Dear, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, acknowledged in our previous debate on this matter that anti-social behaviour in the housing context was of a different order. Victims cannot be expected to have the same degree of tolerance to anti-social behaviour where it takes place on their doorstep or in the immediate vicinity of their own home. It is simply not reasonable to expect the victims to move home in such circumstances in the same way as they could walk away from anti-social behaviour in a shopping centre or public park. The amendment passed on Report accepted this by retaining the “nuisance or annoyance” test for residents in social housing. Following discussions with the noble Lord, these government amendments extend that principle and protection to those who live in other housing settings.
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Dear, my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, have put their names to these amendments—I know that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern also sought to do so, but he was crowded out. It is an important feature of Amendment 2 that the power to apply for an injunction where the “nuisance or annoyance” test applies is restricted to social landlords, local authorities and the police. There was, and is, no question of rogue private landlords being able to exercise these powers.
As with the existing powers, the amendment will mean that social landlords can still apply for an injunction to address problems that directly or indirectly relate to their housing management functions. This will allow social landlords to protect their employees and neighbourhoods from anti-social behaviour as part of their housing management function. As I have said, the “harassment, alarm or distress” test will apply outside the housing context.
These amendments will provide for an injunction that puts victims first and gives front-line professionals a powerful tool to protect the public from anti-social behaviour while ensuring that there are proper safeguards to protect freedom of speech and assembly. I hope that the whole House will agree that this is an equitable outcome. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister said, I have put my name to the amendment, but the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dear, for causing the Government, in the words of the Minister in his letter to a number of us, to “reflect carefully” and conclude that pragmatism was the right way.
I am pleased that the Government have decided to propose this change. I did not agree and I still do not believe that the original wording was the threat to freedom of expression which was argued, but it clearly troubled many people a great deal, and whatever the technicalities, I do not think that it is good law to have provisions which trouble people as to precisely what they mean.
I am pleased, too, that the Government have dealt with the tenure point, which was one that I and others picked up at the previous stage. What matters is that it now looks as if we will be able to shift away from the criminalisation of anti-social behaviour implicit in the current legislation and move to a new way to tackle the problem.
Lord Dear (CB)
My Lords, I of course welcome the amendment. It is, as the Minister said, substantially the same as the amendment in my name on which we voted on Report. I readily agree the inclusion of private housing in the same context as social housing, which has been on the statute book for a while.
I extend a vote of thanks at this juncture, first, to those who voted in support of my amendment on Report. I am very grateful to them for helping to preserve and protect fundamental rights under the law. I thank the Public Bill Office staff, who were, as they always are, unfailingly helpful to me in the progress of the amendment through to Report. I thank the staff of the Christian Institute, who gave me invaluable administrative help in the run-up to the vote on Report. Finally, I thank the Minister for his unfailing courtesy and help in what were not always the easiest of discussions to make progress on in this part of the Bill. Those of us who have had the pleasure of working with him before will know that that is his default mode, and I am very grateful to him.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, sweetness and light is clearly breaking out after a slightly more difficult passage of the Bill at earlier stages. We should all be pleased that the outcome of this has been to strike a compromise between the very real concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Dear, my noble friend Lady Mallalieu and others expressed about the original provision. That had to be balanced, as it was in debate, by the real concern about problems faced by many tenants in both the public and the private sector, and I think that the Government have sought to strike an acceptable balance. To strike the slightest of sour notes, I think it was clear that that balance had to be struck from our debate in Committee, a very full and detailed debate. Perhaps, had the Government come forward with precisely this formulation at an earlier stage, they would have avoided a defeat. I also wish that a similar attempt to try to meet the genuine concerns of noble Lords in respect of other provisions in the Bill might have borne fruit before we got to this stage.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the amendment he has moved today, for his letter and for the helpful way in which he approached taking on board the will of your Lordships’ House. His amendment still allows for nuisance and annoyance to be taken into the housing setting and residential areas. I am grateful for his acknowledgement that it was the Opposition who raised time and again during the passage of the Bill the fact that so much of it is not tenure-neutral. We felt that those who rented their accommodation rather than owned it were getting a bit of a raw deal. In the amendment, the Government have sought to address that problem, so that those suffering from anti-social behaviour in the form of nuisance and annoyance, whether the people who are causing the problem live in public rented accommodation, private rented accommodation or are owner-occupiers, can ensure that that problem is tackled. I am grateful for the Minister’s acknowledgement of that because we have raised it several times during consideration of the Bill. I also welcome the conversion of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to this as I know that she was not happy with the amendment and voted against it on Report. The Minister can take great pride and credit in having such widespread support around the House.
I have just one question, which is on the title of the provision still being an IPNA, or an injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance, under Part 1 of the Bill. I wonder whether, if I can pronounce this correctly, that should now be an IPASB rather than an IPNA. On the content, that aside, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dear, and my noble friend Lady Mallalieu for tabling that amendment in the first place.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Would it not be a good idea if we got rid of all these ridiculous acronyms, which no one understands?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
It may well be. I sometimes think that when we use acronyms, people have not got a clue what we are talking about. However, should it not be an injunction to prevent anti-social behaviour rather than an injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I have an answer to the noble Baroness’s question, which I know about because I asked the same question at one stage. The title of Part 1 of the Bill—a title covering the whole of Part 1—will be revised in advance of the Act being published, following Royal Assent. Apparently, this is quite customary. It is worth making it clear that the title of Part 1 does not represent the formal name for the injunction and that whatever name is chosen will not affect the meat and substance of what it seeks to do.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
“Meaning of “anti-social behaviour”
(1) In this Part “anti-social behaviour” means—
(a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person,(b) conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or(c) conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.(2) Subsection (1)(b) applies only where the injunction under section 1 is applied for by—
(a) a housing provider,(b) a local authority, or(c) a chief officer of police.(3) In subsection (1)(c) “housing-related” means directly or indirectly relating to the housing management functions of—
(a) a housing provider, or(b) a local authority.(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) the housing management functions of a housing provider or a local authority include—
(a) functions conferred by or under an enactment;(b) the powers and duties of the housing provider or local authority as the holder of an estate or interest in housing accommodation.”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief. These are purely technical amendments, consequential upon previous amendments made to the Bill, and I therefore beg to move.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
“(5A) The provisions referred to in subsection (5)(b) are—
(a) section 1(7);(b) sections 3(2) and 8 (if a power of arrest is attached);(c) sections 5 to 7;(d) section 9;(e) section 10 and Schedule 1;(f) section 11 and Schedule 2;(g) section 17(1).”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
“Use of premises for child sex offences
(1) Schedule (Amendments of Part 2A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) (amendments of Part 2A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) has effect.
(2) For the purposes of sections 136BA and 136D(7A) of the Sexual Offences Act (inserted by that Schedule), it does not matter whether the offence or offences in question were committed before, or on or after, the date on which this section comes into force.”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, child sexual exploitation is an abhorrent crime and we are determined to tackle it in whatever form it takes. Grooming and child sexual exploitation happen in all areas of the country and can take many different forms. They are never acceptable, and we all need to work together to ensure that these sickening crimes no longer remain hidden. On day two of Report, I undertook to give sympathetic consideration to an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, which sought to strengthen the powers available to the police to close premises used for child sexual exploitation. As I set out then, given the serious nature of these crimes, we believe that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 rather than the closure powers in this Bill, which relate to anti-social behaviour, is the most appropriate place to address this issue—a point that my noble friend Lady Hamwee made very well on Report.
We have now reviewed the existing powers in Part 2A of that Act in light of the debate on Report. The existing closure powers relate only to prostitution and child pornography offences. This means that the police cannot at present close premises where other sex offences against children have been or are likely to be committed. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this is not right.
Amendments 8 and 18 will ensure that the police are able to close premises associated with a much wider range of child sex offences. These include not just the specific child sex offences in Sections 5 to 13 of the 2003 Act and offences relating to indecent images of children under the Protection of Children Act 1978, but other offences where the victim is under 18, including rape and sexual assault. Given that these offences relate to some of the most vulnerable members of our society, the amendments would also modify the conditions relating to the use of the closure power to enable the police to close premises quickly in cases of urgency. The police will be able to issue a closure notice when they have reasonable grounds for believing that in the past three months the premises have been used for activities related to a specified child sex offence and, importantly, when the premises are likely to be used for such activities.
Clearly there should be safeguards to ensure that these powers are used in the right circumstances. That is why we will retain the existing safeguards in Part 2A of the 2003 Act, which are similar to the safeguards on the power to close premises due to anti-social behaviour in Part 4 of the Bill. Although an initial closure notice can be issued by the police, a court must decide whether to make a closure order within 48 hours of it taking effect. The police must also have regard to any guidance issued in relation to these powers. Furthermore, a closure notice cannot prevent a person who regularly resides on or owns the premises entering or remaining on them.
Lastly, the occupier of the premises, and any other person who has an interest in the premises, may contest a subsequent application to the court to make an order. This would mean, for example, that if the police received evidence on a Friday night that premises were to be used as a venue for abusing children that weekend, they could, in addition to their existing safeguarding powers and actions, temporarily close the premises. This could provide the police with a powerful tool to disrupt and tackle child sexual exploitation. These amendments will enhance the ability of the police to protect the public from sexual harm and will complement the steps that we have taken elsewhere in the Bill to strengthen the system of civil orders used to manage the risk of sexual offences, and to give the police additional powers to tackle child sexual exploitation taking place in hotels and similar establishments.
As I have made clear, this issue is an absolute priority for the Government, and I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, on this issue. We are both determined to do all that we can to protect vulnerable members of our society from exploitation and abuse, and it is important that we provide the police with the powers and tools to tackle this issue. I therefore commend these amendments to the House.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I am sure that the whole House has cause to be grateful to my noble friend, and I am glad that the Government are taking powers to deal with this evil—and it is an evil. However, I express the hope—without anticipating tomorrow’s debate in any detail, because that would be wrong—that there is real consultation between government departments. If it is going to be more difficult, as it should be, for these evil people to do these terrible things in reality, as it were, some will be tempted into the virtual world where so many children, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has pointed out, are at ever-increasing risk. We will be debating that tomorrow, but could the Minister give me an assurance that there will be conversations between him and Ministers in other departments to make sure that we have real co-ordination to attack the evil people who do these terrible things?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, yet again I have reason to be grateful to the Minister for the way in which he took away the amendment I tabled and brought it back in a way that can really make a difference. When I first tabled the amendment, I knew that it was stretching it a bit to table it to this Bill, but it had to be said that here was an opportunity to do something about a very serious problem. I am grateful to the Minister because he did not say that it could not be dealt with under this Bill. He took it away and found a way of ensuring we could give these young people the protection they need.
I am grateful to Tony Lloyd, the police and crime commissioner in Manchester, who first raised this with me, and to Colin Lambert, the leader of Rochdale Council and Jeanette Stanley of Rochdale Council. Their message is the same as mine. This is an important tool, although it will not solve the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has already indicated other areas where people with evil intent will try to find a way around legislation. The existing legislation was inadequate. The way these young people are groomed is so callous, calculating and cruel that the children do not even realise they are being groomed and are the victim of an offence. This is now an important tool in the armoury of those at the sharp end trying to protect young people and children and to deal with such horrific crimes. I am very grateful to the Minister for the way he has handled this, and we are very pleased to support this amendment.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, I welcome this amendment very strongly. The Minister will remember that I introduced a debate to which he responded which covered a range of issues around child sexual abuse. Therefore, I know he is well aware of the range of attempts that these people will go through. “Evil” is an odd word to use because there are all sorts of corruptions to do with what has happened to those people. We have to remember that young people themselves sometimes are sexually abusing because of what is happening to them. The Minister saw that whole spectrum, and this is just one other step that can be taken to block those who intend to abuse children. I reinforce what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about the use of the internet and virtual abuse. It will be on the increase if other avenues are closed down because we know this is an addiction—but not necessarily—with an evil outcome that we need to deal with in many ways. I thank the Minister for all his efforts.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
In response to the contributions by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, and my noble friend Lord Cormack, I realise that this is not the whole story. It is not the end of the story, but it is a step along the way. It is a building block that was not previously in place; I hope that it will now be put in place. I reassure both speakers that my colleagues in government are linked up on this. When this amendment was drafted, it was subject to the usual write-around in government, which is the procedure that now applies to more or less all government decision-making. If it reassures noble Lords, I will make sure that this debate is drawn to the attention of my colleagues with particular responsibility in this area. I hope noble Lords will understand that what is particularly helpful about this amendment is that it arose from a police and crime commissioner writing to the shadow Minister here, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who raised it with me. It shows that the Government and Opposition facing difficult issues—not controversial issues, but issues that are difficult to handle—can work together to achieve something. I am grateful for the initiative that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, showed and for the support of the House in moving this amendment.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
“( ) In relation to a victim who lacks capacity to consent to marriage, the offence under subsection (1) is capable of being committed by any conduct carried out for the purpose of causing the victim to enter into a marriage (whether or not the conduct amounts to violence, threats or any other form coercion).”
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for tabling her amendment at Report, which focused the House’s attention on forced marriage in cases where the victim lacks the capacity to consent. The noble Baroness, as well as my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, raised concerns that in order for a criminal offence to take place, the Bill as drafted required an element of coercion on the part of the perpetrator.
Coercion may not always be present in forced marriage cases involving victims who lack the capacity to consent. Therefore, having considered the arguments made on Report, the Government have tabled Amendments 9, 10 and 11 to ensure that the new offence is capable of being committed without the need for violence, threats or other form of coercion if the victim lacks the capacity to consent. With the agreement of the Scottish Government, Amendments 12 to 14 make similar provision for Scotland.
We have tabled these amendments because we accept the point made by noble Lords on Report—that a victim who lacks the capacity to consent may be forced into a marriage without the perpetrator’s behaviour amounting to coercion. These individuals may not have been subject to coercion and they may believe or say that the marriage is what they want, but if they lack the capacity to consent, they do not fully understand the implications of that decision.
We know that in certain instances families force their children to marry for benign motivations—such as to provide their child with a carer, for example. However, in other instances there are more sinister motives; for example, financial gain in the form of a dowry payment or, in some cases, immigration-related advantages. Yet whatever the motives, the consequences of that forced marriage can include rape, domestic violence from their partner or extended family members, or being forced into domestic servitude.
These amendments are framed so that Clause 119(1)(b) would still apply. In other words, an offence is committed only if the defendant believes, or ought reasonably to believe, that their conduct may cause the other person to enter into a marriage without their free and full consent. Therefore the defendant would need to be cognisant of the victim’s lack of capacity to consent to marriage.
I trust that noble Lords will agree that the Government have listened and tabled an amendment that extends the protection of the law to some of the most vulnerable victims. By criminalising forced marriage, including in such cases, we are sending a very strong message that this abuse will not be tolerated. However, we also accept that legislating alone is not enough.
The Government are aware that in order for the legislation to be an effective deterrent, we need to roll out a significant implementation programme. This will be multi-pronged and involve updating training for professionals, such as the police and prosecutors, and revising the existing multi-agency guidance on forced marriage to reflect the changes in the law. It will also involve working closely with voluntary sector groups, which we know are key to conveying messages to the communities we want to target.
Last week, I visited the Forced Marriage Unit which, as I saw myself, already works very closely with the voluntary and community sectors on specific cases and convenes a quarterly partnership meeting with stakeholders. I assure noble Lords that the Forced Marriage Unit will continue its engagement with affected communities and develop a programme to convey information about the new offence and support for victims. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord and the Government on their efforts on forced marriage—particularly the Minister for having taken the trouble to go and see the Forced Marriage Unit, with which I am sure he was impressed. I also thank the Government for listening so carefully to what has been said on this side of the House about this offence, which all of us understand can be of the most heinous nature, particularly when it involves those who lack capacity.
What guidance on implementation, which the Minister spoke about, will prosecutors receive on how to prosecute the offence of forced marriage? The noble Lord will remember that in Committee I raised a number of issues regarding how the prosecutions would take place. I regret that I was not here on Report to continue those questions, but perhaps the Minister could answer some of my questions today—not least because I have now had the advantage of receiving a note on prosecutions which was kindly sent to me. The note simply outlines how any prosecution may be undertaken. It would first go to the police; the police would then refer it to the prosecutor who would apply the two prosecutorial tests, et cetera. I absolutely understand the generality of prosecution, but perhaps the noble Lord will allow us a greater degree of specificity about how this offence will be prosecuted. I know that that is very much awaited among many of the NGOs and others, which are still worried and perplexed. They are concerned not only that the prosecution of these offences will entail the proof of the substantive offence—which would amount to coercion, violence or threats—but that there would be the additional barrier of forced marriage with a lesser offence. I know that the Government take that very seriously.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, as chairman of a forced marriage commission I thank the Government very much and congratulate them on adding this provision. We have been very concerned, from some of the evidence we have received, about the position of vulnerable people, adults as well as children. This is a good step forward. I also add my congratulations to the Forced Marriage Unit, which has over the years done some extremely good work, some of which I happen to know about. I hope that it will continue to get a great deal of support for the work it is doing.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I add my appreciation of the work that the Minister has done with the Scottish Government to provide an amendment which is compatible with Scots law. Having read it carefully, I think that it is a very valuable addition to the armoury in Scots law to deal with this very difficult and obnoxious problem.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I, too, add my thanks. This issue exercises noble Lords around the House, as well, of course, as many people outside the House. It is not a party-political matter; there may be a range of views as to the nuances of how to deal with the issue. I say to the Minister that this is a great and very important step, but he will not have heard the last of the issue of forced marriage.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this amendment, to which I was very pleased to add my name. Many months ago, when we started down the route of discussing the Bill, I had a meeting with some of the brilliant organisations that work to prevent forced marriages and to support those who are escaping from them. Almost in passing they mentioned to me that they were concerned about the capacity issue. I looked at the record of the Commons debates and the discussions that took place in Committee there and I noticed that my honourable friend Gloria De Piero had raised the matter there and that she received the sort of response from the Minister there that I received in Committee here. It is a very good example of the way that Ministers in this House conduct themselves. I thank noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lord Harris, for supporting me in pressing this matter on Report when we persuaded the Minister, as it were, to look at the matter again. I am very grateful that he did so. We have reached a very happy conclusion.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in the debate and echo the words of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach: this debate and provision have again demonstrated the qualities and nature of your Lordships’ House. When we say that it is not just lip service—we genuinely listen from this Dispatch Box—and as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, the issue of forced marriage certainly concerns us all. Anyone who has come across this particular coercive practice in any shape or form is disgusted by it and it is important that we unite to address it. I remember going to the Forced Marriage Unit and talking to some of the practitioners there, and exactly this issue of mental capacity arose. There was a live case which concerned immigration and it was tragic to see the consequences of how it was playing out.
I pay tribute to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, as I have done throughout all stages of the Bill. I genuinely mean it when I say that she has made an incredible effort in addressing this issue. Her setting up of the Forced Marriage Unit was supported across all parties, and it will continue to be a unit in which we specifically focus our activities. Perhaps I may pick up on a question that she raised about guidelines. The CPS will revise its existing legal guidance on forced marriage and honour-based violence and will develop an e-training element for its prosecutors ahead of the introduction of the new legislation. This amendment will be captured and reflected in the revised legal guidance. As she and many other noble Lords are aware, the CPS also has a number of specialist prosecutors. Their specialist skills and knowledge will ensure the understanding of this new legislation.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
“( ) “Lacks capacity” means lacks capacity within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
“( ) In relation to a victim who is incapable of consenting to marriage by reason of mental disorder, the offence under subsection (1) is capable of being committed by any conduct carried out for the purpose of causing the victim to enter into a marriage (whether or not the conduct amounts to violence, threats or any other form coercion).”
“( ) “Mental disorder” has the meaning given by section 328 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003.”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
“Littering from vehicles
(1) The Environmental Protection Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 88 (fixed penalty notices for leaving litter) there is inserted—
“88A Littering from vehicles: civil penalty regime
(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations under which the keeper of a vehicle may be required to pay a fixed penalty to a litter authority where there is reason to believe that a littering offence in England has been committed in respect of the vehicle.
(2) A littering offence is committed in respect of a vehicle if an offence under section 87(1) occurs as a result of litter being thrown, dropped or otherwise deposited from the vehicle (whether or not by the vehicle’s keeper).
(3) Regulations under this section must make provision—
(a) setting the amount of fixed penalties or specifying how the amount is to be determined;(b) about the period within which fixed penalties must be paid;(c) for payment within that period of a fixed penalty imposed for a littering offence committed in respect of a vehicle to discharge any liability for conviction for the offence (whether on the part of the keeper or anybody else);(d) for a fixed penalty to be payable by the keeper of a vehicle only if a written notice is given to the keeper (“a penalty notice”);(e) about the persons authorised to give penalty notices;(f) about the procedure to be followed in giving penalty notices;(g) about the form and content of penalty notices;(h) conferring rights to make representations about, and to bring appeals against, penalty notices.(4) Provision under subsection (3)(e) may authorise a person to give a penalty notice for a littering offence committed in respect of a vehicle only if—
(a) the person is under a duty under section 89(1) in respect of the land where the offence is committed (and that person is a “litter authority” in relation to a fixed penalty payable under the regulations), or(b) the person is an authorised officer of a litter authority,and regulations under this section may include provision about the meaning of “authorised officer”.(5) Regulations under this section may include provision—
(a) for the enforcement of penalty notices (and such provision may in particular authorise an unpaid fixed penalty to be recovered summarily as a civil debt or as if payable under an order of a court if the court so orders);(b) about the application of sums paid under penalty notices (and such provision may in particular authorise sums paid to a litter authority to be applied for the purposes of such functions of the authority as the regulations may specify); (c) about the application of the regulations to keepers of vehicles in the public service of the Crown.(6) Regulations under this section may, in consequence of any provision contained in the regulations, amend—
(a) this Part, or(b) Part 2 of the London Local Authorities Act 2007.(7) Regulations under this section may—
(a) make provision corresponding or similar to any provision made by or under section 88;(b) make provision subject to exceptions;(c) include saving, transitional, transitory, supplementary or consequential provision.(8) Provision of the kind mentioned in subsection (7)(a) may include provision—
(a) conferring a discretion on a litter authority, subject to such constraints or limitations as the regulations may specify (whether or not of a corresponding or similar kind to those mentioned in section 97A(2));(b) creating an offence of the kind mentioned in section 88(8B) and (8C),but may not include provision conferring power on a person to make orders or regulations.(9) In this section—
“keeper”, in relation to a vehicle, means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time when the littering offence in question occurs, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper;
“litter authority” has the meaning given in subsection (4)(a);
“registered keeper”, in relation to a registered vehicle, means the person in whose name the vehicle is registered;
“registered vehicle” means a vehicle which is for the time being registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994;
“vehicle” means a mechanically-propelled vehicle or a vehicle designed or adapted for towing by a mechanically-propelled vehicle.”
(3) In section 161 (regulations, orders and directions), after subsection (2ZA) there is inserted—
“(2ZB) Subsection (2) does not apply to a statutory instrument containing regulations under section 88A if the regulations—
(a) are the first set of regulations to be made under that section, or(b) include provision falling within subsection (3)(a) or (6) of that section.(2ZC) A statutory instrument to which subsection (2) does not apply by virtue of subsection (2ZB) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.””
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, with Amendments 15 and 16 we turn again to the subject of littering from vehicles. This is a matter which this House has discussed several times in recent months, and it is clear from those debates that the House is united in its displeasure at seeing litter along our roadsides, and at the thoughtless and uncaring behaviour of those inconsiderate individuals who left it there. By far the majority of those who have spoken on this issue have supported the proposal by my noble friend Lord Marlesford for councils to have the power to fine the registered keeper of a vehicle from which litter is seen to be thrown. Therefore, on Report I undertook to bring forward a government amendment to provide the Secretary of State with an order-making power to enable councils to do just that.
We know, of course, that it will not always have been the registered keeper—himself or herself—who threw the litter. For that reason, the power enables provision to be made for litter authorities to issue fixed penalties for littering from vehicles but does not impose any criminal liability on registered keepers. Provision could be made for an unpaid fixed penalty to be recovered as a civil debt. However, a registered keeper could not be prosecuted under Section 87 unless he or she were the actual offender, as is the case now.
As I said on Report, these powers are intended to make life easier for local authorities. It will therefore be important to ensure that we get the details of this scheme right, to be confident that they will work as intended and will meet local authorities’ needs in a way that the current regime of criminal sanctions for littering may not. For that reason, rather than rushing into detailed primary legislation in haste, Amendment 15 will place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that regulations address important matters such as the size of the fine, the form and content of the penalty notice, exceptions to the keeper’s liability—for example, if the vehicle has been stolen—and matters relating to representations and appeals. These are all matters on which we will want to seek local authorities’ and others’ views before bringing forward draft regulations for approval by both Houses.
The power to issue these civil penalties will be conferred on the “litter authority” for the land where the offence is committed. In most cases, this will be the local authority, but on certain major roads the responsibility lies with the Highways Agency. This approach ensures that the Secretary of State will be able to confer these powers on those who need them most.
I should also like to draw your Lordships’ attention to subsection (6) of proposed new Section 88A, which provides the Secretary of State with a power to amend certain parts of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or the London Local Authorities Act 2007 in consequence of any provision made under these regulations. This is to ensure that the interaction between the new regime of civil penalties and the existing regime is clear, and that there is no question of duplication or double jeopardy. My noble friend is to be commended for his persistence on this issue. All of us in this House share his views about the scourge of litter defacing our roads, towns and countryside. This new measure will enable us to give local authorities in England an additional power to tackle this anti-social behaviour. I beg to move.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, this is a productive moment. I hope that Members on all sides of the House, particularly the opposition Front Bench, who have been enormously supportive throughout, agree with me in that. I thank CPRE and Keep Britain Tidy for their encouragement throughout and express my personal appreciation of the massive and, for me, unexpected media interest and public support which have emerged when this issue has been discussed. I particularly wish to mention the advice I have received from the Public Bill Office on how to use this Bill on anti-social behaviour as a vehicle for my Private Member’s Bill, given that the Private Member’s Bill route is not always the easiest way to the statute book. I thank the Minister for his strong support throughout and for his sympathy and ingenuity in solving any difficulties that arose. I also thank two members of the Cabinet—my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Environment Secretary—for their strong political support in agreeing to the course that I have taken.
This amendment must be regarded as a real step to enabling us to improve the cleanliness of our streets and roads as a much needed and benevolent element of the national pride we all feel in the England we love. It does, of course, imply rapid follow-up—as rapid as possible, in the light of what my noble friend has just said—in making the order to bring it into effect. All this should be part of a wider clean-up operation in which we change public behaviour through a mixture of education, exhortation and, when necessary, deterrence.
We should also consider other methods of tackling this issue. I have in mind particularly the practice in a number of states in the USA, led originally by Oregon, whereby packaging is returnable through traders who pay a few cents to people who pick it up. That very simple system is carried out in a number of other places.
This measure is merely a step and a part of what should be a major change in public behaviour so that we can once again see this country be as clean as the cleanest of our European neighbours. I once again thank the Minister very much.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend for not recognising that he was in his place; he was shielded from my line of sight by my noble friend sitting next to him.
We have learnt from experience that to legislate in haste, even on a matter as serious as this, is a bad thing. I am therefore delighted that the Government in their wisdom have decided to use the route of secondary legislation to put the force behind my noble friend’s remarks into law. My noble friend on the Front Bench referred to “littering authorities”, which is a rather good expression.
The Highways Agency has vehicles, and it may well be that someone in one of those vehicles can observe litter being thrown from a car window—it might be an apple core, a plastic cup or anything. However, local authorities are not normally in that position and I therefore counsel my noble friend and the department concerned, when drawing up these regulations, to think about the route to prosecution by individual walkers or other car drivers who could complain to either the Highways Agency or local authorities. Clearly, there is still work to be done but I, like my noble friend, hope it will have a very satisfactory outcome.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
“( ) section (Use of premises for child sex offences) and Schedule (Amendments of Part 2A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003);”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
ScheduleAmendments of Part 2A of the Sexual Offences Act 20031 Part 2A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (closure orders) is amended as follows.
2 (1) Section 136A (meaning of specified prostitution offence etc) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a) the words “section 47 of this Act or” are omitted;(b) in paragraph (b) the words “section 48 of this Act, or” are omitted;(c) in paragraph (c) the words “section 49 of this Act, or” are omitted;(d) in paragraph (d) the words “section 50 of this Act, or” are omitted.(3) In subsection (3)—
(a) in paragraph (a) the words “section 48 of this Act, or” are omitted;(b) in paragraph (b) the words “section 49 of this Act, or” are omitted;(c) in paragraph (c) the words “section 50 of this Act, or” are omitted.(4) After that subsection there is inserted—
“(3A) The specified child sex offences are—
(a) an offence under any of the following sections of this Act—sections 5 to 13;sections 16 to 19;sections 25 and 26;sections 47 to 50;(b) an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (indecent photographs of children);(c) an offence under any of the following sections of this Act committed against a person under 18—sections 1 to 4;sections 30 to 41;section 59A;section 61;sections 66 and 67.”(5) In subsection (4)(a)—
(a) the words “section 47 of this Act or” are omitted;(b) the words “subsection (1)(a) of that section or, as the case may be,” are omitted.(6) After subsection (5) there is inserted—
“(5A) Premises are being used for activities related to a specified child sex offence at any time when the premises are used—
(a) to commit the offence, or(b) for activities intended to arrange or facilitate the commission of the offence.” 3 In section 136B (power to authorise issue of closure notice), in the heading, for “notice” there is substituted “notice: prostitution or pornography offences”.
4 After that section there is inserted—
“136BA Power to authorise issue of closure notice: child sex offences in England and Wales
(1) A member of a police force not below the rank of superintendent (“the authorising officer”) may authorise the issue of a closure notice in respect of any premises in England and Wales if three conditions are met.
(2) The first condition is that the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that—
(a) during the relevant period, the premises were used for activities related to one or more specified child sex offences, or(b) the premises are likely to be used (unless a closure order is made) for activities related to one or more specified child sex offences.(3) In subsection (2)(a), “the relevant period” means the period of 3 months ending with the day on which the officer is considering whether to authorise the issue of the notice.
(4) The second condition is that the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the making of a closure order under section 136D is necessary to prevent the premises being used for activities related to one or more specified child sex offences.
(5) For the purposes of the second condition, it does not matter whether the officer believes that the offence or offences in question have been committed or that they will be committed (or will be committed unless a closure order is made).
(6) The third condition is that the officer is satisfied that reasonable efforts have been made—
(a) to consult the local authority for the area in which the premises are situated, and(b) to establish the identity of any person who resides on the premises or who has control of or responsibility for or an interest in the premises.(7) If the local authority has not been consulted when the notice is issued, it must be consulted as soon as possible afterwards.
(8) An authorisation under subsection (1) may be given orally or in writing, but if it is given orally the authorising officer must confirm it in writing as soon as it is practicable.
(9) The issue of a closure notice may be authorised whether or not a person has been convicted of any specified child sex offence that the authorising officer believes has been committed.
(10) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify premises or descriptions of premises to which this section does not apply.”
5 (1) Section 136C (contents and service of closure notice) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(c), after “section 136B” there is inserted “or 136BA”.
(3) In subsection (3)(d), after “section 136B(7)(b)” there is inserted “or 136BA(6)(b)”.
6 (1) Section 136D (power to make a closure order) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (5), for “either subsection (6) or subsection (7) (or both)” there is substituted “at least one of subsections (6), (7) and (7A)”.
(3) After subsection (7) there is inserted—
“(7A) This subsection applies if—
(a) during the relevant period, the premises were used for activities related to one or more specified child sex offences, or(b) the premises are likely to be used (unless a closure order is made) for activities related to one or more specified child sex offences.”(4) In subsection (8), for “subsections (6) and (7)” there is substituted “subsections (6), (7) and (7A)(a)”.
(5) In subsection (9), for “prostitution or pornography offences” there is substituted “prostitution, pornography or child sex offences”.
(6) In subsection (10)(a), after “section 136B(7)(b)” there is inserted “or 136BA(6)(b)”.
(7) In subsection (12), for “prostitution or pornography offences” there is substituted “prostitution, pornography or child sex offences”.
7 In section 136H (applications for extension of closure order), in subsection (4), for “prostitution or pornography offences” there is substituted “prostitution, pornography or child sex offences”.
8 In section 136I (orders extending closure orders), in subsection (2), for “prostitution or pornography offences” there is substituted “prostitution, pornography or child sex offences”.
9 In section 136J (discharge of closure order), in subsection (3), for “prostitution or pornography offences” there is substituted “prostitution, pornography or child sex offences”.
10 In section 136O (compensation), in subsection (5)(a), after “section 136B” there is inserted “or 136BA”.
11 (1) Section 136R (interpretation) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), after “section 136B” there is inserted “or 136BA”.
(3) After subsection (14) there is inserted—
“(15) In the application of this Part to England and Wales, references to specified pornography offences are to be ignored.
“(16) “Specified child sex offence” means an offence listed in section 136A(3A).
(17) In the application of this Part to Northern Ireland, references to specified child sex offences and to section 136BA are to be ignored.””
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
“31 (1) Section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (power of constable to require person acting in an anti-social manner to give name and address) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) the words “(within the meaning of section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (anti-social behaviour orders)” are omitted.
(3) After that subsection there is inserted—
“(1A) In subsection (1) “anti-social behaviour” has the meaning given by section (Meaning of “anti-social behaviour”) of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (ignoring subsection (2) of that section).””
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, perhaps I may at this juncture say a few words because not only is it customary but I wish to add something and hope that I am doing so at the right moment. It is an opportunity for us to place on record our thanks to noble Lords who have assisted in the passage of the Bill and to those who stand behind us and make it happen to our advantage.
The Bill has had a remarkably long journey and our debates have been liberally sprinkled with amendments. I am mindful of those early days in Committee when my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Greaves tabled a large number of amendments to the first part of the Bill, and I have to say that they were very much for the erudition of the House and the improvement of the Bill. I am grateful to them and my noble friend Lord Paddick, who also participated from those Benches.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who is not in his place at present, and all Peers who participated from the Labour Benches. I see the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, is in his place. His contributions, particularly as a magistrate, were valuable. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, was, as always, a vigorous debater. I know that some of the measures were taken from the Opposition Front Bench by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and I am grateful to him, as I am to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for the debates that she took. Today, we heard from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, and we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I add my thanks to the Minister, the whole ministerial team and the Bill team for the remarkably constructive way in which they have addressed all the many issues that have arisen under this complex Bill. I ask the Minister one question. Will the welcome sense of harmony that has been displayed today extend to the amendment that the House carried last week on the definition of when compensation will be paid for a miscarriage of justice? Is the Minister able to tell the House whether the Government will commend that amendment to the other place?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, this gives me an unexpected opportunity to come to the Dispatch Box. On behalf of the Ministry of Justice, I would welcome a conversation with the noble Lord, but I can go no further than that.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, as we get to the end of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill we have, given the amendments today, a sense of achievement. However, if I am honest—and I think the Minister would agree—there is a sense of some relief. I entirely concur with his comments about the support from around the House and his civil servants in the Box. The Bill has had a long and sometimes tortuous journey. There were times when I thought perhaps we needed injunctions for nuisance and annoyance and for these to be employed in your Lordships’ House. There were a number of scheduling changes which, fortunately, did not interrupt the Minister’s birthday party. However, they did cause some anxiety in ensuring that we were properly prepared for each stage of the Bill. We coped with all those and I am grateful to him and to his Front Bench colleagues, the noble Lords, Lord Ahmad and Lord Faulks, for their support.
When the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, was speaking from the Back Benches he was very much in favour of an amendment relating to an eviction power in England for those found guilty of rioting offences. Unfortunately, when he moved to the Front Bench we lost the powerful and persuasive speech he would have made on Report. We look forward to hearing other contributions.
We are grateful for the constructive way in which the Minister approached our amendments, particularly the two tabled today and that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, which significantly improve the Bill. I am grateful to my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, my noble friends Lord Beecham and Lord Rosser, my noble friend Lady Thornton, and our Whip, my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, who did an excellent job. I am also grateful for the expertise of our Back-Benchers. I am thinking, in particular, of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, my noble friend Lady Henig, and my noble friend Lord Harris—although he was described as mischievous by the Minister—whose expertise was useful and wise.
I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on the one outstanding issue on miscarriage of justice. All other issues have been resolved today, so I hope we can reach agreement on that, as your Lordships’ House made its view very plain. I hope we can proceed with the next Bill, on immigration, with the same constructive dialogue as the Minister has been willing to undertake on this one.
Water Bill
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thes Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have prioritised growing the economy and improving the environment. This Water Bill contributes to both of these priorities. There are two important parts to the Bill; first, to reform the water industry to ensure it is fit for the long term, and, secondly, to provide a solution to deal with the availability and affordability of flood insurance for households at high risk of flooding.
Recent events have reminded us all just how devastating flooding is for those affected. They also remind us how important it is to help manage the financial impacts of flooding. Perhaps at this point I should declare some interests. A tributary of the River Thames runs through my farm. I have an abstraction licence, a bore hole and a recently flooded house, as well as a share in a lake. These are clearly issues close to my heart.
The Water Bill has three aims: to build the resilience of our water supplies without damaging the environment; to encourage and contribute to economic growth; and to give customers greater choice. These are important issues for noble Lords across the House and I look forward to discussing them in the coming weeks. I am very grateful to noble Lords who have already taken the time to talk to me about these aims. Their views have given me real food for thought and I will continue to work with them to try to address their concerns and answer their questions. I look forward to a similar, strong level of engagement during the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House. I value enormously the debate and scrutiny that this Bill will receive in this House.
First, I shall set out why this Bill is before us today, the issues we are addressing and why it is important. Water is essential to life. We need clean and plentiful water resources to supply our homes and to support a growing population and economy. Water is also critical for a healthy and flourishing natural environment. That natural environment is the essential foundation for sustaining our economy, for prospering communities and for our individual well-being.
The 2011 water White Paper, Water for Life, set out the Government’s ambitions for a sustainable, resilient and customer-focused water sector. It outlined the plans for delivering substantial improvements in the health of our rivers through improving water quality and tackling unsustainable abstraction. Let us be frank: we must acknowledge that a growing population and the impacts of climate change pose risks to our water resources and the ecosystems they support. We need to take these challenges seriously to avoid causing irreparable damage to our environment.
The White Paper set out the challenges for the water sector through to 2050. This Bill is one part of our policy response, which is designed to drive long-term changes to ensure a secure and sustainable water system. Delivering this long-term change requires action by government, Ofwat and the Environment Agency, the water sector and users of water across the economy. We have put this challenge at the centre of the policy framework we have set for Ofwat through the strategic policy statement. We are reinforcing that through the new resilience duty in this Bill.
We are driving change in water companies through our guidance on water resource management planning. This Bill includes a new power for the Secretary of State to direct in advance the level of resilience a water company must plan for. We are using the Bill to extend competition to drive innovation, bringing new players with new ideas into the sector. Competition will keep a downward pressure on the costs customers pay. This is about safeguarding our water supplies for the long-term future. Ensuring a resilient supply system will require action to develop new water resources and use them in a different way, and to manage demand.
The Bill will change behaviour and change the focus of the water sector. It will hardwire future resilience into its regulatory framework. This is resilience in a broad sense. It encompasses water networks and water resources. It includes the environment from which companies draw their supplies. Resilience was a central theme of our White Paper and is a key theme of the Water Bill. We will return to it time and again in our consideration of the Bill.
We must ensure that our infrastructure can deal with more extreme weather. The floods and indeed droughts we have experienced in recent years illustrate the risks we face. In 2012, one in every five days saw flooding but on one in every four days we were in drought, putting our water supplies under great pressure. The water White Paper recognised these challenges and set out the Government’s strategy for a sustainable and resilient water sector. This Bill is part of our plan.
Let me give your Lordships an example of action we are taking outside the Bill. Resolving the issue of unsustainable abstraction from our water resources is a priority. That is why we are taking action now, including in this Bill, and developing detailed plans for reform. We have intensified our work to tackle the overabstraction currently damaging our rivers by varying and removing licences. We will be bringing previously exempt groups into the system in the near future.
The Environment Agency has reviewed thousands of abstraction licences and has changed about 80 of them, returning 75 billion litres of water per year to the environment in England. That is equivalent to the annual average water use of a city larger than Birmingham. Over the longer term, we are reforming the abstraction regime to make it more flexible and resilient to future challenges. We published our consultation on future options in December.
The Government are absolutely committed to early legislation to deliver abstraction reform, but we have to get it right. The Government are acting in a wide range of ways as part of a strategy to secure the future of our water sector. With this wider context in mind, I should like to talk about the things that the Bill before us seeks to achieve. It will make a vital contribution to addressing the challenges that I have highlighted.
I turn, first, to reform of the water industry. The Bill will remove the regulatory barriers that discourage or prevent new firms competing in the water industry. This is not competition for competition’s sake. It will provide real choice for non-household customers and bring new entrants into the market. Competition between companies will drive improved customer service as companies will need to work harder to attract and maintain customers. As we go forward, this competition will exert a downward pressure on bills for all customers.
In the two decades since privatisation, the sector has attracted more than £116 billion in low cost investment. Privatisation of the water industry has been successful in attracting investment that has improved infrastructure and produced cleaner water supplies. The importance of the stability of this investment—the stability of the market—cannot be overstated. We must maintain the attractiveness of the water sector. We are talking about evolutionary change. We have been careful not to risk stability by forcing through sudden and dramatic changes.
The Bill seeks to build on the strengths of the current regime, using enhanced competition to drive improvements for the benefit of all customers. For example, the Bill will make it easier for water companies to trade water with each other, offering alternative sources of water to companies, which could be crucial, for example, in the case of drought.
We are making it easier for new businesses to enter the water market to provide new sources of water or sewage treatment services. We are making developing new sources of water, and selling it to water companies, easier and more attractive for landowners by creating a regulated market. We are also making it easier for innovative businesses to find different ways to treat and dispose of wastewater and sewage. This could include recycling and reusing wastewater as a new water resource, or using sewage sludge for anaerobic digestion rather than landfill.
There are some exciting and innovative things happening in our water sector. We are already seeing the first signs of a competitive market. In September last year, First Milk became the first multisite customer to switch to Severn Trent Costain. The two companies are working together to improve First Milk’s water efficiency and lower its environmental impact. These opportunities are limited at the moment because they are open only to the largest water users. The Bill is designed to encourage precisely such innovation by developing the market further.
The Bill will allow all businesses, charities and public sector customers to switch their water and sewerage supplier. This is a significant reform that will bring significant gains for multisite customers—such as hospitals and supermarkets—which could save thousands of pounds in administration costs by dealing with only one water company across their estate.
Competition in Scotland is delivering real benefits to customers and to the environment. The public sector in Scotland is forecast to save £36 million over four years, thanks to better water efficiency and discounts.
Competition will benefit the environment more widely. Water companies will offer better water efficiency advice and other services to attract customers, such as smart metering and improved customer service. This is where we expect to see knock-on benefits for householders. Water companies offering improved customer service and better awareness of water efficiency measures will also be serving household customers. All customers will benefit as the sector becomes more innovative and efficient at what it does. Householders will not subsidise the costs of increased competition. Ofwat has confirmed it has the tools it needs to ensure this. The Government’s charging principles also make it clear that the protection of householders is fundamental.
I should like to talk about affordability for households. We are all conscious of the impact of water bills across the country. It is not possible for us to discuss a Water Bill without mentioning water bills. Let us be clear. Water is a price-controlled sector. Ofwat sets an overall cap on the total amount that each water company can recover from their customers. It is Ofwat’s responsibility to ensure both that charges are fair and that the companies are able to finance their operations.
Ofwat estimates that the current price review could reduce pressure on bills by between £120 million and £750 million a year from 2015. Water companies themselves are taking action. A number of companies have already committed to keeping bills below the price cap for 2014-15. Water companies already help households struggling to pay their bills and most are planning social tariffs for 2015 that are designed to reflect local circumstances. It is important to recognise that the independent regulator is doing its job.
Water companies have reacted well, and that is the way the sector should work. Too much interference from Government would undermine the principle and advantages of independent regulation. The Government’s approach on this issue is a responsible one. A stable, independent regulatory system is critical to keeping bills affordable. Small changes to the industry’s financing costs can have a significant impact. A 1% increase in the cost of capital can add £20 to customer bills.
The Government are tackling affordability over the longer term. Our market reforms will exert a sustained downward pressure on water bills. Through this Bill, we are also taking important steps to address the affordability of flood insurance for households in areas at high risk of flooding. I know that future arrangements for flood insurance are of great interest to noble Lords. The recent extreme weather has served to highlight the important role that the insurance industry plays in helping people to get back on their feet after flooding. The measures in this Bill bring forward powers to provide affordable insurance for those at high risk of flooding. Both Government and the insurance industry recognised that there was a need to bring forward new measures following the expiry of the statement of principles agreement between Government and the insurance industry, which came to an end in June 2013.
Our preferred approach, a reinsurance scheme which is known as Flood Re, will limit the amount that high-risk households have to pay on the flood insurance element of their premiums and excesses. The effective limit on the premium would vary according to council tax band, rising for more expensive properties, which means that benefits will be targeted towards lower-income households, providing more support for those who need it the most. To fund this, an industry-backed levy would be introduced. It is initially expected to be £10.50 per policy. The Association of British Insurers has assured us that this will be achieved without increasing bills for those people at low or no risk of flooding.
The Flood Re scheme is designed to be industry run and led. Our ambition is that it will be up and running in 2015 and the insurance industry together with Government is working hard to achieve this. Insurers have agreed to continue to meet their commitments under the 2008 statement of principles until the Bill has passed through Parliament and Flood Re has been set up.
Although Flood Re is our preferred approach, we are seeking reserve powers to provide affordable cover if Flood Re should prove unworkable or prices in an open market prove unacceptable. Having a fallback means that customers can have confidence that the issue is being addressed. I also take this opportunity to draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that arrangements for flood insurance are designed to be transitional measures. Over time, there should be a gradual transition towards more risk-reflective prices, based on robust evidence of local risk, to increase the incentives for flood risk to be managed over the longer term.
The Water Bill will prepare our water sector to face the challenges of the future. There will be greater choice for customers, leading to improved efficiency, more innovation and better levels of service. The Water Bill will put in place measures to ensure a future with resilient water resources and an improved environment, as well as ensuring that householders at high risk of flooding can access affordable flood insurance into the future. With these principles in mind, I beg to move.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for a very clear, not to say dry, exposition of the terms of the Bill. I particularly thank him and his officials from Defra and Ofwat for making themselves available to so many of us in the run-up to the Bill and trying to explain some of its more obscure aspects.
I do not have the same interests as the Minister, in that I have taken the precaution of living on top of a hill. However, I have form. One or two noble Lords were around when I took the Bill that became the Water Act 2003 through this House. Since then, I am probably the only Member of your Lordships’ House who has served on the boards of both Ofwat and the Environment Agency, albeit rather briefly in the case of Ofwat, so I have some experience of this interesting industry. I am afraid that that experience leads me to conclude that the Bill is not really up to the job of sorting out a strategic future for the sector. However, I can tell the Minister that the Opposition will not fundamentally oppose the main elements of the Bill. We will be vigorously querying them, and will make some propositions, but the real problem I have with the Bill is what it omits.
In one sense, that is slightly surprising. As the Minister said, two years ago, admittedly under a different Secretary of State—one who actually believed that climate change was occurring—the Government produced a very good White Paper, Water for Life. That White Paper dealt holistically with water as a resource, as an environmental force—for good or evil—as an amenity and as an economic and infrastructure system. The White Paper was positively received by the industry, environmental groups, consumer groups, the regulator and politicians of all parties. It was therefore assumed that the Government would produce a Bill which implemented all elements of that strategy. Instead, the Government produced a much thinner Bill—thin in content rather than in volume, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. The initial Bill was even thinner and was roundly criticised by the Select Committee in another place under the leadership of the redoubtable Anne McIntosh MP. The Government then produced a slightly better Bill, which is what we now have. It went through the House of Commons fairly quickly and, just before Report, the Government introduced the key element, to which the Minister has referred, on flood insurance. We will be taking quite a rushed job on the Bill, but a number of issues need some pretty thorough examination.
The water system is one massive system, natural and engineered; the water industry is one massive industry, dominated by very large companies. The system has to be managed and regulated in a holistic way, but I am afraid the Bill only tinkers at the edges, important though some of those interventions are. So there are huge gaps in this Bill.
In terms of what is in the Bill, there are three main objectives. First, on flood insurance, as the Minister said, foremost in our mind must be the distress and suffering caused by the recent floods, and their impact on families, farms and businesses. Part 4 of the Bill sets up the Flood Re system, which the Minister described. I congratulate the Government, particularly the Minister’s former colleague, Richard Benyon, on reaching a conclusion with the insurance industry, which I know is not the easiest of negotiators. We will support the overall concept of Flood Re and the contingency provisions under the flood insurance scheme—my noble friend Lord Grantchester will expand on our position on that later on. Noble Lords will be aware that a number of representations are being made by groups that feel excluded from the scheme, and no doubt we will have an interesting time in Committee, but I strongly support the concept.
The second main element of the Bill is retail competition for non-domestic consumers, which is the flagship policy here. We support that objective—indeed, attempts were made to introduce competition in the 2003 Act and in the 2010 Act, but they never really materialised under that regime and only four instances ever occurred. However, in Scotland, where there is a different structure and a state-owned wholesale company, we have seen rapid development of a retail non-domestic market, which is working for the public sector, for businesses and for charities, particularly those which operate on multiple sites. They have seen benefits in terms of bills, water efficiency and customer service. Although only about 5% of non-domestic consumers have switched in Scotland, the very fact of competition has had a beneficial effect on the rest of the market.
However, we must also recognise the limitations involved. Theoretically, 1.2 million customers will now be able to choose alternative retailers, but, in practice, the option is likely to be most attractive to entities such as supermarkets which operate on multiple sites or to public sector bodies such as local authorities and universities which have a lot of bills that they would wish to consolidate. It is unlikely that there will be anything like 1.2 million people taking advantage of the market; the majority of small businesses, for example, are even less likely to switch—as we have seen from the energy market—than are domestic consumers. Although competition is important and puts an edge into the industry, we should not exaggerate the degree to which it is transformational.
Moreover, we have to consider carefully the effect on household consumers. Twenty million household consumers will continue to rely on regulation rather than competition to get them a better deal. We will have to strengthen protections in the Bill to ensure that domestic consumers are not disadvantaged by the fact that part of the non-domestic market is getting a better deal. The Minister gave an assurance to that effect in that Ofwat has the tools, which I think is how he put it, but those need to be strengthened and made clearer in the Bill.
Even where there is effective competition and some choice, the provisions do not fully deliver an effective, functioning market. I shall take just two or three issues. Entry into the market appears to be largely by negotiation with the incumbent company rather than by open and transparent price competition, as would be the case in most markets. Even more surprisingly, there is no provision for exit from the market. Surely provision for exit from the retail market by poorly performing competitors or incumbents is essential for a properly functioning market. Most stakeholders seem to favour providing for it, with safeguards to protect the consumer, so we will be looking at whether we should provide in the Bill for exit from the market. We also need tighter provisions on non-discrimination by incumbent companies to make this work at all. Therefore, we support the direction of travel, but there are a lot of details that we will wish to go into.
Thirdly, there is a resilience duty in the Bill. This caused a little bit of manoeuvring in the Commons and I am not entirely clear that the resilience duty that the Government have come up with goes as far as we would wish. Historically, there has been a dual system of regulation in water, with Ofwat being the economic regulator—sometimes very narrowly defining what that meant—and the Environment Agency being the environment regulator.
Synergy and cohesion have got better in recent years. Since 2003, Ofwat has had a secondary sustainability duty. Nevertheless, the record shows that Ofwat has in its price review tended to give greater priority to things that related solely to the economic side and less to what was needed for the environmental or resource-conservation side. We need to look again at that. That is why I think that green NGOs and many of our colleagues in the Commons were pressing for sustainable development, which is currently a secondary duty, to be elevated to a primary duty.
The resilience duty is, in a sense, the Government’s response to that. Resilience is undoubtedly important, and the Minister said that it will be interpreted in a broad sense, but it is a bit vague. Resilience certainly does not cover the range of subjects that sustainable development does, and it is still criticised by some NGOs. The Government have strengthened the position since they first introduced it into the Bill, and we need to take account of that, but we will still want to probe whether resilience is really the better expression or whether, as I suspect, it could exclude key aspects that are covered by sustainable development—especially, to take an obvious example, social sustainability, which is an important aspect of how the water market works. We intend to probe those issues in Committee.
That covers what is in the Bill, but there are some massive things which are not—two very large elephants in the room. First, there is the bizarre financial structure of the industry, which has been commented on in the press in a timely way in the past few days. Secondly, there is the management and regulation of the physical water system, the movement of water from precipitation right the way through our streams, rivers, culverts and pipes to our taps or to the ocean. We know that it is a huge and risky system—the past few weeks have told us that, and only a few months earlier we were talking about the scarcity of water in certain parts of the country. The existence of scarcity or excess crucially affects our ecology, our agriculture, our way of life and our communities. Those are huge issues; they were addressed in the White Paper, but not really reflected in the Bill.
I shall take the economic structure of the industry first. The Minister says that privatisation has been a success and, in the limited sense that we have had substantial investment, it has—and we do not want to jeopardise that—but this is an odd industry. It is dominated by regional monopolies which are themselves vertically integrated. Some of them have been subject to takeover and they are now mostly owned by overseas-based investment funds. I do not decry that, but it means that their structure for raising finance is odd for a public utility. They are also highly profitable. On some calculations, there has been a return of 17.5% on asset value since privatisation. They are, as the newspapers have pointed out in the past couple of days, very high payers of dividends, with nearly 90% of profits returned as dividends last year.
The sector is very highly geared, for the most part. On average, well over 70% of capital comes from the markets, not from equity sources, as was assumed when we first privatised the industry. The industry also has a fairly poor record on innovation, as some of your Lordships’ Select Committees have pointed out over the past few years. At the far end, over the past 10 years there has been a 55% increase in prices to the consumer. The industry has also been relatively poor, although improving, on customer service. That does not describe either a modern, dynamic, innovative market or an effective delivery mechanism for a general social good. Although delivery of investment has been important, those other aspects need addressing.
The system of regulation needs a pretty fundamental rethink. In the past few months, Ofwat itself has recognised the need to change. The regulator is proposing significant changes in the coming price review and has already implemented a significant improvement in consumer engagement. I welcome that, and the role of the Consumer Council for Water in that. In the price review, however, Ofwat is going to put less emphasis on capital expenditure and have more flexibility between different forms of expenditure, which I welcome. It is taking a longer-term view on investment and more emphasis is likely on interconnection, water efficiency and demand management and on environmental measures. I welcome pretty much all those Ofwat initiatives, but they are within a framework which does not necessarily push them in that way. The initiatives need to be embedded because they will be seriously challenged by some of the operators and undertakers within this industry. The system of regulation needs review and the Government need to be a bit more radical. They need to look at whether there are stronger measures which can ensure that the companies actually deliver, including perhaps addressing fundamental issues such as the proper and full separation of the wholesale from the retail market.
We also have a pretty odd way in which we pay for water, with most domestic consumers still operating on a rateable value which is several years or decades old. The result is that its affordability to our citizens and businesses is very much in question. In the household sector, more than 12% have very serious problems with affordability. The previous Government’s 2010 Act provided for social tariffs to make water more affordable to vulnerable families, but I am afraid that first the regulator and then the industry have been slow in taking them up. The Minister said that they will have them the next year or the year after, but the fact of the matter is that the record at the moment is not very good. If we add all the schemes together, including the WaterSure scheme which the Government promoted for large families or those with serious medical conditions, there are only 70,000 or 80,000 people covered in total. Yet from the figures which I just quoted, we know that there are about 2 million having problems with affordability. Since the companies appear to be so recalcitrant in coming forward, we will be pressing for a stronger move towards social tariffs and for some form of national affordability scheme to be introduced, to set targets for minimum standards and for the way in which companies treat their less well-off consumers.
There are also big problems with the water system itself. There is a huge loss and misdirection of water both in its supposedly natural movement, which is often in practice the result of human land management, and in the engineered part of the system. Inappropriate land management, deforestation at the top of water courses, the changing and dredging of natural watercourses and the loss of natural water meadows and flood soaks all have the effect of pushing more water downstream, just at the time when it should not be. Excessive man-made abstractions of water, currently and historically, threaten the system itself and some of our key geological features. For example, we are destroying our chalk streams from Yorkshire down to Dorset—a landscape and geological feature which is almost unique to England. In economic terms, excessive abstraction means not only not enough storage in the winter to provide for the needs of agriculture and society in the hotter months but that the whole management of the system becomes difficult. Meanwhile in the engineered part of the system, increased floodwater leads to sewage leaks, with their attendant risks, and increased leakage from the clean water system.
All those issues were covered in the White Paper, but they are not in the Bill. However, there is one thing in the Bill which threatens effective achievement of a better system of water management as a whole. That concerns upstream competition being provided for in the Bill before we have properly regulated and introduced a new system of abstraction reform. The present system of abstraction licensing is 50 years old and even then has grandfathered ancient rights. I have been arguing for radical abstraction reform for well over a decade. The Bill rightly ends compensation to water companies for the modification of abstraction licences, which is an issue that the Environment Agency has been trying to modify within the current structure over recent years.
The Bill provides for upstream competition to be introduced. The Government have said that this will not happen before 2020, but nevertheless to introduce upstream competition before we have actually reformed the extraction system is highly dangerous. Abstraction licences are not used to their full; only about 42% of water allowable under such licences is actually abstracted. That means that there is a lot of potential water to be abstracted under the present system. If we introduce competition and the ability to source that water differently, the effect may well be that we create scarcity in those areas where there is not already scarcity. It is already a problem that a majority of our water catchment areas are overextracted. Upstream competition and trading could work if there were a limit on abstractions, but until we get to a proper system I think that the Government are wrong to provide for upstream competition even in the way that it is provided for on a contingency basis in the Bill. It must be clear by the time the Bill leaves this House and goes on to the statute book that upstream competition is dependent on there first being a proper regime for abstraction; otherwise, we will have the worst of both worlds.
I hope that we return to many of these features in Committee and at subsequent stages, and I hope that the Government take note particularly of our concerns over abstraction reform at the top end of the system and affordability at the point where it reaches our homes.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I have neither the interests that the Minister had to declare nor the form of the Opposition Front Bench. Indeed, this is the first Bill that I will be taking through this House on behalf of the Liberal Democrat group. I may not have the interests or the form but I certainly have the passion to ensure that the Bill delivers to meet the challenges that our water resources currently face.
Only one in four of our rivers and lakes is a fully functioning ecosystem. Equally troubling, many of our water supplies are under pressure from unsustainable levels of abstraction and the combined effect of climate change and a growing population. Liberal Democrats accept that each generation is responsible for the fate of our planet so it is no surprise that we want to protect natural resources, on which future generations and economic prosperity depend. We therefore support the Bill, which sets the framework to improve the health of our precious lakes and rivers while keeping water available and affordable.
We are members of a coalition Government so of course there are areas where we would like to see the Bill go further. Opening up the upstream water market should go hand in hand with the reform of the abstraction licensing regime, rising demand for water should be tackled by greater metering and affordable flood insurance should equally help to build up our resilience to future flooding. These are areas that I will be seeking to strengthen in the Bill through clarification and amendment.
I credit Ministers who have gone a long way to meet the widely held aspirations for a stronger commitment to sustainable resource management in the remit of the water regulator, Ofwat. The introduction of a primary duty to secure the long-term resilience of water supply and sewerage systems is significant, and made all the stronger by the new Minister, Dan Rogerson, during the Bill’s passage in the Commons. To make crystal clear the Government’s intention to protect our natural resources, I would hope that Clause 24 could be amended to oblige rather than invite future Governments to take into account social and environmental matters when drawing up future strategic priorities and objectives for Ofwat. I invite Ministers to reflect further on that.
It is a disappointment that the Government are not legislating now to reform the water abstraction regime. The current system, in place for more than 40 years, has left ecosystems damaged. As the House of Lords EU Sub-Committee D’s 2012 report into EU freshwater policy said, and I must declare an interest as a member of that committee,
“delaying this reform for at least 15 years fails to respond to the urgency of the situation”.
Like the Opposition, we on these Benches think that without the proposals for abstraction reform running in parallel with those that create a market for trading water, there is significant risk to our scarce water resources. The Government’s consultation document on abstraction reform confirms as much, saying:
“Significant volumes of water are licensed but unused. If this water is used, for example, as a result of increased trading in a reformed system, this could cause environmental deterioration”.
Equally, the Environment Agency has identified a large number of catchments where increased trading could leave less water in river or groundwater than is needed to maintain required environmental standards.
The Government so far have committed that the timetables for both reforms are “likely to be broadly similar”. We need assurances that proposals for upstream reform, which are in the Bill and which could come into force by 2019, will be fully aligned with reform of the abstraction regime, which is not legislated for. In the absence of the Minister being able to give such assurances, there must be further environmental safeguards put in place prior to the introduction of upstream competition.
Liberal Democrats support the proposals to open up retail competition in the business market which has worked so well in Scotland, saving money for businesses, charities and public authorities with multiple sites and enhancing water resource management. However, in Committee we will seek clarification over the proposals to open up the upstream wholesale market to competition. While this may make trading between water companies easier, this theoretical market model seems to include the potential for the de-averaging of prices and currently lacks parliamentary scrutiny of central elements, such as the setting up of the market operator.
Managing water resources for the long term has to take account of affordability for consumers now, with more than 2 million households currently spending more than 4% of their income on water bills. This coalition Government are to be applauded in getting more families on low incomes out of paying tax to boost the money they have to meet household expenses. The water companies could do far more to bring those household expenses down by more firmly tackling bad debt which adds £14 to all our water bills. Recognising that finding non-payees is critical and that 80% of them are in rented households, a voluntary database for landlords to register tenant details will soon be introduced. In Committee in the other place, Water UK expressed the view that a voluntary approach simply does not work, a view echoed by the EFRA Select Committee. The evidence of Northumbrian Water which has had such a website for two and half years shows that only 7% of landlords have registered, and they were the landlords who were already committed to tackling the issue.
Why are the Government, unlike the Welsh Government, not implementing the bad debt provisions in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 which would make compliance with the database mandatory when such a move could help company debt recovery and bring household bills down? Do the Government support the fixing of the date for implementation of those proposals, should the voluntary database fail to work?
The Bill rightly seeks to build up our national water resources, but unlike the water White Paper, there is insufficient focus on the equally important issue of demand management. The Government argue that this can be pursued outside legislation, and of course it can. Indeed, it is good to see the recent changes Ofwat has made to its calculation of a total expenditure approach which should incentivise water companies to use demand management and green solutions such as water catchment management as opposed to capital investment, but we need leadership on metering to help tackle the demand for water, and such leadership should be reflected in this Bill.
In the UK, every person uses about 150 litres of water a day, which is one of the highest levels in Europe. Anglian Water confirms that households which are metered use 10% to 15% less water, yet less than half of the country is presently on a water meter, and current water company plans aim to reduce water usage by just 5 litres a day per person by 2020. Metering gives consumers greater control over their water consumption and the chance of improved affordability. It also helps water companies target households using large amounts of water, provide water efficiency support and tackle leaks. The case for smart water metering, combined with advice on how to reduce water usage and social tariffs which minimise affordability issues for disadvantaged heavy-use households, is strong. The independent Walker review in 2009 recommended a widespread switchover to metered charging. This conclusion was supported by the EFRA committee and more recently, at Second Reading in the other place by the former Defra Minister, the honourable Member for Newbury, who called for a possible legislative stimulus for metering, adding,
“knowledge is power for households”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/11/13; col. 79.]
The Government’s response in the other place was that companies might invest a lot of money in meters that,
“could be spent on other infrastructure”.—[Official Report, Commons, Water Bill Committee 10/12/13; col. 164.]
Surely this Government believe it is for companies to decide their own business priorities within the framework set by government and the regulator. At present, if a company wants to consult its customers about introducing compulsory meters, it cannot unless the Secretary of State determines that either the whole or part of the area of that company is one of serious water stress. Location should not be a bar to action, and so I will table an amendment to the Bill to remove this restriction on business and send a strong signal to water companies about moving towards universal metering.
Like many in the House, I feel deep sympathy for those who, as a result of recent flooding, face the worry, upheaval and stress of rebuilding their lives. I am sure that we will hear more about the impact of flooding in Somerset from my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville later. The fact that the Bill guarantees affordable flood risk insurance to all householders is therefore extremely welcome and Ministers are to be congratulated on negotiations with the insurance industry which could deliver this.
Flood Re will be a private sector body handling public money and, as such, its aims should clearly reflect the need to act in the public interest and to incentivise householders to reduce their flood risk over time. By amending Clause 51 in this way, we can transition to a stronger place at the end of the scheme’s 25 years. By doing so, it will reflect the Liberal Democrat view that to successfully manage flood risk we need a greater people and community focus, not just a focus on institutional responses, with their infrastructure plans for flood defences and installing huge pipes. Moreover, given that a number of new clauses were added in Committee in the Commons and therefore lacked pre-legislative scrutiny, I and my noble friend Lord Shipley, who sadly cannot be here today, look forward in Committee to teasing out a number of questions about Flood Re’s operation and the ability of key agencies and local communities to respond to the flooding challenges which the adaptation sub-committee of the Committee on Climate Change recently set out so clearly.
In conclusion, Liberal Democrats strongly welcome the Bill. It will help to meet the Government’s stated goal of securing the most efficient use of scarce water resources. I have, however, highlighted a number of areas which I hope will be addressed in Committee, and look forward to participating enthusiastically as the Bill passes through this House.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I rise with some trepidation because, although I can bring something to the discussion here on matters to do with the broad spectrum of water, I feel that I am a minnow in the presence of giants. I first thank the Minister for agreeing to meet me at very short notice today; I appreciate that very much.
I remind noble Lords of my interests as a landowner and member of the Country Land and Business Association, and president of the National Association of Local Councils and of one of its county associations. I am also a vice-president of the Local Government Association. More specifically, however, I am a practising chartered surveyor and a valuer, with a professional involvement in and some experience of risk and the effects of flooding; although in this particular instance I certainly defer to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hartington Mandeville, and my noble friend Lord Cameron—who I see is not in his place—when it comes to matters to do with the appalling flooding we have seen on our television screens, particularly in association with the Somerset Levels. I add my sympathy to them, and to all others who have been appallingly affected by the flooding.
My first observation is that much of the Bill is left to regulation. So much, in fact, that the shape and dynamic of what we might ultimately be facilitating seems unclear. I can understand the desire to get paving legislation in place and discuss the detail later, but I am bound to say that it leaves me uncomfortable, particularly on matters to do with the flood reinsurance scheme. I would like to see some of those regulations brought forward.
My particular interest is of course in Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill. There are of course good and less good portions. Certainly, the possibility that through the Bill communities and property owners might increasingly work together to provide local flooding solutions is welcome. They need to be re-enfranchised. However, communities will need guidance, some powers and, above all, resources. Their efforts will need durability and continuity if they are to have any effect on perceived insurance risk, because diffuse and often voluntary activity is inevitably on the back foot in this respect.
Redefining the scope of the roles of the Environment Agency and Defra on flood defence is commendable and, in so far as there is to be any future investment, will be enormously welcome. However, a policy preference for conservation at the expense of basic flood protection must be revisited. When it comes to that, what about the legacy of flood defence infrastructure and responsibility for its future management? I refer, of course, to the system of levees, dykes, channels and so on, some of which have been in place for hundreds of years, which serve to protect land, homes, communication and service installations and, near my home in Sussex, a major international airport.
Understandably, people have put their trust in public stewardship, but in recent times watercourse management has been compromised by environmental objectives with failure to dredge, objections to spreading mud and silt on adjacent land, or cutting back vegetation. This needs to be rebalanced. Of course, environmental considerations are important, but so is the risk of flooding and the competence of these installations. Outside internal drainage board areas there is ignorance of the rural drainage network, its layout and capacity. There is a lack of any obvious responsibility for things such as roadside ditches or for preventing watercourses being compromised or destroyed.
The CLA expressed concerns to me that in many instances liability for flood defence infrastructure works may increasingly fall to the landowner by default. There are fears that this could arise simply by failure to maintain. The genesis of many of these works goes back to the fact that no private individual or group could effectively undertake to construct and maintain something on that scale. Of course landowners have responsibilities, but they cannot be open-ended. I shall press the Government to reflect on that in the Bill.
I also welcome the proposals for sustainable drainage systems. I regret that in many areas affected by overwhelming of sewers, no general requirement has been made to procure retroactive attenuation of runoff from pre-existing as well as new development. I look forward to seeing this addressed. I also welcome any moves to develop means of mitigating damage and reducing the vulnerability of existing at-risk property.
However, Part 4 probably concerns me the most. We have been living in a dream world in which reality has dawned as technology has closely identified areas of significant flood risk. I entirely understand the background and the need to move to move to the real market and actual risks, which is implicit in the Flood Re proposal. Remarkable though it is that it has taken so long to get to this point, the fact remains that universal cover for flood risk by an informal process of mutualisation is being broken up. Based on this we are told that the genie cannot go back into the bottle, and I agree with that. However, it is not known what other risks may be singled out in future. What about windy locations, or areas subject to possible landslips because they are on steep sites?
The issue is well illustrated on the Association of British Insurers’s own website. Like it, mortgage lenders are risk averse and expect borrowers to insure against all the “standard perils”, not least flooding in all its forms, including surface runoff. To the extent that properties are at any material flood risk but cannot insure, it is universally accepted that the lender’s requirement cannot be met and that this has consequences in terms of loan suitability.
The Government, to give them their due, have made a brave fist of quantifying the outcomes in their impact assessment, but the reality is that all such calculations are replete with highly sensitive variables which cannot be accurately quantified. Indeed, the impact assessment baseline assumptions are themselves questionable, let alone the “what-ifs” that arise under the various options. Precise numbers of properties at significant flood risk or actually affected by exclusion from Flood Re are a matter of speculation. I did not see much property valuer input to all this—I declare an interest again—and some of the justifications, such as that of insurance’s industry need to use automation, do not entirely convince me.
I worry that setting a limited range of property to be covered by Flood Re embeds in statute a form of market segregation of its own; the assumed continuation of risk bundling with other factors remaining constant cannot be guaranteed. My own belief is that we are in this situation precisely because trends in risk top-slicing, better knowledge and changing responses to risk are taking place.
The British Property Federation and the Council of Mortgage Lenders, with others, approached me with their concerns. They, too, operate on the basis that risks are bundled. They suggested that the limited coverage of Flood Re will by default take us into uncharted territory in terms of valuation impacts. This is complex and I am far from convinced that the market consequences have been fully explored by the Government.
Furthermore, despite the fallback provisions, I wonder about the Government’s agency cost recovery implications on the Flood Re fund. The list of exclusions is significant: much long leasehold and buy-to-let property, band H houses, all small businesses, homes built after 2009 and more will not come within Flood Re. It does not mean that they cannot get insurance of some sort. But all sorts of numbers of properties that would be most severely affected have been suggested. Whether or not they are excluded from Flood Re, the numbers that will thereby lose access to conventional loan finance—with or without an actual flood risk—is entirely unclear. We need to get to the bottom of that. It is the fact of exclusion that will start people worrying about their properties, especially when the statement of principles referred to maintaining,
“cover for domestic property and small business customers”.
We appear to have a form of partial retreat from that position. I regard that as unfortunate. Furthermore, I am not clear why second homes should be within the Flood Re scheme but band H properties are outside it. That seems wholly anomalous.
Evidence of value write-downs, though scant, I believe is none the less real. I recommend that the Government urgently look into this in more detail, together with lenders and property professionals, so that Flood Re does not result in adverse consequences on the rebound of what we may put in place under this Bill. That said, and in the absence of any better ideas, I am bound to admit that for all its imperfections and limitations Flood Re as a concept is the only solution currently on offer, and I support it on that basis. I wish there was something that would deal with the bits that it does not include. On that basis I can assure the Minister that he has my general support at this juncture, and I will do my best to work with him and his department to find ways through this complex issue, and to provide relief to those whom the scheme currently excludes.
Lord Crickhowell (Con)
My Lords, I have not followed developments in the water industry closely since handing over my responsibility for the National Rivers Authority in 1996. As a consequence it came as a shock to read several sections of the White Paper, Water for Life. Paragraph 17 states,
“we need a new approach that mobilises local groups and draws on new sources of funding. Therefore this White Paper takes forward the new ‘catchment-based approach’ to water quality and diffuse pollution launched earlier this year”.
In paragraph 21 we read:
“The White Paper explains how we will learn lessons from around 70 catchment scale pilot projects, and provide intensive support to 25 of them, as a precursor to rolling out this approach across the country”.
In my last chairman's report for the NRA in 1996 I commented about the role of our regional advisory boards, and said that,
“equally important has been the system of catchment management planning and consultation that we established. I cannot emphasise too strongly our belief that these two features must remain as cornerstones of the new agency arrangements”.
I went on to say that,
“it was a great relief that in the last month of our existence we finally received approval to proceed with a trial of statutory water quality objectives in eight catchments. I very much hope that it will be possible to proceed rapidly with the introduction of SWQOs on a wide scale … it has taken too long to get this far”.
In genuine bewilderment, I ask: what on earth has been happening over the interval of more than 17 years? How is it that what was absolutely central to the work—and, I would add, success—of the NRA is now presented as the new catchment-based approach? How is it that after we had finally attained the approval of statutory water quality objectives in eight catchments, after delays that I attributed to,
“the lengthy timescale of government consideration”,
lessons are now to be learned on pilot projects? Do the 10 pilot catchments that we are told the Environment Agency is hosting embrace the eight we had approved all those years ago? I suppose I must at least welcome the fact that our cornerstone is again to be placed back in position.
I intend to comment on only three aspects of this very thick and complex Bill. The first is the duty to secure resilience. Ofwat is required to balance all its duties. They include the existing sustainable development duty, to which is to be added a new resilience duty, making sustainable development as central to the work of the economic regulator as it is to the work of the environmental and quality regulators. If I have understood this correctly, this is a very welcome step forward, at least from the situation with which I had to deal. I described that situation on 22 November 1994 in a speech to the parliamentary environment group, when I said:
“It now seems clear that when the Water Act was passed insufficient thought was given to the relationship between the regulators, of which the NRA is one, and Ofwat. It was not widely foreseen that the Director-General would see it as his duty to stand between customers, by which he meant those who paid water bills, and the environmental regulators, and to argue strongly that the pace of regulation was too hot. Still less was it foreseen that the Director-General would strongly press the case that so substantial were the demands of the European Union that no other additional regulatory requirements should be permitted”.
The vigorous, though always courteous, arguments that I had with Mr Byatt, the director-general, were made worse by the fact that initially the estimates of costs that he obtained were flawed and exaggerated. Wisely, Ministers accepted our arguments and approved expenditure that allowed for a large number of the most urgent cases. In my speech, I said that,
“before the next review there is an urgent need to find a better way to conduct this debate”.
Things then did move on and, since 2005, Ofwat has had a statutory duty to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.
The debate continued and, after the 2011 review by David Gray, the Government issued statutory guidance to Ofwat in a strategic policy statement. This provided a strong steer to the regulator on its interpretation of the sustainable development requirement. Clause 24 of the Bill requires Ofwat to act in accordance with any such statement issued by the Secretary of State. The position is also to be strengthened by the new resilience duty designed to deal with long-term pressures.
The water industry has welcomed the new requirement as it enables it to plan and manage its finances taking account of long-term needs, with the knowledge that these are now much more likely to be approved by Ofwat. Clearly, these changes and their practical consequences need to be examined very closely in Committee; but I am green with envy that the regulators in future are unlikely to face the difficulties that confronted Ian Byatt and myself.
Another subject will need even more thorough examination and has been referred to by a number of noble Lords: water abstraction. In the NRA, we were confronted with huge difficulties as we tried to deal with historic abstractions, often providing essential supplies while doing devastating damage to rivers and the fisheries and wildlife they sustained. The Government say they are,
“reforming the abstraction management system to make it more flexible and resilient to climate change and population growth”,
and have sought to refute the suggestion that,
“the requirement in the resilience duty to respond to environmental pressure could lead to over-abstraction to meet demand … where water resources are under pressure”.
The water companies’ statutory right to compensation for losses resulting from modifications and revocations of their abstraction licences is to be removed, with companies apparently compensated through the Ofwat review process. Similar changes are being made by the Welsh Government. The Environment Agency regulates abstractions, and Ofwat is required to consult the agency before issuing a water supply licence. So far, so good. But—and it is a big but—very good though all this sounds, there are a number of complications, some of which have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on the opposition Front Bench. The upstream reforms set out in the Bill will make it easier for new players to enter the water sector, possibly using new water sources. What impact will that have on abstractions? The Government are considering how to bring exempt abstractors into the licensing regime. Furthermore, over a longer period the Government intend to reform the abstraction regime to make it more flexible and resilient to the challenges of climate change and population growth. Those reforms are not part of the Bill and consultation is taking place. Information about the amount of groundwater available for abstraction is not reliable, and fresh research is being undertaken.
The Government say we should not rush these reforms and they are right, but it is going to make examination of this part of the Bill in Committee difficult—with the cake half cooked, so to speak. I raised some of these issues at one of my noble friend Lord De Mauley’s briefing meetings, and he has taken the trouble of sending me what he describes as a comprehensive response. It is comprehensive and, as I suspect we will hear most of it in Committee when he deals with any amendments to this part of the Bill, I will say at this stage only that phrases such as,
“confident that the regulatory framework, correctly applied, is fully capable of managing these risks”,
and,
“confident that there is no practical risk of an unsustainable increase in abstraction”,
coupled with the information that:
“The Welsh Government has taken the decision not to implement all of the upstream reforms at this time”,
suggest to me that these are matters that need to be probed thoroughly. That view is reinforced by the admission that:
“Abstraction reform is complex both in economic and environmental terms”.
We are also told that:
“The upstream reforms will require careful planning and close working between the water industry, regulators and customer representatives. To allow sufficient time for this, the main upstream reforms will not be implemented in advance of the next Price Review which will set charges for 2020-2025”.
I can imagine what Lady Thatcher would have snapped at me if had proposed a policy with that timescale. “That is longer than the duration of either world war”, she would have said. It will be a long time before any of us who are still alive will know whether we have got it right or wrong.
Perhaps it is because many years ago I was an insurance broker and Lloyd’s underwriter that I feel uncomfortable about the flood insurance clauses and the idea of a levy-funded pool for high-risk households, worthy though the aims may be, and of course I share the sympathy that others have expressed for all those who suffered the horrible fate of being flooded. There is the objection first raised by Lloyd’s that it was not aware of any UK precedent for this proposal to require UK businesses to enter into particular contracts, very likely to be loss-making.
To my mind, it is one thing for insurers and policyholders in general to contribute to the costs arising from properties that are only very rarely likely to be flooded, or to provide against exceptionally severe events, but quite another to provide for those who live in properties on flood plains where building should never have taken place. Time and again I have observed developers, with the consent of reckless planning authorities, ignoring advice about the probability of flooding, going ahead with large projects in places where they should never have taken place and then complaining that flood defence precautions were inadequate. Definitions of “high flood risk” and “very high flood risk” and a huge amount more are to be covered by regulations. The Government may be laying a minefield for themselves, and I worry that the scheme may be overtaken by events.
Against that background, I have been astonished to read about possible plans for two new towns in the south-east—one at Yalding, a village through which I drive every time I visit my older daughter and her family in Kent. My astonishment arises not from the fact that Yalding has just been flooded but because it has quite frequently been flooded in the past. It does not take much observation to form the view that it will be very hard to prevent it being flooded again in the future. Can anyone seriously be planning to put a new town on that flood plain? If they are, is it going to be equipped with canals and boats and named New Venice?
Finally, I wonder whether it is wise to pass legislation that is as dependent as is this Bill on future consultation and future unknown regulations.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I am new to thinking about the issues surrounding the water industry. Therefore, like my noble friend Lord Whitty, I thank the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and his officials for all the briefings and materials they have provided to increase our understanding of this Bill.
I have learnt a lot but I am not completely reassured by that or by what I see before me in the Bill. The water industry is huge and complex, with impervious structures. It is made up of regional monopolies, which pay little or no corporation tax and whose focus is turned towards their shareholders rather than their customers. This all leads to the water industry having a negative public image. Therefore, I believe that we need a water industry that is better managed and better regulated.
We need to do more to modernise the industry, encourage innovation and change the culture. We need to develop a water industry that looks outwards towards the needs of its customers and deals adequately with water affordability. That is what I expected to see in a Water Bill put forward by the Government. After all, as has been mentioned, in the Government’s own White Paper, Water for Life, there was a whole chapter on developing a customer-focused water industry. Therefore, while there are measures to be welcomed in the Bill, it is disappointing that a focus on the customer is missing, especially as water bills have increased by almost 50% in real terms since privatisation. According to industry figures, 23% of households in England and Wales spend more than 3% of their income on water and sewerage bills, with 11% spending more than 5% of their income. To me, that illustrates that the current approach to keeping water affordable for all is failing.
First, there is a low take-up of the WaterSure scheme, which was introduced by Labour to help households that have a high level of water use due to an illness or because they have three or more children. According to the Consumer Council for Water, only a fraction of families that are eligible for help actually receive it. Why is that? It is because customers do not know that help is available to them. Although there has been an increase in take-up over the past six years, as Dame Yve Buckland from the Consumer Council for Water said, it is merely a “drop in the ocean”. Take-up has happened, and been shown to increase, only when water companies are proactive. Whether they are is, however, a matter for that company because it is voluntary. Therefore, the Bill should include measures that require water companies to promote the WaterSure scheme. Should we not have arrangements with the DWP so that people who are entitled, and consent, get the help they need?
Secondly, the voluntary nature of the establishment of social tariffs by water companies is inept. Water companies are able to design social tariffs to help customers most in need of support but only three have such schemes, helping just 25,000 households. As it is voluntary to have a social tariff scheme, many water companies have not bothered to set one up and some have no intention of doing so. Whether or not you get help with your bill therefore depends on where you live. That cannot be right or fair.
I repeat that the current approach to keeping water affordable for all is failing. As water is fundamental to life and public health, many families make sacrifices to pay their water bill. The Consumer Council for Water states:
“One in eight customers says they cannot afford their bill”.
It notes that customers,
“continue to pay their water bill even when it is unaffordable to do so”.
I was reading a discussion thread on Netmums about the impact of rising bills on families. I want to read a short extract from a Yorkshire Water customer. The subject line read:
“My water bill has quadrupled; I think I am going to have to stop eating to pay”.
The customer then wrote:
“I am literally shaking and in tears over this bill. There is no way I can cut costs any more. I work two jobs. I literally can’t work any more than I already do, but it still isn’t enough”.
There are many stories of struggle and hardship being faced by families in this country. Are we really saying that there are no more ways that legislation can help to ease their burden? Today and over the weekend, the media have reported that Ofwat plans to curb rising bills between 2015 and 2020. That is to be welcomed. But this Bill should strengthen Ofwat’s powers to deal with the impact and the problem of water affordability.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that the Bill should also seek to deal with bad debt, which adds an average of £15 to everyone’s water bill. It is not right for those who do pay to subsidise those who do not. As we have heard, the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 made provision for the Government to require landlords to give tenants’ details, but this has not been enforced. Why did the Government choose to take a voluntary approach? I understand that the new database for collecting tenants’ details will be ready next year. The Bill should require landlords to use it or be held liable for that debt. We also need to give Ofwat powers to act against water companies that fail to act on bad debt.
The Prime Minister stated that there would be action on rising water bills, but a two-page letter from the Secretary of State to chief executives of the water companies asking them to be “fully alive to concerns” is not action. As we have seen with social tariff schemes and the promotion of WaterSure, voluntary requests for action do not work. As we will see, the voluntary approach to collecting tenants’ details from landlords will not work. It is surely time for this Bill to make someone do something. It is time for real action. It is time to require the water companies to act on water affordability and bad debt.
I turn briefly to the issues of metering and new infrastructure projects. Voluntary switching to water meters is on the increase. Around one-third of properties have meters and this is set to rise to a half by 2015. The Bill therefore needs to make sure that we protect unmetered, low-income households from unaffordable bills that may arise in areas with high levels of metering. Billions of pounds-worth of infrastructure projects are already planned and the costs of these are expected to be passed on to customers. Do the Government know the overall impact that this planned infrastructure will have on customers’ bills? This Bill is a chance to ensure that we get to know the impact on future bills, that everyone is getting value for money, and that there is greater transparency in the process.
In addition to water affordability I want to raise one other issue of concern, which is borne out of my personal and local experience. As set out by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, one of the Bill’s main aims is to make it easier for new businesses and landowners to ensure that the water market is providing new upstream services. Inevitably, that will lead to new infrastructure, which is where my personal experience leads me to suggest that more provision for public consultation and public involvement is needed around any such future infrastructure.
Where I live in Deptford, significant controversy surrounds Thames Water’s proposed placement of the 46-meter shaft needed for the Thames tideway tunnel. The proposed site is vehemently opposed by local residents, and consultation on the site and where it is placed has been inadequate. Thames Water’s promotional material illustrates how the construction of the tunnel will be by the riverside, which it largely is until we get to Deptford. Initially, the preferred site promoted by Thames Water was by the river but, curiously, it changed its mind and the site was moved inland to Deptford Church Street and Crossfields Green. That is despite this being one of the only green spaces in that area, being next to a listed church and a residential estate, and being right next to a primary school. This has led to nearly 1,000 local residents signing a petition against the proposed site and some being involved in the campaign group, Don’t Dump on Deptford’s Heart. It is estimated that up to 32 heavy goods vehicles a day will be needed to service this site, causing road closures, traffic mayhem and road safety fears. Obviously, there will be an increase in the level of noise and air pollution.
What is most disappointing is that Thames Water has confirmed that it is perfectly possible not to use this site. Even more disappointing is that one of its justifications for choosing this site is that the local people already suffer from noise and pollution, so they will not be troubled by more. That is totally unacceptable, particularly when a perfectly viable alternative exists. I hope that the flaws in Thames Water’s plans will be recognised by the Planning Inspectorate. If not, I hope that the Government will review them.
As I look towards this Bill, my local experience leads me to ask whether we are encouraging the development of infrastructure through this Bill and, if so, how we can better hear the views of the public. In the Government’s desire to open up competition and to encourage new providers to the market, how can we ensure that proper consultation is not overlooked or cut short? Would a provision in the Bill in this area not help to reassure the public that any new construction projects will consider the views of the public and the environmental impact?
Finally, I want to reiterate my central point regarding water affordability. When dealing with rising energy bills, we may be able to heed the advice of other Ministers to wear more jumpers but for water we cannot take our buckets to the Thames. We all need water to live. We therefore need the charging system to be urgently brought up to date. We need a system that is affordable, fair and sustainable. I agree with my noble friend Lord Whitty that we need a review of how we all pay for water and how we use it. We need less voluntary measures and more requirements for action. We need to deal with bad debt, to increase the take-up of WaterSure, to insist on social tariffs and to develop a national affordability scheme. The chance to tackle the impact that rising water bills are having on family budgets has been overlooked by this Bill. That is a wasted opportunity. I look forward to discussing these issues further in Committee.
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on bringing forward this Bill. We all take water for granted but we should not because it is our most precious resource. Until now, 95% of the water we get goes straight into the sea. I think that everyone welcomes making it a primary duty of Ofwat to secure the long-term resilience of water supply and sewerage systems. But should there not be a national policy statement for water? We already have one for waste water, so why not one for water supply—our most precious resource?
I will talk mainly on the Flood Re scheme, but before I do, I would like to make two points. First, the Government are trying to encourage landowners, such as farmers—I farm in Norfolk—to build reservoirs and then sell excess water to the water companies. At first, that seems a great idea, but I am sceptical about whether it will work as on-farm reservoirs will probably be too small to make any meaningful contribution. Even if they did, the quality of the water from the on-farm reservoirs may not be very good, as it may have high levels of nutrients, pesticides and metaldehyde. There may also be problems for farmers piping excess water from their reservoirs across other people's land to a treatment plant.
We need the water companies to build more large reservoirs themselves to store the necessary water. In the south-east of England, the last time a reservoir of any size was built was probably the Bewl Water reservoir, which holds 7 trillion gallons of water over a site of 1,200 acres. It was built in the early 1970s; 40 years ago. Since then, the population and number of houses in the south-east have risen dramatically and will no doubt continue to rise dramatically. It is alarming that the Office for National Statistics estimates that if the current trend persists, the population of this country could double over the next hundred years—a frightening thought. If we do not build more reservoirs to capture water in times of plenty, all that will happen in times of drought is that the water companies will continue to extract water from the rivers, which by then will themselves be gasping for water.
Secondly, I share the concerns of those who say that it is cackhanded to be bringing in upstream competition in water trading before the existing water abstraction system has been reformed, given that the Environment Agency says that many rivers are already overabstracted and overlicensed.
Moving on to Flood Re, I have been an insurance underwriter, including home owners’ business, and I have worked in the London insurance market for about 30 years. Hundreds of underwriting businesses make up the London insurance market and getting all those underwriters who write home owners’ business to make considerable compromises and agree willingly to this deal has no doubt been no mean feat. I have no doubt that negotiations have been very fragile and it has taken three years to get this far. The not-for-profit Flood Re mutual, which will be owned and managed by the industry, will offer flood insurance to the 500,000 home owners most at risk, with an excess of £250 and a premium of between £210 and £540, depending on council tax band.
The scheme helps to solve many of the current affordability problems, but there are a few exceptions. The first is that homes built after 2009 will not be covered. That is not a new exclusion. Every developer has known that under PPS25 homes should not be built in flood risk areas from that date. Underwriters were insistent that they did not want anything in the scheme that would encourage unwise or irresponsible development. Also, the Government emphasise that where the Environment Agency objects to a development on the grounds of flood risk, 97% of those risks are refused by planners, so that is good news. Or is it? Of the 455,000 planning applications, the Environment Agency looks at only 6.6%. Obviously, it cannot look at all of them, but 6.6% does seem worryingly low.
The second exclusion is small businesses, which buy commercial insurance that has a range of cover different from that of home owners: business interruption, loss of profits, different levels of stock cover and employer’s liability insurance, to name a few. The third exclusion is band H and I properties, on the basis that their owners should be able to afford the higher risk-reflective premiums, and be able to take the necessary actions to reduce their flood risk. Happily, my band H home is not in a flood risk area. Also, there is an understanding that genuinely uninsurable properties—properties that are continually flooding—should not be covered by Flood Re. However, it has not been possible to agree a definition, and I believe that negotiations are continuing.
Flood Re is a good scheme. It might not be perfect, and we could probably all pick holes in it, but it will offer flood insurance to the vast majority of home owners seeking it, at a relatively cheap premium and a low excess. However, I do have three concerns.
My first concern is our being tempted to pass amendments to this scheme with the best intentions that might render it unworkable. For instance, we might want to include small businesses in the scheme, because, after all, the Federation of Small Businesses reported that 20% of small businesses were affected by flooding in 2012. The Association of British Insurers and the Government looked at this and concluded that it threw up more problems than it solved, hence the agreed exclusion.
My second concern is that there is significant scope in this Bill for the Government to make secondary legislation. I do hope that this Government, or indeed, a subsequent Government, are not tempted to bring in any secondary legislation without first having consulted and agreed with the Association of British Insurers, so that any rules or refinements needed use Flood Re’s own procedures. We might then get the intended answer.
My third concern is the clauses relating to the flood insurance obligation. I understand that the Government feel that these are necessary in case Flood Re proves unworkable, but the obligation would be a very unusual measure that would effectively force a private insurance company to sell a product whether or not it wanted to do so. I hope the Minister can reassure the House that every effort will be made to get Flood Re up and running, so that the obligation will never be needed. I look forward to debating these and other matters in Committee.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a farmer in possession of two abstraction licences. Also, not to be totally outdone by the Minister, I must own to having several fields that frequently lie under water, particularly this month.
On the whole, I think that this is a good Bill which is much needed to ensure that our watercourses, our water supplies, our water environment and our water management safeguards are all in good condition to face the future. Water, although not very highly valued by most people in this country—particularly in one of the wettest Januarys for years—is in fact the most valuable commodity on the planet. Ask any scientist looking for signs of life in the universe or any African farmer struggling with climate change, and you will find that water is indeed the key to life.
There is much good in the Bill, but to my mind it is lacking in ambition—a point on which I shall expand. My main point is that, even if the Government are right to proceed on a softly-softly basis, I for one should like to see more enabling clauses that permit the water industry to make more competitive and environmental progress without having to wait for another water Bill, which, after all, is unlikely to come along for a decade or so.
Let me run through various aspects of the Bill to show what I mean. First, retail competition for commercial customers is a good idea. As many noble Lords have said, it has been beneficial to more than half the businesses in Scotland, even if most of them ended up staying with their existing supplier. The reforms in Scotland have also resulted in household customers benefiting from the thought processes that such non-domestic retail competition has provoked in the water companies, but surely the end game must be to have retail competition across all water customers, commercial and domestic. I am therefore surprised that it appears we have to wait for another water Bill before such household competition can be introduced. There ought to be some enabling clause in this Bill to allow progress on this front, as and when it becomes appropriate.
Having said that, I for one would want to ensure that any future competitive structure was to the benefit of all customers and did not lead to de-averaging, and thus the unfair exploitation of rural and remote rural customers. I am told that competition can happen without de-averaging. Equally, it is important that water-saving activities by retailers do not result in anti-competitive activities by wholesalers. In other words, the Bill before us lacks the “no detriment” provisions of the Scottish legislation which protect both customers and the environment.
Moving on to the next lack of ambition, I think that there is a total absence of foresight over the question of metering. Southern Water, which covers the most metered area in England, believes that 100% metering would result in a 12% saving in water. That is a gigantic amount of water to remove from the system day in, day out. This could be the most environmental part of the Bill—if only it were there. Furthermore, the current voluntary-only metering actually puts the price up for those not metered and thus has proven negative social implications. I realise that if there was a universal tariff for every litre of water used, some poor households with large families, and others, would find themselves worse off under 100% metering. However, with transitional tariffs, social tariffs and even block tariffs and the like, and with the meter in the house and not at the end of the garden, it is perfectly possible for everyone to benefit from 100% metering. There is absolutely no doubt that the environment would win hands down—I repeat that there would be a 12% saving.
Furthermore, 100% metering results in retail water companies having a better and more direct relationship with individual customers. So metering is good for the environment and should also be good for customers. However, there appears to be nothing about metering in the Bill. At the very least, as I have said, there should be an enabling clause for greater incentives for water suppliers to work towards 100% metering—if that makes sense for their customers. The Government need to show some leadership in this field. For instance, the current barrier of having to prove the existence of a water-stressed area before promoting metering is totally unnecessary.
Moving on, I will touch on abstraction. Again, so far so good: upstream transfers—good, in my book; the flexibility of buying water from farmers’ winter storage reservoirs—good; and the free surrender of unused water company abstraction licences—very good. The latter unused licences have been hanging over the proper economic and environmental management of our river basins for far too long, and I am glad we are finally gripping that particular problem.
However, looking deeper at future plans for abstraction, I read the Defra consultation document Making the Most of Every Drop with interest. It is rightly ambitious in its proposals and I would go with either of the two main proposals that are in it. This is an important subject as water becomes more and more valuable to a growing British population, who are subject to ever more extreme climate events and yet possesses an admirable desire to protect their environment. However, I worry about the timetable. Why, as the consultation suggests, do we have to wait until the 2020s before implementing any changes? This would seem to be unnecessarily cautious. What guarantees do we have now that anything is going to happen at all? Again, why can we not have an enabling clause in the Bill or, at the very least, a time limit by which any new scheme has to be introduced? I urge the Government to be brave and to grip this issue firmly to bring about reforms as soon as they can.
So far, my comments have been largely about saving water and benefiting the environment, but I want to cover two other areas. The first is Flood Re, which I think is a good scheme and will work well. While I suspect that many of us would prefer it to cover band H properties and even SMEs, I recognise that the more it covers the greater will be the cost to ordinary householders, so I support the boundaries as currently proposed.
However, I am not sure that the cut-off date of 2009 can be quite so easily defended. We have to bear in mind that a large number of people outside the Westminster bubble, who bought houses in good faith which were built after 2009, would have been unaware that an Act would be introduced in 2014 which would make it impossible for them to benefit from a government flood insurance scheme. After all, those houses were built with the approval of local government through its planning system, and it is quite possible that central government even encouraged those people to buy them through its Help to Buy scheme. It therefore seems grossly unfair to impose on largely unknowing householders a retrospective date of 2009 for a scheme introduced in 2014. I think that people will be amazed to find that they are ineligible, so it would be better to set a date in the future, or at the passing of the Act, rather than holding the line on 2009.
My last point has not been mentioned so far in the debate but it came up in Committee and on Report in the Commons. It is to do with the protection of water supplies and the environment from fracking. I am very much in favour of fracking. I wish to see the multitude of boreholes necessary for a successful industry to be able to come into being in this country with the minimum of fuss from the public. One of the great concerns of the public is that their water supplies will be contaminated by stray gas concentrations from the fracking process. The industry assures us, and I believe it, that this is virtually impossible. All I can say is that, in that case, the public liability insurance bond will not cost them very much.
Meanwhile, the Minister in the other place assured us that such a compulsory insurance bond was unnecessary because the Environment Agency already has powers to make the polluter pay in the case of any required pollution clean-up and that, anyway, rigorous financial tests would be carried out on the fracking companies which would ensure they were as safe as the Bank of Scotland, so no government bailouts would ever be necessary. Quite apart from the fact that not all the companies currently involved in fracking exploration have totally pristine balance sheets—in fact, in some instances, it is very much the opposite—I do not believe that the public have confidence that the Government will not have to step in to protect water supplies and the environment. So why not insert a clause into this Bill which reassures the public that the companies will take on their own liabilities through an insurance bond—as they say, it should not cost them very much? I believe that that would go a long way to reassuring some potential objectors and thus help get the fracking industry off the ground, which I am keen to see.
Finally, by way of summary, I believe that this is a good Bill, but it is slightly lacking in ambition to really to get to grips now with all the problems that the water industry will have to face in the future.
The Earl of Selborne (Con)
My Lords, I should start by declaring that I am another farmer with an abstraction licence, although I am delighted to report that, unlike the Minister, I have not been flooded.
A number of speakers have already referred to the Water for Life White Paper of December 2011. I remind your Lordships of the earlier White Paper of the same year, the natural environment White Paper. I shall restrict my remarks to broad issues identified in those two White Papers and consider to what extent this Bill meets the agendas set out in them: first, the need to innovate and develop expertise in the management of our water and sewerage resources to deliver the required contribution to our green economy; secondly, the need to halt and reverse the damage that we have done to water ecosystems which provide essential services such as flood abatement, pure water, carbon storage and much else; and, thirdly, the need to increase competition for the ultimate benefit of all water users.
As we have heard, this last objective is to be promoted in the Bill by increasing choice in the retail market for non-household customers, by making it easier for new entrants to contribute new sources of water or new approaches to treating water and sewage, by measures which would allow water companies to buy and sell water from each other, and by measures which would clarify the right of developers to connect new developments to the water supply and sewerage system.
As the Minister reminded us, the Bill is only one part of a much wider water-related agenda. The issues which still need to be addressed, which many have touched on, before we have a coherent, long-term, sustainable national water management policy, include the following. There is the reform of the abstraction system—much referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, my noble friend Lord Crickhowell and others. There is the delivery of basin management plans with suitable mechanisms for community participation. I recognise that since 1996, we have made very little progress from the start made by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. There is the resolution of long-standing management issues concerning sustainable drainage systems and investment in catchment-sensitive farming schemes. All those are outside the Bill but essential components if we are to put our water management at a national level on to a coherent basis.
Increased choice in the retail sector and a more joined-up approach to regulation are certainly valuable contributions which the Bill makes. The new duty of resilience imposed on Ofwat is a crucial contribution to address long-term pressures on the water sector and the environment. Frankly, in previous years, after the time of the NRA but during the time of the Environment Agency, far too often there was an unhelpful struggle between Ofwat and the Environment Agency. I did not think that I would ever feel sorry for the water companies, but I did when I understood to what extent they were being regulated in contrary directions by those two regulators. We now have the opportunity for the fault line between the two regulatory authorities to be finally eliminated.
England and Wales must, in all humility, recognise that Scotland has been ahead of us—and indeed of most of the rest of the world—in promoting competition at the retail level, having introduced a retail market for the supply of water and sewerage systems to non-household customers in 2008. I was interested to hear from the Water Industry Commission for Scotland of the significant benefits. We have heard some figures cited. Those benefits have permeated not just to commercial customers but down to household customers indirectly in terms of better services, innovation, reduced environmental impacts and lower bills. Indeed, one could say that the water companies in England have benefited, because they have been able to compete as new entrants in the Scottish retail market, and a number of them have done so. The lessons learnt will no doubt prove invaluable once competition is opened up in the English and Welsh retail markets.
It is important that we now at last achieve consistency between the Scottish and English markets so that there can be a fair cross-border retail water market. We must take note of the lessons learnt in Scotland in the past five years in operating a competitive retail market. The Water Industry Commission for Scotland and, indeed, Scottish water companies, have drawn attention to four issues which need to be addressed in the Bill adequately to reflect the lessons learnt in Scotland.
The first and foremost is an issue referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, which is the failure to have an exit provision for retail companies which have, frankly, either lost interest, are losing money or have failed adequately to provide a service that customers want. The Government for some mysterious reason simply bottled out of the inevitable conclusion of what happens when you introduce competition and encourage innovation: some companies just have to drop out. The EFRA committee, in its pre-legislative scrutiny, strongly recommended that those companies should be allowed to exit the market, but the Government—I simply do not follow this—have said that they cannot accept that that is the sensible thing to do, but they should contract out their retail services. Having read carefully the Government’s response to the pre-legislative scrutiny, I remain to be convinced and I am sure that we will have to look at that carefully.
The other three issues raised by the Water Industry Commission for Scotland are matters of more detail, concerning what is implied by a level playing field between incumbent companies and new participants, and the need to protect customers in remote areas from being discriminated against by a two-tier pricing system. I recognise that the Government have it much in mind to prevent just these things happening but there are some detailed recommendations, which are perhaps best left for Committee. I simply note that these concerns come from a background of the successful delivery in Scotland of precisely what the Bill seeks to deliver in England and Wales on retail competition. Any improvement to the Bill suggested as a result of this experience should be helpful.
The White Paper, Water for Life, promoted the need to manage water catchment areas in a way which embraces partnerships with a range of interests: the water companies themselves; local authorities; regulators; landowners and farmers; conservation organisations; internal drainage boards, where they exist; and local resilience forums and the like. Each has a role to play if new ways are to be developed for achieving effective water management and mitigating the risk of surface water flooding. Increased water storage, water trading and abstraction reform will all help but unless local communities can be made part of the process in developing these catchment plans and the water companies’ water management plans, there is a real danger that we will not have policies which ultimately carry the confidence of all parts of the community. They will therefore inevitably fail in the end.
One of the great distractions in the past has come from inappropriate measures that have turned off all co-operation from householders. The hosepipe ban is usually imposed with good intentions, yet the amount that this restriction does to reduce demand is not as much as one would imagine. However, it does an awful lot to dissipate good will—and without the good will of all people to try to ensure that the catchment is adequately managed, we will run into trouble. I am sure that innovative and sensible alternative proposals, not least those coming through advertising and other public relations measures, could be much more effective than the dreaded hosepipe ban.
The provisions in the Bill which enable licensing to become more flexible and demand management to be more appropriately handled are to be greatly welcomed. I was privileged to play a small role in a project led by the University of Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership on sustainable water stewardship, which was sponsored by Anglian Water. This looked at innovative ways of involving all the local community in making a contribution in specific water catchments. We have a lot still to learn and the social sciences have a great contribution to make in involving the wider community.
The Cave review of April 2009 identified problems with the way that developers are charged for connecting to water and sewerage services. The water companies themselves say that they can deliver SUDS—sustainable urban drainage systems—only if that is accompanied by the right to discharge surface water. Clause 21 clarifies the functions of a sewerage undertaker to include the building and maintenance of SUDS features, which is welcome, but there remains the issue that the undertaker has to negotiate the right to discharge or else compulsorily acquire the rights to discharge. Before 1989 sewerage undertakers had a statutory right to discharge, as still exists for highway authorities. If the Bill could extend that right again to sewerage undertakers, it would encourage them to build and adopt SUDS rather than surface-water sewers, and explore hybrid designs that combine more traditional methods with SUDS. It would also resolve the current legal uncertainties that have arisen since 1989 with regard to discharges.
I return to the thrust of the Bill, which declares that it is there to promote innovation. Innovation ultimately relies on research and development. The UK water industry has its own research capacity in UK Water Industry Research, but it is true to say that it is very much reduced from its capacity of some 20 years ago. Some of the water and sewerage operators conduct in-house research but in the public sector, important scientific underpinning, including vital long-term data sets, is provided by the research councils and Defra. I declare an interest as chair of the advisory board of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, a Natural Environment Research Council research centre. If we are to deliver this resilient, sustainable and competitive water management, we must retain a national capacity in our relevant research base. The Government must recognise that the public sector plays a key role and that this publicly funded research is a key component for the long-term delivery of this water agenda.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, along with the Minister, I have to declare an interest in that I own one bank of a river: the River Rede in Northumberland. The river, which runs through Redesdale, has a name that deals with some of the pollution problems there: in Northumbrian it means “red river”. That is probably from the iron oxide that has leached into it, but I prefer the definition given in a local history guide which says that it ran red with the blood of Scotsmen after the Redeswire massacre in the 1560s. However, that strays into another Bill that we will come on to in the not too distant future.
As a Back-Bencher I enjoy the fact that you can focus on one issue alone. This Bill is quite light on issues. I will not be focusing on many other parts of the Bill, but I would raise the issue of competition. Many noble Lords have talked about the value of competition in driving down prices and, as the Scottish example has shown, there could be short-term gains through competition. However, we should take on the lessons learnt from the energy sector that the short-term gains might turn into very long-term problems, especially with the issues of extraction.
An area that I particularly welcome in the Bill, though, is the Government pushing forward issues around the capex and opex problem and introducing the new word “totex”, which is quite an ugly expression but certainly may well help to deal with some of the fluctuations brought about by the five-year AMP cycle.
The issue that I want to focus on particularly was flagged up in the White Paper as one that the Government were going to look at under concern, but that dropped out of the draft Bill: the question of whether there should be a duty on Ofwat in sustainability. Having watched the pictures of flooding on the television this morning, and I think that everyone who has ever dealt with a flood knows just how horrendous that situation can be, I cannot believe that we do not face an issue with climate change. We were facing a drought last summer. They said, “If we don’t get a 200% normal rainfall pattern, we will have to have hosepipe bans through the whole of 2013 and 2014”. Luckily enough, we had over 200% of normal rainfall. Perhaps it is only me who thought, “Over 200% of normal rainfall is not a normal situation”. Now, of course, we have gone from drought to a flood. With climate change, drought and flood are two sides of the same coin, and we are going to face that in future.
The Minister and the Government have come forward and said, “We don’t need the word ‘sustainability’ as a duty because we’re looking at resilience”. I believe that there is a massive difference in how people view the terminology between “resilience” and “sustainability”. Sustainability is already written into the Bill—there is a clause on sustainable drainage—but not as a duty for Ofwat. Why do I believe that that is important? Because the regulator sets the terms of the tariff that we pay and therefore what the water companies can use that money for.
Unless the regulator takes looking at sustainability in the long term really seriously, we tend to end up with a much shorter-term decision-making processes. Of course, when we are talking about the long term, we are talking about only 20 years, or perhaps even less in some of the assessments. I plan to be a water customer in 20 years’ time—with my family history, I probably will not be—and it is quite possible that as a customer in 20 years’ time, I will be paying a much higher bill because of the decisions we are making now about the cost of living. When we talk about the squeezed middle classes, I understand that water bills are going to be higher. However, if we do not take those measures, the cost of water in a few years’ time will be a great deal higher.
The one issue I have is that much of what has gone in the White Paper is business as usual: “We have always had a lot of water. Water is fine. We can deal with it, and there will not be a problem”. That is not really the case. I manage a private water supply—I have a borehole—and it focuses your mind on some of the problems with water. One of the major problems with water is the cost of extraction. The cost of extracting water through a borehole is very high in energy. Of course, water companies are some of the highest users of energy in the country, so when we are talking about price sustainability, we also have to think about how much it will cost us in energy terms, and energy prices are going up quite dramatically.
We also have to think about the fact that we tend to forget that the price covers not just the extraction of water but the treatment of sewage. Dealing with a blocked septic tank on a freezing cold Sunday morning in December focused my mind on the problems of sewage on a personal level. We should realise that as much energy is used in getting clean water to us as is used in dealing with sewage and reprocessing the water.
We have to make sure that the water companies understand that sustainability is an issue. That is where I have a slight disagreement with Ofwat. Ofwat has a secondary duty of sustainability, not a primary duty. Many noble Lords have talked about the regulator’s sustainability duty, but it is secondary to economic regulation and means that sustainability has not been as important. The issue is slightly more important now because there is a real problem with which duties are undertaken by which regulatory authority. In Committee in another place, the constructive tension between the environmental regulator and the economic regulator was referred to as leading to an optimal outcome in the periodic review process. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, indicated that that might have been the case in the past; however, the Environment Agency no longer has a policy role and, while it gives guidance, it relates to statutory duties and it no longer actively promotes an environmental agenda with water companies. At the same time, the Environment Agency has been given a duty to promote economic growth. No commensurate duties or functions have been placed on Ofwat. This means that the creative tension really no longer exists.
A resilience duty is good for resilience—and I stress that I do not underestimate the importance of a resilience duty—but it does not by default mean that it is an environmental duty. Waterwise and other green NGOs feel that there needs to be something stronger, such as a primary sustainability duty on Ofwat to ensure that issues such as water efficiency and catchment base solutions, which have been mentioned by many noble Lords, and energy management come to the fore.
An issue that often gets overlooked and was always overlooked in the energy debate is that it is no longer business as usual. We are going to have to change our habits in relation to water. We will have to start thinking about water efficiency. We are one of the highest users of water in Europe. We waste potable water—drinking water—by washing our cars with it. That water has an energy cost that has been processed and an environmental cost. We are going to have to start changing fundamentally how we look at water efficiency. A water efficiency duty placed on Ofwat would be a start to meeting that sustainability agenda. The water companies already have a water efficiency duty placed on them, but the water regulator tells them how they can spend their money. If they are to change their attitude, then we have to change the attitude of the regulator. There would be a question as to whether that should be through a primary duty on sustainability, or a primary duty of water efficiency and energy use. That argument is yet to happen, and I would very much hope that the Minister will look at it.
This issue really has to be taken seriously. We could be facing a hosepipe ban now due to the drought of 2012. We are going to see a great deal more of this flip-flop between flooding on the one hand and drought on the other. I do not think that hosepipe bans are going to be the worst of our problems. When we go back to standpipes we will have a real issue. I hope that this could be looked at. I first started having this argument with Ofwat a number of years ago. One of the problems is that nothing moves quickly in the water sector. The decisions we make now will have fundamental implications for the future of the water industry. I very much hope that the Government can look favourably upon a sustainability amendment and, if not that, upon a water efficiency duty—I understand the reliance duty incorporates issues of climate change—and an energy duty. If not, I would feel that that had to be imposed upon the Bill.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, 25 years ago I had the privilege of being one of the Ministers taking the original water privatisation Bill through the Commons. I spent over 100 hours in Committee defending a measure widely reported at the time as being the most unpopular privatisation to be undertaken by the late Lady Thatcher’s Government. As soon as the 10 existing water authorities were replaced with 10 public limited companies and the National Rivers Authority, the debate about abstraction licensing began in earnest. Like my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, I note that it shows little sign of abating 25 years on.
I make no apology for having spent many hours during 1988 and 1989 seeking to persuade colleagues in another place of the merits of a new economic theory—the much debated mechanism of comparative competition—which, once on the statute book, Ofwat successfully brought to life by measuring and comparing the efficiency of each integrated water company, incentivising the least efficient companies to narrow the gap. The Bill before the House today builds on the discipline of the marketplace by providing a positive incentive to the industry to continue to be efficient and competitive. It provides a constant pressure to innovate. Market reform is welcome and timely, and I congratulate officials and the ministerial team on making significant progress in that direction.
However, as my noble friend Lord Selborne and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, have mentioned, one market inefficiency is the current proposal to prevent retail market participants from exiting the market. Successful markets require the right of both entry and exit. The argument that incumbent companies will focus less on their household customers if the non-household customers are separated out is just not borne out by the experience in Scotland, where Scottish Water has markedly improved its services to households and reduced its wholesale costs since non-household customers were separated into a retail subsidiary.
The Water Industry Commission for Scotland, which is the economic regulator in Scotland, has demonstrated that there has been a net benefit to Scotland from that worth over £140 million. Adding estimates for dynamic efficiency savings, WICS estimated that legal separation of Scottish Water’s retail business and non-household competition has a positive net present value of around £330 million. Business Stream has improved both the quality and the price of retail services: one-third of customers have tendered their water contracts and almost 60% of customers have secured price discounts. Many more customers receive new and enhanced services, in particular, helping them to save water.
If you extrapolate that across England, the indicative net benefits could be well over £1 billion. JP Morgan has gone further, estimating that Severn Trent Water’s non-household retail business alone could be worth around £116 million. Scaling that figure up across both household and non-household retail businesses across England and Wales would imply that separated retail businesses could be worth over £4 billion.
What are the benefits? They are clear: for example, increased productivity efficiency through renegotiating contracts and streamlining processes; and increased dynamic efficiency, with the development of new and better ways of working—for example, through developing new billing systems and introducing smarter meters and through the growth of more efficient companies and the replacement of the less efficient ones. The ability of multi-site customers to contract with one or two national retail service suppliers could lead to a reduced number of bills and administration costs and improved comparability of consumption information. For example, reducing one customer’s 4,000 paper bills each year to a national electronic bill could save in the region of £80,000 to £200,000 for that customer alone.
There are environmental benefits through competing water retail service companies having new incentives to give customers what they want, including helping customers to make savings by using less water, identifying leaks rapidly and, above all, reducing water consumption. By reducing water demand and providing the knock-on benefit to the country for water conservation, this therefore delays the need for new water supply infrastructure. Similar benefits are possible on the wastewater side by encouraging customers to make use of water harvesting and sustainable drainage solutions, which would free up capacity in our sewers and makes them more able to cope in extreme weather conditions.
However, for all this to succeed, there must be market provision for the failing expensive retailers to exit the market. What other private sector industry restricts exit, as proposed in the Bill? I hope that at an early point in Committee the Minister will respond to the rare alliance of the water companies, academics and commentators, the regulators and the Defra Select Committee, to allow for exit in the retail services market.
Given that the noble Lords, Lord Selborne and Lord Cameron, have both raised a number of points I wanted to cover, including the importance of de-averaging, I would be interested to know of the Minister’s views on two further issues. First, I am concerned by the desire of both the Government and the Opposition to add additional duties to Ofwat’s remit. The sectoral regulators exist to perform specific functions that are generally economically focused. Ofwat was first established to protect customers, because of the natural monopoly nature of the water and sewerage sectors after privatisation, and to ensure the continued delivery of the essential services those companies provide. In contrast, organisations like the Environment Agency exist specifically to protect the environment. Ofwat’s primary statutory duties therefore require it to balance keeping customers’ bills down with service quality at an acceptable standard while still securing that companies have enough money to continue to operate and deliver those essential services.
Economic regulation works best when the focus of the regulator is narrow and targeted: to protect consumers and to ensure that investors can earn a fair return from an efficient company. To introduce a new primary duty around resilience, or, as we have heard proposed, to elevate the sustainable duty to a primary duty, could suggest that the Government wish to water down those core functions. That was precisely why a similar change to Ofgem’s duties was resisted during the passage of the Utilities Act 2000. My concern is that the new duties and greater role for the Secretary of State will inevitably increase the level of political involvement in the activities of the regulator and will water down Ofwat’s focus on protecting customers.
To be effective, a retail market needs all participants to have access to clear and accessible prices, clearly defined and common levels of service and standard terms and conditions. We must ensure that incumbent water companies are obliged to deliver a genuinely level playing field and that the market codes are common for all participants in any particular appointed area and do not have to be negotiated separately. Some licence changes will inevitably be required to promote a level playing field in the market between exiting companies and new entrants.
My second concern is that existing legislation does not provide Ofwat with the ability to modify water company licences on the basis of majority agreement, as occurs in other regulated utilities. Instead, there is a requirement for the individual agreement from all monopoly companies—an approach which allows monopolies in the sector to block sensible changes that would deliver a more effective market and benefit customers.
The impact of this absence is perhaps best illustrated by my example about retail exit. The OFT recently described “exit” as a vital part of an effective market. This perhaps explains why 76% of water companies support voluntary retail exit. However, this statistic is important, because it also reveals that 24% of companies are indifferent or opposed to something that will support the effectiveness of the market. The point I want to make is that, under the current arrangements, 24% of companies could stop progressive changes. This is because each individual company would have a substantial influence over the provisions that Ofwat needs to put in place to establish a level playing field for all market participants. This change was a specific recommendation made by David Gray to the Government when he reviewed Ofwat in 2011. It is disappointing to see that the recommendations of a regulatory expert have not been taken forward in this Bill.
I agree with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that the proposals for Flood Re are a much needed and important step forward. I hope that, when we look at the detail, my noble friend the Minister will be able to reflect on some of the key issues surrounding the recommendations being made to the House. Initially promoted as all embracing, the Flood Re scheme was expected to exclude only a few households, but the latest estimate is that some 9,000 households in England and Wales will not be covered by the Government’s flood insurance scheme because their properties are either too expensive or were built after 2009.
The exemption for council tax band H opens the scheme to the same criticism levelled by many in your Lordships’ House against the putative wealth tax, whereby an increasingly elderly population, including many living in large houses on modest incomes, are excluded not on their income but on the size of their properties. That “mansion tax” was covered by Anna Walker’s review in 2009—which, by the way, I recommend to your Lordships as essential reading in this context—which recognised that the rateable value of a property bears little relation to a customer’s ability to pay. For this reason I hope we will be able to explore the band H exemption in Committee.
All of us are interested in parliamentary accountability. For example, the decision to require the setting of the primary levy at £10.50 to be subject to affirmative resolution, but the setting of the potentially far higher top-up levy for the one in 200 year flood—costed at £2.4 billion—to happen without parliamentary scrutiny is surprising. Surely a flood of such magnitude would warrant full parliamentary scrutiny? For that reason amongst others, I believe we should seek a requirement on the face of the Bill that an affirmative resolution should be required in both cases.
Then there is the apparent lack of a well considered water abstraction framework. In this context, further debate is needed both on the Environment Agency’s powers to review applications for such licences and on the conundrum—highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—of the impact of introducing competition before abstraction reform.
Turning to small businesses, I note that none is to be protected, on the grounds that they face a more sophisticated market in which to buy insurance cover than households face. Yet many insurance businesses, serving communities in flood-prone areas of the country, can equally ill-afford exorbitantly high premiums, if indeed any insurance cover is available to them at all. As John Allan, national chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, recently warned, one in five small companies were hit by the flooding in 2012, and many more have been battered by nature into financial submission over recent weeks. The British Insurance Brokers’ Association has understandably called for newly built and expensive properties to be covered rather than face the 2009 cut-off.
Also, who is to define which domestic properties will fall into the category of those “at the very highest risk”. From the introduction of the new scheme, how regularly do they need to be flooded over time to be excluded from Flood Re?
Whilst the issues raised are relevant to our consideration of the Bill, it is nevertheless welcome legislation capable of delivering substantial benefits to customers. However, buried in the 230 pages of this Bill are many areas which I believe require close scrutiny in your Lordships’ House. I look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister’s reflections.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I should like to talk about the financial circumstances of our water companies, but first I must describe some of their recent history and its relevance to their prospects.
From the middle of the 19th century for a period of 100 years, the water utilities in the UK and elsewhere became progressively concentrated under public and municipal ownership. Then, in the UK in 1989, the process was reversed through privatisation. Now the UK water utilities are owned almost entirely by private profit-seeking firms, of which the majority are in foreign ownership. The motives for privatisation in the UK and elsewhere were both ideological and fiscal. By the late 1980s, the water utilities were in a parlous state. Successive Governments, who had been intent on limiting public expenditure, had been unwilling to afford the necessary capital expenditure that was required for maintaining the water network. The water mains were corroded and the sewerage system was in a state of collapse.
The effect of privatisation was to release the water industry from this burden of financial stringency and to allow it to fund its investment by borrowing from the financial markets. Soon, the beneficial effects of the increased capital funding became evident. There were significant improvements in the state of repair of the water network, and the cleanliness of our rivers and beaches began to approach the standards that had been mandated by European legislation. In the six years after privatisation, the companies invested £17 billion, compared with the £9.3 billion that had been invested in the six years before privatisation.
The proponents of privatisation regarded the improvements as a validation of their philosophy. However, the improvements were at a cost to the consumers. Tariffs increased by 46% in real terms during the first nine years after privatisation. Operating profits increased by 142% in the first eight years, which is to say that they more than doubled. The private profitability of the water industry has increased in the ensuing years and has reached astonishing levels, but now there is an impending crisis in the provision of the services. Our water supplies are coming under increasing pressure as a result of a growing population and a changing climate. The summer droughts and the winter inundations that have been experienced in recent years are set to become increasingly severe.
The necessary investments to meet this crisis have not been forthcoming and the Government no longer have the power to compel the private companies to meet the needs. It is only by dint of increasing investment in the water infrastructure that the resulting problems can be alleviated. The requirement is for a nationwide strategic initiative aimed at upgrading the infrastructure, and this is what we should expect from a water Bill. The current Bill falls far short of what is required. It seems to embody the delusions of the protagonists of privatisation.
The intention of the Bill is to address the emerging problems by creating a competitive environment in which the water companies can operate. Thus it has been asserted in a document of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that:
“Allowing more competition in the sector will drive forward both innovation and efficiency, by bringing in new players and new ways of thinking, and by using market forces to keep down customer costs”.
The hope is that:
“This will benefit not only customers and stimulate growth, but will also contribute to our future resilience and the environment”.
This prescription must be utterly bemusing to anyone who is mindful of the circumstances of a natural monopoly. It is as if by tinkering at the edges of the industry, the major demographic and climatic problems that we face can be addressed.
It is appropriate, at this point, to examine what has happened to the ownership of the industry since it was privatised, and to explain why the Government can have little influence over its investment decisions. The firms of the water industry have become vehicles for financial profit-seeking by owners who have used their guaranteed profitability to pay exorbitant dividends to themselves. In fact, the ultimate ownership of the firms is often obscure and has to be traced through hierarchies of holding companies back to private equity companies, which often reside in offshore tax havens, or to sovereign wealth funds. The tenure of ownership is often fleeting—five years being a typical duration.
The owners have used the equity of the water companies as a means towards some highly leveraged borrowing of funds that can be used for purposes that have nothing whatever to do with the financing of investment in the infrastructure of the water industry. The attraction of the water companies to the financiers has been on account of the highly assured income streams that they generate. There is no likelihood of a reduction in the demand for water, and some generously remunerative water tariffs are fixed for five-year periods by the regulator Ofwat. Such circumstances are liable to lead to favourable appraisals by the credit rating agencies, which enable the borrowing of funds at low rates of interest.
As a result of their borrowings, the leverage ratios of the water companies, which are the ratios of their total borrowings to the enterprise value—which is the sum of the borrowings and the equity capital—have reached astronomical levels. It is reported, for example, that the leverage ratio of Thames Water reached 80% in 2013; and figures as high as 95% have been reported for other companies. On the eve of privatisation, virtually all the enterprise value of the water companies was in equity capital, which is to say that their leverage ratios were close to zero. A high leverage ratio constitutes a significant tax advantage. It implies that the debt servicing of the company is predominantly via interest payments as opposed to dividend payments. Interest payments are regarded as part of the operating costs of the company and are deducted from the income before the residue is taxed. By contrast, dividend payments enter into the calculation of the tax liabilities.
A disadvantage of a heightened leverage ratio is that it is liable to prejudice the credit rating of the company. Given that variations in the size of the dividend payments can provide a significant buffer in the event of a loss of profitability, the financial vulnerability of a highly leveraged company is increased and, therefore, its ability to borrow is decreased. In consequence of its heightened leverage ratio, Thames Water is facing financial difficulties and cannot borrow the money it needs to finance the Thames Tunnel project. As a private equity company it is unwilling to raise more equity, since this would entail a loss of control in favour of the shareholders. Instead, it is asking for help from the Government.
This may be the first of a series of similar circumstances affecting our water companies. Companies will have difficulty in financing other similar investment projects that will be vital to our future environmental security or resilience, as the Government’s documents term it. Therefore, it is probably inevitable that the Government will have to provide the necessary funds. This should also provide the Government with an opportunity to restore the water utilities to some degree of public or municipal ownership and control.
There is one outstanding example of what can be achieved by the appropriate governance of a water company: Welsh Water, which is run as a not-for-profit company. It was bought from its owners in 2000 at a cut price when it got into financial difficulties through an ill advised programme of diverse acquisitions. The buyers were a group of former industry executives and public servants, and their leveraged buyout was financed entirely by debt. Since this acquisition, the performance of the company has been outstanding. Its surpluses have been invested in the network and have been used to augment the company’s financial reserves. Shares have not been issued but the ratio of the company’s debts to its total asset value has fallen from 93% to 65%, thereby giving it the best credit rating in the entire UK utilities sector. This is a model of responsible ownership and governance that could be replicated throughout the water industry.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Crafnant Trust, which has responsibility for Lake Crafnant—a small reservoir above the Conwy valley in north Wales which I do not own.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and to note that, although the Bill applies to both England and Wales, it gives Welsh Ministers powers in relation to the whole area served by water and sewerage undertakers,
“wholly or mainly in Wales”.
I would not presume or dare to speak on behalf of the Welsh Government, but I believe that they would not wish to follow the direction outlined by the Westminster Government, whom they consider to be,
“overly dependent on competition within the water supply system”.
That is their right under powers devolved to them, but I also welcome the fact that, if enacted as currently drafted, the Bill will enable Ministers in future Welsh Governments to introduce competition if they so wish.
I was pleased to hear the noble Lord speak about the work of Dwr Cymru, and perhaps here I should also declare an interest as a customer. There is a belief that in Glas Cymru we have a framework and a supply system that work for the people of Wales. Glas Cymru is a not-for-profit organisation with no shareholders. It has brought investment into the system and reduced bills, and it is perhaps a model that should be emulated.
I welcome the attempts in the Bill to help those in areas at high risk of flooding to secure affordable insurance. However, as I understand it and as other noble Lords have highlighted, there are some concerns about the provisions that apply only to those in domestic properties. I am sure we can all think of examples of flooding in our areas where homes may have been affected but so, too, have the business premises next door. Perhaps my noble friend could place on the record, for interested parties, the reasons why small businesses will not be treated in the same way. As I said, I welcome these changes as far as they go, but changing the insurance regime in isolation is surely dealing with only one side of the coin. I hope that your Lordships will allow me to deal with the other side of the coin as I seek to bring the debate back to the matter of insurance.
As we begin to realise the enormity of the task that we have to deal with in order to combat the effects of climate change, many of us believe that there has to be a commitment to further flood defence work to prevent a repetition of the misery that we have seen in recent weeks. The Conwy valley, where I live, is certainly no stranger to the misery caused by flooding. I respectfully suggest that the magnitude of the flooding that we experience would certainly not be solved by community or group activity. One characteristic of the Conwy river is that it rises very quickly and can subside equally quickly, particularly after a high tide, but the flood waters have in the past left up to 100 flooded homes in their wake.
Many Members have spoken about sustainability, and they may be interested to hear of some work that has been carried out in the area of the source of the river Conwy. Some £300,000 has been allocated to restoration work on the threatened Migneint upland peatbog on the Conwy-Gwynedd border. The scheme has been funded by the National Trust and Natural Resources Wales and supported by many volunteers. This project, which is aimed primarily at saving a threatened Welsh ecosystem which can store more greenhouse gases than the Amazon rainforest, is recording impressive results according to scientists. Miles of ditches dug on a large area of peatland over the past two centuries have been filled with the aim of storing carbon and, at the same time, reducing flooding in the valley below. Already, some evidence is pointing to a slowing down of the rate at which the river rises, as the run-off from the slopes of the Migneint and Berwyn mountains is retained for longer in the peatlands.
Because of the severity of the floods that we suffered in the Conwy valley in 2004 and 2005, we saw massive schemes put in place by the Welsh Government, Environment Agency Wales and Conwy County Borough Council. Here, I pay tribute to the effective partnership working that we have seen between these organisations, and I add my recognition of the contribution made by European rural development funding to the schemes.
In an effort to protect our homes and businesses, a massive culvert was constructed under the streets of our town. As they rise, flood waters are now diverted into the culvert, stored there and gradually released as the waters subside. Demountable barriers, purchased from Holland—where the people know something about controlling water—are now available and can be installed to block off streets if flood waters threaten properties. Thankfully, these have not been required so far.
Embankments, or levees, which had been constructed along the river bank over the years to claim the fertile flood plain soil for agriculture, have been levelled and the flood plains are once again allowed to do the job nature intended. Farmers have been consulted and compensated and their co-operation in moving livestock at times of high risk has been achieved. New bunds, or small embankments, have been built and artificial lakes created to store flood water in order to protect the next village.
Those of us who live in close proximity to water have a healthy regard for its power, force and unpredictability and would never be foolish enough to say that such schemes are guaranteed to make flooding a thing of the past. However, the Environment Agency's data show that the volume of water which would have caused flooding to properties in the past did not do so in our last flood event. An unseen and unheralded saving to householders and insurance companies has therefore emanated from the flood alleviation scheme.
We all understand that each river and each incidence of flooding has its own characteristic and a solution achieved in one location will not necessarily apply to another. However, our experience in the Conwy valley shows that innovative thinking and creative engineering can make a difference.
This is neither the time nor the place to make a plea for the encouragement of more schemes to restore peatlands or of more engineering projects to protect vulnerable areas, but I hope that my noble friend can confirm that these matters are at least under discussion, that consideration is and will be given to methods of their funding and that the potential consequential savings to householders, local authorities and insurance companies will also be taken into account.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has persuasively outlined the case for this Bill and has been very helpful in providing advance information to all sides of the House, for which I thank him. I was especially struck today by the list of innovations that he and my noble friend Lord Moynihan outlined. These are just the sort of things that improve life for business and consumers in a quiet way.
This is a highly technical subject. We have a 230-page Bill to scrutinise and I know that many noble Lords are better versed in the intricacies than I am. However, I want to make three general points. I come to the subject as a businesswoman, including a directorship in a UK company, 2 Sisters Food Group, that uses water in its production, and as a farmer’s daughter. We had two large lakes on the farm where I was brought up, a constant menace to generations of adventurous children like ourselves. The Bill offers the prospect of making such lakes valuable assets in which to invest rather than simply a dangerous liability.
One of my main interests is improving UK competitiveness, so that we are not left behind in the global race. One key to competitiveness is good infrastructure and investment in things like water. Water is, of course, a central part of industrial production in a range of sectors, from beverages, such as whisky, to car manufacturing. I have chosen these examples because they are both important export industries too. Water is important in many businesses and, as others have said, is essential to life and to civilisation.
With our population expected to rise to 70 million by 2027, our water infrastructure will come under huge pressure, especially in the south and east. That brings me to my first point. Are we doing enough? Does the Minister think that this Bill will encourage the large-scale investment that we need? Many believe that in decades to come we will need major strategic and co-ordinated investments in the water sector; for example, by providing for large-scale movements from surplus to deficit areas. Are we doing enough in this Bill or, crucially, somewhere else to provide for this possibility?
If you have visited the Pont du Gard, Rome or Bath, you will know that the Romans had the right approach to the subject. Can we learn from experience overseas? I have talked to the Californians about the problems of raising revenue for water schemes for both consumers and agriculture in the Napa Valley. I have talked to the Spanish about the more successful catchment investments that they have made to support salad and other crops in southern Spain, which serve the UK market in winter. I recognise that the Bill is not seeking to do everything but it is important for your Lordships’ House to understand the wider strategic context.
Secondly, I am concerned about the quality of our regulatory regimes. Water is an important example and, as it is a natural monopoly without substitutes of the kind you find in energy or telecoms, the regulatory regime is even more important. I am very glad to see the increase in competition that will be encouraged and to hear today of the positive experience in Scotland. However, I have a concern that the new regime for competition with its new market operator, appeals to the Competition and Markets Authority, charging guidance and charging codes, and any new regulations made under the new powers, when fitted together with the existing Ofwat regime and the work done by the Environment Agency could be bureaucratic and therefore prone to error.
Having too many layers and agencies can risk regulatory arbitrage, confusion and excess bureaucracy. More expensive people will be hired and they may waste resources chasing each other and having endless meetings. Consumers, business, the water industry and Parliament will not be quite sure who to hold to account on what. Will the Minister let us know what steps are being taken to prevent overlap and confusion in this vital utility and perhaps comment on the scale of new staff and administrative costs that he expects to be incurred?
My third and final point relates to how we ensure the right balance between the all-important current consumer and investment for the long-term resilience of the system. Ofwat is to be given a new overarching duty, on which many speakers have touched today. Under this resilience objective, Ofwat will have to secure the long-term resilience of water supply and sewerage systems,
“as regards environmental pressures, population growth and changes in consumer behaviour”.
Following discussion in the other place Ofwat has also been asked to ensure that water and sewerage undertakers,
“manage water resources ‘in sustainable ways’ and reduce demand ‘for water so as to reduce pressure on water resources’”.
That all comes at a cost. No doubt the regulatory formula for the water companies, many of which are now unfortunately owned abroad, will be adjusted to take these duties into account. Let me share my concern. I am not sure whether to worry more that the incentives will be too low for proper investment in our water infrastructure or the opposite—that too much investment will go into resilience and sustainability at a guaranteed high rate of return. Certainly, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell suggested, it will take time to see how the system pans out.
Major infrastructure always raises such intergenerational issues, as my noble friend Lady Parminter suggested, because the necessary investments are so long term. It is a real dilemma suitable for the forthcoming debate in your Lordships’ House. I support the Bill because it is taking this sector in the right direction. I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s reply on the three points that I have raised and to participating in Committee.
Lord Oxburgh (CB)
My Lords, I have various interests to declare, which I shall do during the course of my remarks, but in so far as water metering has been mentioned, and we have to be very careful about these things these days, I should declare an interest as a director of the company that designs, builds and supplies water meters that telemeter their output to wherever it is needed.
At this stage in the debate, many of the more attractive foxes have been shot, and there is not much point in revisiting the corpses, which have been well worked over. It is clear that we are in a changed situation. Climate change will bring us less predictable and probably more intense weather episodes and we have the problem of growing urbanisation.
I, too, welcomed and applauded the White Paper and I am a little disappointed, for reasons that have been rehearsed, over the content of the Bill that we have today. Indeed, many of the points raised in the White Paper were foreseen in the report of the Science and Technology Committee some years earlier in its investigation most ably chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne.
Today, I will restrict my remarks to three fairly high-level points. First, a number of noble Lords have referred to the question of the interface between the range of regulatory bodies involved in the areas of water provision, water discharge and flood containment. It would be of use to the whole House during further consideration of the Bill if the Minister were to agree to concisely put down, perhaps in a note in the Library, the present view of the responsibilities of the agencies involved and the accountability between them. One thinks immediately of Ofwat, the Environment Agency, the Drinking Water Inspectorate, Defra itself and, certainly in the discharge of water, the whole range of organisations involved in sustainable urban drainage systems—SUDS, as referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne—and other related matters. It is hard to find this in a coherent and consistent manner at the moment.
I turn now to the question of a high-level, long-term national water strategy. I am not clear where the responsibility for that lies. I have searched the websites of the various regulatory bodies and Defra in vain to find an answer. I may have simply looked in the wrong places and not found it, but it is clear, to me at any rate, that we need a long-term strategy to deal with the challenges of climate change and increasing urbanisation. We need to be looking at a range of possible future scenarios for 25 or more years ahead. We may indeed find that the resilience criteria need to be changed and that more major infrastructural developments are needed as we understand climate change better. The reason for doing this now is that infrastructure developments are extremely slow to build. It is a long, slow business.
It is also worth pointing out that because moving water is expensive, the first solution to water problems should be sought within each catchment area. This does not mean that there ought not to be water transfer around the country. However, it is likely to be an expensive solution if done on any large scale. It does mean that we have to look hard at local solutions, and these have to start, as many have said, with reducing waste and leaks, or other deficiencies.
Beyond that, desalination has to be considered. The plant built by Thames Water in the Thames estuary is an example. To declare an interest, a company of which I am a director is providing the desalination plant with renewable energy. In many urban situations, however, as the Minister pointed out, particularly those located away from the sea, the solution may well lie in regenerating and purifying sewer water to potable standards. In this way a city could make an approach to being water self-sufficient. There is of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has pointed out, a serious energy penalty. Enhanced storage of water will also have a role to play.
A good example of both long-term strategic thinking and a resilient system is Singapore. Again I have to declare an interest, having for some time co-chaired the Public Utilities Board’s advisory committee on water and environment. Singapore now has what are described as four taps: water imported from Malaysia by pipeline, rainfall water from its own catchments, water from desalination, and so-called new water produced by the reprocessing and purification of waste water. The outcome of this long-term strategic programme is a resilient system implemented by private companies.
Finally, I shall say a few words on R&D. The UK water industry has had a poor record in recent years. Investment in water R&D has given a number of countries, some of them small, major positions in the international water industry—an industry that will necessarily grow with the world population and with the increased expectations of that population for higher living standards. Two examples of small countries that have built international reputations in water science and technology are the Netherlands and Singapore. For our part, we have had a regulatory regime imposed by Ofwat that made significant investment in long-term fundamental research virtually pointless, and indeed impossible. I understand that Ofwat has now changed its policy, but there is a lot of ground to make up. A second problem is that, with the investor profile described partly by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, but also in the recent document by the New Policy Institute, the UK water companies tend to be seen simply as reliable and steady sources of income rather than as companies that should explore new technology that might lower costs, let alone earn from their R&D.
It is sufficient to say that at the most recent major international water meeting that I attended there were nearly 1,000 companies exhibiting their products. Among them I found only three from the UK, all concerned with pipelines. I have already drawn attention to the energy cost of purifying water to potable standards. This is now largely done with reverse osmosis membrane technology. The challenge is to devise membranes that will have lower energy demands. Singapore is one of the global leaders in this field. This is one example but there are a host of other examples of useful and applied research where this country has little or no presence, meaning that we are simply going to be followers.
The relatively small R&D capacity of UK water companies means that many do not have the competence in-house to be an intelligent customer for new technology and, as a consequence, tend not to use or exploit new technologies. That means that they will not be able to achieve the efficiencies and consumer price reductions that are urgently needed.
Water is set to become a major issue in this country. Although we have some companies that are forward-looking, many are not. To cope with the challenges of climate change and population, we need a well regulated and well run industry that is technologically sophisticated and aware. It is not clear that we have it today. This Bill is good as far as it goes but we shall need another.
Lord Sheikh (Con)
My Lords, I commend the Government on this most important piece of legislation. Through the Bill, we are able to address a number of issues, and I believe it will improve the health of both our economy and our environment. It should also reduce water bills for consumers in the long term. It is clear that our water industry is in severe need of reform. Greater investment in our water and sewerage systems is long overdue, and greater levels of competition, efficiency and innovation are needed.
I will focus on Part 4 of the Bill, which relates to flood insurance. At this juncture, I declare an interest as chairman of an insurance broking and financial services organisation. I have been a director and the regional chairman of the British Insurance Brokers’ Association. I support the policy objectives of the Government on this issue and broadly support the measures contained in the Bill, for reasons I will go into in due course. I am particularly pleased that the insurance industry and the Government have been working closely together on this. Indeed, we must all work together to try to help facilitate a solution that will make affordable flood insurance available to UK property owners, including small businesses, in the long term.
Flooding is the greatest national threat that the UK faces, and the risk is rising. In recent years, this increased risk has been reflected in the number and cost of major flood events that property insurers cover. In the 1990s, there were two flood events with a claim cost of more than £150 million for insurers. In the first decade of this century, there were five such events, including the 2007 floods, which cost insurers £3 billion. The 2012 floods saw insurers paying out approximately £600 million.
A significant number of government amendments were made to the Bill in the other place, particularly on flood insurance. That was to be expected, given that in the first printing of the Bill the flood insurance provisions were set out in the broadest possible way. These new amendments set out the Government’s proposed legislative approach and are included in Clauses 51 to 71 of the Bill in its current form.
I welcome the fact that Flood Re will effectively limit what most high-risk households should have to pay for the flood component of their home insurance. Although the current statement of principles agreement ensured that viable flood insurance was available, it by no means guaranteed affordable prices for consumers and has long distorted the insurance market. However, the statement of principles ensured that the Government continued to spend on flood defences, where for every £1 spent, £8 is saved in claims.
I am sure that the clarity for those customers whom Flood Re will cover will be most welcome. Prices will be set according to council tax bands so people will know the maximum that they could be asked to pay. Moreover, it seems perfectly fair that those who are in smaller properties should not have to pay as much for flood insurance as some of those in larger houses. Support would be targeted at those who need it most, and the level of excesses charged by insurers controlled. The fact that the levy on all home insurers that will be used to fund the scheme in addition to insurance premiums comes within the pricing structure of the market means that most ordinary home owners will not face any rise in bills. Spreading risk across policyholders is a widely used model for insurance. Even with the possibility of a top-up levy being required in the early years of the scheme, it is envisaged that the overall effect will be neutral over time.
However, for those excluded from Flood Re, there continues to be genuine concern about both the availability and affordability of flood insurance. Some criticism has been levelled at the Government for these proposals based on the fact that Flood Re will not cover houses built after 2009. A cut-off date is needed to maintain a signal to planning authorities that all developments must be appropriate and resilient to flooding. However, a 2009 cut-off is unnecessary, as policy planning statement 25 has been in force since then. There is not a significant number of properties that have been built in flood-risk areas since 2009. These have been subject to planning policy statement 25. An alternative cut-off date of 2014 would mean that home owners in flood-risk areas would get the protection they need without materially affecting the ability of the scheme to deliver its objectives.
The importance of resilience when it comes to flooding must not be understated, for in some areas it is virtually impossible not to build on flood-prone land. With this in mind, I believe that more thought should be given to “uninsurable” properties in this scheme. It is inevitable that the risk that some properties would carry would make them unsuitable for Flood Re, but we must do all that we can to ensure that “uninsurable” properties are not left behind.
The Flood Re proposals have been broadly welcomed by all parties, although inevitably there are some concerns. One such concern has been that small businesses will be ineligible for Flood Re and therefore be afforded less protection than in the statement of principles by which they are covered. It is clear that the risks for businesses are different and that financial risk is often much greater.
The fact that small businesses could be in a worse position than before is a cause for concern to the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Property Federation, the National Flood Forum and the British Insurance Brokers’ Association. I am pleased that in Committee in the other place the Minister there clarified that small businesses were covered if they were based in council tax-paying residential properties. However, this will be for only a tiny minority, as most businesses will be registered in a company name and Flood Re excludes businesses if the insurance is taken out in the name of the business.
Figures from the Federation of Small Businesses show that, in 2012 alone, one in five small businesses was affected by flooding, highlighting just how important for such companies the availability of affordable protection is. I ask my noble friend to comment on whether he believes that small businesses will be suitably protected by Flood Re and, if not, what provisions have been made to ensure that they can continue to access affordable flood cover.
Judging premium costs based on council tax boundaries is a reasonable approach. There has been mixed reaction to the exclusion of band H properties, with some claiming that their inclusion would have little impact and others claiming that the effect will be greater. However, I ask my noble friend how the differential pricing in the system was designed and, more importantly, do the Government believe that the current proposals are robust enough to help those on lower incomes, particularly those who may live in band H homes who are asset-rich and cash-poor?
The ultimate goal of Flood Re is to pave the way for a smooth transition to the free market. If that were successful, it would be most welcome, but, of course, that is not an easy feat. No country in the world has a free market for flood insurance which successfully preserves widely available and affordable flood insurance for those at high flood risk without some form of government involvement. With that in mind, I seek further explanation from my noble friend on how the transition in the insurance sector from the cross-subsidy being formalised in Flood Re to an eventual free market will be managed.
Moreover, what, if any, safeguards will be in place to ensure that premiums do not rise considerably once a free market is established? I look forward to my noble friend’s answer on that issue. Although a contingency plan in the form of the flood insurance obligation is being legislated through the Bill, I know that from the industry perspective there is strong feeling that that must be avoided. Perhaps that is not a bad thing, because it makes the incentive for Flood Re to work even greater. However, there are real concerns about placing an obligation on each insurer to take a proportionate share of high flood-risk households. The obligation would be the first time that insurers were forced to provide a type of cover to a high-risk home owner-occupier who they otherwise might have chosen not to cover.
Although the obligation would force insurers to compete with each other for the business of high-risk households in order to meet their targets, there is a danger that that could make some insurers withdraw from the market, reducing capacity, competition and choice, and resulting in increased prices. I believe that there is a risk that this measure, intended to help customers to shop around, would in fact limit their ability to do that very thing. It could also negatively affect those at low flood risk, as insurers seek instead to compete for high-risk properties in order to fulfil their quota.
Having said that, I welcome the measures in the Bill, but I believe that more needs to be done for those currently excluded from the scheme: in particular, small businesses such as those we have seen mopping up their small shops and offices around the UK in recent months.
Throughout the process of taking forward the Bill, it has been recognised that in some ways we have made good progress. We have been able to develop proposals as far as we have only through a partnership approach. This has seen a considerable compromise by the insurance industry and a significant future commitment from the Government. I am sure that for as long as that continues, we will be able to secure a system that is fit for purpose.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to support the Bill because of the increased competition it will bring to the water sector generally. I am glad that Her Majesty’s Opposition in another place welcomed this aspect of the Bill. In talking about competition, I will concentrate on Part 4 of the Bill concerning flood insurance. Here, I must declare an interest, or a residual interest, because I was, until June, the chief executive of a Lloyd’s insurance company and a London market reinsurance company, which was a member of the ABI. Although I am not now an employee, I am still the subject of various restrictive covenants. I am also, like my noble friend the Minister, the owner of a flooded house, but, fortunately for me, it was occupied by my father-in-law.
Making flood insurance available and affordable to all, as is the intention of the Bill, is a common problem in many countries and the temptation to interfere in the open market is fraught with difficulties. In the United States, for example, the National Flood Insurance Program was created in 1968 and allows property owners in participating communities to buy protection from the Government. The problem with government schemes is that the correct risk-adjusted rate is not charged, so the program is now about $30 billion in deficit. When you try to correct it, as the Biggert-Waters Act of 2012 was seeking to do, you get huge rate increases. In this case, there were increases of up to 400% for some home owners.
Having said that, there are huge problems for those households which, through no fault of their own, live in areas that are susceptible to flooding and for which this is a deeply worrying matter. It is surely right that there should be temporary help for those households while, at the same time, acknowledging on the face of the Bill the intention to,
“transition to risk-reflective pricing of flood insurance for household premises”.
The Bill stipulates a 25-year transitional period. Flood Re is a unique solution and, after many months of negotiation, it has the advantage of being supported by the insurance industry, as represented by the Association of British Insurers. It will be an industry-owned mutual classified as a public body. In agreeing to this, recognition should be paid to the insurance industry for agreeing to maintain the statement of principles until Flood Re is up and running. The industry has an incentive to make the new company work and avoid the flood insurance obligation, which is also in the Bill.
Flood Re will be an improvement because it makes affordable insurance available where it is not today. All insurers, new and old, are on a level playing field. Of course, there is nothing to stop an insurer keeping high-risk flood properties and not ceding them to Flood Re if it can get what it judges to be the correct risk-adjusted rate. That happens in many countries. There are, however, a number of potential problems, which will no doubt be addressed in Committee.
The first is the danger that, in the early years, a large-scale flood or series of floods over several months could exhaust Flood Re’s resources. That is a possibility although an extremely remote one. Like all insurance companies in the Solvency II world, Flood Re will be capitalised to a one in 200 level. In other words, it will have enough resources with an appropriate level of reinsurance—and assuming that the internal model is correct—to cover 99.5% of the losses that it could ever expect to face. This takes into account possible model errors and a host of other variables, which have to be documented and validated before the internal model is approved by the PRA. One in 200 is far more remote than any recent losses. Even the floods of 2007, which would have had an estimated £400 million cost to Flood Re, would have had to be six times worse—to be accurate, the reinsured loss amount would have to be about six times higher—to exhaust the likely level of the reinsurance programme.
In the event of a shortfall, the member insurance companies could be asked for a top-up levy to enable Flood Re to pay out its contractual aggregate limit after which, like any reinsurance arrangement, the liability falls back on the insurance companies that wrote the original business. The insurance industry has accepted this risk. While not incurring any contractual liability, the Government have affirmed in the memorandum of understanding with the industry that they bear primary responsibility for dealing with a flooding event with a greater than one in 200 return period.
Secondly, there are exceptions that Flood Re will not cover. These are mainly areas that are not covered anyway today by the statement of principles, such as houses built after 2009, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, referred, commercial properties and SMEs, and potentially genuinely uninsurable properties, although this will not happen at the outset of the scheme. If the intention is to move to free-market pricing, albeit over 25 years, it would surely be odd to increase the scope of the market intervention at the outset.
Thirdly, there are many details to be addressed before Flood Re can begin operations, which makes mid-2015 an ambitious target. The reinsurance protections will have to be bought in the open market. Flood Re will have only a finite amount of ceded premium and levy available to pay for that reinsurance, and whether or not the market will provide the required aggregate limit at an acceptable price remains to be seen. The fact, too, that it has to be bought under public procurement rules makes the exercise more time consuming. June 2015 is an ambitious timetable, with more than 170 open work packages to complete. Anyone who has been involved with Solvency II preparation, the validation of an internal model and the approval of the very onerous documentation requirements will know that is not trivial and that timely authorisation from the PRA should not be taken for granted. Nor, by the way, should EU authorisation for state aid, and I would be interested to hear from my noble friend the Minister when he anticipates that this will be forthcoming.
Finally and, to me, worryingly, it seems that Flood Re is going to be the most regulated company in the insurance market. It has been set up deliberately as a private regulated insurance company, but there will also be public arrangements for oversight due to the levy that will raise an estimated £180 million. Because of that, all the panoply of public supervision will be imposed in addition to the normal regulation that Parliament and the European Union have seen fit to impose. Actually, £180 million is really not a great deal of money—to put it in context, insurance premium tax alone raises more than 16 times as much. Nevertheless, as a result, Flood Re will be regulated by the PRA and the FCA. The National Audit Office will assess the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of its operation. There will have to be a responsible officer directly accountable to Parliament. There may well be scrutiny by the Public Accounts Committee. Defra will be held accountable to Parliament because Flood Re will be part of its accounts, with obvious implications for Flood Re’s compliance and governance costs. Commenting on this, Defra’s briefing note states:
“This proposed approach aims to strike a balance between the requirements of accountability to Parliament, and the need for Flood Re to be able to operate as an integral part of the insurance market”.
I hope that the future CEO of Flood Re, who is yet to be appointed, agrees.
Nevertheless, these concerns, which can be met, should not detract from an innovative solution to a genuine social need: to achieve affordable insurance for some 500,000 homes in the country while at the same time preparing the way for genuinely risk-reflective rates.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging debate today covering the many aspects of this important Bill. I will try to be brief and my comments are concentrated on three areas. While the majority of the Bill is concerned with the supply of water and ensuring that all households throughout England have a steady supply of fresh water—and this is vital—today I am addressing the issue of the surplus of water: that is, flooding.
As has been said already, the Bill makes provision by Flood Re for those properties at risk of severe flooding to get affordable insurance following the end of the statement of principles with the insurance industry that has been in place since 2000. As others have commented in the past, my accent betrays my heritage. In Somerset, as all can see from television and newspaper coverage, especially today, the landscape changes dramatically in winter, sometimes for short periods but currently for much longer ones. This has always been a problem for the levels, but it is definitely getting worse. In the winter of 2012-13, the village of Muchelney was cut off for weeks, and it is now cut off again. The fire brigade has done a brilliant job ferrying people to and fro, and the county council has assisted in building a pontoon for villagers to access boats so that they can do their shopping and get to work. The great British community spirit has risen above all the difficulties. Nevertheless, residents in long-term flooded areas are suffering stress and the beginnings of mental health problems.
While welcoming the proposals for Flood Re, like others, I am concerned about some of the exclusions. Many small businesses that operate on the Somerset Levels will find it impossible to get insurance if they are not included in Flood Re. At a time when the economy needs every job it can get, it seems short-sighted in the extreme to be putting the viability of those businesses at risk. As I understand the Bill, some mixed hereditaments are included in Flood Re, but this seems to be dependent on whether they are assessed for business rates. Similarly, private rented and leasehold households are excluded. When everything we know about housing is that it is in short supply, to again jeopardise that supply by pushing private landlords out of the market could be discriminatory. It is generally a requirement of mortgage lenders that insurance is in place. To have insurance that excludes flooding is not wise. Are the flood-prone areas therefore to become devoid of population as people are forced to move to higher ground in order to be able to get the insurance cover needed to have access to a mortgage?
Internal drainage boards comprise local people who know their area and its problems. They can often see what solutions might be needed and could implement fairly low-cost works to alleviate some of the flooding. Disaggregating the drainage board levy from local authority council tax is vital to enable the boards to operate effectively and efficiently. Enabling them to assess what is required and then raise the necessary levy in order to carry out remedial works is key in helping to restore public confidence that the issue is being taken seriously.
Lastly, I wish to raise the issue of the value placed on agricultural land. As can be seen on our television screens, acres of agricultural land are underwater for large portions of the year. This is affecting farmers’ ability to earn a proper living and placing their families at risk. Again, there is a risk to mental health as well as to health and well-being. When it comes to flood defence works, to what extent do the loss of earnings and devaluation of the land figure in the calculations about which areas qualify for flood alleviation works and which do not? How does adequate funding for repairs get taken into consideration? Some form of financially sustainable system needs to be in place in order for the land to be farmed effectively. Land cannot just be left fallow year after year. Land does not look after itself, as I am sure all the farmers here know. It needs constant managing in order to get the best out of it. Farmers need encouragement, not obstacles and difficulties. This is a very real issue and one that I hope we can address during the passage of this Bill.
I am encouraged by much of what is included in the Water Bill, and I hope that we may be able to address many of the points made by others, with which I agree, over the coming weeks.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, first, I welcome this Bill as a much needed change to the legislation. I thank South West Water, which invited me to a water works and sewage works in Exeter to brief me on the industry and show me how it works in practice. I little thought that on entering your Lordships’ House my first visit to a company would be to a sewage works.
There are several challenges facing the supply and regulation of water in the UK, and the Bill sets out eminently reasonable reforms to ensure a long-term plan for improving our infrastructure and for providing better value for customers. The best way to improve the efficiency of suppliers and to drive down costs for customers is of course to allow more competition. Of course, the real task for any new competitor is to understand the legislation, the rules and regulations. The length of the Bill hinders that somewhat. Perhaps we are, oddly, overregulating to allow more competition.
It is good that the Bill seeks to allow new entrants into the market with more upstream competition and more competition for business customers. However, I wonder if this extension of upstream competition is slightly out of sync with reform for abstraction licences. The Government are concerned that the water supply is limited and are rightly looking at reforming these licences, the system for which was set up in the 1960s. Reforms will make abstraction more sustainable, but this probably is not happening for another two years or so; indeed, a consultation was launched only last month. Even with a more competitive market and more upstream competition, we may not have the surge in new entrants that we want until they have more certainty on the future of abstraction licences. It would be disappointing if good reforms were hindered in the short term because they are not aligned with other important steps being taken. However, I am sure that hindered reforms are better than no reforms.
Although it is not specifically covered in the Bill, I will talk briefly about the issue of identifying tenants, which surely must be an area of future consideration. At present, there is a premium of around £11 per household on all water bills because of bad debts. Water companies do not know who the occupiers are, as they are often short-term renters. Sometimes a property will have a high turnover of tenants, too, making the problem worse. Enabling legislation to make landlords identify the tenants who are liable for unpaid bills does exist but has not been implemented. This may seem like more bureaucracy for landlords, but it would arguably add no more burden than the checks they already have to make to make certain that they get paid the rent, and information they already give—for instance, to the immigration authorities. Ultimately, everybody pays for the failure to successfully recover unpaid debts.
There are two causes of bad debt for water companies: those who cannot pay and those who will not pay. For those who cannot pay, we already have mechanisms in place. The social tariff exists, in most water companies, for customers on an income below £15,800. That tariff is usually applied to those in arrears, if they can demonstrate that they cannot pay. For those who will not pay, marking their credit rating will at least reduce their ability to take credit in the future, to the benefit of future lenders.
Perhaps we also ought to look at reduced flow measures. Essentially, those who will not pay their water debts would receive a water supply only sufficient to enable them to drink. However, the reduced flow would make it inconvenient to use the supply in other ways, such as for baths. Such measures were made illegal in the Water Industry Act 1999. However, they are applied in certain Australian states, so measures like this ought to be considered. After all, I am sure that we would like to see a reduction in the bills of ordinary and honest families. This could be a way to achieve that.
It is good to see the Government addressing the affordability of flood insurance for those in high-risk areas. However, I have one small point of concern with the flood reinsurance scheme. While flood reinsurance seems to be backed by industry, perhaps we need to think more fundamentally about where many areas of housing are located. We would all argue that it is simply not a good idea to have lots of housing in an area of high risk and frequent flooding.
As the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, referred to shot foxes: the Bill has simple aims, and indeed, it was summarised in only four pages. However, it is 230 pages of dense text, including 81 clauses in four parts, and has no fewer than 12 schedules. Is it possible that the drafting team for the roughly 700-page Finance Bill, having taken a rest after passing their Bill through the other place, leapt to what passes for immediate action to draft this particular legislation? Battalions of people have been interpreting the Finance Bill for a living, but they are threatened by the welcome creation of the Office of Tax Simplification. I hope that they do not believe that this is an employment scheme to ensure that they will be able to find their metier in the world of sewage. My only plea is that readability should be higher up the list of priorities.
However, I must say that it is a rare thing indeed for a Bill to have so much support from the industry concerned. That is not to say this Bill is a gift to the industry, to the customer’s detriment. It rather suggests that quite sensible and thorough reforms are contained in the Bill. Credit must go to the Government—and to the Minister—for ensuring that customers will be offered more choice and that the long-term resilience of water and sewage supplies will be more secure.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, the Water Bill has very much to commend it, and has been commended around the House. I will start by declaring my interest, albeit a very minor one, as a dairy farmer. I am very aware of the price rises that have come through in recent years, and due to my experience in the dairy industry I am not at all surprised that a milk co-operative of farmers is leading the way in some of the advantages in Scotland. I thank all Members today for their contributions, the Minister for his introduction, and thank him and his officials for the helpful discussions he has conducted with all sides of the House. We have also received many briefings, which have been very helpful, especially the information from and discussions with the Water Industry Commission for Scotland. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, underlined the importance of understanding the benefits achieved and the lessons learnt.
All sides of the House have come forward with a general welcome, but I am sure that the Minister is in for a very heavy and intense Committee stage, as all noble Lords expressed concerns when they got into the detail of what is involved in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Whitty outlined our approach, and his description of the industry shows that reform is required. The need for reform of the industry was echoed throughout the Chamber. There is a welcome choice for businesses and non-household customers by allowing them to switch suppliers. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, called for more ambition, and competition without de-averaging was brought up around the House, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and other noble Lords.
Improved services and innovation were a key focus of many comments, and there was also a keen focus on customers, which my noble friend Lady Kennedy deemed to be missing. She mentioned the WaterSure scheme and the necessity of a change of culture. The ensuing downward pressure on prices was also welcomed around the House, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. That leads to improved infrastructure, which was a keen focus of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, whose speech I would sum up as a cry of, “We can do better”. I look forward to many of the Minister’s replies on the infrastructure and resilience of the water provision. That was an important part of the speeches by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart. Indeed, there was a general call—in particular from the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, my noble friend Lady Kennedy, and the noble Lord, Lord Borwick—for a sharpening up of real action to be applied through the use of databases, metering, and the achieving of a more ambitious leadership, which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, also mentioned.
The Minister will need to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, how the various regulatory authorities will complement each other. This landscape will be welcomed by all before Committee. It will be easier to trade water. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, among others, showed his concern for innovation and management plans. That was also welcomed by others.
The Bill will make it easier for new entrants in a more open marketplace, by removing some of the existing regulatory barriers. This was welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick; but many who spoke were concerned by the lack of an exit ability in this Bill. Charities, hospitals, and multisite companies, will also benefit from dealing with one supplier, and from an invoice rationalisation. Extending the scope for an environmental permitting regime to include water abstraction and fish passage approvals was also a key emphasis for many noble Lords.
An important reason for this Bill is the introduction of the Flood Re scheme. One half of the question to the issue concerns flood defences, a matter addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys. We support the Flood Re scheme and encourage measures to make insurance affordable, just as we hope the Government will ensure that water bills are affordable for all. Households in areas of risk from flooding can find it difficult to obtain affordable insurance. Various aspects of this were of keen interest to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. That is why the previous Government began negotiations with the insurance industry to establish a levy-funded insurance pool for households at high risk of flooding, aimed at keeping premiums affordable.
The Government have failed to prioritise the issue, and the new scheme will not be introduced until 2015 at the earliest, with some reports suggesting that it may slip by another year. The Government’s flood reinsurance scheme does not appear to account for a change in a number of properties at high risk of flooding. The main risk is not static, with the Government’s own figures showing over the next 15 years alone, 1 million more people could be put at significant risk of floods because of climate change. The Government have rejected clear advice from the Committee on Climate Change that the flood reinsurance scheme fails to take into account the likely increase in numbers of at-risk properties as a consequence of climate change, and fails to incentivise flood resilient repairs to at-risk properties.
The setting of a target number of registered premises by the Secretary of State should be informed by the best available independent evidence, including taking into consideration these impacts on climate change, and the Government should be required to consider the advice of the Committee on Climate Change. Given that the Secretary of State in the other place does not believe in climate change, can the Minister guarantee that this will not affect the longevity and effectiveness of the Flood Re scheme?
The long-term aspects of the success of the scheme were a matter of great concern to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, and others. It also does not seem as though the flood reinsurance policy includes any provisions to reduce flood risk, or to encourage the transition to risk-reflective pricing. Can the Minister tell the House what steps will be taken in this direction?
We would also encourage the Government to publish regular reports on the number of properties eligible for inclusion in the scheme, and the cost of including those properties. Can the Minister please provide the House with a full breakdown of the number of properties that the Government propose to exclude, including band H properties and those built after 1 January 2009? A large number of properties have been excluded from the scheme, no right of appeal has been established for households that are not included in it and there is currently no means of checking whether a property is included in it—for example, prior to purchase. This often hinges on whether the property was built before 2009. Furthermore, will he please tell the House whether households will have a right of appeal to be removed from the scheme? Many speakers today asked questions around exclusions from the scheme, and I am sure this issue will be well tested in Committee.
Purchasers should be able to check whether or not a property is covered by the Flood Re scheme prior to purchase. Surely the Government cannot intend families to be unaware of whether or not a property is covered by the scheme when they are putting in an offer for it. Noble Lords would appreciate reassurance on this front. It should not be sufficient to rely on proper and effective searches to unearth these details. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, also voiced his concerns about that. Therefore, while I congratulate the Minister on making some progress on this matter, the condensed timetable in which it has been put before Parliament means it is especially important that he responds to these concerns, and others from around the House. Do the Government recognise the concern at the reduction in flood defence resources that they have imposed on the Environment Agency, and the greatly reduced funding by the Minister’s department following downgrading of this element from that department’s list of priorities?
It is deeply concerning that the Secretary of State for the Environment gives every impression of being highly sceptical of the scientific evidence of climate change, and so unwilling to take this seriously that he has apparently failed even to request a briefing on this issue from his own Chief Scientific Adviser. In fact, the Secretary of State has said that, if climate change is a reality, which he has not accepted, there could even be benefits for the UK.
The realities of flooding in Somerset, and its effects, were spoken about by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. These are all very serious issues and we all share a deep concern for those affected. The costs of flooding to the UK’s economy are already considerable. The economic losses from the July 2007 floods were estimated to be £3.2 billion. Flooding on 20 July 2007 in Gloucestershire alone is estimated to have cost the country £50 million. Figures published by the Association of British Insurers show that the cost of flood damage since 2000 has increased 200% on the previous decade. At a time when severe flooding is becoming more frequent, thanks to climate change, the Government are cutting spending on flood defences, in spite of the evidence showing that for every £1 invested in flood defence schemes £8 is saved further down the line, as was clearly stated by the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh.
The Government have reduced investment in flood defences in real terms from £646 million in 2010 to £527 million this year. By 2015, the figure will be £546 million—still £100 million lower than the level they inherited. Furthermore, the Government have also admitted that the £148 million they propose to raise from external contributions has not been secured. The previous Labour Government prioritised flood defences and increased funding each year after the 2007 floods from £264 million in 2007-08 to £354 million in 2010-11 to protect homes and businesses.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, expressed concerns about flood plains. Will the Government make water undertakers statutory consultees on planning proposals for building on flood plains? On social tariffs, will the Minister please tell the House whether he will be backing Labour’s plan for a national affordability scheme? Does he agree that having only 25,000 homes on a social tariff is vastly insufficient? Labour would like to see the introduction of a national affordability scheme with a single eligibility criterion for assistance with bills, and which requires all companies to participate in and fund the scheme. Regulation of the existing regulatory price control regime by a tougher Ofwat would ensure that this did not lead to higher bills for other customers.
In Committee, we would like to examine Ofwat’s powers with a view to providing it with a greater range of criteria to trigger a reopening of the current five-year price reviews, thereby enabling Ofwat to require water companies to reduce prices for customers. Ofwat needs to become more of a powerful consumer champion that stands up to the water industry, rather than being just a regulatory body. It is important that there should be movement both ways. If a company is allowed to reopen due to changes, it must also be the case that, if a change is to that company’s advantage, consumers should be able to examine those changes through Ofwat. All water companies should be required to provide detailed information on their performance, ownership and financial tax structures—an issue raised by my noble friend Lord Hanworth.
I am sure that much on the future infrastructure and structure of the industry will be of great concern to the Competition and Markets Authority. We recognise the improvements that should come from changing the frequency of drought planning to a five-year cycle to coincide with other water planning cycles. Given the usual ability to improve Bills as they flow through their stages in your Lordships’ House, I am sure that all participants will ensure that this Bill will be much improved when it leaves.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. A large number of questions and points have been raised, and I had better get cracking if I am to respond adequately to as many as I can. All the points raised will be taken away and considered carefully. I know that during the remaining stages of the Bill I will have plenty of opportunities to answer any points that I do not address today.
Several noble Lords raised concerns about introducing upstream reform ahead of abstraction reform. We will not take action that would increase unsustainable abstraction. We have looked carefully at how the regulatory regime will operate to reduce this. There are strong safeguards in the existing regime to ensure that the Environment Agency and Ofwat work together to prevent unsustainable abstraction in the short term.
Noble Lords asked what environmental safeguards will be in place regarding upstream reform. In order to sell water into the public supply, all non-water company abstractors will need to apply to the Environment Agency for a change of use in their abstraction licence. They will be required to go through the same process as if applying for a totally new licence. The Environment Agency can therefore refuse a change of use request if it would lead to unsustainable abstraction or deterioration in the catchment, or it could apply conditions to ensure that this did not happen. In addition to the existing process for issuing abstraction licences and regulating change of use, there are separate licensing requirements for new entrants to the water sector. The Bill was also amended in the other place to require Ofwat to consult the Environment Agency before issuing a water supply licence entitling the holder to input water into the public supply system.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of the resilience duty and compared it against a potential sustainable development duty. Having listened carefully to points raised in the other place, we have made amendments to the new duty of resilience. I am pleased that we have been able to respond on these important points and that some noble Lords who have spoken and stakeholders such as Blueprint for Water have welcomed the changes. This new duty is an important contribution to the regulatory framework. It will ensure that regulation of this sector takes appropriate account of the impacts of environmental pressures, population growth and patterns of demand on our essential services. Supporting reform of the aspects of the current system that institutionalise short-term thinking will help to reduce pressures on the water environment, on which we all rely.
The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, referred to Singapore’s experience. I lived there for five years. He is right about the growing population and demand, and a long reliance on neighbouring Malaysia. I can remember the pipes that ran the length of the country squirting water tens of metres high. That has forced Singapore to be hugely innovative, and it is quite a lesson to us.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked: why the resilience duty; why not sustainable development? Ofwat has had a statutory duty to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development since 2005. We have also issued statutory guidance, which states clearly that sustainable development is central to everything that Ofwat does and must be fully embedded throughout its regulatory decision-making. We have thought carefully about how to change Ofwat’s duties to support action to address the long-term challenges facing the sector and encourage better outcomes for customers and the environment. The best means of doing this is to create a new overarching duty specifically designed to prioritise an enhanced focus on long-term resilience.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked whether the resilience duty included social resilience. Ofwat already has a primary duty to protect consumers, and this includes particular responsibilities to vulnerable groups. By requiring Ofwat to secure the long-term resilience of water supplies and services and the sustainable management of water resources, the resilience duty protects both current and future consumers and will help to keep bills fair for the long term.
Several noble Lords asked about metering. The Government agree that metering provides a fair way to pay. We want companies to do more to promote metering to those who would benefit, although it is important to remember that some struggling customers would see their bills rise. Therefore, water companies are best placed to find the most appropriate local solution in discussion with their customers. The costs and benefits of metering vary from region to region, depending on the level of water stress. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, and to answer the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, metering has winners and losers. Some bills go up and some go down. The evidence suggests that there is not a very good cost-benefit case for universal metering outside areas of serious water stress—areas where, indeed, universal metering is already possible.
My noble friend Lord Cathcart asked about a national policy statement for water, and we are continuing to keep the need for that under review. Water companies have recently consulted on new water resources management plans covering the period 2015 to 2040.
A number of noble Lords asked about retail exits. We have considered this issue very carefully, and I need to be absolutely clear about this. It is not something that we have completely ruled out for the future, but at present the risks of retail exit outweigh the potential benefits. First, we feel strongly that water companies must continue to be responsible for all parts of the supply chain. They must have a connection with their customers. Secondly, there is a risk that retail exit would be forced on the sector. That is not a risk we are prepared to take: it should be for Ministers and Parliament to decide whether or when separation should take place. Thirdly, we must not forget household customers, who will not be able to switch. If we allowed retail exit, householders could be left stranded with a water company with little incentive in investing in customer service once it had washed its hands of its business customers. This would effectively create a two-tier water market, with household customers losing out.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan said that 76% of companies support retail exits. However, there is in fact a real mix of views in the sector on this issue. The 76% figure comes from an article in the publication Utility Week. It is based on telephone conversations with 36 individuals and reflects the personal views of those interviewed.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and my noble friend Lady Parminter spoke about de-averaging. This is the question of whether customers’ charges could directly reflect the specific costs associated with supplying their premises. This is instead of what we have now, where customers simply pay a share of the total costs of running the network.
We should be careful to distinguish between the different kinds of costs that are reflected in water bills. It makes sense to share the costs of maintaining the network on which all customers rely—more than 90% of water charges—across all customers, regardless of their location. The use of average pricing for such charges is common practice in comparable sectors such as gas, electricity and telecoms where regionally averaged network prices have remained the norm following liberalisation of those industries. However, I think that many noble Lords would agree that there could be real benefits from increasing the cost reflectivity of charges for different sources of water. It would reflect the environmental costs of supply, which is especially important in water-stressed areas or for business users that use large volumes of water. Our charging principles make it clear that the Government’s detailed charging guidance to Ofwat will place limits on the scope of any de-averaging of prices.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and my noble friends Lord Selborne and Lord Moynihan referred to the Scottish model. The vast majority of our approach to retail competition is very similar to Scotland, but water is a devolved matter and the systems are different. Scotland has no upstream competition; the Scottish market is much smaller than the potential retail market for England; Scotland has only one incumbent retailer and one wholesaler. There are 19 integrated incumbent water companies in England and Wales. Our approach to retail competition is being developed jointly with the industry, along with the Scottish and English regulators and others. This group is well placed to identify the conditions that will work best in England, building on the Scottish experience.
On the specific issue of a no-detriment clause, the Bill already provides a general duty, in Clause 23, to ensure that water companies do not exercise undue preference to themselves or their own retail businesses. It is essential that all those who enter the markets have confidence that incumbent companies act appropriately. They must not be able to abuse their dominant positions. We have carefully considered the issues relating to discrimination in relation to the market reforms in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Moynihan raised the procedure for changes to water company licences. The issue is complex and sensitive and I am happy to discuss it further with him if he would like.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked about environmental protections for upstream. New entrants will be subject to the same environmental controls as other abstracters and those that discharge water back into the environment. The environmental regulators will be involved in the licensing and appointment of new entrants that offer upstream services to assess their suitability to operate in the water supply and waste water markets. They will also be a statutory consultee in the preparation of market codes. In the context of market reform, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, suggested that the Bill only provides for negotiated access to the market. We are satisfied that the Bill will allow regulated access to the retail market through market codes and rules. There is flexibility to enable negotiation to allow, for example, local issues to be addressed in the upstream market.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe asked a number of questions, the first of which was to do with large-scale investment. We aim to increase resilience, included in which is planning our strategic infrastructure for years to come. Our work on water resource management plans, looking at water resources out to 2040, is part of this long-term planning. The framework we are setting for Ofwat will ensure that economic regulation of the sector supports these objectives. I am happy to commit to placing a note in the Library on responsibilities and accountabilities in the area requested by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh.
My noble friends Lady Parminter and Lady Neville-Rolfe asked about how we prevent the interplay of the various agencies and players now involved becoming bureaucratic and wasteful. The market operator is a company that will be set up to facilitate switching and financial settlement between market participants. It is common for such bodies to be established to simplify switching processes. The equivalent in Scotland is the Central Market Agency. Such bodies are not set up by legislation, as a general rule: they do not have any statutory powers, duties or roles.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe also asked about duties combined with the regulatory formula for water companies and whether that encouraged too much or too little capital investment in the longer term. It is the role of the regulatory system to ensure that there is sufficient investment in our essential water and sewerage services which are undertaken as efficiently as possible. Ofwat undertakes a comprehensive efficiency challenge every five years through the price review process. The Government are responsible for setting the policy and legislative framework. They also issue guidance to Ofwat to help it balance all its duties.
We have discussed the new duty of resilience in the Bill to address the specific uses relating to the long-term pressures facing the water industry. The duty makes it clear that this is not only about capital solutions; it could also be delivered through more innovative approaches, such as demand management and catchment management. It is widely recognised that such solutions have the capacity to improve long-term resilience.
There was discussion, particularly from the opposition Benches, about affordability and social tariffs. The Government take seriously the real cost-of-living pressures on households and the need to keep bills as low as possible. The average household combined water and sewerage bill in 2013-14 in England and Wales is £388 a year or just over £1 a day. The average increase in bills has been in line with inflation since 2009. That is because the price review process keeps bills affordable.
Looking forward, we support Ofwat in its efforts to ensure that consumers get a fair deal. Ofwat has estimated that the current price review could reduce pressure on bills from 2015 by between £120 million and £750 million a year. All the water and sewerage companies have developed packages to help customers with affordability issues. These include customer assistance funds, support tariffs, debt advice and water efficiency measures. Social tariffs give an extra tool.
We published social tariff guidance in April 2013. By April 2015, the vast majority of companies expect to have a new social tariff in place. The idea of legislating for a national social tariff overlooks the regional nature of the water industry. Costs are different in different regions, as are the nature of the affordability problems faced by customers. A national scheme would be a very blunt instrument. Company social tariffs allow for flexible schemes responding to local issues and are developed in consultation with customers.
My noble friends Lady Parminter and Lord Borwick, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, asked about the bad debt situation. We are firmly of the view that regulation should not always be the first resort of government. The effectiveness of measures to manage debt differs significantly between water companies. We want to see this change. At present, customers in some regions are paying much more than others to cover the cost of unpaid bills. We are making sure that the industry’s worst performers are challenged to match the performance of the best. The industry is already taking more responsibility in this area. It is working on a voluntary approach to sharing data and information on customers in rented accommodation through the landlord database which will be launched in March this year.
Several noble Lords, particularly on the opposition Benches, raised corporate governance and water company structures. Customers rightly expect governance standards in a regulated industry to be high. Questions about these standards go to the heart of the sector’s public legitimacy, which is why Ofwat is taking action to ensure improved standards of governance across the sector, ensuring that it leads the way in corporate governance. It is right that the independent regulator tackles these issues. The water companies’ licence makes clear that they are expected to be transparent about their board leadership, financial structures and governance arrangements.
Recently, Ofwat has consulted on new voluntary principles relating to board leadership, transparency and governance. We particularly support the drive for increased independent and customer representation on boards. For the record, I probably should say that I do not agree with the characterisation of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, on the position regarding Thames Water and the Thames tunnel but he would not necessarily expect me to. My noble friend Lady Humphreys raised the Welsh water model and I welcome her comments. I note that different water companies excel at different things but no one model has been shown to have been better than any other. That model is popular with customers but I venture to suggest that the not-for-profit structure has not resulted in particularly outstanding performance on some key issues—for example, customer service or management of customer debt.
Turning to the insurance part of the Bill, I fully appreciate concerns raised in relation to those properties which are at the very highest risk of flooding or which some people have termed as genuinely uninsurable. I should like to make clear that all those properties will be included in Flood Re at the start of the scheme. However, over time, Flood Re may develop an approach for properties that flood very frequently that will help to reduce the impact of their claims on the scheme's affordability. For example, Flood Re could suggest resilient repairs and, if these were not taken up, could set higher premiums or excesses. Only in the most extreme cases would exclusion from Flood Re be considered.
My noble friends Lady Parminter and Lord Sheikh, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Whitty, all raised the issue of climate change and resilience and information to households. I recognise the strength of opinion on this important issue and share many of the views expressed. We welcome the constructive contribution of the adaptation sub-committee and recognise the need for Flood Re to publish a plan for transition to the free market. The Bill provides for that. The ABI has just come forward with some thoughts on providing information to householders in Flood Re about their flood risk. Discussions on the details of this and on incentives to drive the uptake of household-level resilient measures are continuing and I will provide a further update on this issue to your Lordships in Committee.
I am running short of time. Noble Lords have raised important issues about the various categories of exclusion. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I confine my remarks to saying that Flood Re is designed to help those who are struggling most to afford rising insurance premiums. Flood Re targets financial support to those at the lower end of the income spectrum by providing proportionately more support to those in council tax bands A to C. In designing Flood Re, a balance has had to be struck between supporting those at the highest risk and managing the impact on those at low risk. Including additional policies within Flood Re could not be achieved without decreasing the level of support going to those most in need or increasing the levy paid by all households. Perhaps we can talk further either before or during Committee about the specific issues of 2009 properties, business properties and council tax band H, which noble Lords raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville raised the issue of what has been going on over the past few weeks on the Somerset Levels. Flooding has had a devastating effect there and in other parts of the country. The Somerset Levels are among the most seriously affected and people have had to endure flood water and disruption for several weeks. It is incredibly hard for them and I know that all noble Lords share my sympathy for them. Local authorities, residents and the emergency services have been working around the clock to make sure that people are safe and to help with the clean-up.
We have been talking with local agencies about what more can be done and we have asked the Environment Agency for a detailed analysis on the proposed major dredging and any other action that can be taken to manage flood risk on the levels. A local task force has been set up comprising local partners and communities to develop a clear, long-term vision for the future of the Somerset Levels and moors. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been in Somerset today talking to local people, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, should not necessarily believe what he reads in the red tops.
We talked about the need to keep water available and affordable and to continue to improve the environment. We also mentioned the importance of the provisions on flood insurance for the future availability and affordability of cover. This underlines the importance of the issues that we have been discussing today and will discuss over the coming weeks. For this reason, I am grateful for the many contributions today and I look forward to the debates that will follow.
I hope that in my few closing remarks I have been able to deal with some of the issues raised by noble Lords during the debate and I apologise that I just do not have time to come to them all, but I know that one way or another over the next few weeks we will do so. Once again, I commit to having further discussions inside and outside this Chamber with noble Lords on their concerns. If any noble Lord wishes to raise a concern, my door is always open. In the mean time, I commend this Bill to the House.
Special Educational Needs (Direct Payments) (Pilot Scheme) (Extension and Amendment) Order 2014
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, this order enables the Secretary of State to extend and amend the pilot scheme made under the Special Educational Needs (Direct Payments) (Pilot Scheme) Order 2012 that allows the testing of direct payments for SEN provision in the SEN pathfinder areas. The pilot scheme has demonstrated the potential for SEN direct payments to make a positive—“life-changing”, to quote one parent—impact on families. I have seen first hand the benefits that direct payments can bring. When I visited the Hertfordshire pathfinder I met another parent who used a direct payment to pay for a personal assistant to take her disabled child swimming, allowing her to focus on spending time with her other child. Other examples of the use of direct payments are for transport, one-to-one learning when the child is not well enough to travel to school, personal assistants coming into the classroom or the purchase of equipment. It is this choice and innovation that we are bringing to SEN provision and why, as noble Lords will be aware, we have taken forward the learning from the pilot in provisions for personal budgets in the Children and Families Bill.
The Bill is now reaching the end of its journey through your Lordships’ House and through Parliament so it is important to set out why it is also necessary to amend and extend this pilot scheme. There are two key reasons. First, extension is necessary to allow the arrangements established with families under the pilot to continue until the provisions in the Children and Families Bill are commenced. Extension will also provide a transitional period, up to the end of September 2015, to move these families from statements on to the new system of education, health and care plans and the associated offer of a personal budget that entails. As I have already said, many of the families that have taken advantage of the scheme have seen real benefits. Failure to extend the order would mean that these families would need to revert to more traditional, and in their cases, less effective forms of service delivery.
Secondly, the extension will allow the authorities named in the order to enter into new arrangements with families and refine how best to operate SEN direct payments right up to the point of implementation of the reform programme. This will ensure that we have the best possible evidence base ahead of implementation. It will inform both the work of the personal budget champions and the thematic evaluation of personal budgets, including direct payments, being undertaken as part of the evaluation of the pathfinder programme and due to be published in the summer. Removal of the right to request a direct payment under paragraph 3 of the schedule to the 2012 order after 31 August 2014 will provide for the formal closure of the pilot to new entrants from 1 September 2014. I should stress that all other articles in the pilot scheme remain unaltered.
To conclude, this is a simple transitional provision that bridges the gap between the end of the pilot scheme as set out in the 2012 order and the introduction of the reforms as set out in the Children and Families Bill. As such, I hope that noble Lords will give it their support.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will welcome any effort to develop a system that would lead to improvements in the effectiveness of the provision of services to individuals with special education needs. The educational requirements of individuals with special educational needs are, by definition, likely to be varied and need to be special. Intuition would tell us that these needs may best be fulfilled by services that are chosen and arranged specifically for each individual. Placing the responsibility of managing funds with families gives decision-making power to those who care most about their children—parents or carers with children with special education needs. That can, in principle, help to improve the suitability of services and result in better educational outcomes.
When advocating autonomy for those individuals receiving direct payments, we do, however, need to bear in mind a few issues. It must be ensured that the diversion of funds to personal budgets does not lead to a reduction in the standards and quality of services which we know are delivered by most well organised local authorities at the moment. This is a known concern of many parents and professionals in the sector itself. We must also be assured that the quality of outcomes for those young people on the direct payments scheme will not fall below the standards we have learnt to expect from service delivery by local authorities.
Although the principle of allocating discretion to families is a positive one, there are no guarantees that providing families with the discretion to organise their own services will necessarily deliver adequate educational outcomes. Reports from the ongoing pilot have suggested that real benefits to the young people concerned and their families occur mainly from the enhanced control regarding the organisation of transport. Further evidence from the pilot is needed to ensure that, if this is indeed the case, benefits are restricted to the organisation of transport. We need to see that the scheme is sufficiently justified.
Some individuals may have no desire to organise their own service provision. This may be due to the individual already receiving suitable support of a high standard or because the family concerned feels unable to arrange a better service itself. In such cases, the direct payments scheme must not be made mandatory. In cases where direct payments are requested, sufficient support must be made available to ensure that individuals who may experience difficulty with implementing their own arrangements can do so effectively. Concerns were raised regarding this issue when the Minister of State for the Department for Education shared the worries expressed by respondents to the initial consultation regarding these proposals.
Assurances must also be given to taxpayers regarding the value for money provided by the direct payments initiative. When specialist services are provided from small markets with limited choice, such as those which exist in the provision of transport for people with a physical disability, it must be ensured that a limited market does not inflate prices. The interests of the taxpayer must also be safeguarded from the inevitable fragmentation of budgets caused by dividing funds between service providers, which may cause losses from diseconomies of scale.
However, the need for an extension is accepted. The slow progress which the direct payments pilot scheme has experienced has necessitated its extension. It also makes sense to wait until the Children and Families Bill has gone through its legislative process. If more time is needed for the assessment of this scheme before a potential larger-scale rollout, the time must be used to develop confidence in the practical successes of devolving SEN provision budgets. If this confidence is instilled, progress can be made in realising the implementation of the scheme on a countrywide scale, but it would make sense to wait until the pilot has had an extended run.
When the Secretary of State lays his report before both Houses, after the conclusions of this pilot study are produced, the concerns aired by the critics of this piece of legislation will need to be considered with respect and reason. In the mean time, it is essential that the concerns which have been highlighted today are borne in mind. Further evidence gathered from the pilot scheme must demonstrate that the direct payments method for SEN provision indeed provides value for money and delivers high-quality services, yielding acceptable educational outcomes for all young people with special educational needs.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s comments and her support for the scheme. Extension of the scheme will allow families to continue to benefit from SEN direct payments and refine our knowledge right up to the point when our reforms come into force.
So far as ensuring that direct payments do not affect other services, paragraph 11(c) of Schedule 1 requires local authorities to consider the impact on services for other users before they can agree an individual arrangement. We do not have any evidence from the pilot that this has been an issue. We will take forward similar protections in regulations to be made under Clause 49 of the Children and Families Bill. The noble Baroness is quite right that, so far, transport has been the main area that direct payments have been used in. However, it is early days and it is inevitable that people will be slow to take this up. It is also clear that there are many other areas where people have benefited. In addition to allowing transition and continuing the scheme for those people who have already taken it up, it is important to continue with the learning.
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness about making sure that we achieve value for money for the taxpayer. My conversations with local authorities in relation to both the local offer and direct payments have so far been surprisingly positive in the sense that some people may have thought that allowing more flexibility would increase costs. Allowing a more discursive and inclusive arrangement for this kind of provision seems in many cases to have led to less contention and therefore less costs.
Measures for accountability and quality control will be taken forward under regulations to be made under the Children and Families Bill. For example, the EHC plan must set out details of the needs and outcomes to be met by a personal budget and the arrangements for any use of direct payments, including for services, the amount and frequency of the payments, and the arrangements for review. As with the pilot scheme, Clause 49 will require a review of the use of direct payments at least once within three months of the direct payments being made, at the end of the first year, and at appropriate intervals thereafter not exceeding 12 months.
We will have further opportunities to debate SEN direct payments and personal budgets more generally when we scrutinise regulations to be made under the personal budgets provisions in the Children and Families Bill. With that, I hope that we can agree the order.